Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

admin wrote:

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion.

If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."

But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.  

PeterMac also wrote:

They don't like Smithman... 

also onehand wrote:

14. Only on the day following their friend being made a suspect did the Smiths react. According to the Smiths, this came about as follows. Peter Smith is said to have ’phoned his father and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared?” Only then did Martin Smith pick up the ‘phone and speak to the Irish police.

Tony,

I do think this family did see a man carrying a child, but what me always had given some alarming thoughts is your point 14.

Thank you admin and PeterMac for saving me the trouble of pointing out why I 'keep banging on' about the efits and the alleged 'Smithman' sighting, not forgetting of course that:

1. The McCanns support the Smithman sighting (and have done for 5 years)

2. The rest of the McCann Team support the Smithman sighting

3. DCI Redwood supports the Smithman sighting

4. By implication those senior police officers in the Met above Redwood also support the Smithman sighting

5. The BBC supports the Smithman sighting - CrimeWatch's Matthew Amroliwala was chosen to tell 6.7 million viewers about it

6. By implication the following all support it:

6A: Rebekah Brooks, who ordered Operation Grange
6B: David Cameron, Prime Monister, who obeyed Brooks' orders
6C: Theresa May, Home Secritary, who obeyed Cameron's order
6D: Rupert Murdoch and his empire, who employed Brooks.

7. JillyCL of the MCF forum.


With all those backing the alleged Smithman efits, it was inevitable that I would take a sceptical view...

...and many thanks to all who have taken the trouble to read my long post and consider it

@ onehand

Reason 14, which you quote, is the reason most often cited by those, like me, who question the entire validity of the Smith sighting. No-one has ever given a remotely satisfactory reason why the Smiths should wait for 13 days before talking to the police about their claimed 'sighting'. When you put that together with (a) Martin Smith's instistence that the man was not Robert Murat and (b) the fact that Murat was obviously a friend of his, Martin Smith's conduct becomes even more difficult to explain   

admin wrote:

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."  But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason. 

Once again, the legendary tolerance of CMOMM for outright disruptors is plain for the whole world to see.

Three strikes...and you're not out!  

admin wrote:

bubblewrap wrote:Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion.

If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll....."

But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.   

Now why exactly do these people emerge every time Smith is mentioned?  The words nail & head spring to mind

Tony Bennett wrote:

admin wrote:

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."  But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason. 

Once again, the legendary tolerance of CMOMM for outright disruptors is plain for the whole world to see.

Three strikes...and you're not out!  

Actually, I did ban him.   

PeterMac wrote:

admin wrote:
But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.

They don't like Smithman
They don't like the forged Last Photo
They cannot stand the Dogs
They are fearful of something TB put in the 60 Reasons
They are terrified of something Dr Amaral put in the report

Is there a pattern emerging ?

In the search for truth maybe we shouldn't have started this conversation in public.  It has suggested a few times that if we hold onto the information that brings out the worst in the trolls, we will be close to the truth.  All we need do then is put that information together.  You can almost guarantee that if you are jumped on you have hit a raw nerve.

They don't like discrediting the testimony of Mrs Fenn and her niece either.

sharonl wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

admin wrote:
But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.

They don't like Smithman
They don't like the forged Last Photo
They cannot stand the Dogs
They are fearful of something TB put in the 60 Reasons
They are terrified of something Dr Amaral put in the report

Is there a pattern emerging ?

In the search for truth maybe we shouldn't have started this conversation in public.  It has suggested a few times that if we hold onto the information that brings out the worst in the trolls, we will be close to the truth.  All we need do then is put that information together.  You can almost guarantee that if you are jumped on you have hit a raw nerve.

They don't like discrediting the testimony of Mrs Fenn and her niece either.

You are right Sharon. Whatever brings these disrupting elements to the fore clearly must be close to the truth.

MESSAGE FOR TROLLS AND SHILLS: Please try to be a little more intelligent and less conspicuous, the pattern is getting rather predictable and is actually rather laughable. All anyone has to do is mention one of the "hot potatoes" and you leave yourselves more exposed than Lady Godiva. Get back to the drawing board …….

@ tony,
 
i can live with the delay of the smith’s testimony, this could be just minding there own business or not mingle in with the troubles of a brittish family, but the last one does not sound right imo, martin smith did work for an international company and is part of the ex pat colony of pdl, so not much room for xenophobia. But there are people who just choose to stay out of other peoples trouble, nothing more, nothing less.
 
The longer the delay between something happened and a statement taken, gives always a lot of discussion about how credible their words are, also because of it is a family, so talking the subject over and over would be a normal thing. Most often it will happen that a statement becomes then a story, with just parts of what each persons realy did had seen and gaps filled in with parts that others had seen, plus what the mind will fill in. That normal, but not welcome in any investigation. The raw materials always the best.
 
Making up a full false statement with the differences in detail, you could read in the statements of the martin’s, is very difficult.
So i don’t have the impression they made up this episode from scratch. I do see enough room in the statements that they are not completely sure, what the had seen, was also on that thursday. I do believe they were out on the streets of pdl on their way on that night, but there was no smithman that night imo.
 
For the rest, i agree it could be martin smith choose to help the underdog of the moment, if they did not see their smithman, it could certainly not been murat, so it won’t have to feel like lying at all.
See it in the line of time of 2007, the financial crisis starts building up, being still the businessman he might have thought ahead and see the use of murat in a later stage or he could have been just after goodwill from the ex pat community, where he still would be the irishman.
 
But i would also look into the reasons his son peter could have had, who also has local knowledge from holidays before in pdl. He was the instigator to those statement’s if the citation is true.
So why was the sighting not reported before peter brought it to the surface of their memory and had peter his reasons to bring up a memory or even plant a memory from an other night onto the thursday?
The first part could be just an innocent explanation, that i could buy. The second part is more of interest and i can’t find a lot about peter smith himself, who is he, is there something to gain for him?
 
If the mccan’s know smithman in just a ghost, i can see why they accept him and even promote him. He is a nice pseudo-alibi for gerry on the mentioned time. If Dr. Amaral had his chance to hear them out himself and from that it was established that smithman was not there at thursday, but say wednesday night or earlier that week, would they still be so pleased?
 
This still could be a honest mistake from the smith family, but very welcome for some others. But every time smithman reach the surface, it could happen the smith’s or just one of them think everything over again and change their mind! They can’t risk that, would they. It would give me a lot of room to build a story that would sound a lot more credible then the mccann hypothesis of abduction, if only smithman became the wednesday-walker.