The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Page 5 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Having looked at the various contradictions set out in the article...

49% 49% 
[ 40 ]
41% 41% 
[ 33 ]
10% 10% 
[ 8 ]
 
Total Votes : 81

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest on 30.09.14 21:15

@aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents.  It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports.  Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot.  She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours.  That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 21:20

Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:@Tony
You can rant all you want about me deliberately making false statements but your wrong. I recalled something I has read and put to the back of my mind. This was (nicely) challenged and I explained I would check later when I had more time  Now you may well be right (still don't have the time to research at this particular time). You have however decided to go into offensive/defensive mode because basically I don't agree with your theory. Please answer me this one question:- You want to help a friend by giving him an alibi and need to persuade your 12 year old daughter (or granddaughter) to blatantly lie to the police in a case which is on tv several times a day. How do you get her to do that and what sort of father would do that to their daughter. You, I would hope would bring your children up to respect the police / investigation and also to 'do the right thing'  I.e. this would be a lie of gigantic proportions you would be putting her (and other family members) at risk of perjury and a criminal record. You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source.  It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.
Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by roy rovers on 30.09.14 21:31

Tony
What difference does it make to you whether the Smiths saw someone but it wasn't Gerry or made it up? Either way it wasn't Gerry (if that is what you believe).

roy rovers

Posts : 465
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 21:34

Gollum wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents.  It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports.  Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot.  She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours.  That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.
What relevance does this have to the case Gollum?

Lets put it this way for all those who are calling the Smiths liars etc.
Not only does Martin Smith commit perjury by himself but he drags his 12 year old daughter into it all for somebody he hardly knows(there's no evidence that I know of where he knew Murat other than an acquaintance) and also his older son. He then some time later tries to frame GM by reporting that it was him (after viewing the news). Martin Smith (and family) would be in serious trouble and probably face a jail sentence for making false statements etc. in a case which even by the time in September had become the biggest missing person case the world has seen for a good few decades. He would do this why??

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by aiyoyo on 30.09.14 21:35

Gollum wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents.  It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports.  Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot.  She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours.  That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.

Yes, in the type of scenario you described, complicated and messy social background, it is not uncommon for children to be used to lie for parents to cover the parents crime. That fits in with what I said earlier.

In the smiths' scenario asking a child to cover for a stranger or friend (as the case may be) is not normal; and I believe that did not happen. I believe Smiths saw someone or believed they saw someone, but their delayed reporting of the incident was clouded by media blitz on the case.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest on 30.09.14 21:41

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:@Tony
You can rant all you want about me deliberately making false statements but your wrong. I recalled something I has read and put to the back of my mind. This was (nicely) challenged and I explained I would check later when I had more time  Now you may well be right (still don't have the time to research at this particular time). You have however decided to go into offensive/defensive mode because basically I don't agree with your theory. Please answer me this one question:- You want to help a friend by giving him an alibi and need to persuade your 12 year old daughter (or granddaughter) to blatantly lie to the police in a case which is on tv several times a day. How do you get her to do that and what sort of father would do that to their daughter. You, I would hope would bring your children up to respect the police / investigation and also to 'do the right thing'  I.e. this would be a lie of gigantic proportions you would be putting her (and other family members) at risk of perjury and a criminal record. You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source.  It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.
Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

Fair enough.  Apologies I misunderstood your post, I thought your intention was to find the source of your information when you had time in order to counter the information put forward by TB and whoever else.

Can we now safely conclude that, according to official records, Smith didn't report the sighting immediately?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest on 30.09.14 21:45

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents.  It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports.  Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot.  She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours.  That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.
What relevance does this have to the case Gollum?

Lets put it this way for all those who are calling the Smiths liars etc.
Not only does Martin Smith commit perjury by himself but he drags his 12 year old daughter into it all for somebody he hardly knows(there's no evidence that I know of where he knew Murat other than an acquaintance) and also his older son. He then some time later tries to frame GM by reporting that it was him (after viewing the news). Martin Smith (and family) would be in serious trouble and probably face a jail sentence for making false statements etc. in a case which even by the time in September had become the biggest missing person case the world has seen for a good few decades. He would do this why??
No relevance whatsoever!  I will try my best to keep on track in future.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 21:48

Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:@Tony
You can rant all you want about me deliberately making false statements but your wrong. I recalled something I has read and put to the back of my mind. This was (nicely) challenged and I explained I would check later when I had more time  Now you may well be right (still don't have the time to research at this particular time). You have however decided to go into offensive/defensive mode because basically I don't agree with your theory. Please answer me this one question:- You want to help a friend by giving him an alibi and need to persuade your 12 year old daughter (or granddaughter) to blatantly lie to the police in a case which is on tv several times a day. How do you get her to do that and what sort of father would do that to their daughter. You, I would hope would bring your children up to respect the police / investigation and also to 'do the right thing'  I.e. this would be a lie of gigantic proportions you would be putting her (and other family members) at risk of perjury and a criminal record. You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source.  It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.
Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

Fair enough.  Apologies I misunderstood your post, I thought your intention was to find the source of your information when you had time in order to counter the information put forward by TB and whoever else.

Can we now safely conclude that, according to official records, Smith didn't report the sighting immediately?
There seems to be a bit of confusion as it's not that clear in the files etc. I don't think it's that Important there is probably a reasonably innocent explanation for the delay (without questioning the Smiths we'll never know). See my other posts on this thread for my reasoning.

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest on 30.09.14 21:49

@Tony Bennett wrote: REPLYING TO RECENT POSTS

@ Dee Coy

You know, perhaps the very fact that the man looked like Gerry threw the Smiths. Logically, the abductor could not be the father, so subconsciously their minds may have dismissed the sighting as being of no consequence.

REPLY: Only one of the Smiths, Martin Smiths, claimed that he thought the man looked like Gerry McCann. And he only said this over 4 months later, after seeing, so he said, footage of Gerry coming down from the plane. And on the evidence we have, it looks like Martin Smith waited a full ELEVEN more days (20 September) before reporting to the police his viewing of Gerry McCann coming down the steps of the plane. Dee Coy, your explanation is ingenious, but I suggest that your journey into the collective subconscious is stretching speculation well beyond acceptable limits.    

They did not immediately place importance on the sighting because it didn't make sense for the man they saw to be the kidnapper so their minds dismissed it.


REPLY: But have you had a look at the first part of the OP, where I revealed the many contradictions about (a) when they first became exercised about this sighting and (b) the various excuses they made for their delay of 13 to 15 days in reporting it?

Only later, with Madeleine's prolonged absence, and snippets emerging that maybe things were not all they seemed - the children being left alone, for example - did logical thought kick in and they started to put 2 and 2 together?

REPLY: But we have first-hand accounts from both Martin and Peter Smith of what made them contact the police; Peter Smith ringing up his Dad with his now-famous: “Am I dreaming or something?” quote

This is the nub of the matter.

The McCanns don't like it.

This alone tells us that the sighting is real, credible and of huge significance. In my opinion.


REPLY: But your opinion is not supported by the facts. You make the claim that ‘the McCanns don’t like’ the sighting. But this is flatly contradicted by the following SIX points:

1. They made active use of the Smith sighting in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May
2. They then immediately uploaded details of ‘the sighting by an Irish family’ on to their ‘Find Madeleine’ website AND added an audio of a man with an Irish accent describing his sighting. That’s been on there for the past FIVE YEARS
3. ‘Smithman’ was mentioned on SIX pages of Kate McCann’s book
4. In the same book, Kate added a three-page table of the ‘striking similarities between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’
5. If you click on the ‘Find Madeleine’ site today, the first thing that comes up is the TWO e-fit faces (supposed to be the same man) of ‘Smithman’
6. Ever since the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October last year, the McCanns and their spokemsen have given 100% backing to the search for ‘Smithman’ and have said they are ‘pleased with the progress being made’ etc.

@ Dee Coy – the claim you make that the McCanns ‘don’t like’ the Smithman sighting is demonstrably false. In view of the above facts, surely you should now concede that you are wrong on that point?    

Tony, where did you find this post? It has been taken from Candyfloss' new forum without acknowledgement of the source. Like you, I have no problem sharing information that could help our cause, as long as that is courteously referenced. But this isn't information of great significance, merely my expressing a speculative opinion. It was just an impromptu thought.

In this case I was replying to another poster on another site with an idea that had suddenly popped into my head after reading his words. It was a spur-of-the moment flash made in the context of answering another's thoughts.

I simply thought the resemblance to Gerry might in itself be a reason for the Smiths not to suspect their man and think nothing of it. A father carrying his child is a reason for subconscious dismissal. After all, the man the police were searching for would have been carrying a crying, distressed child, surely. Or wouldn't be carrying anyone at all, everyone knows kidnappers bundle their victims in getaway cars, they don't pick them up and wander around with them significant distances from the abduction point for all to see.

I think this is why the Smiths didn't come forward immediately, they didn't immediately reaslise there was anything untoward in what they saw.

Yes, I do believe they saw someone. And I don't believe the McCanns liked that at all. A man carrying a child around the resort seen by an independent witness? It's the answer to their prayers from whichever angle and motive you view it from. A cursory mention on their website, and a 6 page comparison with Tannerman, now outed as never being an abductor, is not shouting relievedly from the rooftops.

As they should have been doing either if Madeleine truly had been taken, or if they needed an independent sighting of an abductor to hide anything they may not want found out. Smithman should have been gold to them in either scenario.

Just my own theory and opinion, as ever.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 22:01

Dee Coy wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote: REPLYING TO RECENT POSTS

@ Dee Coy

You know, perhaps the very fact that the man looked like Gerry threw the Smiths. Logically, the abductor could not be the father, so subconsciously their minds may have dismissed the sighting as being of no consequence.

REPLY: Only one of the Smiths, Martin Smiths, claimed that he thought the man looked like Gerry McCann. And he only said this over 4 months later, after seeing, so he said, footage of Gerry coming down from the plane. And on the evidence we have, it looks like Martin Smith waited a full ELEVEN more days (20 September) before reporting to the police his viewing of Gerry McCann coming down the steps of the plane. Dee Coy, your explanation is ingenious, but I suggest that your journey into the collective subconscious is stretching speculation well beyond acceptable limits.    

They did not immediately place importance on the sighting because it didn't make sense for the man they saw to be the kidnapper so their minds dismissed it.


REPLY: But have you had a look at the first part of the OP, where I revealed the many contradictions about (a) when they first became exercised about this sighting and (b) the various excuses they made for their delay of 13 to 15 days in reporting it?

Only later, with Madeleine's prolonged absence, and snippets emerging that maybe things were not all they seemed - the children being left alone, for example - did logical thought kick in and they started to put 2 and 2 together?

REPLY: But we have first-hand accounts from both Martin and Peter Smith of what made them contact the police; Peter Smith ringing up his Dad with his now-famous: “Am I dreaming or something?” quote

This is the nub of the matter.

The McCanns don't like it.

This alone tells us that the sighting is real, credible and of huge significance. In my opinion.


REPLY: But your opinion is not supported by the facts. You make the claim that ‘the McCanns don’t like’ the sighting. But this is flatly contradicted by the following SIX points:

1. They made active use of the Smith sighting in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May
2. They then immediately uploaded details of ‘the sighting by an Irish family’ on to their ‘Find Madeleine’ website AND added an audio of a man with an Irish accent describing his sighting. That’s been on there for the past FIVE YEARS
3. ‘Smithman’ was mentioned on SIX pages of Kate McCann’s book
4. In the same book, Kate added a three-page table of the ‘striking similarities between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’
5. If you click on the ‘Find Madeleine’ site today, the first thing that comes up is the TWO e-fit faces (supposed to be the same man) of ‘Smithman’
6. Ever since the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October last year, the McCanns and their spokemsen have given 100% backing to the search for ‘Smithman’ and have said they are ‘pleased with the progress being made’ etc.

@ Dee Coy – the claim you make that the McCanns ‘don’t like’ the Smithman sighting is demonstrably false. In view of the above facts, surely you should now concede that you are wrong on that point?    

Tony, where did you find this post? It has been taken from Candyfloss' new forum without acknowledgement of the source. Like you, I have no problem sharing information that could help our cause, as long as that is courteously referenced. But this isn't information of great significance, merely my expressing a speculative opinion. It was just an impromptu thought.

In this case I was replying to another poster on another site with an idea that had suddenly popped into my head after reading his words. It was a spur-of-the moment flash made in the context of answering another's thoughts.

I simply thought the resemblance to Gerry might in itself be a reason for the Smiths not to suspect their man and think nothing of it. A father carrying his child is a reason for subconscious dismissal. After all, the man the police were searching for would have been carrying a crying, distressed child, surely. Or wouldn't be carrying anyone at all, everyone knows kidnappers bundle their victims in getaway cars, they don't pick them up and wander around with them significant distances from the abduction point for all to see.

I think this is why the Smiths didn't come forward immediately, they didn't immediately reaslise there was anything untoward in what they saw.

Yes, I do believe they saw someone. And I don't believe the McCanns liked that at all. A man carrying a child around the resort seen by an independent witness? It's the answer to their prayers from whichever angle and motive you view it from. A cursory mention on their website, and a 6 page comparison with Tannerman, now outed as never being an abductor, is not shouting relievedly from the rooftops.

As they should have been doing either if Madeleine truly had been taken, or if they needed an independent sighting of an abductor to hide anything they may not want found out. Smithman should have been gold to them in either scenario.

Just my own theory and opinion, as ever.
Good post Dee Coy.

Maybe the question we should ask is not why is Smithman (not) important to the McCanns but why is it so important to Tony?

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by palm tree on 30.09.14 22:44

Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 22:51

@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by palm tree on 30.09.14 23:08

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by SixMillionQuid on 01.10.14 7:38

@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 01.10.14 9:18

@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by palm tree on 01.10.14 9:43

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All IMO
Agreed HKP, I'm confused that when the files were released in 08, why from October 13 is this sighting being questioned and not back in 08? have people been questioning the Smiths from 08 or just since last year?
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by joyce1938 on 01.10.14 10:20

I just want to make it clear how my thought are right now ,re smith siting . I have always thought it truth . cant be %100 as no one else can be . The problem I have is ,those identity kits ,how they suddenly appeared ,who was it supposed to resemble ? I don't think it was done by smith family ,they have said definatly couldn't recognise faces for the angle the child was carried .  Cant see them making another statement and making photofits to boot. Was it one of the private companies that was engaged and payed for doing nNOT ALOT. wAS THAT THEIR JOB IN THIS ?  yES THE WALK COULD HAVE SIGNALED A FAMILIER WALK ,BUT OFCOURSE CANT BE PROVEN . SO IN THIS CASE IT MUST TAKE A LOT MORE STUFF TO TAKE INTO A COURT ,AND WHY IS IT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTENT THING HERE .? JOYCE1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 77
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 01.10.14 10:31

@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All IMO
Agreed HKP, I'm confused that when the files were released in 08, why from October 13 is this sighting being questioned and not back in 08? have people been questioning the Smiths from 08 or just since last year?
IMO
Discussions on the Smith sighting have been going on for years as far as I know, it's intensified after the Crimewatch programme as Andy Redwood intimated that efits came from a family iirc. The smiths, who have not courted any publicity, stated in their statements that they didn't really see the guys face (not enough to make an efit).

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by palm tree on 01.10.14 12:25

Ah, thank you HKP, if MS was up to 80% sure it was GM, I don't think he'd have needed to remember his face, he was in everyone's face every day anyways. Since he stated that by watching GM come off the plane carrying a sleeping Sean, that's the reason he contacted the police, no need for an efit.
IMO 

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by SixMillionQuid on 01.10.14 12:37

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

The problem is you can't ID an individual just by the way they carry a child unless that person is known to carry their child in a unique way. But MS said it was common to see children being carried in the area. Then there's inclusion of the observation about Robert Murat in his statement -sound like he made this comment of his own back rather than the police asking him the question.

If criticism is aimed at Tanner for dithering over what she claimed she saw and not telling the McCanns then I can't figure out why there was an almost two week delay before the Smiths told the police about they saw when a daughter and a guy at the airport told them what happened a few hours previously, not far from where they were staying.

So maybe they didn't encounter GM walking down the middle of road carrying a child. It makes me wonder if something else happened around 10pm on 3rd May 2007.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Angelique on 01.10.14 13:23

@joyce1938 wrote:I just want to make it clear how my thought are right now ,re smith siting . I have always thought it truth . cant be %100 as no one else can be . The problem I have is ,those identity kits ,how they suddenly appeared ,who was it supposed to resemble ? I don't think it was done by smith family ,they have said definatly couldn't recognise faces for the angle the child was carried .  Cant see them making another statement and making photofits to boot. Was it one of the private companies that was engaged and payed for doing nNOT ALOT. wAS THAT THEIR JOB IN THIS ?  yES THE WALK COULD HAVE SIGNALED A FAMILIER WALK ,BUT OFCOURSE CANT BE PROVEN . SO IN THIS CASE IT MUST TAKE A LOT MORE STUFF TO TAKE INTO A COURT ,AND WHY IS IT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTENT THING HERE .? JOYCE1938

I can't understand it either this Smithman, the whole thing, other than it was manner from heaven for Redwood. A possible patsy to take the blame. In fact I was about to make a list of all the side issues that Smithman has raised or suggested. Here are some of them.

Patsy for Redwood
Government sighs a relief - cover for real perpetraitor
McCanns - this is another chance to confuse
Get the blogs arguing and self annihilating
Revenge by Exton for non payment and supression of his hard work

Not finished the list yet.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by sami on 01.10.14 13:58

It is being questioned 7 years later because it was never answered 7 years ago.  Amarals opinion was up to a given point, he never got the chance to investigate the sighting further.  Who knows, he may have decided it was all a load of bull, had he progressed the case.  On the other hand, Smith could have been the star witness for the prosecution and none of us here now.  We do not know.

A family said they saw a man with child, one thinks some time later he could be McCann because of posture etc., and in the meantime is positively able to state it was definitely not the number one suspect, Robert Murat (fancy that). It could well be true, but unless its questioned we will never know.

Every person in those files has been discussed at length and questioned in many ways.  Why not Smith ?  He is no different to any other person named in the PJ files, except for many of us desperately want to believe him because he is the one person who has partly identified McCann with child at that place and time.  Wanting him to be right is not the same as him being right.  This does not make him unreliable or a liar, he may possibly be mistaken, or he may be right, or he may be helping somebody out.  

Unless the questions are asked, we will never know.

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 01.10.14 14:50

@sami wrote:It is being questioned 7 years later because it was never answered 7 years ago.  Amarals opinion was up to a given point, he never got the chance to investigate the sighting further.  Who knows, he may have decided it was all a load of bull, had he progressed the case.  On the other hand, Smith could have been the star witness for the prosecution and none of us here now.  We do not know.

A family said they saw a man with child, one thinks some time later he could be McCann because of posture etc., and in the meantime is positively able to state it was definitely not the number one suspect, Robert Murat (fancy that). It could well be true, but unless its questioned we will never know.

Every person in those files has been discussed at length and questioned in many ways.  Why not Smith ?  He is no different to any other person named in the PJ files, except for many of us desperately want to believe him because he is the one person who has partly identified McCann with child at that place and time.  Wanting him to be right is not the same as him being right.  This does not make him unreliable or a liar, he may possibly be mistaken, or he may be right, or he may be helping somebody out.  

Unless the questions are asked, we will never know.
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest on 01.10.14 15:20

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@palm tree wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

Amaral wasn't given the opportunity to follow it through, who knows what his opinion might have been if he had.  You also are not taking into account the force and weight of power, influence and affluence behind this case.  IMO, anyone who doubts the truth of the Smith sighting has produced genuine reasons for that doubt, not some flimsy half baked belief based on hot air.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by aiyoyo on 01.10.14 15:37

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:...... Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view.

What if Dr Amaral's view is outdated? He's not infallible you know, no one is.
If Maddie died day earlier than May 3rd, what would you make of Amaral's view?

eta: just to add - not saying Smiths didn't see anyone, just saying it could not have been Gerry, the latter is what Amaral believes and I'm saying he might be wrong in this aspect if Maddie died before the 3rd.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum