The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Mm11

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Mm11

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Regist10

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

Page 7 of 19 Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_lcap60%SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_rcap 60% 
[ 81 ]
SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_lcap33%SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_rcap 33% 
[ 44 ]
SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_lcap7%SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Vote_rcap 7% 
[ 9 ]
 
Total Votes : 134
 
 

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Liz Eagles 01.10.14 21:25

sami wrote:
aquila wrote:You see a complete stranger passing by carrying a child in pyjamas, you can't see the stranger's face and neither of you make eye contact (that 40,000 volt moment) indeed the stranger has made no attempt to engage with you - what would spur you to strike up a conversation/make a remark to the stranger 'is the child in his arms sleeping'?

Just a lil' observation.


It's a cultural thing, Aquila, I think.  Irish people, rather than say hello as they pass by somebody on the street, will often remark on the obvious.  For example, "it's raining".  The other would respond "it is".  I actually find it believable it's something Mrs Smith would say - ah the little one is asleep.  

I wonder why there is no statement from her.
Me too.

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 21:33

Hongkong Phooey today @ 9:24 pm

I don't see what your comment has to do with my point about Smith referring to Murat by his forename. Are you suggesting that the interviewing officer prompted Smith to call Murat 'Robert'? If so, it seems a bit unlikely.

As for questioning just about everything relating to this case I'm guilty as charged, not without justification I feel. Although I wouldn't say I'm trying to make something out of nothing, at least not intentionally.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 21:42

Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey today @ 9:24 pm

I don't see what your comment has to do with my point about Smith referring to Murat by his forename. Are you suggesting that the interviewing officer prompted Smith to call Murat 'Robert'? If so, it seems a bit unlikely.

As for questioning just about everything relating to this case I'm guilty as charged, not without justification I feel. Although I wouldn't say I'm trying to make something out of nothing, at least not intentionally.
I never mentioned questioning everything I said making something out of nothing. You don't know what was said that led him to calling RM Robert so you just make up a 'you wouldn't call someone' statement which the answer may be others would though.
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 21:52

aquila wrote:
sami wrote:
aquila wrote:You see a complete stranger passing by carrying a child in pyjamas, you can't see the stranger's face and neither of you make eye contact (that 40,000 volt moment) indeed the stranger has made no attempt to engage with you - what would spur you to strike up a conversation/make a remark to the stranger 'is the child in his arms sleeping'?

Just a lil' observation.


It's a cultural thing, Aquila, I think.  Irish people, rather than say hello as they pass by somebody on the street, will often remark on the obvious.  For example, "it's raining".  The other would respond "it is".  I actually find it believable it's something Mrs Smith would say - ah the little one is asleep.  

I wonder why there is no statement from her.
Me too.
The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland.

Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 21:57

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey today @ 9:24 pm

I don't see what your comment has to do with my point about Smith referring to Murat by his forename. Are you suggesting that the interviewing officer prompted Smith to call Murat 'Robert'? If so, it seems a bit unlikely.

As for questioning just about everything relating to this case I'm guilty as charged, not without justification I feel. Although I wouldn't say I'm trying to make something out of nothing, at least not intentionally.
I never mentioned questioning everything I said making something out of nothing. You don't know what was said that led him to calling RM Robert so you just make up a 'you wouldn't call someone' statement which the answer may be others would though.

Yes I know what you wrote, I clarified your point in my reply.  FYI I don't just make things up for any reason but I think I'm at liberty to question issues that appear to me to be ambiguous.  Offend or please.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 21:58

Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by aiyoyo 01.10.14 22:17

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)
Ya, and so ?.........................

He places significance on it wishing to follow up with Smiths to find out what?

If man was the supersonic abductor ?

If the man was Gerry?

What is the significance for him giving credence to Smithman ?

That's the whole point here of this Smith sighting discussion isn't it because some people believe Smithman was Gerry.  They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it.  It's no longer about whether Smiths did see a man or not, it's about who they thought they saw.

Who is saying this? As far as I can see a lot of people (from the poll) believe the Smiths to be honouable etc. I can't see anybody saying they solely believe this because Amaral does. As far as I'm concerned they saw somebody (who wasn't RM) then MS later thought (after seeing video of return flight) that there was a pretty good chance it was GM he saw but was not 100% sure, he then left it up to the police to decide (based on evidence they had or could gather) whether he was right or not.

What's the "this" you mean?
You said so yourself even as late as this year Amaral is still saying Smith sighting is a credible lead. Lead to what exactly ? Not whether the sighting is credible, but it (the sighting) is a credible lead.....meaning leading to Gerry surely since he believes there was no abduction?
You used him as example that Smith sighting is a credible lead , so by extension you are saying people are led by him.
I think we are debating from wrong end of the stick.




aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 22:29

aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)
Ya, and so ?.........................

He places significance on it wishing to follow up with Smiths to find out what?

If man was the supersonic abductor ?

If the man was Gerry?

What is the significance for him giving credence to Smithman ?

That's the whole point here of this Smith sighting discussion isn't it because some people believe Smithman was Gerry.  They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it.  It's no longer about whether Smiths did see a man or not, it's about who they thought they saw.

Who is saying this? As far as I can see a lot of people (from the poll) believe the Smiths to be honouable etc. I can't see anybody saying they solely believe this because Amaral does. As far as I'm concerned they saw somebody (who wasn't RM) then MS later thought (after seeing video of return flight) that there was a pretty good chance it was GM he saw but was not 100% sure, he then left it up to the police to decide (based on evidence they had or could gather) whether he was right or not.

What's the "this" you mean?
You said so yourself even as late as this year Amaral is still saying Smith sighting is a credible lead. Lead to what exactly ? Not whether the sighting is credible, but it (the sighting) is a credible lead.....meaning leading to Gerry surely since he believes there was no abduction?
You used him as example that Smith sighting is a credible lead , so by extension you are saying people are led by him.
I think we are debating from wrong end of the stick.




You're beggining to lose me, what are you on about? So what if people are led by Amaral they are free to make their own minds up surely (you or I or anybody may not agree but that's their perogative)
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 22:33

Is there a statement from Mrs Smith, I can't recall seeing one? It is stated that she doesn't want to make another statement but where is her first one?
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 22:34

Gollum wrote:
The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4,  another daughter back in Ireland.

Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)? 

Check your facts. Peter Smith at least was also officially interviewed. It is also on record that Mrs Mary Smith "...does not want to make another statement", the clear implication being she also made a former statement. As all the PJ files have not been released who is to know if more Smiths were interviewed or not? Either way, that means three of the four adults were interviewed. Perhaps the others simply could not recall enough to warrant a statement?

Here's the link to the 3 statements, together with other official 'Smith' files. Included is Martin Smith's initial phone call to the police after 'recognising' Gerry:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

"Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children."

From: DC HughesSent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42CC: Prior StuartRe: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

 DC John Hughes


Fairly unequivocal.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by aiyoyo 01.10.14 22:43

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)
Ya, and so ?.........................

He places significance on it wishing to follow up with Smiths to find out what?

If man was the supersonic abductor ?

If the man was Gerry?

What is the significance for him giving credence to Smithman ?

That's the whole point here of this Smith sighting discussion isn't it because some people believe Smithman was Gerry.  They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it.  It's no longer about whether Smiths did see a man or not, it's about who they thought they saw.

Who is saying this? As far as I can see a lot of people (from the poll) believe the Smiths to be honouable etc. I can't see anybody saying they solely believe this because Amaral does. As far as I'm concerned they saw somebody (who wasn't RM) then MS later thought (after seeing video of return flight) that there was a pretty good chance it was GM he saw but was not 100% sure, he then left it up to the police to decide (based on evidence they had or could gather) whether he was right or not.

What's the "this" you mean?
You said so yourself even as late as this year Amaral is still saying Smith sighting is a credible lead.  Lead to what exactly ?  Not whether the sighting is credible, but it (the sighting) is a credible lead.....meaning leading to Gerry surely since he believes there was no abduction?
You used him as example that Smith sighting is a credible lead , so by extension you are saying people are led by him.
I think we are debating from wrong end of the stick.




You're beggining to lose me, what are you on about? So what if people are led by Amaral they are free to make their own minds up surely (you or I or anybody may not agree but that's their perogative)

Where did I say they are not free to be led. Of course that is their prerogative and they are entitled to it.
You asked "who said this", and I pointed out it was you who said it.
Two different things altogether.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 22:46

WMD wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 22:51

aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)
Ya, and so ?.........................

He places significance on it wishing to follow up with Smiths to find out what?

If man was the supersonic abductor ?

If the man was Gerry?

What is the significance for him giving credence to Smithman ?

That's the whole point here of this Smith sighting discussion isn't it because some people believe Smithman was Gerry.  They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it.  It's no longer about whether Smiths did see a man or not, it's about who they thought they saw.

Who is saying this? As far as I can see a lot of people (from the poll) believe the Smiths to be honouable etc. I can't see anybody saying they solely believe this because Amaral does. As far as I'm concerned they saw somebody (who wasn't RM) then MS later thought (after seeing video of return flight) that there was a pretty good chance it was GM he saw but was not 100% sure, he then left it up to the police to decide (based on evidence they had or could gather) whether he was right or not.

What's the "this" you mean?
You said so yourself even as late as this year Amaral is still saying Smith sighting is a credible lead.  Lead to what exactly ?  Not whether the sighting is credible, but it (the sighting) is a credible lead.....meaning leading to Gerry surely since he believes there was no abduction?
You used him as example that Smith sighting is a credible lead , so by extension you are saying people are led by him.
I think we are debating from wrong end of the stick.




You're beggining to lose me, what are you on about? So what if people are led by Amaral they are free to make their own minds up surely (you or I or anybody may not agree but that's their perogative)

Where did I say they are not free to be led. Of course that is their prerogative and they are entitled to it.
You asked "who said this", and I pointed out it was you who said it.
Two different things altogether.
You stated " They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it." I then asked who said this (apart from you). I'm now lost to what you're on about and will just leave it there if you don't mind, thanks.
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 22:55

Dee Coy wrote:
Gollum wrote:
The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4,  another daughter back in Ireland.

Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)? 

Check your facts. Peter Smith at least was also officially interviewed. It is also on record that Mrs Mary Smith "...does not want to make another statement", the clear implication being she also made a former statement. As all the PJ files have not been released who is to know if more Smiths were interviewed or not? Either way, that means three of the four adults were interviewed. Perhaps the others simply could not recall enough to warrant a statement?

Here's the link to the 3 statements, together with other official 'Smith' files. Included is Martin Smith's initial phone call to the police after 'recognising' Gerry:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

"Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children."

From: DC HughesSent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42CC: Prior StuartRe: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

 DC John Hughes


Fairly unequivocal.

Yes Dee Coy, I said only Martin Smith his daughter and his son were 'officially' interviewed = 3 persons.  Even though, as you say, it was claimed that Mrs Smith didn't want to be interviewed 'again', as there is no evidence on file that a previous interview transpired I can only view it at hearsay.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 22:59

Gollum wrote:
WMD wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.
Or why would someone and his family risk going to jail for fabricating a sighting or making up evidence or perverting the course of justice in an internationally recognised missing child case? That doesn't make any sense either.
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by aiyoyo 01.10.14 23:02

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
You stated " They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it." I then asked who said this (apart from you). I'm now lost to what you're on about and will just leave it there if you don't mind, thanks.

Not at all. We were talking at cross purpose it seems.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 23:07

WMD wrote:
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.
Also from the link in my post above:

From Martin's statement:

— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without bein


g very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
 — She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.



Aoife's:

-the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
 — She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size. 
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back. — She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers. 
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not. 


Peter's:

He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old, in that she appeared to him to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. She was a child of normal build. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 23:19

@Gollum. Apologies, yes - you already acknowledged Peter's testimony. Still doesn't mean others weren't officially interviewed, though. Their statements could be missing from the published files or simply not of enough relevance.

I imagine, though, as the three ( perhaps four, Mary?) had ro travel to Portugal to give the statements, it could be a simple matter of not being able to do so because of work/school, or simply that the ones with the greatest recollection were paid for to attend the interviews. I imagine the PJ would not consider it efficient with their tight finances to pay for everyone to go unless they had something more to add of significance to the other statements.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 01.10.14 23:59

Dee Coy wrote:@Gollum. Apologies, yes - you already acknowledged Peter's testimony. Still doesn't mean others weren't officially interviewed, though. Their statements could be missing from the published files or simply not of enough relevance.

I imagine, though, as the three ( perhaps four, Mary?) had ro travel to Portugal to give the statements, it could be a simple matter of not being able to do so because of work/school, or simply that the ones with the greatest recollection were paid for to attend the interviews. I imagine the PJ would not consider it efficient with their tight finances to pay for everyone to go unless they had something more to add of significance to the other statements.

Sorry I don't buy it. There are many witness statements contained in the PJ files released into the public arena that offer nothing constructive or significant. I don't think the police chuck official witness statements just because they don't consider them relevant. Ignore the content yes if it's no benefit to the investigation but not destroy the document (unless of course there is an under cover reason for doing so, nudge nudge wink wink).

As for travelling to Portugal to give statements, if they had reported the sighting when they were first aware of the childs disappearance i.e. 4th May, that journey to Portugal would not have been necessary. Besides, I can see no reason why they couldn't have given their statements to a local constabulary for onward transmission to Portugal.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 02.10.14 0:06

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
WMD wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.
Or why would someone and his family risk going to jail for fabricating a sighting or making up evidence or perverting the course of justice in an internationally recognised missing child case? That doesn't make any sense either.
Not got the foggiest!  Could have been involved or threatened or compromised or paid, anything's possible.  I fear you place too much faith in the goodness of people, the actions of people can be influenced for any number of reasons depending on the circumstances.  You can ask why a wife (for example) is prepared to turn a blind eye to her husband abusing their child, it happens not infrequently but before you ask, I digress!
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 02.10.14 0:28

I guess the reason (for whatever reason! Cost, or otherwise) that only 3 or 4 statements were taken (if that is the case) will be because that is what the PJ requested. I don't believe for one second anyone has refused a statement, do you?

I have been interviewed by the police after being a victim of fraud. After reporting the crime I was contacted to be interviewed further by the police as it was their intention to form a case. Only after what was discussed at that interview was digested was I asked to provide an official statement. Hundreds of other people had been affected by the scam but the unique circumstances that applied to me apparently made my statement more valuable to the police. Equally, if I hadn't been party to those circumstances, after preliminary discussions I would not have been asked to make a statement.

I'm equally sure the PJ have spoken to many many more people in connection with Madeleine than they have taken statements from. Quite possibly it was decided after an initial discussion that the other Smiths could provide nothing extra that would warrant them being asked to return to Portugal.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 02.10.14 7:13

Dee Coy wrote:
WMD wrote:
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.
Also from the link in my post above:

From Martin's statement:

— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without bein


g very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
 — She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.



Aoife's:

-the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
 — She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size. 
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back. — She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers. 
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not. 


Peter's:

He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old, in that she appeared to him to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. She was a child of normal build. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids.
Thank you decoy,so two out of three say the child's eyes were closed,the other couldn't tell because the face was leant against the shoulder,so how did the other two see that the eyes were closed? just an observation.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by palm tree 02.10.14 8:56

IIRC, the Smith family were spaced out on the road, not all walking side by side or single file.
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine
palm tree
palm tree

Posts : 365
Activity : 368
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2014-08-21

Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Guest 02.10.14 8:59

That would explain then why there don't appear to be statements from Peter Smith's wife and his 13-year-old son? They didn't see what the others did?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 7 Empty Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Post by Hongkong Phooey 02.10.14 9:02

Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
WMD wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.
Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.
Or why would someone and his family risk going to jail for fabricating a sighting or making up evidence or perverting the course of justice in an internationally recognised missing child case? That doesn't make any sense either.
Not got the foggiest!  Could have been involved or threatened or compromised or paid, anything's possible.  I fear you place too much faith in the goodness of people, the actions of people can be influenced for any number of reasons depending on the circumstances.  You can ask why a wife (for example) is prepared to turn a blind eye to her husband abusing their child, it happens not infrequently but before you ask, I digress!

Have no fears I place very little faith solely on the goodness of people! Let’s however look at your anything possible route.
 
Involved:- in what way? There are no indications whatsoever that the Smiths were involved in anything to do Maddie’s disappearance unless you know otherwise?
 
Threatened:- By whom? Who knew about the Smiths (sighting) prior to them making their statements, only the person who they saw and who saw them back!
 
Compromised:- In what way, does someone have information on them or what else? If they were making it up to provide an alibi it could only be for RM because nobody else is ‘cleared’ by their statements. There is still no evidence that suggests that the Smiths and RM knew each other, other than acquaintances of sorts (many people knew / knew of RM, it’s the type of character he is imo)
 
Paid:- So they were paid to either fabricate the sighting or say it was not RM they saw, is there any other suggestions of why they would be paid? As I stated in other posts involving the whole family and getting your 12 year old daughter to completely lie to the police in a case such as this is extremely high risk . To then follow that up a number of months later by pointing the finger at GM takes even that risk to a completely new level. There is not one iota of evidence to suggest the Smiths were paid, threatened, compromised, involved or anything else that’s swirling around in your head.
 
 As for anything’s possible it certainly is and that includes the Smiths telling the truth, the whole truth am nothing but the truth, yes?
 
Finally, your example of the wife turning a blind eye, perhaps you should use this example on a thread where the Gasper statements are being discussed where it may be more relevant
Hongkong Phooey
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Activity : 312
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 19 Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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