The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello,

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

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

Page 2 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10 ... 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 Newintown on 27.09.14 19:42

@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

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 sallypelt on 27.09.14 19:52

@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

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 sallypelt on 27.09.14 19:53

@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

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 Tony Bennett on 27.09.14 20:26

@ sallypelt

Newintown waits and pounces when he has an opportunity, making outrageous and in this case intimidatory and quite libellous claims.

You may not be right about Lucy Aoife Smith, but given that a translator described her as 'English' not Irish, understandably you went to check.

My agenda is well known.

Newintown's agenda, however, like some of those who have thankfully left us for distant shores, is to disrupt this forum and in particular to make snide attacks on me whenever he gets a chance.

Ignore him

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

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 Newintown on 27.09.14 20:42

@sallypelt wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

Hello Sallypelt, I didn't realise it was you when I wrote my post.

But I still stand by what I said, if you believe in TB then that's up to you but I'm not going to explain myself to you, TB's dogmatic behaviour regarding the Smiths says a lot.  He has no idea regarding the Smiths as much as you or I have or the millions on this Earth but he writes as if he's an expert on what they saw or didn't see as if his life depends on it, which I think it does; if he's sold his soul to the devil (to dishonour the Smiths in any way he can) no doubt we will never know.

His behaviour in now taking the Smiths' discussion to a 4th series on the forum, tells me he is under pressure to dismiss the Smiths' sighting at all costs.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

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 Newintown on 27.09.14 21:08

@Tony Bennett wrote:@ sallypelt

Newintown waits and pounces when he has an opportunity, making outrageous and in this case intimidatory and quite libellous claims.

You may not be right about Lucy Aoife Smith, but given that a translator described her as 'English' not Irish, understandably you went to check.

My agenda is well known.

Newintown's agenda, however, like some of those who have thankfully left us for distant shores, is to disrupt this forum and in particular to make snide attacks on me whenever he gets a chance.

Ignore him

I don't "wait and pounce", I respond when something I feel strongly about needs an answer.  I enjoy reading the forum but most of it has been going around in circles for some years, so doesn't need me interjecting.

You mention about Lucy Aoife Smith being either English or Irish (it wasn't me who checked, I couldn't care less whether she was English, Welsh, Scottish or Chinese) but what the hell has it got to do with her birth place and her father who may or may not have seen GM carrying a child away from apartment 5A??? 

People have left the forum as they don't know whose side you're on; people who have stood by you for years have gone.

You may want to ignore me, I don't want to disrupt the forum, but it has been disrupted unfortunately whether you are aware of it or not by your own making.

Why are you spending hours/weeks/months looking into the lives of the Smiths, why not into the lives of the Tapas friends?  Wouldn't that be more important to the investigation and into what happened to Madeleine McCann, or are you not allowed to delve into their past history, lives, birth mothers/fathers, places of birth, former lovers, jobs, links with the McCanns ?????

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

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 Guest on 27.09.14 21:43

@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

Hello Sallypelt, I didn't realise it was you when I wrote my post.

But I still stand by what I said, if you believe in TB then that's up to you but I'm not going to explain myself to you, TB's dogmatic behaviour regarding the Smiths says a lot.  He has no idea regarding the Smiths as much as you or I have or the millions on this Earth but he writes as if he's an expert on what they saw or didn't see as if his life depends on it, which I think it does; if he's sold his soul to the devil (to dishonour the Smiths in any way he can) no doubt we will never know.

His behaviour in now taking the Smiths' discussion to a 4th series on the forum, tells me he is under pressure to dismiss the Smiths' sighting at all costs.

From what I've read of Tony's musings (although I admit probably only a fraction of his works) he is always very meticulous and well researched, if not always 100% accurate I think can be excused considering the conflicting press reports relative to the case and the many contradictory statements, interviews and other documented information.  I don't think it fair to say that his methodology is tantamount to having an agenda or having sold his soul to the devil.  That kind of attitude is comparable to suggesting that a cynic is a 'hater' or 'pitchforker', which I'm sure you will agree is a somewhat puerile attack.  The Smith family do feature quite prominently in this case so it's not unreasonable for any interested party to question different aspects of their input.

If you don't like, you're not obliged to read.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by aquila on 27.09.14 21:47

I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

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 Newintown on 27.09.14 22:03

@aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years.  As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate.  That is completely out of order.  Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting.  No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns?   What are we waiting for?

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

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 sallypelt on 27.09.14 22:28

@Newintown wrote:
@aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years.  As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate.  That is completely out of order.  Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting.  No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns?   What are we waiting for?

Let me clear up the misunderstanding about the birth certificate. I was the one who mentioned the birth certificate, only to demonstrate that without seeing the birth certificate there was no way of knowing that the information that  IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, was 100%. At NO time did I suggest that I had any intentions of viewing anyone's birth certificate. It was only mentioned for the above reason.

The reason I posted the information THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN was to determine if there was a connection between Robert Murat and Martin Smith. As Aquila said, we can't question the Gaspers etc, and not question Martin Smith. And the question is, did Martin Smith know Robert Murat only because of the Portuguese connection, and nothing else?  As for MS being a credible witness, there are definitely discrepancies in his  statements, for whatever reason. I have posted these discrepancies, but will repeat one gaping one, and that is, in his first statement, Martin Smith and his two children all said that they didn't see what Smithman was wearing on his upper body because it was covered by the sleeping child. However, just over a year later, Martin Smith says that Smithman was wearing a dark top which was either a Jacket or a blazer.  Just like Jane Tanner, who has been dragged through the muck for her eggman who, a few months later, suddenly developed a face. We can't have it both ways. We either give everyone the benefit of the doubt, or we question everyone when suddenly, their memory returns.

As for Martin Smith's daughter, I wasn't going to post anything more than I did, and I certainly wasn't going to access her birth certificate.

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

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 aquila on 27.09.14 22:32

@Newintown wrote:
@aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years.  As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

Why are you here then? If it only goes around in circles and there's nothing much to add, why waste your time?

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate.  That is completely out of order.  Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting.  No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Is it your job to attack Tony Bennett on this forum? is that why you're still here when you have nothing to add because things go round in circles?

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns?   What are we waiting for?

What are you waiting for Newintown? why don't you do some delving into facts and contribute to unravelling the mystery of what happened to Madeleine? Isn't finding truth the reason you're on this forum?


aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

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 Newintown on 27.09.14 22:44

@aquila wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
@aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years.  As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

Why are you here then? If it only goes around in circles and there's nothing much to add, why waste your time?

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate.  That is completely out of order.  Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting.  No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Is it your job to attack Tony Bennett on this forum? is that why you're still here when you have nothing to add because things go round in circles?

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns?   What are we waiting for?

What are you waiting for Newintown? why don't you do some delving into facts and contribute to unravelling the mystery of what happened to Madeleine? Isn't finding truth the reason you're on this forum?


Does my presence unnerve you?  Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on?  Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard?  Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you?   If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

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 palm tree on 27.09.14 23:01

Is Aoife Smiths real name Lucy Aoife Smith then? huh
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 Markus 2 on 27.09.14 23:21

 newintown Does my presence unnerve you?  Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on?  Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard?  Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you?   If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?


agreed   Yes have to agree too much personal  blinkered opinion imo,   and not enough  debate, yet he is all over this site like a rash .I do not read all of his posts but he is obsessed by the Smiths, which if they are genuine and I think they are, that e-fit will solve this
case. But his reluctance to go there is puzzling imo.

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-09

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 28.09.14 0:34

@palm tree wrote:Is Aoife Smiths real name Lucy Aoife Smith then? huh
IMO
Can't find Aoife Smith being referred to Lucy Aoife Smith anywhere. Any ideas?

____________________
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 Rufus T on 28.09.14 2:13

Newintown said
I know what happened to Madeleine McCann


Do tell, I for one am keen to hear what you know.

Rufus T

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-06-18
Location : Glasgow

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 28.09.14 11:36

@Rufus T wrote:Newintown said
I know what happened to Madeleine McCann


Do tell, I for one am keen to hear what you know.
She was abducted,we all know it to be true for the parents said so. ooops

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 28.09.14 12:40

Newintown said:  "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?!  Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself.  Hmmm.

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 28.09.14 12:49

@Markus 2 wrote: newintown Does my presence unnerve you?  Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on?  Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard?  Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you?   If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?


agreed   Yes have to agree too much personal  blinkered opinion imo,   and not enough  debate, yet he is all over this site like a rash .I do not read all of his posts but he is obsessed by the Smiths, which if they are genuine and I think they are, that e-fit will solve this
case. But his reluctance to go there is puzzling imo.

Rather than a reluctance not to go there Markus2, do you think it possible that TB just disagrees with the blinkered opinion by some that the Smiths are totally genuine?  IMO the man has tried on many occasions to explain why he is unconvinced about the Smiths, which has been totally ignored by a minority who think otherwise.  Now that's what I call having an inflexible blinkered opinion.

You rightly say IF they are genuine, it is only your opinion.  The e-fits have so far NOT solved anything even though published a year ago so I think that is another dead end.  I would however be interested to learn how you think the e-fit will solve the case?

Guest
Guest


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 28.09.14 12:55

I think they need hard evidence to wrap this up, even for a patsy or the mcs.
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 Tony Bennett on 28.09.14 13:01

Gollum wrote:Newintown said:  "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?!  Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself.  Hmmm.
That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.

In the meantime, I have a transcript to hand of the telephone call and meeting between Anthony Summers and DCI Andy Redwood:

AR = DCI Andy Redwood
Sum - Anthony Summers
HC = DCS Hamish Campbell 

Tel call

AR: Hallo

Sum: Anthony Summers here, author who nearly won a Pulitzer Prize, I'm writing a book about Madeleine McCann, I really need to come and see you and find out about your investigation.

AR: But this is a live investigation, I can't tell you anything.

Sum: I know, I just need to see you.

AR: But what about the cost? - air fares from New York to London and back, hotels, meals out etc.?

Sum: Money is no object. Please, I need to see you.

AR: Well OK, like I said, I can't tell you a thing, but how about 12noon on Friday 15 February? I'll make sure my boss, DCS Hamish Campbell is here as well, you know, the detective famous for his handling of the Jill Dando murder.

Sum: Ah yes. Well, see you on 15 February, then. Have a nice day!

AR: Bye.


The meeting, at Belgravia Police Station

AR & HC: Come in.

Sum: Thanks. Now what can you tell me about the investigation into Maddie's disappearance?

AR: Absolutely nothing, just like we told you a few weeks ago on the 'phone.

Sum: Oh well. Never mind. Thanks for seeing me. Have a nice day.

MEETING ENDS


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Further observations

As was noted above, the redacted parts of that meeting will be very interesting to establish.

If the person accompanying DCI Andy Redwood at that meeting was indeed DCS Hamish Campbell, the senior officer to whom DCI Redwood reported, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to withhold it. I conclude therefore that the name of that person is someone whom the Met and the government do not wish us to know. 

One credible possibility is that it was Brian Kennedy

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

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 plebgate on 28.09.14 13:38

@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611.jpg

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt   I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records.  What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in.  This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

Hello Sallypelt, I didn't realise it was you when I wrote my post.

But I still stand by what I said, if you believe in TB then that's up to you but I'm not going to explain myself to you, TB's dogmatic behaviour regarding the Smiths says a lot.  He has no idea regarding the Smiths as much as you or I have or the millions on this Earth but he writes as if he's an expert on what they saw or didn't see as if his life depends on it, which I think it does; if he's sold his soul to the devil (to dishonour the Smiths in any way he can) no doubt we will never know.

His behaviour in now taking the Smiths' discussion to a 4th series on the forum, tells me he is under pressure to dismiss the Smiths' sighting at all costs.
So you thought you were jumping on Tony's back again when you posted ha ha.

If you wont explain yourself then don't expect posters to take you seriously?   What's it to you what tony or any other poster here thinks and posts?  If you don't like it why comment just ignore.   For some reason you cannot, are you TM by any chance?   I hear there is quite a welcome for disruptors on the new site, why not post there and leave this forum alone, especially as you have stated you wont explain your posts?

Edited re. spelling and punctuation.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

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 Markus 2 on 28.09.14 18:38

Gollum wrote:Newintown said:  "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?!  Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself.  Hmmm.

  TB  wrote That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.
 
So  childish.
Quite an innocent remark by  Newintown really, yet the venom spewed out here towards this person is remarkable.
I   can say, I know what happened to Madeline as well ,she disappeared from her holiday apartment seven years ago, that is all any of us know, so if you wish to take that comment by Newintown out of context then I really do think this is totally unnecessary and unwarranted imo and sheds a bad light on the posters on here .

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-09

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 28.09.14 19:28

@Markus 2 wrote:Gollum wrote:Newintown said:  "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?!  Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself.  Hmmm.

  TB  wrote That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.
 
So  childish.
Quite an innocent remark by  Newintown really, yet the venom spewed out here towards this person is remarkable.
I   can say, I know what happened to Madeline as well ,she disappeared from her holiday apartment seven years ago, that is all any of us know, so if you wish to take that comment by Newintown out of context then I really do think this is totally unnecessary and unwarranted imo and sheds a bad light on the posters on here .

Hold up a minute!  May I remind you of the exact words "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".  How can you say such a direct statement has been taken out of context?  What context? 

Maybe you or Newintown or some other persons think that the Smiths should be taken a face value so how can you question a reaction to Newintown's statement, can I not take that at face value? 

That aside, I'd rather hear Newintown's explanation than a surrogate spokesperson.


ETA:  You haven't explained how you think the e-fits (note plural) will solve this case.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by aquila on 28.09.14 20:48

Picking over the Smith's sighting and OG's revelation moment to damn/kill off Tannerman and create Smithman as the all important person(s) of importance seems to have hit a raw nerve.

I don't believe either sighting anymore than I believe anything else in this case including whatever SY places into the public domain. SY lost all credibility for me when two versions of a 'reconstruction' were put out on television across Europe (no televisation in Portugal). Why two? Do Germans, Dutch and those 'non-Brits' need to see different photography of apartment 5a and the Tapas Bar? What's that all about?

SY lost all credibility for me with the helicopters and the digging and the gpr equipment and the dogs and the selective media shots and the appeal for everyone to respect that the PJ could kick them out at anytime.

OG have also met with (it doesn't matter what was said or what wasn't although there seems amazingly to be some form of FOI response) Summers and Swan. Has any other 'author' approached OG and been afforded the same indulgence?

What has any of this to do with finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann?

All I can see is one big fat cover-up/walk-away strategy that includes Portugal's finest in authority (this is only my opinion of course).

As for those who continue to make money off the back of a missing child well they are beyond contempt.

The list of those who have made money directly off the back of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to increase and yet nothing with all that money and all that expertise has produced anything to explain what happened.

As for those on the forum who want to batter it/batter Tony Bennett/batter anything at all,why not concentrate and batter all the bastards who've made money out of Madeleine and produced absolutely nothing.

Just my opinion and all that stuff

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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