The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

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

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

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

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

Page 16 of 19 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

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

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

Post by Guest on 13.10.14 21:49

@aquila wrote:It seems to me that everyone is willing to see the holes in the Tapasnik statements - and there are huge gaping holes in them - and yet a lot of people are so keen to believe the Smith statements.

I struggle to understand why that is so.
Well said!

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 13.10.14 21:51

@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@pennylane wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote  a witness of an abduction  is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it! winkwink

I'm with this interpretation.
It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

Yes.  Effectively it means nothing.

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 13.10.14 21:53

Ladyinred wrote:I didn't understood why the efits were shown in the UK - there weren't many Brits in PdL in May 2007.  Were they shown in Portugal?

One year on and I think CW Oct 14 was some sort of psychological game.

Another excellent point!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by SixMillionQuid on 14.10.14 7:07

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
@pennylane wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote  a witness of an abduction  is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it! winkwink

I'm with this interpretation.
It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

Is there something else you would like to say? You seem to have some sort of idea of what went on so why not just 'put it out there'. (Not meant in anything but a quizzical manner!).
All I know is you can't identify an individual just by the way they carried a child. Naming GM as the person they likely saw on this basis alone meant MS was putting his head on the 'chopping block'. But he seemed pretty confident in making a statement to the police. And that makes me wonder if there was something else, what I dont know.

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

SixMillionQuid

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by palm tree on 14.10.14 7:32

This case is the McCann case, aledgedly protection from high up. Could MS have had a visit? If it was me I guess id pipe down abit. Who are the men in suits?
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 30.10.14 8:04

@SixMillionQuid wrote:
All I know is you can't identify an individual just by the way they carried a child. Naming GM as the person they likely saw on this basis alone meant MS was putting his head on the 'chopping block'. But he seemed pretty confident in making a statement to the police. And that makes me wonder if there was something else, what I don't know.
Something else?

I think so.

For a start, I think there is more to the relationship between Martin Smith and Robert Murat than meets the eye.

I've found what I think are four of the main quotes made by the Smiths about how well Martn Smith knew Robert Murat - and this must be relevant in view of the fact that the Smiths did NOTHING about their sighting for THIRTEEN DAYS - until hours after Murat was declared a formal susepct by the PJ.

Then Martin Smith spring to life.

Here are the relevant quotes:

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

How often had Martin Smith met Robert Murat?


1. Twice, in May and August 2006

From Martin Smith’s statement:

- Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.


2. Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago

Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007

“The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.

However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My Dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat”.


3. ‘Met him several times’

SKY News, 4 January 2008

“An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat… Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an ‘arguido’ in the Madeleine McCann investigation.

“Martin Smith said: ‘I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.


4. ‘I’ve known him for years’

From the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”

 
++++++++++++++++++


So, finally we get to: "We met several times and I've known him for years".

Why was Martin Smith initially so evasive about his contacts over the years with Murat??? 

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 palm tree on 30.10.14 10:43

I think Martin Smith refers to visual meetings because didn't he correct RD Hall on that matter?
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 30.10.14 11:04

@palm tree wrote:I think Martin Smith refers to visual meetings because didn't he correct RD Hall on that matter?
IMO
@ palmtree

The alleged communication from Martin Smith to Richard Hall was a strange one. He merely denied that he was a 'friend' of Murat. It is by no means 100% certain that this was a genuine communication from the real Martin Smith.

Of course, one of the issues here is the remarkable coincidence of the following:

1. The whole family - 9 of them - collectively doing nothing about their sighting for 13 days, despite an international media publicity blitz

2. Martin Smith only leaping into action hours after Robert Murat was made a formal suspect

3. Martin Smith saying he was adamant the man he says he saw was not Murat despite also admitting:

* it was dark
* the street lighting was weak
* he only glimpsed the man for a few seconds
* [quote from his statement] "States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph".


Could you explain please what you mean by 'visual meetings'?  It's not a phrase I've ever come across before.

The words used by the Smiths are very clear: "Met him several times previously"

Not 'saw him...' 

'Met' has a completely different meaning to 'saw' 

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 palm tree on 30.10.14 11:44

I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but.... who knows, in this case anything is possible.
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 30.10.14 12:14

@palm tree wrote:I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but...who knows, in this case anything is possible.
IMO
@ palm tree

Thank you very much for your swift reply.

On a point of information, Martin Smith OWNS an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex, along with a good number of other Irish folk, mainly from the Drogheda area where Martin Smith lives. The Estrela da Luz complex was built by another Irishman form the Drogheda area, and I think the same man maintains it as well through a company. Smith said on one occasion that he and his family holiday there 'three times a year' - maybe he goes three times a year, other members of his family go at other times?

Maybe he lets it out to others, I don't know. 

As to the correction by Richard Hall, my understanding is that Hall wrote to the e-mail address given by Martin Smith or someone purporting to be him, and received documentation which may be correct but also may not be.

At the end of the day, we have these statements from the Smiths:  Martin Smith...  met Murat - on several occasions - known Murat for years

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 pennylane on 30.10.14 12:23

When I meet a neighbor in town or at the post office, I greet them in a friendly manner.  This does not mean we know each other personally, even though we have known each other superficially for years!  One thing I can categorically say is that I know their faces well, having seen them here and there in the village, or met them at the post office, or pub, or village hall, etc.  Yes I have known them for years, but I know absolutely nothing about most of them.

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by palm tree on 30.10.14 12:33

No probs, Tony. It's really strange when it's looked into that some how things seem connected, PDL is a close knit community I think, whatever happened that night, someone somewhere knows. 
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 HelenMeg on 30.10.14 12:49

@palm tree wrote:No probs, Tony. It's really strange when it's looked into that some how things seem connected, PDL is a close knit community I think, whatever happened that night, someone somewhere knows. 
IMO
I agree that I think it is a very close knit community... it would not surprise me if Murat / Smith knew each other to some extent. For this reason I am interested in Tony's research (albeit I still think Smith may have responded to the appeal for someone to come forward..)

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sami on 30.10.14 13:31

@palm tree wrote:I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but.... who knows, in this case anything is possible.
IMO
Visiting a town periodically, is not the same as living in a neighbourhood full-time.


I see the same people every day on my way to work.  We acknowledge each other, have done for 15 years now, but I do not know their names.


If I were asked do you know Joe Bloggs, the name means nothing to me.  If I were shown a picture of Joe Bloggs and asked do I know him, I would reply yes, I pass him on my way to work.  I know him to see.  In order for me to know Joe Bloggs by name and sight, there would need to be a common bind.  Either I was introduced to him at some point, or we had mutual friends who made me aware of who he is, told me his name etc. 


How could Smith put a name with a face if the only contact they had was visual - be it bumping trollies in the supermarket, dining in the same restaurant or drinking in the same bar, at infrequent times in any given year ?  

Smith could have given any number of very simple reasons as to why and how he knew Murat, none of which need to be regarded as questionable.  He did not though, the initial statement is vague and references made afterwards vary.

sami

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by palm tree on 30.10.14 13:47

Could be that he learnt his name through the news reports at the time or through gossip on the streets? I've no idea if they were friends before or after, or not at all, but RM seemed to be a popular citizen in PDL, only my opinion though.

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Martin Smith learns about what is in Jane Tanner's statement by Weds 16 May 2007 - but how? HELP WANTED

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.01.15 11:54

A member here who fully supports my major doubts about the 'Smithman' sighting has most helpfully drawn my attention to a very important detail in Dr Goncalo Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie'.

The passage occurs in Chapter 8: 'A MAN WITH A CHILD IN HIS ARMS'. It's obviously a chapter about 'Smithman'.

I quote from AnnaEsse's translation. I've highlighted the passage I'm interested in, in red:

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

At this time [after he was made a suspect on 15 May], images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.

= = = = = = = = = = =


Now, here is a brief timeline of the main relevant events:

3 May, 10pm - 10.30pm approx. - McCanns find Madeleine missing and report this to the Ocean Club amd police

4 May - Part of the Smith family return to Ireland. Jane Tanner describes Tannerman

5 May - Just after Wojcek Krokowski and partner/wife leave Faro by plane for Berlin, Nuno Lourenco contacts police to tell them about Krokowski allegedly trying to kidnap his child. His description of Krokowski matches Tannerman - Goncalo Amaral thinks he could be the abductor, contacts INTERPOL & German and Polish police demanding full checks on Krokowski        

9 May - Rest of Smith family return to Ireland

13 May - Jane Tanner identifies Robert Murat as the abductor

15 May - Robert Murat declared suspect amid another media blitz

16 May - Peter Smith rings father Martin Smith and says: 'Was I dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken?' Martin Smith contacts Irish Gardai, they contact Portuguese Police, PJ ask Smiths to come over and make a statement 

24 May - Notorious 'Last Photo' issued

25 May - First statement, by police and by Gerry McCann reading out statement to the world's media, giving a vague description of a man seen carrying a child. Very sketchy details given, no mention of Jane Tanner - or even that the witness was a friend of the McCanns 

26 May - Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith attend police offices in Portimao and make statements, in which they happen to describe the man and child they say they saw with SIXTEEN striking similarities to the description given out by Jane Tanner on 4 May   +++++++++++++





The forum member who drew this to my attention said:

"Can you tell me how Martin Smith - when he contacted the Irish Gardai on 16 May - learnt that Jane Tanner had identified Robert Murat as the man encountered in the night of the abduction, when 9 days later (25 May) was the first time we were given a description of the presumed abductor - and even then, Jane Tanner's name wasn't given out?"

I think it's a very good question.

And I can't answer it.

Can anyone else help with an answer please?



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

ETA:

In another place, constant angry shrieking continues, unabated, claiming that 'only one view is allowed' on CMOMM - or variations on the same theme.

I just checked the poll on this thread.

So far, the results are:
  
1. 'I remain of the view that the Smiths are reliable, honest witnesses whose words can be trusted' - 31 votes - 48%
2. 'I think there are grounds for viewing what they say about this sighting wih suspicion' - 27 votes - 42%


Clear evidence (if it were ever needed) that differing views, well argued, have always been allowed on here

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 Sourdough on 14.01.15 13:14

Well I for one "remain of the view that the Smiths are reliable, honest witnesses whose words can be trusted" but I am having doubts about any e-fit that was made with their help.
At the time they had seen this man and child they had no particular reason to pay much attention to him. So I am having doubts about the reliability of their memory, not of their honesty.

Sourdough

Posts : 5
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-01-13

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 woodforthetrees on 14.01.15 13:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:
The forum member who drew this to my attention said:

"Can you tell me how Martin Smith - when he contacted the Irish Gardai on 16 May - learnt that Jane Tanner had identified Robert Murat as the man encountered in the night of the abduction, when 9 days later (25 May) was the first time we were given a description of the presumed abductor - and even then, Jane Tanner's name wasn't given out?"

I think it's a very good question.

And I can't answer it.

Can anyone else help with an answer please?



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

ETA:

In another place, constant angry shrieking continues, unabated, claiming that 'only one view is allowed' on CMOMM - or variations on the same theme.

I just checked the poll on this thread.

So far, the results are:
  
1. 'I remain of the view that the Smiths are reliable, honest witnesses whose words can be trusted' - 31 votes - 48%
2. 'I think there are grounds for viewing what they say about this sighting wih suspicion' - 27 votes - 42%


Clear evidence (if it were ever needed) that differing views, well argued, have always been allowed on here

Based on:

[color:5b90=000000]Summary from 'A Verdade Da Mentira' ('The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral) -  Chapter's 8 & 21 - The sighting by the Smith family
- Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.


IMO i don't think the Smiths did knew about the part of Jane's statement specifically fingering Murat, i think they will have only really known about Murat being a suspect based on the media reports and his presence at the location.

I think the way it's worded is misleading in Amarals book, almost as if it should be read like "Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement (about seeing someone carrying a child)...... and the suspicions falling upon Murat (initially brought forward by the journos).

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

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 Tony Bennett on 14.01.15 14:55

@woodforthetrees wrote:

I think the way it's worded is misleading in Amaral's book, almost as if it should be read like "Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement (about seeing someone carrying a child)...... and the suspicions falling upon Murat (initially brought forward by the journos).
May be it is badly worded in the original.

Maybe the translation is not correct.

Nevertheless that is what appears in AnnaEsse's translation of the book.

@ woodforthetrees 

Are you aware of any news reports about Murat being made a suspect that specifically mention a suspect abductor having been seen and identified?

Because I am not aware.

If you are aware, I'd be glad if you could post any links please.

You see, the Smiths...

* doing nothing about their claimed sighting for 13 days,

* THEN contacting the police the day after someone they know is made a suspect,

* THEN Martin Smith insisting that the man they saw could NOT possibly be Robert Murat,
 
* AND THEN (on 26 May) giving the police a description of a man that was identical in so many ways to Tannerman...


...does look more than a tad suspicious

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 Angelique on 15.01.15 2:05

Tony

Perhaps I am not reading your post correctly or not taking it in very well as its late.

But I can't see anything odd if Murat and the Smiths are all part of cast of "players".

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.01.15 7:27

@Angelique wrote:Tony

Perhaps I am not reading your post correctly or not taking it in very well as it's late.

But I can't see anything odd if Murat and the Smiths are all part of cast of "players".
You have got it in one, Angelique.

You have seen and understood what many others have not yet seen and understood

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 LombardySkeptik on 15.01.15 8:24

So is the 'thesis' now that the Smith family were actively working with the McCann's?

More Madness

____________________
Morto, ma io non ho dimenticato lei

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Angelique has sussed it

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.01.15 9:16

@LombardySkeptik wrote:So is the 'thesis' now that the Smith family were actively working with the McCanns'?
More subtle than that.

Think a little in terms of two 'teams', or 'groups':

The McCann Team

&

The Murat Team.

Both groups came together after that summit meeting at the Eveleighs at Salsalitas, Burgau, on 13 November 2007 - where 'big guns' Robert Murat and Brian Kennedy eyeballed each other across the dinner table alongside their high-powered lawyers, respectively, Francisco Pagarete and Senior Freemason and past Grand Master of the East Lancashire Provincial Lodge, Edward Smethurst.

When news of this meeting leaked out in the Portuguese press, Brian Kennedy claimed it was 'to offer Murat a job'.

That's another statement in this case of 'smoke and mirrors' that I'm not buying.

@ LombardySkeptic  

Look at the evidence.

After that meeting, Jane Tanner and her 'Tapas 7' mates Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachael Oldfield stopped pointing the finger at Murat. 'We might have been wrong' was on their new hymn sheet.

No longer was Jane Tanner so adamant that she had seen Robert Murat carrying away a child on 3 May.

No longer were Fiona, Russell and Rachael so sure that they had seen Robert Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late evening on 3 May. 

Ditto the McCanns, who began to say they were no longer so sure that Murat was involved.

Metodo 3 stopped producing daft stories such as claims that Michaele Walczuk had been seen by a lorry driver handing over a child over a fence.


Angelique has sussed it.

So can you

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
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 woodforthetrees on 15.01.15 9:50

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:

I think the way it's worded is misleading in Amaral's book, almost as if it should be read like "Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement (about seeing someone carrying a child)...... and the suspicions falling upon Murat (initially brought forward by the journos).
May be it is badly worded in the original.

Maybe the translation is not correct.

Nevertheless that is what appears in AnnaEsse's translation of the book.

@ woodforthetrees 

Are you aware of any news reports about Murat being made a suspect that specifically mention a suspect abductor having been seen and identified?

Because I am not aware.

If you are aware, I'd be glad if you could post any links please.

You see, the Smiths...

* doing nothing about their claimed sighting for 13 days,

* THEN contacting the police the day after someone they know is made a suspect,

* THEN Martin Smith insisting that the man they saw could NOT possibly be Robert Murat,
 
* AND THEN (on 26 May) giving the police a description of a man that was identical in so many ways to Tannerman...


...does look more than a tad suspicious
Hi Tony,

No, i have no news items for that date that the Smiths could have seen, however, Murat was being suspected very early on by media in Luz, the tapas group and i believe a profiler on scene. 

With all that hype around the event and Murat, regardless of any up and coming news story days later, it wouldn't take very long for word to get around the village (a matter of hours i suspect) that 'local guy Murat is in the frame'. Therefore i'm sure the remaining Smiths would have got wind of this before their return on the 9th. 

However, the Smiths only decided to speak out that it's not Murat after it had been formally announced, IMO in a bid to help him out from being stitched up.


Murats actions and activities, although strange IMO do not make him part of the crime. IMO he was well and truly stitched up by a snowball effect of people who each jumped on him in desperation...only to then backtrack when they'd actually thought about it/him.

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

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 Tony Bennett on 15.01.15 10:22

@woodforthetrees wrote:

Hi Tony,

No, I have no news items for that date that the Smiths could have seen, however, Murat was being suspected very early on by media in Luz, the Tapas group and I believe a profiler on scene.

REPLY: I agree with all of that 

With all that hype around the event and Murat, regardless of any up-and-coming news story days later, it wouldn't take very long for word to get around the village (a matter of hours I suspect) that 'local guy Murat is in the frame'. Therefore I'm sure the remaining Smiths would have got wind of this before their return on the 9th.

REPLY: Let's face it, Martin Smith and some of his family members were right in the thick of it, right there in Praia da Luz as you say, amid hundreds if not thousands of local villagers and police officers combing PdL and the surrounding countryside, looking for Madeleine, dozens if not hundreds of journalists and their news film crews etc. - yet day after day after day no-one in the Smith family even thought of telling the police about their 'sighting'?? Not one person on this forum has ever given anything remotely like an adequate explanation for why they all failed to do so - and why they waited until the day after Murat was arrested to do so 

However the Smiths only decided to speak out that it's not Murat after it had been formally announced, IMO in a bid to help him out from being stitched up.

REPLY: They had potentially vital information about a man late at night carrying a young blonde infant girl clad only in pjamas, yet they refused, day after day, to share this information with the police

Murat's actions and activities, although strange IMO, do not make him part of the crime. IMO he was well and truly stitched up by a snowball effect of people who each jumped on him in desperation...only to then backtrack when they'd actually thought about it/him.

REPLY: I have never ever said that Murat was 'part of the crime', in other words I have never in any way alleged that he has any responsibility for Madeleine having 'disappeared'. However, I insist that people should probe who summoned him to Portugal on Monday 30 April (clearly at least one person did), and why they did so, and should also probe why he lied in at least 17 different respects about his movements on 1, 2, and 3 May when he was first questioned by the PJ on 15 May 2007.

You speak of 'a snowball effect of people who each jumped on him in desperation...'

I'll tell you what my take is.

That some very powerful people systematically plotted on how to put Robert Murat in the frame and make him a suspect.

The people who coached Jane Tanner on Sunday 13 May before she (mis-)identified Robert Murat as the mystery person carrying a child on the evening of 3 May are very much part of that plot...

...to which I add that this is all in my own humble opinion, but based on the known facts   

.

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 16 of 19 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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