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 3 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11 ... 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 Tony Bennett on 28.09.14 21:51

@Newintown wrote:
This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?
A couple of points in answer to this and other points made by Newintown.

First, despite all the complaints here and elsewhere about 'dictators' who 'insist on one point of view only', 'anybody with an opposing view is banned' etc. etc., any fair-minded person can see that the Smithman debates on here are conducted in a lively but measured way, with points of view sometimes expressed strongly, but never, so far as I can recall, without due respect for other views and politeness in debate. Indeed, on this very thread, for example, my view is the minority one (albeit by a narrow margin).

Second, if anyone does not fully understand why I pursue the Smithman matter (among others I hasten to add), it's because - as one poster pointed out - 'Smithman' has been put right at the heart of this case by DCI Redwood, by his bosses, by the government, by the top brass of the BBC, and above all by the McCann Team. To put it candidly, this top-level unison that 'Smithman' is the man makes me suspicious.

Added to that, Smithman is of course the only 'proof' we have (apart from the McCanns' claims) that there ever was an abductor there that night.

On top of that, we are expected to believe that 12-17 months after seeing a bloke for a second or two on a dark night, one or more of the Smiths could possibly draw up an e-fit of him.

Or, actually, two e-fits who, in many respects, look like very different men.

Someone said that my querying of 'Smithman' had 'hit a raw nerve'. Indeed, the opposition to my suspicions has often been aggressive and sustained. I first posted my doubts about the 'Smithman sighting' about 10 days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October.

The very evening that I did so, SIX new members joined CMOMM just to voice opposition to my ideas on Smithman. Most if not all of those were outed as disruptors within weeks.

Final point - about whether this forum is a 'scary place' (Newintown quote).

On coming home from church tonight, I looked to see how many were currently online on this forum and 3 others. The figures were:

CMOMM - 355
Missing Madeleine - 44
Maddie Case Files - 19
candyfloss/cristobell new forum - 8.

Not too many people have been 'scared off' from here yet, then

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
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 Okeydokey on 29.09.14 1:53

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Newintown wrote:
This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?
A couple of points in answer to this and other points made by Newintown.

First, despite all the complaints here and elsewhere about 'dictators' who 'insist on one point of view only', 'anybody with an opposing view is banned' etc. etc., any fair-minded person can see that the Smithman debates on here are conducted in a lively but measured way, with points of view sometimes expressed strongly, but never, so far as I can recall, without due respect for other views and politeness in debate. Indeed, on this very thread, for example, my view is the minority one (albeit by a narrow margin).

Second, if anyone does not fully understand why I pursue the Smithman matter (among others I hasten to add), it's because - as one poster pointed out - 'Smithman' has been put right at the heart of this case by DCI Redwood, by his bosses, by the government, by the top brass of the BBC, and above all by the McCann Team. To put it candidly, this top-level unison that 'Smithman' is the man makes me suspicious.

Added to that, Smithman is of course the only 'proof' we have (apart from the McCanns' claims) that there ever was an abductor there that night.

On top of that, we are expected to believe that 12-17 months after seeing a bloke for a second or two on a dark night, one or more of the Smiths could possibly draw up an e-fit of him.

Or, actually, two e-fits who, in many respects, look like very different men.

Someone said that my querying of 'Smithman' had 'hit a raw nerve'. Indeed, the opposition to my suspicions has often been aggressive and sustained. I first posted my doubts about the 'Smithman sighting' about 10 days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October.

The very evening that I did so, SIX new members joined CMOMM just to voice opposition to my ideas on Smithman. Most if not all of those were outed as disruptors within weeks.

Final point - about whether this forum is a 'scary place' (Newintown quote).

On coming home from church tonight, I looked to see how many were currently online on this forum and 3 others. The figures were:

CMOMM - 355
Missing Madeleine - 44
Maddie Case Files - 19
candyfloss/cristobell new forum - 8.

Not too many people have been 'scared off' from here yet, then

I would back up Tony here.

Smithman is clearly an important issue that can be viewed in different ways.

But I must say I share some scepticism...always have done.

Why?

Because it took so long for the family to react. This case was all over the Irish media,but the claim is that the persons concerned (at least two if I recall correctly) had somehow been hermetically sealed from the case...they had never thought to mention their sighting until they saw TV images of GMcC returning to England.

It is a very odd starting point for their witness evidence.

Personally I tend to discount both the JT and the Smiths' evidence and prefer to look at the behavioural evidence for how the Tapas 9 reacted. Could it be described as anywhere near normal in the circumstances?...No. And then you read their accounts and you ask yourself are those accounts credible...for the most part you have to respond NO.




Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

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 29.09.14 11:53

Okeydokey today @ 1:53 am

From the horses mouth:

Witness testamony of Martin Smith taken on 26th May 2007

 

'Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.'



 

So on the morning of 4th he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw, so realistically, why didn't he report the sighting then and there? As far as I'm aware there has been no acceptable explanation for this.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you, what use is any alleged sighting at this late stage.  The point is like arguing the toss with a McCann sympathiser, merely a diversion to detract from more important issues.  If you saw (not you personally) Kate carrying a child around the Algarve in the summer of 2007 would you be able to identify her now, having become accustomed to her chat show haggard, forlorn dowdy matronly persona? I wouldn't.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 29.09.14 13:33

I would rather prefer to know the real reason behind OG's appeal for info on the e-fit guys ?

If they believed there was no abduction, what is the relevance of that?
If it is of significance and absolute importance to the investigation, why did Redwood not rehash the e-fits when he had the chance. Or even have them flashed up randomly at news hours, takes only blinking seconds for them to be flashed up without cost.

Have the crossed-continents appeals generated the results they wanted ?

Don't anyone jump on in to say it was Gerry that's why the significant.  
It's patently obvious OG did not believe so.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 29.09.14 19:30

Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

Hongkong Phooey

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 29.09.14 19:36

@aiyoyo wrote:I would rather prefer to know the real reason behind OG's appeal for info on the e-fit guys ?

If they believed there was no abduction, what is the relevance of that?
If it is of significance and absolute importance to the investigation, why did Redwood not rehash the e-fits when he had the chance. Or even have them flashed up randomly at news hours, takes only blinking seconds for them to be flashed up without cost.

Have the crossed-continents appeals generated the results they wanted ?

Don't anyone jump on in to say it was Gerry that's why the significant.  
It's patently obvious OG did not believe so.
Another dead kipper and there's been a few of them over the years.  IMO the e-fits (plural) were intended as a mere distraction to convince the tax payer that their hard earned cash is being well spent and OG are on the case so to speak.  Be honest, those two different grayscale images could be any one of millions across the world so what purpose is there in making them one of the focal points to progress the investigation?  Whatever, I don't believe for a minute that any of the Smith family directly assisted with the production of any e-fit and that's not intended to be a criticism of the Smith family, more a question as to what game OG and the British establishment are playing. 

Trouble is, if OG believe there was no abduction, why are they concentrating on burglars and/or weirdos with a fetish for young girls that enter private premises without detection or authority?  I think OG need to change their washing powder if they're looking for a whiterwash.

As an aside, the latest delay in Operation Portugal, is it true that delays are due to Portuguese judiciary reconstruction or is it more a case of hoodwinking the public into thinking that they have leads that don't exist?

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 29.09.14 19:46

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 29.09.14 20:39

Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Hongkong Phooey

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 29.09.14 22:05

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie.  Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 29.09.14 22:25

Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie.  Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.
They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)

Hongkong Phooey

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 29.09.14 23:05

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

That depends when you believe Maddie died.
If not on May 3rd what are the chances of the man being Gerry which was what Amaral believed back then, based on his theory Maddie died on May 3rd, and therefore crediting the Smiths 70-80% quantified belief Gerry was the man seen and that might be worth exploring further.

Since it was a missed opportunity to recall the Smiths we will never know whether Smiths still held that belief had they attended the interview Amaral intended but did not happen.

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry.  

If Redwood had received calls after the appeals suggesting the man was Gerry the likelihoods are those calls were made by people following the case on internet.   No public member not on forum would identify or associate the e-fits to Gerry.
Also, Redwood mustn't have believed this type of callers info since nothing was done about it.

His team were out there digging and interviewing an assortment of swarthy smelly pot bellied burglars and God knows who else that did not fit in society's good book.  It strengthens my belief Redwood team did not give credence to the intelligence that the e-fits was Gerry.  

Some people believe it must be Gerry since the McCanns did not focus on this sighting for good reason.  Whereas I feel it is more a case of not being able to control Smiths or Smiths' sighting, in the manner they could spin JT's sighting whichever way suits them, evolving the character to coincide with bogus sightings. Just to give the illusion of an elusive abductor that will never ever be caught out, and that suits their agenda perfectly.

Smiths sighting be it of whatever random guy the McCanns knew that is not relevant nor useful to them firstly because they knew it wasn't Maddie being carried; and secondly the timing was out of synch with their scripts and therefore useless for their purpose.

Redwood may be hoping to eliminate Smithman so that the faked abduction can be put to bed and so that his team can concentrate more on the needed areas.

My cup is still half full.  I dont believe it is whitewash until I see it.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Rufus T on 30.09.14 0:44

Regarding the delay in the Smith family reporting their sighting, at the start of this thread the newspaper articles  say they were home two weeks when Peter phoned his father. If that is two weeks after Martin got home that call could be as late as 23rd May as although Peter and his wife returned home on the 4th, Martin and the others did not go home until 9th May. Those dates are mentioned in his statement to the PJ.

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:35

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie.  Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.
They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)
HKP, a very interesting post.
Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please ?
If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction.
If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:36

deleted post double, site slow loading.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:37

deleted

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:38

deleted again

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:39

Morning Admin, would you be so kind as to empty all of these 'deleted's' as soon as you get a chance. Thanks.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:40

and again, oh dear.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

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 bobbin on 30.09.14 8:41

this must be a record splat spit coffee

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 9:28

@aiyoyo wrote:

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry.  
.
You think that the dark haired one looks nothing like Gerry? Many people would beg to differ.

Hongkong Phooey

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 30.09.14 9:36

@bobbin wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out.  At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position.  Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used?  I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie.  Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.
They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)
HKP, a very interesting post.
Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please ?
If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction.
If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.
Bobbin, I don't have time at the moment (meant to be working and on my phone) I'll try to find it later thanks.

Hongkong Phooey

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.09.14 10:14

REPLYING TO RECENT POSTS

@ Dee Coy

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

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

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


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

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

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

This is the nub of the matter.

The McCanns don't like it.

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


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

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

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


@ Hongkong Phooey (in answer to Gollum)

They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couple of days

REPLY: This is a very misleading and probably untrue statement, as I expect you are fully aware.  What you should have written, if you were trying to be truthful, would have been this:

“On 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special, the Daily Mirror published a claim that Martin Smith had reported his sighting to the Portuguese police two days after Madeleine was reported missing. He had never made such a claim in the previous 6½ years, and this contradicted other statements made by him and other members of his family about their reactions to their claimed sighting”.

and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)

REPLY: An opinion with no foundation whatsoever, except that you believe that Martin Smith was genuine in claiming that he was ‘60% to 80% sure’ that he had seen Gerry in the dark over 4 months previously, based just on ‘the way he was carrying his child’.

Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses, however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

REPLY: You’re right, BUT, the last available evidence Amaral had to go on was a communication from Liam Hogan of the Irish Gardai on 20 September 2007, enclosing a statement from Martin Smith based on his ‘60%-to-80% sure-based-on-the-way-he-was-carrying-his-child’ claim, and adding hios own (Liam Hogan’s) view that Smith was an honest bloke with no ulterior motive. As we all know, Amaral was removed from the investigation less than two weeks later, no doubt with Martin Smith’s claim very fresh in his mind. I honestly believe that if Amaral was presented with all the information we now have about the Smith’s claim ‘sightings’, he would change his mind. The same applies IMO to Amaral’s belief that the creche nanny was telling the truth about ‘the high tea with Madeleine’ at around 5.30pm on 3 May.

 

@ aiyoyo     

That depends when you believe Maddie died. If not on May 3rd what are the chances of the man being Gerry which was what Amaral believed back then, based on his theory Maddie died on May 3rd, and therefore crediting the Smiths 70-80% quantified belief Gerry was the man seen and that might be worth exploring further.

REPLY: Can’t comment for legal reasons – by the way it was ‘60% to 80%’

Since it was a missed opportunity to recall the Smiths we will never know whether Smiths still held that belief had they attended the interview Amaral intended, but it did not happen.


REPLY: True – and in addition there is a great deal of evidence that the Smiths are now backing the 2 e-fits (whether made by them or not) and fully supporting the claims made by DCI Redwood and BBC CrimeWatch that ‘Smithman’ is the leading suspect.   

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry


REPLY: Exactly right

If Redwood had received calls after the appeals suggesting the man was Gerry the likelihood [is that] those calls were made by people following the case on internet. No public member not on forum would identify or associate the e-fits to Gerry. Also, Redwood mustn't have believed this type of callers’ info - since nothing was done about it.


REPLY: aiyoyo, I fully agree with your line of thinking here

His team were out there digging and interviewing an assortment of swarthy smelly pot bellied burglars and God knows who else that did not fit in society's good book. It strengthens my belief Redwood team did not give credence to the intelligence that the e-fits was Gerry.


REPLY: Fully agreed, except that as you know go further and suggest that the entire ‘digging’ show was put on purely for public perception in the U.K.

Some people believe it must be Gerry since the McCanns did not focus on this sighting for good reason.

REPLY: True, at first they didn’t. But then, in 2008, Brian Kennedy got involved, with his ‘intimidatory’ tactics that Mark Hollingsworth described in August 2009 as so severe that witnesses were put off making statements. And then came criminal fraudster Kevin Halligen and his sidekick, Henri Exton, the former boss of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Unit. That changed everything. By the time of the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary in May 2009, ‘Smithman’ was ready to be, as it were, ‘unveiled’ as a suspect. Thereafter, he was promoted on the McCanns’ website and even more so in Kate’s book.  

Whereas I feel it is more a case of not being able to control Smiths’ or Smiths' sighting, in the manner they could spin JT's sighting whichever way suits them, evolving the character to coincide with bogus sightings. Just to give the illusion of an elusive abductor that will never ever be caught out, and that suits their agenda perfectly.

REPLY: I tend to agree with that line of thinking.

Smiths’ sighting be it of whatever random guy the McCanns knew that is not relevant nor useful to them firstly because they knew it wasn't Maddie being carried; and secondly the timing was out of synch with their scripts and therefore useless for their purpose. Redwood may be hoping to eliminate Smithman so that the faked abduction can be put to bed and so that his team can concentrate more on the needed areas.


REPLY: I think Redwood’s conclusion might be: “The Irish family saw the abductor but despite our Herculanean efforts (frustrated by lack of co-operation by the Portuguese police), we’ve been able to determine who he is”.

My cup is still half full. I don’t believe it is whitewash until I see it.


REPLY: It might soon be one-third full


@ Rufus T

Regarding the delay in the Smith family reporting their sighting, at the start of this thread the newspaper articles say they were home two weeks when Peter phoned his father. If that is two weeks after Martin got home that call could be as late as 23rd May as although Peter and his wife returned home on the 4th, Martin and the others did not go home until 9th May. Those dates are mentioned in his statement to the PJ.

REPLY: As far as we know, these are the facts:

1. Peter Smith returned on his own to Ireland on 4 May (apparently leaving his wife behind??)

2.Martin Smith and the rest of his family stayed on and flew back on 9 May 

3.Martin Smith reported his sighting to the Irish Gardai between 16 and 18 May, i.e. 13 to 15 days after Madeleine was reported missing

 

AND FINALLY

In another place, an individual is continuing to make a claim she has made for weeks that my actions in questioning the Smith sighting are ‘undermining the star witness’ in the case. This is coupled with claims that my questioning the Smith sighting is because I have been paid by the McCanns to do so. I have to say that anyone who claims that Martin Smith could possibly be a witness for a prosecution of Gerry McCann, let alone a ‘star witness’ really has lost touch with reality in a major way.

Suppose he was put on the stand? And the judge says: “What is your evidence, Mr Smith?” It would surely go something like this:

“Me and my family saw this bloke in the dark for a few seconds at 10.00pm on 3 May. We had been drinking in Kelly’s bar. We didn’t do anything about it until a day or two after Robert Murat - whom I know – was made a suspect. Then my son Peter ’phoned me up and said he was not sure if he was dreaming or not but did I remember seeing a bloke carrying a child on 3 May at 10.00pm. I said ‘Come to think of it, I do’. I then asked other members of my family if they remembered this and then they too all remembered it. Four months later, I saw a TV news bulletin of Gerry McCann carrying Sean down the steps of a plane, and I thought ‘That’s the bloke I saw over 4 months ago’. So I waited another 11 days, then told Liam Hogan of the Irish Gardai, saying I was, well, ‘60%-80% sure-ish’ that it was him. Since then, the McCanns have sent over one of Britain’s richest  men, Brian Kennedy, to see me, and then his henchman Henri Exton, you know, the bloke who used to run MI5’s covert intelligence operations. After that, I’ve agreed to publicly back claims that 2 e-fits which look like two different men were really drawn up by me and other members of my family. Just like DCI Redwood and Matthew Amroliwala said on BBC CrimeWatch last October”.      

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
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 Tony Bennett on 30.09.14 10:33

@bobbin wrote:
@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)
HKP, a very interesting post.

Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please?

If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction.  If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.
Hi bobbin,

I have fully answered this in my post above ( see under '@ Hongkong Phooey' ).

Hongkong Phooey is relying one ONE report in the Daily Mirror dated 16 Oct 2013 (i.e. two days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special).

It seems it took Martin Smith well over SIX YEARS to come up with this claim, which neither he nor any other member of his family had made before (see the OP).

AFAIK there is no specific reference to 'speaking to a GNR officer', either.

Basically Hongkong Phooey has dishonestly tried to pass this off to members here as a 'fact', when he clearly it is NOT an admitted fact.

No wonder he is struggling to provide you wth a link for his claim

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
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 Tony Bennett on 30.09.14 10:52

@Hongkong Phooey wrote:
You think that the dark haired one looks nothing like Gerry? Many people would beg to differ.
So you claim the 'dark-haired' one looks like Gerry McCann? - although many people, myself included, see many points of difference.

But at least you've supported my other point about these two e-fits.

If you say that fat-rectangular-face, older-looking man with the darker hair and enormous chin 'looks like Gerry', you are presumably conceding that the 'younger, thin-triangular-face man with the small chin' does NOT look like Gerry McCann. Am I right?

Which brings us all back to one of my key points: why would any police force - especially the country's finest? - show the public an e-fit purportedly of the same man when in fact to most people they look like two entirely DIFFERENT men?

+++++++++++++++++++++  

On your points about Smithman, one of your objects in joining this forum was to try and persuade us all that 'Smithman' was real and that 'Smithman' was Gerry. Wasn't it?

You were one of the wave of new posters that joined us for the first time during the period 18 to 20 October.

I have checked back, and it was on a thread started by 'Lance de Boils' on 18 October that I first raised the issue of whether 'Smithman' might be a fabrication. The thread title was: 'Where was Smithman heading?', to which Admin added in brackets: 'Or was there ever a Smithman?'

It was on that day, 18 October, that I first tentatively raised the issue as to whether Smithman was a possible fabrication.

Within 48 hours, a wave of new members had joined, simply to post on that thread only.

That was a matter swiftly picked up by 'sallypelt', who wrote on 20 October:

"Lots of new posters signing up to debate this issue"

And I replied the same day:
 
"This was a very pertinent observation, sallypelt. Just after someone calld 'hotrot' joined up and posted on this thread.

It's usually good to welcome lots of new members to any discussion forum - and we have had well over 250 new members this month alone.

But there is something curious about a few of them.

The following members all joined within the last 4 days and all have posted exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on this thread.

They are:

logical
hotrot
Q71
sockpuppet
eiileen, and
jim nasium.

All these six have (a) fully supported the BBC Crimewatch/Redwood appeal to 'find Smithman' (b) stated how very credible the Smiths' sighting is and (c) poured scorn on those who dare to question the credibility of Martin Smith's evidence.

And often in particularly abusive terms, unusual for a brand new poster, like this from 'Eileen' today:

"I am disgusted that people who would claim to be interested in justice for Madeleine would want to cast aspersions on the honest witnesses in which Goncalo Amaral has placed his trust. Is it any wonder the media refer to us as 'Vile Trolls' and 'Nutters'..."

Strong stuff.

Where are you all coming from?"



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


I think I'm right in saying that all the above six were sooner or later outed as disruptors

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
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 joyce1938 on 30.09.14 11:21

not correct place to do this BUT I KEEP GETTING A NEW SITE ASKING ME TO MAKE MY OWN FUROM ,ITS  BIG PAGE AND IT IS FORUMATION ,BUT ITS NOT . COM  MAYBE .NET  ONE OR OTHER ?

joyce1938

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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