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

by Angelique 30.09.14 11:28

I might be in a strange position regarding Smithman in that I think I am in a minority of one. I can't accept that the Smiths could have helped with the e-fits even though they are attributed to them. But I do think they look like Martin Brunt and Gerry McCann. The e-fits which were sat on along with the Report by the McCanns have somehow now been used to shore up a sighting but I don't understand why. The fact that Redwood sat the McCanns with these enlarged e-fits behind them is even more strange.

But I think given all the points Tony has raised that the sighting by the Smiths cannot be reconciled with the e-fits.

We know that GA was attempting to bring the Smiths to Portugal - what we don't know is what he had in mind.

joyce
Same here can't understand what is going on!

by joyce1938 30.09.14 12:51

Angelique,i have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be o k soon. I also don't really think that the smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of who ever we need to make of them . I haven't got the energy to go dig ,but for what ever reason ,don't think ot was the smiths .jiyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 13:02

joyce1938 wrote:Angelique, I have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be OK soon.

I also don't really think that the Smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of whoever we need to make of them. I haven't got the energy to go dig, but for what ever reason, don't think iot was the Smiths joyce1938

@ joyce1938 re the forum, Forumotion has a notice on its website today saying there will be problems on and off for a while throughout the Forumotion empire, IIR it was for 'server upgrades' or sommting like that

re the Smithman efits, for me, the strange way that DCI Redwood showed us 2 e-fits that quite honestly did NOT look the same, coupled with the sly way that Matthew Amroliwala told us the e-fits were made by 'two of the witnesses' but specifically did NOT say that these two e-fits were made from the recollections of the Irish family were two of the early indications that something was badly wrong about these e-fits.

I'm glad that you and Angelique and see this. From there I looked in details at when these sightings were reported and what the Smiths said (dark, weak street lighting, only saw him for a few seconds, his head was down etc. and that made me still mores suspicious about the whole thing.

@ Angelique I can see why you think the two people might be Gerry McCann and Martin Brunt - there are indeed superficial resemblances - but quite honestly I could put up thousands of images/photographs of blokes between say 25 and 45 and you would see superficial resemblances to loads of other people as well

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 14:41

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

by Angelique 30.09.14 14:43

joyce1938 wrote:Angelique,i have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be o k soon. I also don't really think that the smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of who ever we need to make of them . I haven't got the energy to go dig ,but for what ever reason ,don't think ot was the smiths .jiyce1938

Many thanks for your information about site re-enforcment smilie

I hope its made of powerful stuff we may need it judging by what is happening elsewhere!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 14:52

Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

by Angelique 30.09.14 15:00

Tony

I can't explain why I think that the e-fits look like the people I think they look like. I remember on the CW edition when Redwood displayed these two pictures. It just something that I immediately thought. I also picked up on the fact that although Redwood presented them I believe he too, felt uncomfortable about them. Something in his demeanor. As you know I have stated elsewhere that it was Exton saying they were his that made me think I was right. That he got them slanted towards these two people for spite, derisive and contemptuous.

I am obviously wrong as you say you could supply many other similar faces.

by bobbin 30.09.14 15:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 15:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

So it could be argued that people with morals wouldn't do such a thing (maybe if they were desperate) and I actually believe the Smiths have morals. Now to your experience (which is not valid) how many cases of worldwide press and media coverage about a missing child where the parents got these young children to lie to the police, were you involved in???

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 15:17

bobbin wrote:
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.

Agreed.

When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.

A very good question, though bear in mind two things:

1. Do we know, or don't we, what trousers Gerry was actually wearing on the night of 3 May 2007, and

2. If we DON'T know that, what would be the relevance of Aoife Smith 'thinking' the man's trousers had buttons?

Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons. The timing here is critical.

The timings around this time are very very interesting:

13 May - Tanner identifies Murat as the man carrying a child

15 May - Murat declared suspect

16 & 17 May - Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien say they saw Murat hanging around G5A & Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May

16 May, or maybe 17 or 19 May - Peter Smith has his 'Am I only dreaming?' moment

20 May -22 May - Gerry McCann returns to England with his camera

22 May - Both Gerry McCann and Tony Rickwood's wife Philomena McCann fly into Faro Airport

24 May - Last Photo produced

25 May - Gerry McCann makes announcement to world's press giving vague details about a man carrying a child

26 May - Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith give their statements to PJ at Portimao Police Station

Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

by joyce1938 30.09.14 15:40

I,does anyone else recall this ? think I saw picture of buttoned trousers on bed in macs apartment after the event .? defiantly saw this ,but cant vouch for time line of events photo was taken . joyce1938

by Guest 30.09.14 15:41

bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

Gerry gets to work on the wider agenda 14/15 June 2007
SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 4 Zzgerryflipchartd

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

The trouser buttons

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 4 Gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-10pg8i

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 4 Gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-10pg8i

Same crumpled check shirt and beige trousers? Could be taken on the same day but does this have a relevance?

by joyce1938 30.09.14 15:46

notice the wrist watch ,had heard or read they had said no one was using wristwatches ,how could they be so sure of times to go check kids if no one knew time ? joyce1938

by bobbin 30.09.14 15:55

Gollum wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

Gerry gets to work on the wider agenda 14/15 June 2007

The trouser buttons

Same crumpled check shirt and beige trousers? Could be taken on the same day but does this have a relevance?

Thank you Tony and gollum.
So the Smith statements were made 26th May and this photo shows 14th/15th June.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id329.html
Sunday 6^th May 2007
Can’t see the buttons though.

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting' - Page 4 0clip_image002

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id9.html

apparently Maddie’s 4^th Birthday, so 12 May 2007, IF the button trousers.

I can't paste photos across but Gerry is wearing beige trousers on 6th May and 12th May at least, but to me they look different in colour/material/texture from the button ones.

Can anyone find the photo of the beige trousers on the bed, photographed by the police on night of 3rd May 2007.

The reason, Tony, is obvious. If the 'button' trousers didn't emerge on press/photos until AFTER Oaife's statement then there is a greater chance of her memory being a true representation of what she thought she had seen rather than one of later /auto suggestion.

by Rufus T 30.09.14 16:31

Here is a link to the trousers on the bed photo

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg

@ Tony, or anyone else who can help. Do we actually know the exact date that Mr Smith contacted the police or are we just making an educated guess? I realise it may not be important but it will at least stop me wondering .

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 16:33

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
Photo 17

ETA Beaten to it!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 17:18

Rufus T wrote:Here is a link to the trousers on the bed photo

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg

@ Tony, or anyone else who can help. Do we actually know the exact date that Mr Smith contacted the police or are we just making an educated guess? I realise it may not be important but it will at least stop me wondering .

@ Rufus T

The date of Martin Smith contacting the police was a bone of contention between me and tigger/Bagheera.

I had said that Smith contacted the police on 16 May, on what I consider the best available evidence.

tigger/Bagheera said that was not 'a fact', and I have conceded that (see below).

I have many times noted that Martin Smith contacting the police followed swiftly after Murat was made a formal suspect on 15 May.

I gave a full answer to tigger/Bagheera on this very point on the 'Smithman 2' thread, in which I condede that the time of the report to the police could have been anywhere from 16th to 18th May - not before, not after. Here was my answer:

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

10. Did the Smiths report their sighting the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect?

I wrote: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' the very day after Robert Murat was made a suspect - whatever interpretation is put on that fact”. 

Bagheera came back with: “No it absolutely isn’t. In the first place the source is the press. In the second place Peter Smith arrived home on the 4th. Two weeks make it the 18th. Which works well with the following events which included a two days wait for LP to contact them and subsequent booking of flights to PdL. In short we do not know the date but if you want to go by the Drogheda Times it makes it the 18th, 14 plus 4”.

Bagheera later wrote: “As for the date of the 16th May - allegedly when M. Smith phoned the PJ - well before a description of bundleman was given out - that is conjecture. A date was never given in any article or statement I have seen”.

REPLY: I cheerfully concede to Bagheera that it is possible that I may have overstated my case by saying that the Smiths came up with their sighting ‘the very day after’ Robert Murat was made a suspect. For the purpose of the ongoing debate re Smithman, I will change that, for the moment, to: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' very soon after Robert Murat was made a suspect”.

Robert Murat was made a suspect on 15 May.

My source for believing that the Smiths reported their sighting on 16 May comes from the Irish Mail on Sunday report of 10 August 2008, where we read this: “Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may. One said: ‘Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland...”

I believe this quote from a ‘friend of the family’ to have come from Clarence Mitchell. I believe that Mitchell would not be inaccurate when he speaks with such precision about Smith reporting his ‘sighting’ ‘13 days later’. This is 16 May, and I stick with that as the best evidence we have about the date the Smiths reported their sighting, i.e. the date when Peter Smith made his he ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ telephone call to his father.

Even if, as Bagheera suggests, their report to the Gardai came as late as 18 May, it does not fundamentally alter my two key points:

1. That they waited an inexplicably long time before reporting their ‘sighting’ (I said it was 13 days, you say it may have been 15), and
2. Their ‘sighting’ came very soon in time after Robert Murat was made a suspect.

Looking further at the evidence, Martin Smith says: “We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police”. Two weeks from when, though? According to you, tigger, only Peter Smith returned on 4 May, the others (including Martin Smith) returned on 9 May. Two weeks after 9 May brings us to 23 May, and I think we will be agreed that the ‘Am I dreaming or something’ telephone call (if it ever happened, that is) was before then. At all events, the three Smiths made their statements at Portimao Police Station on 26 May. I will see if we can establish the dates of the ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ ’phone call from Peter and the date of Martin Smith’s call to the Gardai, which may of course have been the same day.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 17:30

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.
So it could be argued that people with morals wouldn't do such a thing (maybe if they were desperate) and I actually believe the Smiths have morals. Now to your experience (which is not valid) how many cases of worldwide press and media coverage about a missing child where the parents got these young children to lie to the police, were you involved in???

Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 18:01

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?

First of all tell me exactly how many cases there have been - say in the last century or so - of parents generating and sustaining what you refer to as 'a worldwide media storm' about a missing child.

(And adding, per Dr Gerald McCann, 28 June 2007: "I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term" - how right he was!)

You needn't bother to reply, as I will provide the answer:

ONE.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 18:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?
First of all tell me exactly how many cases there have been - say in the last century or so - of parents generating and sustaining what you refer to as 'a worldwide media storm' about a missing child.

(And adding, per Dr Gerald McCann, 28 June 2007: "I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term" - how right he was!)

You needn't bother to reply, as I will provide the answer:

ONE.

Good so you admit your experiences are not relevant. So if we then move on to your unfound allegations that the 12 year old Miss Smith lied to the police in one of the biggest cases 'of the last century' can you now see how your theory is fundamentally flawed??
Go on admit it you've based your theory on flawed logic!!

by Rufus T 30.09.14 19:27

Thanks Tony for your reply regarding when they contacted the police, it does seem very likely that it was on or about the 16th then, I just couldn't find an exact date anywhere.

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 20:58

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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.

Nope! Looks nothing like Gerry.

There's no way Grange, on the basis of Smiths' statement, hadn't use the rest of the intelligence / evidence in conjunction to rule Gerry in or out being Smithman before mounting an expensive televised appeal to go on a witch hunt on the e-fits. Given Smiths testimony, Gerry would have been Grange first point of scrutiny. Had they given credence to Smiths quantified belief, at the very fundamental they would have to work out the plausibility of Gerry being Smithman or not, come to a conclusion he wasn't, before they shift direction. If Smithman is still waiting to be eliminated using appeal, it's apparent Gerry was ruled out. Otherwise it makes no sense for Grange to seek info they won't need.

by Guest 30.09.14 20:59

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

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source. It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 21:08

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

by Guest 30.09.14 21:08

aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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.

Nope! Looks nothing like Gerry.

There's no way Grange, on the basis of Smiths' statement, hadn't use the rest of the intelligence / evidence in conjunction to rule Gerry in or out being Smithman before mounting an expensive televised appeal to go on a witch hunt on the e-fits. Given Smiths testimony, Gerry would have been Grange first point of scrutiny. Had they given credence to Smiths quantified belief, at the very fundamental they would have to work out the plausibility of Gerry being Smithman or not, come to a conclusion he wasn't, before they shift direction. If Smithman is still waiting to be eliminated using appeal, it's apparent Gerry was ruled out. Otherwise it makes no sense for Grange to seek info they won't need.

The two e-fits are a joke, totally impossible to produce from the vague description given by any of the three Smith family members. Even if they were drawn up nearer to the time of the sighting let alone months later.

Still I guess some mystery man is necessary to keep the abduction theory on the boil. This farce has got to end at some stage, it can't go on indefinitely, so what better than 'abduction' rubber stamped to conclude the case pending any new evidence that may emerge it x number of years, like never.

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

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