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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

After looking at this list of contradictions about the 'Smithman' sighting

18% 18% 
[ 9 ]
67% 67% 
[ 34 ]
15% 15% 
[ 8 ]
 
Total Votes : 51

SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.03.15 14:53

Placing here an update, in summary form only, of twelve contradictions revealed by what the Smiths have said about their 'Smithman' sighting:

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


1.  Creating two e-fits of different-looking men when they couldn’t possibly remember the face of the man

When they said they saw this man, they all admit it was dark.

When they said they saw this man, they all admit the street lighting was ‘weak’

They only saw him for a few seconds at the most.

Most of the Smiths say the man’s face was partly obscured, either by him putting his head down, or because the child’s face was obscuring his.

Each of the Smiths said they would never be able to reocgnise him again

Peter Smith said: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ ,26 May 2008).

It is claimed that they drew up their e-fits in 2008, probably at least a year after they say they saw him.

They produced two-fits of contrasting-looking men. One of them, compared with the other:

  • looks older

  • has a ‘fatter’ face

  • has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)

  • has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)

  • has a much shorter nose

  • has a much bigger chin, and

  • has smaller ears.


2. Did the man lower his head?

Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.

But Martin Smith statement “He put his head down”.

3.  Whether they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him – and   Martin Smith’s changes of mind

Peter Smith: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ).
All three of the Smiths told the PJ: “It is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph”.

Yet Martin Smith first said: ‘The man was definitely not Robert Murat’. Then, four months later, he said that he was sure the man was Gerry McCann. A few months after that, however, he co-operated with representatives of the McCanns, who were looking for an abductor, and helped them draw up two e-fits of the man they said they would never be able to recognise again.

4. What they saw of the child

Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”

But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”

Martin Smith said: “The man didn’t speak, nor did the child as she was ‘in a deep sleep’,” but how could he tell she was asleep, let alone in a deep sleep, if, as Aofie says, she couldn’t see the child’s face at all?”

5. Was the child wrapped in a blanket?

Daily Mail,  3 Jan 2008: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”.

Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”.

But Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual…  (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children].  They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.
 
7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)
 
Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½  years]

8. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “Aged 35 to 40”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “Aged approximately 40”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “Perhaps 34 or 35”

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “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”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ -  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”.

11. Not reporting his sighting despite thinking it could be Madeleine

Martin Smith statement to the PJ, 26 May: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”

Yet he and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

12.  Did Mary Smith approach the man and talk to him?

Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Mary Smith approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’”

Yet this is never mentioned by any of the Smiths when they made their statements to the PJ - and Mary Smith refused to give a formal witness statement.

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by mad world on 03.03.15 23:24

Sounds to me like they've been heavily leaned on rather than dishonest. But again their testimony regardless has to be dismissed purely on the basis that it is useless. Either liars or menaced by the people covering up what happened.

mad world

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.07.15 22:43

1. Martin Smith told a Drogheda, Ireland police officer on 16 May 2007 that he and members of his family had seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine was first reported missing

2. He says he only did so because his son Peter 'phoned him up that day and said: 'Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on 3rd May in Praia da Luz?'

3. Then, in his own words, Martin Smith he said that all of his family suddenly 'remembered that they had the same recollection' [if you can actually 'remember' a recollection]

4. It was thirteen days since Madeleine disappeared. There had been saturation coverage of Madeleine's disappearance on Portuguese, British and Irish TVs and in the papers, with repeated calls for people to come forward with information

5. Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well; he and his family confirmed that the two had 'met several times' over a period of at least 'two years'

6. Robert Murat was made a suspect in the case amidst massive media publicity on 15 May

7. When making a statement about what he had seen, Martin Smith was vague

8. However he was absolutely certain that the man he had seen was NOT Robert Murat

9. At the time he saw the man, he admitted it was dark

10. He said the street lighting was 'weak'

11. He only saw the man for a few seconds

12. He said he didn't see what the man was wearing above the waist because the child he was carrying obscured his view of anything 

13. He declared in a written statement that he would never be able to recognise him again if he saw him

14. Much later, Martin Smith said he WAS able to remember that the man was wearing a dark jacket

15. The description he did give of the man-carrying-a-child was a virtual carbon copy of the descriptions given to the PJ by Jane Tanner on 4 May and by Nuno Lourenco on 5 May of a man he said had tried to kidnap his daughter a week earlier

16. All three of these descriptions of a man-carrying-a-child had strange common features such as 'did not look like a tourist' and 'wearing cloth jacket and trousers' and 'dressed warmly'. It turned out that the man Nuno Lourenco identified was a Polish tourist, Wojeck Krokowski    

16. Smith told the PJ that the age of the man was '35-40'. But later, when helping the McCanns to upload an audio message to their website based on his description (still there today), he changed that to '34-35'. He has never provided an explanation of why he changed his statement 

17. Weeks and months went by...

18. Nothing more happened...

19. Until Martin Smith saw this image on the news on 9 September 2007...                



20. After that, he did nothing for another 11 days

21. But on 20 September 2007 he sprang into life, contacted the police once again, and said: "I'm 60% to 80% sure that that bloke I saw on 3 May 2007 [141 days previous] was Gerry McCann"

22. The police said 'Why?

23. Martin Smith said: 'Because of the way he was carrying Sean - just like that bloke I saw in the dark'

24. Martin Smith later changed his mind and since December 2007 has been co-operating with the McCann Team in maintaining that this man he saw could have been carrying Madeleine McCamn

25. He has since allowed his name to be used by BBC Crimewatch and the Met Police to endorse two e-fits of quite different-looking men as 'the man seen by the Smith family'. The former S.I.O. in the case, DCI Andy Redwood, announced on 14 October 2013 that this individual was not merely our 'focus' but, quote, the 'centre of our focus'

26. But these two e-fit images no longer feature either on the Met Police website or on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website.


Has Martin Smith told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about 'Smithman'?

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Verdi on 14.07.15 23:40

That's a very curious poll result so far.  I can understand why people might be unsure but I find it very difficult to see how anyone can believe the Smith family story without some reservations.

The thing that sticks out for me above all else is their failure to report the alleged sighting as soon as they became aware of Madeleine's disappearance.  A relatively small resort like PdL with a large ex-pat community, news travels fast - especially something as important as a missing child.  Maybe not the night of 3rd May but I'm certain they must have known the very next day and having seen a stranger wearing full attire and carrying a semi-clothed child at around 10:00 at night, you'd think at least one of the group would have associated one with the other.

Every point you make Tony I think is valid, even though one or two areas are perhaps slightly tenuous, that trifle doesn't detract from the overall picture.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3526
Reputation : 2052
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.07.15 23:52

@Verdi wrote:That's a very curious poll result so far. 
Agreed.

I think it's partly a reflection of some posters here having become convinced a long time ago that Martin Smith really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine.

When you've become convinced of something in your mind, even strong evidence the other way may fail to persuade one to change.

I think opinion has shifted and continues to shift on the issue of Smithman - and the poll might well have different results if re-run from scratch today

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Rob Royston on 15.07.15 14:49

The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.

Rob Royston

Posts : 72
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by comperedna on 15.07.15 17:12

I agree that those trousers are highly distinctive and unusual, and the buttons are just the sort of thing a child of her age might notice. Not only was a crumpled pair of them on the bed in 5a, I remember seeing a picture of GM wearing a pair of identical trousers... with those odd decorative buttons. (Never mind the face of the person carrying a child being shadowed in the half-light, or who he might be).

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by comperedna on 15.07.15 17:15

Tony, I don't think you can assume that people have earlier become convinced about the Smith sighting and so are rigidly sticking to that view. Even with all your amazingly detailed probing information which sheds light on the subject, there is still doubt  and I for one, feel the jury is still out.

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by joyce1938 on 15.07.15 18:28

No the jury is still out for me about the smiths sighting ,yes its been going on for some time and I guess we have got used to this ,so I still am not certain of this ,one way or the other .  joyce1938

joyce1938

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.07.15 21:53

@Rob Royston wrote:The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.

@ Roy Royston    I understand where you are coming from on this, and I concede that at first sight the mention by Aoife Smith of the man wearing buttons on his trousers is superficially persuasive.

You have mentioned a couple of very important points in your post (I’ve bolded them), and I’ll mention those as I go along.

In weighing up Aoife Smith’s statement, we must once again remind ourselves that when she says she saw this man with a child…

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

* The man had his head down

* The child was obscuring part of the man’s upper body and head 

* They only saw home, at most, for a few seconds

* None of them took any action to report their sighting for 13 days, and

* All of them said they would never be able to recognise him if they saw him again.


We must also bear in mind the truly remarkable level of similarity between the statements of Nuno Lourenco about Wojcek Krokowski, Jane Tanner and he Smiths about Smithman. As I’ve tried to suggest on the Wojcek Krokowski and Smithman threads, and as Richard Hall has also suggested in his ‘Phantoms’ film, there is evidence that all three were working to a pre-pared script.  


A further point is the unreliable content of so very many witness statements in this case of smoke and mirrors. Are we to make an exception for the Smiths, and not trouble to put them under any scrutiny at all?
 
Let’s now look, for example, at one reference you make ,as follows: “The man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her”. That is from Aoife Smith’s statement.
 
When she encountered this man, he was - she says - walking in the opposite direction to her and other family members. He suddenly appeared - her own words – two metres in front of her. That’s just over 6 feet, the length of a typical bed, or 2 to 3 paces.
 
So, by the time they have each taken just one more pace, they will very nearly have crossed with each other. A  typical pace takes just over half a second. By the time they had each taken one more pace, they would already have crossed. So Aoife Smith had no more than one second’s sight of this man, even on her own evidence. She says nothing about having then turned round do look at him behind her.   

With all that in mind, let’s look at exactly how Aoife Smith described the man and child:  
 
1 - the man was white
2 - the man was ‘light-skinned’
3 - the man was out ‘of normal complexion’
4 - the man between 20 and 30 years old
5 - the man was 1.75m to 1.8m in height (5’ 9” to 5’ 11”)
6 - the man was of ‘normal physique’
7 – she thinks the man was clean-shaven
8 – she doesn’t remember any tattoos, scars or earrings
9 - he had ‘thickish’ here
10 - the hair was light brown in colour
11 - his hair was ‘cut short’
12 - he was wearing trousers, which were beige in colour,
13 - his trousers were made of cotton
14 - his trousers possibly had buttons on them
15 - she can’t say what he was wearing on top because ‘the child he was carrying covered  him completely from the top’
16 - he was walking ‘normally’
17 - the child he was carrying was female
18 - the child had straight hair
19 - the child’s hair was long, down to the neck
20 - the girl was about four years old ‘because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height’
21 - she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder
22 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she says the child ‘appeared to be sleeping’
23 - the child’s arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck
24 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she thinks the child was white
25 - the child had no covering over her
26 - she was wearing trousers or pyjama bottoms
27 - they were ‘light’ in colour
28 - they were ‘white’ or ‘light pink’
29 - they were made of ‘light material’
30 - they could have been made of cotton
31 - she was wearing a top
32 - it was ‘light’ in colour
33 - it had long sleeves.
 
She added the following to her statement: “she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child again”.
 
Now just imagine for one moment that you are on a jury.
 
Forget for a moment that the case has anything to do with Madeleine McCann.
 
You are presented with a witness.
 
She is 12 years old.
 
She tells you that she saw a bloke in the dark.
 
She then tells you that she had no more than a second in which to see him.
 
You then hear her reel off a list of 33 separate details of the man and the child.
 
How, as a juror, would you assess the reliability of her evidence?
 
 
Now, @ Roy Royston, you correctly referred to one other very important matter You said, and I quote:  “If I remember correctly, a crumpled [sp.] pair [of Gerry McCann’s trousers with buttons on]  an be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards”.
 
That is right. There were very early photographs of Gerry’s trousers with buttons on available for all and sundry to see – certainly before the Smith s made their police witness statement on 26 May. I think he was photographed walking around in them.
 
If you’ve followed my arguments about the contents of the statements of Nuno Lourenco re the alleged kidnapper of his daughter, Jane Tanner and finally the Smiths, you’ll recall that I suggested that all three descriptions were based on an original description of an actual man, Wojcek Krokowksi.
 
And as we’ve seen, all the Smiths’ statement harmonise to a great degree with those of Nuno Lournenco and Jane Tanner.
 
All Aoife Smith has said is that ‘possibly’ (no more than that) the trousers of the man had buttons on. We surely cannot base a whole set of assumptions about the validity of her testimony just on the ‘possibility’ that she may have seen some buttons on the trousers.
 
But has it occurred to anyone how every easy it would be, especially for a 12-year-old girl who had been coached, to add in this little bit of detail to  add credence to her story?
 
How could she realistically have absorbed in her mind the possibility of button on the trousers, along with an incredible 32 more matters of detail, in no more than one second?
 
And one other thought. If, as some still suggest, it really was Gerry McCann walking with his newly-dead child through Praia da Luz and really had passed  a family of nine who saw him, would he really lay them open to public view just days later?
 
That is only one objection of many to the very idea that Gerry McCann might have been so stupid as to do this, and the very time his wife and friends were raising the alarm.

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by BlueBag on 15.07.15 21:56

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

BlueBag

Posts : 3417
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by notlongnow on 15.07.15 22:08

Has anyone been to the exact spot to see how weak the lighting was at 10pm.

So we have;

A) it was a proper sighting and description.
B) it was a proper sighting but not of GM
C) it was all made up.

surely if it was c, it would have been mentioned to the pj on the 4th not days later.
All imo.

notlongnow

Posts : 481
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.07.15 22:44

@notlongnow wrote:Has anyone been to the exact spot to see how weak the lighting was at 10pm.

So we have;

A) it was a proper sighting and description.
B) it was a proper sighting but not of GM
C) it was all made up.

surely if it was c, it would have been mentioned to the pj on the 4th not days later.
All imo.
@ notlongnow

A good point, but this is where you need to look closely at the 'Robert Murat' connection. Let me summarise:

1. The Smiths see nothing

2. So they don't say anything - obviously

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - 'several meetings' over 'two years'

4. Murat pulled in for questioning and made arguido on 15 May

5. [My hypothesis] Conversations between Murat and Smith (maybe via intermediaries) - Smith agrees to help Murat, gets template script, based on Krokowksi again, for the man he, er, didn't see 

6. 16 May - Smith 'phones police: 'We remember a bloke carrying a child, sorry we never mentioned this before' (various excuses for the delay given, see the OP)  

7. Martin Smith, son and daughter make statements in Portugal. Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

8. Over 4 months later, Smith is up to 80% sure the man was Gerry McCann

9. Another 4 months later, changes his mind, supports McCanns' version of events, tells people to look for the abductor, agrees to put his name to two e-fits drawn up by the Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5 and convicted shoplifter, Henri Exton  

10. Over 5 years after that, BBC Crimewatch, 14 October 2013

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by notlongnow on 15.07.15 22:53

What date was smiths description of what smithman was wearing given to the pj please.

notlongnow

Posts : 481
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.07.15 22:57

@notlongnow wrote:What date was Smiths description of what Smithman was wearing given to the PJ please.

Saturday 26 May 2007

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Richard IV on 15.07.15 23:03

@BlueBag wrote:
* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Richard IV

Posts : 510
Reputation : 242
Join date : 2015-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.07.15 23:12

@Richard IV wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

____________________

                            "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 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by notlongnow on 15.07.15 23:18

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@notlongnow wrote:What date was Smiths description of what Smithman was wearing given to the PJ please.

Saturday 26 May 2007
Thank you.

notlongnow

Posts : 481
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Richard IV on 15.07.15 23:32

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Richard IV wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?
No one can say you aren`t persistent and don`t put up a good argument Tony but a lot of us go on gut feelings.  Unless you can come up with definite proof that the Smiths are all lying, I don`t think your poll results are likely to change.

Richard IV

Posts : 510
Reputation : 242
Join date : 2015-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Verdi on 15.07.15 23:47

@Rob Royston wrote:The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.
Are you saying that the trousers with the buttons convinces you that the Smith family are to be believed or does it convince you that they are not to be believed.

The description of the Smithman trousers given by Aoife Smith to me is anything but convincing.  Time of night, dingy if not dark, a brief passing encounter of a stranger carrying a child?  That, along with the other detail given, is an awful lot to notice in a matter of seconds and to recall much later (3 weeks) without any prior reason to think twice about the roaming stranger.

Besides, if Gerry McCann was roaming the streets carrying the body of his child, or a substitute as some might think, and was seen by passing strangers - would he keep the trousers to wear again for press appearances or would he get rid of them?  A good point in itself - what was Gerry McCann wearing on the night of 3rd May?  No one seems to know, not even the PJ.  My guess is whatever he was wearing was hastily destroyed.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3526
Reputation : 2052
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Joss on 16.07.15 4:59

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Richard IV wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?
And that is why witness evidence is not very reliable in criminal cases, and there has to be other more solid evidence to support a case of getting a conviction in a Trial.
The "Smith sighting" IMO is far too sketchy to hold up under scrutiny.

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by BlueBag on 16.07.15 7:06

@Verdi wrote:The description of the Smithman trousers given by Aoife Smith to me is anything but convincing.  Time of night, dingy if not dark, a brief passing encounter of a stranger carrying a child?  That, along with the other detail given, is an awful lot to notice in a matter of seconds and to recall much later (3 weeks) without any prior reason to think twice about the roaming stranger.
Precisely.

BlueBag

Posts : 3417
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by joyce1938 on 16.07.15 10:40

I am not certain of this but , did mr amaral say that the smiths did go back to luz quite early to give evidence ,he would know ofcourse as he would have been around at that time ? As for not reporting it the next day , I am not too surprised . One might play around in their mind first ,didn't seem too unusual for someone to carry child back or to somewhere ,so maybe didn't really find it too revelent straight away ,its quite a difficult thing for some to do really ,obviously one would need to be certain of facts of what your reporting,not as simple as it looks today , by the way I am still on the fence I just cant find it to be certain. joyce1938

joyce1938

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by comperedna on 16.07.15 11:39

Possibly saw buttons? Why did buttons on the side of trousers enter her head at all unless she saw them? (NB This is a separate issue than who the man was, and what he was doing carrying a child.) I have never seen decorative buttons like that. They are extremely distinctive, and I do not think likely to be make-up-able IYSWIM.

As with all your extremely well researched theories Tony, fact is piled upon fact, is piled upon fact, and the sum total of it all tends to persuade. I bought your original booklet/pamphlet about the McCann case years ago, and in that case was definitely persuaded by the totality of your list of presented facts and arguments.

Most of the points you mention here are 'sins of omission'. 'Why didn't they do X or Y', or 'Why didn't they do it sooner?'  I guess i think people can often be passive, or unsure, or maybe not wishing to get involved, or maybe they mean mean to do it, but something more pressing comes up instead. In the same circumstances, I would do X, you would do X, and quickly, but other people may be more lackadasical, or muddled, or inclined to change their minds - unsure about much of what they had seen, expecially if the light was poor. I do not think that many of us would care to assume early on, without hard proof, that the Smith family are all liars.

Also, you have to multiply in spades the conspiracy possibility if you assume the Smiths are all liars including the children. Very difficult to 'bind' a child to lying.

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Post by Rob Royston on 16.07.15 12:06

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Richard IV wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?
What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

Rob Royston

Posts : 72
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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