Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

by **Jill Havern** 05.10.15 23:04

guest12345 wrote:Ah yes, I forgot, forget logic and reasoning, you can't disagree with any theory of Tony Bennett's can you, apologies.

Not hard to work out where you've come from winkwink

by Angelique 06.10.15 0:27

joyce1938 wrote:This subject is in DNA. It seems it had never been tested before, and has come with great surprise. It's in Daily Mail today, 5th October, please have read of it if you can. I can't be trusted to get the whole thing in my head to repeat, word from word, and prefer it be correct. But the gist of it is this, DNA has always thought that in the case of IVF, the egg would only contain genetics of donor. Well, it has been said today after tests over time, they are most amazed that in fact, the mother who has inplant of eggs, you can test and find that her womb has leached some of her DNA into the child, so in fact it seems to mean that said child would have a bit like 3 parents. I think we might find this of interest? joyce1938

joyce1938

Well, I would say - yes that is very interesting.

If I remember correctly there was a result which contained a mixture of three - was it in the car?

Maybe this needs to move to relevant thread or new one ?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.15 11:17

guest12345 wrote:
Patronizing people once again Tony and once again 'your way or the highway'. Having said that, it appears that no matter what is put into the discussion, it will be unpicked by yourself, so you 'win the argument' as you put it. Ok Tony, for the sake of this 'argument' as you put it (discussion), you are right, anyone else is wrong, including all police forces involved.... Madeleine died earlier in the week and every man and his dog was involved in a big plan to cover each other and help their friends, the McCanns escape justice for effectively killing their child.

I really didn't expect you to prove my point about your having lost the argument and resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks quite so soon.

But there you are, you have.

I ought just to put clearly on the record that I have not said either that 'Madeleine died earlier in the week' nor that 'the McCanns effectively killed their child'.

To get back on topic, what I think I have demonstrated by the OP is that Martin Smith effectively was taken on board as part of the McCann Team in early 2008. And has remained on board with them ever since.

Not everyone agrees with me.

However, I have truly not seen one post on this thread or anywhere else that can counter my argument in the OP.

Nor for that matter have I yet seen a persuasive argument that the Smiths were always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

by guest12345 06.10.15 11:25

I really didn't expect you to prove my point about your having lost the argument and resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks quite so soon.
Oh put a sock in it Tony and put your dictionary down.

But there you are, you have.
Not really, as previously stated, i have responded to your discussion points (or 'attacks' as you like to label them)

I ought just to put clearly on the record that I have not said either that 'Madeleine died earlier in the week' nor that 'the McCanns effectively killed their child'.
Ok, if we are nit-picking, you said.... I start with these working assumptions:

1. That something may have happened to Madeleine very early on that week (see e.g. recent posts by HideHo, Hobs and PeterMac)

2. That there was a whole group who then set about creating a plausible abduction scenario, teeing up the breaking of the news that Madeleine was missing for Thursday evening. That group may have had 3 to 4 days to plan this

What else do you think happened to her earlier in the week that prompted days of subsequent planning? and do you now think she was alive all week, but kept shut away until they were ready to act out the abduction scenario??

To get back on topic, what I think I have demonstrated by the OP is that Martin Smith effectively was taken on board as part of the McCann Team in early 2008. And has remained on board with them ever since.
You mean works with/for them? Another paid actor to add to the ever increasing group to help concoct a bafta winning performance cover up?

Not everyone agrees with me.
I have to disagree with you on that one. I think Smith had an alliance with Murat only

However, I have truly not seen one post on this thread or anywhere else that can counter my argument in the OP.

Nor for that matter have I yet seen a persuasive argument that the Smiths were always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication, to get Murat off the hook.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.15 11:41

guest12345 wrote:Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication,

REPLY: Agreed

to get Murat off the hook.

REPLY: That's a likely reason, but I suspect may be only part of a more complex story.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.

REPLY: Disagree. That was only a small by-product of the exercise.

The main functions of Smithman as used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special were:

1. To reinforce public perception that there ever was an abduction, and
2. To clear the way for an eventual announcement by the Met that they believe that Madeleine was killed by a burglar between 9.10pm and 10.00pm, the Smithman sighting giving Operation Grange 50 minutes for the abduction/burglary instead of 5

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.

REPLY: You have the evidence that the McCanns have used Smithman since 2008:

* Ex-head of MI5 draws up two e-fits, says they're provided by the Smiths
* Smithman used TWICE in Mockumentary May 2009
* Smithman promoted on McCanns' website ever since May 2009
* Smithman on 7 pages of Kate McCann's book May 2011

etc.

by guest12345 06.10.15 12:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication,

REPLY: Agreed

to get Murat off the hook.
REPLY: That's a likely reason, but I suspect may be only part of a more complex story.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.
REPLY: Disagree. That was only a small by-product of the exercise.

The main functions of Smithman as used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special were:

1. To reinforce public perception that there ever was an abduction, and
2. To clear the way for an eventual announcement by the Met that they believe that Madeleine was killed by a burglar between 9.10pm and 10.00pm, the Smithman sighting giving Operation Grange 50 minutes for the abduction/burglary instead of 5
You don't know that this will be what they announce, but yes, i too suspect it is to widen the window of opportunity to give a more realistic abduction time frame, or possibly (ulterior motive) to add weight to the neglect from the parents through leaving her unchecked for so long and thus also account for the cadaver scent in 5a

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.
REPLY: You have the evidence that the McCanns have used Smithman since 2008:

* Ex-head of MI5 draws up two e-fits, says they're provided by the Smiths
* Smithman used TWICE in Mockumentary May 2009
* Smithman promoted on McCanns' website ever since May 2009
* Smithman on 7 pages of Kate McCann's book May 2011

etc.
Yes, i agree they have used it to their advantage where they can, hence me stating that they are going along with it.

Unfortunately, due to the conditions in which the (fabricated) smithman sighting was undertaken, it can never be used in court, thus is easy to discredit if ever required.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.15 10:48

pennylane wrote:
There's not a doubt in my mind they feared the Smith sighting, even going as far as to eventually (2+ years later) morphing him into Tanner's alleged (earlier in the evening) 'swarthyman' sighting.

Just how many times do I have to spell out how the McCanns - and latterly the Met & BBC Crimewatch - have actively used the so-called 'Smithman' sighting? >>>

* 2008 - Got the Smiths to agree to the Henri Exton e-fits
* 2009 - Used twice in the 'Mockumentary'
* 2009-15 - Promoted on the 'Find Madeleine' website
* 2011 - Mentioned on 7 pages of Kate's book
* 2011 - Kate publishes 3-page table of 'striking comparison' between Tannerman and Smithman
* 2012 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* 2013 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith again, ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* Oct 2013 - BBC Crimewatch MCann Show, fully supported by the McCann Team, features Smithman as 'the centre of our focus'.

Is it not as clear as the finest crystal that the so-called 'Smithman sighting' has been used by the McCanns, and not 'feared'?

Remember Wendy Murphy

[ @ Mod - we are off-topic. Move to the recent Smithman thread? ]

by pennylane 11.10.15 10:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
There's not a doubt in my mind they feared the Smith sighting, even going as far as to eventually (2+ years later) morphing him into Tanner's alleged (earlier in the evening) 'swarthyman' sighting.
Just how many times do I have to spell out how the McCanns - and latterly the Met & BBC Crimewatch - have actively used the so-called 'Smithman' sighting? >>>

* 2008 - Got the Smiths to agree to the Henri Exton e-fits
* 2009 - Used twice in the 'Mockumentary'
* 2009-15 - Promoted on the 'Find Madeleine' website
* 2011 - Mentioned on 7 pages of Kate's book
* 2011 - Kate publishes 3-page table of 'striking comparison' between Tannerman and Smithman
* 2012 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* 2013 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith again, ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* Oct 2013 - BBC Crimewatch MCann Show, fully supported by the McCann Team, features Smithman as 'the centre of our focus'.

Is it not as clear as the finest crystal that the so-called 'Smithman sighting' has been used by the McCanns, and not 'feared'?

Remember Wendy Murphy

[ @ Mod - we are off-topic. Move to the recent Smithman thread? ]

Sorry Tony I profoundly disagree with your conclusions on this subject for reasons that have been cited many, many times over the years. It seems pointless debating it anymore.

I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith. roses

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1

by Ray_Sneek 24.10.15 19:28

pennylane wrote:
I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1

So why did the Smiths make up two quite different e-fits?

Why did the police not produce one composite e-fit (as they usually do)?

by joyce1938 24.10.15 23:34

I think it has been said, the Smiths did not put the photo pics together. joyce1938

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 0:11

But Grange in answer to FOI affirmed that the Smiths did, IIRC.
Do you not believe Grange?

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.15 0:12

joyce1938 wrote:I think it has been said, the Smiths did not put the photo pics together. joyce1938

You raise an interesting point here.

What is the usual way of getting an e-fit out to the public?

Someone is attacked, or robbed.

They get a good view of their attacker.

They report this to the police immediately.

The victim describes what s/he remembers, with the help of a police artist, shall we say a 'forensic artist'.

And ONE e-fit is circulated. Usually within days.

Contrast that with what happened in this case:

1. Sighting not reported at all for 13 days

2. When sighting eventually reported, it turns out to be almost exactly the same as two other claimed kidhappers/abductors:
(a) Krokowski - by Nono Louenco
(b) Tannerman - by Jane Tanner.
All three kidnappers/abductors had: beige/cream trousers, warm cloth clothes, classic shoes and 'didn't look like a tourist'.

3. The people who saw him did so:
(a) only for a second or two
(b) in the dark
(c) with poor street lighting
(d) the man's head was obscured because his head was down and the child was partly hiding his face, and
(e) all three witnesses said they'd never be able to recognise him again

4. When these three witnesses were interviewed on 26 May by the PJ, no e-fits were drawn up

5. After well over four months, one of the three witnesses seemed to think that the man he'd seen was Gerry McCann

6. The basis for this was the way he was carrying his son on his left shoulder - exactly the same, actually, as every other person carries a toddlr on their shoulder

7. Months later Martin Smith changed his mind and began co-operating fully with the McCann Team

8. The e-fits were drawn up by the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, Henri Extron

9. The two e-fits to most people's eyes do not look like the same man at all

10. It looks like each was produced on a different computer program

11. They were kept under wraps for over 5 years, first by the McCanns, then (so the McCanns say) by Leics Police and the PJ - and from August 2011 to October 2013 (two years and two months) by Operation Grange

12. On the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, DCI Redwood didn't actually say that the two e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. He said they were drawn up by 'two of the witnesses'

13. Redwood said that these two e-fits were now 'the centre of our focus'

14. On the day these e-fits were first shown to the British public, 1,989 days had elapsed since 3 May 2007 when this 'sighting' was supposed to have happened.

Can anyone seriously look at that extraordinary history, and then look me in the eye (in a manner of speaking), and tell me they honestly believe that the Smiths really saw a bloke on 3 May 2007, looking like these two very different e-fits?

Hidden in the true story of this 'sighting', and the origin and use (or rather misuse) of these two-fits, are some very important jigsaw pieces indeed in the complete 'jigsaw puzzle' of the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.15 0:17

aiyoyo wrote:But Grange in answer to FOI affirmed that the Smiths did, IIRC.
Do you not believe Grange?

I think nearly everyone who's signed the petition asking for a Home Office report on Grange is sceptical to a greater or lesser degree about whether Grange is an honest pursuit of the truth.

And in recent years it's been repeatedly shown that some of our most senior police officers are capable of some of the biggest lies ever told - they protected Jimmy Savile for 50 years for starters

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 1:54

Tony Bennett wrote:I think nearly everyone who's signed the petition asking for a Home Office report on Grange is sceptical to a greater or lesser degree about whether Grange is an honest pursuit of the truth.

And in recent years it's been repeatedly shown that some of our most senior police officers are capable of some of the biggest lies ever told - they protected Jimmy Savile for 50 years for starters

I beg to differ.
Until we see the conclusion of Grange, there is no way of predicting definitively what their pursuit is. 4 years does seem hell of a long time in active investigation to pursuit the perpetrator/s of a shelved case, but if they were meant to white wash it what could they be investigating, dragging on for so long? Using any excuse will suffice surely?

While it may be the case that some senior police officers can be blind to crime taking place under their noses, to lie/mislead in the answers to FOI questions is an entire different context. Putting black on white is irrefutable evidence that cannot be argued away. There is no good reason why Grange would put themselves in that position laying themselves open to risk of future ramification?

by pennylane 25.10.15 14:46

Ray_Sneek wrote:
pennylane wrote:
I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1
So why did the Smiths make up two quite different e-fits?

Why did the police not produce one composite e-fit (as they usually do)?

Two e-fits were made up because the description was not taken from one person, and the Smith family saw a man carrying a pale skinned blond little girl from different angles and remembered different things.

The police did not produce a composite e-fit because they were looking for Tannerman's earlier sighting and were focussed on Tannerman, but that focus was rapidly shifting. The McCann's buried their investigators' work (imo because they got too close to the truth) and swore Henri Exton and Co to secrecy. Goncalo Amaral was about to re-interview the Smith's but was taken off the case.

Alas for the Mc's the Internet was awash with daily discussions of the Smith sighting, and they had no choice but to slip it in somewhere, or forever fuel the suspicions that it was indeed Gerry McCann the Smiths saw! Still they waited until the case was shelved and good and cold (even though they had 24/7 access to the media), and with their usual sleight of hand, deftly morphed Smithman into Tannerman... even though Tanner described a swarthy long dark haired man, and the Smith's described a man with short clipped brown hair. I say again, the McCanns feared the Smith sighting or they would have produced it immediately.

I believe if Amaral had not been taken off the case, the Smith sighting would have taken center stage early on.

imho

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.15 23:44

In another place, 'canada12' has recently posted this paragraph regarding Smithman:

QUOTE

I also believe that because of the delay in the Smiths reporting their sighting, Gerry deliberately got off the plane carrying Sean in exactly the same way that whoever it was had carried the little girl through the streets, hoping that he would jog the Smiths' memories and force them to come forward to claim they'd seen an abductor, thus bolstering the abduction claim. I don't think he counted on them giving an efit description that closely resembled him, though.

UNQUOTE

There were some other most remarkable theories on that thread. But none so imaginative as that one.

@ canada12, trying to be both fair and kind, I would like to congratulate you on achieving a higher degree of ingenuity regarding the alleged 'Smithman' sighting than anyone else has been to date - and that really is saying something.

So, let me get this right, not only did 'whoever it was' carry 'the little girl' through the streets of Praia da Luz around the time the alarm was raised, but just to make sure that the Smiths came forward (again) to claim that there had been an abduction, Dr Gerry McCann deliberately carried Sean, coming down the plane on 9 September, on his left shoulder, in exactly the same way as 'whoever it was' had carried 'the little girl' through the streets of Praia da Luz over four months earlier?

Just to get noticed by Martin Smith?

Yes?

Lucky he was watching the telly that night, then?

'canada12' also adds that: "I believe [the Smithman sighting] it was an improvised attempt to prove there was an abductor. Whoever it was - and it might have been Gerry - definitely intended to be seen, and I don't believe he was carrying Madeleine".

So, according to this theory, someone carried a young girl in pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz that night.

According to canada12, this could have been:
* Dr Gerry McCann
* Dr David Payne
* Dr Russell O'Brien
* Dr Matthew Oldfied
* Stephen Carpenter
* Neil Berry
* Jez Wilkins or, well,
* just about any handy person.

And that person had readily available a blonde girl of about 3 or 4 years of age, who was, well, already asleep somewhere in her pyjamas - or was willing to suddenly change into them at 10.00pm - and was paraded around the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold windy early May night - just so that (hopefully) someone might think it was Madeleine being abducted.

This is the absurdity one gets into when one ignores the raft of evidence that the Smiths made up their account of 'Smithman' - fairly obviously using a carbon copy template description based on strangely-dressed tourist Wojcheich Krokowski.

As per Richard Hall's film, 'The Phantoms':  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU


You don't believe the Last Photo has been photoshopped as well, do you?

ETA: @ canada12

I see that in the other place, you've now admitted this - and asked a question: "For some reason I wasn't aware that they'd already come forward... why did I think they didn't come forward until after Gerry was seen on TV carrying Sean?"

REPLY: This won't make me popular with you or anyone else, but the answers are all in my OP's on the 'SMITHMAN' threads.

There, you can read how the Smithman 'sighting' was made very public in newspaper coverage (a) around 3rd-6th June and (b) around 8th August 2007.

Most of those who still maintain that (a) the Smiths really saw someone and (b) saw Gerry McCann, have simply not read all the evidence that I've produced about him here, nor I suspect have they troubled to view Richard Hall's film 'Phantoms', which explains in detail how Sagresman, Tannerman, Smithman and Crecheman are all fabrications.

This explanation fits so many of the known facts, and also explains why, as I set out on this 'SMITHMAN 8' thread, Martin Smith became an active supporter of the McCanns since way back in December 2007, and actively helped them to promote the 'Smithman' sighting ever since.

Even though the evidence suggests that the entire sighting was (a) fabricated and (b) based on a description of Wojchiech Krokowski - the man who 'didn't look like a tourist', wore cloth clothes, cream- or beige-coloured trousers, and classic shoes

ETA2:   There's been a welcome dose of common sense from one poster over the road (nannygroves), but not I'm afraid from one of their regulars (chirpyinsect).

nannygroves wrote:

Three different men roaming around PDL carrying a child on a cold spring evening. What rubbish! One thing we can safely say is that Redwood's Crècheman was a figment of HIS imagination. As if this farmer (I think) would come to light so late in the day...but hey, what a revelation! I think one thing that we can be sure of when hearing about the Crimewatch Crècheman - and that is [that] there is a cover-up in operation. And just knowing that puts a hugely different complexion on the 'abduction' scenario. There were obviously people on the ground willing, ready and able to help - so the whole rushed panic job is just a myth. I believe the logistics are just a side issue and probably a smokescreen. The WHY is more important than the HOW.

REPLY: First, a small correction - the official Operation Grange line is now that there were just TWO men roaming around the streets of Praia da Luz, in the dark, on a cold windy night, carrying a child clad only in pyjamas - and withouy the child's mother being present or having a buggy. These were (sez Redwood): Crecheman (9.15pm) and Smithman (10.00pm). I've bolded three bits in nannygroves' post - three excellent observations, nail on the head each time...pleased to see it

================

But now to chirpyinsect, who wrote this:

]tony Bennett] bangs on about the Smiths co-operating with the Macs - but has admitted to having no proof of this. True there was an Irish voice on the Find Madeleine website - but has Mr B ever heard MS speak? Never heard of voice over actors? Perhaps the Smiths were leant on and threatened with litigation by someone. We know how litigious they are.
The very fact they have never cashed in on this but remained silent tells me they are truthful as it is a clear case of them following orders from the PJ to say nothing. That part is fact...

REPLY: Where to start? First, a number of corrections:

1. I have provided ample evidence, amounting I say to proof, that the Smiths, or rather Martin Smith in particular, has co-operated with the McCann Team since December 2007
2. The one and only thing that I have not 'admitted' to is that I cannot prove that he consented to his statement being changed for the Find Madeleine website. He'd already changed his statement once, starting off with '35 to 40'. In his second statement, he changes this to 40. Then, for the Find Madeleine website, his statement is mysteriously changed to 'the man was 34 or 35'. Besides undermining still further Martin Smith's credibility as a witness, we have to ask why this further change to the age of the man was made. I presume that Martin Smith agreed. But I concede it is possible that he did not.
3. Of course I recognise that Martin Smith's actual voice wasn't used. Had chirpyinsect read my 'Smithman' posts he would have seen that not only did I say it was an actor's voice, but I also added that despite Martin Smith living in the Irish Republic, the actor's voice used on the Find Madeleine website was Northern Irish in accent.

The only point of potential agreement I will cheerfully concede in chirpyinsect's post is where s/he says this: "Perhaps the Smiths were leant on and threatened with litigation by someone". I do regard that as very possible.

As to the Smiths allegedly NOT co-operating with the McCanns, it would be very good if s/he would explain which (if any) of the following factual statements s/he disagrees with:

1. That Martin Smith agreed in December 2007 to co-operate with the McCanns
2. That Martin Smith spoke to Brian Kennedy
3. That Martin Smith arranged with Brian Kennedy for Henri Exton to visit him
4. That Martin Smith was visited by Henri Exton (and possibly at least one other)
5. That Martin Smith was shown and consented to Henri Exton drawing up two e-fits of men's faces which look, to most people, very different from each other
6. That he made public statements urging the public to 'find the abductor' (thus overruling his claim that he had seen Gerry McCann
7. That in advance of a shortened 30-second version of his statement going online on the McCanns' website, he may be presumed to have agreed to the wording
8. In addition he must be presumed to have co-operated with the changing of the age of the man he saw from '40' to '34 to 35'
9.  That he knew and did not object to the McCanns making use of his claimed 'sighting' in the May 2009 'Mockumentary
10. That he knew and did not object to the McCanns making use of his claimed 'sighting' in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', published in May 2011.

(In relation to points 7 to 10, I will concede that it is possible that, as chirpyinsect has suggested, "Perhaps the Smiths were leant on and threatened with litigation by someone". What is not in doubt at all (though some people still do) is that the McCanns made heavy and prolonged use of the Smithman sighting from 2009 onwards)

by **Tony Bennett** 25.11.15 0:09

Comments on a discussion of ‘SMITHMAN’ in another place: PART ONE

Yesterday there were several comments about ‘Smithman’ on another forum. I saved them and below I respond to the main points of that discussion. Today it seems that thread, along with most other topics about Madeleine, has now been closed to the public. Oh well, never mind…

Comments over there in black; mine in blue

chirpyinsect: I can't quite go along with G carrying Sean to jog the Smiths’ memories as they had already come forward by then.

REPLY: Yes, canada12 was mistaken and was not aware of that. Martin Smith’s claimed sighting of a man carrying a child was first made public as early as 6 June 2007.

chirpyinsect: They had all 3 given statements and then one or more of them went to Portugal on the same day coincidentally as Gerry gave a press conference where Tannerman was revealed to the public (but not the fact that JT saw him).

REPLY: A few facts wrong there. Martin Smith reported his sighting somewhere between 16 and 18 May, but almost certainly on 16 May, the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect. The Smiths didn’t make statements then, they all (Martin, Peter & Aoife) made their statements on 26 May in Portugal. This was the day after Gerry McCann spoke to the world’s press (25 May) about a man carrying a child.

canada12: They gave their first statements to the Gardai around the 16 to 18 May.

REPLY: Almost certainly 16 May.

canada12: Some dispute about this. PS returned to Ireland on May 4th but MS didn't go back until 9 May. Around 2 weeks later they reported the sighting, but is it 2 weeks from the 4th or the 9th?...I wish this could be clarified as the delay is my only stumbling block about the Smiths.

REPLY: They meant two weeks after 3^rd/4^th May i.e. 16-18 May.

canada12: It has long been believed that only those 3 gave statements but Mrs Mary Smith had refused to give another statement in September which implies she had given one already. I also came across this from PS statement of 26 May 2007:

Adds also that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was wearing a long-sleeved coat, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot.
Never saw that before.

REPLY: From these comments it is evident that sometime in May 2007, before 26 May, the Irish Gardai spoke to Mrs Mary Smith and to TA***.

chirpyinsect: We can see clearly that Martin Smith was asked not to comment by the PJ in case it compromised the investigation. He also declined to give details to the DI newspaper.

REPLY: True, but then he drove a coach and horses through his claim that he couldn’t comment by:

1. Talking to Brian Kennedy

2. Talking to Henri Exton

3. Drawing up e-fits with Henri Exton…
…absolutely none of which was authorised by the Portuguese Police – and at a time when Martin Smith knew fine well that Gerry and Kate McCann were still suspects.

chirpyinsect: Henri Exton was shocked to see the e-fits produced on Crimewatch as new evidence. He produced them some 5 years before. He also had questioned the Tanner sighting but this was kept quiet.

REPLY: It’s admitted by all that Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5 but dismissed after stealing a bottle of perfume at Manchester Airport, drew up the efits. As to what Exton says about being ‘shocked’ and questioning the Tanner sighting, well, we only have Exton’s word for that.

chirpyinsect: The questioning of the Tanner sighting and related timeline were kept quiet. One detective said he was ‘utterly stunned’ to see his five-year-old dossier suddenly presented as new on TV.

REPLY: That was also Exton.

poster ( = j.rob): I do still find it odd that they delayed giving the police information about the sighting. Even if the sighting was completely innocent, Smithman would still be a very important eye-witness so why did the Smiths delay, if indeed they did - do we know this as a fact?

REPLY: Yes.

Mimi wrote: Two newspapers recorded that Martin Smith reported it to the GNR 2 days after MBM went missing (I assume this means the Sunday after the Saturday when he saw part of his family return to the UK) and they didn’t take it seriously as they were focusing on Tannerman. When I pointed these news articles out, TB replied with a put-down. Fair enough, I realise that the MSM get things wrong and it may not be true, but obviously it came from somewhere.

REPLY: My ‘put-down’ consisted of informing Mimi of these very relevant facts:

1. These claims of Martin Smith having approached the GNR or PJ were never ever mentioned, anywhere, until the day of the BBC Crimweatch programme, 14 October 2013

2. None of the Smiths ever mentioned this in any of their statement to the police or the press over a period 6 years

3. The press reports to which Mimi refers have no detail whatsoever of how he approached the police - in person? by ’phone? By visiting Portimao Police station? Nothing. Nothing at all.

canada12 wrote: I think if it was Gerry that the Smiths saw, he was trying his best to hide his face...and I think he was counting on the words of the other Tapas friends to provide his alibi, and perhaps there was some jemmying of the times, so that it would be impossible for Gerry to be in two places at once. If you can figure out the actual timing of everything, and you can dismantle some of the Tapas friends' testimonies, then I believe you can easily show that it could have been Gerry carrying a small blonde girl - it could have been Jane Tanner's daughter. If it was Gerry it is strange that he did so little to disguise himself. But maybe with so little time to think after the 9.15pm failure TM were running around like headless chickens and it was a question of 'needs must.'

REPLY: A whole lot of speculation here – and wholly based on accepting the Smiths’ testimony as the truth.

chirpyinsect: Here's something that struck me. TB is vehement in his claim that MS created Smithman to get RM off the hook.

REPLY: chirpyinsect has a most unfortunate habit of continually misrepresenting what I have said. I have stated in detail my many reasons for doubting that the Smiths are truthful witnesses. All I have said is that there is some evidence that Martin Smith might have known Robert Murat better than he’s admitted – and that ot is possible that his motive for fabricating his evidence (if he did) may be connected to his acquaintanceship with Murat. I have indeed suggested that he ‘might have been doing a favour for someone hje knew. Hardly ‘vehement’.

chirpyinsect: So suppose that RM contacted MS to ask him for an alibi sometime after he was declared an arguido. Why on earth would MS and RM then make up a story about seeing someone carrying a child? RM has always claimed he was at home that night, verified by his mother. OK mothers lie for sons. So IF this is all a lie, why become embroiled in a situation where seeing a man with a child was mentioned? Could MS not just have said he called Casa Liliana on some pretext and Mrs M answered then put him on to Robert thereby establishing that R was at home. Bingo. No need to get his family to lie and say they saw a man who was nothing like Robert. The whole thing is too preposterous if made up.

REPLY: You would have to say that Martin Smith’s conduct is odd in a number of respects. He says nothing until Murat is made a suspect. He is adamant it is not Murat. Then he is 60% to 80% sure it is Gerry McCann. Just weeks after that, he is chatting to Brian Kennedy and inviting Henri Exton into his home and is clearly backing the abduction claim! I honestly can’t explain this conduct - but I do draw attention once again to the overwhelming evidence that the Smithman description is clearly based on Wojchiech Krokowski, and is near-identical to Tannerman – ‘didn’t look like a tourist, clothes made of cloth, cream/beige trousers, ‘classic shoes’ etc.

chirpyinsect: How do we explain this though? "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”.

Both things cannot be true. Either they reported it at the time or only put 2 and 2 together 2 weeks later.

REPLY: Crucial point, I agree.

Dee Coy: I also think this reads very credibly as to why they didn't come forward immediately:

Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection.

"We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith.

"We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.

"We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day.

"But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."

This, coupled with the fact that you wouldn't expect a kidnapper to be wandering around with his victim a fair distance from the abduction point - common sense would dictate you would assume there would have been a getaway vehicle - and I can quite see why it took a couple of weeks for the penny to drop.

REPLY: If that was the only explanation the Smiths gave for the delay, I would concede that Dee Coy has made a fair point. But the trouble for Dee Coy’s case is that they made several contradictory statements about why they delayed so long.

These contradictions are set out on this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10354-smithman-4-a-summary-of-discrepancies-in-what-the-smiths-say-about-their-sighting – titled “A Summary of Discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their sighting”.

That OP doesn’t just cover the contradictions about the different excuses for the Smiths not reporting their sighting for two weeks. It covers all manner of other contradictions as well. It is very likely that Dee Coy has not read it.

I will reproduce that part of the OP where I deal with reasons for the delay:

----

QUOTE

The Smiths’ stated reasons for their delay in reporting their claimed 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…”

Statement given to Irish newspapers:

[ NOTE: The probable date of Peter Smith’s ‘phone call to his father (if it happened at all) was 16 May, but could have been 17 or 18 May ]:

Martin Smith is quoted as saying: “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".

3 January 2008, Daily Mail:

“Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection. ‘We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken? We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police’, said Mr Smith”.

‘We only remembered him after coming home’, Drogheda Independent, 9 January 2008:

Peter Smith also told the Drogheda Independent: “…it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife. When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man’, Peter added. He went on: ‘We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy’.”

‘If only we’d remembered the next day’, Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

Martin Smith: “We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day. But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time” [ Note: When did the Portuguese police ever say that to him? ].

REASON 2: On 4 May ‘I thought it could have been Madeleine’

Statement made to PJ:

“He only became aware of Madeleine’s disappearance ‘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”.

REASON 3: ‘We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting’
Peter Smith: It was the coincidence of the time

Peter Smith’s statement: “Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 21H55/22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day
— At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

We found out the exact time Madeleine disappeared

Drogheda Independent, 8 August 2007 – article based on interview with ‘a family member - possibly Peter Smith: “They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.

“As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members [Peter Smith – see above] had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory”.

“They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.

Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is’, said the family member.

Sun, 3 January 2008: The time of Maddie’s abduction was revealed

“The Smiths were leaving Kelly's Bar…between 9.50 and 10pm on May 3 last year.

“They flew home to Ireland the next day, but when the times of Maddie's abduction were revealed, the family remembered seeing a man, 5ft 7in to 5ft 9in tall and dressed in beige, carrying the child. Significantly the description matches that given by Jane Tanner, 37, a friend of the McCanns.

REASON 4: The descriptions matched

The description was similar to Tanner’s; Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

“Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner…Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: ‘Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important’."

REASON 5. ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’

[ NOTE: Tthis story appeared in the Daily Mirror on 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special. It had the hallmarks of a story facilitated by the McCann Team. It included several quotes from Martin Smith ]:

“A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.

“Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago”

“But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier”.

Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace - spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm - was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche”.

[ NOTES: 1. This is the first time that Martin Smith claims that he had contacted the Portuguese police and that they ‘failed to take his evidence seriously’

2. The way the article reads totally misleads readers by suggesting that the Portuguese police took details for an e-fit yet went on to ignore this

3. It is also misleading in suggesting that the police were ‘too bust’ chasing up the sighting of another man, ‘Tannerman’. In fact (a) the police were suspicious of Tanner’s claimed ‘sighting’ from Day One, and (b) as we know from Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book, he did take the Smiths’ sighting seriously ]

UNQUOTE

by **Tony Bennett** 25.11.15 0:19

Comments on a discussion of ‘SMITHMAN’ in another place: PART TWO

chirpyinsect: You were all correct a few weeks ago when you advised this has been his mantra for so long.

REPLY: Whatever.

chirpyinsect: He cannot or will not see that there is a possibility that WK was the original template for a scenario that only involved planting the idea that there was a lurking pervert in the vicinity. Had it all gone to plan there would have been no Smithman.

REPLY: I am afraid that chirpyinsect has completely ignored (or forgotten) all that I pointed out about the effect that the Nuno Lourenco sighting had on Goncalo Amaral and his team. Because Lourenco’s description was a carbon copy of Tannerman, the PJ were sent on a veritable wild goose chase involving INTERPOL, the German police and the Polish police - and detaining all the passengers on Krokowski’s plane at Berlin airport. So, a reminder then for chirpyinsect from Amaral’s book:

QUOTE

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28^th…

UNQUOTE

chirpyinsect: Whoever Smithman might have been, he was brought in to bolster the abduction theory simply because the child died unexpectedly. Now there was no live child to be abducted/ kidnapped/ carried off in broad daylight so what to do?
Who looks nearest to the description NL is going to give? Matt... too tall. RoB... leave me out of it. David... too stocky. Guess it's up to you Gerry. So off he goes with a decoy to be seen a short distance from the OC. Bugger 9 flippin Irish tourists. Quick, now I need an alibi....Jane here's the script.

REPLY: A mountain of sheer speculation based on chirpyinsect’s faith that the Smithman sighting is genuine.

chirpyinsect: TB has no proof whatsoever that:

A Martin Smith retracted his opinion that Gerry could be Smithman
B That MS collaborated with TM or
C That he agreed to anything that was said on the official website or in the mockumentary
D That MS approved changes to the age of Smithman on the website or was aware of his statement being spoken by an actor.

REPLY: Therefore chirpyinsect believes that all of the above was done without his knowledge or consent. Also, if Martin Smith still thought that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, why would he (a) make public statements asking people to look for the abductor and (b) fully co-operate with the McCanns’ private investigators?

chirpyinsect: Kennedy did approach MS to request his participation in efits but has anyone considered that, due to the ongoing dispute between Exton and TM, perhaps it was Exton who tried to frame Gerry?

REPLY: Was chirpyinsect being serious?

Dee Coy: I agree, chirpy. TB has consistently for some time put forward the view that MS began 'cooperating with the Macs since December 2007'. One of the reasons he cites for this is Exton's visit to MS. I believe his assumption to be that Exton and Kennedy intimidated MS into said cooperation as he, Exton, was in the McCann employ.

But we now know that Exton appeared to be making headway into the investigation, in a way that doesn't appear to have sat comfortably with the McCanns. His findings were allegedly not handed to OG for some time and the efits retained for some time. A reminder of what the Sunday Times said:

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

So if Exton's work did not suit the McCann line, is it fair to assume that far from influencing MS into lending his support for Team McCann, his visit would have been at least neutral, and even perhaps the opposite of "arm-twisting"?

REPLY: Two simple problems for Dee Coy here:

1 She believes every word Henri Exton says, and

2 The article was so libelous that Sunday Times had to pay out £55,000 libel damages and legal costs on top.

Mimi: On 7th April 2008 the Sun Newspaper reports Martin Smith as saying: "We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith. This is quite feasible to me if we accept that Martin Smith had already reported it to the GNR on the 5th May - he thought nothing of it until his son brought the subject up. So that’s when he phoned the PJ - think it was the 16th May.

But the Sun newspaper also reports Martin Smith as saying "We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day." Now this is where things aren`t right. I can`t understand Martin Smith saying this because he said in his statement that he became aware of Madeleine being missing on the Saturday [she means Friday - T.B.] having been told by his daughter and at that time thought he could have seen Madeleine. Yet 3 newspapers report that he reported it to the GNR on the Sunday but they did not take him seriously.

REPLY: Good. Mimi realises there is a big problem in the contradictory things the Smiths have said about not reporting their sighting for two weeks.

by pennylane 25.11.15 9:53

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

Before I (try!) and answer your question(s) could I ask a simple yes/no question of you?

Do you believe a sighting by the Smiths occurred at all?
No, I don't believe a word of what they all claim about this sighting, I don't believe they saw anything at all.

However, I was essentially replying to your hypothetical question, which I paraphrase: "if this 'sighting' was fabricated, so what? - where does it lead us?"

Thanks. That should make it easier for me to get my simple point across, which I spectacularly failed to do with how I phrased/framed the question!

If your belief of them never seeing anything is true, it is a very serious crime itself and I would agree that needs to be dealt with. Just separately and/or another time.

Given the above my point is the Smithman debacle becomes (directly) irrelevant to what happened to Madeleine so why waste time and effort on the issue right now?

As it stands right now I believe the Smith sighting to be genuine. It probably got complicated with TM sending in the heavy mob to "persuade" them to change certain aspects and OG spent 2012/13 getting to the bottom of it before
presenting it on Crimewatch. I really can't see all of the Met/BBC being involved in presenting a total lie to the nation.

I'm open to being proven wrong, however.

I agree with you TTWO, the Smith sighting is genuine! I also believe the Nanny Catriona Baker was with Maddie every day (except perhaps Sunday) as she claimed, and Maddie was alive on 3rd. There are other witnesses besides CB, and by the last day of Maddie's short little life, I believe the lie would not be viable. I also believe Mrs Fenn heard the crying on the 1st. To suggest that ALL these people, including the Smith family who were out having an innocent drink at the end of their holiday, are endlessly lying regarding a missing 3 year old child for me (at least) lacks credibility, unless they are directly involved in her sad fate, which I do not believe for one second they are.

As I have said countless times, I believe they found Maddie after the ball was rolling and went into self survival mode, and if we are correct re sedation and neglect, I fail to see what else they could have done without a car at their disposal. I believe G had a specific place in mind, and had to take the shortest route, and was seen as a result! imo Tanner's role was a desperate attempt to give G an alibi because he feared he would be identified. The entire evening is a botched mess that lacks pre-planning. (imho).

by Richard IV 25.11.15 10:37

I also believe the Smiths and Mrs. Fenn. Not so sure about Cat Baker though.

To put myself in Martin Smith`s position for a moment, the only reason a man would lie and get his family to lie is if he himself is involved in something pretty mucky and is protecting himself, but it would have to be really really bad to go to the lengths he has supposedly gone to. A stiff prison sentence would be on the cards for him if he has been lying all along.

Also in his position, would he do it for money, is he being bribed? - again, no IMO. No amount of money IMO would make him take such a risk - and does he need the money?.

So, if Tony is right, this probably means MS was up to his neck in something pretty dirty before MBM went missing. Maybe RM and BK too (and IMO SM).

by pennylane 25.11.15 11:09

Richard IV wrote:I also believe the Smiths and Mrs. Fenn. Not so sure about Cat Baker though.

To put myself in Martin Smith`s position for a moment, the only reason a man would lie and get his family to lie is if he himself is involved in something pretty mucky and is protecting himself, but it would have to be really really bad to go to the lengths he has supposedly gone to. A stiff prison sentence would be on the cards for him if he has been lying all along.

Also in his position, would he do it for money, is he being bribed? - again, no IMO. No amount of money IMO would make him take such a risk - and does he need the money?.

So, if Tony is right, this probably means MS was up to his neck in something pretty dirty before MBM went missing. Maybe RM and BK too (and IMO SM).

To state a little child was alive when she was not, or seen when she was not, is a heinous and serious lie that totally disrupts the investigation, and is a crime. I don't think people generally would go down that road unless to save their own skin, or they are so low as to take a bribe. It's not feasible to me that one would hop onto that bandwagon, where the death of a child is concerned.

On the opposite end of this spectrum however, what I do think possible is some witnesses may not want to get involved, especially if on holiday and about to leave. That is human nature sadly.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.05.17 10:20

A U.S.-based McCann-sceptic, Isabelle McFadden, has launched a Twitter poll on the Smith sighting.

She calls herself 'Isabelle McFabulous' and 'The Queen of Portugal' on Twitter. I think she is Portuguese born of Portuguese origin.

In introducing this poll, she wrote:

"Do you believe Mr Smith, as he he [sic] was very sure he saw Gerry #mccann carrying unresponsive Madeleine towards the beach?"

She gives two poll options:

(1) Yes, Smith saw Gerry, or
(2) No, just a Gerry lookalike.

So there's an obvious flaw in the poll question. She simply does not allow for a third possibility, as set out in the OP here and the other SMITHMAN threads, that the Smiths fabricated their sighting.

Moreover, there is a second flaw. Smith was NOT 'very sure' that he saw Gerry McCann. He waited four months and 17 days before saying he thought he had seen Gerry. And even then he was only '60% to 80%' sure. McFadden knows this. So why did she deliberately mislead her followers on Twitter?

It's important too, to note that McFadden rejects the views of all those, like PeterMac, HideHo, Richard Hall, sharonl and so many others now on CMOMM that something very serious may have happened to Madeleine as early as the Sunday or Monday.

Not only that, but those of you who recall discussion of the 'Mark Souster Affair' on here will recall McFadden's deep involvement in that, in which she admitted to long conversations with the head of the McCann Team's investigation, Brian Kennedy. Kennedy, according to McFadden, had expressed a wish to collaborate with McFadden as he was 'impressed with her as the best person to work with on the Madeleine McCann case (!) (or words to that effect).

McFadden's support for the Smith sighting being a true sighting of Gerry is of course backed by the MetPolice's flawed Operation Grange investigation and indeed by the McCanns themselves, who used the Smith sighting in the May 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary' and for the past EIGHT years have played a recording of a summary of the Smith sighting on their website.

There can hardly be clearer proof (a) that the McCanns have made good use of the Smith sighting for eight years and (b) that Martin Smith has been actively collaborating with the McCanns for even longer.

As indeed I explained fully in the OP.

Quite why McFadden deliberately ignores this evidence - AND collaborates with Brian Kennedy - AND supports Operation Grange - is a deep mystery.

by Liz Eagles 31.05.17 10:23

I couldn't care less what's being promoted about the Smith sighting.

I don't believe it to be credible.

Unless the Smith sighting is tested by the PJ and Scotland Yard and brought to a court of law (unlikely) then it's worth nothing which is part and parcel of why I treat its existence with complete suspicion.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.06.17 9:58

aquila wrote:I couldn't care less what's being promoted about the Smith sighting.

I don't believe it to be credible.

Unless the Smith sighting is tested by the PJ and Scotland Yard and brought to a court of law (unlikely) then it's worth nothing which is part and parcel of why I treat its existence with complete suspicion.

Very very interesting!

A day after I challenged Isabelle McFadden about the validity of the Smith sighting, she has issued a tweet today on Twitter which undermines all her arguments. Here is her tweet:

Madeleine CaseTweets ‎@McCannCaseTweet

An expert w/ years of experience told me, it's very possible Madeleine #mccann died earlier than May 3rd *sees some planning in calls made

So what is the significance of this?

First of all, if McFadden is now thinking that Madeleine died earlier than 3 May, then that directly contradicts Goncalo Amaral's theory that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Yet only yesterday McFadden was trumpeting Amaral's book (no problem with that!) but also saying that she stood by everything in his book, including death after 6pm and the Smith sighting. It is a remarkable change of opinion after just one day.

Second is the impact a death earlier than 3 May would have on the Smith sighting.

If McFadden is right about death earlier than 3 May, THEN the likelihood that Gerry McCann would rush through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm with a body that had been dead for 24 hours or more - and at the very same time as his wife and friends were raising the alarm - is surely zero.

Third, McFadden says she has heard from "an expert with years of experience" who says says that s/he "sees some planning in calls made".

Well, that is precisely what we would expect to find.

If the expert produces evidence from telephone calls of pre-planning, then that is 100% in accord with the theory promoted by e.g. PeterMac, HideHo, Richard Hall, sharonl, Hobs and so many others here on CMOMM and elsewhere - namely, that something very serious must have happened to Madeleine as early as Sunday or Monday.

For example, we have the clear evidence set out on this forum that Nuno Lourenco, together with others, deliberately fabricated his lie about 'Sagresman' (i.e. Wojchiech Krokowski) having allegedly tried to kidnap his daughter at Sagres on Sunday 29 April. Richard Hall also set out this matter fully in part 1 of his film 'The Phantoms' (LINK to HideHo's YouTube upload of 'The Phantoms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU

The Bible says: "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".

Likewise, there is joy on CMOMM when one believer in Amaral's theory of 'death after 6pm on 3 May' changes her mind.

.

by Liz Eagles 01.06.17 12:48

The Operation Grange Crime Watch bonanza with TWO different productions of a reconstruction that never took place in real terms (i.e. the Tapas 9 refused to do one), wasn't aired in Portugal and wiped out Creche man as being a credible sighting with no evidence to introduce Smith man with still no evidence of it being a credible sighting.

Operation Grange is a farce.

For all the reasons Tony Bennett has painstakingly pointed out - neither sightings are credible and both of them are highly suspicious.

SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Did the Smiths effectively become McCann supporters after January 2008?