SMITHMAN 12: Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

colleenlowe wrote:I have just seen an interview between Sandra Kate and Gerry about the night that Madeleine went missing where Kate quite clearly states that she went in to do her check at 10 o clock and as she checked the bedroom Madeleine was there, if she was there when she checked at 10 o clock and then her body was swiftly removed as Kate states would the removal of the body at this time be more of an accurate timing for the Smith sighting,or did Kate mean to say that Madeleine was not there i am quite new to this so sorry if it is not in the correct place, i have never believed that Gerry was carrying a dead body through the streets of Praia De Luz but do think that the planned abduction was maybe planned earlier but Gerry meeting Jez changed things.

I really cannot understand for the life of me why anyone on this forum is now taking up time worrying about what did or did not happen at about 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd May. 

Right on the home page of CMOMM, it says this:

"CMOMM™ is an investigative forum that researches the death of Madeleine McCann, which we now believe occurred much earlier in the week, possibly the Sunday or Monday".

Which I agree with. And the forum has also promoted a letter to the Portuguese Attorney-General which provides convincing evidence that there are no photos of Madeleine after Sunday, together with other compelling evidence that she died that day or the following day.

If people want to believe that the Smiths are sincere people who were only doing their best to help everyone, that is fine. Maybe they really did see a man carrying a young blonde girl dressed only in pyjamas.

But what possible relevance does that sighting (if there was one) have, if Madeleine was already dead on Sunday or Monday, and her body had clearly been well hidden long before Thursday?

The events of Thursday evening were surely just rehearsed play-acting.          

eye4truth wrote:I really cannot understand for the life of me why anyone on this forum is now taking up time worrying about what did or did not happen at about 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd May.

Right on the home page of CMOMM, it says this:

"CMOMM is an investigative forum that researches the death of Madeleine McCann, which we now believe occurred much earlier in the week, possibly the Sunday or Monday".

Which I agree with. And the forum has also promoted a letter to the Portuguese Attorney-General which provides convincing evidence that there are no photos of Madeleine after Sunday, together with other compelling evidence that she died that day or the following day.

If people want to believe that the Smiths are sincere people who were only doing their best to help everyone, that is fine. Maybe they really did see a man carrying a young blonde girl dressed only in pyjamas.

But what possible relevance does that sighting (if there was one) have, if Madeleine was already dead on Sunday or Monday, and her body had clearly been well hidden long before Thursday?

The events of Thursday evening were surely just rehearsed play-acting.

You are 100% correct.

Apart from that, when folk are trying so hard to convince the world that the Smith family sighting is genuine, they overlook the crazy notion that Gerry McCann would be carting the body of his child around the streets of Luz - it's preposterous. Even in a state of panic and confusion (as you say a moot point anyway), who would be so dumb as to parade their victim around for all to see? They had luggage bags, they had blankets, they had clothes - why would anyone carry a child around in April/May partially dressed when so many alternatives are available?

Besides, in a state of panic the senses are awakened, people react instinctively - fight or flight!

GMC or someone else could have been carrying a decoy child around,it is possible,
As I have posted before it would give credence to an abduction.

For me, the oddest thing about the Smith sighting is the willful ignoring of it by the McCanns and Clarrie. I can understand why they would shun it after Smith reckoned it was Gerry they had seen, but why did they avoid it in the period of June-Sept before this happened. During this time they promoted a variety of men, from Mexican bandito types to dodgy Scandinavians to unfortunate acne sufferers. Such was their interest in a small blonde girl seen months later being carried in far-off Morocco, that we are told one wealthy chum had put his private plane on standby to whisk her home should it turn out to be Madeleine. The McCanns even visited Morocco on the off-chance she had been taken there. Totally innocent people, seen anywhere in the world in the company of small blonde girls (and in one case a long-haired boy!) were trumpeted all over the press. All the while, team McCann completely ignored the family who claimed to have seen a man carrying a deeply asleep child, possibly in pyjamas and matching their daughters description, at a time matching the abduction!

jazega wrote:GMC or someone else could have been carrying a decoy child around,it is possible,
As I have posted before it would give credence to an abduction.

What, risk being seen and identified by passing strangers and carrying a semi-clad child? They'd already got Jane Tanner's stranger nicely sewn up, why would they want another stranger abductor roaming the streets with a semi-clad child an hour later? Plus the story of the potential abductor on the beach at Sagres was already 'in the bag' so to speak.

Unless of course the Smith sighting was to add credence to poor old Jane Tanner's wishy-washy stranger. The description of the stranger and child by the two factions revealed marked similarities - never to be ignored! There might have been insignificant variances, like hair length; shade of trouser; shape of nose etc, but both wholeheartedly agreed on the 'not dressed like a tourist/didn't look like a tourist' and the carrying of a child who appeared to be dressed in pyjamas - that is the important area to be considered, not slight variances in colour and fabric.

Verdi - because, as I've surmised, the original planned "abduction" shout was earlier (at 9.30pm, that required JTs correlating sighting. But Jez threw an unwitting spanner in the works. So a later "abduction" shout had to be quickly planned and this required another sighting.

If this person was not GM, and it was not the body of Madeleine (lifeless or otherwise) it wouldn't matter if they were seen or stopped. 

But then you abhor theorizing.

polyenne wrote:Verdi - because, as I've surmised, the original planned "abduction" shout was earlier (at 9.30pm, that required JTs correlating sighting. But Jez threw an unwitting spanner in the works. So a later "abduction" shout had to be quickly planned and this required another sighting.

If this person was not GM, and it was not the body of Madeleine (lifeless or otherwise) it wouldn't matter if they were seen or stopped. 

But then you abhor theorizing.

@polyenne

Your posts are very welcome on this forum and Lizzy, in particular, has found them useful.

But please quit with the sniping comments directed at Verdi especially when he wasn't even replying to you. He is a moderator doing his voluntary job.

Thank you

Noted and compliant. Please accept my apologies, and to you too Verdi

Kudos, guys. You’ve convinced me. I had previously thought  Smithman was Gerry giving himself an alibi, but clearly not
Hmmmmmm

Eye4truth I too believe that Madeleine died on Sunday or Monday I did not say I thought she died on Thursday I was just asking if people thought she was dead in the apartment or somewhere else and then swiftly removed on the Thursday night because of all the comings and goings on that night

Question 13 is a bit weak 

Why, would anyone on holiday, go for dinner then... shock, horror! drink MORE afterwards!?

Some good points in there but I bet you could make a much stronger argument reducing the list by half.

curioskeptio wrote:Question 13 is a bit weak 

Why, would anyone on holiday, go for dinner then... shock, horror! drink MORE afterwards!?

Some good points in there but I bet you could make a much stronger argument reducing the list by half.

Indeed. I for one love to go the pub for even more drinks after a meal, whether I'm on holiday or not! 

There are many weak questions. For example question 21: was there a blanket? The Daily Mail said there was but he Smiths said there wasn't. The answer is in the question. Besides, when do we start trusting what the Daily Mail says? Also, anther example is question 20: How could the Smiths know she was in a "deep" sleep as opposed to a not-deep sleep? Well one would assume that if a child is being carried through the streets in pjs on a cold evening and is sleeping right through it, they would be in a deep sleep...no?

There are too many weak questions like this which, in my opinion, kind of discredit the overall argument. (No disrespect to Tony and his personal opinions though, they definitely warrant debate.)

absolutely.  and i wouldn't wish my comments to be taken disrespectfully.  sometimes less is more.

Its important to try to look objectively at things and I think a lot of those questions could be answered 'how does this categorically disprove Gerry was Smithman?'

Whilst I am open to the idea that Smithman was Gerry carrying a (sedated E**a), what I cannot understand is why Gerry would put himself in that position if, a few minutes later, they would claim that an abductor took Madeleine.

In other words, the McCanns claim an abduction and, to reinforce this idea, then set out to provide a fake abductor who needed to be seen. This sighting happened to be by the Smiths who did indeed subsequently identify the abductor.......as being the abducted child's father !!

polyenne wrote:Whilst I am open to the idea that Smithman was Gerry carrying a (sedated E**a), what I cannot understand is why Gerry would put himself in that position if, a few minutes later, they would claim that an abductor took Madeleine.

In other words, the McCanns claim an abduction and, to reinforce this idea, then set out to provide a fake abductor who needed to be seen. This sighting happened to be by the Smiths who did indeed subsequently identify the abductor.......as being the abducted child's father !!

You just wouldn't. Not if they'd already decided to have that "abductor sighting confirmation" by Tanner at 9:15pm.

Mark Willis wrote:

polyenne wrote:Whilst I am open to the idea that Smithman was Gerry carrying a (sedated E**a), what I cannot understand is why Gerry would put himself in that position if, a few minutes later, they would claim that an abductor took Madeleine.

In other words, the McCanns claim an abduction and, to reinforce this idea, then set out to provide a fake abductor who needed to be seen. This sighting happened to be by the Smiths who did indeed subsequently identify the abductor.......as being the abducted child's father !!

You just wouldn't. Not if they'd already decided to have that "abductor sighting confirmation" by Tanner at 9:15pm.

Exactly Mr Mark - a point I have made myself in the past, on more than one occassion.

Gerry was talking to Jez on the street when Tanner walked by and allegedly saw the abductor. But Jez never saw Tanner (because she wasn’t actually on the street) and Gerry knew that.
So another abductor sighting had to be occasioned.

Jeremy Wilkins and his partner Bridget O'Donnell, left the Ocean Club on Saturday 5th May 2007, returning to the UK at the end of their holiday.

Case coordinator Goncalo Amaral faxed a letter to Operation Task (Leicestershire Constabulary) in the UK on 7th May 2007, suggesting questions to be asked of Jeremy Wilkins, including the following with reference to his meeting with Gerry McCann on the night of 3rd May 2007..

What did they talk about at this time and for how long ?

- When he was talking with GERALD, did any of Gerald's group pass by ?

- If so, who ?

- When he was talking with GERALD did he see whether anyone passed by carrying a child in the road near the apartment block ?
----------

Jeremy Wilkins deposition from the same date,  7th May 2007, responds thus to questions posed..

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.

He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks he may stay in one night'

I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.

He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far. I then walked back to the apartment. I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm."
----------

As can be seen, no mention of anyone in the vicinity other than someone carrying a child.

However, during Jeremy Wilkins rogatory interview taken on 8th April 2008, he has this to say on the subject..

Q. Relative to the exact location you met Gerry'

I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner. At the next crossing, I turned right and continued on down the hill. At this point, I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception. I believe that he was with a woman but I cannot be precise of any detail about her. It was a tall Caucasian man, with blonde hair in 'rasta style' tied with a band instead of free flowing. When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area. He also was in the WC but appeared to be a taking a long time. I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left. I did not see a woman in that zone. I had never before seen this man and did not see him after this.

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk.
----------

It should be remembered that Jeremy Wilkins and his partner  Bridget Wilkins both worked in television production, she of documentary production and previous working with Crimewatch UK - the same media outlet that produced the Madeleine McCann Special on 13th October 2013 (unlucky for some), that promoted the Martin Smith e-fit drawn up in collaboration with Oakley International and the McCanns wealthy benefactor - Brian Kennedy.  

Also, Bridget O'Donnell penned an article for the Guardian in December 2007, entitled 'My Months with Madeleine', which incidentally was total fabrication

Curious eh?

People the McCanns wanted interviewed/re-interviewed by rogatory - 16th October 2007 [snipped]..

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:

Group 2 (independent customers and employees of the Ocean Club who saw the behavior of Kate and Gerry on the day of the disappearance):

Dan Smith, with address at ...> (Ocean Club, c / o Mark Warner)
Steve Carpenter, with address at ...> (Ware, Herts) (0,781,577 ####)
Carolyn Carpenter, with address at ...> (Ware, Herts)
Jeremy Wilkins, with address at ...> (London)
Catriona Baker, with address at ...> (Surrey) (0,785,823 ####)
----------

PJ written request to UK authorities to interview witnesses by rogatory process - 12th December 2007
[snipped]..

Jeremy Wilkins - file page 116

X - Interview to JEREMY WILKINS, 23, MOXXXX ROXX, London, NWXX 5XX, UK, who shall clarify the following :

* What time did you meet GERALD ?

* Where was he coming from ?

* Where exactly did you meet him (provide directions or sketch) ? How were both of you positioned ? How did you position yourself ? With your back turned to Block G5 (where McCann's apartment is located) or, contrariwise, facing the referred building ?

* For how long were you talking to each other ?

* Were you facing each other ? Or was GERALD McCANN beside you ?

* Did you see anyone else besides GERALD ?

* Do you know JANE TANNER ? Did you see her when you were talking to GERALD ?

* Could someone have passed by GERALD and you without your notice ?

* Did you detect anything strange in GERALD's behaviour ?

* During your conversation, did you see anybody ? Did you hear footsteps ? Did you see or hear any vehicles circulating ? Did you hear any sound that resembled a shutter opening or the slam of a car or a house door ?

* Were the visibility/light conditions good ? Considering those conditions, would you find it possible to describe a man in detail ?

* The witness should be expressly asked about his availability to come to Portugal, on a date yet to be set (as soon as possible), in order to re-enact the events occurred on 3rd May, 2007, between 5.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. at the Ocean Club, with sound and image recording. This should be requested to him during the interview.

* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.

* And also (questions drawn up by the arguidos (formal suspects).

* When did you get acquainted with GERALD McCANN and KATE HEALY between 28th April and 3rd May ?

* How often did you use to meet them between 28th April and 3rd May ?

* Did you see them with Madeleine and their two other children ? What was the children's behaviour like ?

* Did you see any of them inside a car ?

Jeremy Wilkins - file page 117

* Did you see KATE or GERALD on Thursday, 3rd May ? Where ? At what time ? How were they behaving ?

* When did you know that Madeleine had gone missing ? Did you take part in the searches ? Did you see KATE and GERALD after it was noticed that Madeleine was missing ? When ?

* How did they react ?

* What time did you meet GERALD McCANN on Thursday, 3rd May ?

Where exactly were you standing ? Did you see where GERALD had been ?

* Did you see him leaving the apartment ?

* Did you notice anything strange ?

* What did you speak about ? Did he mention anything about going to check on the children ?

* For how long were you talking to each other ? Are you sure about the time and about how long the conversation went on ?

* While you were having this conversation, did you notice anyone else around ? If yes, when and where ?

* Did you see JANE TANNER ?

* From the place you were talking to GERALD could you see the street - Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil - on top of the hill ?

* Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth ?

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
----------

Jeremy Wilkins reply to Leicester police when requested to attend a re-enactment of events hosted by the PJ in Portugal - from Jes to Stu..

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 24th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva
Subject : NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED : FW : Re-enactment questions

Ricardo
here is Jes's reply
spk soon
Stu

From : Jes Wilkins
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Thanks Stuart,
As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achived by doing this.
I am happy to discuss further if necessary.
Jes
----------

As widely known, the re-enactment never materialized as the McCanns and their group of 'friends' declined the offer to assist the PJ (the official investigation into the disappearance of a three year old child), having discussed the matter with  their legal advisors.

Verdi wrote:Jeremy Wilkins reply to Leicester police when requested to attend a re-enactment of events hosted by the PJ in Portugal - from Jes to Stu..

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 24th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva
Subject : NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED : FW : Re-enactment questions

Ricardo
here is Jes's reply
spk soon
Stu

From : Jes Wilkins
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Thanks Stuart,
As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achived by doing this.
I am happy to discuss further if necessary.
Jes
----------

As widely known, the re-enactment never materialized as the McCanns and their group of 'friends' declined the offer to assist the PJ (the official investigation into the disappearance of a three year old child), having discussed the matter with  their legal advisors.

Hi Verdi,doesn't it speak volumes that,"All Of the Adults" chose Not to Return to Portugal PJ  to Re-enact the 3 May 2007 shenanigans on Legal Advice,Not as a custom to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann?
They must suffer with the same Cognitive dissonance as the UK Police forces, Former Assistant Commander of Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley as Non suspects of involvement of Crime into Madeleine's disappearance?

Vapid excuses - it wasn't going to be televised; it wasn't going to achieve anything; they couldn't understand why it was necessary; they feared their own safety from the marauding mob laying in wait; they were advised by their lawyers: they thought they were being stitched-up by the PJ; they couldn't get time off work; they couldn't get a baby sitter ... !

So what was the chosen alternative - the McCanns very own documentary, written by Gerry McCann; cast by Gerry McCann; scripted by Gerry McCann; produced by Gerry McCann; directed by Gerry McCann; featuring mega superstar, movie heart throb Gerry McCann.

Followed by the BBC's very own Crimewatch production team and their very own version of a reconstruction featuring - an unknown location; unconfirmed scriptwriters; a BBC production team; actors, including Mark Sloan the porn star who was cast as Matthew Oldfield (?); based on the Operation Grange version of the truth.

Madeleine who?

Hi Verdi, I do not suppose the UK Police forces are going to proceed to investigate as to and why they may have committed Perjury? 
The close context of sharing sensitive Portugal PJ information with Arquidos,protection of assailants,Clarence Mitchell,Justine Maguiness,CEOP big Jim Gamble and cohorts from Government!

How is it possible for a UK Police Officer to divulge to Assistant Portugal PJ that they would have charged someone with 15;19 LCI/DNA Markers,then have a Secondary report months later sent to Portugal PJ which was a  fabrication of the spoken words of the original FSS findings?
The UK government along with all of the other stooges must detest the release of the Portugal PJ files that shows at least some sort of "complicity" not to fully engage with the purpose of their "Official Police Investigation" as the Operation Grange Review/investigation findings will find its self before the IPCC?

Makes you wonder, with all their bombastic pretense, if Britain's finest were completely aware of the Portuguese policy of releasing crime investigation files for public perusal.  Or if they were aware of the generalities, did they imagine the files would be locked away in a back office somewhere in Portugal (only to be dusted down if some individual wanted access to a particular aspect of the case), rather than released to the media.

Maybe Portugal weren't quite as stupid as the great British establishment thought them to be.