Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

by Phoebe 19.10.18 12:52

@ Crackfox. My own position ( based on available evidence) is that the Smiths are telling the truth about having seen a man carrying a child, at the time they said on May 3rd '07.
Who they saw, I don't know, but I see no evidence to brand them liars or link them to some conspiracy.
Their first descriptions are compatible with Gerry McCann in terms of age, height, build, complexion, skin tone, hair colour and style. The description of the child is a good match for Madeleine in age, hair colour and hair length.
Therefore, I am not at all surprised that they later concluded that the man they saw was Gerry.
To what extent this conclusion may have been influenced by contemporaneous wall-to-wall media reports of the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, and the news that they had recently been made Arguidos we cannot know. I suspect it did have some influence, but only the Smiths can comment on that and they have not done so.
Whether the Smiths were mistaken about the man they saw being
Gerry is one mystery. The other is the McCanns extraordinary behaviour over this sighting. They made no move to contact these witnesses who potentially had information about the "abduction", they did not urge the police to follow this lead up nor urge the public to come forward with any information they might have about what the Smiths reported, (until they could no longer avoid it, the sighting being recorded in the published files)
Their lack of reaction is an inarguable fact, and an extraordinary fact to boot!

by Crackfox 19.10.18 13:19

@Phoebe my own opinion as to why the McCanns showed little interest in pursuing the Smith sighting is that like the trip in the car to follow a potentially crucial lead during which the McCanns acted disgruntled and Kate opined that the driver was going too fast, they were only interested in their own narrative. Anything else detracted from that.

Early on, it seems to me, that they wanted to get the focus as far away from the crime scene as possible - hence the grand tour. I don't think they wanted attention too close to home, until they had spotted a suitable patsy and then they changed gear. That's my opinion, pure speculation but that's how I see it. So I don't think you can read too much into the lack of reaction even though their lack of reaction is a fact.

by skyrocket 19.10.18 13:48

@Phoebe - the problem is that there is no evidence to prove they did see anyone either.

The reason I don't believe the statements is not based on either of the theories you state i.e. description of the man and whether or not Smith knew Murat, although these points are worthy of investigation, IMO.

I'm not convinced that the Smiths saw anyone for the simple reason that they didn't report it straight away, DESPITE Martin Smith saying on the morning of 4 May: 'At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual'.

Although McCluskey's second statement is extremely dubious (which may well be none of his doing), his first one made on 9 May, when he and his wife returned to the UK, is interesting and makes my point.

Here was a couple who were aware of the 'abduction'. On the evening of the 4 May they went out in to Alvor and walked back to their hotel late on. This is what Richard McCluskey tells us:

'He said he had phoned the police. Thinking everything was alright we left the couple, woman and van in situ and entered our apartment.
Upon entering the apartment we put on Sky news and became aware of a news report about a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of the British child. I therefore went to the complex and informed them of what I had seen and gave him the registration on the paper. We then returned to the area and saw the woman and the vehicle still in place. I returned to the apartment and after an hour hadn’t heard anything so I contacted the police. Eventually I got through to an English speaker and explained what had happened. The police stated they were sending someone to reception. I decided to go down and wait for them. As I got downstairs I could see two police in a patrol vehicle outside reception. The officers spoke English and I explained the situation and gave them another copy of the registration which we had written down. They told me they were dealing or had dealt with the situation. Then at about 03.15 we checked the area again and the van and woman had gone'.

After the initial encounter, the McCluskeys are still concerned. Note the number of actions Richard McCluskey carries out. He returns to the area twice more, finally at 3.15am in the morning. This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from middle aged people who are aware that a 3 year old child has been 'abducted' by a man. Not waiting 2 weeks to report something which just might be significant; not wanting the guilt of doing nothing haunting them in the future; not worrying about having to deal with a foreign police force; double/treble checking it had been dealt with; not worrying about getting to bed; only worrying about a missing little girl.

If the Smiths did see someone then I don't believe that we are getting the full picture from their statements. Context, background and possible connections between the protagonists is an extremely valid area of research IMO, and probably the only route to getting closer to the truth on this particular subject.

@Crackfox - some good points.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.18 16:49

Phoebe made this post recently:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:

I have asked you several times Tony whether you accept that the men described by Smith, Tanner and Lourenco, are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers).
The Smiths' man is described as having light skin, and short, light brown hair. Tannerman is described as having dark skin and copious long, dark, glossy hair while Sagresman is described as having a Latino appearance with long dark hair in a ponytail.

You persist in ignoring this question about a straightforward facts which have been used to underpin the theory of the Smiths being liars.
Diverting into tales of American political skullduggery is irrelevant to the Madeleine case. Claiming that the said descriptions are "carbon copies" when the evidence contradicts this IS an important, relevant issue which needs addressing. It is the one of the linchpins underpinning the theory of the Smith family being liars.

I do wish you would answer this straightforward, evidence based question, instead of making wild untrue allegations against me in retaliation for asking it or introducing irrelevant American political wrangling. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question.
UNQUOTE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before answering Phoebe's question directly, I would like to make these observations to both her and also to other members and guests here.

First, I do not have time to answer every question within the next few minutes of few hours. I have been asked many many questions about the Madeleine McCann case over the years, especially on this forum, and older members here will be well aware that I have invariably taken the time to answer them as fully and honestly as I possibly can.

For the record, most of the time in the past three days has been taken up with (a) a whole day spent with two documentary film-makers who came up from London the day to pick my brains and discuss in depth the murder of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home - they are making a film about it (b) filling in and collating all the information for two paper Tax Returns (mine, and one of my late mother who died in July) - in order to beat the 31 October deadline  (c) carrying out the duties of an Executor as it has fallen to me to administer my mother's modest estate and (d) in between that, caring for a younger family member.

I find it highly regrettable that any member here should be so hasty as to point the finger and accuse me of being 'reluctant to answer', 'ignoring this question' etc. I also find the aggressive, angry tone incompatible with the normal politeness of our exchanges here. Even robust views can be put firmly but politely. How about something like: "Tony, I would be grateful for a reply"?

On the question of the video I posted being irrelevant, please see @ crackfox's posts. One of he commonest charges against me in relation to my Smithman theory is: "Martin Smith had no reason to lie". I have many times explained that there are numerous reasons why people tell the most awful lies. The video I posted is but one clear and very public illustration of this.

Phoebe wrote this: "are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers)".

REPLY: Phoebe has got this wrong. I allege collusion between Robert Murat's Team and Martin Smith, NOT the McCanns and Martin Smith. THAT came later, after the all-important SALALITO SUMMIT.

====

Now, to provide an answer (short as I have to pick up a family member from the station in a few minutes), here is my ORIGINAL post - 25 October 2013, jusr 11 days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special that triggered my deep interest in the Smithman sighting. Everybody will see the reference I made was to 'remarkable similarities', not 'carbon copies'. Agreed I may have said 'virtual carbon copies' on one occasion, but five years later I stand fully behind what I wrote - below (I have to get down to the station right away):

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

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8297-smithman-2-what-can-account-for-the-17-remarkable-similarities-between-tannerman-and-smithman?highlight=smithman

25 October 2013
The descriptions of a mystery man claimed to have been seen by Jane Tanner and by members of the Smith family are remarkably similar.

A senior Metropolitan Police Officer, D.C.I. Andy Redwood, heading up a 3-year, £6 milion Scotland Yard investigation, has now told the nation, on the record, and in front of an audience of 6.7 million people on the BBC, that Tannerman was a crecheman carrying his infant home from the night crèche. Clearly as a nation of people who have faith in what has been described as ‘the worlds’ finest police force', we must believe him. There can be no room for doubt.

However, let us return to the similarities between the original descriptions given by Jane Tanner and the Smiths, both in May 2007. These were:

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair

3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl

5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas

7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side

9. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists

11. They were wearing a dark jacket

12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)

14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build

16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen.

What could account for these remarkable 17 similarities – now that Redwood has told us the truth about Tannerman/crecheman?

1. Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche.

OR

2. There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere – just one of those amazing coincidences.
OR

3. Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone.

OR

4. Some other reason.
==============================================

by Phoebe 19.10.18 16:51

@ skyrocket.
Actually, I find the entire McCluskey reports decidedly odd! According to him (May 9th 07) he and his wife were returning from a night out in Alvor at about ten minutes to two on the morning of Saturday May 5th when they saw a man park a truck in the middle of the road and "stagger" up a bank carrying a child. He gives no description of said child nor does he explain why he thought it might be Madeleine (other than saying he was aware that a child was missing in the area)
Why he would imagine that a child, who had been kidnapped on the previous Thursday night, would be carried around in open view early on Saturday morning, by a man and woman who had drawn attention to themselves by abandoning a vehicle in the middle of the road and by having a vicious row in full public view, is beyond me!
He claims to have persisted in getting this checked out (although he was aware there were other witnesses who actually spoke Portuguese and could communicate better with the police (whom these witnesses had ALREADY called).
He cites a Sky news report which mentioned "a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of a British child". Has anyone any information about this report which would have been shown between 2 and 3 a.m. on Sat 5th May. I don't remember any such report at that stage.
It can't have come from George Burke Brooks as this "sighting" only became known to Michael Wright on May 6th (Wright did not even arrive in P. da L. until May 5th).
In any case, McCluskeys later behaviour, IMO, smacks of someone determined to have seen something of importance, as evidenced by his later bizarre claims that the Portuguese-speaking woman he had seen was Kate McCann and the swarthy male Gerry! And this, even after they had been traced and eliminated!
Everything about McCluskey's sighting, IMO, smacks of someone thrilled at the prospect of being involved with a famous case.
The Smiths, on the other hand, are noted by the Irish police not to be inclined to indulge in "courting the press".
Some people are private and reticent about thrusting themselves into the limelight or thinking that they have something important to say. IMO the evidence certainly suggests the Smiths were like this. I'd be the same myself!

by Phoebe 19.10.18 17:14

@ Tony Bennet.
Firstly, I appreciate you, like the rest of us, have lives outside of the McCann case and please accept my condolences on the passing of your mother.
Secondly, I have not been aggressive, merely persistent, whereas Tony, you posted yesterday a rather lengthy article (answering my question wouldn't have taken nearly as long!) in which you questioned my motivation, integrity and falsely alleged some relationship between myself and Ben Salmon! Ben Salmon does not "know" me nor I him and our sole communication over the Tanner rogatory is here for all to see.
Above, you posted -
However, let us return to the similarities between the original descriptions given by Jane Tanner and the Smiths, both in May 2007. These were:

3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl

Jane Tanner never claimed to have seen anything other than, initially, a bundle in the man's arms, then later, a child's legs from the knees down. She never mentioned the child having blonde hair or even being a girl, she only "guessed" the child's sex from the "pinkish aspect" of the pyjamas.

7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side

Jane Tanner could only see the child's legs from the knees to the ankles, therefore she could scarcely offer an opinion on the child's age! The Smiths did estimate her age.
Jane said the man was carrying the child horizontally, across both his outstretched arms - the Smiths said he held the child vertically, against his shoulder

11. They were wearing a dark jacket

12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers

Jane describes the man as wearing notably baggy, ill fitting clothes, the man the Smiths saw was wearing trousers of a classic fitted cut. Jane's man wore a puffy anorak, the Smiths man wore a jacket.

Add to all these differences the fact that the man the Smiths saw was light-skinned with short light-brown hair, cut short at the back and sides. The man Jane describes seeing was dark-skinned, with copious, long, dark, glossy hair, long at the back.

by Crackfox 19.10.18 17:44

One point regarding Mr Smith I find interesting - and this has probably been said somewhere already but it's just occurred to me - is the point at which his memory was aroused.

GM was disembarking from a plane, returning home to a place of safety. It was starting to look like GM was untouchable. Gerry landing on British soil has symbolic power - if Mr Smith wasn't sleeping well and was worried that someone he thought was culpable was going to get away with it, this would have an impact. Something in that image acted as a trigger, if his story is correct and it's a very significant moment in terms of the unfolding of the case. It's also an emotive image if you are of the view that the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, seeing GM in a parenting role with a sleeping child is a highly charged image.

So I think this image could have potentially been a trigger but I don't think this is good enough for a credible identification, it's too emotionally charged and too convenient. At best, Mr Smith is a rescuer, IMO.

by willowthewisp 19.10.18 17:50

Jane Tanner put Mr Robert Murat forward as the person she had seen carrying the person Horizontal in his arms,heading towards Mrs Murat's Home?
Two other tapas friends came forward to state seeing Mr Murat outside the apartment on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance!

DCI Andy Redwood introduces Dr Julian Totman and his Daughter into the equation as Crehce Dad,Crime Watch October 14 2013,the "Moving time Frame to suit the timings of who seen what?

Sandra Felguaires,Gerry, "Did you know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared,cough,I'm Not going to comment on that"!

Robert Murat was summoned back to Portugal 1st May 2007,Two days before the disappearance of Madeleine,is there a link?

3 May,Gerry McCann retires from Tennis with "Achillies"problem,yet there are No,is Evidence of such an injury for the rest of the Day/evening,meeting Jez Wilkens standing outside of the Apartment,checks on children?
No visible signs on impediments Speech video for Madeleine's whereabouts 4 May 2007 of walking,standing?

Then you have Gerry and his little jig on the Balcony,2/3 days after the disappearance,happy as Larry,but No Hoax or simulation collusion scenario has taken place!

Its all down to a close knit fraternity of cohorts,"Super Injunctions",mystery benefactors and dubious legal representatives,who know!

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.18 19:53

willowthewisp wrote:Jane Tanner put Mr Robert Murat forward as the person she had seen carrying the person horizontal in his arms, heading towards Mrs Murat's Home?

Yes, but then changed her mind and said he looked like Monsterman (Jan 2008).

Two other tapas friends came forward to state seeing Mr Murat outside the apartment on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance!

THREE actually - Russell, Rachael and Fiona. And they carried on with this the 'confrontation' with Robert Murat on 11 July 2007 in Portimao.

DCI Andy Redwood introduces Dr Julian Totman and his daughter into the equation as Crehce Dad, CrimeWatch October 14 2013, the "Moving Time Frame" to suit the timings of who seen what?

Skulduggery and deceit by Britain's top cops, which a few still can't see.

Sandra Felguaires, Gerry, "Did you know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared, cough, I'm not going to comment on that"!

Not surprising that some treated this as a virtual admission that he DID know Robert Murat already (all those golfing trips he had to Portugal, before 2007, remember?). IMO this short video clip is one of the biggest pieces in the whole jigsaw.

Robert Murat was summoned back to Portugal 1st May 2007, two days before the disappearance of Madeleine, is there a link?

Or was it two days AFTER the disappearance?

3 May, Gerry McCann retires from tennis with "Achilles" problem, yet there is no evidence of such an injury for the rest of the day/evening, meeting Jez Wilkens standing outside of the apartment, checks on children?

You mean he INVENTED the Achilles tendon?

No visible signs on impediments speech video for Madeleine's whereabouts 4 May 2007 of walking, standing?

(Sorry, you lost me on that one , willow)

Then you have Gerry and his little jig on the balcony, 2/3 days after the disappearance, happy as Larry, but No Hoax or simulation collusion scenario has taken place!

Not many people can laugh and chuckle and share jokes within 3 days of their 3-year-old daughter being abducted, probably by paedophiles.

It's all down to a close knit fraternity of cohorts, "Super Injunctions", mystery benefactors and dubious legal representatives, who know!

I think so.

REPLIES IN BLUE ABOVE

by Verdi 19.10.18 23:52

05-01-Apensos V, Vol 1, Pages 136

apenso5_vol_1_Page136

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 3 Apenso5_vol_1_Page136_small

Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police

13th September 2007

Please find attached a witness statement provided by Richard McCluskey. Firstly may I apologise for the delay in forwarding but the system crashed at this end and the problem has taken some time to resolve.

Mr. McCluskey states he has already provided a witness statement in relation the enquiry having been on holiday in Portugal at the relevant time. He provided a statement in relation to suspicious activity he observed in the early hours of Saturday 5 May 2007.In the original statement Mr. McClusky states he described a male alighting a white coloured van and walking along a road carrying what appeared to be a motionless child. He then states he observed a distressed female run down a road and approach the same white coloured van.

Mr McCluskey did go into detail regarding the incident but then stated that all details were covered in his first statement, provided in May 2007. Not having had sight of the original statement it is obviously difficult to comment on the context and accuracy of the account given.

Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, M, McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann( the missing child?s mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police. He is acutely aware of the possibly implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would , in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."

Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.

by Guest 20.10.18 8:19

McCluskey original statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm

The people (including the distressed woman) he and his wife saw spoke Portuguese.

As far I am aware, Kate doesn't.

I don't care what he thinks months later.... reading his original statement doesn't make me think Kate was there.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.18 9:59

AMARAL AND THE PHANTOM ABDUCTORS

Let me begin this morning with a series of unarguable facts that I think no-one can disagree with:

1 In the morning of Friday 4 May 2007, Jane Tanner told police that she had seen a man carrying ‘a bundle’, possibly a young child wrapped in a blanket. The police initially believed her, although they began to harbour doubts before very long.

2 Early morning the following day, Saturday 5 May, Nuno Lourenco (who claimed he was on a short holiday in Sagres to see his mother) told police that a man had tried to kidnap his young daughter at Sagres 6 days earlier (Sunday 29th April). He gave the PJ sufficient information to be able to identify this man. Within a few hours, he was identified as Wojcek Krokowski, who had also been on holiday that week, staying in the Sol e Mar apartments, built by a company run by Robert Murat’s father. By that time, Krokowski’s plane to Berlin was well on its way. As is well known, Amaral and his team were convinced this was the same person seen by Jane Tanner. They involved INTERPOL and the German and Polish police, succeeded in grounding the plane in Berlin, and subsequently Polish police interviewed him in Warsaw.

3 On Friday 25 May, Gerry McCann was allowed to give a description of a possible abductor, based on Jane Tanner’s description. The fact that he was allowed to has been said to have been due to pressure from Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.

4 The very next day (25 May), Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith, in formal interviews, gave details of a man they said they had seen carrying a child in the vicinity of the beach in Praia da Luz.

5 Amaral has been reported as believing in the credibility of the Smith sighting. He repeated this in an interview in early 2017. However, since then he has read and considered the March 2018 letter from the Madeleine McCann Research Group, so that by now his views may have changed.

AGAINST THAT BACKGROUND…

…it is worth looking again at the remarkable coincidences between the descriptions of all three suspects: Tannerman, then Sagresman, then Smithman. Here they are, as I set them out back in late 2013, Here’s what I wrote:

QUOTE

But if we now bring in the description of the Polish man - Sagres man - we see clearly that all three descriptions of the man, Tannerman, Sagresman and Smithman are strikingly similar. Here’s the table I showed earlier of Tannerman and Sagres man, with the details of Smithman added. I will refer to some specific comments made by each member of the Smith family who made formal statements:

1 FACE

Tannerman:   Dark-skinned individual, couldn’t see his face
Sagres (Polish) man: Caucasian with Latin colouring…’of medium complexion’
Smithman: Difficult to see his face in the dark, didn’t appear to have a beard or moustache

2 AGE

Tannerman: Aged 35-40
Sagres (Polish) man: Between 35-40 years of age
Smithman: Martin Smith says 35-40, Peter Smith says ‘about 35, maybe older’, while Aoife Smith suggests ‘20-30’

3 HEIGHT

Tannerman:   About 1.7m tall (5’ 7”)
Sagres (Polish) man: Around 170 to 175 cm in height (5’ 7” - 5’ 9”)
Smithman: Martin and Peter Smith say he was about 1.75m to 1.80m tall (5’ 9” - 5’11”); Aoife Smith says 1.7 to 1.75m (5’ 7” - 5’ 9”)

4 HAIR

Tannerman: Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back
Sagres (Polish) man: Curly, dark brown hair that ran down to the back of his neck, and in a pony tail
Smithman: All the Smiths say his hair was brown and shortish; Aiofe says his hair colour was ‘light brown’, ‘thick’ and ‘long on top‘

5 JACKET

Tannerman: Wearing a dark ‘duffy’ sic type jacket (but not that thick), a sort of anorak, of the same material as his trousers
Sagres (Polish) man: He wore a cream-coloured cloth coat/jacket, of the same material as his trousers
Smithman: The man was wearing a dark jacket. Martin Smith couldn’t remember what top the man was wearing when first questioned, but later ‘remembered’ that he wore ‘a darkish top, maybe a jacket or blazer’

6 TROUSERS

Tannerman: He was wearing linen type ‘chino style’ cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, like ‘corticite’, of the same material as his jacket
Sagres (Polish) man: He wore cloth trousers, of the same material as his jacket
Smithman: The man was wearing light-coloured trousers. Aoife Smith says: “beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen…”. Martin Smith says: “He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut…”

7 SHOES

Tannerman: His shoes were dark in colour, classic type
Sagres (Polish) man: His shoes, he thinks, were dark brown…and of the type that need to be shined or polished [i.e. leather]. In his book, Dr Goncalo Amaral says they were ‘shoes of a classic type’
Smithman: (no comments made)

8 BUILD

Tannerman: Slim physical appearance
Sagres (Polish) man: (no comment made)
Smithman: The Smiths all say ‘average build’, except that Martin Smith says: “He had an average build, a bit on the thin side”

9 NOT A TOURIST

Tannerman: By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a   tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
Sagres man: (no comment made, but Dr Goncalo Amaral writes in his book (Chapter 3): “The stranger did not look like a tourist”
Smithman: The man didn’t look like a tourist. The Portuguese police report Martin Smith’s evidence on this point as follows says: “Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing”.[/size]

UNQUOTE

A poster called ‘Phoebe’ has made a huge song and dance of discrepancies about two aspects: The hair colour and length of these three suspects, and their skin colour.
If we take Aoife’s description of Smithman, which is by some way the most detailed of the three, she states in a signed statement that noticed the man when he was ‘about 2 metres’ (6 feet) in front of her. They were crossing each other’s paths. If we take this statement at face value, she would have had under one second to see the man’s face.

After one pace, the two would have been level. After that, she could no longer see the man’s face. It was dark. There was ‘weak’ street lighting as the Smiths admit.

I cannot accept that under those circumstances it was feasible for any of the Smiths to give an accurate account of the man’s hair colour, hair length, and skin pigment.

.

by Phoebe 20.10.18 10:57

@ Tony Bennett You said above -

5 Amaral has been reported as believing in the credibility of the Smith sighting. He repeated this in an interview in early 2017. However, since then he has read and considered the March 2018 letter from the Madeleine McCann Research Group, so that by now his views may have changed.

There is no indication that Dr. Amaral's views re the Smiths credibility has changed in any way at all. This is merely wishful thinking.

The Smiths clearly describe Smithman as being LIGHT-skinned. Aoife Smith clearly states that she saw his face and saw it well enough to know that she had never seen him before. Martin and Mary Smith
later concluded that the man was Gerry ergo he had to look like Gerry ie. light-skinned!

The Smiths do NOT describe the man as having "shortish" hair. They clearly say "Short .. in a traditional male cut" ie short back and sides. Aoife Smith even says -

" His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, SHORT AT THE BACK (normal) and a bit longer on the top."

Both Sagresman with his pony-tale and Tannerman are described as having hair LONG at the back!

Jane's man wore a puffy anorak the Smiths man an ordinary jacket.

Jane's man wore brown, gold mustard baggy trousers, the Smiths man wore classic cut cream or beige trousers!

The Smiths, ALL 3 of them (Martin Aoife and Peter) do not offer no comment about Smithman's shoes. They say they did NOT see them!

You have NO idea of how long the Smiths observed Smithman for. They say they saw him well enough to note no beard or facial hair, estimate his age, note his skin-colour and complexion, note his SHORT hair style, etc.

The files clearly state that the Smiths were "urged" to say whether Smithman looked like a tourist ie. they did not proffer this information.

There is no denying these facts from the files!

by Verdi 20.10.18 13:19

Wearing my admin hat howdy

, can I respectfully ask that we draw a line under the subject of Tanner v. Smith sighting detail as to appearance? It's not helping to move forward with CMoMM's primary objective. indeed it's becoming rather tedious. I'm sure members and guest readers, hundreds by the day, are not interested in the finer detail of the Tanner or Smith sighting as regard clothing and/or personal appearance. Bear in mind it was dark, without being present at the scene there is no way of knowing who saw what where and when.

If we can agree on the more pertinent issue .... both Tanner and Smith attest to seeing a stranger, fully clothed, carrying a child uncovered, asleep and wearing what appeared to be feminine nightwear, walking the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007. There is enough there to work on without minor details that can't be verified one way or the other.

For the time being, let's leave it at that please.

by Phoebe 20.10.18 18:35

Verdi wrote:Wearing my admin hat , can I respectfully ask that we draw a line under the subject of Tanner v. Smith sighting detail as to appearance? It's not helping to move forward with CMoMM's primary objective. indeed it's becoming rather tedious. I'm sure members and guest readers, hundreds by the day, are not interested in the finer detail of the Tanner or Smith sighting as regard clothing and/or personal appearance. Bear in mind it was dark, without being present at the scene there is no way of knowing who saw what where and when.

If we can agree on the more pertinent issue .... both Tanner and Smith attest to seeing a stranger, fully clothed, carrying a child uncovered, asleep and wearing what appeared to be feminine nightwear, walking the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007. There is enough there to work on without minor details that can't be verified one way or the other.

For the time being, let's leave it at that please.

Hi Verdi. Since CMoMM's avowed primary objective is to seek justice for Madeleine McCann, I think it of paramount importance that any information which might help that pursuit should be discussed without any uneccessary form of curtailment. It may be inconvenient that the facts of the files do not support certain repeated claims, and the pointing out of these facts may discommode those who make them, but, doesn't Madeleine's story deserve a truthful, accurate recounting from those who pursue justice for her. Not an edited version!
The allegations re. the Smiths untruthfulness have been grounded in the claim that they were working to a prepared script. The "evidence" proffered to support this is the repeatedly cited the "carbon copy" similarity of
the descriptions by the Smith and Jane Tanner. If the facts show that this is wrong, it would be most disingenuous to try to brush these facts under the carpet. With respect, how can the path of justice be pursued by putting on blinkers!

by willowthewisp 20.10.18 19:14

Phoebe wrote:
Verdi wrote:Wearing my admin hat , can I respectfully ask that we draw a line under the subject of Tanner v. Smith sighting detail as to appearance? It's not helping to move forward with CMoMM's primary objective. indeed it's becoming rather tedious. I'm sure members and guest readers, hundreds by the day, are not interested in the finer detail of the Tanner or Smith sighting as regard clothing and/or personal appearance. Bear in mind it was dark, without being present at the scene there is no way of knowing who saw what where and when.

If we can agree on the more pertinent issue .... both Tanner and Smith attest to seeing a stranger, fully clothed, carrying a child uncovered, asleep and wearing what appeared to be feminine nightwear, walking the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007. There is enough there to work on without minor details that can't be verified one way or the other.

For the time being, let's leave it at that please.
Hi Verdi. Since CMoMM's avowed primary objective is to seek justice for Madeleine McCann, I think it of paramount importance that any information which might help that pursuit should be discussed without any uneccessary form of curtailment. It may be inconvenient that the facts of the files do not support certain repeated claims, and the pointing out of these facts may discommode those who make them, but, doesn't Madeleine's story deserve a truthful, accurate recounting from those who pursue justice for her. Not an edited version!
The allegations re. the Smiths untruthfulness have been grounded in the claim that they were working to a prepared script. The "evidence" proffered to support this is the repeatedly cited the "carbon copy" similarity of
the descriptions by the Smith and Jane Tanner. If the facts show that this is wrong, it would be most disingenuous to try to brush these facts under the carpet. With respect, how can the path of justice be pursued by putting on blinkers!

If you are to dismiss reported facts from the case,are your now stating the Time of the sightings(Tannerman 21.15, Smith Family 22.00) have No bearing with regard to Mr Julian Totman and his daughter brought into the Moving Time Frame,DCI andy Redwood,Crime Watch 14 October 2013,same person Two different places, going to from night Creche in a different location to the sightings,Three areas visited?

Did DCI Andy Redwood interview the Night Creche in regard to Mr Totman,Smith Man family sighting on his jaunts to Portugal,No records of special notices,so he didn't as far as the case goes?

Until Operation Grange Rule out Mr Julian Totman and his daughter as "Creche Dad",who makes a "Miraculous Appearance" after how many years absence,people are expected to believe this?
Do you believe in Fairies!
The Metropolitan Police ,"Move the time to "fit the Crime",to be produced in a Court of Law counter to Sworn True Statements from the Taps 7/9,Kate,Gerry?

Remember the"Jemmied Shutters" and other pernicious details brought into the case,by who?

by Verdi 20.10.18 21:09

#Phoebe

As I said let's leave it at that please.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.18 23:49

DID THE SMITHS 'COPY' JANE TANNER'S 'TANNERMAN'? - A FURTHER EXPLORATION

I want to reply briefly to Phoebe’s two posts, but in doing so I want to move the story on, in particular I want to examine events between 15 May 2007, when Murat was made a suspect, and 26 May 2007, the date the Smiths gave their evidence in person to the PJ.

Here are the bald facts of the timeline:

Tue 15 May Robert Murat made suspect

Wed 16 May Phone call Peter Smith to his father: “Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child late evening on the day Madeleine disappeared” (not exact words but something very similar

Wed 16 May Martin Smith rings round his family, asking them if they have the same recollection. They all say: “Yes, we remember the same recollection” (again not exactly the same word but very similar)

Wed 16 May   Martin Smith telephones the police about his sighting. His main concern is to insist that the man they saw is not Robert Murat

Thu 24 May Last Photo produced by the McCanns after 3 weeks. It was NOT on the McCanns# digital camera photos given on the two disks submitted to the PJ

Fri 25 May Gerry McCann speaks to the world’s cameras giving this description of a man carrying a child, seen in Praia da Luz on the evening Madeleine disappeared:

“White, aged 35-40, 5’ 10” in height, [178cm], wearing ‘beige’ or ‘light’ trousers, and wearing a dark jacket and shoes”

This description, we now know, was based entirely on Jane Tanner’s extremely dubious claims.

Sat 26 May 3 members of Smith family give signed statements to the PJ. They all tell the PJ that it was dark, with weak street lighting, that they only saw the man for a few secnds at the most, and that none of them would ever recognise him again. Understandably, the PJ did not bother to make an efit at the time/

ANALYSIS

As we’ve discussed many many times on CMOMM, why did Martin Smith ring the police on 16 May? My hypothesis, shared by many on here, I know, is that he did it because he wanted to help someone he knew, namely Robert Murat. How well the two knew each other is very uncertain but I suggest from the evidence that it was better than Martin Smith admits.

Assuming for a moment that Martin Smith’s prime intention is to take Murat out of the frame, so to speak – and assuming that a few days after his ‘phone call that the police in Portugal have called him to give an interview, what does he do?

Well, what does he know about Jane Tanner’s abductor? He knows, at least, that the abductor is:

white
aged 35-40
5’ 10” [178cm]
was wearing ‘beige’ or ‘light’ coloured trousers
was wearing a dark jacket
was wearing dark shoes.

(Let us pause for a moment and remember that according to (allegedly) the finest police force in the world. Jane saw ‘Crecheman’/CrecheDad. Or Dr Julian Totman according to his wife and the media).

Now, if he is to help further in his mission to ‘clear’ Murat, what does he have to do?

He surely has to make his description as near as possible to that given by Gerry McCann the day before. Doesn’t he?

In my SMITHMAM 5 article, I gave FOUR separate and wholly contradictions given by Martin Smith for contacting the PJ on 16^th May (this in itself is a major clue to the probability this is to disguise the true reason, namely that he was seeking to help Murat, now that he’d been named arguido).

Two of these reasons were as follows:

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).

Those two reasons suggest, at the very least, that Martin Smith was closely watching the news about Madeleine when he said and did nothing about his sighting for 13 days. Peter Smith says ‘they found out about the exact time of the sighting’. They knew about the Tannerman description. The term ‘matched’ was used. And this is what the Smiths’ descrptions did, didn’t they. They MATCHED those of Tannerman. AS THEY WERE CLEARLY MEANT TO.

His tasks are therefore two: (1) to convince the PJ that he saw the SAME MAN as Jane Tanner, and (2) to insist that this man was not Robert Murat. He pretty much succeeded in his first aim. Goncalo Amaral and his team were certainly led to believe he had seen the same man as Jane Tanner.

He did that, I suggest, by coming up with a description that pretty much fitted that given by Gerry McCann of Tannerman.

I posted upthread the claim I made back on 25 October 2013 that the detailed descriptions given by the Smiths, of the man they said they saw, were ‘remarkably similar’ to the more detailed ‘recollections’ Jane Tanner came up with of Tannerman on 10 May 2007 and subsequently.

Here I will declare that I stick by the term ‘remarkably similar’. I think I used the phrase ‘virtual carbon copy’ on one occasion.

As a matter of interest the ‘remarkable similarity’ of Tannerman to Smithman is set out very elegantly on three pages of Kate McCann’s book. It is persuasive, and is meant to be. At that time the McCanns were strongly suggesting that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same.

Let us also remember that there was a third ‘remarkably similar’ ‘sighting’ of a would-be abductor, that of Polish holidaymaker Wojcek Krokowskiby Nuno Lourenco.

All three are near identical. Elsewhere I have set down the 17 or 18 striking similarities.

At Verdi’s request I am not going back over the ground of supposed differences in skin and hair colour. I am far from sure that these details could be adequately grasped of someone who walked by them in a matter of second, in t he dark, and with ‘weak’ street lighting.

Another possibility here is that Martin Smith may well have had access to the more detailed descriptions of both Tannerman and Sagresman (Wojcek Krokowski). He and Murat might have had each other’s telephone numbers. Murat might have had access to the statement of Jane Tanner at least. He was in the PJ police station for several days, interpreting, during the first few days after Madeleine was reported missing. Martin Smith could well have spoken to Murat in Portugal on the 25^th or 26^th of May.

Now back to Phoebe’s latest post. She makes this utterly false claim about my position: QUOTE: “The allegations re. the Smiths untruthfulness have been grounded in the claim that they were working to a prepared script” UNQUOTE.

That is nonsense. To repeat what I’ve said many times before, and to summarise, these (and not what Phoebe says) are my main grounds f or considering that the Smiths’ claims are fabrications:

1 The time delay in reporting the claimed sighting (13 days)

2 The time delay in reporting his claim that he recognised Gerry McCann (11 days)

3 The implausibility of recognising someone, 4 months later, by ‘the way he was walking when he saw Gerry McCann carrying Sean on his shoulder

4 The 12 sets of contradictions in their evidence (see SMITHMAN 5)

5 Their agreement to work with, and for the McCanns less than 4 months after Martin Smith had said that he was 60% to 80% sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3^rd May 2007..

by Verdi 21.10.18 0:24

Tony Bennett wrote:Those two reasons suggest, at the very least, that Martin Smith was closely watching the news about Madeleine when he said and did nothing about his sighting for 13 days. Peter Smith says ‘they found out about the exact time of the sighting’. They knew about the Tannerman description. The term ‘matched’ was used. And this is what the Smiths’ descrptions did, didn’t they. They MATCHED those of Tannerman. AS THEY WERE CLEARLY MEANT TO.

Curiously, Martin Smith was also diligently following internet interest in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. By email he asked Richard D Hall to correct the reference to his alleged friendship with Robert Murat, how else would he know the full content of the ' Buried by Mainstream Media' video..

Email from Martin Smith, August 2014
Dear Mr. Hall,
I have just watched the 4 parts of your new film "Buried by Mainstream Media etc" which I found very interesting. I would like to point out a major inaccuracy near the end of part 4 of the film where it was stated that I was "friends with Robert Murat". This statement is untrue and I would like it corrected. I had come across Mr. Murat twice in the previous 12 months, had never been introduced to him and merely knew him by sight.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Smith

CMoMM led me and many others, from what they say, to Richard D Hall's videos (that's aside from those who shared the videos in the McCann support camp Wink

) - who or what prompted Martin Smith to research and watch the videos I wonder.

by Phoebe 21.10.18 0:32

@ Tony Bennett.
I see Tony that you feel free to ignore Verdi's request. I presume that in the interests of fairness and equal treatment of members I can do the same.

NOWHERE in the Smiths' statements do they offer any explanation re. why they chose to report their sighting when they did, nor are there any records of the police querying any delay.
Therefore, EVERYTHING you claim in your post above which the Smiths allegedly "said" about reporting their sighting comes from MSM, in the main - newspapers!

It has been officially confirmed by the Irish Gardai that by Jan 30th 2008 the Smiths had NOT BREACHED JUDICIAL SECRECY and had NOT spoken to the Press. Therefore, what you allege above is based on MSM drivel. !!!

The man Nuno Lourenco saw was identified.
The P.J did not believe Jane Tanner saw anyone, but were forced to "follow up" her sighting whilst obviously believing it to be fictitious. Dr. Amaral states that they believed Jane invented a man and sent him the "other" direction to Smithman as a deliberate ploy.
The P.J. believed the Smiths did see their man, therefore there is only ONE man left in the equation - Smithman.

Anyone who can comprehend the meaning of simple words can see that the man described by Jane CANNOT be the same man as that described by the Smiths. Dark skin versus light skin, dark hair versus light-brown hair, long at the back versus short at the back and sides, baggy clothing versus normal fitted clothing etc etc.

by Verdi 21.10.18 0:47

Phoebe wrote:I see Tony that you feel free to ignore Verdi's request. I presume that in the interests of fairness and equal treatment of members I can do the same.

@Phoebe. You seem to have difficulty reading and understanding comments on the forum..

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 3 8fe6360b-840d-41f2-8566-6037a242e9db

This time I'm not asking .... drop it!

by Phoebe 21.10.18 0:58

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:I see Tony that you feel free to ignore Verdi's request. I presume that in the interests of fairness and equal treatment of members I can do the same.
@Phoebe. You seem to have difficulty reading and understanding comments on the forum..

This time I'm not asking .... drop it!

Verdi, could you please explain what you mean. Do you mean that I alone am being censored and not allowed to put points or cite facts in a civilised manner. If your answer is yes, could you explain why some members are allowed to express their point of view and others aren't. Are we only allowed to post if we are in agreement with certain theories or other members. Given that I have broken no forum rules, I wonder why you might engage in such censorship.

by Verdi 21.10.18 1:28

@Phoebe.

My comments are perfectly clear.

No, members are not required to follow a a party line but they are expected to adhere to forum policy that requires only evidenced material and informed opinion to be presented.

The many questions you ask have been answered over and over and over again yet for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented. Your persistent goading commentary is inflammatory and disruptive with little or no productive purpose - I have to ponder why you are here. I'm not interested in the flowery syrupy words, only the true agenda.

There is a limit to my endurance, consider this a mild warning. Pack it in or you will no longer be welcome on the forum.

ETA: This does not warrant a response.

by Phoebe 21.10.18 10:05

Fact - The truth is in the files. Don't hide behind excuses when seeking reasons to shut down the presentation of the facts from the files.

Now Verdi, ban me if you will, as it seems you have been itching to ever since I have persisted in pointing out these hard, cold, true facts from the files!!
Censoring someone when they challenge an unsound theory with FACTS is an "abuse of power" by a moderator and akin to Clarence's role to "control what comes out" and only allow one narrative to be told! How ironic!
Continuing to censor the emergence of truth and facts merely sends a clear message of motivation.

by lemonbutter 21.10.18 10:34

I have to say, I am appalled by the recent attacks on Phoebe's posts. I have no trouble following the logic and sound reasoning of her well-informed grasp of the PJ files.

I just cannot understand why there appears to be an attempt to shut her down!!

What is the agenda - anyone?

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)