Theory Smithman

by willowthewisp 02.10.18 15:09

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. Tony can you answer these questions please.

Why did the McCanns not seek to have the Smithman sighting investigated ASAP by their own investigators.
Why did they not push the P.J. to give them information about it, or exhort the police to investigate it.
Why did they not promote it publicly as soon as they learned of it and appeal for further information.
Why did they not immediately seek to contact the family to speak to them about what they saw. After all, they were desperate to speak to an O.C. employee who wasn't even at work that night and who had seen nothing!
Why did they ignore a large group of witnesses who had seen an unconscious girl, matching their "missing" daughter's description, being carried by a man at the crucial time.
Why would they get the Smiths to invent a sighting and then totally ignore it when it was reported!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y at 33:51

GM: “I think, absolutely. We do not know what’s happened to Madeleine. We don’t know who’s taken her. Probably our best chance of finding her is identifying that person, and that’s why the e-fits and sketches and the new information tonight are so important to us. Because that’s probably the best chance we’ve got of finding Madeleine.”

It is a fact that the two e-fits of the person the Smiths had (allegedly) met appeared on the McCanns’ website only after the 2013 Crimewatch. It is also a fact that the McCans had known about the e-fits’ existence long before 2013. Taken at face value, these two facts, in the light of the above GM’s statement, contradict each other, and this contradiction gives reasonable grounds to doubt GM’s truthfulness.

I know nothing like that about the Smiths. Does anyone?

Then why would you need your newly acquired benefactor to meet with Two legal representatives and three named Arquido's to discuss a "Job Offer" or a Job well done in November 2007 in Portugal,when they are not supposed to talk about the case,yet it was under the noses of Portugal PJ,but they were unaware?

Now that is some coincidence,eh,Mr Brian Kennedy,Mr Smethurst!

Ask Mr Dave Edgar,Alex Cowley about the E-fits from 2008,are these the same ones used for Crime Watch special, 14 October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,Julian Totman no longer required it seems?

by Tony Cadogan 02.10.18 15:26

Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

Would you be so good as to describe the problems you're experiencing on this thread..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f9-technical-support-ask-for-help-here

It's important that admin are made aware of any technical problems experienced by members. Thanks.

Thank you for asking and for the link.

I emailed Jill yesterday following her kind invitation to do so when in difficulty. I have received no reply, but that’s no problem: I understand how busy she must be. I logged in at first try today. My ‘PS’ was in justification of my delayed reply to Tony Bennett’s comment on something I’d said, I wanted to submit it yesterday morning.

To avoid doubt, I’m computer-literate and I do not suspect foul play.

Should my difficulties persist, I will post on the link you’ve provided.

Regards.

by Tony Cadogan 02.10.18 15:52

willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. Tony can you answer these questions please.

Why did the McCanns not seek to have the Smithman sighting investigated ASAP by their own investigators.
Why did they not push the P.J. to give them information about it, or exhort the police to investigate it.
Why did they not promote it publicly as soon as they learned of it and appeal for further information.
Why did they not immediately seek to contact the family to speak to them about what they saw. After all, they were desperate to speak to an O.C. employee who wasn't even at work that night and who had seen nothing!
Why did they ignore a large group of witnesses who had seen an unconscious girl, matching their "missing" daughter's description, being carried by a man at the crucial time.
Why would they get the Smiths to invent a sighting and then totally ignore it when it was reported!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y at 33:51

GM: “I think, absolutely. We do not know what’s happened to Madeleine. We don’t know who’s taken her. Probably our best chance of finding her is identifying that person, and that’s why the e-fits and sketches and the new information tonight are so important to us. Because that’s probably the best chance we’ve got of finding Madeleine.”

It is a fact that the two e-fits of the person the Smiths had (allegedly) met appeared on the McCanns’ website only after the 2013 Crimewatch. It is also a fact that the McCans had known about the e-fits’ existence long before 2013. Taken at face value, these two facts, in the light of the above GM’s statement, contradict each other, and this contradiction gives reasonable grounds to doubt GM’s truthfulness.

I know nothing like that about the Smiths. Does anyone?
Then why would you need your newly acquired benefactor to meet with Two legal representatives and three named Arquido's to discuss a "Job Offer" or a Job well done in November 2007 in Portugal,when they are not supposed to talk about the case,yet it was under the noses of Portugal PJ,but they were unaware?

Now that is some coincidence,eh,Mr Brian Kennedy,Mr Smethurst!

Ask Mr Dave Edgar,Alex Cowley about the E-fits from 2008,are these the same ones used for Crime Watch special, 14 October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,Julian Totman no longer required it seems?

My dear WHW

You’ve caught me completely unawares! Mercy! I surrender! :)

Me dough is rising. Have to rush.

Kind regards

by Phoebe 02.10.18 17:38

Can anyone provide a source re. the alleged Salisito meeting between Kennedy, his lawyer Smethurst, Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete OTHER THAN ones which originate form Steven Swinford (the journalist who penned so many articles in defence of the McCanns).

In the much-referenced piece by Steven Swinford, it is claimed that the above named persons met with a view to reaching a deal which stopped Murat from taking a case against the McCanns and other members of the Tapas group for defamation. It is also this piece which alleges that a "job offer" was to be made by Kennedy to Murat.

The only other source I can find (also originating from a journalist) is from Joanna Morais' blog.

[size=35]Robert Murat criminal complaint against Jane Tanner
by Joana Morais 9 years ago[/size]

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED - Page 5 Picture4et

Today, a UK media journalist, ITV'S Keir Simmons was able to confirm with Mr. Pagarete, Robert Murat's lawyer, that he has filed a legal complaint against Jane Tanner.

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED - Page 5 SNN0705H-280_798002a

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED - Page 5 SNN0705H-280_798002a

According to Portuguese Journalist Frederico Duarte de Carvalho's twitter, the case which is still at the inquest phase and under the secrecy of justice, is taking place at the Criminal Court of Lagos, in the Algarve, and apparently Mr. Amaral has already testified. Jane Tanner has not yet been constituted as an arguida, nor has she appeared in court.

Robert Murat's criminal complaint against Jane Tanner for calumnious denunciation, has already heard some witnesses, and will continue to hear some more, one of which is Ricardo Paiva, the PJ inspector who is currently being called as a 'liar' by the McCanns Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte.

I have always believed that the meeting was to stop Murat taking legal action which would embarrass the Mccanns.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.18 21:45

Phoebe wrote:Can anyone provide a source re. the alleged Salisito meeting between Kennedy, his lawyer Smethurst, Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete OTHER THAN ones which originate form Steven Swinford (the journalist who penned so many articles in defence of the McCanns).

In the much-referenced piece by Steven Swinford, it is claimed that the above named persons met with a view to reaching a deal which stopped Murat from taking a case against the McCanns and other members of the Tapas group for defamation. It is also this piece which alleges that a "job offer" was to be made by Kennedy to Murat.

@ Phoebe I have begun a thread on the Salsalito Summit in your honour at this link:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15579-the-salsalito-summit-13-november-2007#391615

Thank you so much for asking about it.

I will have more to say about this and will also return here to answer some recent questions on the thread, but will be away for a family event for a short while

by Verdi 02.10.18 23:43

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

Would you be so good as to describe the problems you're experiencing on this thread..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f9-technical-support-ask-for-help-here

It's important that admin are made aware of any technical problems experienced by members. Thanks.
Thank you for asking and for the link.

I emailed Jill yesterday following her kind invitation to do so when in difficulty. I have received no reply, but that’s no problem: I understand how busy she must be. I logged in at first try today. My ‘PS’ was in justification of my delayed reply to Tony Bennett’s comment on something I’d said, I wanted to submit it yesterday morning.

To avoid doubt, I’m computer-literate and I do not suspect foul play.

Should my difficulties persist, I will post on the link you’ve provided.

Regards.

It would be greatly appreciated.

Apart from anything else, if other members are experiencing similar problems they will be encouraged to speak out rather than taking a complaisant stance, thinking it an individual anomaly.

Who knows, as you are computer-literate you might even be able to resolve your own issue in addition to assisting the forum, if it be a general problem of log-in experienced by other members and not just a personal problem only known to your goodself, for whatever reason.

Meanwhile, if members are experiencing log-in problems, admin need to know pronto!

by **Jill Havern** 03.10.18 6:24

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

Would you be so good as to describe the problems you're experiencing on this thread..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f9-technical-support-ask-for-help-here

It's important that admin are made aware of any technical problems experienced by members. Thanks.
Thank you for asking and for the link.

I emailed Jill yesterday following her kind invitation to do so when in difficulty. I have received no reply, but that’s no problem: I understand how busy she must be. I logged in at first try today. My ‘PS’ was in justification of my delayed reply to Tony Bennett’s comment on something I’d said, I wanted to submit it yesterday morning.

To avoid doubt, I’m computer-literate and I do not suspect foul play.

Should my difficulties persist, I will post on the link you’ve provided.

Regards.

Yes, I have been very busy. Sorry. Then when I noticed your email you were already logged in.

Maybe it's got something to do with all the various anonymous proxies you use that makes it look like you're on some kind of world tour in a supersonic jet? One minute Italy, then Canada, then France, then the USA, then Russia, then the UK, then back to some place in Europe etc...I've counted 53 so far and you've only posted 78 times in total! Phew!!

As you're computer-literate, is it possible the forum itself (i.e Forumotion) is simply confused and suspects foul play with all your various locations, especially now that GDPR is very much active? Maybe Forumotion thinks you're a group of people trying to use one username and the forum is actually trying to protect your account from fraudulent activity? Maybe you could try deleting the forum cookies, inbetween the various anonymous proxies, which can be found at the bottom of the Home Page.

Other than all that I can find nothing wrong with your account.

$i don\'t know$

by Ladyinred 03.10.18 7:11

Why would anyone need to use anonymous proxies when posting here?

by Tony Cadogan 03.10.18 9:30

Jill Havern wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

Would you be so good as to describe the problems you're experiencing on this thread..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f9-technical-support-ask-for-help-here

It's important that admin are made aware of any technical problems experienced by members. Thanks.
Thank you for asking and for the link.

I emailed Jill yesterday following her kind invitation to do so when in difficulty. I have received no reply, but that’s no problem: I understand how busy she must be. I logged in at first try today. My ‘PS’ was in justification of my delayed reply to Tony Bennett’s comment on something I’d said, I wanted to submit it yesterday morning.

To avoid doubt, I’m computer-literate and I do not suspect foul play.

Should my difficulties persist, I will post on the link you’ve provided.

Regards.
Yes, I have been very busy. Sorry. Then when I noticed your email you were already logged in.

Maybe it's got something to do with all the various anonymous proxies you use that makes it look like you're on some kind of world tour in a supersonic jet? One minute Italy, then Canada, then France, then the USA, then Russia, then the UK, then back to some place in Europe etc...I've counted 53 so far and you've only posted 78 times in total! Phew!!

As you're computer-literate, is it possible the forum itself (i.e Forumotion) is simply confused and suspects foul play with all your various locations, especially now that GDPR is very much active? Maybe Forumotion thinks you're a group of people trying to use one username and the forum is actually trying to protect your account from fraudulent activity? Maybe you could try deleting the forum cookies, inbetween the various anonymous proxies, which can be found at the bottom of the Home Page.

Other than all that I can find nothing wrong with your account.

$i don\'t know$

Dear Jill

“Yes, I have been very busy. Sorry. Then when I noticed your email you were already logged in.”

I entirely understand. In fact, it’s me who owes you an apology for having troubled you unnecessarily. I could and should have investigated thoroughly what the most likely cause of my login difficulties could’ve been before bothering you. I am very sorry.

“Maybe it's got something to do with all the various anonymous proxies you use that makes it look like you're on some kind of world tour in a supersonic jet?” etc.

:D Your observations are spot on! What put me off scent wsa the fact that a long time ago, when I’d first experienced difficulties with logging in on CMoMM, I’d just given up and stopped posting, but om return, a month or so ago, I initially logged in without a hitch. In hindsight, I realise that those difficulties were due to some server-side changes introduced at the time.

I am most grateful for your continued attention and, once again, I am very sorry.

Respectfully

Tony Cadogan

by Tony Cadogan 03.10.18 9:34

Ladyinred wrote:Why would anyone need to use anonymous proxies when posting here?

Indeed, my Lady (in red). Wink

Perhaps the answer is blowing in the wind? :)

by Tony Cadogan 03.10.18 16:44

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Why would anyone need to use anonymous proxies when posting here?
Indeed, my Lady (in red).

Perhaps the answer is blowing in the wind? :)

To put it differently: Why would someone posting anonymously question anonymity?

[mod]
To put it frankly: If you wish to remain as a member of CMOMM @Tony Cadogan .... be warned .... stop playing games!

This is a serious forum with a serious objective, no place for playground romps or mind games.
[/mod]

by Phoebe 03.10.18 18:59

by Tony Bennett on 01.10.18 13:59

@Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. You state above -

"However, since the Smiths' credibility is in doubt, can we trust anything he says? After all, he was quoted back in January 2008 as saying that "I've met Robert Murat several times and known him for years".

The "quote" you proffer came from a newspaper. That's how trustworthy it is!!

That is a very lazy and very bad argument to use, and you know it.
----------------------------------------
I presume the Smiths, like all others who had given official statements in the case, were bound by the Portuguese law of judicial secrecy during a criminal investigation. As property owners there, they would have been fully aware of the consequences of breaking the law and would have had to face those grave consequences whenever they returned to their Portuguese property. It wasn't as if they were casual visitors who could opt to steer clear of Portugal in the future.
Sergeant Liam Hogan of the Irish Garda Siochana confirmed in a letter to the P.J. on January 30th 2008 that Martin Smith assured him that he had "given no stories" to the press.
So, are we to believe that Martin Smith is a liar, and that he had already broken Portuguese law by "giving stories" to the media in January, despite the official assurance by police on the second last day of that month that he had not!

I note the Daily "Fail" (in an article dated January 3rd 2008, by Sandra Murphy and Vanessa Allen) claims to quote Martin Smith stating -
"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.
and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation. "

Now that's odd! According to the Daily Fail Martin Smith claims to have had no contact with the Investigating police since May 26th '07. Yet, we know FOR A FACT (thanks to the P.J. files released after this rubbish was published) that Martin Smith had been in contact with the Investigating officers in Sept '07 to claim that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann! We also know FOR A FACT that Martin Smith was questioned by the Irish police in September '07 at the request of the very same "investigating police".

Is it any wonder I take MSM stories with the large pinch of salt they richly deserve. For me, the only credibility in doubt is that of the MSM.
Finally Tony, you always make much of the need to alter beliefs when new evidence or information comes to light. I agree! For years we have been reassured that Martin Smith had changed his mind about Smithman being Gerry. Now we know that is not the case. Should this new information not prompt a re-think of any theories based on that erroneous assumption.

by **sharonl** 03.10.18 22:53

Martin Smith in his statement said that he only saw this person in passing, there was nothing unusual about the sighting as it was common to see people carrying young children home. He also said that he wouldn't recognise this person again.

Even if Smith did see someone with a child, it could have been anyone. Even Tannerman is alleged to have turned up after 6 years.

And Smith wasn't even sure that it was Gerry, he was only 40-60% sure. Despite Gerry's many faults, I think he is intelligent enough to realise that it would be too risky to be running around the search area with Madeleine in the hour that Kate sounded the alarm and started a massive search.

by Phoebe 03.10.18 23:22

sharonl wrote:Martin Smith in his statement said that he only saw this person in passing, there was nothing unusual about the sighting as it was common to see people carrying young children home. He also said that he wouldn't recognise this person again.

Even if Smith did see someone with a child, it could have been anyone. Even Tannerman is alleged to have turned up after 6 years.

And Smith wasn't even sure that it was Gerry, he was only 40-60% sure. Despite Gerry's many faults, I think he is intelligent enough to realise that it would be too risky to be running around the search area with Madeleine in the hour that Kate sounded the alarm and started a massive search.

Yes, Martin Smith made it clear that he could not say he was absolutely 100% certain that it was Gerry McCann whom he had seen. He could only say that he was 60-80% sure that it was (not 40-60% as alleged above).
Yes, it could have been anyone with a child.

The perplexing matter is the McCanns' complete lack of reaction to this sighting. They failed to seek further information about it, failed to urge the P.J. to follow it up, failed to contact the Smiths, failed to promote it in interviews or include any mention of it on their website until after the 2013 Crime Watch program, 6 years after the "abduction".
Also perplexing is the apparent need of the BBC to tell lies and suggest that Martin Smith had recanted his statement of belief that Smithman was Gerry McCann.
Why on earth would the Smiths' sighting of some random man demand such shunning and deliberate untruths. As I said previously, I could understand Team McCann avoiding it after Sept when Smith pointed the finger at Gerry but why had they avoided it like the plague up to this point. They couldn't possibly have known that Smith was going to identify Gerry, could they. So why the studious avoidance!

by Verdi 04.10.18 1:08

The McCanns made no direct reference to any of the bogus sightings created by their team of private investigators, headed by Brian Kennedy the millionaire double glazing salesman.

They couldn't .... a) Portuguese judiciary secrecy and b) it would have been a bit obvious.

Instead they put emphasis on, and extensively promoted, their friends fictitious sighting which coincidentally matched that of one or two other significant witness sightings so they were able to deviously slip them into focus - culminating in the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special broadcast in October 2013.

The McCanns have never done any of their own dirty work. It's all a big game.

Bit players like journalists and ex-cops with scant knowledge of the case will never assist the quest for truth. If anything they are a nuisance propagating false information with their vague knowledge.

If you need confirmation, just look at the many independent investigations undertaken over the past eleven + years with self interest always aforethought. Not one has been productive in any way shape or form. Just career promotion, profiteering and keeping the gossip columns in overdrive.

by Phoebe 04.10.18 9:18

@ Verdi. You state above -

"Instead they put emphasis on, and extensively promoted, their friends fictitious sighting which coincidentally matched that of one or two other significant witness sightings so they were able to deviously slip them into focus - culminating in the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special broadcast in October 2013"

The McCanns, (when they could no longer ignore the Smith sighting without it looking darned suspicious) certainly did try to imply that Smithman and Tannerman might be one and the same. No argument from me about that!

However, the description given by the Smiths and Jane Tanner of the men they saw differs so much that anyone reading the Smiths statement would realise that Smithman, with his short-back-and-sides-light brown hair, and light skin, could not possibly be the hirsute man with the abundant, shiny, long black hair and swarthy complexion who Jane claimed to have seen.

Add to this that, by September, the Smiths had decided that Smithman looked very like Gerry McCann while Jane's "abductor" doesn't resemble Gerry in the slightest and it is patently obvious that the two men could not possibly be the same person.
Given that the BBC took the extraordinary step of lying when claiming that Martin Smith had changed his mind, and now accepted that it was not Gerry he had seen, and it is easy to see that moves were afoot to mislead the public about what the Smiths described seeing.
Further add to that the ridiculous lies from the Press that the Smiths had broken judicial secrecy and spoken to them to confirm that they had never contacted the police after May 26th '07 (conveniently airbrushing out Martin Smith's identification of Gerry as the man they met) and it becomes patently obvious that the Smith sighing is a sensitive subject which must be controlled and manipulated.
The sighting could no longer be safely ignored after the P.J. files became public, so every attempt was made to down-play and manipulate it!

by Tony Cadogan 04.10.18 10:18

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. You state above -

"Instead they put emphasis on, and extensively promoted, their friends fictitious sighting which coincidentally matched that of one or two other significant witness sightings so they were able to deviously slip them into focus - culminating in the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special broadcast in October 2013"

The McCanns, (when they could no longer ignore the Smith sighting without it looking darned suspicious) certainly did try to imply that Smithman and Tannerman might be one and the same. No argument from me about that!

However, the description given by the Smiths and Jane Tanner of the men they saw differs so much that anyone reading the Smiths statement would realise that Smithman, with his short-back-and-sides-light brown hair, and light skin, could not possibly be the hirsute man with the abundant, shiny, long black hair and swarthy complexion who Jane claimed to have seen.

Add to this that, by September, the Smiths had decided that Smithman looked very like Gerry McCann while Jane's "abductor" doesn't resemble Gerry in the slightest and it is patently obvious that the two men could not possibly be the same person.
Given that the BBC took the extraordinary step of lying when claiming that Martin Smith had changed his mind, and now accepted that it was not Gerry he had seen, and it is easy to see that moves were afoot to mislead the public about what the Smiths described seeing.
Further add to that the ridiculous lies from the Press that the Smiths had broken judicial secrecy and spoken to them to confirm that they had never contacted the police after May 26th '07 (conveniently airbrushing out Martin Smith's identification of Gerry as the man they met) and it becomes patently obvious that the Smith sighing is a sensitive subject which must be controlled and manipulated.
The sighting could no longer be safely ignored after the P.J. files became public, so every attempt was made to down-play and manipulate it!

Thank you, Phoebe. I agree with you and paraphrase what I’ve said before:

Ones the Portuguese investigation had been shelved, the McCanns did not take advantage of the freedom to publicise the e-fits of the Smithsman. The e-fits, known to the McCanns, remained unknown to the public for several years!

GM in 2013: “Probably our best chance of finding her is identifying that person, and that’s why the e-fits….are so important to us. Because that’s probably the best chance we’ve got of finding Madeleine.” Unless GM had been mentally incompetent in one way or another, he must’ve been lying!

by willowthewisp 04.10.18 12:36

The E-fits or copies were given to UK Police in 2010/11,now when did the Operation Grange Review begin,as asked for by the McCann's?
At, Leveson inquiry,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Home secretary Theresa May,"Front page of the scum unless you repent",ping,review granted?

You still "trust the Truth" from MP's,Police Officers not to deceive,be Honest,tell the Truth and whole truth,so help you God,after eleven years of involvement?

by **Jill Havern** 04.10.18 12:59

willowthewisp wrote:At, Leveson inquiry,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Home secretary Theresa May,"Front page of the scum unless you repent",ping,review granted?

You have such a way with words!

by Tony Cadogan 04.10.18 14:17

Jill Havern wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:At, Leveson inquiry,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Home secretary Theresa May,"Front page of the scum unless you repent",ping,review granted?
You have such a way with words!

Indeed! :)

by willowthewisp 04.10.18 14:24

Jill Havern wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:At, Leveson inquiry,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Home secretary Theresa May,"Front page of the scum unless you repent",ping,review granted?
You have such a way with words!

Hi jill Havern,in the Smith family sighting a person carrying a young girl over their Left Shoulder on 3 May 2007,Fact.

What is so far known is that all Nine people of the Smith Family were present along the alley way,fact.

The person and young girl have not been identified,fact.

Robert Murat was Not the person carrying the young girl on 3 May 2007,by Mr Smith,Fact.

We are informed via Tapas 7/9,that Mr McCann was present at the Tapas table when Kate informed them 22.00 PM,"They have taken her,Madeleine or Madeleine has disappeared,fact?

So the conundrum is,people are asked to believe 7/8 place Mr McCann at Tapas Bar,apartment 5a at 22.00 pm?

Mr McCann admits to being present when Kate Raises the alarm at Tapas Table,before leaving to search the Apartment?

Yet No staff can directly state seeing/being present to Mr McCann at 22.00 pm?

To discount the sighting of a Man carrying a Girl over his Left shoulder,as to be in anyway be involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance,whom the family had reported as missing on 3 May 2007 to the GNR at 22.41 pm?

Madeleine McCann is the only Three Year old girl known to have disappeared in Portugal on 3 May 2007,fact.

The people to doubt are the "Smith Family",due to what has formally been explained over the past Eleven years,where inaccuracies as to what the Smith family had stated, have been instigated as facts, yet later retracted by the BBC about the,Crime Watch special 14 October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,E-fits,Julian Totman,Jane "Moving time frame" Creche Dad,daughters clothing incident?

Person's have "Brazenly"sat in on Crime watch Programme stating the necessity to identify E-fit Man,which they had drawn up by their "Own Private Investigators" in 2007,copies given to Metropolitan Police several years later 2011, operation Grange, Review,but withheld from public by the McCann family in trying to trace their daughter?

It has taken considerable time to expedite the e-fits evidence as Mr Tony Bennett can verify,yet No UK Police force has manged to present E-fits after Eleven years of involvement,surely this must ring alarm bells,especially when Leicestershire Police Officers were present on Mr Robert Murat Identified by Jane Tanner!

I sincerely look forward to any Prosecutions as to likely,"Pervert The Course of Justice" in regard to Madeleine McCann's disappearance,as an absolute minimum charge to any person's involved with the case?

by **sharonl** 04.10.18 19:48

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. You state above -

"Instead they put emphasis on, and extensively promoted, their friends fictitious sighting which coincidentally matched that of one or two other significant witness sightings so they were able to deviously slip them into focus - culminating in the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special broadcast in October 2013"

The McCanns, (when they could no longer ignore the Smith sighting without it looking darned suspicious) certainly did try to imply that Smithman and Tannerman might be one and the same. No argument from me about that!

However, the description given by the Smiths and Jane Tanner of the men they saw differs so much that anyone reading the Smiths statement would realise that Smithman, with his short-back-and-sides-light brown hair, and light skin, could not possibly be the hirsute man with the abundant, shiny, long black hair and swarthy complexion who Jane claimed to have seen.

Add to this that, by September, the Smiths had decided that Smithman looked very like Gerry McCann while Jane's "abductor" doesn't resemble Gerry in the slightest and it is patently obvious that the two men could not possibly be the same person.
Given that the BBC took the extraordinary step of lying when claiming that Martin Smith had changed his mind, and now accepted that it was not Gerry he had seen, and it is easy to see that moves were afoot to mislead the public about what the Smiths described seeing.
Further add to that the ridiculous lies from the Press that the Smiths had broken judicial secrecy and spoken to them to confirm that they had never contacted the police after May 26th '07 (conveniently airbrushing out Martin Smith's identification of Gerry as the man they met) and it becomes patently obvious that the Smith sighing is a sensitive subject which must be controlled and manipulated.
The sighting could no longer be safely ignored after the P.J. files became public, so every attempt was made to down-play and manipulate it!

Sorry Phoebe, but which version of Jane's sighting are you referring to here? The first one when she didn't see his face? The e-fit with the moustache? Robert Murat? When she saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist? or some other version?

Which version of the Smith sighting are you referring too? The one when he wouldn't recognise the man again? When he saw Gerry McCann? When he saw one of the e-fit men? When he saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.18 21:25

sharonl wrote:

Sorry Phoebe, but which version of Jane's sighting are you referring to here? The first one when she didn't see his face? The e-fit with the moustache? Robert Murat? When she saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist? or some other version?

Which version of the Smith sighting are you referring too? The one when he wouldn't recognise the man again? When he saw Gerry McCann? When he saw one of the e-fit men? When he saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist?

I have to laugh at dear old @ Phoebe trying to claim that the BBC 'lied', based on Gemma O'Doherty's weird article.

Maybe Phoebe has forgotten that it's on the record that Martin Smith was TWICE interviewed by either DCI Andy Redwood or one of Operation Grange's senior detectives as they prepared for their CrimeWatch epic, once in 2012 & once in 2013.

Does she really believe that SMITH, on both occasions, told Redwood to his face: "Look, I'm telling you that the man we all saw that night was Gerry McCann. Don't you dare use my sighting to promote the lie that Madeleine McCann was abducted!"?

NO. He co-operated with the BBC and Operation Grange and didn't bat an eyelid when they blatantly used his sighting to frame another phantom abductor (as former U.S. prosecutor Wendy Murphy so succincly Put it when asked about those two phoney efits.

He raised not a whisper of protest...

...until Gemma O'Doherty came a-knocking at his door looking for a good story

by Phoebe 04.10.18 23:08

@ sharonl. _ you asked which version of Jane Tanners sighting I was referring to. For clarity, here they are -

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

Time: 11.30

"Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type"

----------------------------------------------------
AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner

At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the OC, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the creche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service. Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes with a Slight "heel"
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Tanner Rogatory Statement 8th April 2008

“But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.........Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy

4078 “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”
Reply “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes"

So Jane Tanners description of Tannerman on 3 occasions - Dark-skinned; Lots of long glossy dark hair: Horrible corticine- mustard trousers, dark puffy anorak; Baggy, ill-fitting clothes!
------------------------------------------------------
Now for the Smiths - Martin Smith 26th May 2007 -
His hair was SHORT, in a basic male cut, BROWN in colour..He was wearing CREAM or BEIGE-coloured cloth trousers in a CLASSIC CUT"

Aoife Smith 26th May 2007 -
(1)" the individual was male, Caucasian, LIGHT-SKINNED... His hair was thick-ish, LIGHT BROWN in colour, SHORT AT THE BACK (normal) and a bit longer on the top...His trousers were SMOOTH "rights" along the legs, BEIGE in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.

Peter Smith 26th May 2007 -
Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. SHORT hair, BROWN in colour.

So in a nutshell, from the reliable evidence in the files- the man Jane saw was dark-skinned with lots of dark, glossy hair reaching down the back of his neck. He wore yellowish or mustard, baggy trousers and a dark puffy anorak. His clothing was notably baggy

Meanwhile, the man the Smiths saw was light-skinned, with short, light-brown hair and cream - beige trousers of a normal, classic, fitted cut.

by Verdi 04.10.18 23:53

Tony Bennett wrote:I have to laugh at dear old @ Phoebe trying to claim that the BBC 'lied', based on Gemma O'Doherty's weird article.

That occurred to me also. This is what Gemma O'Doherty had to say in the Village Magazine article published in February 2018..

Gemma O'Doherty: The Village magazine - 9th February 2018

Last month, I asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.
....................

I think I said at the time the subject was being discussed on CMoMM - show us the evidence !!! Without such it's just words - hearsay.

She then goes on to use Colin Sutton to bolster her argument ....

"Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation."

Colin Sutton, whose public persona so far has been less than convincing. His documented opinions regarding to case have vacillated beyond recognition - rather like that of Mark Williams-Thomas.