Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

by Hongkong Phooey 20.10.13 12:08

first time poster on this forum however I have done on many others (so go easy!!)

Has anybody worked out the Brian Kennedy connection, is he just a publicity seeker or is there more to it?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 12:38

Hongkong Phooey wrote:First time poster on this forum however I have done on many others (so go easy!!)

Has anybody worked out the Brian Kennedy connection, is he just a publicity seeker or is there more to it?

Welcome.

If you search the forum using the words 'Brian', 'Kennedy', you will find plenty about him here.

I provided a very quick summary of his involvement in the case on another thread a week or so ago, here it is:

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

I think a look at Brian Kenedy's actions tell us a lot. He...

* bought a house in Knutsford from which to run the McCann Team's investigation

* chose Metodo 3 - a highly controversial detective agency with a track record in telephone tapping and money-laundering but not in finding missing children

* personally appointed money-laundering expert Gary Hagland to work for him, to laise with Metodo 3, and plan the McCann's Moroccan campaign (search 'Hagland' on this forum)

* falied to sack Metodo 3 after its boss Francisco Marco infamously boasted of being hot on the heels of 'the kidnappers' and said that 'Maddie will be home by Christmas'

* worked closely with Metodo 3 investigator Antonio Giminez Raso - who spent 4 years in jail on suspicion of helping a 27-strong vicious drugs gang - and Julian Peribanez. who has just admitted the serious criminal offence of illegally taping the conversations of leading Spanish politicians

* according to Mark Hollingsworth in theEvening Standard, intimidated - with the help of the men he employed - material witnesses in the case who were then too frightened to give evidence

* took his in-house lawyer, Freemason and Past Lodge Grandmaster Edward Smethurst, to a secret meeting with Robert Murat and his lawyer at the home of Murat's uncle, on 13 November

* on the same visit to Portugal was present with Antonio Giminez Raso and Francisco Marco of Metodo 3 when they gave 3 'very credible' possible sightings of Madeleine to the PJ in Portugal - none of which led to anything

* appointed Kevin Halligen, a serial con-man, to 'search for Madeleine'

* failed to supervise Halligen's contract, resulting in Halligen netting £500,000 plus expenses from Madeleine's fund (money raised by a generous public), when most of the time he was running up massive hotel bills in the UK, Italy and the U.S. with his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis

* appointed Dave ('Jane Tanner might have seen a woman') Edgar and long-retired constable and pigeon fancier from over 1,000 feet up on Halkyn Mountain in north Wales, Arthur Cowley, to replace Halligen, and

* got his friend to register the never-used domain name alphaig.co.uk in order to promote the Alphaig deception (search 'Alphaig' on this forum) and

Last but not least, and of particular relevance to this thread...

* contacted Martin Smith, sent his private investigators over to Ireland to chat to him about his sightings, got his private investigators to draw up e-fits of the man Smith and his family claimed to have seen, and then sat on them for 5 years, until the combined forces of the Prime Minister, News International, the BBC and the Metropolitan Polcie were ready on 14 October 2013 to tell us to start looking for him.

by ConcernedCitizen 20.10.13 12:56

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Praia is pretty small, and from experience, in these sorts of places English speaking people who own apartments do generally get to know each other, even at slight acquaintance level through going to the same bars/cafe's, supermarkets etc.

I would not rush to dismiss Smith on the basis he was acquainted to Murat, as that is not unexpected.

Instead, Gerry's response to "did you now Robert Murat" remains one of the huge red Gerry-flags.

Also, it is a significant matter that NONE of the MSM have loudly questioned WHY the McCanns never published the two Smith photofits when they have had hundreds of opportunities to do so over a five year period. They paid their PI's to come up with info, then spectacularly failed to use it in their "campaign".

I wouldn't rush to dismiss the Smith sighting either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g
At 43.30 .... “He [Goncalo Amaral] is publishing a book to make money and all of this publicity surrounding it is being watched ... everything, every word he says is being studied very closely by lawyers for Kate and Gerry.
He is doing this to make money out of Madeleine’s situation, and if has clues in the book he should have well acted on those when he was an officer on the case to find Madeleine.” Clarence Mitchell

by **PeterMac** 20.10.13 13:01

ConcernedCitizen wrote:I wouldn't rush to dismiss the Smith sighting either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g
At 43.30 .... “He [Goncalo Amaral] is publishing a book to make money and all of this publicity surrounding it is being watched ... everything, every word he says is being studied very closely by lawyers for Kate and Gerry.
He is doing this to make money out of Madeleine’s situation, and if has clues in the book he should have well acted on those when he was an officer on the case to find Madeleine.” Clarence Mitchell

MITCHELL controlled everything that was released, and therefore controlled the Non-release of the e-fits. Remember all his boasts about "operational reasons".

GOTCHA !

by Smokeandmirrors 20.10.13 13:20

Oooh that Mitchell is such a repugnant beast. Who was it that said "he lies with as many teeth in his head" or words to that effect

by winjoy 20.10.13 13:25

Eyei wrote:
winjoy wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

The Sunday Express has all but revealed the truth - pretty good to see this in the MSM:clapping:
Well the day has come for something I never thought I would see - my Mother used to be a staunch 'Gerry and Kate can do no wrong' person but after seeing this article has completely changed her tune and now believes that they are not the saints she thought they were and wants to know more about the police files and the facts of Madeleine's disappearance.

The tide is definitely turning.

Eyei, I was beginning to think I must be going lala and that nobody else could see how close to the wind the Express have gone with this article! I was fairly gobsmacked when I read it, but at the same time delighted!

by ConcernedCitizen 20.10.13 13:34

Tony Bennett wrote:Last but not least, and of particular relevance to this thread...

* contacted Martin Smith, sent his private investigators over to Ireland to chat to him about his sightings, got his private investigators to draw up e-fits of the man Smith and his family claimed to have seen, and then sat on them for 5 years, until the combined forces of the Prime Minister, News International, the BBC and the Metropolitan Polcie were ready on 14 October 2013 to tell us to start looking for him.

Chat .... or influence? .... persuade? .... threaten? .... silenced? ....

Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case because someone didn't like how his investigation was going - he pretty much said so himself.
Witnesses have been gotten to, possibly also Martin Smith's family, whose original testimony I don't think should be dismissed.

At 41:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g featuring Goncalo Amaral's book, one can hear of another witness who came forward about the open car boot airing day and night - she wasn't heard at the PJ because her deposition was not considered to be relevant, which Goncalo thought strange. While she was not heard, while a rogatory letter was sent to England, relatives of Gerry and Kate McCann came out to relay a 'story' about having transported meat from the supermarket in the car boot which had leaked blood. .... leaving Goncalo perplexed about how the family had heard about the witness, even though she had not been heard by the PJ.

----

@PeterMac .... yes I know, there has been a lot of manoeuvering behind the scenes in this case (that is Neptune for you). Frankly though, the biggest crime here (apart from what has happened to Madeleine herself) is how certain people can command extraordinary help from people in high places, when the average Jane/Joe (with a genuine defence) would have had to fend for themselves. Then add the media/press ~~circus~~ reportage into the mix, which still continues to this day. No wonder people are turning to the web for the real news.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 13:41

winjoy wrote:
Eyei wrote:
winjoy wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

The Sunday Express...

I was fairly gobsmacked when I read [this article], but at the same time delighted!

Quote from Sunday Express:

In 2008 Mr Smith worked on e-fit images...

Where? In Drogehda, his home. Or elsewhere?

With whom? Who exactly worked with him on these e-fits? Presumably Kennedy's private investigators. Gary Hagland? Metodo 3? Dave Edgar? Kevin Halligen (also Irish)? Where did they travel from? How much did it cost?

When? On what date did Smith agree to do e-fits? When did someone come to see him to do these efits? On what date were they produced?

Who decided to withhold the e-fits? The McCanns? The McCanns' advisers? (Clarence Mitchell, Edward Smethurss, Brian Kennedy, their lawyers?)

Which member of the Smith family drew up each e-fit? Who drew up 'Smithman 1' (thin pointy chin version) and who drew up 'Smithman 2' (fat face, older man version

by sallypelt 20.10.13 14:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
winjoy wrote:
Eyei wrote:
winjoy wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

The Sunday Express...

I was fairly gobsmacked when I read [this article], but at the same time delighted!
Quote from Sunday Express:

In 2008 Mr Smith worked on e-fit images...

Where? In Drogehda, his home. Or elsewhere?

With whom? Who exactly worked with him on these e-fits? Presumably Kennedy's private investigators. Gary Hagland? Metodo 3? Dave Edgar? Kevin Halligen (also Irish)? Where did they travel from? How much did it cost?

When? On what date did Smith agree to do e-fits? When did someone come to see him to do these efits? On what date were they produced?

Who decided to withhold the e-fits? The McCanns? The McCanns' advisers? (Clarence Mitchell, Edward Smethurss, Brian Kennedy, their lawyers?)

Which member of the Smith family drew up each e-fit? Who drew up 'Smithman 1' (thin pointy chin version) and who drew up 'Smithman 2' (fat face, older man version

The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't she the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?
Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

by Q71 20.10.13 14:24

Woofer wrote:I been searching for a connection between the Smith`s apartment and RM. I know I read ages ago there was some connection - perhaps it was Robert Murat`s father who built the apartments and RM had something to do with selling them. Can anyone remember this.
Apparently Smith`s apartment was in joint ownership with a Li** ON****.

I`m interested to know how the CCTV recording was wiped - was it adjacent to the Estrela da Luz, Rua Manuel Augusto Alves Catarino where the Smith`s apartment was?

I`m sorry.I should have posted I`m new here , before diving in feet first !

This connection is surly of interest and needs to be developed further.A stronger connection than maybe first thought.

Quote ` I been searching for a connection between the Smith`s apartment and RM. i KNOW i READ AGES AGO THERE WAS SOME CONNECTION.`

-some connection ? , is some connection. Exactly what connection I wonder , more dealings with each other than we know off ?

An acquaintance , a passing acquaintance , a friendship that formed into an alliance.

Is there a link to TB`S Murat`s 17 Lies article ?

Looking at the 10 multiple choice options , and knowing one is TRUE and wondering which or what avenue this leads down.

by jowie 20.10.13 15:47

sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
winjoy wrote:
Eyei wrote:
winjoy wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

The Sunday Express...

I was fairly gobsmacked when I read [this article], but at the same time delighted!
Quote from Sunday Express:

In 2008 Mr Smith worked on e-fit images...

Where? In Drogehda, his home. Or elsewhere?

With whom? Who exactly worked with him on these e-fits? Presumably Kennedy's private investigators. Gary Hagland? Metodo 3? Dave Edgar? Kevin Halligen (also Irish)? Where did they travel from? How much did it cost?

When? On what date did Smith agree to do e-fits? When did someone come to see him to do these efits? On what date were they produced?

Who decided to withhold the e-fits? The McCanns? The McCanns' advisers? (Clarence Mitchell, Edward Smethurss, Brian Kennedy, their lawyers?)

Which member of the Smith family drew up each e-fit? Who drew up 'Smithman 1' (thin pointy chin version) and who drew up 'Smithman 2' (fat face, older man version
The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't she the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?
Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

Not necessarily. As in April/May, I have been there in late September/early October, therefore not the height of the season. PDL is a sleepy little town after sundown. There are not many people moving about at all, especially if it is a bit chilly.

I would also just like to comment to Tony in response to your recent posts on this matter. I am a little perplexed. If I am not mistaken you seem to have done an about turn on the Smith sighting and when questioned on this and other threads you have quoted various newspaper articles which we all know are governed by the McCanns and CM. I may be reading too much into it but hope you can allay my concerns.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 15:54

sallypelt wrote:The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't see the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?

Your reasoning is very sound. How many men are seen carrying a child around ANYWHERE at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night-time?

Did he not have a pushchair?

Were any creches open until nearly 10.00pm?

Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

Right. Straight question. Do you, or does anyone else on this thread, seriously believe that Detective Inspector Redwood thinks that he has a realistic chance of identifying this person after six-and-a-half years - if he exists at all, that is?

AND

Does DCI Redwood genuinely believe that an abductor would stroll through the streets of Praia da Luz for 6 to 10 minutes (having not broken in through the shutters but come in another way and opened the window and shutters as 'a red herring'?) carrying Madeleine?

AND

Suppose that Mr X now comes forward and says: "It was me taking my little girl back home after I spent the evening with friends". Where does that get DCI Andy Redwood?

by Casey5 20.10.13 16:02

sallypelt wrote:
The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't she the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?
Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

I've always thought it strange that, although there seems to be plenty of observers of spotty men, fair headed Germans, loiterers hiding in stairwells etc. that nobody saw any of the 6 people who were rushing from the tapas bar to the apartments every few minutes like extras in a Benny Hill extravaganza - except for Jez Wilkins who only saw Gerry but not invisible Jane Tanner. Nobody independent saw Dave check on Kate and return to the tennis court, nobody saw any of the tapas 9 on their walk from their apartments to the tapas bar or 8 of them racing to 5A on hearing Kate's news.
And yet there were charity collectors, white van cleaners, a collection of stand-out odd-balls galore that people DID see. I find it strange.

by Woofer 20.10.13 16:06

Q71 wrote:
Woofer wrote:I been searching for a connection between the Smith`s apartment and RM. I know I read ages ago there was some connection - perhaps it was Robert Murat`s father who built the apartments and RM had something to do with selling them. Can anyone remember this.
Apparently Smith`s apartment was in joint ownership with a Li** ON****.

I`m interested to know how the CCTV recording was wiped - was it adjacent to the Estrela da Luz, Rua Manuel Augusto Alves Catarino where the Smith`s apartment was?
I`m sorry.I should have posted I`m new here , before diving in feet first !

This connection is surly of interest and needs to be developed further.A stronger connection than maybe first thought.

Quote ` I been searching for a connection between the Smith`s apartment and RM. i KNOW i READ AGES AGO THERE WAS SOME CONNECTION.`

-some connection ? , is some connection. Exactly what connection I wonder , more dealings with each other than we know off ?

An acquaintance , a passing acquaintance , a friendship that formed into an alliance.

Is there a link to TB`S Murat`s 17 Lies article ?

Looking at the 10 multiple choice options , and knowing one is TRUE and wondering which or what avenue this leads down.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2248-robert-murat-s-role?highlight=robhert+murat+17+lies

by sallypelt 20.10.13 16:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't see the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?

Your reasoning is very sound. How many men are seen carrying a child around ANYWHERE at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night-time?

Did he not have a pushchair?

Were any creches open until nearly 10.00pm?

Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

Right. Straight question. Do you, or does anyone else on this thread, seriously believe that Detective Inspector Redwood thinks that he has a realistic chance of identifying this person after six-and-a-half years - if he exists at all, that is?

AND

Does DCI Redwood genuinely believe that an abductor would stroll through the streets of Praia da Luz for 6 to 10 minutes (having not broken in through the shutters but come in another way and opened the window and shutters as 'a red herring'?) carrying Madeleine?

AND

Suppose that Mr X now comes forward and says: "It was me taking my little girl back home after I spent the evening with friends". Where does that get DCI Andy Redwood?

Just for argument's sake, let us, for the moment, forget about Smithman. Jane Tanner's bundleman has already been eliminated. So, where does it leave the Madeleine saga? It doesn't take away from the facts that the T9 lied. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. It still doesn't take away the dogs findings. It still doesn't take away the fact that the McCann's and friends refused to do a reconstruction. It doesn't take away from the fact that Jane Tanner DID have jeans in PDL, and the list goes on and on. These FACTS cannot be ignored, regardless whether bundleman and Smithman exists or not

by **PeterMac** 20.10.13 16:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Right. Straight question. Do you, or does anyone else on this thread, seriously believe that Detective Inspector Redwood thinks that he has a realistic chance of identifying this person after six-and-a-half years - if he exists at all, that is? Only if he comes forward. See Tannerman q.v.
AND
Does DCI Redwood genuinely believe that an abductor would stroll through the streets of Praia da Luz for 6 to 10 minutes (having not broken in through the shutters but come in another way and opened the window and shutters as 'a red herring'?) carrying Madeleine? No. He is a police officer and as such must be, or have been, relatively intelligent.
AND
Suppose that Mr X now comes forward and says: "It was me taking my little girl back home after I spent the evening with friends". Where does that get DCI Andy Redwood?

That is the interesting one.
If Smithman comes forward - which he might since all the enquiries and the press nonsense was directed by Mitchell and TM to a time and place very different from where a father would know he had been. So it didn't concern him and he didn't come forward. Why would he ? - but if he now does, TM have nothing left, except a report of a missing child.
Redwood no longer has even the hint of an abduction, and must start to investigate the circumstances under which a child went missing.
Which might involved considerations of gross and repeated and admitted parental neglect, alerts by dogs, sedation of children, failure to act in accordance with professional protocols towards children who had been anaesthetised in a manner unknown by persons unknown, (both Kate AND Fiona involved in that one !)
He should also begin to ask himself why TM have withheld potentially valuable evidence for 6 years, and whilst he is at it, also begin to ask why the parents told lies and changed their accounts so often and so blatantly.
He has a lot to do.

by Humanist 20.10.13 16:15

Tony, It must be a meme because I just posted somewhere else a question about the Smith sighting.
They reported it a week later once they were home.
My gut is sensing an unease here.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 16:22

jowie wrote:I would also just like to comment to Tony in response to your recent posts on this matter. I am a little perplexed. If I am not mistaken you seem to have done an about turn on the Smith sighting and when questioned on this and other threads you have quoted various newspaper articles which we all know are governed by the McCanns and CM. I may be reading too much into it but hope you can allay my concerns.

Que?

You are very much mistaken.

I have many times on this forum questioned the so-called 'Smith' sighting. Indeed, I have gone as far as to question why Goncalo Amaral gave so much emphasis to the 'Smith sighting' in his book. I did not think it warranted such attention. I don't think I have ever thought it had any significance.

I've also many times on this forum questioned why Dr Kate McCann gave such heavy emphasis to the probability of Tannerman and Smithman being one and the same, as she does many times in her book, 'madeleine', e.g pages 82, 329, and a three-page section on pages 370-372.

Indeed, the beginning of the process of attempting to merge Tannerman and Smithman began as long ago as May 2009 in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary.

I also find your reference to my 'quoting newspaper articles' very strange. I think I have emphasised what the various Smith family members have actually said, and tried to analyse those statements.

I think my doubts about the Tannerman-Smithman link have proved correct.

Surely now no-one can say that ~~Tannerman~~ crechemn is also Smithman, as Dr Kate McCann suggested?

Can they?

Assuming Redwood is telling the nation the truth, Kate's book is wrong on this point. Tannerman = crecheman cannot be Smithman. Kate's book needs immediate updating on this point. Between pages 264 and 265 are two colour plates of Tannerman - as drawn by Melissa Little under the supervision of Brian Kennedy. We are not looking for him any more.

by Guest 20.10.13 16:23

sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:The more I think about the Smith sighting, and with concerns raised about it on this forum, the more I am questioning it. Why was it only the Smith's family who saw the man carrying the child? It was be rather surprising if someone else didn't see the man with the child. If the child was Madeleine, then surely, someone else would have seen the man as he walked from the apartment down to the sea?

Your reasoning is very sound. How many men are seen carrying a child around ANYWHERE at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night-time?

Did he not have a pushchair?

Were any creches open until nearly 10.00pm?

Maybe this is what CW is trying to secure. Further independent witnesses.

Right. Straight question. Do you, or does anyone else on this thread, seriously believe that Detective Inspector Redwood thinks that he has a realistic chance of identifying this person after six-and-a-half years - if he exists at all, that is?

AND

Does DCI Redwood genuinely believe that an abductor would stroll through the streets of Praia da Luz for 6 to 10 minutes (having not broken in through the shutters but come in another way and opened the window and shutters as 'a red herring'?) carrying Madeleine?

AND

Suppose that Mr X now comes forward and says: "It was me taking my little girl back home after I spent the evening with friends". Where does that get DCI Andy Redwood?
Just for argument's sake, let us, for the moment, forget about Smithman. Jane Tanner's bundleman has already been eliminated. So, where does it leave the Madeleine saga? It doesn't take away from the facts that the T9 lied. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. It still doesn't take away the dogs findings. It still doesn't take away the fact that the McCann's and friends refused to do a reconstruction. It doesn't take away from the fact that Jane Tanner DID have jeans in PDL, and the list goes on and on. These FACTS cannot be ignored, regardless whether bundleman and Smithman exists or not

Tony in answer to your question re the crèche opening times. It was called 'dining out club' and was open until 11.30pm.The editor of This is Money wrote this and he stayed there the week before.......

Staff told us that the service had been discontinued because the apartments were too spread out. The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4612-my-experience-of-maddie-s-resort-in-praia-de-luz-the-algarve

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 16:27

Humanist wrote:Tony, It must be a meme because I just posted somewhere else a question about the Smith sighting.

They reported it a week later once they were home.

My gut is sensing an unease here.

I must admit I had to look up 'meme', and I see it is said to mean:

"An idea that spreads like a virus by word of mouth, e-mail or blogs etc."

Maybe it is just a coincidence.

by Guest 20.10.13 16:33

I didn't know what it meant either - I thought it was a typo! My dictionary says: in biology, a cultural or behavioural element passed on by imitation or other non-genetic means.

I can confirm from reading many things that Tony has said in the past about the Smith sighting that he has never felt that it was likely to have happened.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 16:39

candyfloss wrote:Tony in answer to your question re the crèche opening times. It was called 'dining out club' and was open until 11.30pm.The editor of This is Money wrote this and he stayed there the week before...

Staff told us that the service had been discontinued because the apartments were too spread out. The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4612-my-experience-of-maddie-s-resort-in-praia-de-luz-the-algarve

Thank you very much, candyfloss.

I wonder how many parents would actually use this facility - and did so in practice?

If you were 'dining out', then even just a 2-hour meal would cost you an extra 30 euros (£25).

And your children would be 'sleepy' or even 'asleep' when you collected them.

How many parents would actually want to collect a sleepy or sleeping child at 10.00pm, 10.30pm, 11.00pm or even 11.30pm?

We are told by the Smith family that this child was young, maybe 2, 3 or 4 years of age.

So, if children that age were being left there, where would they sleep? On the floor? On a chair or couch? In a bed or cot? Were there beds and cots there?

ALSO - if it is being seriously suggested that Smithman could have been on his way back from a creche or a 'dining club', where is his companion?

Wife, partner, older children, friends?

No-one.

Just a bloke aged 20-40 carrying a child on his own, some way from a creche, and witrh no buggy or pushchair.

I am having some difficulty in swallowing that one.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 16:40

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I can confirm from reading many things that Tony has said in the past about the Smith sighting that he has never felt that it was likely to have happened.

Thanks very much for the confirmation, NFWTD, I appreciate it.

by logical 20.10.13 16:46

Mr Amaral concluded Mr Smith was a creditable witness and thats good enough for me .

Why is it not good enough for you Tony and Others after all Goncalo interviewed him personally.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 16:59

logical wrote:Mr Amaral concluded Mr Smith was a creditable witness and that's good enough for me .

Why is it not good enough for you Tony and others - after all Goncalo interviewed him personally.

Where the heck have you got that from?

Goncalo Amaral in his book (AnnaEsse translation) says this - he keeps saying 'we', referring to his team, not 'I':

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.

With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory.

SNIPPED

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary Police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness.

I see you call yourself 'logical'.

You certainly can't call yourself 'factual'

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Who is 'Smith-man'? (MULTIPLE CHOICE - You can vote for more than one answer)