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

by Hongkong Phooey 20.10.13 17:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Thanks for the reply my question should have been why is he doing all this?

by Guest 20.10.13 17:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Well we know of at least one couple who used this facility JW and BOD....

My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in. It was Thursday, May 3.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

by Estelle 20.10.13 17:11

logical wrote: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.

Tony, What would Martin Smith's and his family's motive have been to lie about this sighting?

Can I predict your answer to be that he wanted to protect Robert Murat?

Could Robert Murat have contacted him to do that for him?

Then why did Martin Smith say that it he thought the likelihood of its being Gerry McCann was 60-80%?

Is this what Robert Murat wanted him to say?

It is often thought that Robert Murat was part of Team McCann and it was organised for him to be the patsy in advance so why would Martin Smith put Gerry in?

I can only think that Martin Smith did not know Murat's connection with Team McCann.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 17:19

candyfloss wrote:Well, we know of at least one couple who used this facility JW and BOD....

My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in. It was Thursday, May 3.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

How very strange.

The very next night, he was taking aroud his baby in a pram/pushchair:

EXTRACTS FROM WILKINS STATEMENT

We returned to our apartment. We decided to spend the evening-in, watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.

There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said 'you're on walking duty'. I said I was staying in and the pro's and con's and what to do with the children. He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night. I don't remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far.

by sallypelt 20.10.13 17:22

Estelle wrote:
logical wrote: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.

Tony, What would Martin Smith's and his family's motive have been to lie about this sighting?

Can I predict your answer to be that he wanted to protect Robert Murat?

Could Robert Murat have contacted him to do that for him?

Then why did Martin Smith say that it he thought the likelihood of its being Gerry McCann was 60-80%?

Is this what Robert Murat wanted him to say?

It is often thought that Robert Murat was part of Team McCann and it was organised for him to be the patsy in advance so why would Martin Smith put Gerry in?

I can only think that Martin Smith did not know Murat's connection with Team McCann.

Because if it can be shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that GM was in the Ocean Club complex at the Smith's saw Smithman, then it couldn't have been Gerry. So, it looks something like this. Jane Tanner puts RM in the frame, Smith gets RM off the hook. Bundleman doesn't exist, so as the now famous saying goes "confusion is good"

by Guest 20.10.13 17:23

Tony: they stayed in - i.e. didn't go to a restaurant or wherever. However, Jez did need to take his son out to get him off to sleep.

They weren't out on a social occasion, in other words.

by Guest 20.10.13 17:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony: they stayed in - i.e. didn't go to a restaurant or wherever. However, Jez did need to take his son out to get him off to sleep.

They weren't out on a social occasion, in other words.

I think Tony is referring to the pram NFWTD.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 17:35

Estelle wrote:
logical wrote: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.

Tony, What would Martin Smith's and his family's motive have been to lie about this sighting?

Can I predict your answer to be that he wanted to protect Robert Murat?

Could Robert Murat have contacted him to do that for him?

Then why did Martin Smith say that it he thought the likelihood of its being Gerry McCann was 60-80%?

Is this what Robert Murat wanted him to say?

It is often thought that Robert Murat was part of Team McCann and it was organised for him to be the patsy in advance so why would Martin Smith put Gerry in?

I can only think that Martin Smith did not know Murat's connection with Team McCann.

Earlier up the thread, Cheshire Cat came up with this suggestion:

"Thank you Tony. What I mean is what could be the motivation for Smith to point the finger at Gerry? To take the heat off Murat, but why say Gerry McCann? To get even because Murat (their buddy) had been dropped in it by Tanner etc?"

I think Cheshire Cat may have a point.

If Murat and Martin Smith were friends (and he has apparently admitted to having met Murat 'several times'), then how would he feel if he knew that:

Jane Tanner had adamantly identified Murat as the abductor on 13 May...?

Thereby causing his being made an arguido...?

...and that Rachael Oldfield had falsely/mistakenly claimed that he was seen by her 'hanging around the Ocean Club aroud the time Madeleine disaappeared'?

...and that Fiona Payne had falsely/mistakenly claimed that he was seen by her 'hanging around the Ocean Club aroud the time Madeleine disappeared'?

...and that Russell O'Brien had also falsely/mistakenly claimed that he was seen by her 'hanging around the Ocean Club around the time Madeleine disappeared'?

all of this during the two days after he'd been publicly shamed as an 'arguido'?

Remember how all of this changed after the 13 November 2007 meeting when:

Brian Kennedy travelled to Portugal with his in-house Freeemason lawyer Edward Smethurst, a long-time holidaymaker in Praia da Luz since 1999...

to meet...

Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete

and RM's mother, aunt and uncle.

Then the 'Tapas 4' above changed their stories.

They all thought that they might have 'muddled him up' with David Payne or Angus Symington ,who looked 'very similar'.

You would think that at least Fiona Payne would have recognised, er, her own husband!

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 17:38

candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony: they stayed in - i.e. didn't go to a restaurant or wherever. However, Jez did need to take his son out to get him off to sleep.

They weren't out on a social occasion, in other words.
I think Tony is referring to the pram NFWTD.

Yes, they had a pram/pushchair. Their pram/pushchair, it says.

Curious they needed to carry their little one home from the restaurant in a blanket the previous evening.

by logical 20.10.13 17:47

Okay Tony maybe Mr Amaral didnt Interview Mr Smith personally but more than likely was in the interview room observing Mr Smith during his interview.

In an article in mccannfiles Goncarlo Amaral Speaks to IOL PortugalDiario 3rd/4th August 2008 Mr Amaral says "The Smith Testimony IS VERY CREDIBLE it is NOTHING that sounds INVENTED"

Now Tony if Mr Amaral states this and he personally Knows the investigated facts, Who are You and WHY as one that doesnt have first hand information Regarding the Smiths to imply the entire Smith Family including a 12 year old child are liars ?

You have on occasions been far from Factual yourself with Respect.

by Estelle 20.10.13 17:48

Tony, have you ever thought that Robert Murat could have been a willing patsy as some people think and that is why he returned to PDL when he did?

by Guest 20.10.13 17:52

I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!

by Truthandjustice 20.10.13 17:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony: they stayed in - i.e. didn't go to a restaurant or wherever. However, Jez did need to take his son out to get him off to sleep.

They weren't out on a social occasion, in other words.
I think Tony is referring to the pram NFWTD.
Yes, they had a pram/pushchair. Their pram/pushchair, it says.

Curious they needed to carry their little one home from the restaurant in a blanket the previous evening.

Well I am guessing they did not have the pram in the restaurant and would have gone straight from the restaurant to the creche when they were phoned. I read somewhere that the creche provided blankets for parents taking kids home.

by Estelle 20.10.13 17:56

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!

IIRC Kate and Robert may have attended the same wedding when they were younger.

by Guest 20.10.13 17:57

I think that has cropped up before and was found not to be true. I'll add a link if I can find it.

by Estelle 20.10.13 17:58

Truthandjustice wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony: they stayed in - i.e. didn't go to a restaurant or wherever. However, Jez did need to take his son out to get him off to sleep.

They weren't out on a social occasion, in other words.
I think Tony is referring to the pram NFWTD.
Yes, they had a pram/pushchair. Their pram/pushchair, it says.

Curious they needed to carry their little one home from the restaurant in a blanket the previous evening.
Well I am guessing they did not have the pram in the restaurant and would have gone straight from the restaurant to the creche when they were phoned. I read somewhere that the creche provided blankets for parents taking kids home.

Some people often believed that this is how Jane Tanner thought of her story. She had witnessed it the night before.

by Guest 20.10.13 17:59

Estelle wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!
IIRC Kate and Robert may have attended the same wedding when they were younger.

Eh? Never heard that one.......... Where has that come from Estelle? Do you have a link please?

by Estelle 20.10.13 18:04

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!

Do you think if Tony's theory is true, that Martin Smith and Robert Murat could have colluded to say it was Gerry McCann later because Robert Murat had suffered more than he predicted and perhaps they had not paid him the money that they had offered him originally.

by Estelle 20.10.13 18:07

candyfloss wrote:
Estelle wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!
IIRC Kate and Robert may have attended the same wedding when they were younger.
Eh? Never heard that one.......... Where has that come from Estelle? Do you have a link please?

No that is why I put IIRC. It was said very early in the piece by a poster so it could have been a rumour. But it appears that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat could have attended the same church in the Exeter area. That was examined a lot once but I doubt if there would be a link to it now.

by sallypelt 20.10.13 18:09

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I think that has cropped up before and was found not to be true. I'll add a link if I can find it.

Here is the link:

2. He was made an arguido along with the McCanns. No smoke without fire springs to mind.

3. He was, as a child, a guest at a Healy wedding so must have had connections with them.

4. There is the Exeter connection

http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/do-you-know-murat-no-comment-says-gerry.html

There appears to be a few errors in that link

by Guest 20.10.13 18:10

Estelle wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Estelle wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I certainly think that's a possibility.

I don't understand why he has never sued any of the group for their allegations against him.

Gerry's refusal to answer if he knew RM is also strange. Mind you, if he'd answered no I don't suppose anyone would have believed him!
IIRC Kate and Robert may have attended the same wedding when they were younger.
Eh? Never heard that one.......... Where has that come from Estelle? Do you have a link please?
No that is why I put IIRC. It was said very early in the piece by a poster so it could have been a rumour. But it appears that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat could have attended the same church in the Exeter area. That was examined a lot once but I doubt if there would be a link to it now.

I have in that case added 'may have'

by Woofer 20.10.13 18:11

Gosh I must be naive - do some people actually offer to be patsies?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 18:11

logical wrote:Okay Tony maybe Mr Amaral didnt Interview Mr Smith personally but more than likely was in the interview room observing Mr Smith during his interview.

In an article in mccannfiles Goncrlo Amaral speaks to IOL PortugalDiario 3rd/4th August 2008 Mr Amaral says "The Smith Testimony IS VERY CREDIBLE. it is NOTHING that sounds INVENTED"

Now Tony if Mr Amaral states this and he personally knows the investigated facts, Who are You and WHY as one that doesn't have first hand information regarding the Smiths to imply the entire Smith family including a 12 year old child are liars?.

Of course, I may be wrong.

The limited advantage I have over Goncalo Amaral - and we all share that advantage on this forum - is that a lot more is known now than on 2 October 2007 when Amaral was removed from the Madeleine investigation - and we have a small army of amateur sleuths testing out each other's ideas.

I have looked at as much information as I can about the 'Smith sighting' and I'm unconvinced. I would hate to think that they have all fabricated this sighting. But for a long time I was sceptical about his claim that just by looking at BBC film of Gerry walking down the aircraft ssteps, he was sure he had seen Gerry McCann.

But only 60% to 80% sure.

What kind of evidence is that?

Especially as four months earlier, he signed a police witness statement saying that he 'woudn't be able to recognise the man again'.

by Guest 20.10.13 18:14

There certainly are connections in the Exeter area with the Murat family and Jane Tanner.

I see that the wedding story is mentioned on the link provided by sallypelt but that of course is no proof. I knew that I had seen it somewhere before.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.10.13 18:14

Woofer wrote:Gosh I must be naive - do some people actually offer to be patsies?

Very much so. There have been a number of instances of willing 'patsies' volunteering to do 'time' in prison in the UK in place of someone else. That is, they admit to a crime they haven't done.

Usually, of course, a sum of ££££ is negotioated with the actual criminal for providing this service...

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)