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

Beanie wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

ConcernedCitizen wrote:I've looked at the statements and the astrology as well. 

Hi Concerned Citizen.

Sorry, off topic, but there was an astrologer who used to post on either (or both?) the Mirror forum or 3As, and I found his (?) posts very interesting. I was sorry when the forum was shut down and s/he was no longer posting anywhere that I was aware of.

Can't remember his forum name. Was that you?

ETA: Is it just me, but catching up with  this thread tonight,  it feels to me that this forum has suddenly become quite divided on a  number ot things.

And for what it's worth, I don't have a lot of time for people who dismiss things like astrology without ever


having studied them for themselves. Which as it happens I have. And I am neither gullible nor stupid.

Are you thinking of jDomino, not sure if that is the correct spelling.

Estelle wrote:

littlepixie wrote:I don't think there is any proof that Kennedy and the Murats are Witnesses. Kennedy came from a Witness family and I know some of them are still active, but everything he does shows he ISN'T an active Witness. By their acts you will know them. Money does not talk in a Kingdom Hall. Charity is done in secret.  Do we know how/why we think Kennedy paid for a Rapid Build (Kingdom Hall).

The Witness remain impartial in earthly matters and they are also in subjection to the law of the land. They accept that Jehovah PUT the authorities where they are and he allows them to remain for now. The only time they would ever make a stand against the law is if it asked them to break Godly Law.

Michaela could have been studying or been a baptized Witness but unless her husband had had an affair and left her and she had been granted a scriptural divorce,  she would not have been free to marry Murat and would have been disfellowshipped for doing so.

So that leaves the Masons?

Meanwhile, he (Robert Murat) married an Anglo-Portuguese woman, went to the USA, on a honeymoon, late last year, but did not go unnoticed: “Here, I feel the discomfort of seeing people pointing at me, but over there I was recognised, as well.”


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/03/robert-murat-continues-to-receive-death.html


I have seen several posts in the last few days claiming that Robert Murat married Michaela.

I would like to find out what proof you have of this because:

1. A local Portuguese told me this is not true. She is still with her husband. 

2.  Michaela is not an Anglo-Portuguese woman as it states above.

Estelle wrote:I have seen several posts in the last few days claiming that Robert Murat married Michaela.

I would like to find out what proof you have of this because:

1. A local Portuguese told me this is not true. She is still with her husband. 

2.  Michaela is not an Anglo-Portuguese woman as it states above.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That's strange about Robert Murat's second marriage, Estelle.
 
Here is just one link about it.
 
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/congratulations-robert-murat-and.html

They have had a son together since then.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Estelle wrote:I have seen several posts in the last few days claiming that Robert Murat married Michaela.

I would like to find out what proof you have of this because:

1. A local Portuguese told me this is not true. She is still with her husband. 

2.  Michaela is not an Anglo-Portuguese woman as it states above.

 Back in 2010, I wrote a long article [120 pages] titled: "Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause", a reference to his being applauded after a speech at the Cambridge Union in March 2010, which he said at the time would be: "The first and last time I make any public statement about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".

AFAIK, I have ensured that this has been completely removed from the internet following complaints that one or two sentences in it were libellous.

However, I can I think reveal once again the final short chapter, Chpater S, here it is:

S.  A happy ending? Murat marries Michaela Walczuk

Here’s how one newspaper, the Sunday Express, reported Murat’s wedding to Michaela Walczuk on 17 April 2009:

“Robert Murat has married the woman who stood by him when he wrongly became a suspect in the Madeleine case”, writes James Murray.

“His bride, German-born Jehovah’s Witness Michaela Walczuch, 34, never doubted Mr Murat for a second and remained loyal throughout the time he was under suspicion. The civil ceremony, held on April 17 on a beach just a few miles from Praia da Luz, was witnessed by 50 close relatives and friends of the couple.

“Among them was 35-year-old Mr Murat’s daughter S_____ from his first marriage. Mr Murat’s brother Richard [lives in Warwickshire, England] was best man. Also there was Mr Murat’s mother Jenny, 72, who still lives just 100 yards from the apartment where Madeleine vanished”.

Most stories would end here, with the words: ‘And they lived happily ever after’.

But perhaps there is more yet to be revealed about the involvement of Robert Murat in the Madeleine McCann mystery.

One of the outstanding questions that still remains a puzzle is just what made him book that flight to Portugal in the early hours of 1 May 2007.

ENDS

Estelle wrote:From Nereid's post earlier:

"Madeleine was almost four years old when she vanished from her bed in her parents' apartment at the Ocean Club holiday resort in Praia da Luz between 9.35pm and 10pm on May 3, 2007."

I am very interested in the timeline and this is the first article I have seen which states that Maddie could have disappeared as early as 9.35pm which I think will turn out to be more correct than 10pm.

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone seen Mary Smith's statement? All I can find is "she doesn't want to make another statement", and "doesn't want to make another one". So, where is the statement that she made?

 It's all very strange. AFAIK there is no Mary Smith statement. There would be no obvious reason for the Portuguese Police not to release it, along with everything else on the DVD, in July 2008.

sallypelt, do we know if Mrs Smith travelled to Portugal in late May to make her statement (if she made one at all)?

Cristobell wrote:I can't see any reason for the Smith family to lie, or even confuse a memory to such an extent that they believed they saw a man with a child.  Mrs Smith spoke to the man and asked if the child was asleep, so it was a close encounter, not a distant one.  The Smith family have never sought publicity, so that motive can be ruled out, and from what I can decipher they refused to assist the McCann's alternate investigation.  Why should the McCanns be the only respectable people in this debacle? 

As impossible as it all seems, the facts are as they are.  How do you account for Gerry's presence outside 5A when he bumped into Jez? He wasn't 'hanging around', he was checking the children, it formed part of the tapas alibi, so all perfectly legitimate - or was he?  What if the cover up was already underway? Perhaps there was a rush of children being moved from their beds, wearing only their pyjamas. Within that small area in PDL there were TWO men walking around carrying small sleeping children in pyjamas without any sign of a blanket, a toy, a buggy, clean jammies or any of the other paraphernalia that every parent knows is essential to comfort or pacify a tired child on the move.  One man has now come forward 6.5 years later which is almost up there with Jesus walking on water, but he has and Tannerman can now be forgotten.  The other remains a mystery. 

It can't be Gerry because he is a nice middle class doctor who may or may not work for the Government and he has a fragrant wife. The fact that he was in the area, some might say acting suspiciously, and looks exactly like the man described by the Smith family complete with light coloured chinos with buttons down the side carrying a child who matched his missing daughter's description, must be discarded.  

I always felt that Jane Tanner's sighting was hastily dream't up to counter the sighting by the Smith family. Whoever the Smith family saw, saw them too, and Tannerman is not too dissimilar to Smithman, except of course he had long hair not short, like Gerry's.  If we look at the original timeline on the Maddy's torn up book, Jane's sighting has been added almost as an afterthought, as if they were wondering if they could get away with it.  They did of course, to the astonishment of us all, and Jane's sighting of course changed the face of the abductor from then on.   In my opinion Jane's sighting is so ridiculous, it must have been made up on the hop.  When she drew on her memory bank for the image of a child abductor, up popped a classic old b/w Frankenstein film, with the awkward creature carrying an inert child across his arms.  It may be that they had the timelines established before the alarm was raised, and had to change it hastily using that torn out page from Maddy's book? 

I don't have any reasons to doubt the Smith family, and the strange description given by Jane and the concerted efforts by Team McCann to avoid it, confirms that they are telling the truth.

Nereid wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone seen Mary Smith's statement? All I can find is "she doesn't want to make another statement", and "doesn't want to make another one". So, where is the statement that she made?

 It's all very strange. AFAIK there is no Mary Smith statement. There would be no obvious reason for the Portuguese Police not to release it, along with everything else on the DVD, in July 2008.

sallypelt, do we know if Mrs Smith travelled to Portugal in late May to make her statement (if she made one at all)?

Mrs Smith did not come to Portugal late May:

"Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grand children and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement."

DailyMail 3rd January 2008 (paper version only).

It's most odd. His wife didn't come, but he dragged his 12 y/o daughter along. Would it have been a school holiday?

Why couldn't Drogheda Police take a statement of Mary Smith? She was happy enough to talk to the press.

Tony Bennett wrote:

jozi wrote:did not appear to be a tourist.

These words are also used by Jane Tanner in her statement about seeing bundleman, Which I find odd, why both witnesses to the "abduction " describe the person of interest as " not appear to be a tourist " ???

 YES:

From Wikipedia: "She described the man as white, dark-haired, 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) tall, of southern European or Mediterranean appearance, 35–40 years old, wearing gold or beige trousers and a dark jacket, and said he did not look like a tourist".

Quite frankly, when you pause from whatever you're doing for just a few seconds and really think about it, the description: 'He didn't look like a tourist" is, well, gibberish. If you disagree, then someone tell me what a tourist normally looks like, at 10.00pm on a coldish evening when it's already dark.

For two people to give such a ridiculous description begins to suggest collusion.  And that's without mentioning: dark jacket, light trousers, buttons.

We do have this from Jane Tanner's first statement, if it's of any help:

She swore "by everything most sacred" that what she said is true...



I am starting to believe that there could have been COLLUSION between Jane Tanner and Martin Smith via Robert Murat or even the McCanns!

Now it seems to have been merged into ONE sighting of the abductor by the McCanns, does that mean that Andy Redwood will soon tell us that this man who has come forward is the same man whom the Smiths saw???? 
 

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone seen Mary Smith's statement? All I can find is "she doesn't want to make another statement", and "doesn't want to make another one". So, where is the statement that she made?

 It's all very strange. AFAIK there is no Mary Smith statement. There would be no obvious reason for the Portuguese Police not to release it, along with everything else on the DVD, in July 2008.

sallypelt, do we know if Mrs Smith travelled to Portugal in late May to make her statement (if she made one at all)?

plebgate wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone seen Mary Smith's statement? All I can find is "she doesn't want to make another statement", and "doesn't want to make another one". So, where is the statement that she made?

 It's all very strange. AFAIK there is no Mary Smith statement. There would be no obvious reason for the Portuguese Police not to release it, along with everything else on the DVD, in July 2008.

sallypelt, do we know if Mrs Smith travelled to Portugal in late May to make her statement (if she made one at all)?

Could it be that when Mrs. Smith said "she doesn't want to make another statement" she meant that the two already given by her family were all that was needed maybe because she would not be able to add anything else of use?

StraightThinking wrote:Enough of these ridiculous efits!

There are people who have been walking past my house for the last 5 years, and I still wouldn't be able to make up an efit of them

On the basis of a fleeting moment lasting seconds, in the dark, in a chance encounter which appeared to have no significance at the time, so the efit had to be made later, we are supposed to believe the efit(s) of Smithman (assuming the two versions were suggested by two of the Smiths, but not Martin Smith) and the sketch of Bundleman

It's nonsense

StraightThinking wrote:Enough of these ridiculous efits!

There are people who have been walking past my house for the last 5 years, and I still wouldn't be able to make up an efit of them

On the basis of a fleeting moment lasting seconds, in the dark, in a chance encounter which appeared to have no significance at the time, so the efit had to be made later, we are supposed to believe the efit(s) of Smithman (assuming the two versions were suggested by two of the Smiths, but not Martin Smith) and the sketch of Bundleman

It's nonsense

galena wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:Enough of these ridiculous efits!

There are people who have been walking past my house for the last 5 years, and I still wouldn't be able to make up an efit of them

On the basis of a fleeting moment lasting seconds, in the dark, in a chance encounter which appeared to have no significance at the time, so the efit had to be made later, we are supposed to believe the efit(s) of Smithman (assuming the two versions were suggested by two of the Smiths, but not Martin Smith) and the sketch of Bundleman

It's nonsense

I have to agree with you - if someone asked me to do an efit of my bus driver this morning I wouldn't have a clue - can't remember if black/white, male/female age, whatever.  I don't notice strangers at all unless they are particularly unusual, or do something to draw my attention to them. To be fair I'm not particularly observant and usually have my nose stuck in a book, but surely other people don't go around noticing all these tiny details of strangers they pass in the night.