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

by Lindylou 21.10.13 21:45

Don't forget Amelie at this time was an 18 month old baby with short fine hair. I just can't see Gerry with the decoy or any of the T9 for that matter.

by Guest 21.10.13 21:49

I've been ploughing through this thread for quite a while now. Only thing I can say right now, is that I am utterly amazed at the fact that some people doubt the Smith sighting [to the extent that it's a lie and never happened or even served as a cover-up to protect RM ...] thus undermining Dr. Amaral's conviction that it's crucial evidence.

by plebgate 21.10.13 22:01

candyfloss wrote:
plebgate wrote:It has been said many times before, as soon as he said he was only 60-80 percent sure, he was no good as a witness.

As Mrs. Smith has reportedly said - at the time they thought nothing of it at the time as it was such a normal thing to see. I can understand why she would not want to give a formal statement that being the case.

So still no evidence of an abduction?
Yes, it would narrow things down. That is why SY probably want witnesses who saw this man.

The only thing I am thinking of is, if this was a father carrying a child from the crèche, then how come SY haven't already found him. They seem to have found the other fella, and how did they do that...........by looking at the attendances of that night crèche I would imagine. The names would be registered, with telephone numbers so that the nanny could get in touch with the parents if something was wrong ie child crying as in BOD and JW child the night before. Therefore SY would have all the phone numbers of people who were taking the children there that night. Yet they do not know who this man was.

This leads me to believe it was not a father carrying his child from the crèche.

Will there by any other witnesses, not sure there will be myself. Did the Smith family say that there was anyone else on the street at the time, if there had been then I think they would have mentioned it.

As Mrs. Smith says that it was such a normal thing to see, would anybody else necessarily have taken any notice?

Yes it does seem unlikely that it was another father from the creche as they would have had to sign in and out with the times noted also.

by Hongkong Phooey 21.10.13 22:06

plebgate wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
plebgate wrote:It has been said many times before, as soon as he said he was only 60-80 percent sure, he was no good as a witness.

As Mrs. Smith has reportedly said - at the time they thought nothing of it at the time as it was such a normal thing to see. I can understand why she would not want to give a formal statement that being the case.

So still no evidence of an abduction?
Yes, it would narrow things down. That is why SY probably want witnesses who saw this man.

The only thing I am thinking of is, if this was a father carrying a child from the crèche, then how come SY haven't already found him. They seem to have found the other fella, and how did they do that...........by looking at the attendances of that night crèche I would imagine. The names would be registered, with telephone numbers so that the nanny could get in touch with the parents if something was wrong ie child crying as in BOD and JW child the night before. Therefore SY would have all the phone numbers of people who were taking the children there that night. Yet they do not know who this man was.

This leads me to believe it was not a father carrying his child from the crèche.
Will there by any other witnesses, not sure there will be myself. Did the Smith family say that there was anyone else on the street at the time, if there had been then I think they would have mentioned it.

As Mrs. Smith says that it was such a normal thing to see, would anybody else necessarily have taken any notice?

Yes it does seem unlikely that it was another father from the creche as they would have had to sign in and out with the times noted also.

The smith's sighting would be well outside the complex, could it really be another father picking up his child frm the night creche? Where could he be going?

by Cheshire Cat 21.10.13 22:10

Châtelaine wrote:I've been ploughing through this thread for quite a while now. Only thing I can say right now, is that I am utterly amazed at the fact that some people doubt the Smith sighting [to the extent that it's a lie and never happened or even served as a cover-up to protect RM ...] thus undermining Dr. Amaral's conviction that it's crucial evidence.

I still believe that the Smiths are genuine. However, Amaral himself has said of the sighting that it is not "evidence" but it certainly requires further investigation.

by Casey5 21.10.13 22:28

Lindylou wrote:Don't forget Amelie at this time was an 18 month old baby with short fine hair. I just can't see Gerry with the decoy or any of the T9 for that matter.

The twins were actually 2 years 2 months old, I believe they were born in March. Madeleine was almost 4, the twins will be 9 next March and Madeleine would have been 11 next May.

by galena 21.10.13 22:54

Châtelaine wrote:I've been ploughing through this thread for quite a while now. Only thing I can say right now, is that I am utterly amazed at the fact that some people doubt the Smith sighting [to the extent that it's a lie and never happened or even served as a cover-up to protect RM ...] thus undermining Dr. Amaral's conviction that it's crucial evidence.

I don't know whether the Smith's saw a man carrying a child or not, what surprises me is that so many people according to the poll believe it was Gerry when it seems pretty much impossible that it could have been according to all the accepted timelines.

by Lindylou 21.10.13 22:58

I stand corrected, thank you.

by **sharonl** 21.10.13 23:51

Apologies for the bad translation, I am sure that Joanna Morais will update us with a proper one soon. Meanwhile, I think we can just about make out what is being said here

PJ coordinator says Irish family saw man with child

Key witness identified the father of Maddie

Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance

Today , 1:00 a.m.

By: Sara G. Carrilho

The testimony of one of the Smith family that Gerry McCann identified as the man she saw on the night of the disappearance of Maddie carrying a child on her lap on the way to Beach [ Light ] was devalued after I leave the case. It is a lie that the portrait robot that British police released now be based on the testimony of the Smith family . "

The statements are Gonçalo Amaral , former coordinator of the PJ investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann , the Morning Post . And come following the release of pictures of the robot by pointing a Scotland Yard drawings as the principal suspect in the alleged child abduction English, May 3, 2007 - who claim to have been made based on the testimony of a Irish family who vacationed in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared

The Smith family told us what he saw that night . A man , alien, athletic , sunburnt face , like the tourists , and that hid the face not to be seen with a blond child in her arms , "said Goncalo Amaral . " Shortly thereafter , when the McCann family ' fled ' to the UK , and were greeted at the airport by television , a family member called the Smith , very distressed . Gerry [ Maddie 's father ] , who was off the plane , was the man that Mr. Smith had seen carrying a child that night , "explained the former coordinator .

To Gonçalo Amaral , " there was a positive identification , which was set aside ." " The McCanns hired detectives who made a picture , a man like Gerry , to devalue the evidence ," he concluded .

by logical 22.10.13 0:34

Thank You Sharoni for posting this topic here.

I hope all the Smithman doubters will read this and use their commonsence before casting aspersions on the Smith family.

Lets not forget what Goncalo Said about Occams Razor .

by russiandoll 22.10.13 0:39

quote The Smith family told us what he saw that night . A man, foreign, athletic , sunburnt face , like the tourists , and that hid the face not to be seen with a blond child in his arms , "said Goncalo Amaral . " Shortly thereafter , when the McCann family ' fled ' to the UK , and were greeted at the airport by television , a family member called the Smith , very distressed . Gerry [ Maddie 's father ] , who was off the plane , was the man that Mr. Smith had seen carrying a child that night , "explained the former coordinator .

To Gonçalo Amaral , " there was a positive identification , which was set aside ." " The McCanns hired detectives who made a picture , a man like Gerry , to devalue the evidence ," he concluded

the above is what the pros are ranting about on twitter...GA fabricating statements and putting words in Mr Smith's mouth. What the loonies have failed to notice is that GA is attributing the descriptions to the SMITH FAMILY who saw the man from different angles and in different lighting conditions possibly and a composite description has been made.
No one has invented a tan.....one of the Smiths said this. No one has invented athletic...it is a way to describe a slim man who is in good shape.

the pros should have gone to specsavers !

by Eiileen 22.10.13 1:08

I am astonished that forum members here want to denigrate the Smith family and attack their credibility. At the end of the day both Mr Smith and his wife were 60 - 80 percent sure they saw Gerry McCann. There is no reason at all to doubt their honesty or sincerity and it seems clear to me that Dr Amaral takes them most seriously. There is also a short statement in the files from the local Gardai who vouches for Mr Smith's honesty and the regard he is held within his community and which also states he has avoided all publicity. It would seem to me that Mr Smith has resisted attempts to cajole/blackmail/bribe him by certain parties who may want to interfere with any legitimate investigation and prevent the truth from coming out. Mr Smith's courage and decency in not bowing down under this pressure should be commended. It makes me doubt the motives of those who appear to want to paint him as a liar.

by logical 22.10.13 1:36

Great Post Eiileen:agree:

by logical 22.10.13 1:46

Eiileen

by notlongnow 22.10.13 1:49

IF someone came forward as an innocent in the smith sighting where does this leave the investigation?

by tiredofthebs 22.10.13 1:51

Eiileen wrote:I am astonished that forum members here want to denigrate the Smith family and attack their credibility. At the end of the day both Mr Smith and his wife were 60 - 80 percent sure they saw Gerry McCann. There is no reason at all to doubt their honesty or sincerity and it seems clear to me that Dr Amaral takes them most seriously. There is also a short statement in the files from the local Gardai who vouches for Mr Smith's honesty and the regard he is held within his community and which also states he has avoided all publicity. It would seem to me that Mr Smith has resisted attempts to cajole/blackmail/bribe him by certain parties who may want to interfere with any legitimate investigation and prevent the truth from coming out. Mr Smith's courage and decency in not bowing down under this pressure should be commended. It makes me doubt the motives of those who appear to want to paint him as a liar.

If Mr Smith is so honest then why isn't he making it clear now that it was Gerry he saw.

by Estelle 22.10.13 2:29

tiredofthebs wrote:
Eiileen wrote:I am astonished that forum members here want to denigrate the Smith family and attack their credibility. At the end of the day both Mr Smith and his wife were 60 - 80 percent sure they saw Gerry McCann. There is no reason at all to doubt their honesty or sincerity and it seems clear to me that Dr Amaral takes them most seriously. There is also a short statement in the files from the local Gardai who vouches for Mr Smith's honesty and the regard he is held within his community and which also states he has avoided all publicity. It would seem to me that Mr Smith has resisted attempts to cajole/blackmail/bribe him by certain parties who may want to interfere with any legitimate investigation and prevent the truth from coming out. Mr Smith's courage and decency in not bowing down under this pressure should be commended. It makes me doubt the motives of those who appear to want to paint him as a liar.
If Mr Smith is so honest then why isn't he making it clear now that it was Gerry he saw.

That's what I have been thinking. Now he says he saw Maddie.

by dotdot 22.10.13 3:23

notlongnow wrote:IF someone came forward as an innocent in the smith sighting where does this leave the investigation?

i think that is a super good question.

assuming the Smith sighting is real, it seems odd that, given the worldwide publicity of the case that no one has yet come forward to identify themselves. that is one thing that leads me to believe it would have to be GM, because i dont believe Madeleine was abducted, so no innocent identified and no abductor either (because he/she doesnt exist). Someone was carrying a child, if the Smiths are to be believed, which I believe they are.

Why did the T9 write down the plans on madeleine's sticker book? assuming Madeleine may have died several days prior, on the night of the 3rd did they do some kind of staged abduction? were they acting out a play of the 'abduction' in order to firm up their timeline (which evidenced by the statements they have given, was ineffective!!) also, in case there were any witnesses (which would benefit them, as long as no one could recognise who was carrying the child). i think that it could have been GM carrying another child in the enactment of their written down time line (although on the other hand, im not sure why he would go through all the effort of actually taking a child with him if it was just play-acting, unless....someone has mentioned that GM perhaps hoped to be seen but not recognised, to give weight to the abduction theory,... if no one saw him, that would be fine by them too!).

I really cant see what the Smith family would have to gain by lying about the sighting or have any motive to implicate GM?

if someone did come forward and they were able to eliminate this sighting, then surely that would be a win for the McCanns because that would still support their abduction claims (to their minds), just that no one saw it happening, which could have easily been the case (in their version of events). I was half expecting someone to come forward, someone engineered by the McCanns, just to rule out GM. But they would never be able to back it up, so they are stuck!

All that we have now are Mr Smith feeling more or less (i know, 60 - 80%) certain that it was GM he saw. No matter what version of events, there is no reason GM would be carrying a little girl around like that at that time. But someone was, unless the Smiths were completely making it up, and I just cant see why they would go through the trouble?

by **sharonl** 22.10.13 7:09

Update - my last post now properly translated by Joana

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html

Key witness identified Maddie's father

21 October 2013 | Posted by astro Leave a Comment

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 20 Gerry+plane

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 20 Gerry+plane

Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key deposition was devalued at the time of disappearance

by Sara G. Carrilho

"The testimony of one of the members of the Smith family that identified Gerry McCann as being the man he saw on the night that Maddie disappeared, carrying a child in his arms as he walked towards the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e-fit that the British police now made public is based on the Smith family's witness statement."

The statements are from Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, to Correio da Manhã. They appear following the publication of e-fits by the Scotland Yard that point one of the drawings out as being that of the main suspect over the presumed abduction of the English child, on the 3rd of May of 2007 - which they say was based on the testimony of an Irish family that was on holiday in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms", Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night", the former coordinator explained.

For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside". "The McCann hired detectives who made a portrait, a man that resembled Gerry, in order to devalue the deposition", he concluded.

by columbostogeys 22.10.13 7:24

I dont disbelieve the Smith sighting.

However if you look at it logically this family were walking through the streets of PDL chatting after having a few drinks, and happened upon someone who was purporting to be carrying a child. Now this is not unusual in PDL or holiday resort and I expect if truth be known they had seen others in the nights preceding this.

So would you really take much notice it was also dark with just street lights on...which can change a lot of things.

OK so they see this person carrying a child in the CLASSIC POSITION. I mean most people with sleeping children carry them like that close the the chest, not dangling over your arms like they are dead.

Anyway it was only after Smith saw GM walking down the steps on the plane his memory was TRIGGERED he was carrying the child in the same position and then it reminded him of maybe similarities and the person he saw then became GM. His children disagreed.....

Why would you really if your on holiday and its usual to see chlidren being carried about asleep take much notice?

Sadly i think this is just another tanner man. For me again logically why would an abductor or GM carry his child or a child through the streets of PDL.

IF the child was removed by a planned abduction or had died of an accident its very easy sadly to place a small child into a holdall and carry away....

ALSO I still dont get it why are children being carried in the freezing cold nights outside late with no blankets on it must be so cold end of april......not good parenting either way.

by SixMillionQuid 22.10.13 7:41

columbostogeys wrote:I dont disbelieve the Smith sighting.

However if you look at it logically this family were walking through the streets of PDL chatting after having a few drinks, and happened upon someone who was purporting to be carrying a child. Now this is not unusual in PDL or holiday resort and I expect if truth be known they had seen others in the nights preceding this.

So would you really take much notice it was also dark with just street lights on...which can change a lot of things.

OK so they see this person carrying a child in the CLASSIC POSITION. I mean most people with sleeping children carry them like that close the the chest, not dangling over your arms like they are dead.

Anyway it was only after Smith saw GM walking down the steps on the plane his memory was TRIGGERED he was carrying the child in the same position and then it reminded him of maybe similarities and the person he saw then became GM. His children disagreed.....

Why would you really if your on holiday and its usual to see chlidren being carried about asleep take much notice?

Sadly i think this is just another tanner man. For me again logically why would an abductor or GM carry his child or a child through the streets of PDL.

IF the child was removed by a planned abduction or had died of an accident its very easy sadly to place a small child into a holdall and carry away....

ALSO I still dont get it why are children being carried in the freezing cold nights outside late with no blankets on it must be so cold end of april......not good parenting either way.

I believe the Smith's saw something significant, the problem I've always had is that Mr Smith had ID'd a person based on the way he carried a child, which makes me wonder if Mr Smith had additional info that caused him to make his conclusion.

by StraightThinking 22.10.13 7:49

columbostogeys wrote:However if you look at it logically this family were walking through the streets of PDL chatting after having a few drinks, and happened upon someone who was purporting to be carrying a child. Now this is not unusual in PDL or holiday resort

Is it really that common for young children to be carried around like that at 10 o'clock at night?

by plebgate 22.10.13 8:02

StraightThinking wrote:
columbostogeys wrote:However if you look at it logically this family were walking through the streets of PDL chatting after having a few drinks, and happened upon someone who was purporting to be carrying a child. Now this is not unusual in PDL or holiday resort
Is it really that common for young children to be carried around like that at 10 o'clock at night?

Mrs. Smith is reported as having said so.

Why is Mr. Smith now saying that it was Maddie he saw?

by Guest 22.10.13 8:47

StraightThinking wrote:
columbostogeys wrote:However if you look at it logically this family were walking through the streets of PDL chatting after having a few drinks, and happened upon someone who was purporting to be carrying a child. Now this is not unusual in PDL or holiday resort
Is it really that common for young children to be carried around like that at 10 o'clock at night?

As TB has pointed out repeatedely, if not ad nauseam, here we have two sightings, Tanner's 'bundleman', and the Smith family sighting.

These two sightings have these ELEVEN features in common, and bearing in mind that in both cases it was dark or virtually dark at the time - and a cold evening:

* single men out with a child

* no-one accompanying them, neither wife, partner, other children, friends, no-one

* carrying a child, not having a pushchair or buggy

* said to look 'not like a tourist'

* said to be 'swarthy' (Tanner) or 'sun-tanned' (Smith)

* but 'didn't get a clear look at his face'

* dark jacket

* light trousers

* carrying a blonde girl

* seen wearing light-coloured, white/pink pyjamas

* nobody else reported seeing this man and child (these men and children).

It would be impossible for these two men to be one and the same. Let's remember that the official line from DCI Andy Redwood is that 'Tannerman' is now crecheman, positively identified as someone carrying a child home from the night creche. Let's for a moment take Redwood at his word. No-one seriously thinks, surely, that it was the same bloke seen 45 minutes later wandering around with the same child near Kelly's bar at 10.00?

There is another thing I have noted about these two sightings.

Jane Tanner, from the police van, on Sunday 13th May 2007 saw Robert Murat walk by and said to Amaral's men: that's him, I'm sure it's him, I am adamant.

Just 13 days later, Saturday 26th May, Martin Smith is in town and says: "The one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the bloke I/we saw was NOT Robert Murat".

So what have the PJ got, exactly, on 26 May?

1. A friend of the McCanns who says: It was Murat.

2. A friend (or at least acquaintance who had 'met him several times') of Murat saying: It was not Murat.

It is as breathtakingly simple as that - except that it takes Smith another 4 months to come up with: 'I'm at least 60% sure it was Gerry McCann'.

And there were no other sightings of this man/these men.

As the saying goes, "Confusion is Good".

I think it was Chatelaine who said he could not understand why TB and others were in any way doubting the Smiths.

I tend to prefer the opinion of Wendy Murphy:

"I'm not buying it. This is another fake sighting".

She can see it, for one.

Me, for another.

by StraightThinking 22.10.13 8:59

fleffer wrote:And there were no other sightings of this man/these men.

Intriguing thoughts, fleffer. The problem I have with the Smith sighting being invented it that it would imply a conspiracy involving all five of them
However, I am interested in the fact that on a walk lasting more than 5 minutes, nobody else appears to have seen him
The CW programme asked if we could identify the man in the efits
However, it didn't ask if anyone on holiday in PdL at the time had seen someone answering to the description of Smithman, either that night or at any other time
Strange

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)