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

by whmon 23.10.13 22:42

galena wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Hicks wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Thanks candyfloss, the washing machine was in danger of drowning tiny's brilliant observation

Once again: the temperature that evening was 16C with a 10mph breeze, too cool to carry a child wearing just pyjamas

After discussing the matter among themselves, the Smiths felt she may also have been barefoot

Her arms were dangling either side of her body, not clasped around Smithman's neck

The child the Smiths saw was dead, wasn't she?
Yes StraightThinking, a brilliant observation from tiny. Any parent would not take a child out dressed in only pyjamas in such temperatures, especially 10.00pm at night without some blanket or coat for warmth, unless...... This makes me jump off the fence now and believe the worst.
Before jumping off the fence, if you read back the thread a bit it is suggested that if (as most believe) that Eddie and Keela 's indications are correct then smithman actually abducted a dead child. Given that this is highly unlikely we can rule out the 'stranger' abduction so where does this then lead us to. If it was Gerry then he must be a really cold calculating character who is able to act reasonably normal after scurrying through the streets with his dead daughter and hiding her. Even though I originally thought it was him it doesn't really stack up.
No so much cold and calculating in my book but extremely stupid - what would have happened if the Smith's had reported him as a suspicious character or if he bumped into someone he knew who wanted to stop for a chat? And one thing we know about Gerry is that he is not stupid and he is very good at self preservation - so why would he take the extreme risk of carrying a body around in public completely exposed for all the world to see?

But stupid or not - given the circumstances what was the alternative? They are on holiday for only one week and so are not fully familiar with the surroundings. There may well be better places to conceal a body but would they have known where? Probably not, they would have needed to find the best place they could think of at the time.

I have read that dead children look as if they are sleeping. To an observer a dead child being carried as if she were just asleep would look exactly that ... because the eye 'looks for the norm' and convinces the brain that this is so. This is why I think it would be easy for a person to carry a dead child and look 'normal' to the casual observer as the 'mind' will not ask questions. The casual observer may however, easily remember someone carrying a heavy bag because the mind will ask questions about what could be in the bag. This would make a person carrying a heavy bag more memorable to potential witnesses than a person carrying a seemingly 'sleeping' child. Therefore, I think it would be a good risk strategy to carry a dead child than to conceal the body in a bag. IMO.

by Hicks 23.10.13 22:42

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Hicks wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Thanks candyfloss, the washing machine was in danger of drowning tiny's brilliant observation

Once again: the temperature that evening was 16C with a 10mph breeze, too cool to carry a child wearing just pyjamas

After discussing the matter among themselves, the Smiths felt she may also have been barefoot

Her arms were dangling either side of her body, not clasped around Smithman's neck

The child the Smiths saw was dead, wasn't she?
Yes StraightThinking, a brilliant observation from tiny. Any parent would not take a child out dressed in only pyjamas in such temperatures, especially 10.00pm at night without some blanket or coat for warmth, unless...... This makes me jump off the fence now and believe the worst.
Before jumping off the fence, if you read back the thread a bit it is suggested that if (as most believe) that Eddie and Keela 's indications are correct then smithman actually abducted a dead child. Given that this is highly unlikely we can rule out the 'stranger' abduction so where does this then lead us to. If it was Gerry then he must be a really cold calculating character who is able to act reasonably normal after scurrying through the streets with his dead daughter and hiding her. Even though I originally thought it was him it doesn't really stack up.

Why doesn't it stack up? I see GM as cold and calculating. I watched the vid of him laughing and joking on the balcony a few days after M went missing. He played a mini tennis tournament a short while after. He told PF, a 'little girl is missing'. Whilst in the middle of negotiation with a possible kidnapper he was sucking on lollipops, joking with British officers about silly stories on the internet.

GM did not have access to a vehicle, there was no other way than to take M away on foot. There must have been help from elsewhere. This is where I see Murat's involvement somehow.
If you look at photo's of Murat during the whole arguido period he looks very comfortable, almost excited to be in the spotlight.

by roy rovers 23.10.13 23:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Re point 3 it doesn't follow if Smithman was GM that he 'carried MM through the streets of Praia da Luz' for 45 mins. I think they could have made it up as they went along. Having waited for darkness perhaps it didn't go to plan and GM had to lay MM down first at the bottom of the steps when he met JW then subsequently. I think he may have on his way to the church from where MM was moved again by GM and KM when they joined the search at 5.00am.
Sorry to say this, roy rovers, but this is yet another theory or 'guess' on this thread with absolutely zero evidence to support it
Yep just purporting a theory. If you know the literal truth we looking forward to hearing it.
No, of course not, but what I am saying is that my strong suspicion of the Smiths' story is evidence-based, as I have demonstrated up the thread

It's a question of whose evidence you believe. I was purporting a theory based on a) the alert of the dogs at the foot of the stair b) Gerry McCann talking to Jez Wilkins c) Smiths sighting d) church funny business and e) McCanns going out to search at 5.00am. That's more than 'absolutely zero'.

by galena 24.10.13 8:03

whmon wrote:
galena wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Hicks wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Thanks candyfloss, the washing machine was in danger of drowning tiny's brilliant observation

Once again: the temperature that evening was 16C with a 10mph breeze, too cool to carry a child wearing just pyjamas

After discussing the matter among themselves, the Smiths felt she may also have been barefoot

Her arms were dangling either side of her body, not clasped around Smithman's neck

The child the Smiths saw was dead, wasn't she?
Yes StraightThinking, a brilliant observation from tiny. Any parent would not take a child out dressed in only pyjamas in such temperatures, especially 10.00pm at night without some blanket or coat for warmth, unless...... This makes me jump off the fence now and believe the worst.
Before jumping off the fence, if you read back the thread a bit it is suggested that if (as most believe) that Eddie and Keela 's indications are correct then smithman actually abducted a dead child. Given that this is highly unlikely we can rule out the 'stranger' abduction so where does this then lead us to. If it was Gerry then he must be a really cold calculating character who is able to act reasonably normal after scurrying through the streets with his dead daughter and hiding her. Even though I originally thought it was him it doesn't really stack up.
No so much cold and calculating in my book but extremely stupid - what would have happened if the Smith's had reported him as a suspicious character or if he bumped into someone he knew who wanted to stop for a chat? And one thing we know about Gerry is that he is not stupid and he is very good at self preservation - so why would he take the extreme risk of carrying a body around in public completely exposed for all the world to see?
But stupid or not - given the circumstances what was the alternative? They are on holiday for only one week and so are not fully familiar with the surroundings. There may well be better places to conceal a body but would they have known where? Probably not, they would have needed to find the best place they could think of at the time.

I have read that dead children look as if they are sleeping. To an observer a dead child being carried as if she were just asleep would look exactly that ... because the eye 'looks for the norm' and convinces the brain that this is so. This is why I think it would be easy for a person to carry a dead child and look 'normal' to the casual observer as the 'mind' will not ask questions. The casual observer may however, easily remember someone carrying a heavy bag because the mind will ask questions about what could be in the bag. This would make a person carrying a heavy bag more memorable to potential witnesses than a person carrying a seemingly 'sleeping' child. Therefore, I think it would be a good risk strategy to carry a dead child than to conceal the body in a bag. IMO.

I guess it depends where you live - I see people lugging round heavy bags all the time but I don't know if that would be unusual in PDL - but that's not really the point. Gerry and the rest of the Tapas crew knew that a major news story involving an abducted child was about to break - so people would be likely to remember anyone they had seen carrying a small child. Also - if you are going to carry a dead child wouldn't you at least wrap it in a blanket to give the impression it was still alive?

And really was there really that much of a rush? - They could have delayed the announcement to perhaps the next morning - announcing that she had been taken by a stranger in the night. If we proclaim loudly that Smithman existed and was carrying a dead child - what are we left with if all the Tapas males turn out to have solid alibis? Personally I think that is where this investigation is heading -

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 8:11

Nobody has a solid alibi for 21.55, the time of the Smith sighting

The Tapas table was empty at 21.40 and individuals were out and about searching alone after that

But "officially" the alarm wasn't raised until 22.00

That's what makes the 21.55 timeslot so interesting - after the alarm was actually raised, but before the alarm was raised according to the sticker book timeline

by Sockpuppet 24.10.13 9:00

Is Gerry McCann a 'cold and calculating character?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

Taken a few days after either

a) his 3 year old daughter was abducted

or

b) his 3 year old daughter died and the body was concealed

Calculating? Who knows. Cold? Absolutely.

This, in my opinion, is the picture of a man who believes that he is 'getting away with it'. Not one of a man worried about the fate of his daughter.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.13 9:32

roy rovers wrote:It's a question of whose evidence you believe. I was purporting a theory based on a) the alert of the dogs at the foot of the stair b) Gerry McCann talking to Jez Wilkins c) Smiths sighting d) church funny business and e) McCanns going out to search at 5.00am. That's more than 'absolutely zero'.

Thank you for your reply. We are discussing evidence that Smithman may have been a genuine sighting (or not, as the case may be) and whether, if it was, it might have been Gerry McCannn carrying Madeleine (dead) through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10.00am.

You have referred to five lines of evidence. Let's examine them one by one.

a) the alert of the dogs at the foot of the stair

Martin Grime says, as you say, that Eddie alerted at the foot of the stair. Martin Grime would say that this is intelligence (but not evidence without corroboration) that a coprse had lain at that spot for a perid of time. The McCanns would claim that the evidence of cadaver dogs in general is 'incredibly unreliable (Gerry) and that the alerts can be explained away very simply 'by the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler (Kate in her book). So, according to Martin Grime, this is an indication that there was at some point in time a corpse on the stair. He does not of course say when the corpse was there (if it was), so we cannot without further evidence relate this (as you suggest) to something happening around say 9pm to 10pm on 3 May 2007

b) Gerry McCann talking to Jez Wilkins

This is merely evidence that the two men were talking with each other around 9pm to 9.15pm in the lane. Nothing else

c) Smiths sighting

Yes, but this is what we are discussing. I have asserted (with evidence from myself, and others on this thread) that there are many indications that this 'sighting' is fabricated

d) church funny business

I am not sure what you mean - and how any 'funny business' goes in any way to the issue of whether there really was a Smith 'sighting' and whether or not it was Gerry McCann. If you could kindly explain, I shall be pleased to respond further

and e) McCanns going out to search at 5.00am.

Again I am at a complete loss. How does this help one way or another as to (a) whether there really was a Smith 'sighting' or (b) if there was, why it should be Gerry McCann?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.13 11:49

Found on a blog called 'NHS: Abuse of Power':

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/cleaning-mr-martin-smith-statement.html

EARLY MEDIA AND PRESS REPORTS ABOUT THE MARTIN SMITH 'SIGHTING'.

Of considerable interest - see bolding:

By Paulo Reis

British Media, in a frenzy with one more suspect, quoted a statement from Mr. Martin Smith, a witness in Madeleine McCann case who saw a man carrying a child, in that night. But they forget to quote the most important, as usual. This is what Mr. Martin Smith told police, in Portugal and, later, in Ireland:

“I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.”

This is what British newspapers are quoting:

Daily Express: “Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ holiday friends, spotted a man carrying a blonde child away from the apartment shortly after 9.15pm on May 3, 2007. And Martin Smith, a holidaymaker from Ireland, and 11 members of his family also saw a man carrying a sleeping child dressed in pink pyjamas at 9.40pm.”

Belfast Telegraph: “Mr Smith, from Drogheda, was also on holiday in Praia da Luz at the time. At about 9.50pm on May 3 he and his family were walking up a road less than half a mile from the McCanns’ apartment when he saw a man carrying a blonde girl of about four. Mr Smith said in his police statement: “I thought they were father and daughter so I wasn’t so suspicious... The man didn’t look like a tourist. I can’t explain why — it was probably from his clothes.”

-----

by galena 24.10.13 13:06

StraightThinking wrote:Nobody has a solid alibi for 21.55, the time of the Smith sighting

The Tapas table was empty at 21.40 and individuals were out and about searching alone after that

But "officially" the alarm wasn't raised until 22.00

That's what makes the 21.55 timeslot so interesting - after the alarm was actually raised, but before the alarm was raised according to the sticker book timeline

Fair enough. However it seems a fair bet to me that if the Smiths saw someone carrying a body at 21.55, that person would probably have still be out and about with the child at 22.00 hrs- so why raise the alarm at that point and not give your man a chance to complete his mission? In this day of mobile phones etc., news travels fast and he could have been apprehended by members of the public. Imagine someone had just texted Smith before the sighting to say a child had been snatched by an abductor (a theory Gerry put forward from the beginning). What are the chances that they would have just let the guy walk past? - A single male walking alone in the middle of the road carrying a child in pyjamas (no blanket) - you really couldn't get more suspicious than that!

I believe that the timing of the sighting points to someone - not connected with the Tapas group at all. Or a Tapas person acting on his own initiative not as part of a group at all maybe.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.13 13:28

galena wrote:Fair enough. However it seems a fair bet to me that if the Smiths saw someone carrying a body at 21.55, that person would probably have still be out and about with the child at 22.00 hrs - so why raise the alarm at that point and not give your man a chance to complete his mission?

Another good reason among a good many we've had on this thread why (if there really is a Smithman) it could not possibly be Gerry McCann.

In this day of mobile phones etc., news travels fast and he could have been apprehended by members of the public. Imagine someone had just texted Smith before the sighting to say a child had been snatched by an abductor (a theory Gerry put forward from the beginning). What are the chances that they would have just let the guy walk past? - A single male walking alone in the middle of the road carrying a child in pyjamas (no blanket) - you really couldn't get more suspicious than that!

I believe that the timing of the sighting points to someone - not connected with the Tapas group at all. Or a Tapas person acting on his own initiative not as part of a group at all maybe.

Always presuming there ever was such a sighting. So far as we know, despite claims of parents leaving night creches etc., the only two sightings we've ever had reported of anyone (let alone two single blokes who 'don't look like tourists') carrying a child are...

Tanner man...

...and...

...Smithman

ETA: News just in from the BBC and (elsewhere) includes this:

QUOTE BBC

Met detectives released two e-fits of a man seen carrying a child in Praia da Luz at 22:00 on the night Madeleine went missing and it was revealed that they now suspected Madeleine could have been taken later than previously thought - just before her mother returned to the apartment to check on her.

UNQUOTE

So, the Met are still pinning their hopes on a sighting which, if Wendy Murphy is right, is a fake.

ANOTHER fake, she suggests.

We have been asked by Jane Tanner, the McCann Team and the police for 6.5 years to look for a FAKE SUSPECT.

I sincerely hope this is not going to be another search for a fake suspect.

If the reporting is correct that the Portuguese have re-opened their investigation, then in very short order the Portuguese Police will have to firm - or deny - that we should mall be hunting for 'Smithman' - on the assumption (now) that the abductor somehow took Madeleine at nearly 10.00pm

by Silver Shuffle 24.10.13 13:42

Does anybody know if the PJ had e-fits drawn when the Smiths went back to Portugal around the 27th May. Is it in the files?

New here, been following ages, and thanks to the admins for such good work. The Moment I was convinced was when K ran back to the Tapas, leaving the twins alone with an open window... sad

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 16:34

galena wrote:it seems a fair bet to me that if the Smiths saw someone carrying a body at 21.55, that person would probably have still be out and about with the child at 22.00 hrs- so why raise the alarm at that point

The alarm wasn't raised at 22.00 - it was raised at 21.40
And you are assuming that the person who raised the alarm (K) is in cahoots with Smithman (whoever he was) and knew what he was doing
We don't know that

by galena 24.10.13 16:39

StraightThinking wrote:
galena wrote:it seems a fair bet to me that if the Smiths saw someone carrying a body at 21.55, that person would probably have still be out and about with the child at 22.00 hrs- so why raise the alarm at that point
The alarm wasn't raised at 22.00 - it was raised at 21.40
And you are assuming that the person who raised the alarm (K) is in cahoots with Smithman (whoever he was) and knew what he was doing
We don't know that

If Smithman was Gerry then I would assume he and Kate were in cahoots. They have been ever since ...

The point of my post was the Smithman, whoever he was, seems to have been acting independently on his own initiative quite separately from whatever the Tapas friends were doing. Make of that what you will ...

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 16:52

galena wrote:The point of my post was the Smithman, whoever he was, seems to have been acting independently on his own initiative quite separately from whatever the Tapas friends were doing. Make of that what you will ...

It's quite possible that he was at that precise moment
Things may have developed later on

by roy rovers 24.10.13 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
c) Smiths sighting

Yes, but this is what we are discussing. I have asserted (with evidence from myself, and others on this thread) that there are many indications that this 'sighting' is fabricated

As I said it depends whose evidence you prefer. I prefer to believe that the Smith family did the right thing and came forward. You prefer to believe that 'there are many indications that this 'sighting' is fabricated'.
If the sighting was not fabricated I prefer the church to the beach. Just do. Sorry.

by galena 24.10.13 18:45

StraightThinking wrote:
galena wrote:The point of my post was the Smithman, whoever he was, seems to have been acting independently on his own initiative quite separately from whatever the Tapas friends were doing. Make of that what you will ...
It's quite possible that he was at that precise moment
Things may have developed later on

The problem is that the only thing which links Gerry McCann or any of the Tapas people to Smithman is Smith's belated recognition based on the way he (Gerry) carries his children (which is actually commonplace - if he carried them upside down by their feet or something it meant be worth a mention). And Smith appears to be backtracking, saying now it was Madeleine he recognised.

Everything else about this sighting, frankly supports the idea of a stranger abduction.
Unless the police in both countries have a lot more than Smithman to go I can't see them charging the McCanns or any of the Tapas 9 based on this kind of evidence - I suspect they are not bluffing but chasing up yet another abductor trail.

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 19:09

galena wrote:Everything else about this sighting, frankly supports the idea of a stranger abduction.

Not really, we know nothing about Smithman, so he could be anyone

by **PeterMac** 24.10.13 19:28

galena wrote:
Everything else about this sighting, frankly supports the idea of a stranger abduction.

In what way does an unidentified man carrying an unidentified child 500 metres from the apartment where a child was 'reported missing' by her parents . .
"Support the idea of a stranger abduction"

by galena 24.10.13 19:46

Sorry Straighthinking and Peter Mac - you are right - my last post wasn't very well expressed. Of course if could have been a coincidence, just someone else carrying his child back home, or even carrying a bag of washing back home, and personally I think that is a very likely solution. Or it could have been a fake sighting as some have suggested. What I meant to say is that - if the police are treating it as significant to the case it seems more likely that they see it as evidence of a stranger abduction than parental involvement. I don't believe that Smith's evidence alone would be enough to take on the McCanns unless they have something more significant they are keeping under wraps.

by Hongkong Phooey 24.10.13 19:55

galena wrote:Sorry Straighthinking and Peter Mac - you are right - my last post wasn't very well expressed. Of course if could have been a coincidence, just someone else carrying his child back home, or even carrying a bag of washing back home, and personally I think that is a very likely solution. Or it could have been a fake sighting as some have suggested. What I meant to say is that - if the police are treating it as significant to the case it seems more likely that they see it as evidence of a stranger abduction than parental involvement. I don't believe that Smith's evidence alone would be enough to take on the McCanns unless they have something more significant they are keeping under wraps.

From what's in the public domain there is zero evidence of stranger abduction

by ProfessorPPlum 24.10.13 20:00

PeterMac wrote:
galena wrote:
Everything else about this sighting, frankly supports the idea of a stranger abduction.
In what way does an unidentified man carrying an unidentified child 500 metres from the apartment where a child was 'reported missing' by her parents . .
"Support the idea of a stranger abduction"

That's a really good question PeterMac. I suppose the problem is that the sighting could, at first glance, seem to support both versions of what happened. I suppose that ambiguity makes if effectively meaningless. It points nowhere at the moment. And if Smith never saw his face, then it never will.

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 20:04

Why would a stranger or, if you believe some of today's speculation, a gang of strangers, abduct a child and carry it through the streets into the town?

by Five Star 24.10.13 20:12

"And really was there really that much of a rush? - They could have delayed the announcement to perhaps the next morning - announcing that she had been taken by a stranger in the night. If we proclaim loudly that Smithman existed and was carrying a dead child - what are we left with if all the Tapas males turn out to have solid alibis? Personally I think that is where this investigation is heading -"

Why did they not say Madeleine got up early and had an accident if they wanted to cover something else up.(accident the night before when they were not there e.t.c)?

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 20:16

Five Star wrote:If we proclaim loudly that Smithman existed and was carrying a dead child - what are we left with if all the Tapas males turn out to have solid alibis?

I doubt that many have a solid alibi. The alarm was raised just before 21.40 (not 22.00, that's just the sticker book timeline). By 21.55, when Smithman was spotted, the search was underway with people setting off by themselves in all directions.

by StraightThinking 24.10.13 20:18

Five Star wrote:They could have delayed the announcement to perhaps the next morning - announcing that she had been taken by a stranger in the night.

This assumes that K wasn't genuinely shocked to find M missing. Maybe her panic and rush to raise the alarm was real

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)