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

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 12:27

tiny wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
tiny wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:In Martin Smiths statement it has this:

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

So maybe the Smiths statements were to clear Murat, rather then implicate anyone else??? Just a personal thought
Perhaps Mr Smith was asked if it could have been Murat and that's why he gave that reply.

why do some think that Murat is this smithman ,I would be interested to know
I dont think Smithman is Murat...im in contemplation as to whether Smithman existed at all ....but, no, not Murat.
So are you saying that the whole Smith family lied

No..im saying if Smithman exists, then they came forward to clear Murat..he was made arguido on 15th May, their statments were the 26th May. Im thinking maybe on seeing that, they wanted to tell about Smithman as a possible suspect and to say that it wasnt Murat

by Guest 25.10.13 12:27

candyfloss wrote:I think is where people have got things wrong. Look at ALL the statements from witnesses in Portugal taken by the PJ. They are not questions and answers like the English rogatories. They are précised down, from original interview imo. "He states that on.........he say that .....the witness stated"......

They just didn't sit there and garble on for hours they were asked questions. Many of the witnesses would have been asked exactly the same questions...........i.e. did you see Robert Murat was probably one of them. The statements have then been formed as one long statement, not including the questions. That's what people do in interviews. That is my opinion.

examples...

GM witness statement 4 May

When asked, he said that he had already been to Portugal in 1994

Concerning routines, he mentions that on Sunday, they had breakfast, between 7.30 and 8.30am at the Ocean Club

So, look at the statements, he was asked if he had been to Portugal, he was asked re routines etc. All the statements follow the same pattern. They are précised interviews.

Just a note further to the above, from this I deduce Mr Smith would have been asked, what did the man look like, did he look like a tourist or a local, did he see Robert Murat etc. etc.

by Nereid 25.10.13 12:38

This if from the PJ final report:

"Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant."

I have a hard time believing that the Smiths made their sighting up. They probably did see someone with a child, but I doubt it was Gerry McCann.

Why this person carrying a child never came forward is a bit of a mystery though, it could have been one of the Tapas (decoy?) or perhaps someone that was too scared to get involved in this sorry mess.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 12:46

candyfloss wrote: Just a note further to the above, from this I deduce Mr Smith would have been asked,

what did the man look like,

Agreed.

did he look like a tourist or a local,

Not agreed. That would be a ridiculous question for any police force to ask, as I said up the thread. If the police ask Smith: 'Did he look like a tourist?', Smith's next question is 'What does a tourist look like?' How do the police answer that one? I am sure that this must have been a gem that Smith produced without being asked that question.

did he see Robert Murat etc. etc.

Possible - but IMO very unlikely. The police would ask him as many open-ended questions as possible, before asking him specific questions about whether he looked like anyone, or didn't look like anyone. How would the police know for example that Smith already knew Murat quite well - unless Smith told them? IMO it is far more likely that this question was NOT asked but, rather, that Smith volunteered that it was not Murat that he and other members of his family saw.

by Joss 25.10.13 12:49

I just find it rather incredible that there were two very similar sightings that very same night of two different similar looking men supposedly carrying sleeping children with identical pyjamas on a fairly cold night with the children clad only in pyjamas and barefoot, but the adults dressed for the cooler weather. What would the odds be of that??? Sounds too coincidental on a night where a little girl is found missing soon afterwards. Maybe i'm just a pessimist. LOL. I wonder if we will hear from the Tannerman father about how a parent, namely the fathers of small children carry them around in the area, and what a common occurrence that actually is?

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 12:49

Nereid wrote:Why this person carrying a child never came forward is a bit of a mystery...

The mystery is solved very easily by the hypothesis that he never existed in the first place

by galena 25.10.13 12:51

Joss wrote:I just find it rather incredible that there were two very similar sightings that very same night of two different similar looking men supposedly carrying sleeping children with identical pyjamas on a fairly cold night with the children clad only in pyjamas and barefoot, but the adults dressed for the cooler weather. What would the odds be of that??? Sounds too coincidental on a night where a little girl is found missing soon afterwards. Maybe i'm just a pessimist. LOL. I wonder if we will hear from the Tannerman father about how a parent, namely the fathers of small children carry them around in the area, and what a common occurrence that actually is?

I think Tanner man did have a blanket - I remember seeing a picture of a pink blanket he had kept all these years?

by Sockpuppet 25.10.13 12:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote: Just a note further to the above, from this I deduce Mr Smith would have been asked,

what did the man look like,

Agreed.

did he look like a tourist or a local,

Not agreed. That would be a ridiculous question for any police force to ask, as I said up the thread. If the police ask Smith: 'Did he look like a tourist?', Smith's next question is 'What does a tourist look like?' How do the police answer that one? I am sure that this must have been a gem that Smith produced without being asked that question.

did he see Robert Murat etc. etc.

Possible - but IMO very unlikely. The police would ask him as many open-ended questions as possible, before asking him specific questions about whether he looked like anyone, or didn't look like anyone. How would the police know for example that Smith already knew Murat quite well - unless Smith told them? IMO it is far more likely that this question was NOT asked but, rather, that Smith volunteered that it was not Murat that he and other members of his family saw.

I don't see what is ridiculous about the question 'Did he look like a tourist?' If you find it ridiculous that's your right, but it's not the way that I feel. It seems a very valid question to me in my experience, just something that might help them narrow things down. I've been on foreign holidays, and can quite easily point out people who clearly look like tourists.

by Nereid 25.10.13 12:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nereid wrote:Why this person carrying a child never came forward is a bit of a mystery...
The mystery is solved very easily by the hypothesis that he never existed in the first place

What would the Smith's motive be for making the sighting up? I know people lie all the time for all sorts of reasons, money, fear like you stated earlier on in the thread. And also perhaps clearing someone who you thought was falsely implicated. But to involve your 12 year old daughter in that?

by tiny 25.10.13 12:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nereid wrote:Why this person carrying a child never came forward is a bit of a mystery...
The mystery is solved very easily by the hypothesis that he never existed in the first place

Why would the Smiths lie,all 4 of them.In the statement of Peter Smith it is said that his son was questioned in Ireland and he said,

Adds also that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was wearing a long-sleeved coat, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot . so it seems to you that 4 of the family have lied if you think that smithman does not exist.

Robert Murat might have been up to some thing shady, but I doubt if it has any thing to do with Madeleine.

by Joss 25.10.13 13:03

galena wrote:
Joss wrote:I just find it rather incredible that there were two very similar sightings that very same night of two different similar looking men supposedly carrying sleeping children with identical pyjamas on a fairly cold night with the children clad only in pyjamas and barefoot, but the adults dressed for the cooler weather. What would the odds be of that??? Sounds too coincidental on a night where a little girl is found missing soon afterwards. Maybe i'm just a pessimist. LOL. I wonder if we will hear from the Tannerman father about how a parent, namely the fathers of small children carry them around in the area, and what a common occurrence that actually is?
I think Tanner man did have a blanket - I remember seeing a picture of a pink blanket he had kept all these years?

Galena, i thought he kept the Pyjamas too from what i read? But didn't know about the blanket.

by Joss 25.10.13 13:11

From other crime cases i have followed Witness evidence is oftentimes quite unreliable. If there are a few witnesses to a crime there is often conflicting stories. I think if this case ever went to a Trial i would hope the Jury wouldn't rely entirely on witness evidence. I believe DNA/ Forensic evidence is more reliable personally.

by Guest 25.10.13 13:14

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote: Just a note further to the above, from this I deduce Mr Smith would have been asked,

what did the man look like,

Agreed.

did he look like a tourist or a local,

Not agreed. That would be a ridiculous question for any police force to ask, as I said up the thread. If the police ask Smith: 'Did he look like a tourist?', Smith's next question is 'What does a tourist look like?' How do the police answer that one? I am sure that this must have been a gem that Smith produced without being asked that question.

did he see Robert Murat etc. etc.

Possible - but IMO very unlikely. The police would ask him as many open-ended questions as possible, before asking him specific questions about whether he looked like anyone, or didn't look like anyone. How would the police know for example that Smith already knew Murat quite well - unless Smith told them? IMO it is far more likely that this question was NOT asked but, rather, that Smith volunteered that it was not Murat that he and other members of his family saw.
I don't see what is ridiculous about the question 'Did he look like a tourist?' If you find it ridiculous that's your right, but it's not the way that I feel. It seems a very valid question to me in my experience, just something that might help them narrow things down. I've been on foreign holidays, and can quite easily point out people who clearly look like tourists.

Tony, how do you know it would be a ridiculous question to ask. You were not there, you do not know how the PJ worked and what questions were put to people. We do not see this in any of the statements as I mentioned before......their questions are not visible. I have seen on true crime programmes, police in US do actually ask that sort of question. Sometimes something the person says, can narrow it down to being either a local, or someone who has come from elsewhere to commit a crime.

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 14:11

Police questioning does not name a suspect..they may show a photo and ask 'is this the person you saw'...but by name, definately not, it could be seen as 'influencing'...so my guess would be Smith volunteered the information of the bar meeting etc etc...and il stick by my own personal theory that they didnt view their viewing as being 'significant' until the point Murat was implicated...lets not forget tannerman was also being banded around too, and it could be they thought the case would be 'wrapped up' without their help...im thinking maybe they didnt much like the idea of being involved at first, but felt a 'duty' to clear Murat from their sighting of a possible sighting of a 'mystery' person.

by Silver Shuffle 25.10.13 15:08

thetruthbeknown wrote:Police questioning does not name a suspect..they may show a photo and ask 'is this the person you saw'...but by name, definately not, it could be seen as 'influencing'...so my guess would be Smith volunteered the information of the bar meeting etc etc...and il stick by my own personal theory that they didnt view their viewing as being 'significant' until the point Murat was implicated...lets not forget tannerman was also being banded around too, and it could be they thought the case would be 'wrapped up' without their help...im thinking maybe they didnt much like the idea of being involved at first, but felt a 'duty' to clear Murat from their sighting of a possible sighting of a 'mystery' person.

absolutely fully agree...

by galena 25.10.13 16:04

Joss wrote:
galena wrote:
Joss wrote:I just find it rather incredible that there were two very similar sightings that very same night of two different similar looking men supposedly carrying sleeping children with identical pyjamas on a fairly cold night with the children clad only in pyjamas and barefoot, but the adults dressed for the cooler weather. What would the odds be of that??? Sounds too coincidental on a night where a little girl is found missing soon afterwards. Maybe i'm just a pessimist. LOL. I wonder if we will hear from the Tannerman father about how a parent, namely the fathers of small children carry them around in the area, and what a common occurrence that actually is?
I think Tanner man did have a blanket - I remember seeing a picture of a pink blanket he had kept all these years?
Galena, i thought he kept the Pyjamas too from what i read? But didn't know about the blanket.

I'm sure I've seen a picture of a blanket as well - don't remember where, sorry. I'll have a look this evening.

by tiny 25.10.13 19:44

this is the first timeline on the sticker book,at 9-20/5 is where jane does her check and see,s bundleman.looks to me like a after thought as surely you would put bundleman first.

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 35 Timeline040507a

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 35 Timeline040507a

by plebgate 25.10.13 19:46

galena wrote:
Joss wrote:
galena wrote:
Joss wrote:I just find it rather incredible that there were two very similar sightings that very same night of two different similar looking men supposedly carrying sleeping children with identical pyjamas on a fairly cold night with the children clad only in pyjamas and barefoot, but the adults dressed for the cooler weather. What would the odds be of that??? Sounds too coincidental on a night where a little girl is found missing soon afterwards. Maybe i'm just a pessimist. LOL. I wonder if we will hear from the Tannerman father about how a parent, namely the fathers of small children carry them around in the area, and what a common occurrence that actually is?
I think Tanner man did have a blanket - I remember seeing a picture of a pink blanket he had kept all these years?
Galena, i thought he kept the Pyjamas too from what i read? But didn't know about the blanket.
I'm sure I've seen a picture of a blanket as well - don't remember where, sorry. I'll have a look this evening.

Yes I saw that pic. it was in one of the newspapers. A pic of the pygamas and blanket together.

by notlongnow 25.10.13 19:51

tiny wrote:this is the first timeline on the sticker book,at 9-20/5 is where jane does her check and see,s bundleman.looks to me like a after thought as surely you would put bundleman first.

Still feel this is one of the dodgiest parts of the case.
Adults making a list with a kid that has not long gone missing.
Surely you wouldn't even think of making one?

by galena 25.10.13 20:01

notlongnow wrote:
tiny wrote:this is the first timeline on the sticker book,at 9-20/5 is where jane does her check and see,s bundleman.looks to me like a after thought as surely you would put bundleman first.

Still feel this is one of the dodgiest parts of the case.
Adults making a list with a kid that has not long gone missing.
Surely you wouldn't even think of making one?

I've always wondered why they did all rush off then and there to search for Bundleman. Or maybe commandeer a taxi and drive round the streets looking. Wouldn't that be a normal instinct?

And I'm sure I'm not the first to notice - but the person who wrote this can't spell Gerry's name!

by Mirage 25.10.13 20:09

tiny wrote:this is the first timeline on the sticker book,at 9-20/5 is where jane does her check and see,s bundleman.looks to me like a after thought as surely you would put bundleman first.

A real gem this time line. Never ceases to amaze me,

IIRC the police saw it, asked what it was and took it - rather than the group saying: Oh, here's our timeline written down in case it helps.

Not only that, but the (JT) "sees stranger with child" sticks out like a sore thumb. The tense is wrong. It surely should say "saw stranger with child"

IMO that is a plan in progress not a statement of recorded fact.

by Guest 25.10.13 20:09

galena wrote: [...] I've always wondered why they did all rush off then and there to search for Bundleman. Or maybe commandeer a taxi and drive round the streets looking. Wouldn't that be a normal instinct?
***
Long time ago I jumped into my car to search for a friend's dog ...

And I'm sure I'm not the first to notice - but the person who wrote this can't spell Gerry's name!

Perhaps they didn't know each other that well ... ?

by Mirage 25.10.13 20:16

From memory, I thought I'd read somewhere that GM wrote the timeline. Obviously not, according to that spelling!

I'm trying to remember who tore the cover off the sticker book. IIRC one of the group commented they thought it was off a cereal pack. I don't have the bewk to hand, and am not sure if it is mentioned there. Anyone know?

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 20:20

Mirage wrote:From memory, I thought I'd read somewhere that GM wrote the timeline. Obviously not, according to that spelling!

I'm trying to remember who tore the cover off the sticker book. IIRC one of the group commented they thought it was off a cereal pack. I don't have the bewk to hand, and am not sure if it is mentioned there. Anyone know?

Info here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html

by whmon 25.10.13 20:22

galena wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
tiny wrote:this is the first timeline on the sticker book,at 9-20/5 is where jane does her check and see,s bundleman.looks to me like a after thought as surely you would put bundleman first.

Still feel this is one of the dodgiest parts of the case.
Adults making a list with a kid that has not long gone missing.
Surely you wouldn't even think of making one?
I've always wondered why they did all rush off then and there to search for Bundleman. Or maybe commandeer a taxi and drive round the streets looking. Wouldn't that be a normal instinct?

And I'm sure I'm not the first to notice - but the person who wrote this can't spell Gerry's name!

I can't spell either after I have had a drimk

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)