Re: SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

by comperedna 05.06.14 14:46

Can anyone remember where, and when, and by whom, it was reported that the child carried by Smithman had her arms hanging down? If Smithman existed, as he may well have done, whoever he was, carrying a child with arms hanging down is very odd indeed. However sleepy, a child carried upright usually stirs and slings their arms around your neck, or at least does not leave them 'hanging down'. Is that observation a forum myth?

by haroldd2 05.06.14 14:55

Yikes! In consecutive sentences I counted 82, 100, 70 and 81 words! Others had 75,83, 72, 91, 88 and 155. If one of your opponents replies in similar fashion the two of you may find it difficult to reach common ground.

But to get to a kernel: what you view as the faulty approaches used by several posters on these forums makes you convinced that no intelligence agency has been involved in a big way in this case? If that's a fair description, I can't see that a lot of logic has been used in getting from the premise to the claim.

CynicalAl wrote:contrived and deliberate fabrication

If you are going to accuse opponents of not having a clue about how to apply Occam's razor, I don't think it helps your efforts to appeal to readers' rationality if you use over-emphatic language to describe their suggestions in such a way as to make them sound rabid. All fabrication is deliberate and much of it is contrived.

CynicalAl wrote:logic, rationality, predictability and common sense (...)
logic, rationality, predictability and common sense (...)
logic, rationality, predictability and common sense,

Why do you so often group logic together with common sense - and in such an emphatic way? They're very different.

I agree that psychological insights are important in trying to grapple with this case, but so is a sharp view - and a wish to increase one's understanding - of the vile and corrupt dominant social system and the types of agency that come into play.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 14:59

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
So do you have a theory as to why the Smith sighting would be fabricated? I'm not asking you to elaborate, just wondered if you do or not. Your argument regarding the Smiths is persuasive but I can't work out what was, or was supposed to be, achieved in comparison to never raising the issue in the first place. Independent proof of abduction? False trail? What?

Clay, I have given my reason why in many places on this forum already, but just for you, I will tell you that I take into consideration all the following:

1. That on 4 May 2007, the day after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine who were with him at the time thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting of a man carrying a small blonde child only dressed in her pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold early May evening at 10.00pm

2. That on 5 May 2007, two days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

3. That on 6 May 2007, three days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

4. That on 7 May 2007, four days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

5. That on 8 May 2007, five days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

6. That on 9 May 2007, six days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

7. That on 10 May 2007, seven days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

8. That on 11 May 2007, eight days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

9. That on 12 May 2007, nine days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

10. That on 13 May 2007, ten days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

11. That on 14 May 2007, eleven days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

12. That on 15 May 2007, twelve days after Madeleine was reported missing and there was extensive worldwide media coverage of her disappearance, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family of nine still thought of contacting the police to tell them about their alleged sighting

13. That in the days leading up to 15 May, widespread suspicion in the media had fallen on Robert Murat as the likely abductor of Madeleine

14. That Martin Smith was a friend of Robert Murat, saw him in bars regularly during his regular holidays in the Estrela da Luz complex in Praia da Luz ,and had known him for at least two years

15. That his friend Robert Murat was, in a blaze of publicity, pulled in for questioning on 15 May 2007 and made a suspect

16. That, on Martin Smith’s own testimony, his own son Peter had to ring up and remind him, on 16 May, the day after Martin Smith’s friend Robert Murat was arrested, as follows: “Dad, am I remembering this correctly, did we see a man carrying a child that night that Madeleine went missing” (not his exact words, but that’s the essence of it)

17. That only then did Martin Smith contact the police

18. That although he

(a) only had a very brief sighting of the man he said he saw, and

(b) it was dark, and

(c) the street lighting was ‘very weak’, and

(d) the child was obscuring the man’s face, and

(e) he admitted he would never be able to recognise him again if he saw him

(f) he was not wearing his glasses that night, yet…

…he could be absolutely sure that the man he says he saw carrying the child was definitely not Robert Murat

19. That this at the very least raises the possibility that in contacting the police on 16 May 2014 he may have been in touch with his friend Robert Murat and may have been seeking to help him.

by Guest 05.06.14 15:05

comperedna wrote:Can anyone remember where, and when, and by whom, it was reported that the child carried by Smithman had her arms hanging down? If Smithman existed, as he may well have done, whoever he was, carrying a child with arms hanging down is very odd indeed. However sleepy, a child carried upright usually stirs and slings their arms around your neck, or at least does not leave them 'hanging down'. Is that observation a forum myth?

SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman? - Page 8 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvIwIXlIyY4G8xiYLq6MXeFCzOtvic2PaakY3cg8cTP8SieamVSA

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 15:09

candyfloss wrote:
comperedna wrote:Can anyone remember where, and when, and by whom, it was reported that the child carried by Smithman had her arms hanging down? If Smithman existed, as he may well have done, whoever he was, carrying a child with arms hanging down is very odd indeed. However sleepy, a child carried upright usually stirs and slings their arms around your neck, or at least does not leave them 'hanging down'. Is that observation a forum myth?

I think comperedna may have been referring to the original (alleged) sighting

by Cristobell 05.06.14 15:09

C/p from digging thread:

Tony Bennett

Cristobell wrote:
The Smiths are decent people who have never sought notoriety, in fact, they have flinched away from publicity. What kind of man would ask his wife, children and grandchildren to lie on behalf of a possible child murderer, a man he barely knew? I actually find the suggestion of it distasteful. This case involves lots of twists and turns for sure, but it doesn't involve a nice Irish family taking a stroll home after a pleasant evening together. I think the quiet dignity of Mr Smith and his family is to be applauded. Like Goncalo Amaral, they clearly believe justice works in silence.

You presume to know quite a lot about the Smiths, whereas we know very little.

What we do know, for example, is that he lied when registering his Golf Net Ltd company by inventing four Directors, i.e. he named as Directors of his Golf Net Ltd four leading CEOs of internationally known companies who are clearly not fellow Directors.

First of all, Cristobell, did you know that?

Second, now that you know that, does that change in any way your view about whether Martin Smith could have fabricated his 'sighting'?

Third, Martin Smith describes himself in the Golf Net company documents as:

QUOTE

• Martin Smith , Managing Director & Founder

A former senior army officer - with extensive management and leadership skills acquired during a twenty-five year career both at home and overseas -, his entrepeneurship, vision, enthusiasm and perseverence has aassembled a team of hugely experienced and talented individuals with the combined skill-sets to realise his ambition of creating a global brand. Through the strategic partnerships that he has established, he has positioned Golf Net to rapidly establish a significant international presence. His inventiveness has created an impressive range of unique and innovative products that will be the launch-pad for what will become a major international brand.

UNQUOTE

How sure are you that that's all true?

Have a look at Golf Net on the net and see if you can see any evidence of his 'strategic partnerships', for example.

CRISTOBELL REPLY:

I am a fan of your research Tony, as you know, but imo there is no 'link' or 'connection' strong enough to convince me the Smith family lied to protect Robert Murat. As has been mentioned on this forum before, six degrees of separation can link us to almost anyone.

If they have lied on behalf of Robert Murat (which I don't believe) then they have derailed the Missing Madeleine investigation for 7 years, and would be facing very serious charges for perverting the course of justice for the sake of a casual friend and occasional business colleague.

Robert Murat was ruled out very early on in the investigation. Not only do I not buy that an entire family would cover up a heinous crime for a stranger, he didn't beed their evidence to rule him out! It was quickly established through telephone and computer evidence that he was at home all evening, as his mother said he was.

I've had my own revelation moment today, for what its worth, in that I have finally accepted (99.9%) that Smithman was Gerry and that circumstances beyond his control, led him to run through the streets of PDL carrying the deceased Madeleine. It was a decision made in panic imo, in the hope that he wouldn't be seen by anyone - bumping into the Smith family was a disaster.

Sometimes the answers lie in the simplest of explanations. The chances that a man the same age, build, hairstyle, clean shaven and dressed in beige trousers (an identikit of the father in fact) should steal the small child of his doppelganger in a small town in Portugal, are considerably less than buying a winning lottery ticket. I don't know what pressure the Smith family have been put under since their unfortunate encounter all those years ago, but I don't wish to add it by casting doubts about their good characters. I have nothing but respect for them, in that they avoided the McCann circus, and co-operated with the police quietly and without fanfare.

The business world is not run by the Amish Community Tony, I have worked in the private sector, its a dog eat dog world out there. Mr. Smith's CV is professional and impressive, as are the CV's of most successful company directors. In fairness, I doubt any private business would stand up to close scrutiny, and if each were investigated to the level some would demand, the country would come to a standstill.

Remember at the centre of this case is a heinous crime involving the murder of a child, something that repulses 99.9% of us, anyone found to be linked to it may face a backlash, the like of which we have never seen before. Whilst I am passionate about free speech, I am not sure it is very responsible to theorise on the motives of a family who done no more than tell the police what they saw. Neither Goncalo Amaral, nor the official police files revealed anything about them other than, they were genuine witnesses.

by Guest 05.06.14 15:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
comperedna wrote:Can anyone remember where, and when, and by whom, it was reported that the child carried by Smithman had her arms hanging down? If Smithman existed, as he may well have done, whoever he was, carrying a child with arms hanging down is very odd indeed. However sleepy, a child carried upright usually stirs and slings their arms around your neck, or at least does not leave them 'hanging down'. Is that observation a forum myth?

I think comperedna may have been referring to the original (alleged) sighting

Yes, I know the Smithman sighting. I was just showing that children do sleep with their arms hanging.

by haroldd2 05.06.14 15:22

candyfloss wrote:
I have deleted my name from quotes - I did not write those words.

Sorry but who did write them? I was quoting from the post that appears under your name here (2.46pm). Were they in someone else's post that you were moving across from another thread? If so, I'm not sure how I could have known.

Or is it just that I omitted to put "(...)" between consecutive instances of "logic, rationality, predictability and common sense"? I'll go back and change that.

Edit:I've now done that. Who should I now attribute the quoted material to?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 15:26

8. She was being held on the man’s left side

Both gave different accounts re this. Tanners was lying in his arms on front of his chest. Smith said she was being carried over the shoulder.
Did Smith say the girl was barefoot?

I think you need to look at all the original Smith family statements.

In the book 'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann, pp. 370-2, as part of the McCanns' continuing efforts to promote the Smithman sighting alongside the Tannerman sighting and suggest that they were one and the same, she describes Tannerman's way of holding the child as:

"Carrying child across arms at front of chest; child's head to the left of man's chest"

While she describes Smithman's way of holding the child as

"Carrying child over arms with child's head towards left shoulder".

Kate McCann bases this comparison on the Smith family statements, which unfortunately are vague and contradictory on exactly how the (alleged) man was supposed to be carrying the (alleged) child.

I chose my words carefully: "She was being held on the left side".

However, it might have been still more accurate to have written: "She was being carried/held with her head on the man's left side.

We have the task of explaining how in 17 (18 actually) respects Smithman and the child exactly or nearly exactly replicate Tannerman.

Sheer coincidence?

The same bloke?

Or some other reason?

The theory that it was the same bloke has of course been squashed by Redwood saying that Tannerman was Crecheman.

Unless someone on here wants to speculate that Crecheman walked for 45 minutes around Praia da Luz before being seen by the Smiths?

by Guest 05.06.14 15:30

haroldd2 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
I have deleted my name from quotes - I did not write those words.
Sorry but who did write them? I was quoting from the post that appears under your name here (2.46pm). Were they in someone else's post that you were moving across from another thread? If so, I'm not sure how I could have known.

Or is it just that I omitted to put "(...)" between consecutive instances of "logic, rationality, predictability and common sense"? I'll go back and change that.

Edit:I've now done that. Who should I now attribute the quoted material to?

Sorry haroldd2 it was my fault. I moved the post from other thread and forgot to attribute it to CynicalAl the author. I have amended the original post now.

by haroldd2 05.06.14 15:32

candyfloss wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
I have deleted my name from quotes - I did not write those words.
Sorry but who did write them? I was quoting from the post that appears under your name here (2.46pm). Were they in someone else's post that you were moving across from another thread? If so, I'm not sure how I could have known.

Or is it just that I omitted to put "(...)" between consecutive instances of "logic, rationality, predictability and common sense"? I'll go back and change that.

Edit:I've now done that. Who should I now attribute the quoted material to?

Sorry haroldd2 it was my fault. I moved the post from other thread and forgot to attribute it to CynicalAl the author. I have amended the original post now.

OK thanks for clearing that up! I will go back and put in the correct attribution in mine!

by Cristobell 05.06.14 15:41

candyfloss wrote:Moving this here......

Tony Bennett wrote:
cassius wrote:
Maybe Smithman is Gerry with another child, not as a decoy as such but rather as a shield or distraction in the event of him being seen, as he does a final check on the burial place he had sourced earlier in the day .
I thought that HelenMeg's 'decoy' theory about Smithman was about as convoluted as you could get, but evidently I was wrong, you have come up with something even more unlikely.

Like HelenMeg, though, you propose a theory that involves one of the Tapas 7 parents volunteering for their young blonde daughter to be carried around the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold night dressed only in pyjamas.

These two theories (yours and HelenMeg's) are theories without a shred of evidence, whereas at least my suggestion that Smithman was fabricated (whether or not you agree) does have a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence to support it.

CynicalAl wrote:
Sorry.... at risk of this place becoming a one-wild-and-unsupportable-theory town, can you enlighten me as to quite what a 'considerable amount of circumstantial evidence to support' the non-occurrence of a non-event which was not witnessed by anyone, as opposed to the common or garden unsupportable and inexplicable denunciation of a legitimate claim of a sighting corroborated repeatedly over time, without any significant change of testimony, by multiple members of the same family looks like, exactly?

Since the latter would seemingly involve a conspiracy theory invented to account for the testimony being nothing short of a contrived and deliberate fabrication involving multiple-generations of the same family for reasons about as spurious and irrational as one can get, presumably the former involves a veritable barrel of eyewitnesses who either saw 'Smithman' but no Smiths, or saw the Smiths but no Smithman, who can be demonstrated as having been in the same street at the same time as this non-event occurred. That should be a fairly simple wrapping up, without the need for any attempts at connecting the dots between common surnames of people who might have happened to have visited the same towns somewhere in the same spheres of travel and who may know someone who might be seventeen shades removed from someone else who knows someone, as the usual efforts at declaring the Smith Family to be liars seem to run.

How, exactly, does this work?

I can't say I agree with HelenMeg's suggestion, but this is where I have a problem with the way you've responded to this, and other suggestions.

HelenMeg's suggestion isn't logical. You apparently correctly recognise that.

Without getting into a debate about how much more illogical your suggestion is than hers, I'll explain why I have a problem with the logic being used to critique these suggestions.

The logic never seems to take into account real world dynamics. The suggestion seems to be illogical to you because in the cold light of day, having pored over this situation - like the rest of us - for a perhaps unhealthy number of hours and imagined and re-imagined it every which way, the lack of logic is apparent. I wonder if a resident former officer of the law might like to confirm just how many otherwise complex cases might have been cracked not by the genius of detection but by the idiocy of an ordinary person, finding themselves on the dark end of misadventure, accident or loss of self-control, acting not with the advantage of many hours of thought and some good banter with a few experts in the field, afforded plenty of time, clear windows of opportunity and a zero-risk environment in which to play out a plot.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that whatever happened to MBM was premeditated. What unfolded after her demise had, at all times, to be a reaction birthed amid a haze of grief, fear and panic-stricken confusion. The collusion of a multiple of individuals, caught in the same emergency, to remove themselves from the most serious consequences of something - particularly if the group agreed that it was an accident arising in circumstances that they all contributed to or routinely replicated, suddenly conjuring up a 'master' plan which seemed at the time to be infallible but which ultimately proved to be ridiculously ambitious and grotesquely ill-advised would appear to fit the available facts and credible hypotheses of this case. Even more than that, the evidence points to there existing multiple stages of collective 'adjustment' to the plan, in other words that mistakes and inadequacies became apparent to the group very quickly and the group was so invested in their committment to the cover-up that they became pragmatic and dynamic in their reactions to what was going on around them - to either control circumstances by any and all means, or where unable, to react in ways which were not only extremely dangerous to their cover story, but also embarrassingly transparent to the point of being tell-tale in the investigation.

At this point, on that basis, we have a hypothesis in which the number of participants and the degree of pragmatic reaction regardless of risk could organically produce an incredibly complex cover-up which may even reach out to a handful of local enablers, perhaps people who have a similarly murky contribution to the situation that they would like to be 'disappeared' from the account of those events and never uncovered. So far we've no need for a complex network of secret society 'pillars of the community' who apparently have no morals and don't blink at the unlawful death of a child and the covering up of said death by those involved, even to the point of the undignified and desecrating treatment of the infant's body - apparently psycopaths in our midst, our government, our legal system, our police force, our medical practices, our churches, our village fetes etc etc ad infinitum.

If the events that unfolded were premeditated, they were catastrophically awful in their planning, resulting in hypothesis that looks like a plan devised by a committee of people in a blind panic, dodging bullets flying everywhere.

Now...

Two choices...

If what happened to MBM happened at the hands of the T9, or under their watch, it was either premeditated or it was an unplanned incident. Therefore the 'cover up' was either dogmatic or pragmatic, planned or unplanned, proactive or reactive.

If it was planned, it came out looking unplanned. If it was supposed to be a proactive cover-up, it came out looking reactive. If it was supposed to be flawless, it came out whistling due to the number of holes in it.

If it was unplanned, it came out looking that way. If the cover-up was reactive, it came out looking so. If it was loaded with mistakes because ordinary people got themselves in an atrocious situation and tried to cover it up, it certainly looks like it was.

I cannot accept in a million years that master planning criminals with an effective criminal network cooked up what transpired and then committed to seven years of cover-up, bringing us to this point.

Conversely, I have every belief that ordinary people did something reckless which went extraordinarily bad and their attempt to cover their own backsides has snowballed into the very embodiment of the proverbial, 'what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.'

If that is true, then I cannot possibly have any expectation that what actually took place that week, that night, and every day ever since then, would in any way conform to objective rules of logic, rationality, predictability or even common sense. It would be my belief that the evidence fits this being a scenario in which logic, rationality, predictability and common sense were already tragically absent among the very routine plans that this group - apparently selfishly - put into operation in order to have themselves a fun, relaxing holiday unencumbered by responsibilities that they clearly did not take seriously enough. I think something horrible occurred, and logic, rationality, predictability and common sense - having not been invited on the trip - never made another appearance in the story.

Literally every weapon raised in forum like this as a means of critiquing the behaviour of the persons under suspicion and condemning them further, every detail raised as 'evidence' of their involvement, has at the root of it the same absence of logic, rationality, predictability and common sense, or 'organisation', which is one of the key characteristics which tells me that regardless of the engagement of vicious law firms and PR pundits, there is no grand conspiracy led by a masterful intelligence agency, police force, deity or new world order, but rather that even the actions of the contracted help scream loudly of direction by individuals gripped by a paranoia-fuelled blind panic, sociopathically buoyed by the arrogance resulting from their continued survival and their inclusion of well-meaning men and women of influence who have been fooled, not by experts, but by their own misplaced empathy and the legitimacy that this monumental machine appears to have.

I would suggest that those people, the ones in the driving seats, are very much like the man who fell from the top of a great skyscraper and was heard by those on the floors below, as he passed each window, saying 'so far so good.'

They've made this up as they went along, advised by a sea of well-meaning, and maybe even some complicit personalities, offering suggestions and pitching expectations, adding bits on as they go.

On that basis, I don't think any idea involving Smithman, equating Smithman to GM, and considering the possibility of this sighting being the intentional deployment of a decoy can possibly be ruled out on the basis of how logical, rational or 'safe' performing such an act would have been

Brilliant piece of writing!

But:

On that basis, I don't think any idea involving Smithman, equating Smithman to GM, and considering the possibility of this sighting being the intentional deployment of a decoy can possibly be ruled out on the basis of how logical, rational or 'safe' performing such an act would have been

My Reply:

I thought this earlier today BE (Before Epiphany) - my conclusion was that Gerry as pathological, conniving liar with an insane belief in his own omnipotence, might well have been crazy enough run through the streets carrying a child, to establish the abduction story. He may have wanted to be seen - but not too closely. His risk taking goes to another level, as we have seen with the request for a review, pursued after their mates were removed from office. And he's a tease' isn't he? 'find the body and prove we killed her' he taunted. Gerry has been lying and conniving since he could first babble 'someone else dunnit', but I don't think he would put his neck so closely on the line in a decoy run, there was far too much risk involved. What he did that night was not through choice imo, it was a 'moment of madness' - the body had to be moved quickly, there was a glitch in the matrix, something went wrong with the plan even before Gerry was seen by the Smith family.

The decoy idea can be ruled out, simply because the decoy did not want to be seen, which rather rules out the point of creating him in the first place.

by j.rob 05.06.14 15:57

With regard to the delay in the Smith family reporting the 'Smithman' sighting, which I do think is very peculiar, especially given that it was such a big group and they would all have heard about Madeleine going missing within days, presumably, if not the very next day.

In Martin Smith's witness statement of the 26th May 2007:

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.

The wording of this is - deliberately perhaps - unambiguous in terms of the point that Mr Smith made a connection between hearing of Madeleine's disappearance and the child he saw the night before. When Martin Smith receives a call or message from his daughter in Ireland that a child had disappeared 'at this point' - the next morning - he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw with the individual. In other words, the child he saw only the night before.

So why did he not - at this point - ie: on Friday 5th May, not contact the police? After all, a child has supposedly been abducted from her bed - and within the Smith family group there is a four year old granddaughter who they are looking after (the mother is in Ireland). Surely the Smith family would want to do everything in their power to help the police catch the abductor, rescue Madeleine and prevent another abduction happening?

I mean, think about it. A large family group of nine people walks past a man carrying a child that answers Madeleine's description at a crucial time on the evening of Madeleine's 'abduction'.

At being asked, states that when he saw the individual he was accompanied by his wife, MARY SMITH, his son, PETER SMITH, his daughter-in-law, S***, his grandchildren of 13 and 6 years of age (children of PETER) TA*** and CO**, his daughter AOIFE (12 years of age), and his other two grandchildren (AI****** (10 years old) and EI**** (four years old). These are children of his daughter B***** who was in Ireland.

And they wait until 26th May to call the police???? That is a total of 21 days!! Four adults in that group and five children, all of an age that could give reliable witness statements.

My mind is once again boggling.

This is just not normal. Even allowing for the fact that four of the group were leaving early the next morning (the son, Peter, with his 6 year old son and Peter's wife with her 13 year old son).

In fact, why did Peter Smith not contact police in the UK that day?! He also states in his police statement that he thinks the child answered the description of Madeleine.

Surely the phone lines would have been absolutely buzzing between the members of the Smith family on Friday 5th May?? The daughter in Ireland presumably having some concern for her own two children who are in Luz, given the fact that a (paedophile) abductor is at loose, stealing children from their beds? Peter and his wife presumably thankful that they are getting the hell out of the place before Peter's 13 year old and his wife's 6 year old fall into the abductor's clutches?

And Mr and Mrs Smith consoling their 12 year old daughter Aoife that they will not let her out of their sight. While at the same time keeping in close phone contact with the daughter in Ireland whose children they are looking after on that holiday, one of whom is a four year old girl and therefore likely to be of particular interest to the abductor. (I assume Mr Smith's daughter from a previous marriage - given massive age disparities of Aofie and Mr Smith's other children?)

Very, very peculiar.

IMHO of course!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 16:01

Cristobell wrote:
CRISTOBELL REPLY:

I am a fan of your research Tony

But not on this occasion

, as you know, but imo there is no 'link' or 'connection' strong enough to convince me the Smith family lied to protect Robert Murat.

I do not seek to 'convince' you or anyone else that that is what actually happened - but I am most definitely going to keep raising it as a serious possibility

As has been mentioned on this forum before, six degrees of separation can link us to almost anyone.

Don't understand the relevance of that quote, C? We know on the record from Martin Smith himself that by 2007 he'd already known Murat for two years

If they have lied on behalf of Robert Murat (which I don't believe) then they have derailed the Missing Madeleine investigation for 7 years, and would be facing very serious charges for perverting the course of justice for the sake of a casual friend and occasional business colleague.

You are right in what you say, except that it would be hard to prosecute him under Irish or Portuguese law; even then, there is the question of sufficient proof. In my continuing researches into the Smith family and those who regularly visit Praia da Luz regularly I keep in mind that Martin Smith and Robert Murat may have a bond stronger than that of 'casual' friends

Robert Murat was ruled out very early on in the investigation.

To repeat what I've said on many ocsasions, I do not and have never said that Murat had anything to do with the events that caused Madeleine to 'disappear'. I begin my queries about Murat (and I have many many more) with the plain, unadorned fact that when questioned by the PJ on 15 May 2007, he lied in 17 very specific ways about his movements from 1 May (when he rushed at breakneck speed to Praia da Luz) to 4 May. He only reversed these out-and-out lies when re-questioned on 10 & 11 July and confronted with phone antenna pings which absolutely proved his lies. Whenever people on this forum suggest that Murat has nothing whatever to do with this case, even if only referring to the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, I am going to keep on reminding members of these 17 lies. This was about a missing child. He had an absolutely 100% duty to tell the truth. He did not. I think he was covering up something. Do you agree? Or do you have some other reasonable explanation.

Not only do I not buy that an entire family would cover up a heinous crime for a stranger, he didn't need their evidence to rule him out! It was quickly established through telephone and computer evidence that he was at home all evening, as his mother said he was.

You have entirely missed the point, C. It is his movements on 1, 2 and 3 May BEFORE the evening of 3 May that we are really interested in. By the way, you brought up Murat's computer evidence. We know that a witness said that he had child sexual abuse images on his computer. We know that a second witness who knew him very well indeed over a long period made credible allegations about his very unusual sexual interests. Against that background, the police found encrypted material on his computer. Asked how and why he had that on his computer, he answered: 'I've no idea'. Do you buy that, C?

decision made in panic imo, in the hope that he wouldn't be seen by anyone - bumping into the Smith family was a disaster.

Sometimes the answers lie in the simplest of explanations. The chances that a man the same age, build, hairstyle, clean shaven and dressed in beige trousers (an identikit of the father in fact) should steal the small child of his doppelganger in a small town in Portugal, are considerably less than buying a winning lottery ticket.

We're on the same page on that one.

I don't know what pressure the Smith family have been put under since their unfortunate encounter all those years ago,

* Contact from Brian Kennedy

* Maybe also a visit from Brian Kennedy

* A visit from Henri Exton and maybe Kevin Halligen to try and get an e-fit

but I don't wish to add it by casting doubts about their good characters.

The obvious lies about the Directors of Golf Net Ltd cannot IMO be brushed aside as lightly as you seem to be able to

I have nothing but respect for them, in that they avoided the McCann circus, and co-operated with the police quietly and without fanfare.

IMO in this case more than most, the principle of 'Accept Nothing. Question Everything' applies

The business world is not run by the Amish Community Tony,

Nor is the Met

I have worked in the private sector, its a dog eat dog world out there. Mr. Smith's CV is professional and impressive, as are the CV's of most successful company directors. In fairness, I doubt any private business would stand up to close scrutiny, and if each were investigated to the level some would demand, the country would come to a standstill.

Remember at the centre of this case is a heinous crime involving the murder of a child,

Something I personally have never suggested by the way

something that repulses 99.9% of us, anyone found to be linked to it may face a backlash, the like of which we have never seen before. Whilst I am passionate about free speech, I am not sure it is very responsible to theorise on the motives of a family who done no more than tell the police what they saw.

I have simply analysed what they have done and not done, said and not said, and looked into their background more thoroughly than most. Is that not 'responsible', or are you saying we should accept every word the Smiths have said without question?

Neither Goncalo Amaral, nor the official police files revealed anything about them other than, they were genuine witnesses.

I am trying to go beyond and behind that. Which is why I want to end up by asking you just one simple question, please:

What is your best explanation for why Martin Smith:

A. Made no attempt to tell the police about his claimed sighting for THIRTEEN days?

B. Why did he contact them the day after his friend Robert Murat was arrested?

C. Why was he so certain that this man he hardly saw in the dark was definitely not Robert Murat?

by Guest 05.06.14 16:08

I don't know who the accountants were who agreed that the named directors on Golf Net Ltd couldn't possibly be genuine - but, on the assumption that the other details relating to the company are plausible and the names aren't something like Mickey Mouse or the Duke of Edinburgh - I for one cannot say that this is proved to be untrue.

by HelenMeg 05.06.14 17:04

I believe that Smithman was Gerry carrying a live child, not a dead child. Of course, he did not want to be scrutinised. But who would have scrutinised
a man carrying a child in a holiday resort? He just wanted to be noticed - to give credibility to the abduction scenario. He dressed in different clothes for this purpose.
It could do him no harm to be spotted as he was not doing anything wrong and he made sure that noone was able to engage in conversation with him.
He wasn't acting or providing a decoy = he was simply carrying a child in the resort area so that an abduction story would have some credibility, IMO.

So, some do not agree - that's fine. It may have been something he regretted in hindsight, and probably was. But it owuld be most unlikely that he did not regret some of the actions.
No way would they carry out everything perfectly or do everything 'by the book'. There was no book. It is only reasonable to assume that they would make errors of judgement - and this, in my view, was one of them.

Those that do not agree with my view and find it illogical and preposterous (to say the least) - who do you think Smithman was? Do you think it was GM carrying a dead child?. -

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.06.14 17:09

HelenMeg wrote:
He wasn't acting or providing a decoy = he was simply carrying a child in the resort area so that an abduction story would have some credibility, IMO.

Aren't these the same thing?

by Cristobell 05.06.14 17:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
CRISTOBELL REPLY:

I am a fan of your research Tony

But not on this occasion

, as you know, but imo there is no 'link' or 'connection' strong enough to convince me the Smith family lied to protect Robert Murat.

I do not seek to 'convince' you or anyone else that that is what actually happened - but I am most definitely going to keep raising it as a serious possibility

As has been mentioned on this forum before, six degrees of separation can link us to almost anyone.

Don't understand the relevance of that quote, C? We know on the record from Martin Smith himself that by 2007 he'd already known Murat for two years

If they have lied on behalf of Robert Murat (which I don't believe) then they have derailed the Missing Madeleine investigation for 7 years, and would be facing very serious charges for perverting the course of justice for the sake of a casual friend and occasional business colleague.

You are right in what you say, except that it would be hard to prosecute him under Irish or Portuguese law; even then, there is the question of sufficient proof. In my continuing researches into the Smith family and those who regularly visit Praia da Luz regularly I keep in mind that Martin Smith and Robert Murat may have a bond stronger than that of 'casual' friends

Robert Murat was ruled out very early on in the investigation.

To repeat what I've said on many ocsasions, I do not and have never said that Murat had anything to do with the events that caused Madeleine to 'disappear'. I begin my queries about Murat (and I have many many more) with the plain, unadorned fact that when questioned by the PJ on 15 May 2007, he lied in 17 very specific ways about his movements from 1 May (when he rushed at breakneck speed to Praia da Luz) to 4 May. He only reversed these out-and-out lies when re-questioned on 10 & 11 July and confronted with phone antenna pings which absolutely proved his lies. Whenever people on this forum suggest that Murat has nothing whatever to do with this case, even if only referring to the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, I am going to keep on reminding members of these 17 lies. This was about a missing child. He had an absolutely 100% duty to tell the truth. He did not. I think he was covering up something. Do you agree? Or do you have some other reasonable explanation.

Not only do I not buy that an entire family would cover up a heinous crime for a stranger, he didn't need their evidence to rule him out! It was quickly established through telephone and computer evidence that he was at home all evening, as his mother said he was.

You have entirely missed the point, C. It is his movements on 1, 2 and 3 May BEFORE the evening of 3 May that we are really interested in. By the way, you brought up Murat's computer evidence. We know that a witness said that he had child sexual abuse images on his computer. We know that a second witness who knew him very well indeed over a long period made credible allegations about his very unusual sexual interests. Against that background, the police found encrypted material on his computer. Asked how and why he had that on his computer, he answered: 'I've no idea'. Do you buy that, C?

I am not going to name call RM for what is alleged to have been on his computer. If he was any sort of threat to children, it would have been discovered long ago, given the intense scrutiny he has been under. There are no allegations of sexual abuse against him and it is a huge leap to pass judgment on his sexual preferences based on the miniscule amount of information available to us. As no child or parent has ever accused him of abuse, then is it fair to imply such a thing on this forum based on the little we know?

I disagree with you on one of your most fundamental arguments Tony, I do not believe behaviour is influenced by pornographic images. If it were, and to turn this argument completely on its head, why did Ray Wyre 'saturation' treatment for convicted abusers?

But back to Robert Murat. His is a friendly guy who got caught up in the moment. He was enjoying his '15 minutes' of fame and showing off his local knowledge and popularity and the McCanns and the Media were desperate for a 'hot new' Maddie story with an evil villain.

decision made in panic imo, in the hope that he wouldn't be seen by anyone - bumping into the Smith family was a disaster.

Sometimes the answers lie in the simplest of explanations. The chances that a man the same age, build, hairstyle, clean shaven and dressed in beige trousers (an identikit of the father in fact) should steal the small child of his doppelganger in a small town in Portugal, are considerably less than buying a winning lottery ticket.

We're on the same page on that one.

I don't know what pressure the Smith family have been put under since their unfortunate encounter all those years ago,

* Contact from Brian Kennedy

* Maybe also a visit from Brian Kennedy

* A visit from Henri Exton and maybe Kevin Halligen to try and get an e-fit

Agreed. Thank you for posting the details.

but I don't wish to add it by casting doubts about their good characters.

The obvious lies about the Directors of Golf Net Ltd cannot IMO be brushed aside as lightly as you seem to be able to

There is a huge leap between financial discrepancies and the murder of a child. Whilst I agree with you this case leads off into all sorts of spider webs, this is not one of them, and it distracts from the real villains involved in the cover up of the murder.

In the end the trial may rest on the evidence of the dogs and the Smith family. The Smith family are now and always have been vital eye witnesses.

I have nothing but respect for them, in that they avoided the McCann circus, and co-operated with the police quietly and without fanfare.

IMO in this case more than most, the principle of 'Accept Nothing. Question Everything' applies

I agree, and in most instances I am grateful to you for the incredible amount of work you do in this case. However, for me there are areas that I think should be treated with respect. Nothing convinces me that the Smiths could be involved as anything other than witnesses and I am not really sure where you are going with this? What part would their covering for Robert Murat play in the conspiracy?

The business world is not run by the Amish Community Tony,

Nor is the Met

I have worked in the private sector, its a dog eat dog world out there. Mr. Smith's CV is professional and impressive, as are the CV's of most successful company directors. In fairness, I doubt any private business would stand up to close scrutiny, and if each were investigated to the level some would demand, the country would come to a standstill.

Remember at the centre of this case is a heinous crime involving the murder of a child,

Something I personally have never suggested by the way

something that repulses 99.9% of us, anyone found to be linked to it may face a backlash, the like of which we have never seen before. Whilst I am passionate about free speech, I am not sure it is very responsible to theorise on the motives of a family who done no more than tell the police what they saw.

I have simply analysed what they have done and not done, said and not said, and looked into their background more thoroughly than most. Is that not 'responsible', or are you saying we should accept every word the Smiths have said without question?

Not at all. And I have questioned many, many times over the years. Nothing convinces me they would lie about this. How far should we go? How long is a piece of string? I have huge admiration for investigative journalists, especially those who go where angels fear to tread, perhaps I am just a wuss, but I have a line. In my opinion the Smiths are ordinary people involved in this case by sheer fluke, and whose behaviour tells us they are private people who seeking nothing from this case, and we should respect their privacy.

Neither Goncalo Amaral, nor the official police files revealed anything about them other than, they were genuine witnesses.

I am trying to go beyond and behind that. Which is why I want to end up by asking you just one simple question, please:

What is your best explanation for why Martin Smith:

A. Made no attempt to tell the police about his claimed sighting for THIRTEEN days?

B. Why did he contact them the day after his friend Robert Murat was arrested?

C. Why was he so certain that this man he hardly saw in the dark was definitely not Robert Murat?

One simple question made up of 3 parts! lol.

A. I can't explain, other than to say they may have seen the circus building up around PDL and, as private people, did not want to be part of it. It might also be that they hoped others had seen the same man that they did, and their evidence might not be needed. Most people are reluctant to be witnesses, just as they are reluctant to serve on a jury. The first question they ask is 'how does this affect ME?'. Other than that, whatever their explanation was, it satisfied both the PJ and SY.

B. The arrest of his friend Robert Murat may have been a turning point. He knew it was not Robert Murat he saw, and wanted to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

C. He knew Robert Murat, that is how he knew the man he saw wasn't him. We are in agreement here ???? I am not denying that Mr. Smith knew Robert Murat, PDL is a small town, I am sure most of the residents know each other and the Smiths as regular visitors to PDL would probably have been part of the 'crowd' or at the very least on nodding terms. But even if he were best buddies with Robert Murat, that would not be reason enough to tell such a colossal lie and involve 3 generations of his own family in 7 years of perjury!

by comperedna 05.06.14 17:44

Candyfloss - I count those arms as being normally around the parent. The original description of 'arms hanging down' if I remember correctly implied arms dangling: they would not have been remarked upon otherwise. Don't assume from my comment that I believe Smithman was Gerry, Smithman was A N Other, or Smithman existed at all! Nor that the child was Madeleine or another child. It was just that the remark which I know I read ages ago from somewhere rang alarm bells. I think it more likely that M died earlier and would have been removed covertly and discreetly and that she would have been covered.

by j.rob 05.06.14 18:44

Returning to these points from Tony Bennett about the Smith family from the other thread.

The main inference to be drawn from their actions and inactions is that they were motivated to do what they did by their friendship with Murat. In addition, given that their description of Smithman matched that of Tanner's description Tannerman in no fewer than EIGHTEEN separate respects, we may also deduce that Murat - or someone else - gave him Tanner's description

I notice from Kate's book that it is 3 weeks before the PJ cave in and release Jane Tanner's description of the man 'who had in all probability carried Madeleine away.' So the Tannerman description is released on 24th May. As far as I can see the Smith family police statements are given two days later, on 26th May.

Robert Murat is still arguido at this stage (first taken in for police questioning, according to Kate's book, on Monday 14th May.)

(Wednesday 23 May, incidentally, was Clarence Mitchell's first full day in Portugal as the McCann media liaison and spokesman, according to Kate's book. )

Talking of people wandering around that resort that evening at crucial times, I am still interested in Jez Wilkins and his pram. What was he doing in the toilets near the Tapas bar where he supposedly saw Rasta-man (not even mentioned in Kate's book).

He said he needed a pee. He must have forgotten to have one before going out to gently wheel his 8-month-old baby to sleep in the buggy. Maybe his partner Bridget O'Donnell didn't fancy holding the baby, calmly walking him up and down, and speaking soothingly to him to get him to sleep.

Who were the 'soothing couple' that were apparently (as reported in the Express I do believe) seen by two key witnesses (the balcony of their apartment gives a direct view onto the garden of apartment 5a) going into the McCann apartment on May 2nd? These two witnesses appear to have walked past the McCann apartment at 9.15pm on 3rd May, the night of the 'abduction' but did not see Jez, Gerry or Jane.

How would the eye-witnesses know that the 'soothing' couple entered the bedroom of the McCann apartment? Unless they spoke to them about the incidence of course?

Are there not also reports that this was the evening when a member of staff went to find the McCanns as their children were crying? Is this true? In which case, are these episodes linked??

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine

by Cristobell 05.06.14 19:44

HelenMeg wrote:I believe that Smithman was Gerry carrying a live child, not a dead child. Of course, he did not want to be scrutinised. But who would have scrutinised
a man carrying a child in a holiday resort? He just wanted to be noticed - to give credibility to the abduction scenario. He dressed in different clothes for this purpose.

But he didn't want to be noticed HelenMeg. He kept his head down and ignored Mrs Smith's enquiry about the child and imo, he has been deliberately kept low profile by the McCanns. If he were part of the McCanns' plan, he would have featured prominently in the campaign from the start.

It could do him no harm to be spotted as he was not doing anything wrong and he made sure that noone was able to engage in conversation with him.
He wasn't acting or providing a decoy = he was simply carrying a child in the resort area so that an abduction story would have some credibility, IMO.

Being spotted can and did cause enormous harm to Gerry. Imo, being seen led directly to the creation of Tannerman to rebut what was seen by the Smith family. I think Plan A, was going horribly wrong when Gerry did his mad dash.

So, some do not agree - that's fine. It may have been something he regretted in hindsight, and probably was. But it owuld be most unlikely that he did not regret some of the actions.
No way would they carry out everything perfectly or do everything 'by the book'. There was no book. It is only reasonable to assume that they would make errors of judgement - and this, in my view, was one of them.

Those that do not agree with my view and find it illogical and preposterous (to say the least) - who do you think Smithman was? Do you think it was GM carrying a dead child?. -

I agree they were acting in panic, and I agree there were huge errors in judgement - where do we begin on that one? - Preposterous as it may sound, I do believe Gerry was carrying a deceased Madeleine - no other theory or scenario fits with the witness evidence. If Gerry were carrying another child to lay an abductor trail, he would have been in the wrong place when the alarm went off carrying a child who was not his missing daughter. In addition, he would have to dump the alive child somewhere so obscure she would not be found during the imminent searches, and whose absence would have to be explained in the event a head was done of the tapas children. Even a raving lunatic like Gerry would not take such a risk - I believe he was panicked into moving the body quickly - a phone call perhaps? Who knows, something that made his risk his made dash.

The Smith sighting was not part of an elaborate plan, it was a huge mistake, one the McCanns have tried to buy for 7 years, and one which now central to the current investigation.

I have given a lot of thought to the Smithman scenario, and attempted to look at it from every angle. Today, I had a bit of an epiphany and looked at it face on. It if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, then I called to mind that surreal scene on Crimewatch, where the prime suspect was sitting on a stool in front of two giant efits of himself! The descriptions given of the man and child exactly match the description of the father and missing little girl. It is beyond a coincidence.

As appalling as the tapas group parents are, they would not 'lend' Gerry a child to carry through the dark streets and dump who knows where to create a distraction.

by roy rovers 05.06.14 19:54

But Christobell why at that time? Unless as you suggest it was a hastily arranged Plan B after Plan A had come unstuck. Which begs the question what was Plan A?

by **sharonl** 05.06.14 21:26

I am not really sure what to make of the Smith sighting, not that I disbelieve the family but what exactly did they see and why is it so significant?

Here is an extract from the statement of Martin Smith

As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.

Surely, a man carrying a child on holiday is, as Mr Smith stated, nothing out of the ordinary?

Could it have been Madeleine and her abductor?

Would an abductor really kidnap a child and walk through the streets of the holiday resort just as the alarm was sounded and a major search began? Of course not, he would have had transport or at least left the resort ASAP.

Susan Healy said that Madeleine would screamed if someone strange had taken her - was she screaming?

Could it have been Madeleine and Gerry McCann?

If it was Gerry and Madeleine, then that would give rise to a number of questions. it would also mean that Madeleine had died on that evening.

Goncalo Amaral and the PJ state that there was blood under the tiles, fluids on the wall were indicative of a broken neck and that the cadaver had been frozen.

Martin Smith and his family gave a detailed description of the man and the child but did he mention that the childs hair was sticky and blood stained, that her body was rigid, that there was a nasty odour? No, he didn't so this would indicate that it was not a dead child that he had spotted. Besides, what are the chances that a reasonably intelligent man would carry the dead body of his 4yr old daughter across a holiday resort?

Even if this was so, Madeleine would have died between 5.30 and 8.00 given them a maximum of 2.5 hours to sort out the twins, tend to the cadaver, clean up, wash the curtains, stage an abduction, and get ready for an evening out at the tapas bar.

If this was Gerry & Madeleine, was Madeleine alive at that point? Highly unlikely as this doesn't tie in with any of the evidence.

For me, that at least rules out Madeleine. But not, Gerry. A decoy, perhaps? Hoping to be seen so that someone would report a man with a child at that time? A very risky step to take imo. Is he really going to impersonate an abductor?

So Smith saw a man walking normally with a child, how is this significant?

by j.rob 05.06.14 21:44

Was plan A a staged faked abduction of a live child?

This could possibly tie in with the Crimewatch stuff. Jez and his pram and all that. Plus Amber Alert stuff. Plus the friend of Kate who set up the missing child company name before Madeleine went missing. Plus, maybe high level support - even if just under the belief of a tragic accident?

Plan B - 'it's a disaster', un-jemmied shutters, Tanner-man, dodgy 'timelines', Smith-man chaos et al.

by AndyB 05.06.14 21:53

sharonl wrote:So Smith saw a man walking normally with a child, how is this significant?

The real significance for me isn't so much the sighting but the McCanns reaction to it. If you genuinely believe that your child has been abducted why on earth would you suppress information about a sighting of a man carrying a child around Madeleine's age at around the time that you claim she was abducted? The McCanns themselves seem to think its significant because they had to resort to legal action to silence their own investigator's findings about Smithman. If they want to suppress it, I want to know all about it.

SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?