Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by Guest 03.11.13 15:45

susible wrote: [...] I can only imagine the thoughts of the Mc's and the tapas group when that bombshell was dropped, knowing that someone they had invented had been eliminated by SY...fear springs to mind

***
I've been having these images of Jane going to the police and contesting their crechman evidence, because she hadn't seen anyone ... big grin

by Rob Royston 03.11.13 15:50

candyfloss wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:

I'm commenting on your surprise at coming back after a week away and finding Martin Smith and his family being discredited. This is happening across the internet. It is well known that the best way to propagate an untruth is through the enemies camp(s).

Would you like to expand on that & tell us what you are actually saying.

Last night a link was posted somewhere on here that led to a well known internet blog. It was basically trying to show Mr Smith's connections to various other people he may have known in his home town and in the Algarve.
The local police in Mr Smith's home town have sent a reference to the Portuguese police where they speak highly of his standing in that community. This happened a few years ago and the reason for the letter was not made clear.
I can only assume that there was a campaign being run back then to discredit him and now that his sighting is back in focus it's being run again.

by susible 03.11.13 15:52

Châtelaine wrote:
susible wrote: [...] I can only imagine the thoughts of the Mc's and the tapas group when that bombshell was dropped, knowing that someone they had invented had been eliminated by SY...fear springs to mind
***
I've been having these images of Jane going to the police and contesting their crechman evidence, because she hadn't seen anyone ...

by PEANUT66 03.11.13 15:54

Would just like to give my opinion, I have only been following this case for a few months and am nowhere near as enlightened as many of the excellent and intelligent posters on here.

I believe the Smith's are genuine. I have read in quite a few places that the police believed them to be very credible witnesses and Mr. Smith was very highly thought of in the local community therefore I don't believe they would make their daughter lie in a statement to the police.

On the other hand have never really read anyone saying the same thing about Mr. and Mrs McCann.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 15:55

susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.

Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.

by chillyheat 03.11.13 15:58

By John Kelly Updated:06:57, Friday January 04, 2008

An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat.

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1535927.jpg Robert Murat

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.
The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.
"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.
Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection.
"We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith.
"We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.

"We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day.
"But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."
The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone," said Mr Smith.
"They asked me to make a statement to the Gardai, which I did, and two days later Leicestershire police got on to us.
"My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.
http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1531600.jpg Madeleine McCann is still missing

"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time and it had a terrible effect on them - they all wanted to sleep in the same room as us."
But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an "arguido" in the Madeleine McCann investigation.
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously.
"He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn't think he was Portuguese."
Mr Smith's sighting is similar to the one reported by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCann family.
A spokesman for the McCanns said detectives from the Spanish agency hired to investigate the case are now hoping to speak to the Smiths.
Retired Mr Smith, 58, does not wish to appear on camera in order to protect his family from media intrusion.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:06

Interesting

The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.

and yet

Policia Judiciaria

NUIPC 201-070 GALGS

NOTE

On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva

No contact since May 2007?

by susible 03.11.13 16:13

SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.
Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.

If you read the post that follows ours, you'll see that Smith just didn't make the connection, there was just no reason for him to do so. As for things pre-occupying people, it can be small details, the everyday minutiae of life. You may not buy it as human nature, but it is true. E.g. What did you do yesterday? Did you go out? What did you see? Not just things that stood out for you, everything down to the smallest detail. You don't realise it now, but you probably missed a dozen things going on that are important to other people, but they're not important to you, so you made no connection to them whatsoever. Whilst the things that you missed yesterday probably won't involve the disappearance of a small child, things that you missed yesterday could have great importance to someone else i.e. their missing cat, a glove they dropped, any number of things

by susible 03.11.13 16:17

Rob Royston wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:

I'm commenting on your surprise at coming back after a week away and finding Martin Smith and his family being discredited. This is happening across the internet. It is well known that the best way to propagate an untruth is through the enemies camp(s).

Would you like to expand on that & tell us what you are actually saying.
Last night a link was posted somewhere on here that led to a well known internet blog. It was basically trying to show Mr Smith's connections to various other people he may have known in his home town and in the Algarve.
The local police in Mr Smith's home town have sent a reference to the Portuguese police where they speak highly of his standing in that community. This happened a few years ago and the reason for the letter was not made clear.
I can only assume that there was a campaign being run back then to discredit him and now that his sighting is back in focus it's being run again.

So are you saying that those who don't believe Smith saw anyone carrying a child are trying to discredit Smith and therefore are trying to protect the McCanns?

Sorry, but I don't really have time to trawl through the forum looking for links to well known blogs, can you give us the link to the blog please

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:20

susible wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.
Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.
If you read the post that follows ours, you'll see that Smith just didn't make the connection, there was just no reason for him to do so. As for things pre-occupying people, it can be small details, the everyday minutiae of life. You may not buy it as human nature, but it is true. E.g. What did you do yesterday? Did you go out? What did you see? Not just things that stood out for you, everything down to the smallest detail. You don't realise it now, but you probably missed a dozen things going on that are important to other people, but they're not important to you, so you made no connection to them whatsoever. Whilst the things that you missed yesterday probably won't involve the disappearance of a small child, things that you missed yesterday could have great importance to someone else i.e. their missing cat, a glove they dropped, any number of things

He made a connection on the 4th of May. Out of all the parents with children they saw wandering around PdL that one stood out in his mind on 4th May.

by Guest 03.11.13 16:21

susible wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:

I'm commenting on your surprise at coming back after a week away and finding Martin Smith and his family being discredited. This is happening across the internet. It is well known that the best way to propagate an untruth is through the enemies camp(s).

Would you like to expand on that & tell us what you are actually saying.
Last night a link was posted somewhere on here that led to a well known internet blog. It was basically trying to show Mr Smith's connections to various other people he may have known in his home town and in the Algarve.
The local police in Mr Smith's home town have sent a reference to the Portuguese police where they speak highly of his standing in that community. This happened a few years ago and the reason for the letter was not made clear.
I can only assume that there was a campaign being run back then to discredit him and now that his sighting is back in focus it's being run again.
So are you saying that those who don't believe Smith saw anyone carrying a child are trying to discredit Smith and therefore are trying to protect the McCanns?

Sorry, but I don't really have time to trawl through the forum looking for links to well known blogs, can you give us the link to the blog please

I am wondering the same, perhaps you would like to expand on that Rob Royston

by sami 03.11.13 16:23

susible wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.
Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.
If you read the post that follows ours, you'll see that Smith just didn't make the connection, there was just no reason for him to do so. As for things pre-occupying people, it can be small details, the everyday minutiae of life. You may not buy it as human nature, but it is true. E.g. What did you do yesterday? Did you go out? What did you see? Not just things that stood out for you, everything down to the smallest detail. You don't realise it now, but you probably missed a dozen things going on that are important to other people, but they're not important to you, so you made no connection to them whatsoever. Whilst the things that you missed yesterday probably won't involve the disappearance of a small child, things that you missed yesterday could have great importance to someone else i.e. their missing cat, a glove they dropped, any number of things

He was used to being in PDL, given that he had property there. It might not have had the same relevance or wow factor to him as it may have had to other tourists certainly. Neither do we know what occupied his mind, to be fair to the man who knows whats going on inside anybody's front door.

Perhaps a man walking with a child at that time of night was not particularly noteworthy to him, it may have been normal to him to see this on his way home from a meal.

by Cristobell 03.11.13 16:23

If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it is not a duck. OK. It wasn't Gerry, SY and PJ have told us parents not suspects. Now I am not a mathematician but statistically, what are the chances of a man looking exactly like the father, same age, build, demeanour, haircut, dress style, etc, being in PDL at the same time, same place, and peculiar enough to break into the holiday apartment of his doppelganger and steal his child? It sounds like the deranged plot of a B movie.

In pushing the e-fits into the front of the picture, Scotland Yard have now narrowed their own search down to a Gerry lookalike, but not Gerry. That will be a real toughie. Unless drug addled tractorman was clean shaven and athletic in 2007, he has to be ruled out. So too all the usual suspects in cases such as these. The man seen by the Smith family is pretty specific, he is not ugly, spotty, dodgy looking or swarthy. He is white, middle class, clean cut and clean shaven - indeed very much like the person whose name we cannot mention and who is not a suspect. When Scotland Yard, or indeed the PJ swoop - which must surely be their ultimate goal - among the gangs of burglars, paedophiles, child traffickers etc, there will have to be a lookalike of you know who (not a suspect).

The only way Scotland Yard can get themselves out of this corner is to eliminate Smithman. Smithman however, is sound. There was more than one witness, a large family on holiday, their bar tab has the time printed on it, and they were close enough to speak to the man who walked through the centre of their group. The only way in which Smithman can be ruled out, would be if another 'bad' parent carrying a sleeping child without a cover or anything on their feet, comes forward to say he too was carrying his daughter home from the creche, just like Tannerman. But in addition, should such a careless father come forward, he must look like Gerry and the child in his arms must look like Madeleine.

I am sure we were all astonished when this star witness came forward all these years later to enable Scotland Yard to drop to drop the ludicrous sighting of Jane Tanner that no-one believed anyway. Some might say, it was almost beyond believable, that he not only looked like the man Jane had seen with the 'long hair at the back' but he was wearing almost identical clothes. I doubt however, that none were quite as shocked as Jane herself when her vision became manifest.

Can they pull this one off twice? That is produce a Gerry lookalike willing to testify in Court that it took 6.5 years for the penny to drop that it might have been him the Smith family saw. I don't think thats feasible, look how the all new Tannerman worked out. He fooled no-one. Some forums who discuss this case, have seen membership quadrupled since Crimewatch. While a sneaky turnaround of government policy can be spun off into the ethers as the masses are watching the X Factor, the case of Missing Maddie is personal.

by susible 03.11.13 16:27

SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.
Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.
If you read the post that follows ours, you'll see that Smith just didn't make the connection, there was just no reason for him to do so. As for things pre-occupying people, it can be small details, the everyday minutiae of life. You may not buy it as human nature, but it is true. E.g. What did you do yesterday? Did you go out? What did you see? Not just things that stood out for you, everything down to the smallest detail. You don't realise it now, but you probably missed a dozen things going on that are important to other people, but they're not important to you, so you made no connection to them whatsoever. Whilst the things that you missed yesterday probably won't involve the disappearance of a small child, things that you missed yesterday could have great importance to someone else i.e. their missing cat, a glove they dropped, any number of things
He made a connection on the 4th of May. Out of all the parents with children they wandering around PdL on the 4th May that one stood out in his mind on 4th May.

PdL was very quiet at that time of year, there probably weren't that many people wandering around with kids in their arms at 10pm, that was possibly the only child he saw being carried after they left the bar and yet again, he did not really make any connection on the 4th, it was not until a few days after he got home and had probably read all of the story, e.g. Kate raising the alarm at 10pm that Madeleine was missing that he realised his sighting could be of real importance. Also the fact that his friend Murat was being implicated would make him think, well yes, I did see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Murat...fast forward to September he sees footage of Gerry carrying a child and bingo.

Also, why were the McCanns so keen to bury Smith's sighting, so much so that they threatened their private investigators to withhold the information?

by BRODFB 03.11.13 16:37

An aside...

If you know someone, you will tend to recognise them in a crowd or in passing in the street. So if Smith says it wasn't Murat, it would tend to mean he didn't recognise the person he passed.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:37

susible wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
susible wrote:
But he did care. On the 4th May he did care there was a possibility who he saw could be Madeliene - its in his statement.
Yes, but he didn't care enough to actually phone the police that day, did he. Who knows what his reasons were, but the fact that he had family members leaving to go home is possibly a reason for not doing so. Too concerned with his own family to care enough about what was happening to other people. He only started to care enough when one of his own friends was being implicated, then he took action. That's perfectly rational to me.
Sounds like Mr Smith watches TV and is aware of the Internet. There were no disasters with his holiday, so I am at a loss as to what could have pre occupied his mind with what he knew at that time. I don't buy this as just human nature.
If you read the post that follows ours, you'll see that Smith just didn't make the connection, there was just no reason for him to do so. As for things pre-occupying people, it can be small details, the everyday minutiae of life. You may not buy it as human nature, but it is true. E.g. What did you do yesterday? Did you go out? What did you see? Not just things that stood out for you, everything down to the smallest detail. You don't realise it now, but you probably missed a dozen things going on that are important to other people, but they're not important to you, so you made no connection to them whatsoever. Whilst the things that you missed yesterday probably won't involve the disappearance of a small child, things that you missed yesterday could have great importance to someone else i.e. their missing cat, a glove they dropped, any number of things
He made a connection on the 4th of May. Out of all the parents with children they wandering around PdL on the 4th May that one stood out in his mind on 4th May.
PdL was very quiet at that time of year, there probably weren't that many people wandering around with kids in their arms at 10pm, that was possibly the only child he saw being carried after they left the bar and yet again, he did not really make any connection on the 4th, it was not until a few days after he got home and had probably read all of the story, e.g. Kate raising the alarm at 10pm that Madeleine was missing that he realised his sighting could be of real importance. Also the fact that his friend Murat was being implicated would make him think, well yes, I did see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Murat...fast forward to September he sees footage of Gerry carrying a child and bingo.

Also, why were the McCanns so keen to bury Smith's sighting, so much so that they threatened their private investigators to withhold the information?

None of that is backed up by what he said in his statement. He said he made the connection on 4th May 2007.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:39

BRODFB wrote:An aside...

If you know someone, you will tend to recognise them in a crowd or in passing in the street. So if Smith says it wasn't Murat, it would tend to mean he didn't recognise him.

Yes at that time he didn't, but then he did and now he doesn't

by jeanmonroe 03.11.13 16:40

"An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat."
....................................................................................................

Is this right?

Crecheman carrying child in a BLANKET.

Produces BLANKET for SY

Smithman carrying a child in a BLANKET as above.

YET JT categorically states her 'abductor' did NOT have a BLANKET with the child he was carrying.
.......................................................................

Jane Tanner - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.30am

Meanwhile a man appeared* carrying a child**, with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention.
..........................................................................

Jane Tanner - witness statement 10 May, 16.35pm

Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed,
.........................................................................
"Jane knows it was a child from the size of the person being carried. It was obviously a small child. There was no doubt in her mind. There have been reports the child was held in a blanket. But Jane says that is not true."
.............................................................................
Jane says the person she saw was 5ft 9ins rather than 5ft 8ins as previously reported. She is also adamant the child was not wrapped in a blanket.
....................................................................................
Martin Brunt talking about Jane Tanner on Sky.com 28 November 2007

"When she (JT) first spoke to the police she said", "I’m not sure if he was carrying anything." "Yet 6 months on, he was carrying a child, in a very strange way, and the child was wearing the very same pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing."

"The police at the time, off the record told us that they thought Jane Tanner was not a very reliable witness. They were not suggesting that what she was saying was done in malice, but they thought she was changing her story from time to time. That’s why they never issued any appeal around it"
..........................................................................

My question is WHERE did Smithman and Crecheman get their BLANKETS from?

by Rob Royston 03.11.13 16:41

susible wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:

I'm commenting on your surprise at coming back after a week away and finding Martin Smith and his family being discredited. This is happening across the internet. It is well known that the best way to propagate an untruth is through the enemies camp(s).

Would you like to expand on that & tell us what you are actually saying.
Last night a link was posted somewhere on here that led to a well known internet blog. It was basically trying to show Mr Smith's connections to various other people he may have known in his home town and in the Algarve.
The local police in Mr Smith's home town have sent a reference to the Portuguese police where they speak highly of his standing in that community. This happened a few years ago and the reason for the letter was not made clear.
I can only assume that there was a campaign being run back then to discredit him and now that his sighting is back in focus it's being run again.
So are you saying that those who don't believe Smith saw anyone carrying a child are trying to discredit Smith and therefore are trying to protect the McCanns?

Sorry, but I don't really have time to trawl through the forum looking for links to well known blogs, can you give us the link to the blog please

Those who don't believe Smith are basically accusing him and his family of being liars, so yes, they are trying to discredit them all.
It does not necessarily mean that they are trying to protect the McCanns, just that they think that the Smiths are part of a conspiracy.

by BRODFB 03.11.13 16:45

SixMillionQuid wrote:
BRODFB wrote:An aside...

If you know someone, you will tend to recognise them in a crowd or in passing in the street. So if Smith says it wasn't Murat, it would tend to mean he didn't recognise him.
Yes at that time he didn't, but then he did and now he doesn't

I was purely meaning Murat.

by susible 03.11.13 16:50

None of that is backed up by what he said in his statement. He said he made the connection on 4th May 2007.

Yes, in his statement he did remember seeing a child being carried on the 3rd of May, and he made "a connection" upon hearing about a missing child on the 4th. He didn't care enough about it on the 4th to bother phoning the police though.

I do not see any reason for Martin Smith and his family to be lying though and why would the McCanns want to suppress the sighting?

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:53

Rob Royston wrote:
susible wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:

I'm commenting on your surprise at coming back after a week away and finding Martin Smith and his family being discredited. This is happening across the internet. It is well known that the best way to propagate an untruth is through the enemies camp(s).

Would you like to expand on that & tell us what you are actually saying.
Last night a link was posted somewhere on here that led to a well known internet blog. It was basically trying to show Mr Smith's connections to various other people he may have known in his home town and in the Algarve.
The local police in Mr Smith's home town have sent a reference to the Portuguese police where they speak highly of his standing in that community. This happened a few years ago and the reason for the letter was not made clear.
I can only assume that there was a campaign being run back then to discredit him and now that his sighting is back in focus it's being run again.
So are you saying that those who don't believe Smith saw anyone carrying a child are trying to discredit Smith and therefore are trying to protect the McCanns?

Sorry, but I don't really have time to trawl through the forum looking for links to well known blogs, can you give us the link to the blog please
Those who don't believe Smith are basically accusing him and his family of being liars, so yes, they are trying to discredit them all.
It does not necessarily mean that they are trying to protect the McCanns, just that they think that the Smiths are part of a conspiracy.

Just to be clear on my part Im just querying their statements just like any other.

In the sky interview posted a few pages back he says he hasn't had contact with the investigating officers since May 2007 when someone actually phoned him in Sep 2007. What is that all about? And I hadn't realised he knew Robert Murat before May 2007 but there it is in his statement.

So it really depends on what you believe about this Smiths. Do you believe he saw GM? Because he's changed his mind. If its not GM then who did he see. As far as Im concerned no one gets any special treatment. If something does not look right I have to say it.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 16:53

susible wrote:
Also, why were the McCanns so keen to bury Smith's sighting, so much so that they threatened their private investigators to withhold the information?

The McCanns keen to 'bury' the Smiths sighting?

Look at the evidence please. Point 1 - the McCanns made use of the Smithman sighting in a documentary 4.5 years ago (Channel 4). Point 2 - Dr Kate McCann spent 5 pages of her book, 'madeleine' promoting Smithman. Point 3 - the Met Police, the BBC and the McCanns are now all suppporting the Smithman sighting. The evidence contradicts you.

They threatened their private investigators to withhold the information?

This is where we have to be very careful about accepting as fact what we read in newspapers, even, with respect, the Sunday Times.

I think I am right in saying that it was probably Henri Exton (ex-MI5, guilty of shoplifting), or it might have been Kevin Halligen (convicted serial fraudster and con-man) or Gary Hagland (noted expert in money-laundering) who gave this 'information' to the Sunday Times.

But are they the kind of people we can trust to give us reliable information? - I think not.

Who threatened who?

When?

About what?

What we can be reasonably certain about is this sequence of events:

1. Smith said he saw someone.

2. Later he thought it might be Gerry McCann.

3. After that, Brian Kennedy, Head of the McCann Team's investigations, contacted Smith'

4. And then one of his men (no-one will tell us who or when) went all the way to Ireland - to get something valuable from the Smiths. So valuable that the Directors of the McCann Fund sanctioned the salaries, travel costs and subsistence costs of those who went over to talk to the Smiths.

5. It is claimed that between them the Smiths produced the two now well-known e-fits of two completely different looking blokes - even though they couldn't see his face on the night in question (!)

6. If the Sunday Times is correct. allegedly the McCann Team decided in 2008 to 'sit on' these two e-fits.

7. But Smithman was used by the McCann Team in the 2009 dopc.

8. Smithman was used by Dr Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine' (FIVE PAGES worth). The e-fits were not used; instead, we were told that Smithman really looked like Tannerman.

9. NOW, with Redwood having got rid of Tannerman as 'crecheman', it was no doubt deemed good strategy to produce some brand new e-fits, so that people didn't think they were looking for Tannerman anymore (although just a few days agao, the Find Madeleine website was still telling us to look for Tannerman (as drawn by Melissa Little).

10. Hey presto! NOW was the moment to produce the two 'dormant' e-fits. They PROVE that Smithman was not Tannerman/crecheman.

The result is that the whole of the U.K. and half of Europe is being asked to see if they can recall seeing a bloke who looks like EITHER Smithman e-fit 1 OR Smithman e-fit 2 (or possibly both), approved by members of the Smith family who saw this man for a few seconds at most, in the dark, and with the child's head apparently obscuring his face, and whom they said they would never be able to recognise again (and which they didn't bother telling the police about for 13 days).

by susible 03.11.13 16:55

jeanmonroe wrote:"An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat."
....................................................................................................

Is this right?

Crecheman carrying child in a BLANKET.

Produces BLANKET for SY

Smithman carrying a child in a BLANKET as above.

YET JT categorically states her 'abductor' did NOT have a BLANKET with the child he was carrying.
.......................................................................

Jane Tanner - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.30am

Meanwhile a man appeared* carrying a child**, with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention.
..........................................................................

Jane Tanner - witness statement 10 May, 16.35pm

Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed,
.........................................................................
"Jane knows it was a child from the size of the person being carried. It was obviously a small child. There was no doubt in her mind. There have been reports the child was held in a blanket. But Jane says that is not true."
.............................................................................
Jane says the person she saw was 5ft 9ins rather than 5ft 8ins as previously reported. She is also adamant the child was not wrapped in a blanket.
....................................................................................
Martin Brunt talking about Jane Tanner on Sky.com 28 November 2007

"When she (JT) first spoke to the police she said", "I’m not sure if he was carrying anything." "Yet 6 months on, he was carrying a child, in a very strange way, and the child was wearing the very same pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing."

"The police at the time, off the record told us that they thought Jane Tanner was not a very reliable witness. They were not suggesting that what she was saying was done in malice, but they thought she was changing her story from time to time. That’s why they never issued any appeal around it"
..........................................................................

My question is WHERE did Smithman and Crecheman get their BLANKETS from?

??? But Tannerman did not exist, Jane made him up imo. At first Jane said he was carrying a bundle, that then morphed into a child with pyjamas that had a frill and a pinkish aspect. It was the Emma Loach documentary that tried to combine Tanner and Smith's sightings. No one else ever did. Therefore I think we can safely conclude that Tannerman had no connection to Smithman whatsoever. So not really sure about your question re the blankets.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 16:56

susible wrote:
None of that is backed up by what he said in his statement. He said he made the connection on 4th May 2007.
Yes, in his statement he did remember seeing a child being carried on the 3rd of May, and he made "a connection" upon hearing about a missing child on the 4th. He didn't care enough about it on the 4th to bother phoning the police though.

I do not see any reason for Martin Smith and his family to be lying though and why would the McCanns want to suppress the sighting?

Looking at the Sunday Times report it wasn't just the sighting they wanted to suppress. It was the other "unhelpful" things that went with the McCanns PI report. The whole report was suppressed. But they used the Smith sighting in the 2009 mokumentary and SY have used it in their Crimewatch report. They dont believe its GM so who do think it was the Smiths saw?