The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

New Heights of insanity - Express

Page 6 of 31 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 18 ... 31  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Guest on 03.11.13 16:58

If anyone of you, whom I do not know personally, would this evening carry a dog in their arms *) in front of the gate, I wouldn't recognise you, because I don't know you and I would have big problems to give an accurate description of you, apart from maybe height, age, length and colour of hair, glasses or not, maybe clothes ... However, if I would see you again carrying another dog in your arms,  especially if your previous one had gone AWOL, I'm quite sure that I would have some bells ringing yes 

*) I give a dog as an example, because if you'd be carrying a blonde girl, you'd have all of my attention and I'd be calling the police on my  mobile as I hurry down to the gate winkwink

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Truthandjustice on 03.11.13 17:00

@jeanmonroe wrote:
My question is WHERE did Smithman and Crecheman get their BLANKETS from?
They were lending blankets at the creche for parents taking kids home - I read it somewhere.

Truthandjustice

Posts : 237
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by susible on 03.11.13 17:03

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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).
Yes Tony, but the documentary tried to morph Smithman and Tannerman into the same person, changing the way he carried the child, the description of the man to fit with what the Smiths saw and Tanner as always, happily obliged.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think that the SY investigation is going to be a whitewash (if so, it would never have reached investigation stage, it would just have been done and dusted at the review stage) and clearly you are trying to say that Martin Smith is doing a Jane Tanner in respect of seeing someone carrying a child in PdL at 10pm on 3rd May.  However, that doesn't really work when you consider that Smith then contacted the police when he saw Gerry carrying Sean from the aircraft in September as he then recognised certain mannerisms in Gerry that he recalled from man carrying the child on the 3rd of May.

____________________


susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by sami on 03.11.13 17:07

@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.
 I don't think that s fair to say.  I question their statements in some respects but I do not think they are part of a conspiracy or indeed liars.

Sadly, this case has taught us that everything needs to be thought about and questioned.  How else will the truth come out.

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by BRODFB on 03.11.13 17:11

Though we do know...

  1. MM disappeared
  2. The Dogs identified a body
  3. The body/MM wasn't there when the police searched
Therefore both the body/MM must have been moved from 5a at some point.
Why should a sighting be so impossible?

BRODFB

Posts : 33
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by susible on 03.11.13 17:14

@BRODFB wrote:
Though we do know...

  1. MM disappeared
  2. The Dogs identified a body
  3. The body/MM wasn't there when the police searched
Therefore both the body/MM must have been moved from 5a at some point.
Why should a sighting be so impossible?
Exactly, and as such why would it be impossible that Martin Smith and his family did see someone carrying a child at 10pm.

Edit to add.  Yes Tanner's sighting was called into question as an independent witness, Jez Wilkins saw neither her nor the person that she saw.  Furthermore, her description of the person she allegedly saw morphed over time.  The only additional information Smith gave was when he saw Gerry McCann carry one of his other children on some news footage and as a result of the way he carried the child and held his head, it prompted Smith's memory about the sighting he made on the 3rd May

____________________


susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.11.13 17:16

@Cristobell wrote:Smithman however, is sound.

You really think that these witnesses and the e-fits are 'sound' after all the queries about the 'sighting' have been raised?
 

There was more than one witness,

None of whom did anything about the 'sighting' for 13 days etc. etc. and who cloned the description of Tannerman

a large family on holiday,

Nine of them turned out of Kelly's bar; only three have made stataements to the PJ so far as we know

their bar tab has the time printed on it,

Was it theirs?

and they were close enough to speak to the man

They do not all agree that one of them did speak to him. I think only Mrs Smith claimed this - but then didn't make a statement.

who walked through the centre of their group.

But it is claimed by one of them that they were straggling - several yards apart from each other.

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

NO. He must look 'not like a tourist' (which rules out the McCanns and Tapas 7 straightaway), must have been wearing a dark jacket (like crecheman), must have brownish, sun-tanned face (like crecheman), must have been wearing light-coloured trousers (like crecheman), must be around 5' 10" (like crecheman)...in fact must be just like the description given by Jane Tanner. That means that Redwood is now looking for...

ANOTHER bloke...

...out on his own - no wife, partner, companion, child accompanying him...

...without a buggy...

...with a child just in (pinkish) pyjamas and bare-footed...

...carrying a child on his left arm...

...not looking like a tourist...

...on a cold, dark evening...

...at 10.00pm

and the child in his arms must look like Madeleine.

female...

...about 4 years old...

...blonde...

...wearing nothing but pinkish pyjamas.


I have a degree of confidence about Andy Redwood.

If anyone can find this man, he is the man to do it.

His success in finding a man who for 6.5 years didn't know he was Tannerman will surely go down in history as one of the most infamous detective discoveries of all time.


____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by bellum on 03.11.13 17:16

somewhere I read or heard (tv) that Martin Smith is a medical doctor.
Doctors are training to pay attention in people.

bellum

Posts : 70
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Guest on 03.11.13 17:26

I have never heard that. Someone here posted recently that he is a retired Unilever executive but I've never read anywhere what his occupation was.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.11.13 17:27

@susible wrote:
...when you consider that Smith then contacted the police when he saw Gerry carrying Sean from the aircraft in September as he then recognised certain mannerisms in Gerry that he recalled from man carrying the child on the 3rd of May.
OK, taking you at your word, what were those so-called 'mannerisms'? 

Can you tell me?

Basically, Martin Smith claims it was 'the way he carried his child'.

Come on, how many males are there (or females) for that matter on this forum who have ever had to carry a sleeping infant?

I have, many times.

The preferred method for a right-handed person is to carry the child on your left shoulder, putting him/her there with your right hand.

(You might for a while carry the infant on your forerarms, but that soon gets tiring).

So, Smith sees a bloke coming down from a plane doing that - something he must have seen dozens or hundreds of times in his life before (he's in his fifties, after all) - and suddenly says - "That's the bloke I saw 4 months ago".

When neither he nor anyone in his family saw his face (if they ever did see someone)?

And then later (after seeing Brian Kennedy and his investigators) he changes his mind and says he doesn't think it was Gerry McCann after all?

Honestly, what kind of evidence is that?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by SixMillionQuid on 03.11.13 17:33

Can some enlighten me about this Kellys Bar receipt for 21:55pm?

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

There's an entry 21:50 then it jumps to 22:16

SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Channel 4 documentary - a sham.

Post by dunn on 03.11.13 17:35

@susible wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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).
Yes Tony, but the documentary tried to morph Smithman and Tannerman into the same person, changing the way he carried the child, the description of the man to fit with what the Smiths saw and Tanner as always, happily obliged.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think that the SY investigation is going to be a whitewash (if so, it would never have reached investigation stage, it would just have been done and dusted at the review stage) and clearly you are trying to say that Martin Smith is doing a Jane Tanner in respect of seeing someone carrying a child in PdL at 10pm on 3rd May.  However, that doesn't really work when you consider that Smith then contacted the police when he saw Gerry carrying Sean from the aircraft in September as he then recognised certain mannerisms in Gerry that he recalled from man carrying the child on the 3rd of May.
Well done susible:

I was compelled to join and post a reply following your correction regarding the C4 documentary farce - You have shown your knowledge of this case by correcting Tony regarding this.

This was in fact the first public display that the McCann's were threatened by the Smith sighting. It was in fact a disgrace to watch, at the time, a complete edit and warping of the Smith's statement contrived to have Smithman suddenly carry the child in the same manner as Tannerman. It was a total disgrace - Smith's statement(s) clearly describe the child being carried into Smithman's shoulder, as is the normal way to carry an infant, and was as GM carried one of the twins off the plane on BBC TV.

To then have C4 completely change this with no explanation was a glorious display of the attempt to merge Tannerman into Smithman.

Smitman sighting is not part of this conspiracy - it is the thorn in the side.

dunn

Posts : 20
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Cerinthe on 03.11.13 17:35

Gait, the way someone moves or does something is often a much stronger way of identifying someone than simply facial features.  It's also unique to each of us the same way our faces are. 

This is why we're able to recognise people at long distances without being able to see their faces clearly.  

If you google "man holding child" or "man carrying child", every picture looks different.  (Warning: there are some disturbing pictures - also the way Jane Tanner described the man she saw carrying a child, is the same way men carry children when they are injured or sadly dead)

It really isn't too much of a stretch to think that seeing Gerry McCann carrying a child jogged something in Mr Smith's memory.

Cerinthe

Posts : 67
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by plebgate on 03.11.13 17:38

@susible wrote:
Young people are normally aware of what is going on around them even if adults are not.   My experience of young family members is that they will go out on the streets and ask what is going on and then report back if something of interest is happening.

That potentially lethal chemical leak you speak of Susible, why didn't the police knock on residents' doors?   If shops were evacuated why not homes? It's disgraceful really imo.
My daughter was equally unaware of the unfolding drama,and  not all families allow their young children to just go running out into the street without being supervised.  As for residents not being evacuated, there are hundreds of residents in that area and the fire brigade obviously assessed, correctly that we were not in any danger.  Perhaps if I had opened my balcony door or attempted to leave the property I would have been advised to stay indoors with windows closed etc, so not really disgraceful at all.  Cordoning off the town and evacuating the immediate area was probably an OTT reaction to a potential threat, but as not a single person became ill as a result of the leak, clearly the emergency services acted appropriately.
Who said anything about letting young children to go running out in the street on their own, but I believe Mr. Smith's daughter was nearing teenage years and had been used to the area for a time, so going on family experience as I say, 12-13 year olds who often walk to school on their own would be allowed into the street to ask what was going on with the police and locals running around.

Not saying that did happen but it could have so to rule it out of hand cannot be done imo.

RE. the cordoning off of your town, even if it was OTT at the time the emergency services must have thought there was a potentially lethal threat so I am amazed that the nearby residences were not also alerted whether OTT or not.

Still if you are happy with it that's all that matters.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
Rolling Eyes

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Guest on 03.11.13 17:43

O
@Cerinthe wrote:Gait, the way someone moves or does something is often a much stronger way of identifying someone than simply facial features.  It's also unique to each of us the same way our faces are. 

This is why we're able to recognise people at long distances without being able to see their faces clearly.  

If you google "man holding child" or "man carrying child", every picture looks different.  (Warning: there are some disturbing pictures - also the way Jane Tanner described the man she saw carrying a child, is the same way men carry children when they are injured or sadly dead)

It really isn't too much of a stretch to think that seeing Gerry McCann carrying a child jogged something in Mr Smith's memory.
Or the way he averted his eyes, see how he looks down on the aircrafts stairs.

I believe none of the Smith party reported Smithman looking them in the eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by plebgate on 03.11.13 17:47

So Mr. Smith who stayed in Portugal until 19th May, did not apparently find the need to contact the police about Missing Maddie?

Was he a recluse whilst he stayed on in Portugal in May?   Did he not visit the bar he visited on 3rd May?

If he did then he would have known all about it as it was the talk of the area for months and yet we are asked to believe he didn't care enough to contact the police.

I do not know whether the Smiths are correct or not, but to say that the man probably did not care enough to contact the police in the case of a missing little girl,  too engrossed in his own family possibly, doesn't make sense to me.

His daughter rang him from Ireland to tell him the news  but he left it 13 days before he contacted the police.  

Question everything, that's how police work isn't it?

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
Rolling Eyes

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by sami on 03.11.13 17:49

K
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@susible wrote:
...when you consider that Smith then contacted the police when he saw Gerry carrying Sean from the aircraft in September as he then recognised certain mannerisms in Gerry that he recalled from man carrying the child on the 3rd of May.
OK, taking you at your word, what were those so-called 'mannerisms'? 

Can you tell me?

Basically, Martin Smith claims it was 'the way he carried his child'.

Come on, how many males are there (or females) for that matter on this forum who have ever had to carry a sleeping infant?

I have, many times.

The preferred method for a right-handed person is to carry the child on your left shoulder, putting him/her there with your right hand.

(You might for a while carry the infant on your forerarms, but that soon gets tiring).

So, Smith sees a bloke coming down from a plane doing that - something he must have seen dozens or hundreds of times in his life before (he's in his fifties, after all) - and suddenly says - "That's the bloke I saw 4 months ago".

When neither he nor anyone in his family saw his face (if they ever did see someone)?

And then later (after seeing Brian Kennedy and his investigators) he changes his mind and says he doesn't think it was Gerry McCann after all?

Honestly, what kind of evidence is that?
Can I ask, if we work on the basis that the Smith sighting did not happen, for whatever reason, what direction does that take us in ?  The second statement by Smith must in some way be damaging to the McCanns, they will surely not want it to be the number one sighting ?  What was the purpose of making up the sighting, hypothetically speaking.

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by StraightThinking on 03.11.13 17:51

@BRODFB wrote:
Though we do know...

  1. MM disappeared
  2. The Dogs identified a body
  3. The body/MM wasn't there when the police searched
Therefore both the body/MM must have been moved from 5a at some point.
Why should a sighting be so impossible?
Two points to note re this:
1) M may have made her way out by herself
2) Eddie indicated that a dead body had been in 5a, but that's not the same as saying the body actually died there

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by plebgate on 03.11.13 17:54

As someone posted earlier up the thread.   How does anyone know that the reason the files were with-held for 5 years was because of the Smith sighting.
It could well have been because of the PIs report of the anomalies in the statements.

Question everything and well done (sixmillionquid) I think who pointed this out?

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by galena on 03.11.13 18:09

@sami wrote:K
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@susible wrote:
...when you consider that Smith then contacted the police when he saw Gerry carrying Sean from the aircraft in September as he then recognised certain mannerisms in Gerry that he recalled from man carrying the child on the 3rd of May.
OK, taking you at your word, what were those so-called 'mannerisms'? 

Can you tell me?

Basically, Martin Smith claims it was 'the way he carried his child'.

Come on, how many males are there (or females) for that matter on this forum who have ever had to carry a sleeping infant?

I have, many times.

The preferred method for a right-handed person is to carry the child on your left shoulder, putting him/her there with your right hand.

(You might for a while carry the infant on your forerarms, but that soon gets tiring).

So, Smith sees a bloke coming down from a plane doing that - something he must have seen dozens or hundreds of times in his life before (he's in his fifties, after all) - and suddenly says - "That's the bloke I saw 4 months ago".

When neither he nor anyone in his family saw his face (if they ever did see someone)?

And then later (after seeing Brian Kennedy and his investigators) he changes his mind and says he doesn't think it was Gerry McCann after all?

Honestly, what kind of evidence is that?
Can I ask, if we work on the basis that the Smith sighting did not happen, for whatever reason, what direction does that take us in ?  The second statement by Smith must in some way be damaging to the McCanns, they will surely not want it to be the number one sighting ?  What was the purpose of making up the sighting, hypothetically speaking.
Actually I don't find that surprising at all. For one thing it's an unknown quantity whereas the Tannerman sighting is within their control. Imagine a scenario where the McCanns know the creepy figure of a man carrying off a small child was totally a product of Jane's imagination and how surprised they would be to find a family coming forward to seemingly corroborate this fictional character.  What are their motives?  Is it just coincidence or have they got their own agenda?  Wouldn't take them long to figure out that Smith wasn't on their side he was an ally of Robert Murat.  They are intelligent people and they might - like us - have surmised the sighting was made up.  In that scenario I know what I would do - I would allude to the sighing as far as it confirmed my own story but not lean on it too much in case Smith recanted the story leaving me without a leg to stand on.

Secondly - the fact that Smith compared the man to Gerry - even in quite an indirect way - is hardly something they would want broadcast.  Even if Gerry could prove conclusively that he was somewhere else, the thought that he or any of the Tapas blokes might be carrying a possibly dead child around PDL isn't one he would want the public to dwell on. Clarrie would have a fit!

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.11.13 18:10

GPD wrote:
Yes Tony, but the documentary tried to morph Smithman and Tannerman into the same person, changing the way he carried the child, the description of the man to fit with what the Smiths saw and Tanner as always, happily obliged.

Which is absolutely and precisley what I said when you claimed that the McCanns wanted to 'bury the Smith sighting'. In fact, as I showed, they have done the very oposite for 4.5 years. I replied to you:

QUOTE: "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)".
   UNQUOTE
Well done susible:

I was compelled to join and post a reply following your correction regarding the C4 documentary farce - You have shown your knowledge of this case by correcting Tony regarding this.

No, GPD, you have got this the wrong way round entirely. susible tried to claim that the McCanns tried to (susible's words) 'bury' the Smith sighting. On the contrary, far from burying it, as I have patiently shown on this and other threads , the McCanns have progressively revived it over the past4.5 years. 

This was in fact the first public display that the McCann's were threatened by the Smith sighting.

How can you possibly say that they regarded this as a 'threat'? - when they used it in the 2009 documentary, spent FIVE PAGES of their book developing it further in 2011, and now are joined at the hip with DCI Redwood and the BBC into fully promoting it?

It was in fact a disgrace to watch, at the time, a complete edit and warping of the Smith's statement contrived to have Smithman suddenly carry the child in the same manner as Tannerman. It was a total disgrace - Smith's statement(s) clearly describe the child being carried into Smithman's shoulder, as is the normal way to carry an infant, and was as GM carried one of the twins off the plane on BBC TV.

To then have C4 completely change this with no explanation was a glorious display of the attempt to merge Tannerman into Smithman.

Which is precisely what I have been saying about Smithman on one thread after another. I pointed out for example that in her book, 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann referred to 'startling similarities' between the Tannerman and Smithman sightings. They included this one (p. 371 of 'madeleine' (Hardback edition)):

"Tannerman: Carrying child across arms at front of chest; child's head to the left of man's chest. Smithman: Carrying child over arms with child's head towards left shoulder".  


Smithman sighting is not part of this conspiracy - it is the thorn in the side.

Much more like one giant red herring, on the evidence I've seen - just as Tannerman has proved to be.

But thanks anyway, GPD, for reading this forum for such a long time and then 'jumping in' as you put it, to 'correct me' - when in fact I was correcting susible's opinion that the McCanns have tried to 'bury' the Smith sighting.

The intervention of so many newcomers here just to join up on the Smithman threads to tell the forum that Smithman really really does exist has certainly been informative. 






____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by MoonGoddess on 03.11.13 18:17

Try to cut it a true story short….. I was walking through the town square in broad daylight one busy afternoon, saw 3 guys running hell for leather towards to the taxi rank, they were carrying trainer shoe boxes, one beckoned to someone sitting in a nearby café and he joined them, they all legged it into a taxi which was yards away… I followed the scene visually  because it looked so odd, and I thought they’d nicked some trainers (although no shoe shops anywhere near the vicinity which confused me) I forgot all about it within minutes … then a couple of months later there was the scene played out on some crime reconstruction programme that used to be on ITV…. I could not believe that I’d witnessed an armed robbery at the jewellers shop, and that they’d made their escape in a taxi [not shown on the reconstruction!] all this @200 yards, and within site of the police station!!!) 

PERHAPS!! …. The Smiths [along with the rest of the world!] were hypnotised by the media; the world and his wife were immediately brainwashed into believing a paedophile had broken in to the apartment and stolen MM…. The Smiths would be more familiar than most about the local area…. What would a paedo be doing wandering around a back street with a sleeping child? Wouldn’t she have been bundled into a car immediately? Not sure when ‘bundleman’ was first thrust down everyone’s throat in the media? But perhaps The Smiths thought, ‘oh it couldn’t have been related… ‘bundleman’ was going in an opposite direction and the guy we saw didn’t look like George Harrison, perhaps it’s nothing’ but once they realised their ‘friend’? was being fitted up as a patsy they felt they had to do something… seeing the ‘support’ that descended in that town very early on, who could blame anyone for ‘not getting involved’.

Is it a myth that one of the Smith party asked ‘oh is she sleeping’?

____________________
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~

MoonGoddess

Posts : 282
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Mirage on 03.11.13 18:18

@plebgate wrote:As someone posted earlier up the thread.   How does anyone know that the reason the files were with-held for 5 years was because of the Smith sighting.
It could well have been because of the PIs report of the anomalies in the statements.

Question everything and well done (sixmillionquid) I think who pointed this out?
I agree, Plebgate. You really have to do this. In any investigation you have to look at what you're being presented with and question everything  without fear or favour.  I mean, that tractor man 's family have been put through the wringer, haven't they?
 No one is looking to discredit anyone but the twists and turns of this extraordinary case are too great to be going by a good feeling about one or other witness. It all has to be looked at in the round.
 Just my opinion.

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1664
Reputation : 382
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.11.13 18:19

@sami wrote:
Can I ask, if we work on the basis that the Smith sighting did not happen, for whatever reason, what direction does that take us in ?  The second statement by Smith must in some way be damaging to the McCanns, they will surely not want it to be the number one sighting ?  What was the purpose of making up the sighting, hypothetically speaking.
I think the direction may be to look at Smith's contacts.

1. Has an apartment in Praia da Luz at the Estrela da Luz complex.

2. Goes there regularly - knows Murat, maybe knows Murat more than he admits.

3. It is known that Brian Kennedy's former in-house lawyer, the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer, Director of the Find Madeleine private company and Senior East Lancashire Freemason, Edward Smethurst, has holidayed in Praia da Luz every year since 1999.

4. Dr Gerald McCann gave an evasive answer when asked (mid May 2007) if he already knew Robert Murat.      

5. Martin Smith has had contact with Brian Kennedy - he will not say when and what was discussed.

6. Martin Smith and other family members have met with one of more of Brian Kennedy's investigators, and apparently drawn up two different e-fits - again the family will tell us nothing about those meetings.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

Post by BRODFB on 03.11.13 18:24




The intervention of so many newcomers here just to join up on the Smithman threads to tell the forum that Smithman really really does exist has certainly been informative. 





Smithman was in the PJ files and as such could not be buried. The PI report was buried for whatever reasons. If you are suggesting a lot of people are trolls then you are wring in my case.

____________________
Coincidences turn into Conspiracies when all inconvenient information is ignored.

BRODFB

Posts : 33
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 31 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 18 ... 31  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum