Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by secrets and lies 03.11.13 18:24

VERY good point MoonGoddess. I have a very good feeling in my waters about the Smith sighting. i.e that's it genuine.

laughat

I speak as an Irishman. so, possibly prejudiced.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 18:25

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

It is claimed on behalf of - but not by - Mrs Mary Smith that she spoke to Smithman and challenged the man, asking if he was sleeping, but he is said to have put his head down and not answered, carrying on walking.

I can find no verbal or written statement by Mrs Smith confirming that.

Mrs Smith did not apparently travel to Portugal along with her husband and two children to confirm this encounter by way of a witness statement.

by susible 03.11.13 18:26

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.

Well said GPD and welcome. I have never believed in conspiracy and cover up, apart from the one that the McCanns and their friends themselves devised, and to now make Martin Smith part of some conspiracy, for what ends no one knows, because lets face it, he implicated Gerry McCann, is just, to borrow from Clarence, ludicrous.

I will stand by the Keep it Simple motto, which I believe the whole thing is. There is just one sticking point as far as the police are concerned and that is evidence, solid, irrefutable evidence that will stand up in a court of law and secure convictions. And it is my belief that the police, both SY and the PJ are picking the whole case apart, bit by bit until they are left with the inevitable and only then when there is no other avenue to explore can the spotlight be turned back firmly on the only possible suspects imo

by secrets and lies 03.11.13 18:28

Mrs. Smith did not "challenge" the man, as far as I'm aware she merely comment "ah, is she sleeping".

by bellum 03.11.13 18:34

secrets and lies wrote:Mrs. Smith did not "challenge" the man, as far as I'm aware she merely comment "ah, is she sleeping".

where did you get that?

by plebgate 03.11.13 18:36

Apparently Mrs. Smith said that it was common place to see men carrying children around, I wonder why, if such a common occurence, she asked a stranger "is she sleeping", especially as apparently the man seemed as though he did not want to talk and kept his eyes down?

by bellum 03.11.13 18:37

there are a lot of new people here. where are the usual ones?

by susible 03.11.13 18:38

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?

I don't think Martin Smith elaborated on what the mannerisms were. Chatelaine gave a good example earlier on about recognising someone by the manner in which they did something and I can only conclude Martin Smith did the same.

Also I think we can also conclude that Smith changing his mind about the certainty of the man being Gerry McCann after a visit by Brian Kennedy is conclusive proof that Smith's sighting was legit and it probably was Gerry McCann that he saw. Brian Kennedy does not appear to be an honest man who has a shred of integrity, therefore, perhaps Martin Smith felt threatened by whatever was said at that meeting and felt it was better to reduce his certainty of the identity of the man, notably though, he did not recant that he had indeed seen a man carrying a child.

And before you start asking what could possibly change someones mind in regard to a statement about a missing child, there are a number of possibilities and perhaps Martin Smith just wanted to get as far away as possible from the scenario and probably realised that there was nothing he could do or say that would help Madeleine in any way as she was most likely already dead. I know that if my family were threatened under those circumstances, I would just say "fine..whatever" knowing that the parents themselves did not want a conclusion to the case so I sure as heck wasn't going to stick my neck out, particularly so when the Mc's were de-arguidoed and the case shelved, he probably felt he was up against an immovable object and I don't blame him to be honest

by Bobby Peru 03.11.13 18:39

Almost beyond parody !
We now have a Cape Verde Islander, whose face is made up to look caucasian, who found Madeleine injured during a burglary, and is taking her to the medical centre . . .
Not even Mitchell could come up with this sort of stuff, surely.
Need another coffee !

This story ~~beggars~~ buggers belief.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 18:41

SixMillionQuid wrote: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

Thank you for raising this point.

I have always understood that the story was that the Smiths paid their 'bar billl' at 9.55pm, then walked out of Kelly's Bar on their way back to the Estrela da Luz complex, seeing Smithman at about 10.00pm.

I have always taken it on trust that there existed a receipt for drinks, ordered by the Smiths, at 9.55pm. I assumed that for some reason the Smiths had kept the receipt themselves.

Here we have the till receipts from 8pm to midnight.

If indeed there are no receipts between 9.50pm and 10.16pm, then are we to assume that the Smiths paid their bar bill at 9.50pm? I can't read the receipts very easily.

I assume then that (if it is indeed theirs) the 9.50pm receipt would be for around 9 (or more) drinks?

The whole timing of the Smiths' 'sighting' has been fixed around this 9.55pm receipt, so one way or another, these till receipts must prove which one is theirs.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 18:50

susible wrote:
I don't think Martin Smith elaborated on what the mannerisms were. Chatelaine gave a good example earlier on about recognising someone by the manner in which they did something and I can only conclude Martin Smith did the same.

Chatelaine is dead right that one can recognise the gait of someone one knows quite well, BUT with due respect to you both, NOT (IMO) someone you see walking down the steps of a plane when the only time you've seen them before is for 1 to 2 seconds on a dark night four months ago. You're right, Smith didn't elaborate on any mannerisms. His claim was 'I'm sure because of the way he was carrying his child' - no more, no less. Only 605 to 80%, mind.

Also I think we can also conclude that Smith changing his mind about the certainty of the man being Gerry McCann after a visit by Brian Kennedy is conclusive proof that Smith's sighting was legit and it probably was Gerry McCann that he saw. Brian Kennedy does not appear to be an honest man who has a shred of integrity, therefore, perhaps Martin Smith felt threatened by whatever was said at that meeting and felt it was better to reduce his certainty of the identity of the man, notably though, he did not recant that he had indeed seen a man carrying a child.

I won't comment, other than to reproduce this passage from the Mark Hollingsworth article in the Evening Standard about the McCanns' investigators, 24 August 2009:

The Evening Standard has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’.
* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.
* Key witnesses were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police.
* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work.

And before you start asking what could possibly change someones mind in regard to a statement about a missing child, there are a number of possibilities and perhaps Martin Smith just wanted to get as far away as possible from the scenario and probably realised that there was nothing he could do or say that would help Madeleine in any way as she was most likely already dead. I know that if my family were threatened under those circumstances, I would just say "fine...whatever" knowing that the parents themselves did not want a conclusion to the case so I sure as heck wasn't going to stick my neck out, particularly so when the Mc's were de-arguidoed and the case shelved, he probably felt he was up against an immovable object and I don't blame him to be honest.

You have raised the possibility of the Smiths having been threatened

by Miraflores 03.11.13 18:53

I have always taken it on trust that there existed a receipt for drinks, ordered by the Smiths, at 9.55pm. I assumed that for some reason the Smiths had kept the receipt themselves.

If Mr Smith was like my husband he would certainly keep his receipts for a few months!

I always feel it's significant that 'Smithman' didn't speak, and hence couldn't betray what accent he had. I am quite sure that the Smiths would have been able to place an accent as being Scottish, if they had heard that.

by plebgate 03.11.13 18:54

Mirage wrote:
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.

Yes Mirage of course without fear or favour. My opinion too.

It was also reported that the PIs noted something in their report about Maddie's sleeping pattern, this could also have been a reason for "burying" the report?

Who knows what else is in there, we were all hoping ST might reveal something else today, but they didn't.

Is it possible Mr. A. will be able to ask for a copy of the report if he is thinking of using it as evidence at the libel hearing?

If he is, I do not think the court will go solelyon a newspaper report, and the court might have the power to ask for the report to be handed in as evidence?

by sami 03.11.13 18:56

When / how has it been established Smith changed his statement on identification ? I've seen it in the press, is there somewhere else ?

by susible 03.11.13 18:56

One question Tony..Why? Why would Martin Smith claim he saw a man carrying a child and that upon seeing Gerry McCann carrying another one of his children conclude that man was Gerry McCann if it was not true?

I don't want a list of people who have property in and around PdL and a load of somewhat tenuous connections, just a simple reason as to why Martin Smith would make this up, then partly recant what he had seen and that would also somehow fall into line with the McCanns covering up the death of their daughter. Because right now, it doesn't make sense.

by dunn 03.11.13 18:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Easy there Tony...

Firstly, I apologise for the use of the phrase 'Correcting you.' I take that back. Don't think It's then ok for you though to say you are correcting susible.

Secondly, I never said 'jumping in' you are inaccurate.

Thirdly, I also think the McCann's tried to bury the Smith sighting, actively, for the very reasons that they have tried to merge Smithman into Tannerman (their conception) and by refering to any 'similarities' between them. Unable to just delete the Smith sighting, IMO they tried to make it an extension of their own sighting - Tannerman.

If you do not think that the C4 documentary was as I describe, fair enough. I do though.

What Kate referred to in her book was actually trying to highlight similarities that were not there. How is this similar?

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".

They are completely different and not Similar, Kate..

However, I always appreciate your work here and will study above with the diligence it deserves nonetheless.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 19:02

susible wrote:One question Tony..Why? Why would Martin Smith claim he saw a man carrying a child and that upon seeing Gerry McCann carrying another one of his children conclude that man was Gerry McCann if it was not true?

I don't want a list of people who have property in and around PdL and a load of somewhat tenuous connections, just a simple reason as to why Martin Smith would make this up, then partly recant what he had seen and that would also somehow fall into line with the McCanns covering up the death of their daughter. Because right now, it doesn't make sense.

I cannot for legal reasons answer that here but will send you a 'pm'

by susible 03.11.13 19:05

Easy there Tony...

Firstly, I apologise for the use of the phrase 'Correcting you.' I take that back. Don't think It's then ok for you though to say you are correcting susible.

Secondly, I never said 'jumping in' you are inaccurate.

Thirdly, I also think the McCann's tried to bury the Smith sighting, actively, for the very reasons that they have tried to merge Smithman into Tannerman (their conception) and by refering to any 'similarities' between them. Unable to just delete the Smith sighting, IMO they tried to make it an extension of their own sighting - Tannerman.

If you do not think that the C4 documentary was as I describe, fair enough. I do though.

What Kate referred to in her book was actually trying to highlight similarities that were not there. How is this similar?

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".

They are completely different and not Similar, Kate..

However, I always appreciate your work here and will study above with the diligence it deserves nonetheless.

You are correct GPD, both the documentary and Kate's book were a deliberate attempt to play down the Smith sighting and make it look like they were one and the same person, when according to the police statements they were very different, both in the way they were carrying the child and in the descriptions of the person carrying the child. Therefore it can be concluded that whilst the McCanns could not get rid of the Smith sighting as it was part of the police files, they could attempt to gloss over it and try to fit it to their own agenda. This is why I totally believe that the Smith sighting is genuine because, as I have just asked Tony to clarify, if it was made up, then to what end? Certainly not the McCanns as Gerry was identified and if it was to protect Murat, then why would the McCanns try to obfuscate the sighting as it went in their favour.

by susible 03.11.13 19:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
susible wrote:One question Tony..Why? Why would Martin Smith claim he saw a man carrying a child and that upon seeing Gerry McCann carrying another one of his children conclude that man was Gerry McCann if it was not true?

I don't want a list of people who have property in and around PdL and a load of somewhat tenuous connections, just a simple reason as to why Martin Smith would make this up, then partly recant what he had seen and that would also somehow fall into line with the McCanns covering up the death of their daughter. Because right now, it doesn't make sense.
I cannot for legal reasons answer that here but will send you a 'pm'

Okay thanks Tony.

by sallypelt 03.11.13 19:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
susible wrote:One question Tony..Why? Why would Martin Smith claim he saw a man carrying a child and that upon seeing Gerry McCann carrying another one of his children conclude that man was Gerry McCann if it was not true?

I don't want a list of people who have property in and around PdL and a load of somewhat tenuous connections, just a simple reason as to why Martin Smith would make this up, then partly recant what he had seen and that would also somehow fall into line with the McCanns covering up the death of their daughter. Because right now, it doesn't make sense.
I cannot for legal reasons answer that here but will send you a 'pm'

Tony, are you aware of any connections between Unilever and Glenfield Hospital?

by secrets and lies 03.11.13 19:09

Bellam, I believe I read Mr.Smith's statement or at least some paraphrased version of it, on here.

And very recently too.

If Mrs. Smith had "challenged" the man, as you put it, it would be something quite significant, wouldn't it? Especially since he put his head down and he didn't respond. My reading of it was that it was said by Mrs. S as a throwaway remark, like when you brush against someone in a supermarket and say "sorry" without expecting to engage or be engaged in conversation.

She might as well have muttered "soft night". At least that was my impression.

Where did you get the "challenged" from, by the way?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 19:16

sallypelt wrote:
Tony, are you aware of any connections between Unilever and Glenfield Hospital?

Yes.

I am pretty sure that Glenfield Hospital is a University of Leicester teaching hospital, and as such part of the University of Leicester Hospitals NHS Trust.

Both Unilever and the University of Leicester Hospitals NHS Trust are connected as partners of the EPSRC Centre, as can be seen on this link:

http://www.epsrc-regen-med.org/our-team/collaborators/

I think it is something to do with stem cell research

by susible 03.11.13 19:17

secrets and lies wrote:Bellam, I believe I read Mr.Smith's statement or at least some paraphrased version of it, on here.

And very recently too.

If Mrs. Smith had "challenged" the man, as you put it, it would be something quite significant, wouldn't it? Especially since he put his head down and he didn't respond. My reading of it was that it was said by Mrs. S as a throwaway remark, like when you brush against someone in a supermarket and say "sorry" without expecting to engage or be engaged in conversation.

She might as well have muttered "soft night". At least that was my impression.

Where did you get the "challenged" from, by the way?

Yes, I agree, whenever I'm say for example in the supermarket and I see a newborn (they have a particular look) I'll always say to my daughter...Aww, look at the little baby or words to that effect. I'm not actually engaging the parents in conversation, just remarking on their cute baby. Similarly if I see a toddler having a meltdown, I'll remark "Ohh someone's not happy" yet again, I'm not speaking directly to the parents, just remarking to the person that I'm with on what I've just witnessed.

by sonic72 03.11.13 19:19

Well if Jane Tanner's sighting was just an innocent parent returning from the creche, then perhaps Smithman is not of importance either? Perhaps also just another 'innocent parent'??!!

If there was a blue bag missing, then it makes sense that they would have concealed the child in the blue bag. I don't think Gerry would risk carrying a dead child in plain view of potential witnesses. So we can rule out Smithman as being important, unless Gerry really did take the big risk and carry maddy out in the open?

If he was going to temporarily hide his daughter, to be moved and buried later, then he isn't going to leave her to the elements, he would cover her with something, or put her in something, and a bag would be a perfect item for this.

Let's look at Kate & Gerry's Arguido statements....

When Gerry did his, we all know that he answered the questions put before him, not once did he go silent and not answer, unlike Kate, which I will come to in a minute, but Gerry answered every question, EXCEPT the ones relating to the cadaver/blood dogs findings, DNA, and except questions relating to if Madeline had come to any harm.

Only when asked these important questions, did he then stop talking and didn't give a proper answer..,

GERRY

When asked if in fact they went to the apartment every half hour, he says it is true, and that this was never forged to justify absences during dinner. (Why would Gerry say that?! Strange!)

After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.

The dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, as well, he says that he cannot explain this fact.

Regarding the signalling of cadaver odour in the vehicle that was rented in late May, license plate 49-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.

Regarding the signalling of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has no explanation for this fact.

When confronted with the fact that Madeleine’s DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations that had already been described before, he says that he cannot explain.
When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

So as we can see, Gerry only changed his method of responding when asked about the cadaver dogs etc, and funnily enough, Kate also deviated from her response method when asked the same questions.

We all know the famous 48 questions Kate McCann did NOT answer, and she only answered one question. All the questions she did not answer, which were all (bar one question) answered with "NO REPLY".

EXCEPT the questions about cadaver/blood dogs/DNA etc, and for those questions, although she did not give a proper response, she did change her response from the 'No Reply' she had stuck to all the way through the interview..

KATE

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply. (This time she goes back to her normal response again).

To me this says a lot, speaks volumes, that they both deviated from their normal responses when asked about the dogs etc...

Also, adding this as an after-thought, but Kate said she "cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already" but in reality, she never explained anything because she did not answer any of the questions!!

by sallypelt 03.11.13 19:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Tony, are you aware of any connections between Unilever and Glenfield Hospital?
Yes.

I am pretty sure that Glenfield Hospital is a University of Leicester teaching hospital, and as such part of the University of Leicester Hospitals NHS Trust.

Both Unilever and the University of Leicester Hospitals NHS Trust are connected as partners of the EPSRC Centre, as can be seen on this link:

http://www.epsrc-regen-med.org/our-team/collaborators/

I think it is something to do with stem cell research

Yes, and Unilever has lots of connections with Liverpool, SWANSEA etc. Moreover, it has a multi-billion turnover each year.

Quote from Wikipedia
It is a dual-listed company consisting of Unilever N.V., based in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and Unilever PLC, based in London, United Kingdom. Both companies have the same directors and they operate as a single business

Unquote

Lots of coincidences, I know, but the coincidences just keep coming.