Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by Guest 03.11.13 11:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
This could be the Sunday Express' way of making people start to think rhe area near the beach (medical centre, empty house , beach, rocky coastland, all mentioned in the article) are possible destinations for the child that night. That's starting to make people think that area was a destination...All in all, I think this...nudges people into a wholly different train of thought.
Oh really?

So, have I got this right? - this is a crafty attempt to 'nudge people into a wholly different train of thought?

And not a blatant attempt by the owners of the Sunday Express to 'cash in on Madeleine' by not merely recycling unadulterated rubbish but also by pouring in even more unadulterated balderdash of their own?

Some people here have a touching faith in what the papers are 'really' trying to say...

...when in fact (IMO) are they not merely seeking to catch the eye of people walking into newsagents or garage forecourts - before deciding which of Britain's fabled free press tabloids to read today?

On the contrary, I'm very cynical and scathing of of the vast majority of the UK press and other media. Completely self-serving all the time, imo.

However, deliberate or not, this article by the SE does pose, to the uninitiated, a different question as to why Smithman was in that area. And one which, by luck or otherwise, reflects that of those who think Smithman was GM -he was there to conceal.

But I'm not so naive as to not think that if the SE have deliberately done this, it's with their own interests at heart (revenge?) - ok, perhaps this is tenuous. If it's inadvertent, and merely an attempt to make a splash for cash - agreed, not so tenuous, then it has had the unfortunate (for them) but but encouraging for the rest of us, element of a small backfire.

by Montclair 03.11.13 11:49

SixMillionQuid wrote:From the article

British residents Julie and Colin Kimber have been trying to work out why an abductor would risk taking a three-year-old into a fairly busy area of bars and restaurants just before 10pm on May 3, 2007.

And that's what's been bugging me about the Smith and Tanner sightings - no one else saw what they saw.

Gerry went out with Madeleine because he had no choice.

by Montclair 03.11.13 11:52

Praiaaa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: ...so many on this forum continue to believe that the Smith sighting is some kind of established fact, as if it were some tiny island of certainty in an ocean of lies.
Quite - I am also concerned that this has now taken on a veneer of established fact. IMO all we can rely on is the summary published by the PJ when the case was suspended. The fact that Smith may or may not have been 'visited' by Brian Kennedy has been seen as a signal it is real, but I think scepticism is a healthier position regarding everything in this case.

So you believe that the entire Smith family are liars and made the whole thing up? This is beyond ridiculous.

by sami 03.11.13 11:52

Sadly, it does not follow that these looney stories are so crazy that the joe public reads between the lines.

Joe does not do tongue in cheek or innuendo. Joe eats his cornflakes, reading the Express, thanking his lucky stars he has never ventured onto Portugese soil on his annual two week getaway as he would never feel safe with those useless police and drug fuelled burglars turned abductors. Then he logs on and hits the donate button on the Find Madeleine site, before tuning into Radio 4.

by plebgate 03.11.13 11:57

Where is the proof positive that there was an abduction?
Surely this evidence is needed before the whole of Europe/World starts looking for any man?
That's my belief and I am sticking to it.

by Guest 03.11.13 12:00

Montclair wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: ...so many on this forum continue to believe that the Smith sighting is some kind of established fact, as if it were some tiny island of certainty in an ocean of lies.
Quite - I am also concerned that this has now taken on a veneer of established fact. IMO all we can rely on is the summary published by the PJ when the case was suspended. The fact that Smith may or may not have been 'visited' by Brian Kennedy has been seen as a signal it is real, but I think scepticism is a healthier position regarding everything in this case.
So you believe that the entire Smith family are liars and made the whole thing up? This is beyond ridiculous.

Tony, people are entitled to believe what they want. I agree with all those who do believe, and cannot for a minute believe a family would make this up.

As to your post about the place being so busy???? We know from many witness statements it was very, very quiet at that time of year. I have been to Ibiza, San Antonio, the busiest and most popular resort at end of April, and I can tell you that most of the cafes and bars were still closed, only a few were open. It was probably the same in Luz. There would not have been many about at 10 pm in a quiet sleepy village.

There is only one problem with Bars and Restaurants in a predominately tourist orientated town, that's the inconsistency of their opening and closing times outside the main season. Whilst all of them are open during the tourist season ( May to September ) they may not actually stay open or keep regular hours if business is quiet

http://www.luz-info.com/bars.htm

by Guest 03.11.13 12:01

Tony, this is a genuine question because I know from reading this site how much you've invested into getting to the truth, why is it so important to the case that Smithman be dismissed a la Tannerman?

Amaral believed it to be of great import. Why do you disagree? Yes, I have read your rationales that the Smiths are unreliable and with a possible motive to protect Murat, but why is the elimination of Smithman so crucial? How does it affect the case if he can be dismissed?

by chillyheat 03.11.13 12:06

Gerry, flowerbed, JW alibi, Purple (Tanner), Murat, panic because Gerry was building his alibi with JW. Tanner panics so makes up Tannerman. Murat makes his exit with Madeleine......Or was it an Exeter.

by bristow 03.11.13 12:10

paddinton wrote:Actually Petermac I thought this was quite a good article.

It does not imply the man from Cape Verde was involved.

It certainly suggests that the Portugese police are searching in Luz.

It mentions that the people of Luz are sceptical about the involvement of the man from Cape Verde.

There is much mention of doctors and medics.

Bearing in mind that the press are pretty nervous about being sued and journalists reporting on this case are almost certainly heavily restricted by their editors, I thought it got some good points across.

Yes without reading the rest of the thread I think there could be something in this.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 12:11

candyfloss wrote:Tony, people are entitled to believe what they want. I agree with all those who do believe, and cannot for a minute believe a family would make this up.

Dee Coy wrote:Tony, this is a genuine question because I know from reading this site how much you've invested into getting to the truth, why is it so important to the case that Smithman be dismissed a la Tannerman?

Amaral believed it to be of great import. Why do you disagree? Yes, I have read your rationales that the Smiths are unreliable and with a possible motive to protect Murat, but why is the elimination of Smithman so crucial? How does it affect the case if he can be dismissed?

There are things relevant to this case far more important than whether Smithman was fabricated (as I believe) or not.

Because of all the evidence we now have about the history of the 'Smith sighting', I simply believe that Amaral was wrong to dwell on the Smith family's belated and (IMO) very suspicious claims.

What we have on this forum is one group of people who assume that a family (well, Smith and his wife and two children) cannot fabricate a 'sighting' - and another (much smaller) group who have major question marks about it.

That is all.

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.

by Guest 03.11.13 12:15

ChillyHeat wrote:Gerry, flowerbed, JW alibi, Purple (Tanner), Murat, panic because Gerry was building his alibi with JW. Tanner panics so makes up Tannerman. Murat makes his exit with Madeleine......Or was it an Exeter.

So surely it's the very sighting of Smithman that's caused the perfectly laid plan to cock-up, necessitating the invention of Tannerman and the hastily amended timeline?

So surely she Smithman sighting is TM's worst nightmare, that's why they suppressed it, etc, etc.

Why does Tony think it's so important to treat it the same as Tannerman, with no credence. I'm confused.

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 12:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Tony, people are entitled to believe what they want. I agree with all those who do believe, and cannot for a minute believe a family would make this up.
Dee Coy wrote:Tony, this is a genuine question because I know from reading this site how much you've invested into getting to the truth, why is it so important to the case that Smithman be dismissed a la Tannerman?

Amaral believed it to be of great import. Why do you disagree? Yes, I have read your rationales that the Smiths are unreliable and with a possible motive to protect Murat, but why is the elimination of Smithman so crucial? How does it affect the case if he can be dismissed?
There are things relevant to this case far more important than whether Smithman was fabricated (as I believe) or not.

Because of all the evidence we now have about the history of the 'Smith sighting', I simply believe that Amaral was wrong to dwell on the Smith family's belated and (IMO) very suspicious claims.

What we have on this forum is one group of people who assume that a family (well, Smith and his wife and two children) cannot fabricate a 'sighting' - and another (much smaller) group who have major question marks about it.

That is all.

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.

I was in that camp but there was always something that just didn't sit right especially with the way he identified GM. You can't ID an individual person just on the basis of the way they walked, carried a child etc, and not the face!!!?? So there must have been something else that made him think it was GM and not another person carrying their child.

by Guest 03.11.13 12:28

Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.

So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.

by jeanmonroe 03.11.13 12:32

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.

Did the Smith 'family' report their 'sighting' to the PJ, on the 4th May 2007, as soon as they heard, or saw, the 'news' that a child had been 'abducted' at their holiday resort?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 12:35

Montclair wrote:
So you believe that the entire Smith family are liars and made the whole thing up? This is beyond ridiculous.

Is it?

Let's recapitulate some of the main points very briefly.

1. No-one in Smith family does anything about their so-called 'sighting' for 13 days (May 16).

2. When they do, it is after Murat is made an arguido.

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - maybe better than he admits.

4. He tells the Portuguese Police that it definitely wasn't Murat.

5. Three members of Smith family make claims about Smithman which, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, have up to 17 similarities with Tannerman - now said to be a bloke taking his child back from the creche at 9.15pm ('crecheman').

6. IF SMITHMAN is genuine, he cannot be crecheman - unless you claim he was still walking around with a child 45 minutes later.

7. We are therefore expected to believe that there were TWO DIFFERENT BLOKES each on their own, without a buggy, carrying children through the streets of Praia da Luz, one at 9.15pm and one at 10.00, LOOKING IDENTICAL (apart from the colour and length of their hair).

8. The Smith family say the man's face was hidden so they couldn't see him.

9. It was dark anyway.

10. They all said they would not be able to recognise him again.

11. Afoie Smith, a young teenager, says she saw Smithman '2 metres' in front of her and that he then passed by her. She would therefore have had less than a second in which to observe him. Yet she manages to recall (I say 'invent') all manner of details from this split-second view of him including claiming that he has buttons on his trousers. She also claims that she is '60% sure' that the child (whose face she admits she didn't see) was Madeleine McCann.

12. 4 months later, Smith claims that he can recognise Gerry McCann as the man he saw 'from the way he was walking and carrying his child'.

13. He says he is '60% to 80% sure'.

14. He says he now withdraws that certainty and doesn't believe it was Gerry McCann.

15. Mrs Smith doesn't make a formal statement (so far as we know) and then goes on record to say that she wishes the McCanns well, clearly implying that there is no way that any of them saw Gerry McCann.

16. We are told that Smith (or the Smiths) have come up with two wholly different e-fits of a bloke whose face they didn't see in the dark.

17. It seems that he has kept schtum for 5 years about the fact that the McCann Team were not using his carefully-construced e-fits.

18. The McCann Team have made positive use of the Smith sighting for the past 4.5 years - in the 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn documentary and in Kate's book (2011).

19. Smith has had secret meetings with Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' private investigators which he will say nothing about.

These are the main things that make me suggest that the Smiths have fabricated a 'sighting'.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 12:37

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family...we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.

I understand your point, this is not quite what I think happened but, anyway, we have had an exchnage of beliefs, let us agree to disagree.

by chillyheat 03.11.13 12:37

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.

If 9 can concoct................................

by suzyjohnson 03.11.13 12:39

PeterMac wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/440816/Did-panicking-kidnapper-plan-to-leave-injured-Madeleine-McCann-with-medics

Did panicking kidnapper plan to leave 'injured' Madeleine McCann with medics?

WHOEVER kidnapped Madeleine McCann may have intended to leave her outside a doctor’s surgery after she was injured in a burglary gone wrong, it was claimed last night.
By: James Murray
Published: Sun, November 3, 2013
The key sighting of the potential prime suspect carrying a sleeping child happened in a small road just yards away from Luzdoc, the medical centre in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
British residents Julie and Colin Kimber have been trying to work out why an abductor would risk taking a three-year-old into a fairly busy area of bars and restaurants just before 10pm on May 3, 2007.
Looking at the exact point of the sighting, Mr Kimber said: “You have to ask yourself why he was heading down the hill in this direction when he must have known there were more people about.
“Maybe a burglary went wrong and the child was injured and then he thought he should take her to the medical centre, panicked and then took her away.
“If he was taking her to someone in a car he would not have arranged the rendezvous in this area because too many people would be around. Why risk being seen by somebody?”
Another possibility being considered is that an abductor lived locally and took Madeleine to his property after kidnapping her from the family’s holiday apartment at the Ocean Club.
You have to ask yourself why he was heading down the hill in this direction
Mr Kimber added: “Ever since the Crimewatch programme, which placed great emphasis on this key sighting, we have been trying to work it out, but the route is baffling.
“There is a real village community in Luz and everybody has been thinking hard about if they saw anyone who looked like the man in the e-fit.”
Another theory is that an abductor may have taken Madeleine to one of several derelict buildings and gardens, all just yards from where Irish holidaymaker Martin Smith and other members of his family saw the e-fit man carrying a child.
Directly opposite the sighting is a junction with two derelict houses.
A small doorway leads into the garden.
Today, by looking over the wall, it seems someone has been living in the garden. There is an open toilet and a hose pipe shower with a curtain rail, table and chairs and signs of an open fire.
One of the buildings is owned by a German woman who uses it to house bikes for rent to holidaymakers. The other property is up for sale.
Neither owner wished to comment last week. It is understood the gardens were thoroughly searched when Madeleine vanished but locals could not recall seeing police enter any derelict buildings.
In recent months police have been active in this key area of the resort. One resident, who declined to be named, said: “They have been up and down the road, day and night.
“Some people reckon the man was on his way to the rocky coastline a few hundred yards away to take her away in a boat, but that would be very tricky at night.
“This renewed police activity is good because people want this solved once and for all.”
Luz residents have been sceptical of reports that a sacked Ocean Club worker may be the abductor. He died in a tractor accident four years ago.
The 40-year-old was a petty criminal with a drug problem but last week his widow said he was “incapable of touching a child” and there was nothing in his criminal file about being a paedophile.
For several reasons I think this article is very interesting ......

I have previously thought that someone may have been carrying MM towards the medical centre, However, if anyone was trying to get medical assistance, then on finding the centre closed, it's more likely that they would then place her somewhere she would definitely be found. The only reasons to subsequently hide her would be a) because they knew, for certain, she was beyond help and b) because they knew they were directly responsible for an injury or overdose.

It's interesting to hear what local people are saying about events, the questions they are asking, ' ....... Ever since the Crimewatch programme, which placed great emphasis on this key sighting, we have been trying to work it out, but the route is baffling. “There is a real village community in Luz and everybody has been thinking hard about if they saw anyone who looked like the man in the e-fit.”......'

But also, there is clear evidence here, in Amaral's favour IMO that shows how the search for MM has been hindered by the withholding of the Efits by the McCanns

Also, Luz residents don't sound too convinced about the ex-employee revenge suspect do they?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 12:40

jeanmonroe wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
Did the Smith 'family' report their 'sighting' to the PJ, on the 4th May 2007, as soon as they heard, or saw, the 'news' that a child had been 'abducted' at their holiday resort?

NO.

They left this 'sighting' - despite worldwide publicity about an abductor taking a child - for 13 whole days.

Only a day or two after Martin Smith's acquaintance Robert Murat was made arguido (14 May) did they stir themselves.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.13 12:41

ChillyHeat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
If 9 can concoct................................

We only know that THREE of them made statements.

by Mirage 03.11.13 12:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
Did the Smith 'family' report their 'sighting' to the PJ, on the 4th May 2007, as soon as they heard, or saw, the 'news' that a child had been 'abducted' at their holiday resort?
NO.

They left this 'sighting' - despite worldwide publicity about an abductor taking a child - for 13 whole days.

Only a day or two after Martin Smith's acquaintance Robert Murat was made arguido (14 May) did they stir themselves.

Then in September 2007 he fell in that it was GM and rang the UK police.

by chillyheat 03.11.13 12:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
If 9 can concoct................................
We only know that THREE of them made statements.

Exactly.....And one was happy to be hypnotised (lol).

by bristow 03.11.13 12:50

I just don't know what to believe anymore, perhaps Murat should be brought in for some more intensive questioning, I'm still troubled with the Exeter connection plus his flight back to PDL, my head is befuddled.

by plebgate 03.11.13 12:58

ChillyHeat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
If 9 can concoct................................
We only know that THREE of them made statements.
Exactly.....And one was happy to be hypnotised (lol).

Certain people were happy to take lie detector tests - oops that was until one was reportedly offered. titter

by SixMillionQuid 03.11.13 13:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I confess to not being able to fathom why more people do not question the authenticity of the Smiths' claims.
So Mr Smith says to his family.........we must get my mate off the hook, you will have to tell the police we saw someone, and I will tell them it is not RM. So they have a nice chat about it, all concoct the same story, then all go to the police and lie? I find this 'unfathomable' I'm afraid.
Did the Smith 'family' report their 'sighting' to the PJ, on the 4th May 2007, as soon as they heard, or saw, the 'news' that a child had been 'abducted' at their holiday resort?
NO.

They left this 'sighting' - despite worldwide publicity about an abductor taking a child - for 13 whole days.

Only a day or two after Martin Smith's acquaintance Robert Murat was made arguido (14 May) did they stir themselves.

From Mr Smiths statement of 26 May 2007

He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.

Sent him a text message or called him? There would have been record of that text / phone call on his phone 13 days later. If on the 4th May 2007 you thought the child you saw could have been Madeleine why wait 13 days?