Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

[Tony Bennett]

As realistic as your conspiracy theory involving millions of pounds and from the very top of the powers that be, without a rational reason for what and why.

I've given my rational reasons many times over - in 21 words:

Rupert Murdoch
Rebekah Brooks
Clarence Mitchell
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown

Something nasty close to government and media elites being covered up

[j.rob]

Maybe Smithman is Gerry with another child, not as a decoy as such but rather as a shield or distraction in the event of him being seen, as he does a final check on the burial place he had sourced earlier in the day .

I thought that HelenMeg's 'decoy' theory about Smithman was about as convoluted as you could get, but evidently I was wrong, you have come up with something even more unlikely.

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

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

I always thought the decoy theory was a bit crazy. What I find strange about the Smith sighting is that they did not immediately report it to police, as far as I can see. The police statements appear to be on 26th May. Nevertheless, it is clear that, from the moment they knew that Madeleine had disappeared, at least some members of the family made a connection between the child being carried that evening and Madeleine's disappearance. And they are certain that the child COULD have been Madeleine.

So why the delay in reporting this sighting to police?

And when they contacted police in September, stating that they thought the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann (after seeing him coming down the steps of the plane carrying his son in a similar manner). Why did they wait that long if there was even a hint of an idea that the man could have been Gerry?  

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that the Smiths clearly know him and Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

If the Smith sighting is fabricated (and there were a lot of people in the group that night so that's a lot of people who have to make it up - or maybe they DID see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Madeleine or Gerry?!) then what was the reason for the fabrication? 

As realistic as your conspiracy theory involving millions of pounds and from the very top of the powers that be, without a rational reason for what and why.



I think it is beyond dispute that there has been a massive cover-up. The very high level support and so on. Plus an obliging media. And it has cost millions of pounds.

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

[uppatoffee]

Jon Kay ‏@jonkay01
  7m
McCann Search: Officers have started opening-up manhole covers and are searching drains with probe devices. pic.twitter.com/V2CFySKqtH
Details


Jon Kay ‏@jonkay01
  1h
Day 4 in Madeleine McCann search. Officers return to investigate an area analysed with underground radar yesterday. pic.twitter.com/2b5PVtdY3z
Details

[Tony Bennett]

I agree. I think Smithman was Gerry

One person who shares your strong belief that there really was a 'Smithman' is of course D.C.I. Andy Redwood.

Indeed, he and the BBC spent a couple of million pounds (about £1 million each) to tell us just that - in a programme seen by 6.7 million people. He told the nation: Don't look for an abductor at 9.15pm, I've found that bloke. Look instead for someone seen by the Smiths who probably removed Madeleine from the apartment much nearer 10.00pm.

Without a shadow of a doubt, in promoting the 'Smithman' sighting so strongly (the McCanns having promoted him to a lesser extent already for the previous three years), Redwood does not for one nanosecond share the belief of many on here that Smithman was Gerry McCann. He thinks Smithman was the abductor.

(if, that is, he really believes in Smithman at all himself)

[Cheshire Cat]

my last on this as it is off topic

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


 Tony, we believe that some if not all tapas told lies for the parents... why would this favour be such a big deal?

 No more from me to you on this issue even on another thread when you insult fellow members, once again being belittled for  their "ridiculous "  theories.. some of whom possibly think that your whitewash theory is ridiculous , but are too courteous and respectful to members here to say so.

Subscribers to the 'Whitewash' theory also include Pat Brown and Goncalo Amaral!

[ShuBob]

When did Amaral subscribe to the whitewash theory? Has he spoken since the ground search in PdL started?

PS: I've never really subscribed to anything PB has said though I respect her opinion.

[Tony Bennett]

I always thought the decoy theory was a bit crazy. What I find strange about the Smith sighting is that they did not immediately report it to police, as far as I can see. The police statements appear to be on 26th May.

That's correct. IF they saw anyone at all, day after day, while Madeleine was at the top of news bulletins in Portugal, Ireland throughout that 13-day period, why did they all remain silent? Martin Smith himself was in Praia da Luz on 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 May and on each day (so it is claimed) he must have had a valid reason for not disclosing his sighting to the police. I can't think of one

Nevertheless, it is clear that, from the moment they knew that Madeleine had disappeared, at least some members of the family made a connection between the child being carried that evening and Madeleine's disappearance.

Actually, j.rob, that is NOT clear. It appears that their recollections were triggered by Peter Smith (allegedly) ringing up his father, Martin, on 16 May (13 days later) and saying: "Dad, do you remember seeing a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz before we left?"

And they are certain that the child COULD have been Madeleine. So why the delay in reporting this sighting to police?

One of several leading lines of circumstantial evidence that lead one to doubt whether their tale is true.

And when they contacted police in September, stating that they thought the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann (after seeing him coming down the steps of the plane carrying his son in a similar manner). Why did they wait that long if there was even a hint of an idea that the man could have been Gerry?  

Another good question.

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that (1) the Smiths clearly know him and (2) Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

These two very factual matters that you have raised clearly give rise to that suggestion.

If the Smith sighting is fabricated (and there were a lot of people in the group that night so that's a lot of people who have to make it up - or maybe they DID see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Madeleine or Gerry?!) then what was the reason for the fabrication? 

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

I think it is beyond dispute that there has been a massive cover-up. The very high level support and so on. Plus an obliging media. And it has cost millions of pounds.

High level suppport, obliging media - Yes and Yyes.

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

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

[Cristobell]

Maybe Smithman is Gerry with another child, not as a decoy as such but rather as a shield or distraction in the event of him being seen, as he does a final check on the burial place he had sourced earlier in the day .

I thought that HelenMeg's 'decoy' theory about Smithman was about as convoluted as you could get, but evidently I was wrong, you have come up with something even more unlikely.

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

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

Thank for your kind response.
The decoy idea seems absurd to me too.
The Smith sighting seems plausible .
Surely GM didn,t carry his dead daughter.
Just trying to marry all the posibilities together.
Truth is a rare visitor to TM hopefully justice will visit them.

'Surely GM didn't carry his dead daughter.'

I don't think you've thought this through. If (quite a big if, but not that huge) Smithman was GM, then of course he was carrying his dead daughter. He had a problem to solve, and, it seems, he solved it rather cleverly. Though perhaps fate is catching up with him now.

I agree, Gerry had to remove the body pdq, perhaps their plans were going awry?  I also have serious doubts about the timeline - that is the exact time the alarm was raised by Kate. The McCanns and tapas group all say 10.00pm, but some of the locals say it was earlier.  The sighting by the Smith family is fixed by their bar bill, 9.50 I believe, therefore they were cutting it very fine.  We must remember however, that they were all in a state of high anxiety, and as doctors 'overthinking' every possible scenario, especially if everything has gone wrong with Plan A.  They probably spent so long planning what they were going to do, that they did not notice the clock ticking away and were left with Plan Z, a mad dash towards the beach.  

The urgent need of the parents and the tapas mob to physically write down their alibis on the torn off cover of one of Madeleine's books in the aftermath, suggests panic.  I don't think they were trying to get the timeline straight for the police, so much as for themselves. Everyone knows, if you write something down, you are more likely to remember it.  This lot were sat round the table preparing for an exam the next day.

[Tangled Web]

Seeing as Smithman is still being discussed here, I have two questions if that's ok.

1) If 'Smithman' was Gerry carrying a 'decoy' child, surely somebody saw him returning with that child so where are the witness statements supporting this?

2) If 'Smithman' was Gerry carrying Madeleine, surely somebody would still have seen him on his return, even if empty handed. So where are these witness statements?

Witnesses will have been asked what/who they saw around 10 p.m in the vicinity.

Thanks.

Tangled Web.

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

LATEST NEWS

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 54s
Diário de Noticias @dntwit reports that some inorganic material was found, it might be clothes or any other object. #McCann

[Research_Reader]

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that (1) the Smiths clearly know him and (2) Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

These two very factual matters that you have raised clearly give rise to that suggestion.

How do we know that the Smiths know Robert Murat?

[Tony Bennett]

When did Amaral subscribe to the whitewash theory?

Er, Shubob, the whitewash theory, namely that the British government, the British police, the Foreign Office, the security services and MI5 were all collaborating to frustrate his investigation, and cover up something, was a thread running right through his first book on the case.

Should there have been any doubt about that, just to clinch it for once and for all, he then wrote a second book 'The English Gag'.

I am sure he has very very good legal reasons now for not speaking out too much about the current antics of Operation Grange - though I think he did appear on a Portuguese TV programme not long ago and I don't recall him endorsing Redwood's investigation then, do you?

[Naz_Nomad]

AHHH!!! I am cursing like a sailor. I had a look at the Mail and was surprised how far down the Search story was BUT then I looked at the comments which I usually ignore. TM must have brought in reinforcements to lament over the poor parents and the nasty Portuguese.
It is so upsetting.

I've found quite the opposite on Yahoo News. Usually, their are a half dozen "Pro McCann" , but in the last couple of days, almost all gone.

Re:- Daily Mail comments. I am absolutely appalled at many DM posters lack of basic knowledge of this case. I've seen posters slagging off the "Spanish Police" who hindered the search for "Mandy", for example. I'm sure others have seen stuff just as bad.

[Guest]

I have asked many times, please discuss Smithman on relevant threads. This is to discuss the dig and findings

[RIPM]

The way in which the body is laid to rest also gives clues as to who buried the child.  A parent for example, despite the heinous thing they are about to do, will ensure the body is wrapped and perhaps even given a treasured possession.  A stranger wouldn't bother with any niceities, in fact in most cases, they wouldn't bother to dig a grave, they would discard the body at the earliest opportunity.

"A Parent will ensure the body is wrapped"

I'm sorry but this is total nonsense.

If you seriously believe what you have written, check out the case of Fred West, a notorious British murderer and what he did to his own daughter, Heather.  Cutting her into chunks and putting her under his own patio, to name but one case of which sadly, there are many where parents have disposed of their children as rubbish.

 Your thoughts that a parent would show respect, is commendable but lacks reality and closed minds will never look objectively.

People do the most depraved things and that includes parents

[ShuBob]

Does anyone know if Amaral has spoken about the current activity just as PB has done? Thanks.

[Tony Bennett]

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that (1) the Smiths clearly know him and (2) Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

These two very factual matters that you have raised clearly give rise to that suggestion.

How do we know that the Smiths know Robert Murat?

Please see the Smithman threads here, RR, but briefly Martin Smith has made at least three separate statements in which he has said the following:

* I know Murat, we've met each other in bars in Praia da Luz

* I know him well enough to be certain that 'Smithman' wasn't him

* I have known him for at least two years

* I have an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex and come to Praia to Luz several times a year.

It is of course quite possible that he knows Murat even better than he admits to.

If you can't find all these references, please tell me (have a look yourself first), and when I have a moment, I'll try to locate them for you. Maybe someone else can find them?

[Research_Reader]

Thanks Tony, much appreciated.

The other thing I want to look into is the position of the current search area in relation to where Sergei Malinka was living.

[Praia]

Malinka lived in a tall apt block right beside the reported Smith sighting. So to the east of the search area, very close.

[Cristobell]

Maybe Smithman is Gerry with another child, not as a decoy as such but rather as a shield or distraction in the event of him being seen, as he does a final check on the burial place he had sourced earlier in the day .

I thought that HelenMeg's 'decoy' theory about Smithman was about as convoluted as you could get, but evidently I was wrong, you have come up with something even more unlikely.

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

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

I always thought the decoy theory was a bit crazy. What I find strange about the Smith sighting is that they did not immediately report it to police, as far as I can see. The police statements appear to be on 26th May. Nevertheless, it is clear that, from the moment they knew that Madeleine had disappeared, at least some members of the family made a connection between the child being carried that evening and Madeleine's disappearance. And they are certain that the child COULD have been Madeleine.

So why the delay in reporting this sighting to police?

And when they contacted police in September, stating that they thought the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann (after seeing him coming down the steps of the plane carrying his son in a similar manner). Why did they wait that long if there was even a hint of an idea that the man could have been Gerry?  

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that the Smiths clearly know him and Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

If the Smith sighting is fabricated (and there were a lot of people in the group that night so that's a lot of people who have to make it up - or maybe they DID see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Madeleine or Gerry?!) then what was the reason for the fabrication? 

As realistic as your conspiracy theory involving millions of pounds and from the very top of the powers that be, without a rational reason for what and why.



I think it is beyond dispute that there has been a massive cover-up. The very high level support and so on. Plus an obliging media. And it has cost millions of pounds.

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

Robert Murat has been investigated to within an inch of his life, he was exonerated by the PJ very early in the investigation.  Why so little faith in the PJ? 

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

[Tony Bennett]

Does anyone know if Amaral has spoken about the current activity just as PB has done? Thanks.

I think the last time he spoke out was in the CMTV discussion programme, aired in November 2013, just after BBC Crimewatch had transmitted an extraordinarily selective reconstruction, which left out all kinds of events on the evening of 3 May 2007, not least the highly disputed claimed visit of Dr David Payne to apartment G5A at around 6.30pm.

The accounts given by Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann of that alleged visit were so contradictory that it was realistic to question whether it actually took place or not. Further, Fiona Payne said she was there when the other two said she wasn't!

Here is what Dr Amaral said in that November 2013 programme about Payne, which I think, ShuBob, might well suggest that he still very much subscribes to the 'whitewash' theory:

QUOTE

Gonçalo Amaral

This is a figure that, I use to say, that is enigmatic, and who was not well investigated. Not a lot is known about this person. What weight did it have in the disappearance, if it had any weight at all, and what was going on there with that individual. One is this one, the 30 minutes or the 30 seconds, what he went there to do. The other one is the fact that he always cared to bathe the other people’s daughters.  Then there is the other moment, that of the obscene gestures he made, in Spain, in Mallorca, where there is a denunciation in May 2007, ten days after the disappearance, by another doctor, who was also on holidays, who knows him and tells the English police about said obscene gestures in the presence of the father.

UNQUOTE

[HelenMeg]

Maybe Smithman is Gerry with another child, not as a decoy as such but rather as a shield or distraction in the event of him being seen, as he does a final check on the burial place he had sourced earlier in the day .

I thought that HelenMeg's 'decoy' theory about Smithman was about as convoluted as you could get, but evidently I was wrong, you have come up with something even more unlikely.

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

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

I always thought the decoy theory was a bit crazy. What I find strange about the Smith sighting is that they did not immediately report it to police, as far as I can see. The police statements appear to be on 26th May. Nevertheless, it is clear that, from the moment they knew that Madeleine had disappeared, at least some members of the family made a connection between the child being carried that evening and Madeleine's disappearance. And they are certain that the child COULD have been Madeleine.

So why the delay in reporting this sighting to police?

And when they contacted police in September, stating that they thought the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann (after seeing him coming down the steps of the plane carrying his son in a similar manner). Why did they wait that long if there was even a hint of an idea that the man could have been Gerry?  

Was it possibly to help get Murat off the hook? Given that the Smiths clearly know him and Mr Smith stated with conviction that he was sure the man was not Murat?

If the Smith sighting is fabricated (and there were a lot of people in the group that night so that's a lot of people who have to make it up - or maybe they DID see someone carrying a child but it wasn't Madeleine or Gerry?!) then what was the reason for the fabrication? 

As realistic as your conspiracy theory involving millions of pounds and from the very top of the powers that be, without a rational reason for what and why.



I think it is beyond dispute that there has been a massive cover-up. The very high level support and so on. Plus an obliging media. And it has cost millions of pounds.

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

Robert Murat has been investigated to within an inch of his life, he was exonerated by the PJ very early in the investigation.  Why so little faith in the PJ? 

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

I am trying to find a thread on which Smithman can be discussed  -  the one I found was locked.
I think there are others besides me who feel that Smithman may have been Gerry with another child.
Tony is adamant it is a convoluted theory - I disagree but we cant discuss it here.

[ShuBob]

Does anyone know if Amaral has spoken about the current activity just as PB has done? Thanks.

I think the last time he spoke out was in the CMTV discussion programme, aired in November 2013, just after BBC Crimewatch had transmitted an extraordinarily selective reconstruction, which left out all kinds

Snip

So the answer is no, he hasn't spoken since the recent activity started unlike PB.

Thanks Tony.

[haroldd2]

Who owns search areas 2 and 3, near the church? Is it the Church? Are they cordoned off and guarded?

Do people think a priest blessed the grave?

My guess is that the body isn't in search area 1.

I wonder what information was recorded on the hire car's onboard computers? Did the PJ or their foreign colleagues retrieve this?

[annemab]

Candyfloss, please can you remove the Smith man discussions into another thread? The latest news that inorganic material has been found has gone unnoticed in this thread due to all the Smith man posts!

I wonder if it is true that they have found anything, and whether it is relevant?