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

Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by cassius on 07.06.14 1:01

@Halfwit wrote:I agree with CynicAl and View-from-Ireland.

I believe the Smiths reported what they briefly saw. I live in a small Spanish town (I call it a village) and in general at all times of day or night when you pass someone in an otherwise empty street you generally acknowledge each other. Sometimes I forget and don't because I have things on my mind.

As previous posters have said, the fact that the 12 year old girl noticed the buttons on the man's trousers is exactly the sort of detail that a girl of that age would be looking at. Smith parents in a relaxed mood would be doing the accepted thing and looking at the passer-by to give a brief acknowledgement.

I see nothing suspicious about their report.

Even if anyone ever gets to the root of this business I think it's utterly ridiculous to cast aspersions on this family who witnessed a passerby and reported their experience.
Agreed.

cassius

Posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-15
Age : 92
Location : hmp barlinnie

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 07.06.14 14:16

Kate, on page 328 of her book, writes: "Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other remember - Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. 

Given that everything Kate writes is there for a reason. 

I think Kate's attempt to morph Tanner-man into Smith-man is patently desperate. I never found the two descriptions that similar at all. Tanner-man is of a Mediterranean appearance (very dark hair) whereas Smith-man is of a more British appearance - mid-brown hair, not very dark. That alone makes the descriptions quite different.

And the fact that she has included a sentence saying that the Irish witnesses could not have been influenced by Jane Tanner's description raises a red flag to me. 

Apart from anything, Jane Tanner's 'Tanner-man' was  made public on 25th May 2007 and the Smith's visited Portugal to give statements on the 26th May 2007. I presume the description was all over the papers during those two days. And given the considerable interest that the Smiths by now would have had in the case, surely it is inconceivable that they would not have seen the description of Tanner-man?

In any event,  it is patently not true that Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements.  Jane's 'Tanner-man' was made public on 25th May 2007. Kate's written that on page 154 of her book. 

And it is on police record, in black and white, that the Smith family travelled  to Portugal and spent all day being interviewed by police on 26th May 2007.

And is anyone going to tell me that during that entire day, at no time did the Smith family refer to the not public 'Tanner-man' . I imagine that the Smith family would have had considerable interest in the 'Tanner-man' sighting from the moment it was made public. 

Or from the moment that they may have been made aware of Jane Tanner's description which (and I'm not sure how police investigations work but someone might know) could possibly be before Tanner-man was made public.

After all, the Smiths spoke to the Portuguese police I think around 2 weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably at the time that the Smiths first spoke to police, the police would have been very keen indeed to establish whether the Smith sighting bore any resemblance to Jane Tanners sighting. 

We know that the Portuguese police did not find Jane Tanner a particularly convincing witness. And they held back publishing Jane's description for just over three weeks. Presumably because they did not have much faith in it.

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark. 

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

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 07.06.14 14:21

And is anyone going to tell me that during that entire day, at no time did the Smith family refer to the not public 'Tanner-man' . I imagine that the Smith family would have had considerable interest in the 'Tanner-man' sighting from the moment it was made public. 


Oops - that should read NOW public. The point being, that even if they had not been aware of Jane Tanner's description before it was made public, surely they would be aware of it AFTER it was made public?

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by kevmack on 08.06.14 1:56

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.


this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi.   Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.


There was an altercation in the street next to where I live, a couple of months ago, someone tried to grab a handbag from an elderly woman, they failed to get the bag as the woman shouted out, and lots of people turned round, so he legged it, now I didn't see his face at all, just his clothing, height, hairstyle etc, but if the police were appealing for witnesses and had arrested one of the guys who works on the fruit and veg stand in the street, I would have contacted them, given them the bit of info that I had, but would have been categorically able to say that the fruit and veg guy was not the perp...don't know him, buy some veggies from him from time to time, but don't even know his name, yet, if I thought he had been arrested for the attempted mugging, I would definitely have to say something about what I saw, and the fact that although I didn't have very much useful information, that I could be sure that it wasn't the person who they currently had under suspicion.  


I really don't understand why M Smith being able to say it wasn't Murat is that big of a deal when you put in in perspective, the example I gave above is just one of many potential scenarios, perhaps the Smiths didn't think that much about what they saw and the time and it wasn't until later, and they saw Murat being splashed across the media that they thought...well hang on, yes we did see a bloke with a kid that night, but it sure as heck wasn't Murat.

kevmack

Posts : 238
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by SixMillionQuid on 08.06.14 7:56

@kevmack wrote:
It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.


this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi.   Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.
In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT.
He would have recognised him immediately.


He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.


Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

SixMillionQuid

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by kevmack on 08.06.14 15:43

@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@kevmack wrote:
It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.


this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi.   Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.
In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT.
He would have recognised him immediately.


He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.


Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.
He didn't need to be asked though, he would be well aware of all of the news reports by that time, naming Murat as an arguido, and like in the example I gave above, if, after witnessing an event, and knowing that someone was being accused of the crime, when the person I saw was definitely not the person I had witnessed committing the crime, then I would offer that information to the police myself.

kevmack

Posts : 238
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Guest on 08.06.14 17:40

Trying to recognise a so far unknown person from photos, is quite different from recognising [60-80%] someone in a line-up [which is comparable to seeing some on television]. To be honest, I would sometimes not even recognise myself from a photo ...  winkwink 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Woofer on 08.06.14 18:22

"http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. "


So there are occasions when RM does not wear glasses.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 08.06.14 19:24

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.




It's quite a long time from August 2006 until May 2007. Murat's appearance could have changed. 


When I first read the comment above, I assumed that 'he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time,' was referring to Martin Smith! Which could have suggested that Martin Smith hadn't been able to see Murat very well on that particular occasion. 


If it is Martin Smith referring to Murat, it is a slightly odd thing to say, imo. Given that the purpose of what he is saying to police is to give an indication of how well he knew Murat, how often he had seen him, when he had seen him and so on.


In other words to indicate the degree of accuracy with which he would be able to state that the man he saw was or was not Robert Murat. Presumably, the police would be interested in finding out how well the Smith family knew Robert Murat. (And if they knew the McCanns and/or any of their friends). Because that would indicate whether their testimony was entirely unbiased. 


I am not necessarily suggesting their testimony was unbiased. I am simply pointing out that it is important to try to establish whether witnesses have any other agenda.


Unless he knew Robert reasonably well, or had seen him more recently, surely he couldn't know for sure whether Murat had changed his appearance since the summer of 2006.


In which case, would it not have been a bit more realistic to introduce a slight element of uncertainty as in: 'pretty sure it was not Murat. But can't be 100% as I only met him twice and it was last year. 


If it was me, I would not state with absolute conviction something like that unless


1. I knew the person  well.
2. I had seem them recently so had an up-to-date picture of what they looked like in my mind.
3. Lighting and views were very good and unobscured by darkness etc.


But that's just me.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 08.06.14 19:26

Sorry that sentence should read: 'I am not necessarily suggesting their testimony IS biased.'

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 08.06.14 19:35

And IF the Smith family DO know Robert Murat well, then, given Murat's exceedingly close relationship with Portuguese police (acting as translator in all the early police interviews) one might have to possibly explore any potential conflicts of interest.

Whatever is the case, RM seems to have many, many contacts. And the Smith family do own an apartment in Luz and go several times a year I think it was reported. So they are likely to have more of a local network than if it had just been a 'one -off' holiday.

They could, for instance, be part of an ex-pat scene.

And I do believe they co-own the property with someone else so it would be interesting to know who that was and whether they had any Luz connections, apart from co-owning a property in Luz.

One thing that has really characterized this case is the enormous amount of 'co-incidences' that there seem to be with all sorts of links between what could be principal 'players' and key witnesses.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Praiaaa on 09.06.14 6:56

It does seem more and more like and Agatha Christie with interwoven links. If this were an AC, would have been wrapped up in 20 chapters by Smithman being GM's estranged twin bro', who had donated sperm for the IVF, and was taking back his daughter  big grin

Praiaaa

Posts : 419
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by fossey on 09.06.14 11:00



Previous

fossey

Posts : 293
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Guest on 09.06.14 11:27

@fossey wrote:



Previous

 spit coffee 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Justformaddie on 09.06.14 21:20

@admin wrote:
@fossey wrote:



Previous

 spit coffee 
Trying to jog anyone's memory  friends

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Guest on 10.06.14 11:09

@kevmack wrote:
@SixMillionQuid wrote:
@kevmack wrote:
It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.


this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi.   Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.
In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT.
He would have recognised him immediately.


He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.


Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.
He didn't need to be asked though, he would be well aware of all of the news reports by that time, naming Murat as an arguido, and like in the example I gave above, if, after witnessing an event, and knowing that someone was being accused of the crime, when the person I saw was definitely not the person I had witnessed committing the crime, then I would offer that information to the police myself.

Completely agree with this and your earlier post. The Smith sighting seems to me to be perfectly in line with a group of people walking past a stranger, not consciously taking in many physical details because they're not aware of any need to, having filtered out the information that it's not one of their circle of acquaintances. Surely we all do this every time we walk down our local high street? We usually recognise and talk to people we know without having looked carefully at each and every passer by.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 10.06.14 15:20

From what I can see from the witness statements and from media interviews, there are some puzzles and inconsistencies in the Smith statements.

1. Even though Martin Smith states that the day after Madeleine disappeared he though that the child he saw being carried by a man the night before might be Madeleine, he does not contact the police for two weeks. Neither do any of the other members of the Smith group of nine people which comprised of four adults and five children, despite the fact that they all saw this person and were all aware of Madeleine's 'abduction'. 


2. In his first police statement Martin Smith says he saw Robert Murat twice in May and August 06. But in a newspaper report on 8th August 2007, a family member is reported as saying: The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' In a Daily Mail report on 3rd January 2008 Martin Smith is reported as 'insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years.'  Did he know him 'non-visually' too?! For instance, the time he saw him in a bar inebriated in 2006 and he 'spoke to everyone'. That presumably means that Murat spoke to Mr Smith on at that one occasion or vice versa. 


3. In the Daily Mail report  the family appear to make a link between the Jane Tanner sighting and their sighting and the 'coincidence' prompted them to contact police. In this report Martin Smith is quoted as saying: "Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small." Yet in his police statement of May 2007 he says: "it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season." Yes - normal in the height of the holiday season but, as Mr Smith told reporters from the Mail in Jan 08, at the time of year that Madeleine 'disappeared' Luz was "very,very quiet" so much so that the likelihood of seeing two separate incidents of young children being carried around would be very small. So why, if it was so quiet at that time of year and not usual to see many young children being carried around, did none of the Smith family report their sighting of a girl who looked like Madeleine when they heard about the 'abduction'? Surely they would have been struck by the 'coincidence' of having seen a girl looking like Madeleine being carried around on the evening she disappeared the moment they found out about the 'abduction', especially given how quiet the resort was.


4. In Amaral's book, Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not himThe father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.  Why did Martin Smith become 'almost certain' it was Madeleine at this particular point in time? Why not earlier? The Jane Tanner sighting gives no description of Madeleine's face. Whereas in their police statement it is apparent that they did see the  girl's face. And he also states that in the family's opinion the girl they saw could have been Madeleine. So why did not one of them report this earlier? 


5; In Amaral's book, he describes how the Smiths, having seen Gerry on TV carrying Sean from the airplane coming back from Portugal in september 2007 are convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann. Why did they become 'convinced' at this particular time? In his police statement he says: Regarding the individual he states that: His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.  SO I just don't understand how, months later, he can be so sure that it was Gerry McCann.




From Martin Smith 26th May 2007 police statement: 


As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. 



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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. 


Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not use glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

From Drogheda Independent. August 8, 2007:

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.'


Daily Mail, 3rd Jan 08


"None of us was 100 per cent sure what he was wearing but we all told police he was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s. I didnt think he was Portuguese." Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him.
 
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."


Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.
 
Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."
 
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
 
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.


From 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amaral. Ch 8:

Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.



Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199

- Sept 2007, McCanns return to UK

- Gerry exits the plane, carrying his son against his left shoulder, the child's arms down along his sides, down the stairs and across the tarmack Gerry walks

- The Smith family see this recording on the news at 22h00 and are hit hard: they know this person, this way of carrying a child and of walking. It is Gerry McCann, they believe with a high degree of certainty, that they saw on 3 May at about 22h00, carrying a 4 yr old girl who appeared to be deeply asleep

- The father contacts the police to communicate this new information. He says he has not slept since 9 Sept and is very upset. It's as if he re-lived the night he saw the man carrying the child. Seeing Gerry walk and carry the child, awoke something in his head...

- Still not completely convinced, he watches the news again on ITV and also on Sky. 

- No, there are no doubts. Gerry McCann looks just like the same person he saw carrying the child on May 3.

- Smith, upset and worried about what he saw and has concluded, needs the investigators to contact him.


 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by SixMillionQuid on 10.06.14 15:56

@jrob, good post.

This is why I believe something else caused him to point the ID Gerry.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

SixMillionQuid

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Guest on 12.06.14 14:26

@j.rob wrote:From what I can see from the witness statements and from media interviews, there are some puzzles and inconsistencies in the Smith statements.

1. Even though Martin Smith states that the day after Madeleine disappeared he though that the child he saw being carried by a man the night before might be Madeleine, he does not contact the police for two weeks. Neither do any of the other members of the Smith group of nine people which comprised of four adults and five children, despite the fact that they all saw this person and were all aware of Madeleine's 'abduction'. 

He says he thought it might have been Madeleine but he wasn't sure. He didn't see the man's face, he's used to lots of people carrying their kids around at night and didn't want to point the finger at an innocent dad. Perhaps he also thought it very unlikely that a child abductor would be walking around with a stolen child that far from where she went missing. Maybe (like many others) he thought the kind of person who abducted kids might use a car or get themselves under cover fast. Also the child didn't really look like an abducted child - she seemed very relaxed, sleeping in the man's arms, hence the assumption that he was a father bringing his own child home. Surely a small child being carried off by a stranger would be panicking and making a noise?

2. In his first police statement Martin Smith says he saw Robert Murat twice in May and August 06. But in a newspaper report on 8th August 2007, a family member is reported as saying: The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' In a Daily Mail report on 3rd January 2008 Martin Smith is reported as 'insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years.'  Did he know him 'non-visually' too?! For instance, the time he saw him in a bar inebriated in 2006 and he 'spoke to everyone'. That presumably means that Murat spoke to Mr Smith on at that one occasion or vice versa. 

This family member is his son, I think. Martin Smith himself seems to be quite consistent about how well he knows Murat. He seems to know him very casually from having seen him around local bars. I imagine English-speaking expats in a small place like Praia da Luz do get to know each other a little after a while. It doesn't mean they're friends, or that they've arranged to spend time with each other. The number of times Martin Smith may have casually been aware of Murat in the same bar would not necessarily be known to every member of the Smith family, unless Martin Smith never goes out without his son.

3. In the Daily Mail report  the family appear to make a link between the Jane Tanner sighting and their sighting and the 'coincidence' prompted them to contact police. In this report Martin Smith is quoted as saying: "Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small." Yet in his police statement of May 2007 he says: "it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season." Yes - normal in the height of the holiday season but, as Mr Smith told reporters from the Mail in Jan 08, at the time of year that Madeleine 'disappeared' Luz was "very,very quiet" so much so that the likelihood of seeing two separate incidents of young children being carried around would be very small. So why, if it was so quiet at that time of year and not usual to see many young children being carried around, did none of the Smith family report their sighting of a girl who looked like Madeleine when they heard about the 'abduction'? Surely they would have been struck by the 'coincidence' of having seen a girl looking like Madeleine being carried around on the evening she disappeared the moment they found out about the 'abduction', especially given how quiet the resort was.
See above.

4. In Amaral's book, Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not himThe father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.  Why did Martin Smith become 'almost certain' it was Madeleine at this particular point in time? Why not earlier? The Jane Tanner sighting gives no description of Madeleine's face. Whereas in their police statement it is apparent that they did see the  girl's face. And he also states that in the family's opinion the girl they saw could have been Madeleine. So why did not one of them report this earlier? 
Didn't this happen after the Smiths saw the news footage of Gerry carrying one of the twins down the aeroplane steps? If it happened before that, I'd be interested to know, but I've always believed that Mr Smith's certainty about Robert Murat postdates his recognition of Gerry.

5; In Amaral's book, he describes how the Smiths, having seen Gerry on TV carrying Sean from the airplane coming back from Portugal in september 2007 are convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann. Why did they become 'convinced' at this particular time? In his police statement he says: Regarding the individual he states that: His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.  SO I just don't understand how, months later, he can be so sure that it was Gerry McCann.
Why did he become convinced then? Because he recognised Gerry. Because even though he hadn't seen the child carrier's face, something about his build, gait, musculature and way of holding a small child fell into place and rang bells for Mr Smith. If he recognised Gerry as the man carrying the child they saw that night, then obviously the man carrying the child becomes significant. Gerry is very much connected to Madeleine and therefore worth telling the police about, whereas before perhaps Mr Smith felt unconvinced that what he and his family saw that night was actually a "sighting", as opposed to an ordinary bloke and his kid. Once Smith believed Gerry McCann was the man, he would obviously be equally sure that Robert Murat was not.


From Martin Smith 26th May 2007 police statement: 


As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. 



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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. 


Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not use glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

From Drogheda Independent. August 8, 2007:

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.'


Daily Mail, 3rd Jan 08


"None of us was 100 per cent sure what he was wearing but we all told police he was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s. I didnt think he was Portuguese." Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him.
 
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."


Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.
 
Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."
 
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
 
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.


From 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amaral. Ch 8:

Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.



Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199

- Sept 2007, McCanns return to UK

- Gerry exits the plane, carrying his son against his left shoulder, the child's arms down along his sides, down the stairs and across the tarmack Gerry walks

- The Smith family see this recording on the news at 22h00 and are hit hard: they know this person, this way of carrying a child and of walking. It is Gerry McCann, they believe with a high degree of certainty, that they saw on 3 May at about 22h00, carrying a 4 yr old girl who appeared to be deeply asleep

- The father contacts the police to communicate this new information. He says he has not slept since 9 Sept and is very upset. It's as if he re-lived the night he saw the man carrying the child. Seeing Gerry walk and carry the child, awoke something in his head...

- Still not completely convinced, he watches the news again on ITV and also on Sky. 

- No, there are no doubts. Gerry McCann looks just like the same person he saw carrying the child on May 3.

- Smith, upset and worried about what he saw and has concluded, needs the investigators to contact him.


 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

Thanks for your very detailed and thoughtful post J Rob. I don't have an axe to grind on this one – never having met the Smiths – but I'm inclined to believe them. Perhaps one of the main reasons is that I've yet to hear a convincing reason for them making this sighting up. Also, I guess I don't think the 'puzzles and inconsistencies' are as damning as you do, and I've tried to add an alternate explanation (in green) to the points you make.
Either way, the thing that has always interested me most about this sighting is not so much who - if anyone - the Smith family saw, but the McCanns' reaction to it.
I have heard some posters claim that the McCanns "promoted" this sighting, but it always seemed to me that their promotion of it served mainly to conflate it with Jane Tanner's sighting, whereas a "creepy" man seen by Gail Cooper several days before the McCanns set foot in Praia da Luz – who was merely seen hanging around harmlessly – got a Clarence Mitchell press conference, police-style sketch and massive coverage.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwmaddieskidnapper.jpg&target=tlx_pic6psu
Then there was the woman seen in Barcelona days after Madeleine's disappearance – who was also not committing a crime or in the company of a Maddie-like child – who got similar coverage simply because she asked a British stag-night attendee if he'd seen her daughter (or words to that effect).
Quite why a man who was allegedly seen by a large family group walking through Praia da Luz carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description at the very time she went missing was not therefore deemed worthy of a massive press conference beats me. Even if Mr Smith did think he looked like Gerry, the McCanns must surely have known that it had to be someone else, so you'd think they'd have rushed to give that sighting maximum exposure asap - as Scotland Yard have now done.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by j.rob on 13.06.14 16:25

.He says he thought it might have been Madeleine but he wasn't sure.

Okay, fair enough. 

But after watching the news and learning about the Jane Tanner sighting and the suspicions falling upon Murat, he goes from 'not being sure' whether the child was Madeleine, to being 'almost certain' that the girl he saw was Madeleine. 

As time passes, you would expect the memory of an event to fade. The recollection of what you saw would become less sharp, not more sharp. Jane Tanner's Tannerman does not show the child's face at all. So there is nothing specific in the Tannerman description that would enhance his memory of the child he saw.

It makes me wonder if it is possible that he knew Murat(or had friends/family who knew Murat and his wider family) was concerned that he was being 'framed'. Or perhaps the co-owner of the flat knew Murat. A lot of people locally would have known RM.


 Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he 
Didn't this happen after the Smiths saw the news footage of Gerry carrying one of the twins down the aeroplane steps? If it happened before that, I'd be interested to know, but I've always believed that Mr Smith's certainty about Robert Murat postdates his recognition of Gerry.


Not according to Amaral's book. According to him, the Smith family only contact the police AFTER learning of Jane Tanner's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

At this point, Mr Smith simply states that Tannerman is NOT Robert Murat.

It is not until September 07 when Mr Smith sees Gerry on TV carrying Sean down the steps of the plane back from Portugal that he becomes convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann.



It's a long time later. And given that in the earlier descriptions, the Smith family report it was quite dark that evening. 

I'm not necessarily making any judgement about their statements. 

But it is impossible to ignore the fact that Robert Murat was very closely involved in the initial police investigation as he acted as translator. So there are potentially conflicts of interest here. 

In any event, would Gerry really be mad enough to carry his own daughter away from the resort at the precise time that the alarm was being raised? Surely that would be complete madness? It just doesn't make sense. So much risk of being seen - going in a direction away from the resort rather than back to the resort? What possible excuse would he had come up with if, say, the whole Smith family had gone to police that very evening and said that they were pretty sure they saw Gerry carrying Madeleine in that direction that night?

One of them could even have taken a photo on a mobile as he scuttled away. How could he have extricated himself from that?

IMO, IF the Smith family did see a man who looked like Gerry carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine it is more likely to have been:

1. Someone else (who was involved in the plot) carrying Madeleine (but again, incredibly risky move to do this at 10pm).

2. Someone else who looked like Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine. 

Why the latter, given that it had the potential to incriminate Gerry? Perhaps because they could 'morph' the Tannerman sighting with who-ever this was. Perhaps to add weight to the 'abduction' theory. Perhaps to confuse everyone. Perhaps to have a decoy in place. Just as no-one can 'prove' that Jane Tanner saw Tanner-man, no one can 'prove' that the man the Smith family saw (or didn't see) was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine.

I still think there is something incredibly weird about Jez Wilkins just happening to be pushing his pram around the resort at a crucial time that evening. Especially as in his first statement to police on Friday 4th May he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant that night. And then completely changes his version of events.

What the hell is all that about??

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

There are only 5 possibilities

Post by PeterMac on 11.08.14 10:05

As far as I can make out Smithman allows of only five possibilities.

1  He did not exist.   In this case we are looking at a massive Conspiracy to commit Perjury, and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, involving several people, including a child.

2  He did exist. In this case there are then three FOUR possibilities
a)  It was Gerry carrying Madeleine
b)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying Madeleine
c)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine    (using the language of formal logic)
d)  It was Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine

2 a) is inherently extremely unlikely for reasons of timing.  Gerry was doing other things around the apartment at 10pm
2 b) is inherently unlikely given the evidence of the dogs, forged Last Photo, ludicrous descriptions of their activities during 3/5/7 and so on
2 c) is most probable.  It involves no conspiracy, no having to account for the 'evidence' of dogs etc, no retro-fitting
2 d) is possible, but in my view highly unlikely for a number of reasons. These include finding an equivalent child, roping the parents into a further Conspiracy, relying on being seen at all by someone who would then report the sighting, (this could have taken a long time) relying on NOT being seen returning to the apartment with the child, and so on

Which is why I tend towards 2 c)

EDITED IN BLUE in the LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION - for which many thanks

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 11.08.14 10:27

@PeterMac wrote:As far as I can make out Smithman allows of only four possibilities.

1  He did not exist.   In this case we are looking at a massive Conspiracy to commit Perjury, and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, involving several people, including a child.

2  He did exist. In this case there are then three possibilities
a)  It was Gerry carrying Madeleine
b)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying Madeleine
c)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine    (using the language of formal logic)

2 a) is inherently extremely unlikely for reasons of timing.  Gerry was doing other things around the apartment at 10pm
2 b) is inherently unlikely given the evidence of the dogs, forged Last Photo, ludicrous descriptions of their activities during 3/5/7 and so on
2 c) is most probable.  It involves no conspiracy, no having to account for the 'evidence' of dogs etc, no retro-fitting

Which is why I tend towards 2 c)
2d)  It was Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine


Quite possibly Peter. Re elimination of option 2a).....how can we be sure what GM's movements were at that time ? Surely we are not relying on T9 timelines for conformation of this ?


You may well be right Peter, but my 2d suggestion is one that I have personally gone with for some time. Despite the theories put forward, I do believe the Smiths to be genuine.


IMO of course.

Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 343
Reputation : 140
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by PeterMac on 11.08.14 10:43

Many thanks for the correction.
I have amended the previous posting.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by tiny on 11.08.14 10:43

I also believe the Smith family, i also believe it was Gerry carrying Madeleine.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Post by PeterMac on 11.08.14 10:45

@tiny wrote:I also believe the Smith family, i also believe it was Gerry carrying Madeleine.
Do you therefore dismiss the dogs alerts, the forged Last Photo, the blue tennis bag and so on.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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