Re: SMITHMAN 3 - The e-fits - two different people, or the same man?

by Newintown 21.09.14 15:32

Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.

Welcome to the members' "to be banned" list if you ever overstep the mark again after a good telling off.

People can insult others on the forum as much as they want but it won't change their opinion whether it's the McCanns or others who are trying to dissuade them from the obvious facts that are staring everyone in the face.

by Guest 21.09.14 15:35

Thank you for the reply, Tony. So you believe the e-fits to be a mischievous portrayal of two people vaguely connected to the case but not in PdL at the time.

I get that, but why did Exton and Halligan produce them? Were they always intended to represent the man seen by the Smiths, falsely? Or was they originally produced by them for another purpose and it is Redwood that has hijacked them and decided they will be the 'face' of Smithman?

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 15:56

Markus 2 wrote:
Madeleine McCann: Key witness accuses Portuguese police of not taking his vital prime suspect evidence seriously. Cannot see the whole family making this up, even thought the McCanns don;t believe it.

INTERESTING IT IS JUST THIS ONE PICTURE IN THE PAPER

REPLY: Yes, fascinating in fact given that DCI Redwood and the BBC CrimeWatch team took great trouble to give us TWO e-fits of different-looking blokes and assure us that IT WAS THE SAME MAN. Extracts from the Mirror article and my comments below

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328#ixzz3DxR6EXvt

Extracts from the Mirror artice, my comments in blue

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Retired businessman Martin Smith provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man close to where Maddie vanished

PA

SMITHMAN 3 - The e-fits - two different people, or the same man? - Page 3 E-fit

E-fit: New image released by police

A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.

COMMENT: The Mirror aticle was published on 16 October 2013. So he is alleged to have said this the day before, i.e. 15 October 2013. There is absolutely no record of his ever having made this claim at any time during the 6 years and 5 months before he allegedly spoke to the Mirror (I say allegedly because these quotes of his may well have been supplied to the Mirror via an agent of the McCann Team).

Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.

COMMENT: This implies that Martin Smith drew up triangular-face man (above) while maybe another member of his family drew up rectangular-face man.

But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.

COMMENT: See above. But Smith - or whoever submitted these comments to the Mirror - has mae something of a blunder here. The PJ were NOT 'busy chasing up another sighting'. On the contrary, they knew from Day One that Jane Tanner's story wholly lacked credibility - and that's why only with the greatest reluctance, and after some arm-twisting by Gordon Brown, did the PJ agree to release the Tanner description to the public

Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.

COMMENT: Yeah, right!

SMITHMAN 3 - The e-fits - two different people, or the same man? - Page 3 Missing-Madeleine-McCann

SMITHMAN 3 - The e-fits - two different people, or the same man? - Page 3 Missing-Madeleine-McCann

I
Innocent tourist: Tracing this man distracted Portuguese detectives, said Mr Smith

Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive,

COMMENT: First time we've ever heard that one, as well. Last time he was 'a retired senior Army officer'.

made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

COMMENT: THIRTEEN days later, and only after his son Peter's 'Am I only dreaming?' quote

He helped compile e-fits a year later

COMMENT: He helped to compile one e-fit, or both?

– but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.

He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting,

COMMENT: See above. The PJ placed NO credence on the Tanner sighting whatsover. It was the McCann Team who elevated the importance of the Tanner `sighting` at every opportunity. Martin Smith and the Mirror are trying to re-write - to falsify - history.

maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

COMMENT: How can he help? - other than to say `Yes, I drew up those e-fits`? What other `help` is he capable of giving?

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.

The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.

Video loading

Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328#ixzz3DxciZCkF

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:05

Newintown wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.

This very thread, and every other 'Smithman' thread on here, is sufficient to disprove all your unpleasant and untrue words above.

I am clearly in a substantial minority in my views on the claimed 'Smithman' sighting and the provenance of the two e-fits.

Who on here is not free to disagree with me? - loads of members are doing so, and in a dignified way on both sides.

But of course you have 'form', Newintown, for such outbursts in the past

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:11

Dee Coy wrote:Thank you for the reply, Tony. So you believe the e-fits to be a mischievous portrayal of two people vaguely connected to the case but not in PdL at the time.

REPLY: Yes, that's absolutely my contention.

I get that, but why did Exton and Halligen produce them? Were they always intended to represent the man seen by the Smiths, falsely? Or were they originally produced by them for another purpose and it is Redwood that has hijacked them and decided they will be the 'face' of Smithman?

REPLY: These are excellent and relevant questions. I can take an educated guess at the answers, but I don't know. It's like so many other questions about Brian Kennedy's private investigations for the McCann Team.

For example, Gary Hagland's main experience was in 'financial compliance', better known as anti-monwy laundering legislation. Can you tell me (rhetorical question) why the McCann Team immediately (Sep 2007) appointed him to work full-time on the search for a missing child?

by Guest 21.09.14 16:19

So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

by Newintown 21.09.14 16:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.
This very thread, and every other 'Smithman' thread on here, is sufficient to disprove all your unpleasant and untrue words above.

I am clearly in a substantial minority in my views on the claimed 'Smithman' sighting and the provenance of the two e-fits.

Who on here is not free to disagree with me? - loads of members are doing so, and in a dignified way on both sides.

But of course you have 'form', Newintown, for such outbursts in the past

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve?

There are many who disagree with you but unfortunately they've been banned. I don't know why there are many agreeing with you, perhaps they have been brought under your spell and believe everything you say as you can talk the talk but whether it's all 100% believable is anyone's guess. May be they don't want to be seen as been taken in by you as they can't think for themselves.

I see you haven't mentioned the post by Markus 2 asking for people to contact you by PM, which was the first line of my comment, was that deliberate?

by Guest 21.09.14 16:25

WMD wrote:So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

Pressed send when I wanted to preview,I was going to add,the Tannerman supposed sighting as also been discounted,so no one saw any one on the night Madeleine was reported missing.All IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:26

WMD wrote:So if I read this right, the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit, that is the one which as never seen the light of day, because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by someone who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

I am not convinced that any of the Smiths ever produced any e-fit - nor, 12-17 months after seeing a man fleetingly in the dark with his face partly hidden, do I think they were capable of doing so.

To know exactly what happened when Brian Kennedy first nobbled Smith, and then Exton paid him a visit, you would need to have had a bugging device, or be a fly on the wall.

Only the Smiths, Brian Kennedy, Henri Exton and the computer/e-fit expert who drew up the e-fits can tell us - so far as we know - what went on in those meetings.

And none of them are talking

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:29

WMD wrote:
WMD wrote:So if I read this right, the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit, that is the one which as never seen the light of day, because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by someone who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.
Pressed send when I wanted to preview, I was going to add, the Tannerman supposed sighting as also been discounted, so no one saw any one on the night Madeleine was reported missing. All IMO.

That's my view based on the available evidence.

Tannerman (3 May 2007)

Sagres man (5 May 2007)

Smithman (16 May 2007)

Crecheman (14 October 2013)...

...all fabrications, with the date of fabrication given in brackets above

by j.rob 21.09.14 16:51

I'm conflicted about Smithman. But there are enough curiosities about the sighting to make me question it. For one thing, why did they wait so long to report it to police? How could they state with so much certainty that it was NOT Robert Murat when they admit it was dark and they also claim that they only knew Murat by sight and hadn't seen him recently? For all they knew, his appearance could have changed quite a bit since they last saw him. Given that it was dark, how could they be 60 - 80% sure it was Gerry McCann?

Mr Smith claims that it was seeing Gerry carrying Amelie off the plane that made him think that the man they saw that night carrying a girl was Gerry McCann, but given it was dark and given that Mr Smith only knew what Gerry .looked like from the media, how could he be so sure? Also, it was many months later that he saw Gerry coming off the plane carrying Amelie.

It would be very interesting to know more about the background of the Smith family, in particular Mr Smith. I wonder what links or contacts he might have? I wonder who he co-owned the apartment in Luz with?

I think the timing of their contacting the police is of interest. Despite what Kate claims in her book, it was very shortly after the 'Tannerman' efits were published, I do believe. And was it just after Murat had been made arguido?

But the biggest thing for me is why on earth did none of the family report this sighting to police earlier? Not all the family went home on the Friday (their reason for leaving the bar earlier on Thursday evening, apparently). The resort was crawling with police, media for days and weeks. Yet the Smiths remained silent for nearly two weeks.

I wonder if the Smiths were privy to information 'on the ground' as it were? Given that they owned an apartment in Luz they were/are part of the community there and the place must have been buzzing with speculation, rumour and gossip. In the very early days staff from Ocean Club, for instance, would, one presumes, have talked to friends/people in the local community. Not just the waiters but nannies, sports teachers, administration staff, cleaners and so on.

Some of the staff presumably came from the local community (rather than being flown over from the UK). The local gossip must have been rife before TM managed to silence everyone at OC and ship a lot of the staff elsewhere.

I wonder what the Smiths knew/had heard? I wonder what made them agree to eventually come forward to police having waited for nearly two weeks?

by palm tree 21.09.14 17:01

So the Smith family seen one one?:scratchhead:Confused again lol!
IMO

by Newintown 21.09.14 17:06

j.rob wrote:I'm conflicted about Smithman. But there are enough curiosities about the sighting to make me question it. For one thing, why did they wait so long to report it to police? How could they state with so much certainty that it was NOT Robert Murat when they admit it was dark and they also claim that they only knew Murat by sight and hadn't seen him recently? For all they knew, his appearance could have changed quite a bit since they last saw him. Given that it was dark, how could they be 60 - 80% sure it was Gerry McCann?

Mr Smith claims that it was seeing Gerry carrying Amelie off the plane that made him think that the man they saw that night carrying a girl was Gerry McCann, but given it was dark and given that Mr Smith only knew what Gerry .looked like from the media, how could he be so sure? Also, it was many months later that he saw Gerry coming off the plane carrying Amelie.

It would be very interesting to know more about the background of the Smith family, in particular Mr Smith. I wonder what links or contacts he might have? I wonder who he co-owned the apartment in Luz with?

I think the timing of their contacting the police is of interest. Despite what Kate claims in her book, it was very shortly after the 'Tannerman' efits were published, I do believe. And was it just after Murat had been made arguido?

But the biggest thing for me is why on earth did none of the family report this sighting to police earlier? Not all the family went home on the Friday (their reason for leaving the bar earlier on Thursday evening, apparently). The resort was crawling with police, media for days and weeks. Yet the Smiths remained silent for nearly two weeks.

I wonder if the Smiths were privy to information 'on the ground' as it were? Given that they owned an apartment in Luz they were/are part of the community there and the place must have been buzzing with speculation, rumour and gossip. In the very early days staff from Ocean Club, for instance, would, one presumes, have talked to friends/people in the local community. Not just the waiters but nannies, sports teachers, administration staff, cleaners and so on.

Some of the staff presumably came from the local community (rather than being flown over from the UK). The local gossip must have been rife before TM managed to silence everyone at OC and ship a lot of the staff elsewhere.

I wonder what the Smiths knew/had heard? I wonder what made them agree to eventually come forward to police having waited for nearly two weeks?

The Smiths reported the sighting 2 days after the event, but it seems to have been lost inbetween all the other sightings that came in at the same time. I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have.

by jeanmonroe 21.09.14 17:12

What i 'know': fwiw.

J Tanner did NOT actually, factually, SEE Madeleine Beth McCann, the 'missing' child of Mr&Mrs G McCann, being 'carried off' in the arms of Ms Tanner's 'Tannerman', a man.

FACT.

The entire Smith 'family' did NOT actually, factually, SEE Madeleine Beth McCann, the 'missing' child of Mr&Mrs G McCann, being 'carried' by a man, latterly to be 'nicknamed' as 'Smithman'.

FACT.

The LAST person, i repeat, the very LAST person, now self admitted, to have SEEN a 'live' Madeleine Beth McCann, ( 'sleeping' in her bed) in apartment G5A, Ocean Club, PDL, Portugal, on the evening of 3rd May 2007, WAS Mr G McCann, when 'checking' his THREE kids, that were all alone in the McCann's, consciously, diliberately, left unlocked, unsecured, apartment G5A, at 9:04PM.

FACT.

As HE has said in numerous articles in UK Media and in numerous TV 'interviews' in the UK and abroad.

FACT.

THAT'S what i 'know', albeit having only 'heard' and been 'informed' of supposed 'events' by Mr G McCann, himself, and latterly by his wife, Mrs K McCann.

And Mr G McCann and Mrs K McCann wouldn't, couldn't, possibly have 'lied', about their own daughter's 'disappearance', would they?

by Guest 21.09.14 17:15

WMD wrote:So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

This would be my next question, WMD. The Mirror article clearly says that Mr Smith compliled an e-fit, so if it's not the 2 offered by Redwood, is there another, as yet unseen, e-fit lurking in the files?

This is important because so many people think the released e-fits are Gerry (as I do), which, of course, together with Mr Smith's comment that he was up to 80% certain the man he saw was Gerry, after seeing him carrying Sean, makes a damning case. But if there is another e-fit, that perhaps looks like someone entirely different again, then we're in unchartered waters with regards to the sighting as it could mean - as few believe there really is an abductor - that the likelihood is that the Smith sighting is just a random bloke after all.

This is, of course, all theory and based on the assumption that Mr Smith had no hand in these e-fits but drew up yet another, as yet unseen, image.

by AndyB 21.09.14 17:51

Dee Coy wrote:
WMD wrote:So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

This would be my next question, WMD. The Mirror article clearly says that Mr Smith compliled an e-fit, so if it's not the 2 offered by Redwood, is there another, as yet unseen, e-fit lurking in the files?

This is important because so many people think the released e-fits are Gerry (as I do), which, of course, together with Mr Smith's comment that he was up to 80% certain the man he saw was Gerry, after seeing him carrying Sean, makes a damning case. But if there is another e-fit, that perhaps looks like someone entirely different again, then we're in unchartered waters with regards to the sighting as it could mean - as few believe there really is an abductor - that the likelihood is that the Smith sighting is just a random bloke after all.

This is, of course, all theory and based on the assumption that Mr Smith had no hand in these e-fits but drew up yet another, as yet unseen, image.

Actually I think one of the e-fits most resembles Oxton but hey ho. The important thing here (for me anyway) is that the provenance of the efits is unknown, which is something that I think has been under-emphasised

by Guest 21.09.14 17:52

Dee Coy wrote:
WMD wrote:So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

This would be my next question, WMD. The Mirror article clearly says that Mr Smith compliled an e-fit, so if it's not the 2 offered by Redwood, is there another, as yet unseen, e-fit lurking in the files?

This is important because so many people think the released e-fits are Gerry (as I do), which, of course, together with Mr Smith's comment that he was up to 80% certain the man he saw was Gerry, after seeing him carrying Sean, makes a damning case. But if there is another e-fit, that perhaps looks like someone entirely different again, then we're in unchartered waters with regards to the sighting as it could mean - as few believe there really is an abductor - that the likelihood is that the Smith sighting is just a random bloke after all.

This is, of course, all theory and based on the assumption that Mr Smith had no hand in these e-fits but drew up yet another, as yet unseen, image.

Its confusing me,not hard I'll grant you,as Tony pointed out crimewatch never mentioned from whose description those e-fits were produced,if not from the Smiths, did they ever produce one,if yes where is it?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 18:11

Newintown wrote:
The Smiths reported the sighting 2 days after the event, but it seems to have been lost in between all the other sightings that came in at the same time. I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have.

@ Newintown - This is deliberate misinformation by you to forum members - and you know it.

What's more, you cannot supply us with the one and only link that makes this claim - in the Daily Mirror the day after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special.

Let's just examine the misinformation in yopurnone, short, post:

CLAIM: "The Smiths reported the sighting..."

REPLY: Fact - Most of them travelled back to Ireland on 4 May

CLAIM: "..reported the sighting 2 days after the event..."

REPLY: Fact - There was never any previous mention of this claim in six-and-a-half years until a day after the CrimeWatch programme, Indeed, the words of Martin and Peter Smith themselves contradict this claim, because - as they both admit - they did nothing until the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect, and then only after Peter rang up his Dad and said: "Dad, am I dreaming or something, but do you remember seeing a man carrying a child..."

CLAIM: 'reported the sighting'

REPLY: How? By 'phone? By driving in his car (if he has one over there) and going to Portimao police station? By 'bus? Was it just him who went? Did his wife go with him? You see, when he first mentions this six-and-a-half years later, and has never mentioned it previously despite having made statements to the Irish Gardai, the PJ and given numerous newspaper interviews, we are entitled to believe that he has made up this tale

CLAIM: 'lost between all the other sightings'

REPLY: What 'all the other sightings' are these? You are making this up, Newintown, aren't you? Name me one other 'sighting' reported to the PJ in the days that followed 3 May of a man carrying a child, sometime after 9.10pm. You can't, can you?

CLAIM: "I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have..."

REPLY: That's untrue as well, isn't it? There has been one reference to it by Woofer, which I quickly answered by pointing out that Martin Smith had come up with this story only after six-and-a-half years.

It's one thing to have a hypothesis that may be wrong, and no-one should mind being challenged on it - though the forum practice is to do so politely and not with the unpleasantness in your earlier post.

It's another thing to make a genuiine mistake. We all do it from time to time, and should say sorry if we have done.

But it's quite a different matter to deliberately mislead fellow forum-members, as you have just done.

I really hate that

by j.rob 21.09.14 18:13

I wonder if the Smith family really did see someone?

It's quite a big lie to have to sustain if none of them saw anyone. Why would they be so invested in this case to be prepared to lie to that degree? Unless, of course, they were privy to certain information. Maybe knew/were friends of Murat? Or something.

Suppose they did see someone.

It could have been Gerry carrying an ill/sedated (dead?) Madeleine. Either to the medical clinic down the road. Or away from the resort before the police arrived. The only reason I can think of for this is that the abduction plan was bungled (the 9.15pm earlier alarm call was botched) and Gerry quite literally got left carrying the baby. Crazily risky but there had been a major 'disaster' as Gerry told family that night.

It could have been someone else - say one of the Tapas males or someone like Jez Wilkins, say. Either taking an ill/sedated Madeleine to the medical clinic down the road. Or taking an ill/sedated/dead Madeleine away from the resort before the police arrive. Again, this only really makes sense if there had been a major botch-up. The 9.15pm faked abduction plan got blown out of the water and chaos ensued.

It could have been staged. A man who looked a bit like Gerry carrying a child that looked a bit like Madeleine walked past a large family group at a key time that evening. It was staged and planned to provide a 'sighting' that implicated Gerry McCann in the disappearance of his daughter. It was something to be 'held up the sleeve' until such a moment as it might be necessary to be used. Hence the delay in the reporting.

This might beg the question of who the Smith family knew in Luz and whether they knew Robert Murat. Who had, as we know, flown out in what would appear to be a bit of a rush on 1st May.

Just ideas as always.

by j.rob 21.09.14 18:26

It could have been staged. A man who looked a bit like Gerry carrying a child that looked a bit like Madeleine walked past a large family group at a key time that evening. It was staged and planned to provide a 'sighting' that implicated Gerry McCann in the disappearance of his daughter. It was something to be 'held up the sleeve' until such a moment as it might be necessary to be used. Hence the delay in the reporting.

-----------

I think this is more likely than the 'decoy ' theory that has been advanced by some. That it was Gerry carrying another child. That theory to me just doesn't make any sense. Why would Gerry want to implicate himself?

However, given what I suspect may have happened that week that involved not just child neglect but much worse, I can totally understand how some-one (or quite a few people even!) might want to provide a key 'sighting' that would land GM very firmly in hot water.

And it is noticeable how Kate, in her book, desperately and, imo, completely unconvincingly, tries to morph Tannerman into Smithman and even admits that she is unable to find an explanation for why Madeleine's abductor appears to be wandering around the resort for 45 minutes. Which is just ludicrous, as Gerry might say. (I think she actually writes something like, I don't have an explanation for this and I don't see why I should have to.) An abductor who is so useless that he manages to get spotted by a family of nine!

by Doug D 21.09.14 18:34

Newintown:

‘The Smiths reported the sighting 2 days after the event, but it seems to have been lost inbetween all the other sightings that came in at the same time. I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have.’

Not sure that we know this to be correct. This story didn’t come out for 5 years or so, when it suddenly appeared in an Irish paper, followed I believe by the Mirror and it doesn’t correspond with Smith’s ‘revelation’ moment when his son suddenly (after a fortnight) suggested that they might have seen someone as they left the pub.

From Sky News:

‘Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection.

"We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith.’

"We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.

"We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day.

http://news.sky.com/story/593646/missing-madeleine-mccann-irish-witness-clears-murat

So no evidence of them having reported the sighting after two days and there is no mention of this in any of the three statements dated 26th May 2007.

eta. Sorry, I see Tony has already addressed this, but the Sky report still adds clarity I think,

by Newintown 21.09.14 20:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
The Smiths reported the sighting 2 days after the event, but it seems to have been lost in between all the other sightings that came in at the same time. I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have.
@ Newintown - This is deliberate misinformation by you to forum members - and you know it.

What's more, you cannot supply us with the one and only link that makes this claim - in the Daily Mirror the day after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special.

Let's just examine the misinformation in yopurnone, short, post:

CLAIM: "The Smiths reported the sighting..."

REPLY: Fact - Most of them travelled back to Ireland on 4 May

CLAIM: "..reported the sighting 2 days after the event..."

REPLY: Fact - There was never any previous mention of this claim in six-and-a-half years until a day after the CrimeWatch programme, Indeed, the words of Martin and Peter Smith themselves contradict this claim, because - as they both admit - they did nothing until the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect, and then only after Peter rang up his Dad and said: "Dad, am I dreaming or something, but do you remember seeing a man carrying a child..."

CLAIM: 'reported the sighting'

REPLY: How? By 'phone? By driving in his car (if he has one over there) and going to Portimao police station? By 'bus? Was it just him who went? Did his wife go with him? You see, when he first mentions this six-and-a-half years later, and has never mentioned it previously despite having made statements to the Irish Gardai, the PJ and given numerous newspaper interviews, we are entitled to believe that he has made up this tale

CLAIM: 'lost between all the other sightings'

REPLY: What 'all the other sightings' are these? You are making this up, Newintown, aren't you? Name me one other 'sighting' reported to the PJ in the days that followed 3 May of a man carrying a child, sometime after 9.10pm. You can't, can you?

CLAIM: "I haven't got a link for it but there are many posts on this forum which have..."

REPLY: That's untrue as well, isn't it? There has been one reference to it by Woofer, which I quickly answered by pointing out that Martin Smith had come up with this story only after six-and-a-half years.

It's one thing to have a hypothesis that may be wrong, and no-one should mind being challenged on it - though the forum practice is to do so politely and not with the unpleasantness in your earlier post.

It's another thing to make a genuiine mistake. We all do it from time to time, and should say sorry if we have done.

But it's quite a different matter to deliberately mislead fellow forum-members, as you have just done.

I really hate that

And I really hate the fact that you ignore dodgy questions, in fact you've completely ignored Markus 2 who posted at 2.54 p.m. today:

Re: SMITHMAN 3 - The -fits - two different people, or the same man?

Markus 2 Today at 2:54 pm

.Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

--------------------------------

A simple question from Markus 2, Tony, how do we know you can be trusted?

It reminds me of CEOP asking for all holidaymakers at the OC to send in their photos but nothing has been heard or seen of them since, who knows what was in those photos and who got their hands on them?

by **tigger** 21.09.14 21:51

REPLY: Fact - Most of them travelled back to Ireland on 4 May

( from post above)

Most of the group, 8 in fact travelled back on the 9th May.
Only Peter Smith left on the 4th.

Link for early sightings - including a couple. - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id27.html

by suzyjohnson 23.09.14 21:15

In this regard (whether the e-fits are the same man) I would be interested to know whether in a group of say 8 or 12 people you would always (or nearly always) get similar variances in describing the same man. I would also like to know whether the ages of witnesses have any bearing on the results. perhaps younger people view people slightly differently to older people? Or for that matter, men versus women?

I have seen programmes where women were shown to perceive themselves differently to how other perceive them, and I wondered whether a similar thing could have happened in respect of these e-fits. If it was proven that, for example, younger witnesses perceive people slightly differently to older people (say they always viewed men as having thinner faces for example), then it should be possible to draw up another e-fit which takes into account these differences. It could be important in that the people searching for Smithman are obviously not children, and in addition the people most likely to be watching Crimewatch or taking note of a poster or website relating to MM are likely to be adults and not children or teenagers.

Just a thought.