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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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   

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.

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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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,

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?

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. - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

Can we have a new poll in view of the freedom of information reply ?

Doug D wrote: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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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,

Sky News got that wrong.  Martin Smith`s statement admits he did make the connection the next day when his daughter phoned him from Ireland.  He thought it could have been Maddie he had seen. 


"Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual. "

I believe he did report it to the PJ 2 days later as reported in the Mirror and an Irish newspaper - can`t find these now, but there is a link from months ago in a Smithman thread.
ETA - Irish Central link:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good thinking Woofs! Not the only thing Sky news got wrong - why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?

Which is why Brenda is dead.

I prefer the statements to any newspapers report.

Is anyone able to ask the Smiths exactly what happened with these e-fits?

It's always better from the horses mouth.

Woofer:
 
‘I believe he did report it to the PJ 2 days later as reported in the Mirror and an Irish newspaper’
 
Tigger:
 
‘I prefer the statements to any newspapers report.’
 
Got to agree there Tigger, but there is no evidence of this, other than the newspaper reports, some 5 years later.
 
Wishful thinking, I believe.
 
If I was brought back to the Algarve to make a statement a few weeks after the event, the first thing I would say would be ‘But I reported this three weeks ago to ………………….’, not just:
 
‘At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.’
 
Human nature, no?
 
Then there is the Sky News report of  4^th February 2008
 
‘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. But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."
 
The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.
 
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone," said Mr Smith.
 
They asked me to make a statement to the Gardai, which I did, and two days later Leicestershire police got on to us.
 
"My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement.
 
The phrase:
 
‘…….. But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."
 
adds credence to this report to me, as it is an unnecessary addition, unless it was really said to him as a comfort for not having reported the sighting earlier.

It`s such a jumble of contradicting reports isn`t it.  I do remember that Martin Smith had to report some newspapers for giving wrong information, but it`s not known which newspapers.  I think he did this via a solicitor.

There`s no way of knowing for sure.  And I can see why TB has suspicions that not all adds up when Smiths have been reported as saying so many contradictory things.

I must admit I am thinking subjectively, and I want to believe the Smiths.  I`m thinking how I would react, which is why I tend to believe that he did report it to the PJ 2 days later. But it`s only subjective - we`ll probably never know for sure.

The 2 e-fits are very different.  
As a public member looking at them without pre-knowledge of anything I conclude they are two different men.  

It perplexes me how a family who could not see the man clearly could have come up with two different images. For one thing you would have thought the artist drawing it up with their help would have asked them to come to a consensus to narrow it down to one e-fit that they can agree on.

The other thing is, if Mr Smith was 60-80% certain it was Gerry, and having been bombarded with Gerry's image regularly in the press and media, how on earth can he then come up with an image of a man radically different looking to Gerry when his perception of the man is already that of Gerry, knowing what Gerry looks like.

There's no way to reconcile either of the 2-fits with Gerry.  Some people are of the view one of the e-fits resembles Gerry, but that is subjective.  I wonder if people's view is perhaps influenced (or rather clouded) by Smith high percentage quantifying of the man to be Gerry.  Had Smith not stated that, would people still see the e-fits as resembling Gerry?


My view is that precisely because the two images look nothing like Gerry, that is why OG are seeking info on the e-fits.  Had they seen the resemblance or believed either of the e-fits to be Gerry, why beat round the bush?

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.

Brenda Ryan anyone?

Shit stirring is visiting us !

aiyoyo wrote:Shit stirring is visiting us !

If you can,t handle a few simple questions yoyo you are just as bad as Team McCann.
Maybe your leader is part of Team McCann .

Even if Tony is part of TM why does that bother you?    Don't want a reply from you really but are you by chance hoping that it will deter posters coming here and then maybe visiting another new site?

Who cares what you think.   I shall continue posting here and asking QUESTIONS, if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

By the way, the meaning ofyour user name certainly doesn't seem to apply to you.   

Bye bye. 

Email sent from Joao Carlos Silva Pereira to Bernard Gattney, Irish Police:
 
8th November 2007
Subject: Martin Smith
 
Bernard ,
 
According to our phone contact, I hereby enclose the report on Martin Smith, son of P S and C S, born in Ireland on *****, and an Irish citizen, passport n' *****, home address*****.
 
Following the enclosed report you are now kindly requested to ask him the following questions:
 
- Does he confirm the statement he made in Portugal on May 26th 2007?
 
- Can he describe in detail the individual he saw carrying a child on May 3rd 2007, notwithstanding the fact that he has already made this description in his previous statements? Was this individual alone?
 
- When and in what mass medium has he seen the news of Gerald McCann going down the plane stairs, and carrying one of his children? (If possible he should be shown the above-mentioned pictures, as well as asked whether he confirms or disconfirms this man was the same individual he saw on May 3rd 2007).
 
- Was it really Gerry McCann? Is he sure of this fact?
 
- Does he recognise Gerald McCann from the facial features or from the way he was carrying the child?
 
- Are his family members, namely the ones who were with him on May 3rd 2007, able to recognise the individual? If yes, do they also identify the individual as being Gerald McCann? (If yes, such family members should also be interviewed with a view to equally answering the above questions).
 
The only response to this appears to be the one from Liam Hogan, with MS new statement, in January 2008, which does not directly address the first highlighted question, but implies that the recognition was from the manner of carrying.
 
On the basis that there are no further statements from other members of the Smith family, I think we can take it  as confirmed that the answer to the second highlighted question must have been ‘no’, as this would effectively confirm what MS himself said:
 
‘During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later.’

plebgate wrote:Even if Tony is part of TM why does that bother you?    Don't want a reply from you really but are you by chance hoping that it will deter posters coming here and then maybe visiting another new site?

Who cares what you think.   I shall continue posting here and asking QUESTIONS, if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

By the way, the meaning ofyour user name certainly doesn't seem to apply to you.   

Bye bye. 

It bothers me because if TB is part of Team McCann then he has been party to a campaign to prevent justice for MBM .
Is that not what this is about?
Are you simply here to pay homage to TB?

viaveritasvita wrote:

Maybe your leader is part of Team McCann .

Oh, so you see him as a leader. Good for you.
It shows you admire him.
It shows you know he did more than you.
It shows you know he has followers which is damn sight more than you, and you are but a mere follower.
You are so fascinated by him you confer the title of leader on him.
I bet you kow tow to him even in your sleep.

Why don't you ask Kate & Gerry to answer your question if you are so desperate to know?
They won't tell you ? Oh dear ! Or you won't trust their answer since they are chronic liars ?

Go on dreaming for an answer, it will come. A voice in your head will whisper the answer to you.

viaveritasvita wrote:

plebgate wrote:Even if Tony is part of TM why does that bother you?    Don't want a reply from you really but are you by chance hoping that it will deter posters coming here and then maybe visiting another new site?

Who cares what you think.   I shall continue posting here and asking QUESTIONS, if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

By the way, the meaning ofyour user name certainly doesn't seem to apply to you.   

Bye bye. 

It bothers me because if TB is part of Team McCann then he has been party to a campaign to prevent justice for MBM .
Is that not what this is about?
Are you simply here to pay homage to TB?

Oh sod off. Go play games on other forums....ooh I forgot Cristobell's blogs are no longer about Bennett-gate and the new break away forum no longer has an outlet for the disgruntled to crucify Tony Bennett.

I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself as are most people.

Just sod off.

aiyoyo wrote:

viaveritasvita wrote:

Maybe your leader is part of Team McCann .

Oh, so you see him as a leader.  Good for you.
It shows you admire him.
It shows you know he did more than you.
It shows you know he has followers which is damn sight more than you, and you are but a mere follower.
You are so fascinated by him you confer the title of leader on him.
I bet you kow tow to him even in your sleep.

Why don't you ask Kate & Gerry to answer your question if you are so desperate to know?
They won't tell you ?  Oh dear !  Or you won't trust their answer since they are chronic liars ?

Go on dreaming for an answer, it will come.  A voice in your head will whisper the answer to you.

So yoyo anyone in your opinion who disagrees with TB must be working for the McCanns.

Last vestiges of a scoundrel when you have no defence label the poster a pro McC.