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

aquila wrote:

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.

You seem to have issues with Cristobell .What has TB saying the MET are lying got to do with Cristobell?

Why doesn,t someone give that other idiot SharonL a kick at the care home and get me banned or has she jumped ship as well?

aquila wrote:

viaveritasvita wrote:

aquila wrote:

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.

You seem to have issues with Cristobell .What has TB saying the MET are lying got to do with Cristobell?

I've only said sod off twice....so thrice I say...sod off.

Thrice ,what century are you in ?Pompous? toi?

Enough of this nonsense.

How many pages of tripe has Bennett written about the Efits and deflected discussion on things that really matter in this case?

aquila wrote:

viaveritasvita wrote:

aquila wrote:

viaveritasvita wrote:

aquila wrote:

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.

You seem to have issues with Cristobell .What has TB saying the MET are lying got to do with Cristobell?

I've only said sod off twice....so thrice I say...sod off.

Thrice ,what century are you in ?Pompous? toi?

Have you helped in anyway today with your posts in the search for justice for Madleine McCann?

What have you contributed to this forum today?

I'm not answering your posts again. I find you revolting.

I find you contemptable.

The truth obout Cristobell was to much for you.

The truth hurts doesn,t it .

BlueBag wrote:Enough of this nonsense.

Bawbag do you think the Met are lying to the esteemed Mr Bennett?

viaveritasvita wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Enough of this nonsense.

Bawbag do you think the Met are lying to the esteemed Mr Bennett?

Will you please just SOD OFF.

Can everyone just ignore this twat and just get back to what we do best.

Thanks

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. 

 This would bother me very much indeed.  Deleting the Smiths from the equation?  On the grounds that they cannot be trusted? 

Especially that now the only way to support this theory is to tell the world that the Metropolitan Police has lied and this lie is on record. Right here on this forum. 

I really can see no way to explain the sentence I've outlined in bold - 

A: if he is part of Team McCann I think this concerns the forum very much indeed. 
B: If he is not part of Team McCann why should we be told this is so?  Why should something that isn't or at least wasn't in question have to be denied?

For all we know tigger anyone could be part of TM.  We choose to post our questions, why does it bother all of you.    If Tony came and said he was part of TM, what would happen?

This site would lose posters, but anyone with any sense would not start posting on the new forum, especially in view of who is allowed to post there knowing their history IMO of course.

It is all IFs no facts.   If those who believe Tony is part of TM put up some evidence fair enough, but IMO if you cannot, then you should all stay quiet.

I did see a post where, upon discovering that you were using 2 user names, Tony queried whether you could be trusted Tigger.

I do not know the answer to that Tigger, Tony has not produced any evidence, so I have to conclude that you could be.  

You are saying the same about Tony, but I note that even though some of you are putting this possibillity forward, you all come here STILL to post and that includes NFWTD who is now a mod on the other site.

Just how serious do you expect me to take such accusations when you are still posting on a site where you believe "The Leader" is or could be part of TM?

I just cannot imagine what you are all trying to achieve.

Fighting like cats in a sack.

As far as I can see TB is part of his own team of one. Tigger and others, PMac for example, battle on against dishonesty and immorality, also as far I can judge.

Whoever has engineered disruption and infighting on this special forum has done a bloody good job.

Thetruth wrote:I just cannot imagine what you are all trying to achieve.

Fighting like cats in a sack.

As far as I can see TB is part of his own team of one. Tigger and others, PMac for example, battle on against dishonesty and immorality, also as far I can judge.

Whoever has engineered disruption and infighting on this special forum has done a bloody good job.

Hear, hear.

Madeleine has enough enemies without those who purport to be putting all their energy into finding the truth fighting amonst themselves. The devil and the Mcs will be rubbing thir hands with glee at today's outpourings.

Spare a thought for Goncalo and Brenda and let's pull ourselves together, in both senses.

Thetruth wrote:I just cannot imagine what you are all trying to achieve.

Fighting like cats in a sack.

As far as I can see TB is part of his own team of one. Tigger and others, PMac for example, battle on against dishonesty and immorality, also as far I can judge.

Whoever has engineered disruption and infighting on this special forum has done a bloody good job.

Couldn't agree more and thanks for the thumbs up.

@plebgate:  i was using a different avatar for the new forum and the same as always  here. There's nothing dishonest in that.
Tony 'discovered'  My avatar there although I had told admin that I would be posting  there. Would have been incredibly simple to ask what my avatar there was?

I know there are people here with more socks than they've  got toes .

As for the TM question and answer in your post -  you've lost me. Surely what would happen if  Tony has been working for TM all this time is that 99.9% of members would leave?

@Tigger - ref your last sentence  suggest you read my post again.  

Ref. your second user name - I found your choice of user name v. interesting as to me, even back then, it seemed to be saying that Tony was a member of TM.
My opinion, but for those who are interested they can look up the name on google and make their own  minds up.

Anyway, if you cannot produce evidence that Tony  is TM member perhaps we could all just get  on and keep posting any questions we may have from the police files.

plebgate wrote:@Tigger - ref your last sentence  suggest you read my post again.  

Ref. your second user name - I found your choice of user name v. interesting as to me, even back then, it seemed to be saying that Tony was a member of TM.
My opinion, but for those who are interested they can look up the name on google and make their own  minds up.

Anyway, if you cannot produce evidence that Tony  is TM member perhaps we could all just get  on and keep posting any questions we may have from the police files.

Much as it is a relief for once to change a Smith topic into another instead of vice versa it was you who broached the TM question as can easily be verified. It seemed a very serious accusation which needed clarification. Besides, if TB is part of TM there'd be no need to pay them anything would there?

My second - in fact my first user name over 'there' was Bagheera, after a dearly loved cat of mine. I have no idea how that relates to TB/TM apart from the jungle element.

I now post there as Tigger, I was Tigger on MM and am Tigger here, so as not to overload my memory....so easy to slip up when you've got more socks than toes.

So just to be sure  you do not think TB is part of TM then tigger?

Only I did wonder why you were no longer admin here, so would be glad to know it was not because of doubts about Tony.

I never was admin.

Bumping this thread back to my post of 17^th October @ 1.04, around the time when the disruption really started.
 
Up to then it had been an interesting thread!
 
……………………………….
 
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.’
 
………………………………
 
It’ll also be interesting to see where it goes now.

How good a 'fit' do members think this man is...

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

...for one of these two very different e-fits?

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

I don't think that photo really matches up with any of the efits. But then if the efits are really from one man that photo could match, as could many others.

I still think the skinny one looks like Brunt or Adrian Oldfield, the photo you posted on the other thread:

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

Bumping for new members and readers who still believe that Madeleine disappeared on 3rd May and that Smithman sighting was genuine

MRNOODLES wrote:

cloak'ndagger wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:A poll to gauge opinion on the forum as to whether these two images, shown by DCI Andy Rewood on CrimeWatch last October, are of two different people, or the same person...


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

ALL POSTS EXCEPT MR NOODLES SNIPPED

But on the other hand.  IF Crimewatch said, 'these two jokers robbed a bank'.

Would any of us say, 'oh hang on those two e-fits are of the same bloke'.   Very unlikely imo.

The release of Sonia Poulton's film The McCanns and the Police has proved very interesting in at least one aspect.

Although Ms Poulton doesn't spend long on the efits and the claimed 'Smithman' sighting, she does clearly in her film accept the 'SMITHMAN' = GERRY MCCANN theory.

She quotes Martin Smith's identification of Smithman as Gerry (well, 60% to 80% anyway).

She then quotes Gemma O'Doherty's claim that Martin Smith told her that he was still sticking to his '60% to 80% certain it was Gerry McCann' story.

She then goes on, effectively, to accuse the BBC of lying by having claimed that Martin Smith had 'changed his mind'.

As so often in the case, we have to make up our minds who is telling the truth, as there are so many occasions where two stories completely collide, as in this case.

I have nailed my colours to the mast and provided what I believe is overwhelming evidence that Martin Smith must have changed his mind - ever since he first agreed back in December 2007 to speak to Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3. His conduct over the past 10 years proves IMO that he has changed his mind, whatever Gemma O'Doherty may have to say about it.

But one of the crucial issues in this case is whether or not the efits are genuine or bogus, by which I mean: Were they actually drawn up on the basis of the Smiths' recollections?

To that question, I have always answered 'No'. And that's an emphatic 'No'.

I realisie I have bored everyone to tears by relentlessly saying it would be impossible for the Smiths to draw up these efits, because:

1 it was a year after they saw the man
2 they told police they would never be able to recognise him if they saw him again
3 they only saw him for a few seconds at most
4 it was dark
5 the street lighting was weak
6 some of them never saw all of his face...etc.

Now Sonia's film has (inadvertently) provided excellent confirmation of my arguments against the genuineness of these efits.

David Machin appears in Ms Poulton's film. He is an ex-Detective Sergeant for Hertfordshire Police. He makes some comments about reconstructions, in which he says this:
“People have difficulty describing accurately people that they haven’t seen before and have only seen for a short period of time". [time: 34.40-34.50]

Arguably Ms Poulton herself makes an even better case for ignoring the Smith sightings.  Querying the efit drawn up by Jane Tanner, Ms Poulton is filmed, arms spread out, in the dark, with weak street lighting, at the road junction where Jane Tanner says she saw someone.
Expansively, Ms Poulton asks: “Given the environment, how much would you really see?” [time 37.20]

Exactly right. These two excellent observations in Ms Poulton’s film further undermine any claim that these efits are genuine.

I repeat that I believe the two-efits are derived from actual photographs of two different people. I also have indications of the identity of one of them, a man living (or was in 2008) somewhere in the south-east of the country. I can't yet prove this.

I will be providing a full review of Ms Poulton's film later.

In the meantime, I hope that the few remaining people who think that the 'Smithman' sighting is Gerry (most of them now in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) will think again about whether they are so sure that they are right.   


ETA:  The poll is still running




.

Hi Mr Antony Bennett,if people are led to believe the Smithman family sighting, 22.01+,that it was Madeleine being carried away from the apartment,it is then credence for an Abduction on the 3 May 2007?
It adds credence to an Abduction!

If Jane did see the Abductor(RM) at 21.15pm,that Gerry,Jez didn't see on the same street outside of the Apartment and they Both didn't see Jane, who presumed to have walked past both of them,see mockumentary film?

Crime Watch October 2013,creche Dad accounted for DCI Andy Redwood,Abductor ruled in or out 2018 Operation Grange 2018?

I state this as the only other person who was being cast as the Abductor,was also ruled out by Mr Smith as to have been One Mr Robert Murat,(who JT now couldn't recognise April 2008)supposedly seen hanging around the apartment by at least three of the Tapas group of friends,Russell,Rachel,Fiona?
Russell O'Brien introduces Gerry McCann to Robert Murat on the 4th May 2007 08.30-09.00 am for the first time?
Video from Sandra,"Do you know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared, Gerry,I'm not going to Comment on that,cough." quickly leaves the scene with Clarence Mitchell in attendance!

Robert Murat is suddenly called back to Portugal from the UK 30 April, 1st May 2007 arrival back to Prai Da Luis,why,Interpreter or Patsy,both,contract with Sky News,Martin Brunt,Rupert Murdoch's  Business Empire,News Paper,then TV?
 
As has been pointed out by yourself on many occasions,Martin Grimes Crime dogs,Eddie,Keela and scents from items of clothing worn by certain persons,evidence?

There is No scents picked up by Eddie,Keela at Mrs Murats abode where her Son was staying on his recall back to Portugal.

Robert Murat : "Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language,"

I have formed the opinion that The Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night of the 3 May to create an abduction scenario. Risky ? Absolutely. Who was the child ? A dead Madeleine or a live (and sedated ?) other T7 child ? Don't know. If Madeleine, where did he take her body ?

I don't believe Jane saw an abductor. I don't believe Jane was even in that street at that time. (Gerry & Jez didn't see her and the reconstruction is farcical as Gerry drops her royally in it as to which side of the street they were on).

I believe GM knew RM in some capacity, I'm just not sure whether it was from the UK or earlier that week in PdL.

polyenne wrote:

Robert Murat : "Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language,"

I have formed the opinion that The Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night of the 3 May to create an abduction scenario. Risky ? Absolutely. Who was the child ? A dead Madeleine or a live (and sedated ?) other T7 child ? Don't know. If Madeleine, where did he take her body ?

I don't believe Jane saw an abductor. I don't believe Jane was even in that street at that time. (Gerry & Jez didn't see her and the reconstruction is farcical as Gerry drops her royally in it as to which side of the street they were on).

I believe GM knew RM in some capacity, I'm just not sure whether it was from the UK or earlier that week in PdL.

Hi Polyenne,I don't wish to make assumptions,but the only person's claiming to have had a sick child were R*****l,Jane taking him his evening meal according to their Statements in and around the same time as claiming to have seen an Abductor in her Purple night attirement from the cold chill?
Now if you need to be creative ask Operation Grange!