SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 12:10

SMITHMAN 4

The Smith family contradictions

This short article looks at some of the main contradictions revealed by what the Smiths have said about their clamed ‘sighting’ of a man carrying a young child at 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

A. The Smiths’ stated reasons for their delay in reporting their claimed sighting

REASON 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…”

Statement given to Irish newspapers:

[ NOTE: The probable date of Peter Smith’s ‘phone call to his father (if it happened at all) was 16 May, but could have been 17 or 18 May ]:

Martin Smith is quoted as saying: “We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police".

3 January 2008, Daily Mail:

“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? We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police’, said Mr Smith”.

‘We only remembered him after coming home’, Drogheda Independent, 9 January 2008:

Peter Smith also told the Drogheda Independent: “…it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife. When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man’, Peter added. He went on: ‘We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy’.”

‘If only we’d remembered the next day’, Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

Martin Smith: “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” [ Note: When did the Portuguese police ever say that to him? ].

REASON 2: On 4 May ‘I thought it could have been Madeleine’

Statement made to PJ:

“He only became aware of Madeleine’s disappearance ‘the next morning’, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw with the individual”.

REASON 3: ‘We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting’
Peter Smith: It was the coincidence of the time

Peter Smith’s statement: “Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 21H55/22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day
— At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

We found out the exact time Madeleine disappeared

Drogheda Independent, 8 August 2007 – article based on interview with ‘a family member - possibly Peter Smith: “They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.

“As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members [Peter Smith – see above] had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory”.

“They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.

Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is’, said the family member.

Sun, 3 January 2008: The time of Maddie’s abduction was revealed

“The Smiths were leaving Kelly's Bar…between 9.50 and 10pm on May 3 last year.

“They flew home to Ireland the next day, but when the times of Maddie's abduction were revealed, the family remembered seeing a man, 5ft 7in to 5ft 9in tall and dressed in beige, carrying the child. Significantly the description matches that given by Jane Tanner, 37, a friend of the McCanns.

REASON 4: The descriptions matched

The description was similar to Tanner’s; Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

“Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner…Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: ‘Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important’."

REASON 5. ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’

[ NOTE: Tthis story appeared in the Daily Mirror on 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special. It had the hallmarks of a story facilitated by the McCann Team. It included several quotes from Martin Smith ]:

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

“Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago”

“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”.

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”.

[ NOTES: 1. This is the first time that Martin Smith claims that he had contacted the Portuguese police and that they ‘failed to take his evidence seriously’

2. The way the article reads totally misleads readers by suggesting that the Portuguese police took details for an e-fit yet went on to ignore this

3. It is also misleading in suggesting that the police were ‘too busy’ chasing up the sighting of another man, ‘Tannerman’. In fact (a) the police were suspicious of Tanner’s claimed ‘sighting’ from Day One, and (b) as we know from Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book, he did take the Smiths’ sighting serioulsy ]

B. 'We didn’t think anything of it’, or a ‘disturbing encounter’?

1. Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’

In the Sun, 3 January 2008, Mary Smith is asked about the claimed ‘sighting’ and says “We didn’t think anything of it”.

2. Mary Smith approached the man

In the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008, Smith claims that, without warning, she approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’ He is said to have ignored her.

3. Martin Smith said it was a ‘disturbing encounter’

In the same Daily Mail article, 3 January 2008, Martin Smith is quoted as saying that “It was a disturbing encounter”.

4. 'Very unusual'

In the same Daily Mail report, 3 January 2008, we read:

“AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.

“…the sighting…is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

“Martin Smith said: ‘The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year".

5 . Madeleine's disappearance 'had a terrible effect on the children'

Again from the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses: ‘We were out the night it happened…We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day. I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz”.

"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them. They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”

[ NOTE: Despite this ‘terrible effect’, the Smiths did nothing until 16-18 May, 13 to 15 days later ]

C. The man lowered his head – or didn’t lower his head?

1. He didn’t lower his head - Peter Smith:

From Peter Smith’s statement: down: Quote: “…he did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.]

2. He did lower his head: - Martin Smith:

From Martin Smith’s statement: “He put his head down…”

D. How did Martin Smith find out about Madeleine’s kidnapping?

1. From my daughter In Ireland

Quote from news article: “He only became aware of Madeleine’s disappearance ‘the next morning’, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw with the individual”.

2. Someone at the airport told Peter Smith

QUOTE: “He didn’t find out about Madeleine’s disappearance until the morning of 4 May through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport, as he (Peter Smith) was waiting for his return flight to Ireland”.]

[ NOTE: Yet by the morning of 4 May, Praia da Luz was crawling with police and villagers looking for Madeleine ]

E. How often had Martin Smith met Murat?

1. Twice, in May and August 2006

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

2. Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago
Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007

“The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.

However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.

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

3. ‘Met him several times’

SKY News, 4 January 2008

“An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat…But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an ‘arguido’ in the Madeleine McCann investigation. I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

4. ‘I’ve known him for years’

From the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

F. Descriptions of the man they claimed to have seen, from their own statements

I am adding here all the specific things that each of the three Smith family members said about the man they claimed to have seen.
We already have all the following problems about believing whether any of the Smiths could possibly have drawn up either of the two e-fits of what look like (to many people) two quite different people:

1. It was dark

2. The street lighting was week

3. They only saw him for a few seconds at the most

4. None of them said they would be able to recognize him again

5. The e-fits appear to have been drawn up between May and October 2008 - from 12 to 17 months after the event

Here are the relevant extracts from their statements:

Aoife Smith

The individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

Peter Smith

The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
— He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual.

He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder, as such on the right of the deponent, appearing to him in a natural manner.

Drogheda Independent, 9 January 2008

Quote: [Peter Smith] went on: ‘We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy’.”

Martin Smith

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

[ NOTE: I suggest that looking again in detail at what the three Smith family members say about the man they say they saw gives us no confidence whatsoever that they could have drawn up those two-fits ]

by HelenMeg 26.09.14 12:23

Hi
I have to say that I have never delved in to this discussion over Smithman very deeply. However, I am now of the opinion that there are grounds to treat their 'sighting' as suspicious and that is largely due to having read Tony's arguments. But I have not really stopped to think too deeply about it.

Prior to this I believed that the sighting was genuine and that they responded due to the Mc Canns appealing to the Irish contingent to get in touch. I believed that Gerry had been 'Smithman ' - and had been carrying a live child and wished to be seen that night to give credence to the abduction myth. I still think this is a possible explanation. However, from what Tony has written, I think there are grounds to treat it as suspicious. I think that everything shoud be treated as suspicious in the pursuit of the truth.

I still think that CW 2013, or AR deliberately placed GM under the e-fits associated with the Smith sighting due to the resemblance.

by Boosey 26.09.14 13:13

At the beginning I also thought that Mr Smith and his family were credible but after giving Tony's views much thought I definitely believe that all is not as it seems. The general public who have not been following this case in any depth will obviously take their statements as gospel. Tony you are to be admired for the ability to suss out truth from fiction and I only wish that I had a fraction of your intellect.

by sallypelt 26.09.14 13:50

And let's not forget how Martin Smith's statement changed

Taken from the Smith’s statements dated 26.5.2007
These extracts are referring to what the Smith Family said about the Smithman, and what they said he was wearing ABOVE his waist:

MARTIN SMITH'S STATEMENT:
“ …He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same...”

Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

“…She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top...”

Testimony of Peter D Smith, taken 26.5.2007

“He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes”

Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

However, on 30.1.2008, Martin Smith'S statement changes to:

Smithman was “wearing a beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer”

by viaveritasvita 26.09.14 14:01

Boosey wrote:At the beginning I also thought that Mr Smith and his family were credible but after giving Tony's views much thought I definitely believe that all is not as it seems. The general public who have not been following this case in any depth will obviously take their statements as gospel. Tony you are to be admired for the ability to suss out truth from fiction and I only wish that I had a fraction of your intellect.

Yes I agree he is our dear leader,thank the lord.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 14:13

sallypelt wrote:And let's not forget how Martin Smith's statement changed

Taken from the Smith’s statements dated 26.5.2007
These extracts are referring to what the Smith Family said about the Smithman, and what they said he was wearing ABOVE his waist:

MARTIN SMITH'S STATEMENT:

“ …He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same...”

Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

“…She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top...”

Testimony of Peter D Smith, taken 26.5.2007

“He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes”

Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

However, on 30.1.2008, Martin Smith's statement changes to:

Smithman was “wearing a beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer”

sallypelt

Thank you! Thank you!

I have nearly worn myself out trying to get across to members here that there really are serious problems with these 'Smithman' sightings - and now it seems I have missed out one of the most obvious indications that all is not right with them.

Suddenly, over 8 months later (30 January 2008), the clothing he could not make out becomes 'beige trousers' and a 'darkish top'.

Thanks once again

by Liz Eagles 26.09.14 14:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:And let's not forget how Martin Smith's statement changed

Taken from the Smith’s statements dated 26.5.2007
These extracts are referring to what the Smith Family said about the Smithman, and what they said he was wearing ABOVE his waist:

MARTIN SMITH'S STATEMENT:

“ …He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same...”

Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

“…She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top...”

Testimony of Peter D Smith, taken 26.5.2007

“He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes”

Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

However, on 30.1.2008, Martin Smith's statement changes to:

Smithman was “wearing a beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer”
sallypelt

Thank you! Thank you!

I have nearly worn myself out trying to get across to members here that there really are serious problems with these 'Smithman' sightings - and now it seems I have missed out one of the most obvious indications that all is not right with them.

Suddenly, over 8 months later (30 January 2008), the clothing he could not make out becomes 'beige trousers' and a 'darkish top'.

Thanks once again

Don't forget the buttons.

by sallypelt 26.09.14 14:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:And let's not forget how Martin Smith's statement changed

Taken from the Smith’s statements dated 26.5.2007
These extracts are referring to what the Smith Family said about the Smithman, and what they said he was wearing ABOVE his waist:

MARTIN SMITH'S STATEMENT:

“ …He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same...”

Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

“…She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top...”

Testimony of Peter D Smith, taken 26.5.2007

“He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes”

Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

However, on 30.1.2008, Martin Smith's statement changes to:

Smithman was “wearing a beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer”
sallypelt

Thank you! Thank you!

I have nearly worn myself out trying to get across to members here that there really are serious problems with these 'Smithman' sightings - and now it seems I have missed out one of the most obvious indications that all is not right with them.

Suddenly, over 8 months later (30 January 2008), the clothing he could not make out becomes 'beige trousers' and a 'darkish top'.

Thanks once again

Happy to be of assistance, Tony. Moreover, one of the children of Martin Smith is a BRITSH CITIZEN, not Irish, and this person was born...........wait for it..........IN NORWICH, NORFOLK, as was Robert Murat's daughter. Is this just ANOTHER one of those coincidences that just seem to keep mounting up?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 14:34

viaveritasvita wrote:
Boosey wrote:At the beginning I also thought that Mr Smith and his family were credible but after giving Tony's views much thought I definitely believe that all is not as it seems...
Yes I agree he is our dear leader, thank the lord.

@ viaveritasvita

First of all congratulations on your mastery of the now-dead Latin language, dead that is except for some of the 'hocus pocus' rituals still performed by the Holy Father's church.

Thank you so much for joining us here on 8 September, and just three days later, greeting me with these words on the thread on the contents of the Summers & Swan travesty, 'Looking for Madeleine': "Go get 'em tony and remember you are never alone. Jesus is with you always".

As I suspect you are aware, Jesus is always on the side of truth in all matters, and has promised that there will come a day when all truths will be made known.

As for today's greeting, "Yes I agree he is our dear leader, thank the lord", I am a practitioner in the art of irony, and I feel sure that there is more than a hint of sarcasm in your comparison of me to a 'Dear Leader', perhaps in the mould of Kim-Jong-Il or Kim-Jong-Un. *

I trust I am mistaken and that this was merely a rather kack-handed attempt at flattery.

I wish you a long and happy membership on this forum, such as has been enjoyed by the many who have been here day in and day out, edging us ever closer to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, a case which I think could be sumamrised by this Latin phrase:

reductio ad absurdum

* ETA re KIng Jong-Un:

Most regrettably, the dear and blessed leader of the People's Democrtaic Republic of North Korea, Kim-Jomg-Un, has not been seen in public for three weeks. Sadly, it appears that a few months ago, he developed an insatiable addiction to Swiss Emmentaler cheese, has ballooned in weight to over 20 stone, and can no longer support his own weight on his legs. I am not joking...

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

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 14:40

aquila wrote:
Don't forget the buttons.

She only thought she saw buttons.

I wonder if before 26 May (date of statement to the PJ) the Smith family had perhaps seen a photo of Gerry McCann with buttons on one of his myrad paris of trousers.

The buttons must have been big and bright to stand out so well in the poorly-lighted dark night

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 14:43

sallypelt wrote:
Happy to be of assistance, Tony. Moreover, one of the children of Martin Smith is a BRITSH CITIZEN, not Irish, and this person was born...wait for it...IN NORWICH, NORFOLK, as was Robert Murat's daughter. Is this just ANOTHER one of those coincidences that just seem to keep mounting up?

I did notice the curiosity that Aoife Smith is described in the PJ reports as an 'English' citizen, not Irish.

I suspect that someone on this thread will very soon ask you to provide evidence that Aoife was born in Norwich.

So I hope you are ready!

by sallypelt 26.09.14 14:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Happy to be of assistance, Tony. Moreover, one of the children of Martin Smith is a BRITSH CITIZEN, not Irish, and this person was born...wait for it...IN NORWICH, NORFOLK, as was Robert Murat's daughter. Is this just ANOTHER one of those coincidences that just seem to keep mounting up?
I did notice the curiosity that Aoife Smith is described in the PJ reports as an 'English' citizen, not Irish.

I suspect that someone on this thread will very soon ask you to provide evidence that Aoife was born in Norwich.

So I hope you are ready!

Once again, Tony, happy to be of assistance:

Lucy Aoife Smith
Mother's Maiden Surname: Williams
Date of Registration: 1995 - Feb
Registration district: Norwich
Inferred County: Norfolk
Register Number: E15B
District and Subdistrict: 6391E
Entry Number: 174

by palm tree 26.09.14 15:11

Ah but here's where it gets tricky, didn't a PI for the mcs get in touch with the Smiths in January 08? And IMO km tried to morph tannerman and smithman in her book.
IMO

by Guest 26.09.14 15:22

If Tony can see through the discrepancies in the statements then I'm sure Redwood is doing the same,did the revelation moment actually mean I've sussed this out and want to draw attention to it by showing it on crimewatch,and now to prove the point on the 30th anniversary crimewatch programme no mention of the alleged Smithman.Does that make sense,IMO of course.

by sallypelt 26.09.14 15:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:And let's not forget how Martin Smith's statement changed

Taken from the Smith’s statements dated 26.5.2007
These extracts are referring to what the Smith Family said about the Smithman, and what they said he was wearing ABOVE his waist:

MARTIN SMITH'S STATEMENT:

“ …He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same...”

Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26

“…She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top...”

Testimony of Peter D Smith, taken 26.5.2007

“He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes”

Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

However, on 30.1.2008, Martin Smith's statement changes to:

Smithman was “wearing a beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer”
sallypelt

Thank you! Thank you!

I have nearly worn myself out trying to get across to members here that there really are serious problems with these 'Smithman' sightings - and now it seems I have missed out one of the most obvious indications that all is not right with them.

Suddenly, over 8 months later (30 January 2008), the clothing he could not make out becomes 'beige trousers' and a 'darkish top'.

Thanks once again

Just to clarify, Tony, Martin Smith did say in his statement of the 26 May 2007 that Smithman was wearing "beige trousers". What he didn't notice was what he was wearing above his waistline. Here it is, copied and pasted:

"He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same".

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

by sallypelt 26.09.14 15:51

Carrying on with the theme, this is what Martin Smith said in his 30 January 2008 statement:

"After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. 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. This statement has been read over to me and is correct".

So it was only Martin Smith and his wife agreed that it could have been GM, but we know that despite this, Martin Smith saying that his wife agreed with him, Mrs Smith didn't want to give another statement.

by palm tree 26.09.14 16:15

I don't blame Mrs Smith, I wouldn't if IMO the mcs PIs were trying to persuade her that tannerman was smithman or anything else, especially with the help from people higher up. When GA got too close, I think certain people stepped in. That would be enough for me to step aside.
Imo

by joyce1938 26.09.14 16:40

I just cant claim to know one or another re smith sighting . But I would like to say that I have read that the family was not all walking together at the time ,so if one saw one thing and another saw face in a dfferent directin ,looking up or down etc . it would not be odd ,depends at what angle one saw ,he would not be in situation where he never moved his head ,it seems by the way each few people said he looked . joyce 1938 just a thought .

by Angelique 26.09.14 17:49

joyce1938 wrote:I just cant claim to know one or another re smith sighting . But I would like to say that I have read that the family was not all walking together at the time ,so if one saw one thing and another saw face in a dfferent directin ,looking up or down etc . it would not be odd ,depends at what angle one saw ,he would not be in situation where he never moved his head ,it seems by the way each few people said he looked . joyce 1938 just a thought .

Have to say that you have raised a fair point. If the sighting is for real. Textusa did a in-depth on this supposed sighting and it was mentioned that they met 'Smithman' as they were drifting back from the bar. They were spaced out and it's possible that one or other of the party saw more than others as there was street lighting at intervals along this road.

I am now wondering if Smithman was for real.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.14 18:37

Angelique wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:I just can't claim to know one way or another re Smith sighting. But I would like to say that I have read that the family was not all walking together at the time, so if one saw one thing and another saw a face in a dfferent direction, looking up or down etc., it would not be odd, depends at what angle one saw, he would not be in a situation where he never moved his head, it seems, by the way, each few people said he looked -
Have to say that you have raised a fair point - if the sighting is for real. Textusa did a in-depth on this supposed sighting and it was mentioned that they met 'Smithman' as they were drifting back from the bar. They were spaced out and it's possible that one or other of the party saw more than others as there was street lighting at intervals along this road.

I am now wondering if Smithman was for real.

@ joyce1938 @ Angelique

Understand your points, but can I invite you both please to re-examine a few points.

There were apparently 9 people walking back from Kelly's Bar to the Estrela da Luz complex. But only three of them actually made statements.

It is thereefore only the witness statements that these three witnesses made that really interest us: Martin Smith, Peter Smith and Aoife Smith. The others are irrelevant.

Have another look at the end of the OP, where I list what they actually each told the police about the man they said they saw. See how vague it all is.

Then think very hard about whether, some 12 to 17 months later, they were in any position at all to draw up ANY efits.

And even if you think they could so so, why do the two images look so different, in several important respects?

by Guest 26.09.14 21:13

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

This statement gives Aoife's nationality as Irish.

by Rufus T 27.09.14 14:56

Re Aoife being Irish/English, the original PJ statement before translation does say her nationality is Irish, that is in the main heading of her statement where it tells us who she is.
In the actual statement part it does say that due to being an English citizen she requires a translator.

by Guest 27.09.14 16:31

Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.09.14 16:37

Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.

I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

by sallypelt 27.09.14 17:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

by Newintown 27.09.14 19:42

sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records. What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in. This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

by sallypelt 27.09.14 19:52

Newintown wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records. What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in. This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

by sallypelt 27.09.14 19:53

Newintown wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records. What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in. This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.09.14 20:26

@ sallypelt

Newintown waits and pounces when he has an opportunity, making outrageous and in this case intimidatory and quite libellous claims.

You may not be right about Lucy Aoife Smith, but given that a translator described her as 'English' not Irish, understandably you went to check.

My agenda is well known.

Newintown's agenda, however, like some of those who have thankfully left us for distant shores, is to disrupt this forum and in particular to make snide attacks on me whenever he gets a chance.

Ignore him

by Newintown 27.09.14 20:42

sallypelt wrote:
Newintown wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Marian wrote:Yes, here is the statement in Portuguese.

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

Perhaps it should have said English speaker and not English citizen.
I think that may well be the answer.

@ sallypelt I am doubtful whether your 'Lucy Aoife Smith' born in Norfolk is the same Aoife Smith who thought she saw buttons on the trousers of 'the man in the dark'

Tony, all I have to go on is the age, the fact that it's stated that she's a British national, when all the others are Irish. Everything fits, but without seeing the actual birth certificate (which I do not have access to) there's always room for error. But if she IS a British national, because she was born in the UK and not Ireland, then the information that I've posted must be her. But I can't be 100% sure, as I can't cross-reference.

My God, have you all gone insane???

I can't believe you are hounding the daughter of a witness into MBM's disappearance and are delving into her birth records. What the hell has that got to do with seeing a man who may or may not look like GM?

How would you feel if your son, daughter, wife, husband were a witness to a crime and were hounded to the extent that their whole life/business history was delved into for years gone by and every little detail was disclosed for everyone to read wherever they may be.

Has it never occurred to you that Tony Bennett may have an agenda and one that is not for looking for the truth for whatever happened to MBM.

Stop and think about what you are doing and participating in. This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

What I've posted is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I am beginning to get paraniod about posting ANYTHING on a public forum. I don't make sweeping statements. I post information not opinions. Another outburst like this, and I am out of here. And are you saying that Tony "has an agenda"???
Please explain.

Hello Sallypelt, I didn't realise it was you when I wrote my post.

But I still stand by what I said, if you believe in TB then that's up to you but I'm not going to explain myself to you, TB's dogmatic behaviour regarding the Smiths says a lot. He has no idea regarding the Smiths as much as you or I have or the millions on this Earth but he writes as if he's an expert on what they saw or didn't see as if his life depends on it, which I think it does; if he's sold his soul to the devil (to dishonour the Smiths in any way he can) no doubt we will never know.

His behaviour in now taking the Smiths' discussion to a 4th series on the forum, tells me he is under pressure to dismiss the Smiths' sighting at all costs.