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

by Guest 04.10.14 9:53

Of course.

'This delay' being the time between Mrs Gaspar making her statement on May 16 and the date at which it was sent to the Portuguese - at their request - on 24 October.

'it' being the act of failing to forward information promptly to the Portuguese, as was the case here with the Gaspar statement.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 10:14

Dee Coy wrote:Of course.

'This delay' being the time between Mrs Gaspar making her statement on May 16 and the date at which it was sent to the Portuguese - at their request - on 24 October.

'it' being the act of failing to forward information promptly to the Portuguese, as was the case here with the Gaspar statement.

Thank you.

I recall that a request for information from Leics POlice about why there was a 5-month delay in forwarding the Gaspar statements to Portugal was firmly met by LP, without batting an eyelid, so to speak, with:

"There was no delay in forwarding anything to the PJ" - or something like that

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 10:14

Gollum wrote:Honkong Phooey today @ 8:12 am

I would sincerely hope that if Martin Smith did report his concerns reasonably promptly, having seen Gerry leaving the aircraft, Liam Hogan would have given the matter priority, not sat on it for days on end. If he didn't then the question remains, as it does in regard to his initial reaction on 3rd/4th May.

You say "it does appear that for example Mrs Smith's statement has been held back", are you not guilty of doing exactly what you repeatedly accuse others of doing i.e. making things up or surmising or guessing? All you have to go on is a report that Mrs Smith 'didn't want to give another statement', from that you are assuming that she had already given a statement, irrespective of the fact that there is no official record of such. Yes, the family may be telling the truth, conversely they may not be telling the truth. As far as I see it, there are too many holes that can't be explained.

Admit that you are none the wiser than the rest, so I ask that you please allow other members to express their opinions without jumping on every post with vapid words with no substance.

'You sincerely hope'????? Well thats that one settled then.

In the official files MS states his wife does not want to make another statement, what did I guess?

'Yes the family may be telling the truth, conversely they may not be telling the truth', you certainly covered all the bases there!!!!

I don't need to admit I'm none the wiser than the rest because I never claimed to be, however I don't pick up on perceived discrepences and make things up (does they could have been paid or threatened ring any bells Gollum)

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 10:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Of course.

'This delay' being the time between Mrs Gaspar making her statement on May 16 and the date at which it was sent to the Portuguese - at their request - on 24 October.

'it' being the act of failing to forward information promptly to the Portuguese, as was the case here with the Gaspar statement.
Thank you.

I recall that a request for information from Leics POlice about why there was a 5-month delay in forwarding the Gaspar statements to Portugal was firmly met by LP, without batting an eyelid, so to speak, with:

"There was no delay in forwarding anything to the PJ" - or something like that

IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up. Funnily enough these two are the areas which the McCanns shy away from (they have given some acknowledgement to Smithman but none to the Gaspers iirc)

by sami 04.10.14 10:44

As regards Mrs Smith. I don't recall seeing her name included in the list of missing documents/statements from the DVD, but perhaps somebody else here does ?

Other than the inclusion of the word "another" by a Garda in his cover letter, so far I don't see definite confirmation she ever made a statement. The Guard may have made an assumption there was already a first statement from her. Not unreasonable, given three others in her company on the night in question had done so.

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 10:53

sami wrote:As regards Mrs Smith. I don't recall seeing her name included in the list of missing documents/statements from the DVD, but perhaps somebody else here does ?

Other than the inclusion of the word "another" by a Garda in his cover letter, so far I don't see definite confirmation she ever made a statement. The Guard may have made an assumption there was already a first statement from her. Not unreasonable, given three others in her company on the night in question had done so.

We also know that all files have not been released, do we assume Mrs Smiths statement is one of them? Why not if we're relying on assumptions (that's the problem we can't assume anything).

eta: the guard may have known she did make a previous statement, we just don't know

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 10:53

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.

There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?

by Guest 04.10.14 10:55

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Of course.

'This delay' being the time between Mrs Gaspar making her statement on May 16 and the date at which it was sent to the Portuguese - at their request - on 24 October.

'it' being the act of failing to forward information promptly to the Portuguese, as was the case here with the Gaspar statement.
Thank you.

I recall that a request for information from Leics POlice about why there was a 5-month delay in forwarding the Gaspar statements to Portugal was firmly met by LP, without batting an eyelid, so to speak, with:

"There was no delay in forwarding anything to the PJ" - or something like that

IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up. Funnily enough these two are the areas which the McCanns shy away from (they have given some acknowledgement to Smithman but none to the Gaspers iirc)

Which brings us back to the original question highlighted by Tony:

When did Martin Smith give his statement to Leic police between 9 and 20 September? We know it was sent on 20th
September, but when was it taken?

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 11:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?

A lot of your discrepencies are quotes from newspapers and are 'chip paper' quotes. The others have been answered by suggestion because that is all that both sides of the argument have. I don't know exactly why there was delays etc. only the Smiths can answer that, however I'm not willing to cast doubt on their honesty given what little evidence we know of. Others on this thread have opposing views, I've seen nothing in these views (mostly assumptions and guesswork) that's convincing.

The differences in 'open or shut eyes' etc. has been explained elsewhere on this thread. The Smiths family were spread out so saw Smithmsn at slightly different angles etc. It would have been more suspicious if the all reported the exact same thing I.e. Aoife was only 2 meters away and looking up (as she claims).

Can't say im interested in MS golf business, imo its a red herring.

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 11:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?

Not trying to take this thread off topic but why are you willing to take the Gaspers statement at face value. Just because they contacted the police straight away? Because they were consistent?

Katrina's statement is full of 'I'm not sure's and I felt that, although Savio saw the gestures he doesn't really back her up that much. Their statements are 16th May, is it known exactly when the first contacted LP.

What makes the Gaspers (who I think are telling the truth also) more credible, trustworthy etc. than the Smiths Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 12:03

Dee Coy wrote:
When did Martin Smith give his statement to Leic police between 9 and 20 September? We know it was sent on 20th
September, but when was it taken?

We do not know.

And in the absence of certain knowledge, we have to trust our judgment.

Which is more likley?

A. That Smith for reasons best known to himself left it for 11 days, or

B. That Detective Liam Hogan left Martin Smith's signed statement in his in-tray for a whole 11 days before faxing it to Portugal.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 12:14

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of your discrepancies are quotes from newspapers

REPLY: Wrong and deliberately misleading. The contradictions stem from a combination of what they say in their three statements and what comes from their own mouths in direct quotes from oral staemens they have voluntarily given to the press.

and are 'chip paper' quotes.

REPLY: A cheap comment.

The others have been answered by suggestion because that is all that both sides of the argument have.

REPLY: Absolute twaddle. The OP is packed with undeniable facts clearly documenting the many contradictions.

I don't know exactly why there was delays etc. only the Smiths can answer that,

REPLY: Actually, Hongkong Phooey, as you know very well, they HAVE answered that, and answered it many times. The problem they have is that every time, they give a different - and contradictory - excuse for their delay. Please refresh your memory by looking again at the very first section of the OP.

however I'm not willing to cast doubt on their honesty given what little evidence we know of. Others on this thread have opposing views, I've seen nothing in these views (mostly assumptions and guesswork) that's convincing.

REPLY: That could well be IMO because you do not want to confront and explain the many puzzles and contradicitions exposed in the Smiths' evidence. Your position can I think be summed up thus: "I believe the Smiths are honest, reliable witnesses, and no matter how much evidence anyone produces to the contrary, my mind is made up".

The differences in 'open or shut eyes' etc. has been explained elsewhere on this thread. The Smiths family were spread out so saw Smithmsn at slightly different angles etc. It would have been more suspicious if the all reported the exact same thing I.e. Aoife was only 2 meters away and looking up (as she claims).

Can't say im interested in MS golf business, imo its a red herring.

by Guest 04.10.14 12:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
When did Martin Smith give his statement to Leic police between 9 and 20 September? We know it was sent on 20th
September, but when was it taken?
We do not know.

And in the absence of certain knowledge, we have to trust our judgment.

Which is more likley?

A. That Smith for reasons best known to himself left it for 11 days, or

B. That Detective Liam Hogan left Martin Smith's signed statement in his in-tray for a whole 11 days before faxing it to Portugal.

But that's the whole point. Given the delay in sending the Gaspar statements over, how can we make that judgement? It would not necessarily be a break with precedent.

by palm tree 04.10.14 12:48

Interestingly, DW 2nd statement (I think) suggests GM was not in the apartment from the time she went to it 10:05/10:15 when she left to get her bag, the mcs camera and the monitor, but was there the 2nd time she went back! Seems to back up the smiths sighting too.
IMO

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 13:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of your discrepancies are quotes from newspapers

REPLY: Wrong and deliberately misleading. The contradictions stem from a combination of what they say in their three statements and what comes from their own mouths in direct quotes from oral staemens they have voluntarily given to the press.

and are 'chip paper' quotes.

REPLY: A cheap comment.

The others have been answered by suggestion because that is all that both sides of the argument have.

REPLY: Absolute twaddle. The OP is packed with undeniable facts clearly documenting the many contradictions.

I don't know exactly why there was delays etc. only the Smiths can answer that,

REPLY: Actually, Hongkong Phooey, as you know very well, they HAVE answered that, and answered it many times. The problem they have is that every time, they give a different - and contradictory - excuse for their delay. Please refresh your memory by looking again at the very first section of the OP.

however I'm not willing to cast doubt on their honesty given what little evidence we know of. Others on this thread have opposing views, I've seen nothing in these views (mostly assumptions and guesswork) that's convincing.

REPLY: That could well be IMO because you do not want to confront and explain the many puzzles and contradicitions exposed in the Smiths' evidence. Your position can I think be summed up thus: "I believe the Smiths are honest, reliable witnesses, and no matter how much evidence anyone produces to the contrary, my mind is made up".

The differences in 'open or shut eyes' etc. has been explained elsewhere on this thread. The Smiths family were spread out so saw Smithmsn at slightly different angles etc. It would have been more suspicious if the all reported the exact same thing I.e. Aoife was only 2 meters away and looking up (as she claims).

Can't say im interested in MS golf business, imo its a red herring.

Tony you need to look at the first post yourself!!!

You match up their statements in various press reports which claim are direct quotes. I'm sure you're too long in the tooth to take even suoposed direct quotes from newspapers as gospel. Have you yourself not been subject to misquoting I know several people who have (they are footballers though so that might explain it :-) ).

As for the 'you wont change your mind' effort that is pot, kettle, black.You have presented little imo that has any real substance and all hinges on 'time', (you can't get a number of witnesses to say the exact same thing because we all have different perspectives and views I.e some people think one of the Smithman efits looks like Gerry, some dont but we're all looking at the same picture) however feel free to bang on, its a free (but monitored) world

by Guest 04.10.14 13:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

I'm not so sure about this (underlined). From Mrs Gaspar's statement:

"The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched the TV thoroughly, and seeing the news coverage, I noticed that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after Madeleine?s disappearance. Based upon that, I believed that he was on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal."

She saw Payne there in the first days of the TV coverage, but didn't make her statement until 16 May. That, as with the Smith's reporting their sighting, could have been as much as 13 days later.

Tony Bennett wrote:ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

Again, we don't know that. We know the statement was sent to the Portuguese on 20 September, but we don't know when during the period 9-20 September it was taken.

Tony Bennett wrote:RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

With respect, that is only your opinion. Lots of people believe it to be a very credible reason.

Tony Bennett wrote:NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

As many have said - and with the Gaspars' statements, statements taken from various people describing the same event will have minor contradictions, as people remember and see things from different angles and interpret things in different ways.

I too, along with Hong Kong Phooey, don't see any relevance in the Golf business history at all, or his previous career.

I do agree that the Gaspar statements should be taken at face value. I believe them and I believe the Smiths saw a man carrying a child.

by sami 04.10.14 13:16

Dee Coy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
When did Martin Smith give his statement to Leic police between 9 and 20 September? We know it was sent on 20th
September, but when was it taken?
We do not know.

And in the absence of certain knowledge, we have to trust our judgment.

Which is more likley?

A. That Smith for reasons best known to himself left it for 11 days, or

B. That Detective Liam Hogan left Martin Smith's signed statement in his in-tray for a whole 11 days before faxing it to Portugal.
But that's the whole point. Given the delay in sending the Gaspar statements over, how can we make that judgement? It would not necessarily be a break with precedent.

The Gaspar statements were delayed by UK police.

How involved could Detective Hogan have been with the political goings on, string pulling, whatever you want to call it, at that time ? Why would he want to delay passing on the statement ? Sitting at his desk in a rural Garda Station, how would he have become embroiled in the "agenda" call me Stu and others appear to have been party to.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 13:43

Dee Coy wrote:
The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

I'm not so sure about this (underlined). From Mrs Gaspar's statement:

"The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched the TV thoroughly, and seeing the news coverage, I noticed that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after Madeleine's disappearance. Based upon that, I believed that he was on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal."

She saw Payne there in the first days of the TV coverage, but didn't make her statement until 16 May. That, as with the Smith's reporting their sighting, could have been as much as 13 days later.

Thank you for posting that. I accept that what we don't know about the Gaspars is:

1) The exact day one of them first saw TV images of Dr David Payne in the background and

2) The exact day one of them first contacted Leicesterhsire Police (or maybe even the PJ).

What we DO know is that, though working in Exeter, Devon, Leicestershire Police (about 250 miles away) took a statement from her on 16 May.

It is reasonable to assume that there was a delay between the Gaspars telephoning the Leics Police (or PJ) and the actual taking of a statement by Leics Police on 16 May.

However, once again by complete contrast,

1. The Smiths ADMIT on the record that it was two weeks before they did anything

2. The claim that they only 'remembered' their sighting after Peter Smith 'phoned his father two weeks later with his 'Am I dreaming? questions is, to put it bluntly, lacking in credibility, and particulalry so when we know that

3. They have given numerous contradictory reasons for this unaccountable delay, e.g.

* 'we didn't know the extact time she was abducted'

* 'only when we realised that Jane Tanner's description was so similar', and

* (first mentioned in the Daily Mirror over 6 years later) 'because the Portuguese police were too busy to take a statement'.

Yet Martin Smith says in his statement to the PJ on 26 May, quote:

“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”.

He thought that the child he'd seen being carried at 10.00pm the very night before 'could have been Madeleine', yet it took another 13 days before he did anything, prompted by his son ringing up and asking "Am I dreaming?"???

You might by buying it, Dee Coy.

But like Wendy Murphy, I'm not

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

P.S. Last part of Dr Katharine Gaspar's statement for the record - evidently provided by a different translator from the translation you used:

“The first time I heard the terrible news regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the radio, my thoughts raced immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holiday with the McCanns in Portugal, but he didn’t know. I watched TV to catch the coverage of the news and eventually discovered that Dave was there with the McCanns.

“Then I saw him on TV a few days after Madeleine disappeared. I therefore believed that he was on holiday with the McCanns in Portugal. Today, Wednesday 16 May, 2007, at 3.40pm, I have given Detective Constable Brewer a page containing 2 photographic images. I am going to reference these images as: Ref KZG/1). I consent that these may be exhibited as required [by the police]. All these photographs were taken during our holidays in Majorca. In the photographs, Dave is wearing a white T-shirt and the woman in the photograph is his wife Fiona..."

by MRNOODLES 04.10.14 13:49

For the sake of debate (or devil's advocate if it's the correct terminology in this case)

I wonder if the Smith sighting would've ever came to light IF Murat hadn't been fingered? thinking

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 13:56

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?
Not trying to take this thread off topic but why are you willing to take the Gaspars' [sp.] statement at face value. Just because they contacted the police straightaway? Because they were consistent?

REPLY: These are two very good reasons for taking their statements at face value, yes. And neither of them apply to the Smiths' sttaements. As you see, I've given several other reasons as well

Katherine's [sp.] statement is full of 'I'm not sure's and I felt that, although Savio saw the gestures he doesn't really back her up that much. Their statements are 16th May, is it known exactly when the first contacted LP.

REPLY: I conceded above that the Gaspars' statements are a mixture of facts and their interpretatations of those facts. The main fact is set out in detail by Dr Katherine Gaspar. This main fact is then fully corroborated by her husband, Dr Arul (Savio) Gaspar, whose words are these:

“During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

“I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine..."

It looks to me, Hongkong Phooey, like you doubt the Gaspars, yet believe the Smiths? Now if that is true, I would find that very revealing

What makes the Gaspars [sp.] (who I think are telling the truth also) more credible, trustworthy etc. than the Smiths Tony?

REPLY: Repeat question. See above.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.14 13:57

MRNOODLES wrote:For the sake of debate (or devil's advocate if it's the correct terminology in this case)
I wonder if the Smith sighting would've ever came to light IF Murat hadn't been fingered?

Am equally wondering exactly the same

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 14:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?
Not trying to take this thread off topic but why are you willing to take the Gaspars' [sp.] statement at face value. Just because they contacted the police straightaway? Because they were consistent?

REPLY: These are two very good reasons for taking their statements at face value, yes. And neither of them apply to the Smiths' sttaements. As you see, I've given several other reasons as well

Katherine's [sp.] statement is full of 'I'm not sure's and I felt that, although Savio saw the gestures he doesn't really back her up that much. Their statements are 16th May, is it known exactly when the first contacted LP.

REPLY: I conceded above that the Gaspars' statements are a mixture of facts and their interpretatations of those facts. The main fact is set out in detail by Dr Katherine Gaspar. This main fact is then fully corroborated by her husband, Dr Arul (Savio) Gaspar, whose words are these:

“During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

“I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine..."

It looks to me, Hongkong Phooey, like you doubt the Gaspars, yet believe the Smiths? Now if that is true, I would find that very revealing

What makes the Gaspars [sp.] (who I think are telling the truth also) more credible, trustworthy etc. than the Smiths Tony?

REPLY: Repeat question. See above.

"It looks to me, Hongkong Phooey, like you doubt the Gaspars, yet believe the Smiths? Now if that is true, I would find that very revealing". Once again Tony you are wrong I quite clearly stated I beiieve both the Smith's and the Gaspar's are telling the truth. There are some similarities in that in both cases the witness statements are not exactly the same (Smith's saw a man carrying a child, Gaspar's saw a gesture. In both these cases there are slight differences when you get down to the detail).

Why (in your mind) would believing one and not the other be very revealing? Revealing what exactly?

Finally, where did that alternative translation come from as it is quite different from the standard known one?

by sallypelt 04.10.14 14:31

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
IMO both the Gaspers and the Smiths can be relied upon to have given truthful statements. Can we question and try to discredit them yes but both pretty much stand up.
There is every reason to take the Gaspar [sp.] statements at face value.

The very moment they saw that Payne was down in Praia da Luz with the McCanns, they were on the blower to Leicestershire Police.

And the statements each of the Drs Gaspar gave to the police were consistent with each other, albeit with some differences of interpretation of what they saw.

Contrast that with the Smiths:

THIRTEEN-DAY DELAY in reporting their alleged sighting of 'Smithman'

ELEVEN-DAY DELAY in Martin Smith reporting his claim that the man he'd seen in the dark 4 months earlier was really Gerry McCann

RIDICULOUS REASON for thinking it was Gerry McCann ' the way he was carrying his child'

NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS as fully set out in the OP (to which members here have added two more: (a) Martin Smith couldn't see what 'top' the man was wearing, then 9 months later 'remembered' what it was and its colour and (b) Aoife Smith said child's face was pressed against the man's chest yet Peter Smith claimed he could see that her eyelids were closed (!).)

PLUS we also have Martin Smith's clearly exaggerated claims about (a) his former career and (b) the Directors of his company, Golf Net Ltd.


You still 'rely' on Martin Smith and his son and daughters to 'make truthful statements' after all that?

Why?
Not trying to take this thread off topic but why are you willing to take the Gaspars' [sp.] statement at face value. Just because they contacted the police straightaway? Because they were consistent?

REPLY: These are two very good reasons for taking their statements at face value, yes. And neither of them apply to the Smiths' sttaements. As you see, I've given several other reasons as well

Katherine's [sp.] statement is full of 'I'm not sure's and I felt that, although Savio saw the gestures he doesn't really back her up that much. Their statements are 16th May, is it known exactly when the first contacted LP.

REPLY: I conceded above that the Gaspars' statements are a mixture of facts and their interpretatations of those facts. The main fact is set out in detail by Dr Katherine Gaspar. This main fact is then fully corroborated by her husband, Dr Arul (Savio) Gaspar, whose words are these:

“During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

“I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine..."

It looks to me, Hongkong Phooey, like you doubt the Gaspars, yet believe the Smiths? Now if that is true, I would find that very revealing

What makes the Gaspars [sp.] (who I think are telling the truth also) more credible, trustworthy etc. than the Smiths Tony?

REPLY: Repeat question. See above.

"It looks to me, Hongkong Phooey, like you doubt the Gaspars, yet believe the Smiths? Now if that is true, I would find that very revealing". Once again Tony you are wrong I quite clearly stated I beiieve both the Smith's and the Gaspar's are telling the truth. There are some similarities in that in both cases the witness statements are not exactly the same (Smith's saw a man carrying a child, Gaspar's saw a gesture. In both these cases there are slight differences when you get down to the detail).

Why (in your mind) would believing one and not the other be very revealing? Revealing what exactly?

Finally, where did that alternative translation come from as it is quite different from the standard known one?

I don't believe that the Gasper's or the Smith's is a case of who is right or wrong in their arguments, because no one really knows one way or the other. All one can do is QUESTION the inconsistencies and the reasons for delays etc.

by sami 04.10.14 14:34

MRNOODLES wrote:For the sake of debate (or devil's advocate if it's the correct terminology in this case)

I wonder if the Smith sighting would've ever came to light IF Murat hadn't been fingered?

The best point raised in this whole topic. Thank you. thumbup

by palm tree 04.10.14 14:51

Imo, yes, it would, when Gm came off the plane, MS still would've had seen the unintentional reconstruction, jogging his memory. RM was made a suspect on the 15th may, however, MS didn't make his statement that included it was not RM, until the 26th may. It seems to me that the Smiths were a bit reluctant to get involved in this case, and who could blame them.
IMO

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

Having looked at the various contradictions set out in the article...