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

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

by SixMillionQuid 04.10.14 15:32

Dee Coy wrote:
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.

It's not only TB's opinion its my opinion too.

Here's still from the news report Mr Smith refers too.

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

Everyone has a different face. No amount of plastic surgery can make two persons faces identical. But Mr Smith couldn't describe the face of Smithman when he made his statement to the police on 26 May. If you check the PJ files the police wanted to know what it was that made Mr Smith think it was GM. The only response was by the way he carried the child.

Then that raises another question - what was so unusual or unique about the way he carried his child and more importantly why would Mr Smith know this? You can't do ID parade based on the way a person carried a child because that would involve getting every single father that was in PdL to stand in line carrying their kids. Their faces would be obscured because - you cant describe the face. At least two fathers will be carrying their kids in the same way - you're screwed right there!

...unless, for as yet undisclosed reason, you were 60%- 80% sure it was GM.

by Doug D 04.10.14 16:49

HKP:

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

Don’t know what you’re looking at.

Looks like the McCannfiles one to me, just the times have been pm’ed instead of 24 hour clock and Katherina has become Katherine.

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

‘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 19.30 and 21.00 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 Katherina. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as I know, the gesture was not repeated.

We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it.’

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 17:21

Doug D wrote:HKP:

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

Don’t know what you’re looking at.

Looks like the McCannfiles one to me, just the times have been pm’ed instead of 24 hour clock and Katherina has become Katherine.

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

‘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 19.30 and 21.00 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 Katherina. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as I know, the gesture was not repeated.

We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it.’

This from Tony's post @1:43

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

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 Doug D 04.10.14 17:42

OK sorry.

Try this then:

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

10^th October 2009

‘“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. The man that is holding the cup of wine in the photograph is _____”.’

by Hongkong Phooey 04.10.14 17:55

Doug D wrote:OK sorry.

Try this then:

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

10^th October 2009

‘“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. The man that is holding the cup of wine in the photograph is _____”.’

Ok thanks, I've not come across that site before.

by Guest 04.10.14 19:12

Dee Coy today @ 9:05 am

Gaspar statement delay v Smith statement delay, entirely different kettle of fish, not comparable.

by Guest 04.10.14 19:19

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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)

As far as I'm aware this is a debating forum where members are able to exchange ideas, thoughts, theories etc. At least that's the reason I joined. There is little point in sticking to what's laid out in black and white, for the simple reason that the whole case is built on shifting sands.

by Guest 04.10.14 19:25

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?

Excellent point! The Smith's didn't seem to think their sighting was important or relevant on the morning of 4th May yet, 2 or so weeks later, it suddenly dawned that it might be?

Forgive me if this has been covered but did anyone in an official capacity suggest that the man allegedly seen by the Smith family was, or could have been, Robert Murat prior to the 3 Smiths giving their statements?

by palm tree 05.10.14 4:57

In the early days, a child had gone missing, in between 9:00/915, woke and wandered first thoughts, only parents said abduction. When I think of child abduction, I think of a child, frightened, crying, screaming, kicking and bundled into a vehicle which speeds off. Not a man walking through a holiday town, carrying a sleeping child. The next day when MS thought it might've been maddie, he'd have thought of those things, and wouldn't (well, I wouldn't) have been alerted to it.
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 05.10.14 7:18

Gollum wrote:
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? (thinking icon)
Excellent point! The Smith's didn't seem to think their sighting was important or relevant on the morning of 4th May yet, 2 or so weeks later, it suddenly dawned that it might be?

Forgive me if this has been covered but did anyone in an official capacity suggest that the man allegedly seen by the Smith family was, or could have been, Robert Murat prior to the 3 Smiths giving their statements?

Mr Noodles & Gollum

Thank you - for between you, I think you have cracked an even bigger problem about the 'Smithmanm' sighting than even I had realised.

Your point needs to be taken in conjunction with on of my other key points, namely the 17 points of striking similarity between the Smiths' description of Smithman and Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman.

And to illustrate the point, I want to extract one particular comment made by the Smiths, found in the Daily Mail article of 3 January 2008 (this was the one where Smith admitted that McCann Team man Brian Kennedy had already contacted him, and that he was expecting a visit from Metodo 3 men shortly):

QUOTE

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’."

UNQUOTE

The importance of the above cannot be over-estimated, because on the day the Smiths made their disclosures to the Irish Gardai (16 May or possibly 17 or 18 May), no public description of Tannerman had yet been given.

Murat was made an official suspect on Tuesday 15 May.

Then we get this very interesting sequence of dates (covered inter alia in pp. 147 to of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'):

Sunday 20 May - Gerry McCann flies to England, with his camera. He stays with (quote from Kate's book) "friends who had so far managed to steer clear of the media searchlights" (she doesn't name them)

Monday 21 May - Gerry 'meets with the British police' (another quote from the book)

also Monday - Gerry meets Clarence Mitchell ('for the first time', says Kate). Gerry wanted to go to Rothley to see the 'mountain of cards, notes and gifts' but do so 'without intrusion'. Clarence arranged with the 'British police' for Gerry to be able to do this

Tuesday 22 May - Gerry and Clarence fly back to Portugal together. Gerry's sister-in-law Philomena McCann. husband of photoshop expert and quicksand-fetishist Tony Rickwood, also flies in to Portugal the same day

Wednesday 23 May - Gerry and Kate, accompanied by Clarence, spend the day at Fatima (Roman Catholic shrine)

Thursday 24 May - The 'Last Photo', for some mysterious reason held back for three weeks, was suddenly released

Friday 25 May - Gerry McCann (after intervention from Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer) makes a public appeal in front of the world's press, giving a very limited description of 'Tannerman'. He said this:

“We very much welcome the decision of the Portuguese authorities to release details of a man seen by a witness here in Praia da Luz on Thursday 3^rd May, the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. The release of this important information follows an earlier meeting that we had with senior Portuguese police officers...We feel sure that this sighting of a man, with what appeared to be a child in his arms, is both significant and relevant to Madeleine’s abduction, and we would appeal, once again, for anyone who may have seen him, or anything else suspicious, on or around the 3^rd of May, to come forward and tell the police".

Earlier, the PJ had given out this very limited description:

"White, aged 35-40, 5’ 10” in height, wearing ‘beige’ or ‘light’ trousers, and wearing a dark jacket and shoes".

Saturday 26 May - Martin, Peter amd Aoife Smith give their descriptions of the man they say they saw to the Portuguese police.

Therefore by the time the Smiths give their formal statements to the police on 26 May, they do not have anything like the full details of the description of Tannerman.

Here's a reminder of the 17 remarkable similarities between Jane Tanner's description and the Smiths' description (this list is slightly different from the one I published om another thread):

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no buggy or push-chair
3. The child was a girl
4. The child was barefoot
5. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
6. She looked about four years old
7. She was being held on the man’s left side
8. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
9. The man ‘did not look like a tourist’ (whatever that may mean)
10. He was wearing a dark jacket
11. He was wearing light-coloured trousers
12. He was both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)
13. He was aged 25-40
14. He was of average build
15. He was walking ‘purposefully’/quite fast
         16. Each was spotted within 600 yards of each other
        17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen properly (despite claims that the Smiths drew up the two e-fits).

So, if the Smiths say that the 'coincidence of the similarities between their man and Tannerman' prompted them to contact the police on 16 May, are they telling the truth?

Moreover, they have given different reasons for the delay. Another reason was that they only acted after (they say) learning the exact time of the abduction.

These different stories do not give us confidence to believe the Smiths.

And I suggest that the 17 coincidences between the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman strongly suggest that the Smiths had acquired prior knowledge of the Tannerman description before they made their statements to the PJ.

The next question - and I have raised this question before - is: who gave them this information?

All I will say is that it could have come from someone in the McCann Team.

Or it could have come from Murat, who might have got to know about the alleged sighting of Tannerman whilst doing his translating work in the days before his arrest.

But what we can conclude from this analysis is:

(a) that the Smiths' claims to have been prompted to contact the police by the 'coincidences of their sighting with that of 'Tannerman' is false, and

(b) that to give such a detailed description with so many (17) similarities suggests they had 'inside' information - from the McCann Team or Murat - before giving their descriptions.

by Hongkong Phooey 05.10.14 8:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gollum wrote:
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? (thinking icon)
Excellent point! The Smith's didn't seem to think their sighting was important or relevant on the morning of 4th May yet, 2 or so weeks later, it suddenly dawned that it might be?

Forgive me if this has been covered but did anyone in an official capacity suggest that the man allegedly seen by the Smith family was, or could have been, Robert Murat prior to the 3 Smiths giving their statements?
Mr Noodles & Gollum

Thank you - for between you, I think you have cracked an even bigger problem about the 'Smithmanm' sighting than even I had realised.

Your point needs to be taken in conjunction with on of my other key points, namely the 17 points of striking similarity between the Smiths' description of Smithman and Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman.

And to illustrate the point, I want to extract one particular comment made by the Smiths, found in the Daily Mail article of 3 January 2008 (this was the one where Smith admitted that McCann Team man Brian Kennedy had already contacted him, and that he was expecting a visit from Metodo 3 men shortly):

QUOTE

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’."

UNQUOTE

The importance of the above cannot be over-estimated, because on the day the Smiths made their disclosures to the Irish Gardai (16 May or possibly 17 or 18 May), no public description of Tannerman had yet been given.

Murat was made an official suspect on Tuesday 15 May.

Then we get this very interesting sequence of dates (covered inter alia in pp. 147 to of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'):

Sunday 20 May - Gerry McCann flies to England, with his camera. He stays with (quote from Kate's book) "friends who had so far managed to steer clear of the media searchlights" (she doesn't name them)

Monday 21 May - Gerry 'meets with the British police' (another quote from the book)

also Monday - Gerry meets Clarence Mitchell ('for the first time', says Kate). Gerry wanted to go to Rothley to see the 'mountain of cards, notes and gifts' but do so 'without intrusion'. Clarence arranged with the 'British police' for Gerry to be able to do this

Tuesday 22 May - Gerry and Clarence fly back to Portugal together. Gerry's sister-in-law Philomena McCann. husband of photoshop expert and quicksand-fetishist Tony Rickwood, also flies in to Portugal the same day

Wednesday 23 May - Gerry and Kate, accompanied by Clarence, spend the day at Fatima (Roman Catholic shrine)

Thursday 24 May - The 'Last Photo', for some mysterious reason held back for three weeks, was suddenly released

Friday 25 May - Gerry McCann (after intervention from Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer) makes a public appeal in front of the world's press, giving a very limited description of 'Tannerman'. He said this:

“We very much welcome the decision of the Portuguese authorities to release details of a man seen by a witness here in Praia da Luz on Thursday 3^rd May, the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. The release of this important information follows an earlier meeting that we had with senior Portuguese police officers...We feel sure that this sighting of a man, with what appeared to be a child in his arms, is both significant and relevant to Madeleine’s abduction, and we would appeal, once again, for anyone who may have seen him, or anything else suspicious, on or around the 3^rd of May, to come forward and tell the police".

Earlier, the PJ had given out this very limited description:

"White, aged 35-40, 5’ 10” in height, wearing ‘beige’ or ‘light’ trousers, and wearing a dark jacket and shoes".
Saturday 26 May - Martin, Peter amd Aoife Smith give their descriptions of the man they say they saw to the Portuguese police.

Therefore by the time the Smiths give their formal statements to the police on 26 May, they do not have anything like the full details of the description of Tannerman.

Here's a reminder of the 17 remarkable similarities between Jane Tanner's description and the Smiths' description (this list is slightly different from the one I published om another thread):

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no buggy or push-chair
3. The child was a girl
4. The child was barefoot
5. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
6. She looked about four years old
7. She was being held on the man’s left side
8. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
9. The man ‘did not look like a tourist’ (whatever that may mean)
10. He was wearing a dark jacket
11. He was wearing light-coloured trousers
12. He was both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)
13. He was aged 25-40
14. He was of average build
15. He was walking ‘purposefully’/quite fast
         16. Each was spotted within 600 yards of each other
        17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen properly (despite claims that the Smiths drew up the two e-fits).

So, if the Smiths say that the 'coincidence of the similarities between their man and Tannerman' prompted them to contact the police on 16 May, are they telling the truth?

Moreover, they have given different reasons for the delay. Another reason was that they only acted after (they say) learning the exact time of the abduction.

These different stories do not give us confidence to believe the Smiths.

And I suggest that the 17 coincidences between the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman strongly suggest that the Smiths had acquired prior knowledge of the Tannerman description before they made their statements to the PJ.

The next question - and I have raised this question before - is: who gave them this information?

All I will say is that it could have come from someone in the McCann Team.

Or it could have come from Murat, who might have got to know about the alleged sighting of Tannerman whilst doing his translating work in the days before his arrest.

But what we can conclude from this analysis is:

(a) that the Smiths' claims to have been prompted to contact the police by the 'coincidences of their sighting with that of 'Tannerman' is false, and

(b) that to give such a detailed description with so many (17) similarities suggests they had 'inside' information - from the McCann Team or Murat - before giving their descriptions.

Tony, you can't slate the press for some of their reporting then selectively use the press when it suits. As I've stated before, misquoting (and also extrapolating and making things up) is not uncommon.

The sequence of events (from the book) has what exactly to do with the Smiths other than in your head? All you have is a theory that they've been 'got at' where it could be argued that it was the other way round. Tanneman was invented to look like Smithman, if not why not!

by Guest 05.10.14 8:54

More importantly can OG work it out,I've said before was the revelation moment on crimewatch the moment Redwood saw through the discrepancies? or the same similarities?

by Carrry On Doctor 05.10.14 9:06

Tony / Gollum / Mr Noodles

I have always thought the Smiths to be genuine, but I take on board your arguments and keep an open mind.

Do you think that Smithman was in fact RM, or just didn't exist at all ? If there was a Smithman, and it wasn't RM, who do you think are the candidates ?

by joyce1938 05.10.14 10:44

I wonder which sketch was chosen after the tannerman event ,I think I saw about 4 or 5 different ones ,which would be close to the one of smithman ? joyce1938

by sallypelt 05.10.14 10:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gollum wrote:
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? (thinking icon)
Excellent point! The Smith's didn't seem to think their sighting was important or relevant on the morning of 4th May yet, 2 or so weeks later, it suddenly dawned that it might be?

Forgive me if this has been covered but did anyone in an official capacity suggest that the man allegedly seen by the Smith family was, or could have been, Robert Murat prior to the 3 Smiths giving their statements?
Mr Noodles & Gollum

Thank you - for between you, I think you have cracked an even bigger problem about the 'Smithmanm' sighting than even I had realised.

Your point needs to be taken in conjunction with on of my other key points, namely the 17 points of striking similarity between the Smiths' description of Smithman and Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman.

And to illustrate the point, I want to extract one particular comment made by the Smiths, found in the Daily Mail article of 3 January 2008 (this was the one where Smith admitted that McCann Team man Brian Kennedy had already contacted him, and that he was expecting a visit from Metodo 3 men shortly):

QUOTE

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’."

UNQUOTE

The importance of the above cannot be over-estimated, because on the day the Smiths made their disclosures to the Irish Gardai (16 May or possibly 17 or 18 May), no public description of Tannerman had yet been given.

Murat was made an official suspect on Tuesday 15 May.

Then we get this very interesting sequence of dates (covered inter alia in pp. 147 to of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'):

Sunday 20 May - Gerry McCann flies to England, with his camera. He stays with (quote from Kate's book) "friends who had so far managed to steer clear of the media searchlights" (she doesn't name them)

Monday 21 May - Gerry 'meets with the British police' (another quote from the book)

also Monday - Gerry meets Clarence Mitchell ('for the first time', says Kate). Gerry wanted to go to Rothley to see the 'mountain of cards, notes and gifts' but do so 'without intrusion'. Clarence arranged with the 'British police' for Gerry to be able to do this

Tuesday 22 May - Gerry and Clarence fly back to Portugal together. Gerry's sister-in-law Philomena McCann. husband of photoshop expert and quicksand-fetishist Tony Rickwood, also flies in to Portugal the same day

Wednesday 23 May - Gerry and Kate, accompanied by Clarence, spend the day at Fatima (Roman Catholic shrine)

Thursday 24 May - The 'Last Photo', for some mysterious reason held back for three weeks, was suddenly released

Friday 25 May - Gerry McCann (after intervention from Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer) makes a public appeal in front of the world's press, giving a very limited description of 'Tannerman'. He said this:

“We very much welcome the decision of the Portuguese authorities to release details of a man seen by a witness here in Praia da Luz on Thursday 3^rd May, the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. The release of this important information follows an earlier meeting that we had with senior Portuguese police officers...We feel sure that this sighting of a man, with what appeared to be a child in his arms, is both significant and relevant to Madeleine’s abduction, and we would appeal, once again, for anyone who may have seen him, or anything else suspicious, on or around the 3^rd of May, to come forward and tell the police".

Earlier, the PJ had given out this very limited description:

"White, aged 35-40, 5’ 10” in height, wearing ‘beige’ or ‘light’ trousers, and wearing a dark jacket and shoes".
Saturday 26 May - Martin, Peter amd Aoife Smith give their descriptions of the man they say they saw to the Portuguese police.

Therefore by the time the Smiths give their formal statements to the police on 26 May, they do not have anything like the full details of the description of Tannerman.

Here's a reminder of the 17 remarkable similarities between Jane Tanner's description and the Smiths' description (this list is slightly different from the one I published om another thread):

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no buggy or push-chair
3. The child was a girl
4. The child was barefoot
5. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
6. She looked about four years old
7. She was being held on the man’s left side
8. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
9. The man ‘did not look like a tourist’ (whatever that may mean)
10. He was wearing a dark jacket
11. He was wearing light-coloured trousers
12. He was both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)
13. He was aged 25-40
14. He was of average build
15. He was walking ‘purposefully’/quite fast
         16. Each was spotted within 600 yards of each other
        17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen properly (despite claims that the Smiths drew up the two e-fits).

So, if the Smiths say that the 'coincidence of the similarities between their man and Tannerman' prompted them to contact the police on 16 May, are they telling the truth?

Moreover, they have given different reasons for the delay. Another reason was that they only acted after (they say) learning the exact time of the abduction.

These different stories do not give us confidence to believe the Smiths.

And I suggest that the 17 coincidences between the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman strongly suggest that the Smiths had acquired prior knowledge of the Tannerman description before they made their statements to the PJ.

The next question - and I have raised this question before - is: who gave them this information?

All I will say is that it could have come from someone in the McCann Team.

Or it could have come from Murat, who might have got to know about the alleged sighting of Tannerman whilst doing his translating work in the days before his arrest.

But what we can conclude from this analysis is:

(a) that the Smiths' claims to have been prompted to contact the police by the 'coincidences of their sighting with that of 'Tannerman' is false, and

(b) that to give such a detailed description with so many (17) similarities suggests they had 'inside' information - from the McCann Team or Murat - before giving their descriptions.

Tony, I am going to repost this post I made a week or so ago, just to clear up any misunderstanding about what the Smith's said,or didn't say, in their 26th May 2007 statements:
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...” [although he did say Smithman's trousers were beige]

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”

IT WAS ONLY IN HIS 30.1.2008 STATEMENT THAT MARTIN SMITH SUDDENLY REMEMBERED WHAT TOP SMITHMAN WAS WEARING:

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 palm tree 05.10.14 11:46

We all know about MSM, especially the red tops. We also know tannermans been outed, so the morphing doesn't count now, not from madedeline the book aka KM or anyone else.
IMO

by MRNOODLES 05.10.14 13:31

Just a opinion, but made a little help in developing it.

What if Creche man is real & Smithman is made up?

Crech man real in as much Redwood says he is.

Smithman made up to get Murat off the hook, because he was wrongly fingered.

Where would that leave us at around 10pm in regards of the the surrounding area?

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

Creche man walking left to right north of the map. And the Smiths are still walking in a northerly direction. Put Jez and JT on the map around that time. It looks to me there's no risk free escape route from 5a for an abductor. Maybe the key is, Smithman needs to be proven that he was made up

by palm tree 05.10.14 18:05

But to do that, we'd all have to believe Martin Smith and his family have lied to police, which including his 12yr old daughter!
Imo

by Hongkong Phooey 05.10.14 18:49

MRNOODLES wrote:Just a opinion, but made a little help in developing it.

What if Creche man is real & Smithman is made up?

Crech man real in as much Redwood says he is.

Smithman made up to get Murat off the hook, because he was wrongly fingered.

Where would that leave us at around 10pm in regards of the the surrounding area?

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

Creche man walking left to right north of the map. And the Smiths are still walking in a northerly direction. Put Jez and JT on the map around that time. It looks to me there's no risk free escape route from 5a for an abductor. Maybe the key is, Smithman needs to be proven that he was made up

"Smithman needs to be proven that he was made up" And how do you propose this is done?, many on here are pointing out discrepancies in their statements to police (those I can understand are being questioned) others are pulling up press reports and comparing them against each other and the official statements (a waste of time, its easy for the those being quoted to say they never said that or it was made up or selective quoting has been used). So who exactly is going to prove anything when both the PJ (at least initially) and now OG both think Smithman is credible (both have put huge resources and expertise into this) but hey maybe a few folks on cmomm know better.
As has been pointed out on a number of occasions on this thread there is absolutely no reason for the Smith family to lie, unless you can figure out why MS himself, then persuaded his 12 year old daughter to lie in the biggest missing person case we've seen in many a decade, then you have nothing.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.10.14 22:59

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony / Gollum / Mr Noodles

I have always thought the Smiths to be genuine, but I take on board your arguments and keep an open mind.

Do you think that Smithman was in fact RM, or just didn't exist at all?

After examining all the available evidence about the various claims and statements made by the Smiths, I have for some time been driven to the concluison that 'Smithman' is an outright fabrication

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...