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

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 ? If there was a Smithman, and it wasn't RM, who do you think are the candidates ?

palm tree wrote: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

palm tree wrote:Opps , I thought he'd come forward (albeit, 6 odd years later) and said he was taking his child home. I still find that hard to believe because tannermans description changed so many times, even a woman at one point.
IMO

SixMillionQuid wrote:How can anyone prove Smithman exists when we all know he isn't going to come forward after 7.5 years. Crecheman didn't come forward he was literally dug up from nowhere and presented as fact.

Someone said the Smiths can't have lied. I ask how two e-fits can be produced when no one can describe the face or would not be able to recognise the person again...if an e-fit was placed before them? If you dont believe Jane Tanner's ability to recall events in more detail long after they've happened then where does that put the Smiths.

If you've gone on record claiming that you would not be able to recognise that person again then you can't produce an e-fit from something you can't remember...unless the e-fit is a lie or the original statement was false in some way.

SixMillionQuid wrote:How can anyone prove Smithman exists when we all know he isn't going to come forward after 7.5 years. Crecheman didn't come forward he was literally dug up from nowhere and presented as fact.

Someone said the Smiths can't have lied. I ask how two e-fits can be produced when no one can describe the face or would not be able to recognise the person again...if an e-fit was placed before them? If you dont believe Jane Tanner's ability to recall events in more detail long after they've happened then where does that put the Smiths.

If you've gone on record claiming that you would not be able to recognise that person again then you can't produce an e-fit from something you can't remember...unless the e-fit is a lie or the original statement was false in some way.

Gollum wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:How can anyone prove Smithman exists when we all know he isn't going to come forward after 7.5 years. Crecheman didn't come forward he was literally dug up from nowhere and presented as fact.

Someone said the Smiths can't have lied. I ask how two e-fits can be produced when no one can describe the face or would not be able to recognise the person again...if an e-fit was placed before them? If you dont believe Jane Tanner's ability to recall events in more detail long after they've happened then where does that put the Smiths.

If you've gone on record claiming that you would not be able to recognise that person again then you can't produce an e-fit from something you can't remember...unless the e-fit is a lie or the original statement was false in some way.

Exactly!  If (big if) there was someone roaming the streets at the same time as the Smith family (could have been used as a base for the creation of Smithman), it most certainly wasn't Gerry McCann carrying his child or anyone acting on his behalf.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

Very cunning, Hongkong Phooey. And also pretty nasty.

Your posturing doesn't convince me, though.

Hongkongphooey wrote:The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

All imo.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

Very cunning, Hongkong Phooey. And also pretty nasty.

Your posturing doesn't convince me, though.

sami wrote:

Hongkongphooey wrote:The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

All imo.

Why is questioning what they have said considered to be "discrediting" them ? What is it about the Smith family that gives their statements automatic immunity from questioning ?   Things are often not how they seem,  particularly in the twilight zone that was Luz in May 2007.  

Some valid questions have been asked in this thread, IMO.  If there are satisfactory answers forthcoming, that would be great and the topic can be closed.  That has not happened yet and sweeping statements such as a whole family wouldn't lie, or they have no reaon to lie, Redwood told us x,y,z, are not answers.  Valid points to discuss yes, but not answers.

Edited to add -  yes, I agree with you both Tony Bennett an Aquila.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkongphooey wrote:The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

All imo.

Why is questioning what they have said considered to be "discrediting" them ? What is it about the Smith family that gives their statements automatic immunity from questioning ?   Things are often not how they seem,  particularly in the twilight zone that was Luz in May 2007.  

Some valid questions have been asked in this thread, IMO.  If there are satisfactory answers forthcoming, that would be great and the topic can be closed.  That has not happened yet and sweeping statements such as a whole family wouldn't lie, or they have no reaon to lie, Redwood told us x,y,z, are not answers.  Valid points to discuss yes, but not answers.

Edited to add -  yes, I agree with you both Tony Bennett an Aquila.

The last scenario (which I answered) was that it certainly wasn’t Gerry and perhaps the Smiths saw someone else ‘roaming’ around to base there sighting on. That would in essence mean the Smiths have completely fabricated this sighting.
 
Imo you’re correct in that we should question their statements, however there seems to be an undercurrent who want to dismiss this completely (it is the focus of the OG investigation and they seem convinced that the Smiths saw somebody, or so we are led to believe) and they are quite willing to make up scenarios and report items which fit their theory (although we’re all guilty of doing that). There has even been reports (not on this thread I will add) of a school report by Aoife, Martin Smiths golf business etc. which verge on obtrusion of privacy rather than just questioning items relevant (not just newspaper articles as we’ve seen over the last 7 years little can be trusted) to the case.
 
Finally, we are not going to produce answers as we don’t have the details, experience or knowledge to do anything but point out what we believe to be inconsistencies, can we resolve them no, could some of them be explained as ‘witness statements are not always entirely compatible’, yes. Without being able to put all these questions to the Smiths (which we can’t) we’ll never know.  All imo

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

I don't get the 'nasty' part of your comment, it was asked in a polite manner.

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkongphooey wrote:The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others) to discredit the Smiths (from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

All imo.

Why is questioning what they have said considered to be "discrediting" them ? What is it about the Smith family that gives their statements automatic immunity from questioning ?   Things are often not how they seem,  particularly in the twilight zone that was Luz in May 2007.  

Some valid questions have been asked in this thread, IMO.  If there are satisfactory answers forthcoming, that would be great and the topic can be closed.  That has not happened yet and sweeping statements such as a whole family wouldn't lie, or they have no reaon to lie, Redwood told us x,y,z, are not answers.  Valid points to discuss yes, but not answers.

Edited to add -  yes, I agree with you both Tony Bennett an Aquila.

The last scenario (which I answered) was that it certainly wasn’t Gerry and perhaps the Smiths saw someone else ‘roaming’ around to base there sighting on. That would in essence mean the Smiths have completely fabricated this sighting.
 
Imo you’re correct in that we should question their statements, however there seems to be an undercurrent who want to dismiss this completely (it is the focus of the OG investigation and they seem convinced that the Smiths saw somebody, or so we are led to believe) and they are quite willing to make up scenarios and report items which fit their theory (although we’re all guilty of doing that). There has even been reports (not on this thread I will add) of a school report by Aoife, Martin Smiths golf business etc. which verge on obtrusion of privacy rather than just questioning items relevant (not just newspaper articles as we’ve seen over the last 7 years little can be trusted) to the case.
 
Finally, we are not going to produce answers as we don’t have the details, experience or knowledge to do anything but point out what we believe to be inconsistencies, can we resolve them no, could some of them be explained as ‘witness statements are not always entirely compatible’, yes. Without being able to put all these questions to the Smiths (which we can’t) we’ll never know.  All imo

I agree anything in relation to the child witness should not displayed on a public forum.

As regard the adults.  There are many witnesses statements in the files, all of those have been discussed at length, so it is not limited to the Smith family.  They have made some critical and important statements - definitely not Murat and 60-80% McCann.  Their importance cannot be over estimated. So the question needs to be asked - did Smith ever have any dealings or connection with Murat, McCann or the Tapas prior to May 2007.  It is inevitable other business interests will be talked about and/or explored if this is to answered.  

Your last paragraph could relate to every single aspect of this case in one way or another so to if we adopt that attitude then there is no need for any further discussion about Madeleine McCanns disappearance.

I don't understand how the Smiths seeing somebody else walking home equates to them having "completely fabricated the sighting".  If they passed a man with child and reported it as such, then that can only mean Mr Smith was mistaken in his later news report identification.  No harm in that, it happens.

Look at poor Jane Tanner, she spent years claiming she was not a fantasist or liar and lo and behold Redwood came up trumps for her and thankfully found the man.  Personally, I find it another fancy that moment, but some believe it, so anything, absolutely anything is possible.  All imo.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Sami, you picked up on a point I made but didn’t pick up my meaning (may have been the way I expressed it). I specifically answered Gollums’ ‘If (big if) there was someone roaming the streets at the same time as the Smith family (could have been used as a base for the creation of Smithman), it most certainly wasn’t Gerry McCann carrying his child or anyone acting on his behalf’ (Gollum @ 10:33 pm yesterday).
 
This to me is suggesting the Smith family fabricated a sighting (no mention of a man carrying a child just somebody roaming about), using some unidentified person. I then asked why he was so certain it couldn’t have been GM, seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 
Yes, I misunderstood your post, apologies.  Gollums suggestion is possible and it could in fact account for Aoife Smith statement.  Just my opinion.
 
 I think again you may have misinterpreted my intentions:- you’re not going to get answers (satisfactory or otherwise) we are a discussion forum, nobody on here has the answers, or do you not accept that premise? We can discuss discrepancies as we see them and then fill in the blanks with what we think but ultimately we’re not solving the case, never will do, but it doesn’t stop discussions and putting forward our views.

Nobody here has the answers, but I don't accept I, or somebody here, won't get answers.  What is the point of being here if not to research and progress it ?  An extremely good dossier I believe has been put together by members here and sent to Grange.  That was as a result of hard work and a will to put forward credible evidence.  We can discuss last nights Eastenders and put forward views on what might happen next week, but other than passing a pleasant ten minutes of somebody's lunch break, it's all rather fruitless.
 
I am more guarded about calling the Smiths liars others have statements like this one:- ‘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 conclusion that 'Smithman' is an outright fabrication’ . To me it looks like they have a different agenda, fair enough it’s allowed.

A very dear friend and mentor once told me go with my gut instinct and always play the way I'm facing.  It has stood me well in life so far and in the absence of personally knowing posters here, I have adopted that approach.  So, like everybody else here, there are those whose motives I trust and those I'm not sure about.  Only time will tell if I've chosen the right path, but to date I believe I have.  There are indeed, as you say, others with different agendas but I don't think you and I are on the same page as to who those people are.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

I don't get the 'nasty' part of your comment, it was asked in a polite manner.

Really? You don't get it?

Here's your comment again:

QUOTE

The question we should really be asking is why is it so important for you (and the others)

REPLY: Because the truth, in this case of lies upon lies, is important.

to discredit the Smiths

REPLY: I am revealing how their delays in reporting their sightings, their barely credible claims about them and their numerous contradictions inevitably discredit them. I am merely bringing all these matters to the attention of members.
  
(from your quote it looks like to ensure GM is not the culprit, now why would that be?)

REPLY: Here is where you reveal your true colours. As you know fine well, I merely suggest that their sightings and claims about Smithman are fabricated. No more and no less.

The claim by Martin Smith that, 4 months after the event, he recognised Gerry 'by the way he was carrying his son' is, as I've said, quite ridiculous, and the poster who published the stills from the aircraft steps made that point very well for me as well.

The idea by some that this evidence, plus the two e-fits - clearly in the opinion of most of two different men - can amount to any evidence at all that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10.00pm on 3 May is utterly preposterous. I can't fathom how anyone can entertain it. It's as plain as a pikestaff that Martin Smith's evidence on this point is utterly worthless and would be torn to shreds by any defence barrister. 

Besides that, there is good evidence that Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCann Team ever since 2008 and with Operation Grange ever since 2011 - both of whom claim that these e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths.  

Finally, you dare to suggest that because I analyse the Smiths' claimed sightings in depth, and conclude that there is something badly amiss with their claims, that this means that (to quote you) "it looks like [you want ] to ensure that GM is not 'the culprit'".  

This suggestion has been made in other quarters, some people seriously suggesting that I am 'in the pay of the McCanns' and 'in league with the devil' etc.

Your suggestion amounts to a clear insinuation that I am not here for the truth but am here for some other motive.

Now, very often, accusations like this come from someone whose own motives are not pure. What they are doing, in effect, is holding up a mirror to themselves and their own character and motives.

I am wondering why you and a hardcore of others have tried to insinuate that I question the Smiths from impure motives.
         
And you are a pure, honest, truth-seeker in this case who goes wherever the evidence takes him, is that the idea?

Give me a break please

UNQUOTE

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delay.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet that is treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delays.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet this is often treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

frost wrote:

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delays.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet this is often treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

I don't usually comment on the Smiths but just had to say what a brilliant post and one I entirely agree with .

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delay.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet that is treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

Tannerman made up because of the Smiths is just as plausible as much else on this thread, crècheman would be the thorn in the side though (can Redwood really make him up, suerly this guy could be called upon as a witness if there was any trial)

frost wrote:

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delays.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet this is often treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

I don't usually comment on the Smiths but just had to say what a brilliant post and one I entirely agree with .

palm tree wrote:I'm afraid to admit that I don't know the difference between tannerman and crècheman. Can someone help me out 

palm tree wrote:I'm afraid to admit that I don't know the difference between tannerman and crècheman. Can someone help me out 

pennylane wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

pennylane wrote:For all we know Mr Smith thought the McCanns were sure to be arrested, and didn't want to get involved as a lead witness with all the stress and hassle that would entail, but then later saw an innocent man (Mr Murat) being pilloried and destroyed, and felt compelled to do the right thing.  That's just as plausible a theory as any other (imo).  Trouble is one cannot deduce who or what agenda is behind a great deal of the articles we have to hand. I don't believe it is a 'fact' that Mr Smith new Robert Murat well.  Again this is only based on opinions.  It is quite possible to know a person well by appearance only (most of my neighbors would fit that category).

It was claimed in an article that the Portuguese Judiciary were not interested in the Smith sighting because the timing did not correlate with the alleged time of the abduction, and this is what caused the delay.  That sounds plausible to me, in yet that is treated as 'an untrue report,' whereas other reports are treated as true or factual.  In the end we have to draw our own conclusions from that which we have seen and read over the years.

I realise there are holes in every theory, but I truly believe that Jane gave Gerry an alibi because he was seen by the Smiths.  For me this remains the most likely and credible scenario. I feel the reasons behind the theory that Mr Smith was in cahoots quite illogical. At least to my mind! Hence I remain firmly in the 'Mr Smith is a decent and good man' camp, and that he DID see Gerry on that ill-fated night.  I have read both sides of the argument, and for me this remains the most feasible.

Tannerman made up because of the Smiths is just as plausible as much else on this thread, crècheman would be the thorn in the side though (can Redwood really make him up, suerly this guy could be called upon as a witness if there was any trial)

I'm pretty certain it would fall apart under a modicum of scrutiny, but yes I believe Redwood has hustled up a living, breathing crèchman that was on holiday there at the time, and walked in the general direction of the McCanns apartment.  I don't believe he was able to find someone that actually walked across the top of the road however, hence Redwood's vague and unconvincing description of the route he took. This to me shows he managed to find someone, but couldn't make it fit... exactly!  Much like the rest of the dubious reconstruction he cobbled together for Crimewatch.