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

by Newintown 27.09.14 21:08

Tony Bennett wrote:@ sallypelt

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

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

My agenda is well known.

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

Ignore him

I don't "wait and pounce", I respond when something I feel strongly about needs an answer. I enjoy reading the forum but most of it has been going around in circles for some years, so doesn't need me interjecting.

You mention about Lucy Aoife Smith being either English or Irish (it wasn't me who checked, I couldn't care less whether she was English, Welsh, Scottish or Chinese) but what the hell has it got to do with her birth place and her father who may or may not have seen GM carrying a child away from apartment 5A???

People have left the forum as they don't know whose side you're on; people who have stood by you for years have gone.

You may want to ignore me, I don't want to disrupt the forum, but it has been disrupted unfortunately whether you are aware of it or not by your own making.

Why are you spending hours/weeks/months looking into the lives of the Smiths, why not into the lives of the Tapas friends? Wouldn't that be more important to the investigation and into what happened to Madeleine McCann, or are you not allowed to delve into their past history, lives, birth mothers/fathers, places of birth, former lovers, jobs, links with the McCanns ?????

by Guest 27.09.14 21:43

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

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

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

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

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

My God, have you all gone insane???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From what I've read of Tony's musings (although I admit probably only a fraction of his works) he is always very meticulous and well researched, if not always 100% accurate I think can be excused considering the conflicting press reports relative to the case and the many contradictory statements, interviews and other documented information. I don't think it fair to say that his methodology is tantamount to having an agenda or having sold his soul to the devil. That kind of attitude is comparable to suggesting that a cynic is a 'hater' or 'pitchforker', which I'm sure you will agree is a somewhat puerile attack. The Smith family do feature quite prominently in this case so it's not unreasonable for any interested party to question different aspects of their input.

If you don't like, you're not obliged to read.

by Liz Eagles 27.09.14 21:47

I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

by Newintown 27.09.14 22:03

aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years. As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate. That is completely out of order. Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting. No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns? What are we waiting for?

by sallypelt 27.09.14 22:28

Newintown wrote:
aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years. As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate. That is completely out of order. Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting. No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns? What are we waiting for?

Let me clear up the misunderstanding about the birth certificate. I was the one who mentioned the birth certificate, only to demonstrate that without seeing the birth certificate there was no way of knowing that the information that IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, was 100%. At NO time did I suggest that I had any intentions of viewing anyone's birth certificate. It was only mentioned for the above reason.

The reason I posted the information THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN was to determine if there was a connection between Robert Murat and Martin Smith. As Aquila said, we can't question the Gaspers etc, and not question Martin Smith. And the question is, did Martin Smith know Robert Murat only because of the Portuguese connection, and nothing else? As for MS being a credible witness, there are definitely discrepancies in his statements, for whatever reason. I have posted these discrepancies, but will repeat one gaping one, and that is, in his first statement, Martin Smith and his two children all said that they didn't see what Smithman was wearing on his upper body because it was covered by the sleeping child. However, just over a year later, Martin Smith says that Smithman was wearing a dark top which was either a Jacket or a blazer. Just like Jane Tanner, who has been dragged through the muck for her eggman who, a few months later, suddenly developed a face. We can't have it both ways. We either give everyone the benefit of the doubt, or we question everyone when suddenly, their memory returns.

As for Martin Smith's daughter, I wasn't going to post anything more than I did, and I certainly wasn't going to access her birth certificate.

by Liz Eagles 27.09.14 22:32

Newintown wrote:
aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years. As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

Why are you here then? If it only goes around in circles and there's nothing much to add, why waste your time?

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate. That is completely out of order. Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting. No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Is it your job to attack Tony Bennett on this forum? is that why you're still here when you have nothing to add because things go round in circles?

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns? What are we waiting for?

What are you waiting for Newintown? why don't you do some delving into facts and contribute to unravelling the mystery of what happened to Madeleine? Isn't finding truth the reason you're on this forum?

by Newintown 27.09.14 22:44

aquila wrote:
Newintown wrote:
aquila wrote:I find everything about the case of Madeleine's disappearance questionable. If so much is questioned about the Gaspar statement, Kate's bewk, the statements of the Tapas crew and all other statements then why not the Smith sighting? I question this sighting as I question everything else.

I do however find putting up uncorroborated info about a young girl of the Smith family completely tasteless and pointless. It's not fact and I wouldn't like it were it done to a child of mine.

A note to Newintown - please don't jump on the bandwagon to my post Newintown because I find your presence on the forum exists only to attack Tony Bennett - and you do it in an offensive manner whilst contributing nothing to anything else.

Just my lil' old opinion etc.

I have contributed many times over the past few years. As I stated earlier, the forum goes round and round in circles with the same discussions being repeated over and over again, there is nothing much to add that hasn't been added many times before, so please don't bleat on about me not contributing anything.

Why are you here then? If it only goes around in circles and there's nothing much to add, why waste your time?

I only attack Tony Bennett when I think he's out of line, I can understand the Smiths' sighting being questioned but not to the intense scrutiny of finding out details of the daughter's birth certificate. That is completely out of order. Why don't we all find out about TB's birth records, or medical records while we're about it, wouldn't that be interesting. No doubt he would object to that but doesn't see any harm in delving into other people's records.

Is it your job to attack Tony Bennett on this forum? is that why you're still here when you have nothing to add because things go round in circles?

Tony Bennett still has to delve into the lives of the Tapas 7, if he can delve into the lives of the Smiths why not the Tapas 7, or the McCanns? What are we waiting for?

What are you waiting for Newintown? why don't you do some delving into facts and contribute to unravelling the mystery of what happened to Madeleine? Isn't finding truth the reason you're on this forum?

Does my presence unnerve you? Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on? Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard? Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you? If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?

by palm tree 27.09.14 23:01

Is Aoife Smiths real name Lucy Aoife Smith then? huh

IMO

by Markus 2 27.09.14 23:21

newintown Does my presence unnerve you? Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on? Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard? Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you? If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?

agreed

Yes have to agree too much personal blinkered opinion imo, and not enough debate, yet he is all over this site like a rash .I do not read all of his posts but he is obsessed by the Smiths, which if they are genuine and I think they are, that e-fit will solve this
case. But his reluctance to go there is puzzling imo.

by palm tree 28.09.14 0:34

palm tree wrote:Is Aoife Smiths real name Lucy Aoife Smith then?
IMO

Can't find Aoife Smith being referred to Lucy Aoife Smith anywhere. Any ideas?

by Rufus T 28.09.14 2:13

Newintown said
I know what happened to Madeleine McCann

Do tell, I for one am keen to hear what you know.

by Guest 28.09.14 11:36

Rufus T wrote:Newintown said
I know what happened to Madeleine McCann

Do tell, I for one am keen to hear what you know.

She was abducted,we all know it to be true for the parents said so. ooops

by Guest 28.09.14 12:40

Newintown said: "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?! Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself. Hmmm.

by Guest 28.09.14 12:49

Markus 2 wrote: newintown Does my presence unnerve you? Am I not entitled to read the forum without contributing or is only for people who agree with every word Tony Bennett utters?

What about all the hundreds of people who read the forum but never log on? Would you say they're a waste of space?

I attack Tony Bennett when I see fit; are you his personal body guard? Why are you so upset that I should not agree with what TB has to say, what's it to you? If TB can say anything on this forum and not be denounced for it or questioned about it, isn't that liking the forum to a dictatorship?

I know what happened to Madeleine McCann, do you or are you waiting for TB to tell you what happened to her?

Yes have to agree too much personal blinkered opinion imo, and not enough debate, yet he is all over this site like a rash .I do not read all of his posts but he is obsessed by the Smiths, which if they are genuine and I think they are, that e-fit will solve this
case. But his reluctance to go there is puzzling imo.

Rather than a reluctance not to go there Markus2, do you think it possible that TB just disagrees with the blinkered opinion by some that the Smiths are totally genuine? IMO the man has tried on many occasions to explain why he is unconvinced about the Smiths, which has been totally ignored by a minority who think otherwise. Now that's what I call having an inflexible blinkered opinion.

You rightly say IF they are genuine, it is only your opinion. The e-fits have so far NOT solved anything even though published a year ago so I think that is another dead end. I would however be interested to learn how you think the e-fit will solve the case?

by palm tree 28.09.14 12:55

I think they need hard evidence to wrap this up, even for a patsy or the mcs.
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 28.09.14 13:01

Gollum wrote:Newintown said: "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?! Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself. Hmmm.

That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.

In the meantime, I have a transcript to hand of the telephone call and meeting between Anthony Summers and DCI Andy Redwood:

AR = DCI Andy Redwood
Sum - Anthony Summers
HC = DCS Hamish Campbell

Tel call

AR: Hallo

Sum: Anthony Summers here, author who nearly won a Pulitzer Prize, I'm writing a book about Madeleine McCann, I really need to come and see you and find out about your investigation.

AR: But this is a live investigation, I can't tell you anything.

Sum: I know, I just need to see you.

AR: But what about the cost? - air fares from New York to London and back, hotels, meals out etc.?

Sum: Money is no object. Please, I need to see you.

AR: Well OK, like I said, I can't tell you a thing, but how about 12noon on Friday 15 February? I'll make sure my boss, DCS Hamish Campbell is here as well, you know, the detective famous for his handling of the Jill Dando murder.

Sum: Ah yes. Well, see you on 15 February, then. Have a nice day!

AR: Bye.

The meeting, at Belgravia Police Station

AR & HC: Come in.

Sum: Thanks. Now what can you tell me about the investigation into Maddie's disappearance?

AR: Absolutely nothing, just like we told you a few weeks ago on the 'phone.

Sum: Oh well. Never mind. Thanks for seeing me. Have a nice day.

MEETING ENDS

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

Further observations

As was noted above, the redacted parts of that meeting will be very interesting to establish.

If the person accompanying DCI Andy Redwood at that meeting was indeed DCS Hamish Campbell, the senior officer to whom DCI Redwood reported, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to withhold it. I conclude therefore that the name of that person is someone whom the Met and the government do not wish us to know.

One credible possibility is that it was Brian Kennedy

by plebgate 28.09.14 13:38

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

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

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

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

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

My God, have you all gone insane???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you thought you were jumping on Tony's back again when you posted ha ha.

If you wont explain yourself then don't expect posters to take you seriously? What's it to you what tony or any other poster here thinks and posts? If you don't like it why comment just ignore. For some reason you cannot, are you TM by any chance? I hear there is quite a welcome for disruptors on the new site, why not post there and leave this forum alone, especially as you have stated you wont explain your posts?

Edited re. spelling and punctuation.

by Markus 2 28.09.14 18:38

Gollum wrote:Newintown said: "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?! Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself. Hmmm.
TB wrote That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.

So childish.
Quite an innocent remark by Newintown really, yet the venom spewed out here towards this person is remarkable.
I can say, I know what happened to Madeline as well ,she disappeared from her holiday apartment seven years ago, that is all any of us know, so if you wish to take that comment by Newintown out of context then I really do think this is totally unnecessary and unwarranted imo and sheds a bad light on the posters on here .

by Guest 28.09.14 19:28

Markus 2 wrote:Gollum wrote:Newintown said: "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann".

I hope you have passed the information on to the police !?! Oh no but wait a minute, the case remains unsolved so you must be keeping it to yourself. Hmmm.
TB wrote That's about as reliable a comment from Newintown as most of his of other ones.

So childish.
Quite an innocent remark by Newintown really, yet the venom spewed out here towards this person is remarkable.
I can say, I know what happened to Madeline as well ,she disappeared from her holiday apartment seven years ago, that is all any of us know, so if you wish to take that comment by Newintown out of context then I really do think this is totally unnecessary and unwarranted imo and sheds a bad light on the posters on here .

Hold up a minute! May I remind you of the exact words "I know what happened to Madeleine McCann". How can you say such a direct statement has been taken out of context? What context?

Maybe you or Newintown or some other persons think that the Smiths should be taken a face value so how can you question a reaction to Newintown's statement, can I not take that at face value?

That aside, I'd rather hear Newintown's explanation than a surrogate spokesperson.

ETA: You haven't explained how you think the e-fits (note plural) will solve this case.

by Liz Eagles 28.09.14 20:48

Picking over the Smith's sighting and OG's revelation moment to damn/kill off Tannerman and create Smithman as the all important person(s) of importance seems to have hit a raw nerve.

I don't believe either sighting anymore than I believe anything else in this case including whatever SY places into the public domain. SY lost all credibility for me when two versions of a 'reconstruction' were put out on television across Europe (no televisation in Portugal). Why two? Do Germans, Dutch and those 'non-Brits' need to see different photography of apartment 5a and the Tapas Bar? What's that all about?

SY lost all credibility for me with the helicopters and the digging and the gpr equipment and the dogs and the selective media shots and the appeal for everyone to respect that the PJ could kick them out at anytime.

OG have also met with (it doesn't matter what was said or what wasn't although there seems amazingly to be some form of FOI response) Summers and Swan. Has any other 'author' approached OG and been afforded the same indulgence?

What has any of this to do with finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann?

All I can see is one big fat cover-up/walk-away strategy that includes Portugal's finest in authority (this is only my opinion of course).

As for those who continue to make money off the back of a missing child well they are beyond contempt.

The list of those who have made money directly off the back of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to increase and yet nothing with all that money and all that expertise has produced anything to explain what happened.

As for those on the forum who want to batter it/batter Tony Bennett/batter anything at all,why not concentrate and batter all the bastards who've made money out of Madeleine and produced absolutely nothing.

Just my opinion and all that stuff

by **Tony Bennett** 28.09.14 21:51

Newintown wrote:
This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?

A couple of points in answer to this and other points made by Newintown.

First, despite all the complaints here and elsewhere about 'dictators' who 'insist on one point of view only', 'anybody with an opposing view is banned' etc. etc., any fair-minded person can see that the Smithman debates on here are conducted in a lively but measured way, with points of view sometimes expressed strongly, but never, so far as I can recall, without due respect for other views and politeness in debate. Indeed, on this very thread, for example, my view is the minority one (albeit by a narrow margin).

Second, if anyone does not fully understand why I pursue the Smithman matter (among others I hasten to add), it's because - as one poster pointed out - 'Smithman' has been put right at the heart of this case by DCI Redwood, by his bosses, by the government, by the top brass of the BBC, and above all by the McCann Team. To put it candidly, this top-level unison that 'Smithman' is the man makes me suspicious.

Added to that, Smithman is of course the only 'proof' we have (apart from the McCanns' claims) that there ever was an abductor there that night.

On top of that, we are expected to believe that 12-17 months after seeing a bloke for a second or two on a dark night, one or more of the Smiths could possibly draw up an e-fit of him.

Or, actually, two e-fits who, in many respects, look like very different men.

Someone said that my querying of 'Smithman' had 'hit a raw nerve'. Indeed, the opposition to my suspicions has often been aggressive and sustained. I first posted my doubts about the 'Smithman sighting' about 10 days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October.

The very evening that I did so, SIX new members joined CMOMM just to voice opposition to my ideas on Smithman. Most if not all of those were outed as disruptors within weeks.

Final point - about whether this forum is a 'scary place' (Newintown quote).

On coming home from church tonight, I looked to see how many were currently online on this forum and 3 others. The figures were:

CMOMM - 355
Missing Madeleine - 44
Maddie Case Files - 19
candyfloss/cristobell new forum - 8.

Not too many people have been 'scared off' from here yet, then

by Okeydokey 29.09.14 1:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
This forum is getting very scary in the way people are being roused into a "witch hunt", instigated by who and why?
A couple of points in answer to this and other points made by Newintown.

First, despite all the complaints here and elsewhere about 'dictators' who 'insist on one point of view only', 'anybody with an opposing view is banned' etc. etc., any fair-minded person can see that the Smithman debates on here are conducted in a lively but measured way, with points of view sometimes expressed strongly, but never, so far as I can recall, without due respect for other views and politeness in debate. Indeed, on this very thread, for example, my view is the minority one (albeit by a narrow margin).

Second, if anyone does not fully understand why I pursue the Smithman matter (among others I hasten to add), it's because - as one poster pointed out - 'Smithman' has been put right at the heart of this case by DCI Redwood, by his bosses, by the government, by the top brass of the BBC, and above all by the McCann Team. To put it candidly, this top-level unison that 'Smithman' is the man makes me suspicious.

Added to that, Smithman is of course the only 'proof' we have (apart from the McCanns' claims) that there ever was an abductor there that night.

On top of that, we are expected to believe that 12-17 months after seeing a bloke for a second or two on a dark night, one or more of the Smiths could possibly draw up an e-fit of him.

Or, actually, two e-fits who, in many respects, look like very different men.

Someone said that my querying of 'Smithman' had 'hit a raw nerve'. Indeed, the opposition to my suspicions has often been aggressive and sustained. I first posted my doubts about the 'Smithman sighting' about 10 days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October.

The very evening that I did so, SIX new members joined CMOMM just to voice opposition to my ideas on Smithman. Most if not all of those were outed as disruptors within weeks.

Final point - about whether this forum is a 'scary place' (Newintown quote).

On coming home from church tonight, I looked to see how many were currently online on this forum and 3 others. The figures were:

CMOMM - 355
Missing Madeleine - 44
Maddie Case Files - 19
candyfloss/cristobell new forum - 8.

Not too many people have been 'scared off' from here yet, then

I would back up Tony here.

Smithman is clearly an important issue that can be viewed in different ways.

But I must say I share some scepticism...always have done.

Why?

Because it took so long for the family to react. This case was all over the Irish media,but the claim is that the persons concerned (at least two if I recall correctly) had somehow been hermetically sealed from the case...they had never thought to mention their sighting until they saw TV images of GMcC returning to England.

It is a very odd starting point for their witness evidence.

Personally I tend to discount both the JT and the Smiths' evidence and prefer to look at the behavioural evidence for how the Tapas 9 reacted. Could it be described as anywhere near normal in the circumstances?...No. And then you read their accounts and you ask yourself are those accounts credible...for the most part you have to respond NO.

by Guest 29.09.14 11:53

Okeydokey today @ 1:53 am

From the horses mouth:

Witness testamony of Martin Smith taken on 26th May 2007

　

'Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child 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.'

　

So on the morning of 4th he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw, so realistically, why didn't he report the sighting then and there? As far as I'm aware there has been no acceptable explanation for this.

　

I'm inclined to agree with you, what use is any alleged sighting at this late stage. The point is like arguing the toss with a McCann sympathiser, merely a diversion to detract from more important issues. If you saw (not you personally) Kate carrying a child around the Algarve in the summer of 2007 would you be able to identify her now, having become accustomed to her chat show haggard, forlorn dowdy matronly persona? I wouldn't.

by aiyoyo 29.09.14 13:33

I would rather prefer to know the real reason behind OG's appeal for info on the e-fit guys ?

If they believed there was no abduction, what is the relevance of that?
If it is of significance and absolute importance to the investigation, why did Redwood not rehash the e-fits when he had the chance. Or even have them flashed up randomly at news hours, takes only blinking seconds for them to be flashed up without cost.

Have the crossed-continents appeals generated the results they wanted ?

Don't anyone jump on in to say it was Gerry that's why the significant.
It's patently obvious OG did not believe so.

by Hongkong Phooey 29.09.14 19:30

Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

by Guest 29.09.14 19:36

aiyoyo wrote:I would rather prefer to know the real reason behind OG's appeal for info on the e-fit guys ?

If they believed there was no abduction, what is the relevance of that?
If it is of significance and absolute importance to the investigation, why did Redwood not rehash the e-fits when he had the chance. Or even have them flashed up randomly at news hours, takes only blinking seconds for them to be flashed up without cost.

Have the crossed-continents appeals generated the results they wanted ?

Don't anyone jump on in to say it was Gerry that's why the significant.
It's patently obvious OG did not believe so.

Another dead kipper and there's been a few of them over the years. IMO the e-fits (plural) were intended as a mere distraction to convince the tax payer that their hard earned cash is being well spent and OG are on the case so to speak. Be honest, those two different grayscale images could be any one of millions across the world so what purpose is there in making them one of the focal points to progress the investigation? Whatever, I don't believe for a minute that any of the Smith family directly assisted with the production of any e-fit and that's not intended to be a criticism of the Smith family, more a question as to what game OG and the British establishment are playing.

Trouble is, if OG believe there was no abduction, why are they concentrating on burglars and/or weirdos with a fetish for young girls that enter private premises without detection or authority? I think OG need to change their washing powder if they're looking for a whiterwash.

As an aside, the latest delay in Operation Portugal, is it true that delays are due to Portuguese judiciary reconstruction or is it more a case of hoodwinking the public into thinking that they have leads that don't exist?

by Guest 29.09.14 19:46

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position. Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used? I don't but I can hazard a guess.

by Hongkong Phooey 29.09.14 20:39

Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position. Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used? I don't but I can hazard a guess.

Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

by Guest 29.09.14 22:05

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position. Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used? I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie. Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.

by Hongkong Phooey 29.09.14 22:25

Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:Putting any perceived discrepancies aside, Amaral considered the Smiths to be reliable /key witnesses however he didn't get the opportunity to find out exactly how 'key' they would turn out to be. He has consistently stated their evidence was/is credible.

From an investigative point of view the sighting was indeed credible, any sighting would be credible until ruled out for aome reason but as you rightly say, Amaral didn't get the opportunity to find out. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this point could add weight to doubts about the Smith familys position. Not necessarily suggesting dishonesty but possibly by outside manipulation, after all, from square one this case has been surrounded by wealth and influence.

Who knows to what extent that wealth and influence has been used? I don't but I can hazard a guess.
Or maybe the Smith's just told what they saw.

Yes but that doesn't explain why they left it so long before reporting the sighting to the police, Martin Smith having said in his testimony that on the morning of 4th having heard of the child's disappearance, he thought Maddie could have been the child he saw the previous night.

As I said recently, IF the Smith family did see a man carrying a child through the night, IMO it was not Gerry with Maddie. Maybe Andy of the Yard might be struck by another revelation moment in due course, but now I'm being downright facetious.

They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)

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...