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

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

WMD wrote:

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

Same here?

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.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

WMD wrote:

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

Same here?

Sami's answer to Palmtree is the best explanation:-
Palmtree, tanner man is the man Jane claims she saw.  Crècheman is Redwoods revelation moment - the innocent British father who was collecting a child from the night crèche, and introduced to us on the Crimewatch programme.  One and the same in his book

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

We finally get to the ‘crux’ of the argument put forward by yourself and others. Why do you categorically state ‘it most certainly wasn’t Gerry McCann carrying his child or anyone acting on his behalf’.  Once again you’re making things up.
 
If you consider the witness evidence the alarm was raised between 9:30 (OC staff member) and 10:30 (Mrs Fenn) and iirc there is one barman who claims Gerry was around the Tapas at 10pm. All the others are not sure and there are several who didn’t know who was who at that particular time. We only have the Team McCann telling us and even then Diane Webster does intimate that Gerry was not around (after the alarm) and turned up after she had reached the apartment and had been there for 10 minutes or so.
 
There is little evidence that it certainly wasn’t GM etc.
 
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.

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

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 .

Gollum wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

We finally get to the ‘crux’ of the argument put forward by yourself and others. Why do you categorically state ‘it most certainly wasn’t Gerry McCann carrying his child or anyone acting on his behalf’.  Once again you’re making things up.
 
If you consider the witness evidence the alarm was raised between 9:30 (OC staff member) and 10:30 (Mrs Fenn) and iirc there is one barman who claims Gerry was around the Tapas at 10pm. All the others are not sure and there are several who didn’t know who was who at that particular time. We only have the Team McCann telling us and even then Diane Webster does intimate that Gerry was not around (after the alarm) and turned up after she had reached the apartment and had been there for 10 minutes or so.
 
There is little evidence that it certainly wasn’t GM etc.
 
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.

That's a gigantic quantum leap across the vast spectrum of logic isn't it?  Tell me how you so readily conclude that questioning the verity of the claimed Smith family sighting and associated issues equates with "ensuring GM is not the culprit"?  Culprit of what, the situation Madeleine finds herself in or passing by the Smith family while walking around the streets of pdl carrying a child's body?

Why do you twist genuine concerns about this subject in particular to germinate the wrong impression?  I question any number of aspects about this case but that has no reflection on my opinion of Gerry McCann.

Gollum wrote:

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 .

pennylane, can you explain to me why Gerry McCann was walking the streets of pdl carrying a body, possibly a corpse, quite a distance from his holiday accommodation at around 10:00 pm,  a time when he could so easily have been seen?  Where do you think he was going?

I ask because the more logical method of relocating a corpse IMO, in the absence of any form of transport, would be to conceal the body in a more convenient and less conspicuous receptacle, like a sports bag for instance.  Said receptacle, depending on the fabric, might even act as a body bag thus reducing or even preventing seepage.  A coroner, mortician or someone in the medical profession would probably know more about these things than a layman but even a layman in such a situation I'm sure would do anything rather than cart their victim about for any passer by to witness.

palm tree wrote:If JT invented tannerman for proof of abduction, why would MS and his family need to invent Smithman? I just can't see where the Smith family, or why the Smith family fit in.
IMO

pennylane wrote:

palm tree wrote:If JT invented tannerman for proof of abduction, why would MS and his family need to invent Smithman? I just can't see where the Smith family, or why the Smith family fit in.
IMO

They didn't invent him (imo).

If the Smiths saw G, and he feared imminent arrest once the news got out, I imagine his only salvation would be an airtight alibi when the abduction was going down.... enter Jane!

sami wrote:

pennylane wrote:

palm tree wrote:If JT invented tannerman for proof of abduction, why would MS and his family need to invent Smithman? I just can't see where the Smith family, or why the Smith family fit in.
IMO

They didn't invent him (imo).

If the Smiths saw G, and he feared imminent arrest once the news got out, I imagine his only salvation would be an airtight alibi when the abduction was going down.... enter Jane!

So Jane invented her man so he could be considered one and the same man the Smiths saw (I.e Gerry) ?  That made sense until the innocent British father came wandering out of the night crèche.  

If we believe Redwood and the Smiths there were two men with children that night.

palm tree wrote:To be honest, I actually believe the Smith family over AR. That's quite sad, unless he's a mighty trick up his sleeve. I just wish someone with the means and a heart would investigate truthfully for Madeleine. The British police should back away and let GA pick up from where he left off. In my dreams, I know!
IMO

pennylane wrote:

Gollum wrote:

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 .

pennylane, can you explain to me why Gerry McCann was walking the streets of pdl carrying a body, possibly a corpse, quite a distance from his holiday accommodation at around 10:00 pm,  a time when he could so easily have been seen?  Where do you think he was going?

I ask because the more logical method of relocating a corpse IMO, in the absence of any form of transport, would be to conceal the body in a more convenient and less conspicuous receptacle, like a sports bag for instance.  Said receptacle, depending on the fabric, might even act as a body bag thus reducing or even preventing seepage.  A coroner, mortician or someone in the medical profession would probably know more about these things than a layman but even a layman in such a situation I'm sure would do anything rather than cart their victim about for any passer by to witness.

But he was seen (imo), by the Smiths.  Also according to Dr Amaral, Gerry was allegedly seen by another woman on the beach! 

I am not familiar with the area, but Dr Amaral is, and he doesn't think it implausible that G hid the body in the vicinity, i.e., the beach area, and moved it later.  I personally believe it was moved a couple of times afterwards. I think the blue sports bag was used in the wee hours of the morning?

If, as I believe, everything happened very fast after they found M's body, then although what G did was intensely risky, it may have been deemed their only choice, or face losing everything in the blink of an eye.   I honestly don't understand why people cannot see that desperate situations call for desperate measures!    If they had to do it over, with all that they know now, I doubt very much they would do anything quite the same.  But in the heat of the moment, scared and desperate, anything is possible (imo).

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Gollum wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

We finally get to the ‘crux’ of the argument put forward by yourself and others. Why do you categorically state ‘it most certainly wasn’t Gerry McCann carrying his child or anyone acting on his behalf’.  Once again you’re making things up.
 
If you consider the witness evidence the alarm was raised between 9:30 (OC staff member) and 10:30 (Mrs Fenn) and iirc there is one barman who claims Gerry was around the Tapas at 10pm. All the others are not sure and there are several who didn’t know who was who at that particular time. We only have the Team McCann telling us and even then Diane Webster does intimate that Gerry was not around (after the alarm) and turned up after she had reached the apartment and had been there for 10 minutes or so.
 
There is little evidence that it certainly wasn’t GM etc.
 
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.

That's a gigantic quantum leap across the vast spectrum of logic isn't it?  Tell me how you so readily conclude that questioning the verity of the claimed Smith family sighting and associated issues equates with "ensuring GM is not the culprit"?  Culprit of what, the situation Madeleine finds herself in or passing by the Smith family while walking around the streets of pdl carrying a child's body?

Why do you twist genuine concerns about this subject in particular to germinate the wrong impression?  I question any number of aspects about this case but that has no reflection on my opinion of Gerry McCann.

You sai this:- "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"

I asked why it certainly wasn't GM, there is no leap in logic! The culprit referred to was the person the Smiths saw again no leap in logic either. Anyways what about answering why its so important to you to have the Smiths discredited etc. as per my original post?

Gollum wrote:

You use the wrong adjective.  It's not "important to me to have the Smiths discredited".  Apart from that you must excuse by forthright mode of expression, if I write something that can't be confirmed one way or another it is of course my opinion.  I'm not going to sign off every post with 'IMO'!

palm tree wrote:When you think about it, a lot of people have said the streets had been very quite, out of season. Smithman had taken quiet back streets, this man who looked like GM, with a child who looked like Madeleline did not want to be seen. He was, by a large family too. As you say pennylane, JT had to see someone going in the opposite direction, but clearly messed it up, badly!
IMO just to be safe, as always.

sami wrote:

palm tree wrote:When you think about it, a lot of people have said the streets had been very quite, out of season. Smithman had taken quiet back streets, this man who looked like GM, with a child who looked like Madeleline did not want to be seen. He was, by a large family too. As you say pennylane, JT had to see someone going in the opposite direction, but clearly messed it up, badly!
IMO just to be safe, as always.

Crèche man/Tanner man is real because Redwood said so......if he is an invention then Redwood has no intention in ever seeing this case in court.  Which means he is being untruthful, but that is unthinkable, surely.

With Redwoods revelation, Tanner messed nothing up, she is not a fantasist or liar, just like she said.  There was a man, Redwood can prove it, even has the photos.

So there were two men, walking at a time when, you rightly say the streets were quiet, with un-covered blond children.  My opinion -    

Still, one has been identified, so one down, just one to go.

palm tree wrote:True, but MS had an unexpected reconstruction, which was the reason he contacted police again in September.
Because of that, MS didn't need to remember every facial feature, GM was always on the news.
IMO

pennylane wrote:

palm tree wrote:True, but MS had an unexpected reconstruction, which was the reason he contacted police again in September.
Because of that, MS didn't need to remember every facial feature, GM was always on the news.
IMO

Precisely!

I know for a fact it's possible to have a flashback at a later date, because it happened to me!   I mentioned some weeks back, I recalled further details of a man I'd seen that the police were looking for, after some time had elapsed, due to an image that suddenly flashed into my minds eye. I assume something must have triggered it off, because I didn't recall those details in the immediate aftermath, when one would think the details would be at their sharpest.

Doug D wrote:Cracking brilliant moon tonight, casting really good shadows.

Just as an experiment, take a mirror outside & place it one metre away (distance doubles as it's in a mirror), with you facing the moon to get maximum light on your face.

Now look in the mirror and can you honestly say that anyone could draw up any kind of accurate e-fit from a two second glance of what you can see?

Sorry, just not going to happen.