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

by pennylane 12.10.14 17:54

SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.

Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it! winkwink

by Hongkong Phooey 12.10.14 19:15

pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it!

I'm with this interpretation.

by XTC 12.10.14 21:37

Hongkongphooey

In my interpretation of the Crimewatch programme after standing in the dim street where the Smiths saw
a man and child as a prelude to what was comong next.

Mathew Amroliwala said this:

" Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw"

If these aren't 2 members of the Smiths - who else could have helped to compile these e-fits?

The ones that were shown behind DI Redwood when following on to his previous appearance.

I'm assuming that the dispute vis the Smith sighting is - how can you compile an e-fit if you
couldn't see the child carriers face?

If it was the two members of the Smith family who gave these -fits to someone(? ) and SY only
found them after demanding case files from the PI's then SY are just as culpable for not revealing
these e-fits to the public as anyone one else. Begging the question as to why they sat on them for
so long.

Or did they have to dismiss Tannerman before they could do it?

The way I read it Crimewatch is a bit shifty as to where these e-fits came from and when they were
compiled.

Only opinion though

by Hongkong Phooey 12.10.14 22:39

XTC wrote:Hongkongphooey

In my interpretation of the Crimewatch programme after standing in the dim street where the Smiths saw
a man and child as a prelude to what was comong next.

Mathew Amroliwala said this:

" Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw"

If these aren't 2 members of the Smiths - who else could have helped to compile these e-fits?

The ones that were shown behind DI Redwood when following on to his previous appearance.

I'm assuming that the dispute vis the Smith sighting is - how can you compile an e-fit if you
couldn't see the child carriers face?

If it was the two members of the Smith family who gave these -fits to someone(? ) and SY only
found them after demanding case files from the PI's then SY are just as culpable for not revealing
these e-fits to the public as anyone one else. Begging the question as to why they sat on them for
so long.

Or did they have to dismiss Tannerman before they could do it?

The way I read it Crimewatch is a bit shifty as to where these e-fits came from and when they were
compiled.

Only opinion though

IMO Crimewatch was derived to dismiss Tannerman and bring into play the Smith sighting. However the Smith's statements etc. state they couldn't recognise the person because they never saw their face. Henri Exon claims the e-fits were developed by him but where he/they got the facial information is not known. Crimewatch was just another piece of the whitewash (Smithman never to be found)

by Liz Eagles 12.10.14 22:59

It seems to me that everyone is willing to see the holes in the Tapasnik statements - and there are huge gaping holes in them - and yet a lot of people are so keen to believe the Smith statements.

I struggle to understand why that is so.

by Guest 12.10.14 23:32

I guess it's because the Smiths are independent witnesses with nothing to gain themselves, and the Tapas... well.

by joyce1938 13.10.14 10:21

I go back to the statements of smith family .it sounded like father and mother walking a bit apart from other family members ,so I have not long read that father saw no face as it was too low and child carried high . then I read that son said he could defiantly see face . and described what he saw . I don't see anything odd about that ,both could be telling truth. just to add a bit about trousers with buttons up side , there were trousers around that could be used as long length ,or rolled back and button to keep them at shorts length longer shorts ,have seen them around for years .So the buttos may have been large enough to be seen ,but possably maybe just 2 on eack leg ,not top to bottom . joyce1938

by SixMillionQuid 13.10.14 17:47

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it!

I'm with this interpretation.

It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

by Hongkong Phooey 13.10.14 18:48

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it!

I'm with this interpretation.
It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

Is there something else you would like to say? You seem to have some sort of idea of what went on so why not just 'put it out there'. (Not meant in anything but a quizzical manner!).

by Guest 13.10.14 21:21

aquila wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

Indeed. Which raises the question, did whoever compiled them do so in an attempt do illustrate Smithman? Or were they intended to be efits of someone completely different?

And is is Redwood who has hijacked them to become the face of Smithman?

Just questions and assumptions, not fact.

Crimewatch UK: October 2013 Madeleine Mccann Special

"... two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @ 24:08
Perhaps I'm playing with semantics.

Look at those two sentences in a heavily edited programme....

'two of the witnessed helped create e-fits of the man they saw.

Take the next sentence as 'stand alone'.

'today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images'

Absolutely nowhere does Redwood say these are the images compiled by the Smiths imo....you know..'two of the witnesses helped to compile'....

It has to my mind not been stated clearly who compiled the images shown, who drew them and who released them.

Yes, I quite understand what you're saying. I interpret that point as deliberately misleading without actually telling a lie, except if it wasn't two of the Smith family that helped compile the images, who was it? The plot thickens.

by Guest 13.10.14 21:33

aquila wrote:The provenance of these e-fits remains unclear and no-one can convince me that these e-fits are one and the same person as described to an e-fit compiler(s) by two independent witnesses from the Smith family - that's too far a stretch of the imagination imo.

There are also the other factors pointed out by Tony Bennett.

It would be pretty difficult to give an e-fit of such clarity - not to mention two glaringly different versions.

Nope, no provenance - and that is something that must surely be questioned.

Just my opinion and all that jazz.

What is the point after all this time, of issuing two e-fits drawn up with the help of two 'witnesses'? When the two e-fits were introduced during the Crimewatch production, the case was already over six years old, now over seven years. By now I would imagine the 'persons of interest' have invested in a Groucho Marx disguise kit and emigrated to Siberia.

Only an opinion of course!

by Guest 13.10.14 21:42

aquila wrote:It was a CrimeWatch extravaganza....that 'revelation moment'....it was announced and announced and announced on television to alert the public to watch the programme. The programme that wasn't shown in Portugal, the programme that had two different reconstructions.

Now someone tell me why there is nothing questionable about this, the Smith family's 'witnessing'.

It all smells of ratticus to me - and no, I don't believe Scotland Yard are doing a grand job. I believe this is a whitewash.

I agree with you Aquila. The presentation of the Crimewatch production was a fabrication and largely based on the McCann's version of events. Andy Redwood and the production team grossly misrepresented the facts of the case. For a start, Redwood said that Tannerman was the focal point of the investigation until his 'revelation moment', that is untrue, Tannerman was never the focal point of the investigation, it was the focal point of the McCann's private investigation. OG are supposed to be impartial but I didn't see much to convince me on Crimewatch.

by j.rob 13.10.14 21:46

pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:Still trying to understand the simulated abduction theory. You take one of your twins, walk from 5A around PdL, your face not covered, hoping to get spotted, along a predetermined path and then work your way back to 5A sometime after 10pm when everyone is running around like headless chickens.

Whatever route you take the only people to spot you are the Smiths. I dont understand why you would want to get spotted and then go on to make a world wide press conference on the 4th May. He's already been spotted by a tennis colleague - a chance meeting. What would be his excuse if someone known to him spots him again?

If before the simulated abduction takes place, discussions were had amongst your friends and everyone agreed that "if the police ask we will say you were sitting with us in the Tapas Bar between 9:30pm and 10pm". But really what happens is that between 9:50pm and 10Pm you leave 5A with a twin and head south towards Kelly's Bar/ beach. You may get spotted again by another tennis colleague or holiday maker that knows to speak to you - afterall JW caught you out. Your simulated abduction goes out the window and your friends look like liars. So why take this massive risk?
Never in a million years was there 'a simulated abduction' so as to be seen, but hopefully not recognised. That's plain nuts, even for the gruesome twosome, (imvho)

I've never gone for this 'decoy' theory either. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would GM take the risk of being seen? For all he knew someone from the Smith family might have taken a photo. And GM might have been seen by other people too.

What might make more sense is that someone who looked a bit like GM was carrying a child who looked a bit like Madeleine at a key time in a key place in an attempt to plant the spotlight of suspicion upon GM (where it should be, imo). Perhaps there are those 'in the know' who had an idea about what had really happened. Knew that 'Tanner-man' was a fabrication to get GM (and others?) off the hook. And decided to create a 'counter-sighting'. One that would make Jane Tanner's 'Tanner-man' look pretty flaky.

I do think it is of interest that Kate is obliged, in her book, to 'morph' Tanner-man and Smith-man as being one and the same, despite the time difference and the differences in appearance. I think this is a fairly desperate move.

He's already been spotted by a tennis colleague - a chance meeting. What would be his excuse if someone known to him spots him again?

Not necessarily a 'chance meeting' - if this 'meeting' even happened of course. Or at least there may have been a meeting between the two of them, or several/many but not necessarily then. If there was a meeting at that time, I doubt it either of the pair were 'cool, calm and collected' despite what they both claim.

You may get spotted again by another tennis colleague or holiday maker that knows to speak to you - after all JW caught you out.

What was JW's role? It is possible that he 'got wind' of something and decided to be at a key place at a key time, maybe? Or it is possible that Gerry, Matt and the tapas wanted to 'flag him up' as someone who might be important. (Part of a planned faked abduction, for instance? Only one that went wrong?)

Mcs and Tapas had something on JW. JW had something on them.

That is how it is looking to me.

Matt and OC resort manager 'wake up' JW at 1am on Friday morning. Tell him that Gerry saw JW earlier. Next morning Matt tells police about a 'rasta-man' sighting - apparently a friend of GM's. Later JW changes his account of where he was that evening. In some statements 'rasta-man' is there - but in the toilets rather than the tapas bar. In other statements he is not.

They must all be up to their necks in it, imo. One way or another.

All playing each other off against each other.

Tiresome - and all funded by the tax-payer. And what about Madeleine? Did anyone ever really care about her? Or was she just 'a good marketing ploy?' GM really is a prize turd, imo.

by Guest 13.10.14 21:47

I didn't understood why the efits were shown in the UK - there weren't many Brits in PdL in May 2007. Were they shown in Portugal?

One year on and I think CW Oct 14 was some sort of psychological game.

by Guest 13.10.14 21:47

SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.

In my opinion the abduction scenario was precarious before the dismissal of Tannerman and Smithman. Even if one or the other was a genuine sighting it doesn't prove anything without corroborating evidence but to propagate the illusion throws off the scent. 'Look over there'!

by Guest 13.10.14 21:49

aquila wrote:It seems to me that everyone is willing to see the holes in the Tapasnik statements - and there are huge gaping holes in them - and yet a lot of people are so keen to believe the Smith statements.

I struggle to understand why that is so.

Well said!

by Guest 13.10.14 21:51

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it!

I'm with this interpretation.
It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

Yes. Effectively it means nothing.

by Guest 13.10.14 21:53

Ladyinred wrote:I didn't understood why the efits were shown in the UK - there weren't many Brits in PdL in May 2007. Were they shown in Portugal?

One year on and I think CW Oct 14 was some sort of psychological game.

Another excellent point!

by SixMillionQuid 14.10.14 7:07

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
pennylane wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.
Conversely with the Smith sighting of Gerry, there isn't much left of the abduction scenario.
Maybe that's why some are keen to get rid of it!

I'm with this interpretation.
It's a bit late now. Out of nine people only two thought it was him some months later but have now backed out of the claim. Unless there is something else they would like to say.

Is there something else you would like to say? You seem to have some sort of idea of what went on so why not just 'put it out there'. (Not meant in anything but a quizzical manner!).

All I know is you can't identify an individual just by the way they carried a child. Naming GM as the person they likely saw on this basis alone meant MS was putting his head on the 'chopping block'. But he seemed pretty confident in making a statement to the police. And that makes me wonder if there was something else, what I dont know.

by palm tree 14.10.14 7:32

This case is the McCann case, aledgedly protection from high up. Could MS have had a visit? If it was me I guess id pipe down abit. Who are the men in suits?
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 30.10.14 8:04

SixMillionQuid wrote:
All I know is you can't identify an individual just by the way they carried a child. Naming GM as the person they likely saw on this basis alone meant MS was putting his head on the 'chopping block'. But he seemed pretty confident in making a statement to the police. And that makes me wonder if there was something else, what I don't know.

Something else?

I think so.

For a start, I think there is more to the relationship between Martin Smith and Robert Murat than meets the eye.

I've found what I think are four of the main quotes made by the Smiths about how well Martn Smith knew Robert Murat - and this must be relevant in view of the fact that the Smiths did NOTHING about their sighting for THIRTEEN DAYS - until hours after Murat was declared a formal susepct by the PJ.

Then Martin Smith spring to life.

Here are the relevant quotes:

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

How often had Martin Smith met Robert Murat?

1. Twice, in May and August 2006

From Martin Smith’s statement:

- Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

2. Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago

Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007

“The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.

However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.

“The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My Dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat”.

3. ‘Met him several times’

SKY News, 4 January 2008

“An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat… Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an ‘arguido’ in the Madeleine McCann investigation.

“Martin Smith said: ‘I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

4. ‘I’ve known him for years’

From the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”

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

So, finally we get to: "We met several times and I've known him for years".

Why was Martin Smith initially so evasive about his contacts over the years with Murat???

by palm tree 30.10.14 10:43

I think Martin Smith refers to visual meetings because didn't he correct RD Hall on that matter?
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 30.10.14 11:04

palm tree wrote:I think Martin Smith refers to visual meetings because didn't he correct RD Hall on that matter?
IMO

@ palmtree

The alleged communication from Martin Smith to Richard Hall was a strange one. He merely denied that he was a 'friend' of Murat. It is by no means 100% certain that this was a genuine communication from the real Martin Smith.

Of course, one of the issues here is the remarkable coincidence of the following:

1. The whole family - 9 of them - collectively doing nothing about their sighting for 13 days, despite an international media publicity blitz

2. Martin Smith only leaping into action hours after Robert Murat was made a formal suspect

3. Martin Smith saying he was adamant the man he says he saw was not Murat despite also admitting:

* it was dark
* the street lighting was weak
* he only glimpsed the man for a few seconds
* [quote from his statement] "States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph".

Could you explain please what you mean by 'visual meetings'? It's not a phrase I've ever come across before.

The words used by the Smiths are very clear: "Met him several times previously"

Not 'saw him...'

'Met' has a completely different meaning to 'saw'

by palm tree 30.10.14 11:44

I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but.... who knows, in this case anything is possible.
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 30.10.14 12:14

palm tree wrote:I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but...who knows, in this case anything is possible.
IMO

@ palm tree

Thank you very much for your swift reply.

On a point of information, Martin Smith OWNS an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex, along with a good number of other Irish folk, mainly from the Drogheda area where Martin Smith lives. The Estrela da Luz complex was built by another Irishman form the Drogheda area, and I think the same man maintains it as well through a company. Smith said on one occasion that he and his family holiday there 'three times a year' - maybe he goes three times a year, other members of his family go at other times?

Maybe he lets it out to others, I don't know.

As to the correction by Richard Hall, my understanding is that Hall wrote to the e-mail address given by Martin Smith or someone purporting to be him, and received documentation which may be correct but also may not be.

At the end of the day, we have these statements from the Smiths: Martin Smith... met Murat - on several occasions - known Murat for years

by pennylane 30.10.14 12:23

When I meet a neighbor in town or at the post office, I greet them in a friendly manner. This does not mean we know each other personally, even though we have known each other superficially for years! One thing I can categorically say is that I know their faces well, having seen them here and there in the village, or met them at the post office, or pub, or village hall, etc. Yes I have known them for years, but I know absolutely nothing about most of them.

by palm tree 30.10.14 12:33

No probs, Tony. It's really strange when it's looked into that some how things seem connected, PDL is a close knit community I think, whatever happened that night, someone somewhere knows.
IMO

by HelenMeg 30.10.14 12:49

palm tree wrote:No probs, Tony. It's really strange when it's looked into that some how things seem connected, PDL is a close knit community I think, whatever happened that night, someone somewhere knows.
IMO

I agree that I think it is a very close knit community... it would not surprise me if Murat / Smith knew each other to some extent. For this reason I am interested in Tony's research (albeit I still think Smith may have responded to the appeal for someone to come forward..)

by sami 30.10.14 13:31

palm tree wrote:I was thinking that because the Smiths have a holiday let in PDL, he would've seen Murat about the village like shopping, in the bars or at the beach. Could be wrong though, it's just because he had corrected RD Hall a few months back and he went on to make the correction on the DVDs. I'd like to think that RDH had checked or had proof that it was from MS himself before the correction but.... who knows, in this case anything is possible.
IMO

Visiting a town periodically, is not the same as living in a neighbourhood full-time.

I see the same people every day on my way to work. We acknowledge each other, have done for 15 years now, but I do not know their names.

If I were asked do you know Joe Bloggs, the name means nothing to me. If I were shown a picture of Joe Bloggs and asked do I know him, I would reply yes, I pass him on my way to work. I know him to see. In order for me to know Joe Bloggs by name and sight, there would need to be a common bind. Either I was introduced to him at some point, or we had mutual friends who made me aware of who he is, told me his name etc.

How could Smith put a name with a face if the only contact they had was visual - be it bumping trollies in the supermarket, dining in the same restaurant or drinking in the same bar, at infrequent times in any given year ?

Smith could have given any number of very simple reasons as to why and how he knew Murat, none of which need to be regarded as questionable. He did not though, the initial statement is vague and references made afterwards vary.

by palm tree 30.10.14 13:47

Could be that he learnt his name through the news reports at the time or through gossip on the streets? I've no idea if they were friends before or after, or not at all, but RM seemed to be a popular citizen in PDL, only my opinion though.

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...