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

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 0:05

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.

That depends when you believe Maddie died.
If not on May 3rd what are the chances of the man being Gerry which was what Amaral believed back then, based on his theory Maddie died on May 3rd, and therefore crediting the Smiths 70-80% quantified belief Gerry was the man seen and that might be worth exploring further.

Since it was a missed opportunity to recall the Smiths we will never know whether Smiths still held that belief had they attended the interview Amaral intended but did not happen.

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry.

If Redwood had received calls after the appeals suggesting the man was Gerry the likelihoods are those calls were made by people following the case on internet. No public member not on forum would identify or associate the e-fits to Gerry.
Also, Redwood mustn't have believed this type of callers info since nothing was done about it.

His team were out there digging and interviewing an assortment of swarthy smelly pot bellied burglars and God knows who else that did not fit in society's good book. It strengthens my belief Redwood team did not give credence to the intelligence that the e-fits was Gerry.

Some people believe it must be Gerry since the McCanns did not focus on this sighting for good reason. Whereas I feel it is more a case of not being able to control Smiths or Smiths' sighting, in the manner they could spin JT's sighting whichever way suits them, evolving the character to coincide with bogus sightings. Just to give the illusion of an elusive abductor that will never ever be caught out, and that suits their agenda perfectly.

Smiths sighting be it of whatever random guy the McCanns knew that is not relevant nor useful to them firstly because they knew it wasn't Maddie being carried; and secondly the timing was out of synch with their scripts and therefore useless for their purpose.

Redwood may be hoping to eliminate Smithman so that the faked abduction can be put to bed and so that his team can concentrate more on the needed areas.

My cup is still half full. I dont believe it is whitewash until I see it.

by Rufus T 30.09.14 1:44

Regarding the delay in the Smith family reporting their sighting, at the start of this thread the newspaper articles say they were home two weeks when Peter phoned his father. If that is two weeks after Martin got home that call could be as late as 23rd May as although Peter and his wife returned home on the 4th, Martin and the others did not go home until 9th May. Those dates are mentioned in his statement to the PJ.

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:35

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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)

HKP, a very interesting post.
Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please ?
If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction.
If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:36

deleted post double, site slow loading.

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:37

deleted

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:38

deleted again

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:39

Morning Admin, would you be so kind as to empty all of these 'deleted's' as soon as you get a chance. Thanks.

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:40

and again, oh dear.

by bobbin 30.09.14 9:41

this must be a record splat

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 10:28

aiyoyo wrote:

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry.
.

You think that the dark haired one looks nothing like Gerry? Many people would beg to differ.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 10:36

bobbin wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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)
HKP, a very interesting post.
Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please ?
If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction.
If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.

Bobbin, I don't have time at the moment (meant to be working and on my phone) I'll try to find it later thanks.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 11:14

REPLYING TO RECENT POSTS

@ Dee Coy

You know, perhaps the very fact that the man looked like Gerry threw the Smiths. Logically, the abductor could not be the father, so subconsciously their minds may have dismissed the sighting as being of no consequence.

REPLY: Only one of the Smiths, Martin Smiths, claimed that he thought the man looked like Gerry McCann. And he only said this over 4 months later, after seeing, so he said, footage of Gerry coming down from the plane. And on the evidence we have, it looks like Martin Smith waited a full ELEVEN more days (20 September) before reporting to the police his viewing of Gerry McCann coming down the steps of the plane. Dee Coy, your explanation is ingenious, but I suggest that your journey into the collective subconscious is stretching speculation well beyond acceptable limits.

They did not immediately place importance on the sighting because it didn't make sense for the man they saw to be the kidnapper so their minds dismissed it.

REPLY: But have you had a look at the first part of the OP, where I revealed the many contradictions about (a) when they first became exercised about this sighting and (b) the various excuses they made for their delay of 13 to 15 days in reporting it?

Only later, with Madeleine's prolonged absence, and snippets emerging that maybe things were not all they seemed - the children being left alone, for example - did logical thought kick in and they started to put 2 and 2 together?

REPLY: But we have first-hand accounts from both Martin and Peter Smith of what made them contact the police; Peter Smith ringing up his Dad with his now-famous: “Am I dreaming or something?” quote

This is the nub of the matter.

The McCanns don't like it.

This alone tells us that the sighting is real, credible and of huge significance. In my opinion.

REPLY: But your opinion is not supported by the facts. You make the claim that ‘the McCanns don’t like’ the sighting. But this is flatly contradicted by the following SIX points:

1. They made active use of the Smith sighting in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May
2. They then immediately uploaded details of ‘the sighting by an Irish family’ on to their ‘Find Madeleine’ website AND added an audio of a man with an Irish accent describing his sighting. That’s been on there for the past FIVE YEARS
3. ‘Smithman’ was mentioned on SIX pages of Kate McCann’s book
4. In the same book, Kate added a three-page table of the ‘striking similarities between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’
5. If you click on the ‘Find Madeleine’ site today, the first thing that comes up is the TWO e-fit faces (supposed to be the same man) of ‘Smithman’
6. Ever since the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special on 14 October last year, the McCanns and their spokemsen have given 100% backing to the search for ‘Smithman’ and have said they are ‘pleased with the progress being made’ etc.

@ Dee Coy – the claim you make that the McCanns ‘don’t like’ the Smithman sighting is demonstrably false. In view of the above facts, surely you should now concede that you are wrong on that point?

@ Hongkong Phooey (in answer to Gollum)

They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couple of days

REPLY: This is a very misleading and probably untrue statement, as I expect you are fully aware. What you should have written, if you were trying to be truthful, would have been this:

“On 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special, the Daily Mirror published a claim that Martin Smith had reported his sighting to the Portuguese police two days after Madeleine was reported missing. He had never made such a claim in the previous 6½ years, and this contradicted other statements made by him and other members of his family about their reactions to their claimed sighting”.

and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)

REPLY: An opinion with no foundation whatsoever, except that you believe that Martin Smith was genuine in claiming that he was ‘60% to 80% sure’ that he had seen Gerry in the dark over 4 months previously, based just on ‘the way he was carrying his child’.

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.

REPLY: You’re right, BUT, the last available evidence Amaral had to go on was a communication from Liam Hogan of the Irish Gardai on 20 September 2007, enclosing a statement from Martin Smith based on his ‘60%-to-80% sure-based-on-the-way-he-was-carrying-his-child’ claim, and adding hios own (Liam Hogan’s) view that Smith was an honest bloke with no ulterior motive. As we all know, Amaral was removed from the investigation less than two weeks later, no doubt with Martin Smith’s claim very fresh in his mind. I honestly believe that if Amaral was presented with all the information we now have about the Smith’s claim ‘sightings’, he would change his mind. The same applies IMO to Amaral’s belief that the creche nanny was telling the truth about ‘the high tea with Madeleine’ at around 5.30pm on 3 May.

@ aiyoyo

That depends when you believe Maddie died. If not on May 3rd what are the chances of the man being Gerry which was what Amaral believed back then, based on his theory Maddie died on May 3rd, and therefore crediting the Smiths 70-80% quantified belief Gerry was the man seen and that might be worth exploring further.

REPLY: Can’t comment for legal reasons – by the way it was ‘60% to 80%’

Since it was a missed opportunity to recall the Smiths we will never know whether Smiths still held that belief had they attended the interview Amaral intended, but it did not happen.

REPLY: True – and in addition there is a great deal of evidence that the Smiths are now backing the 2 e-fits (whether made by them or not) and fully supporting the claims made by DCI Redwood and BBC CrimeWatch that ‘Smithman’ is the leading suspect.

What seems certain (to me anyway) is that Redwood does not place the same significance as Amaral on the man being Gerry, otherwise he would not have wasted time and money appealing for info on two e-fits that bear not an iota of semblance to Gerry

REPLY: Exactly right

If Redwood had received calls after the appeals suggesting the man was Gerry the likelihood [is that] those calls were made by people following the case on internet. No public member not on forum would identify or associate the e-fits to Gerry. Also, Redwood mustn't have believed this type of callers’ info - since nothing was done about it.

REPLY: aiyoyo, I fully agree with your line of thinking here

His team were out there digging and interviewing an assortment of swarthy smelly pot bellied burglars and God knows who else that did not fit in society's good book. It strengthens my belief Redwood team did not give credence to the intelligence that the e-fits was Gerry.

REPLY: Fully agreed, except that as you know go further and suggest that the entire ‘digging’ show was put on purely for public perception in the U.K.

Some people believe it must be Gerry since the McCanns did not focus on this sighting for good reason.

REPLY: True, at first they didn’t. But then, in 2008, Brian Kennedy got involved, with his ‘intimidatory’ tactics that Mark Hollingsworth described in August 2009 as so severe that witnesses were put off making statements. And then came criminal fraudster Kevin Halligen and his sidekick, Henri Exton, the former boss of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Unit. That changed everything. By the time of the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary in May 2009, ‘Smithman’ was ready to be, as it were, ‘unveiled’ as a suspect. Thereafter, he was promoted on the McCanns’ website and even more so in Kate’s book.

Whereas I feel it is more a case of not being able to control Smiths’ or Smiths' sighting, in the manner they could spin JT's sighting whichever way suits them, evolving the character to coincide with bogus sightings. Just to give the illusion of an elusive abductor that will never ever be caught out, and that suits their agenda perfectly.

REPLY: I tend to agree with that line of thinking.

Smiths’ sighting be it of whatever random guy the McCanns knew that is not relevant nor useful to them firstly because they knew it wasn't Maddie being carried; and secondly the timing was out of synch with their scripts and therefore useless for their purpose. Redwood may be hoping to eliminate Smithman so that the faked abduction can be put to bed and so that his team can concentrate more on the needed areas.

REPLY: I think Redwood’s conclusion might be: “The Irish family saw the abductor but despite our Herculanean efforts (frustrated by lack of co-operation by the Portuguese police), we’ve been able to determine who he is”.

My cup is still half full. I don’t believe it is whitewash until I see it.

REPLY: It might soon be one-third full

@ Rufus T

Regarding the delay in the Smith family reporting their sighting, at the start of this thread the newspaper articles say they were home two weeks when Peter phoned his father. If that is two weeks after Martin got home that call could be as late as 23rd May as although Peter and his wife returned home on the 4th, Martin and the others did not go home until 9th May. Those dates are mentioned in his statement to the PJ.

REPLY: As far as we know, these are the facts:

1. Peter Smith returned on his own to Ireland on 4 May (apparently leaving his wife behind??)

2.Martin Smith and the rest of his family stayed on and flew back on 9 May

3.Martin Smith reported his sighting to the Irish Gardai between 16 and 18 May, i.e. 13 to 15 days after Madeleine was reported missing

AND FINALLY

In another place, an individual is continuing to make a claim she has made for weeks that my actions in questioning the Smith sighting are ‘undermining the star witness’ in the case. This is coupled with claims that my questioning the Smith sighting is because I have been paid by the McCanns to do so. I have to say that anyone who claims that Martin Smith could possibly be a witness for a prosecution of Gerry McCann, let alone a ‘star witness’ really has lost touch with reality in a major way.

Suppose he was put on the stand? And the judge says: “What is your evidence, Mr Smith?” It would surely go something like this:

“Me and my family saw this bloke in the dark for a few seconds at 10.00pm on 3 May. We had been drinking in Kelly’s bar. We didn’t do anything about it until a day or two after Robert Murat - whom I know – was made a suspect. Then my son Peter ’phoned me up and said he was not sure if he was dreaming or not but did I remember seeing a bloke carrying a child on 3 May at 10.00pm. I said ‘Come to think of it, I do’. I then asked other members of my family if they remembered this and then they too all remembered it. Four months later, I saw a TV news bulletin of Gerry McCann carrying Sean down the steps of a plane, and I thought ‘That’s the bloke I saw over 4 months ago’. So I waited another 11 days, then told Liam Hogan of the Irish Gardai, saying I was, well, ‘60%-80% sure-ish’ that it was him. Since then, the McCanns have sent over one of Britain’s richest men, Brian Kennedy, to see me, and then his henchman Henri Exton, you know, the bloke who used to run MI5’s covert intelligence operations. After that, I’ve agreed to publicly back claims that 2 e-fits which look like two different men were really drawn up by me and other members of my family. Just like DCI Redwood and Matthew Amroliwala said on BBC CrimeWatch last October”.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 11:33

bobbin wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
They did speak to the local police (GNR) within the first couole of days and imo they did see Gerry (but maybe not Maddie)
HKP, a very interesting post.

Where did you find reference to the Smiths speaking to GNR please?

If the Smiths did speak to the GNR, and the GNR didn't progress it, it might be that they already had assessed that it was not an abduction. If, however, GNR did pass it on, and Gonçalo Amaral did give credence to it and wanted to speak with them, hence trying to arrange for their return to Portugal for interview, then it will shine some critical light on whether the Smith sighting is a valid sighting or some, after the event, meddling to protect RM or a.n. other. Thanks in anticipation.

Hi bobbin,

I have fully answered this in my post above ( see under '@ Hongkong Phooey' ).

Hongkong Phooey is relying one ONE report in the Daily Mirror dated 16 Oct 2013 (i.e. two days after the CrimeWatch McCann Special).

It seems it took Martin Smith well over SIX YEARS to come up with this claim, which neither he nor any other member of his family had made before (see the OP).

AFAIK there is no specific reference to 'speaking to a GNR officer', either.

Basically Hongkong Phooey has dishonestly tried to pass this off to members here as a 'fact', when he clearly it is NOT an admitted fact.

No wonder he is struggling to provide you wth a link for his claim

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 11:52

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
You think that the dark haired one looks nothing like Gerry? Many people would beg to differ.

So you claim the 'dark-haired' one looks like Gerry McCann? - although many people, myself included, see many points of difference.

But at least you've supported my other point about these two e-fits.

If you say that fat-rectangular-face, older-looking man with the darker hair and enormous chin 'looks like Gerry', you are presumably conceding that the 'younger, thin-triangular-face man with the small chin' does NOT look like Gerry McCann. Am I right?

Which brings us all back to one of my key points: why would any police force - especially the country's finest? - show the public an e-fit purportedly of the same man when in fact to most people they look like two entirely DIFFERENT men?

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

On your points about Smithman, one of your objects in joining this forum was to try and persuade us all that 'Smithman' was real and that 'Smithman' was Gerry. Wasn't it?

You were one of the wave of new posters that joined us for the first time during the period 18 to 20 October.

I have checked back, and it was on a thread started by 'Lance de Boils' on 18 October that I first raised the issue of whether 'Smithman' might be a fabrication. The thread title was: 'Where was Smithman heading?', to which Admin added in brackets: 'Or was there ever a Smithman?'

It was on that day, 18 October, that I first tentatively raised the issue as to whether Smithman was a possible fabrication.

Within 48 hours, a wave of new members had joined, simply to post on that thread only.

That was a matter swiftly picked up by 'sallypelt', who wrote on 20 October:

"Lots of new posters signing up to debate this issue"

And I replied the same day:

"This was a very pertinent observation, sallypelt. Just after someone calld 'hotrot' joined up and posted on this thread.

It's usually good to welcome lots of new members to any discussion forum - and we have had well over 250 new members this month alone.

But there is something curious about a few of them.

The following members all joined within the last 4 days and all have posted exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on this thread.

They are:

logical
hotrot
Q71
sockpuppet
eiileen, and
jim nasium.

All these six have (a) fully supported the BBC Crimewatch/Redwood appeal to 'find Smithman' (b) stated how very credible the Smiths' sighting is and (c) poured scorn on those who dare to question the credibility of Martin Smith's evidence.

And often in particularly abusive terms, unusual for a brand new poster, like this from 'Eileen' today:

"I am disgusted that people who would claim to be interested in justice for Madeleine would want to cast aspersions on the honest witnesses in which Goncalo Amaral has placed his trust. Is it any wonder the media refer to us as 'Vile Trolls' and 'Nutters'..."

Strong stuff.

Where are you all coming from?"

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

I think I'm right in saying that all the above six were sooner or later outed as disruptors

by joyce1938 30.09.14 12:21

not correct place to do this BUT I KEEP GETTING A NEW SITE ASKING ME TO MAKE MY OWN FUROM ,ITS BIG PAGE AND IT IS FORUMATION ,BUT ITS NOT . COM MAYBE .NET ONE OR OTHER ?

by Angelique 30.09.14 12:28

I might be in a strange position regarding Smithman in that I think I am in a minority of one. I can't accept that the Smiths could have helped with the e-fits even though they are attributed to them. But I do think they look like Martin Brunt and Gerry McCann. The e-fits which were sat on along with the Report by the McCanns have somehow now been used to shore up a sighting but I don't understand why. The fact that Redwood sat the McCanns with these enlarged e-fits behind them is even more strange.

But I think given all the points Tony has raised that the sighting by the Smiths cannot be reconciled with the e-fits.

We know that GA was attempting to bring the Smiths to Portugal - what we don't know is what he had in mind.

joyce
Same here can't understand what is going on!

by joyce1938 30.09.14 13:51

Angelique,i have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be o k soon. I also don't really think that the smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of who ever we need to make of them . I haven't got the energy to go dig ,but for what ever reason ,don't think ot was the smiths .jiyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 14:02

joyce1938 wrote:Angelique, I have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be OK soon.

I also don't really think that the Smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of whoever we need to make of them. I haven't got the energy to go dig, but for what ever reason, don't think iot was the Smiths joyce1938

@ joyce1938 re the forum, Forumotion has a notice on its website today saying there will be problems on and off for a while throughout the Forumotion empire, IIR it was for 'server upgrades' or sommting like that

re the Smithman efits, for me, the strange way that DCI Redwood showed us 2 e-fits that quite honestly did NOT look the same, coupled with the sly way that Matthew Amroliwala told us the e-fits were made by 'two of the witnesses' but specifically did NOT say that these two e-fits were made from the recollections of the Irish family were two of the early indications that something was badly wrong about these e-fits.

I'm glad that you and Angelique and see this. From there I looked in details at when these sightings were reported and what the Smiths said (dark, weak street lighting, only saw him for a few seconds, his head was down etc. and that made me still mores suspicious about the whole thing.

@ Angelique I can see why you think the two people might be Gerry McCann and Martin Brunt - there are indeed superficial resemblances - but quite honestly I could put up thousands of images/photographs of blokes between say 25 and 45 and you would see superficial resemblances to loads of other people as well

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 15:41

@Tony
You can rant all you want about me deliberately making false statements but your wrong. I recalled something I has read and put to the back of my mind. This was (nicely) challenged and I explained I would check later when I had more time Now you may well be right (still don't have the time to research at this particular time). You have however decided to go into offensive/defensive mode because basically I don't agree with your theory. Please answer me this one question:- You want to help a friend by giving him an alibi and need to persuade your 12 year old daughter (or granddaughter) to blatantly lie to the police in a case which is on tv several times a day. How do you get her to do that and what sort of father would do that to their daughter. You, I would hope would bring your children up to respect the police / investigation and also to 'do the right thing' I.e. this would be a lie of gigantic proportions you would be putting her (and other family members) at risk of perjury and a criminal record. You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

by Angelique 30.09.14 15:43

joyce1938 wrote:Angelique,i have now read on here somewhere that not to fret the site is being made more safe and all will be o k soon. I also don't really think that the smiths were the ones that drew up the dodgy pictures of who ever we need to make of them . I haven't got the energy to go dig ,but for what ever reason ,don't think ot was the smiths .jiyce1938

Many thanks for your information about site re-enforcment smilie

I hope its made of powerful stuff we may need it judging by what is happening elsewhere!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 15:52

Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???

No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

by Angelique 30.09.14 16:00

Tony

I can't explain why I think that the e-fits look like the people I think they look like. I remember on the CW edition when Redwood displayed these two pictures. It just something that I immediately thought. I also picked up on the fact that although Redwood presented them I believe he too, felt uncomfortable about them. Something in his demeanor. As you know I have stated elsewhere that it was Exton saying they were his that made me think I was right. That he got them slanted towards these two people for spite, derisive and contemptuous.

I am obviously wrong as you say you could supply many other similar faces.

by bobbin 30.09.14 16:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 16:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.

So it could be argued that people with morals wouldn't do such a thing (maybe if they were desperate) and I actually believe the Smiths have morals. Now to your experience (which is not valid) how many cases of worldwide press and media coverage about a missing child where the parents got these young children to lie to the police, were you involved in???

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 16:17

bobbin wrote:
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.

Agreed.

When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.

A very good question, though bear in mind two things:

1. Do we know, or don't we, what trousers Gerry was actually wearing on the night of 3 May 2007, and

2. If we DON'T know that, what would be the relevance of Aoife Smith 'thinking' the man's trousers had buttons?

Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons. The timing here is critical.

The timings around this time are very very interesting:

13 May - Tanner identifies Murat as the man carrying a child

15 May - Murat declared suspect

16 & 17 May - Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien say they saw Murat hanging around G5A & Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May

16 May, or maybe 17 or 19 May - Peter Smith has his 'Am I only dreaming?' moment

20 May -22 May - Gerry McCann returns to England with his camera

22 May - Both Gerry McCann and Tony Rickwood's wife Philomena McCann fly into Faro Airport

24 May - Last Photo produced

25 May - Gerry McCann makes announcement to world's press giving vague details about a man carrying a child

26 May - Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith give their statements to PJ at Portimao Police Station

Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

by joyce1938 30.09.14 16:40

I,does anyone else recall this ? think I saw picture of buttoned trousers on bed in macs apartment after the event .? defiantly saw this ,but cant vouch for time line of events photo was taken . joyce1938

by Guest 30.09.14 16:41

bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

Gerry gets to work on the wider agenda 14/15 June 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The trouser buttons

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

Same crumpled check shirt and beige trousers? Could be taken on the same day but does this have a relevance?

by joyce1938 30.09.14 16:46

notice the wrist watch ,had heard or read they had said no one was using wristwatches ,how could they be so sure of times to go check kids if no one knew time ? joyce1938

by bobbin 30.09.14 16:55

Gollum wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:You would do this to your family Tony cause thats the result of your theory???
No, I wouldn't.

But I could give you myriad examples of children as young as 5 or even younger who have lied for their parents.

As a qualified social worker working for many years to protect children, I personally witnessed this countless times.

I have never been comfortable about making this accusation against any of the Smiths, let alone Aoife, but the questions about the claimed Smithman sighting just pile up and up and I spoke up because I was sure something ws not right about the whole thing.
I suppose another thing to check out would be the possibility of the 'buttoned' trousers being able to be dismissed.
When did photos of Gerry first appear after the Not Abduction, where he is wearing his buttoned trousers.
Did they get media coverage before she made her statement referring to the buttons.
The timing here is critical.
Anyone got any info on the button trouser photos ?

Gerry gets to work on the wider agenda 14/15 June 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The trouser buttons

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

Same crumpled check shirt and beige trousers? Could be taken on the same day but does this have a relevance?

Thank you Tony and gollum.
So the Smith statements were made 26th May and this photo shows 14th/15th June.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Sunday 6^th May 2007
Can’t see the buttons though.

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

apparently Maddie’s 4^th Birthday, so 12 May 2007, IF the button trousers.

I can't paste photos across but Gerry is wearing beige trousers on 6th May and 12th May at least, but to me they look different in colour/material/texture from the button ones.

Can anyone find the photo of the beige trousers on the bed, photographed by the police on night of 3rd May 2007.

The reason, Tony, is obvious. If the 'button' trousers didn't emerge on press/photos until AFTER Oaife's statement then there is a greater chance of her memory being a true representation of what she thought she had seen rather than one of later /auto suggestion.

by Rufus T 30.09.14 17:31

Here is a link to the trousers on the bed photo

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

@ Tony, or anyone else who can help. Do we actually know the exact date that Mr Smith contacted the police or are we just making an educated guess? I realise it may not be important but it will at least stop me wondering .

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...