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

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 16:33

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Photo 17

ETA Beaten to it!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 17:18

Rufus T wrote: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 .

@ Rufus T

The date of Martin Smith contacting the police was a bone of contention between me and tigger/Bagheera.

I had said that Smith contacted the police on 16 May, on what I consider the best available evidence.

tigger/Bagheera said that was not 'a fact', and I have conceded that (see below).

I have many times noted that Martin Smith contacting the police followed swiftly after Murat was made a formal suspect on 15 May.

I gave a full answer to tigger/Bagheera on this very point on the 'Smithman 2' thread, in which I condede that the time of the report to the police could have been anywhere from 16th to 18th May - not before, not after. Here was my answer:

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

10. Did the Smiths report their sighting the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect?

I wrote: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' the very day after Robert Murat was made a suspect - whatever interpretation is put on that fact”. 

Bagheera came back with: “No it absolutely isn’t. In the first place the source is the press. In the second place Peter Smith arrived home on the 4th. Two weeks make it the 18th. Which works well with the following events which included a two days wait for LP to contact them and subsequent booking of flights to PdL. In short we do not know the date but if you want to go by the Drogheda Times it makes it the 18th, 14 plus 4”.

Bagheera later wrote: “As for the date of the 16th May - allegedly when M. Smith phoned the PJ - well before a description of bundleman was given out - that is conjecture. A date was never given in any article or statement I have seen”.

REPLY: I cheerfully concede to Bagheera that it is possible that I may have overstated my case by saying that the Smiths came up with their sighting ‘the very day after’ Robert Murat was made a suspect. For the purpose of the ongoing debate re Smithman, I will change that, for the moment, to: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' very soon after Robert Murat was made a suspect”.

Robert Murat was made a suspect on 15 May.

My source for believing that the Smiths reported their sighting on 16 May comes from the Irish Mail on Sunday report of 10 August 2008, where we read this: “Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may. One said: ‘Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland...”

I believe this quote from a ‘friend of the family’ to have come from Clarence Mitchell. I believe that Mitchell would not be inaccurate when he speaks with such precision about Smith reporting his ‘sighting’ ‘13 days later’. This is 16 May, and I stick with that as the best evidence we have about the date the Smiths reported their sighting, i.e. the date when Peter Smith made his he ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ telephone call to his father.

Even if, as Bagheera suggests, their report to the Gardai came as late as 18 May, it does not fundamentally alter my two key points:

1. That they waited an inexplicably long time before reporting their ‘sighting’ (I said it was 13 days, you say it may have been 15), and
2. Their ‘sighting’ came very soon in time after Robert Murat was made a suspect.

Looking further at the evidence, Martin Smith says: “We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police”. Two weeks from when, though? According to you, tigger, only Peter Smith returned on 4 May, the others (including Martin Smith) returned on 9 May. Two weeks after 9 May brings us to 23 May, and I think we will be agreed that the ‘Am I dreaming or something’ telephone call (if it ever happened, that is) was before then. At all events, the three Smiths made their statements at Portimao Police Station on 26 May. I will see if we can establish the dates of the ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ ’phone call from Peter and the date of Martin Smith’s call to the Gardai, which may of course have been the same day.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 17:30

Hongkong Phooey 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.
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???

Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.14 18:01

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?

First of all tell me exactly how many cases there have been - say in the last century or so - of parents generating and sustaining what you refer to as 'a worldwide media storm' about a missing child.

(And adding, per Dr Gerald McCann, 28 June 2007: "I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term" - how right he was!)

You needn't bother to reply, as I will provide the answer:

ONE.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 18:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Sorry to quote my own post!
@Tony
What about an answer, since you brought up the subject of your experience which is not relevant to this case, have you had any experience where a 12 year old (not 5 who are easily led) lied to the police on a case of missing children where a worldwide media storm is in action?
First of all tell me exactly how many cases there have been - say in the last century or so - of parents generating and sustaining what you refer to as 'a worldwide media storm' about a missing child.

(And adding, per Dr Gerald McCann, 28 June 2007: "I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term" - how right he was!)

You needn't bother to reply, as I will provide the answer:

ONE.

Good so you admit your experiences are not relevant. So if we then move on to your unfound allegations that the 12 year old Miss Smith lied to the police in one of the biggest cases 'of the last century' can you now see how your theory is fundamentally flawed??
Go on admit it you've based your theory on flawed logic!!

by Rufus T 30.09.14 19:27

Thanks Tony for your reply regarding when they contacted the police, it does seem very likely that it was on or about the 16th then, I just couldn't find an exact date anywhere.

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 20:58

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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.

Nope! Looks nothing like Gerry.

There's no way Grange, on the basis of Smiths' statement, hadn't use the rest of the intelligence / evidence in conjunction to rule Gerry in or out being Smithman before mounting an expensive televised appeal to go on a witch hunt on the e-fits. Given Smiths testimony, Gerry would have been Grange first point of scrutiny. Had they given credence to Smiths quantified belief, at the very fundamental they would have to work out the plausibility of Gerry being Smithman or not, come to a conclusion he wasn't, before they shift direction. If Smithman is still waiting to be eliminated using appeal, it's apparent Gerry was ruled out. Otherwise it makes no sense for Grange to seek info they won't need.

by Guest 30.09.14 20:59

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@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???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source. It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 21:08

If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents. It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

by Guest 30.09.14 21:08

aiyoyo wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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.

Nope! Looks nothing like Gerry.

There's no way Grange, on the basis of Smiths' statement, hadn't use the rest of the intelligence / evidence in conjunction to rule Gerry in or out being Smithman before mounting an expensive televised appeal to go on a witch hunt on the e-fits. Given Smiths testimony, Gerry would have been Grange first point of scrutiny. Had they given credence to Smiths quantified belief, at the very fundamental they would have to work out the plausibility of Gerry being Smithman or not, come to a conclusion he wasn't, before they shift direction. If Smithman is still waiting to be eliminated using appeal, it's apparent Gerry was ruled out. Otherwise it makes no sense for Grange to seek info they won't need.

The two e-fits are a joke, totally impossible to produce from the vague description given by any of the three Smith family members. Even if they were drawn up nearer to the time of the sighting let alone months later.

Still I guess some mystery man is necessary to keep the abduction theory on the boil. This farce has got to end at some stage, it can't go on indefinitely, so what better than 'abduction' rubber stamped to conclude the case pending any new evidence that may emerge it x number of years, like never.

by Guest 30.09.14 21:15

aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents. It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports. Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot. She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours. That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 21:20

Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:@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???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source. It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.

Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

by roy rovers 30.09.14 21:31

Tony
What difference does it make to you whether the Smiths saw someone but it wasn't Gerry or made it up? Either way it wasn't Gerry (if that is what you believe).

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 21:34

Gollum wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents. It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports. Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot. She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours. That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.

What relevance does this have to the case Gollum?

Lets put it this way for all those who are calling the Smiths liars etc.
Not only does Martin Smith commit perjury by himself but he drags his 12 year old daughter into it all for somebody he hardly knows(there's no evidence that I know of where he knew Murat other than an acquaintance) and also his older son. He then some time later tries to frame GM by reporting that it was him (after viewing the news). Martin Smith (and family) would be in serious trouble and probably face a jail sentence for making false statements etc. in a case which even by the time in September had become the biggest missing person case the world has seen for a good few decades. He would do this why??

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 21:35

Gollum wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents. It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports. Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot. She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours. That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.

Yes, in the type of scenario you described, complicated and messy social background, it is not uncommon for children to be used to lie for parents to cover the parents crime. That fits in with what I said earlier.

In the smiths' scenario asking a child to cover for a stranger or friend (as the case may be) is not normal; and I believe that did not happen. I believe Smiths saw someone or believed they saw someone, but their delayed reporting of the incident was clouded by media blitz on the case.

by Guest 30.09.14 21:41

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:@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???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source. It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.
Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

Fair enough. Apologies I misunderstood your post, I thought your intention was to find the source of your information when you had time in order to counter the information put forward by TB and whoever else.

Can we now safely conclude that, according to official records, Smith didn't report the sighting immediately?

by Guest 30.09.14 21:45

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If something is at stake for the parents and they risk falling foul of the law they might coach their children to lie for them.
Otherwise it's not normal for parents to ask children to lie to cover someone else, doesn't matter how well or not well the person is known to the parents. It's just not done when there is no vested interest in it.

There are some very strange people around these days as can be seen by some of the abhorrent media reports. Not saying it's common place but I once worked with a woman of Irish origin who was a despicable person by nature and a compulsive liar to boot. She had a child, a daughter, who I know she used on a number of occasions to cover for her own misdemeanours. That included drug abuse, excessive alcohol consumption and theft.

Just saying.
What relevance does this have to the case Gollum?

Lets put it this way for all those who are calling the Smiths liars etc.
Not only does Martin Smith commit perjury by himself but he drags his 12 year old daughter into it all for somebody he hardly knows(there's no evidence that I know of where he knew Murat other than an acquaintance) and also his older son. He then some time later tries to frame GM by reporting that it was him (after viewing the news). Martin Smith (and family) would be in serious trouble and probably face a jail sentence for making false statements etc. in a case which even by the time in September had become the biggest missing person case the world has seen for a good few decades. He would do this why??

No relevance whatsoever! I will try my best to keep on track in future.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 21:48

Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:@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???

I was going to ask where your information came from but it seems that has already been covered, so I will wait until you have the time to research the source. It's a subject of interest to me so I won't forget.
Tony has already pointed out where the info. came from it was in the press and is therefore unreliable (thanks to Tony for doing the search). I need to make sure that I don't state facts when there is questionable data. That goes for all of us including Tony.

Fair enough. Apologies I misunderstood your post, I thought your intention was to find the source of your information when you had time in order to counter the information put forward by TB and whoever else.

Can we now safely conclude that, according to official records, Smith didn't report the sighting immediately?

There seems to be a bit of confusion as it's not that clear in the files etc. I don't think it's that Important there is probably a reasonably innocent explanation for the delay (without questioning the Smiths we'll never know). See my other posts on this thread for my reasoning.

by Guest 30.09.14 21:49

Tony Bennett wrote: 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?

Tony, where did you find this post? It has been taken from Candyfloss' new forum without acknowledgement of the source. Like you, I have no problem sharing information that could help our cause, as long as that is courteously referenced. But this isn't information of great significance, merely my expressing a speculative opinion. It was just an impromptu thought.

In this case I was replying to another poster on another site with an idea that had suddenly popped into my head after reading his words. It was a spur-of-the moment flash made in the context of answering another's thoughts.

I simply thought the resemblance to Gerry might in itself be a reason for the Smiths not to suspect their man and think nothing of it. A father carrying his child is a reason for subconscious dismissal. After all, the man the police were searching for would have been carrying a crying, distressed child, surely. Or wouldn't be carrying anyone at all, everyone knows kidnappers bundle their victims in getaway cars, they don't pick them up and wander around with them significant distances from the abduction point for all to see.

I think this is why the Smiths didn't come forward immediately, they didn't immediately reaslise there was anything untoward in what they saw.

Yes, I do believe they saw someone. And I don't believe the McCanns liked that at all. A man carrying a child around the resort seen by an independent witness? It's the answer to their prayers from whichever angle and motive you view it from. A cursory mention on their website, and a 6 page comparison with Tannerman, now outed as never being an abductor, is not shouting relievedly from the rooftops.

As they should have been doing either if Madeleine truly had been taken, or if they needed an independent sighting of an abductor to hide anything they may not want found out. Smithman should have been gold to them in either scenario.

Just my own theory and opinion, as ever.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 22:01

Dee Coy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: 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?

Tony, where did you find this post? It has been taken from Candyfloss' new forum without acknowledgement of the source. Like you, I have no problem sharing information that could help our cause, as long as that is courteously referenced. But this isn't information of great significance, merely my expressing a speculative opinion. It was just an impromptu thought.

In this case I was replying to another poster on another site with an idea that had suddenly popped into my head after reading his words. It was a spur-of-the moment flash made in the context of answering another's thoughts.

I simply thought the resemblance to Gerry might in itself be a reason for the Smiths not to suspect their man and think nothing of it. A father carrying his child is a reason for subconscious dismissal. After all, the man the police were searching for would have been carrying a crying, distressed child, surely. Or wouldn't be carrying anyone at all, everyone knows kidnappers bundle their victims in getaway cars, they don't pick them up and wander around with them significant distances from the abduction point for all to see.

I think this is why the Smiths didn't come forward immediately, they didn't immediately reaslise there was anything untoward in what they saw.

Yes, I do believe they saw someone. And I don't believe the McCanns liked that at all. A man carrying a child around the resort seen by an independent witness? It's the answer to their prayers from whichever angle and motive you view it from. A cursory mention on their website, and a 6 page comparison with Tannerman, now outed as never being an abductor, is not shouting relievedly from the rooftops.

As they should have been doing either if Madeleine truly had been taken, or if they needed an independent sighting of an abductor to hide anything they may not want found out. Smithman should have been gold to them in either scenario.

Just my own theory and opinion, as ever.

Good post Dee Coy.

Maybe the question we should ask is not why is Smithman (not) important to the McCanns but why is it so important to Tony?

by palm tree 30.09.14 22:44

Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?

by Hongkong Phooey 30.09.14 22:51

palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?

Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo

by palm tree 30.09.14 23:08

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo

Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

by SixMillionQuid 01.10.14 7:38

palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.

by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 9:18

SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.

It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

by palm tree 01.10.14 9:43

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All IMO

Agreed HKP, I'm confused that when the files were released in 08, why from October 13 is this sighting being questioned and not back in 08? have people been questioning the Smiths from 08 or just since last year?
IMO

by joyce1938 01.10.14 10:20

I just want to make it clear how my thought are right now ,re smith siting . I have always thought it truth . cant be %100 as no one else can be . The problem I have is ,those identity kits ,how they suddenly appeared ,who was it supposed to resemble ? I don't think it was done by smith family ,they have said definatly couldn't recognise faces for the angle the child was carried . Cant see them making another statement and making photofits to boot. Was it one of the private companies that was engaged and payed for doing nNOT ALOT. wAS THAT THEIR JOB IN THIS ? yES THE WALK COULD HAVE SIGNALED A FAMILIER WALK ,BUT OFCOURSE CANT BE PROVEN . SO IN THIS CASE IT MUST TAKE A LOT MORE STUFF TO TAKE INTO A COURT ,AND WHY IS IT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTENT THING HERE .? JOYCE1938

by Hongkong Phooey 01.10.14 10:31

palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All IMO
Agreed HKP, I'm confused that when the files were released in 08, why from October 13 is this sighting being questioned and not back in 08? have people been questioning the Smiths from 08 or just since last year?
IMO

Discussions on the Smith sighting have been going on for years as far as I know, it's intensified after the Crimewatch programme as Andy Redwood intimated that efits came from a family iirc. The smiths, who have not courted any publicity, stated in their statements that they didn't really see the guys face (not enough to make an efit).

by palm tree 01.10.14 12:25

Ah, thank you HKP, if MS was up to 80% sure it was GM, I don't think he'd have needed to remember his face, he was in everyone's face every day anyways. Since he stated that by watching GM come off the plane carrying a sleeping Sean, that's the reason he contacted the police, no need for an efit.
IMO

by SixMillionQuid 01.10.14 12:37

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?
Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo
Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.
It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

The problem is you can't ID an individual just by the way they carry a child unless that person is known to carry their child in a unique way. But MS said it was common to see children being carried in the area. Then there's inclusion of the observation about Robert Murat in his statement -sound like he made this comment of his own back rather than the police asking him the question.

If criticism is aimed at Tanner for dithering over what she claimed she saw and not telling the McCanns then I can't figure out why there was an almost two week delay before the Smiths told the police about they saw when a daughter and a guy at the airport told them what happened a few hours previously, not far from where they were staying.

So maybe they didn't encounter GM walking down the middle of road carrying a child. It makes me wonder if something else happened around 10pm on 3rd May 2007.

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...