The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Bishop Brennan on 04.12.14 0:32

Far from seeing Jez (and/or the Smiths) as sinister in the story, I believe Jez was almost single-handedly responsible for the original plan going wrong. The jemmied shutters were a key part of the original plan (family briefed to tell the media) but Gerry didn't get a chance to do it and in the end they had to change the story to the entirely unconvincing "oh we left the patio door unlocked".

As a result of that, Kate and Gerry had to change the story of how they got in / out of 5A, and (under pressure) made a mess of it - going initially with the original story (front door using key) before realising that made no sense if the patio was unlocked, and changing it. They did not have time to update the three UK-based relatives causing the massive disconnect between the jemmied-shutter stories released to the UK media and the "new" story on the ground.

And of course, with that one meeting, suddenly there was not one bit of evidence supporting a break-in / abduction. Because the shutters had not been 'jemmied', Kate then had to close the window from the inside - because it no longer made sense. With zero evidence of break-in, I think that's why 'tannerman' had to be invented - a late addition based on a sighting Jane probably made at a different time of a man going in a different direction (hence the delay in finding 'crecheman' - who I think exists, just not at 9;15pm and not where Jane said he was).

In my view the original plan was jemmied shutters / open window / sighting by someone (turned out to be Smith family) => obvious abduction. The new plan was open patio doors / sighting of tannerman / keep very quiet about Smithman. And that has remained front and centre of the OFM website, despite all that SY have subsequently uncovered.
avatar
Bishop Brennan

Posts : 695
Reputation : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 04.12.14 6:28

@Bishop Brennan wrote:Far from seeing Jez (and/or the Smiths) as sinister in the story, I believe Jez was almost single-handedly responsible for the original plan going wrong.  The jemmied shutters were a key part of the original plan (family briefed to tell the media) but Gerry didn't get a chance to do it and in the end they had to change the story to the entirely unconvincing  "oh we left the patio door unlocked".  

As a result of that, Kate and Gerry had to change the story of how they got in / out of 5A, and (under pressure) made a mess of it - going initially with the original story (front door using key) before realising that made no sense if the patio was unlocked, and changing it. They did not have time to update the three UK-based relatives causing the massive disconnect between the jemmied-shutter stories released to the UK media and the "new" story on the ground.

And of course, with that one meeting, suddenly there was not one bit of evidence supporting a break-in / abduction.  Because the shutters had not been 'jemmied',  Kate then had to close the window from the inside - because it no longer made sense.  With zero evidence of break-in, I think that's why 'tannerman' had to be invented - a late addition based on a sighting Jane probably made at a different time of a man going in a different direction (hence the delay in finding 'crecheman' - who I think exists, just not at 9;15pm and not where Jane said he was).  

In my view the original plan was jemmied shutters / open window / sighting by someone (turned out to be Smith family)  => obvious abduction.    The new plan was open patio doors / sighting of tannerman / keep very quiet about Smithman. And that has remained front and centre of the OFM website, despite all that SY have subsequently uncovered.


Which reminds me that in Kates book she says that in THEIR bedroom the maintenance man had to be called out to fix the blind Gerry broke and called it the "Gerry touch". Also calling out the man to look at the washing machine - IMO this was "prep" and SY should look at it as such!

____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by woodforthetrees on 04.12.14 10:27

IMO a lot of these theories are far too elaborate.

If there was that much planning gone on before hand, then the shutters would have been genuinely 'jemmied'.

The fact is, they weren't, which IMO means that there wasn't enough time to do this as well...hence a rushed cover up for an accident and not a pre- planned abduction/scam.

IMO they simply went out for dinner, came home, saw that she had fallen and died, they panicked but stayed focused as they knew what they stood to lose (including their freedom when incarcerated) and hastily decided between them that "we need to say she's been taken, otherwise we are f*****ed!"

Gerry then rushed her down the road to either the medical centre (in a very last ditch attempt to try and bring her back) or more logically, to get her away from the scene and temporarily hide the body in either a vacant building or other suitable hiding place, hence the Smith sighting.

Tanner sighting was IMO just her trying to get in on the action and Gerry went along with it as it gave him a nice alibi and also sent the search teams off in the opposite direction to where he had been at 10pm.

The reason the pair didn't go searching is because they needed to have time together in the apartment to make sure neither slipped up and the abduction theory was mentioned to anyone who would listen. 

Tapas 7 timeline is just a mess because non of them were actually checking on their kids and everyone wanted to cover their ar**s so didn't get charged with child neglect under scrutiny.

The media/gvt intervention i believe is just because of Gerry and David Paynes connections/knowledge of underhand activities to do with child abuse, which, with Madeleine missing, would fit nicely with a big breaking news story. As a result, all those connections who need things covered up/steered a certain way, bent over backwards to assist.

The rest of the charade afterwards is just that... a charade/money making opportunity for everyone involved. It's in everyone's interest not to solve the case:

SY - With a big budget it keeps people in cushy jobs with travel
Media - Madeleine sells news, nothing more simple than that
McCanns - Get privileges, donations, limelight and remain innocent of both the death and neglect if the case remains 'confused' and unsolved.

The only people who want this case closed are the PJ and Amaral, as it's affecting tourism and reputation, hence why the list above, do everything in their power to discredit them.

Smithman is a worry for the list above as it could put an end to the gravy train. However, as it was dark and the Smiths had had a drink or 5, it would not stand up in court.

There are however, the dogs and hair samples which under further scrutiny could change things, especially after the trial against Amaral goes against the McCs (media jump gravy trains), the SY budget gets slashed......................

IMO of course

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by pennylane on 04.12.14 10:33

@woodforthetrees wrote:IMO a lot of these theories are far too elaborate.

If there was that much planning gone on before hand, then the shutters would have been genuinely 'jemmied'.

The fact is, they weren't, which IMO means that there wasn't enough time to do this as well...hence a rushed cover up for an accident and not a pre- planned abduction/scam.

IMO they simply went out for dinner, came home, saw that she had fallen and died, they panicked but stayed focused as they knew what they stood to lose (including their freedom when incarcerated) and hastily decided between them that "we need to say she's been taken, otherwise we are f*****ed!"

Gerry then rushed her down the road to either the medical centre (in a very last ditch attempt to try and bring her back) or more logically, to get her away from the scene and temporarily hide the body in either a vacant building or other suitable hiding place, hence the Smith sighting.

Tanner sighting was IMO just her trying to get in on the action and Gerry went along with it as it gave him a nice alibi and also sent the search teams off in the opposite direction to where he had been at 10pm.

The reason the pair didn't go searching is because they needed to have time together in the apartment to make sure neither slipped up and the abduction theory was mentioned to anyone who would listen. 

Tapas 7 timeline is just a mess because non of them were actually checking on their kids and everyone wanted to cover their ar**s so didn't get charged with child neglect under scrutiny.

The media/gvt intervention i believe is just because of Gerry and David Paynes connections/knowledge of underhand activities to do with child abuse, which, with Madeleine missing, would fit nicely with a big breaking news story.

The rest afterwards is just a charade/money making opportunity for everyone involved. It's in everyone's interest not to solve the case:

SY - With a big budget it keeps people in cushy jobs with travel
Media - Madeleine sells news, nothing more simple than that
McCanns - Get privileges, donations, limelight and remain innocent of both the death and neglect if the case remains 'confused'

The only people who want this case closed are the PJ and Amaral, as it's affecting tourism and reputation, hence why the list above, do everything in their power to discredit them.

Smithman is a worry for the list above as it could put an end to the gravy train. However, as it was dark and the Smiths had had a drink or 5, it would not stand up in court.

There are however, the dogs and hair samples which under further scrutiny could change things, especially after the trial against Amaral goes against the McCs (media jump gravy trains), the SY budget gets slashed......................

IMO of course
Thank you woodforthetrees airkiss I agree entirely, and have stated similarly many times.

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by MrsC on 04.12.14 10:41

@woodforthetrees wrote:IMO a lot of these theories are far too elaborate.

If there was that much planning gone on before hand, then the shutters would have been genuinely 'jemmied'.

The fact is, they weren't, which IMO means that there wasn't enough time to do this as well...hence a rushed cover up for an accident and not a pre- planned abduction/scam.

IMO they simply went out for dinner, came home, saw that she had fallen and died, they panicked but stayed focused as they knew what they stood to lose (including their freedom when incarcerated) and hastily decided between them that "we need to say she's been taken, otherwise we are f*****ed!"

Gerry then rushed her down the road to either the medical centre (in a very last ditch attempt to try and bring her back) or more logically, to get her away from the scene and temporarily hide the body in either a vacant building or other suitable hiding place, hence the Smith sighting.

Tanner sighting was IMO just her trying to get in on the action and Gerry went along with it as it gave him a nice alibi and also sent the search teams off in the opposite direction to where he had been at 10pm.

The reason the pair didn't go searching is because they needed to have time together in the apartment to make sure neither slipped up and the abduction theory was mentioned to anyone who would listen. 

Tapas 7 timeline is just a mess because non of them were actually checking on their kids and everyone wanted to cover their ar**s so didn't get charged with child neglect under scrutiny.

The media/gvt intervention i believe is just because of Gerry and David Paynes connections/knowledge of underhand activities to do with child abuse, which, with Madeleine missing, would fit nicely with a big breaking news story. As a result, all those connections who need things covered up/steered a certain way, bent over backwards to assist.

The rest of the charade afterwards is just that... a charade/money making opportunity for everyone involved. It's in everyone's interest not to solve the case:

SY - With a big budget it keeps people in cushy jobs with travel
Media - Madeleine sells news, nothing more simple than that
McCanns - Get privileges, donations, limelight and remain innocent of both the death and neglect if the case remains 'confused' and unsolved.

The only people who want this case closed are the PJ and Amaral, as it's affecting tourism and reputation, hence why the list above, do everything in their power to discredit them.

Smithman is a worry for the list above as it could put an end to the gravy train. However, as it was dark and the Smiths had had a drink or 5, it would not stand up in court.

There are however, the dogs and hair samples which under further scrutiny could change things, especially after the trial against Amaral goes against the McCs (media jump gravy trains), the SY budget gets slashed......................

IMO of course

bravo I agree almost entirely (I think Tanner had a part to play).
avatar
MrsC

Posts : 293
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 04.12.14 11:33

I can relate to most of what you say, woodforthetrees (apt name!) But I do agree Tanner's role was crucial. After GM had been seen by the Smiths on his way to the medical centre/hiding place he knew he had to produce another abductor at a time for which he had an alibi (Jez) pdq.

And so Tannerman was born.

All opinion and theory only.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by woodforthetrees on 04.12.14 12:44

Wasn't Smithman identified after Tannerman?

If so, then there must be another reason for the Tannerman sighting. I'm not overly convince, Jane was 'in on it', but I do think she got caught up in all the excitement and timeline planning, that she thought she would be helping out by 'spotting a potential culprit'.

Especially as the worlds media would want a piece of her too... 5 minutes of fame and all that...

IMO

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by pennylane on 04.12.14 12:58

@woodforthetrees wrote:Wasn't Smithman identified after Tannerman?

If so, then there must be another reason for the Tannerman sighting. I'm not overly convince, Jane was 'in on it', but I do think she got caught up in all the excitement and timeline planning, that she thought she would be helping out by 'spotting a potential culprit'.

Especially as the worlds media would want a piece of her too... 5 minutes of fame and all that...

IMO
This was my only disagreement with your brilliant post above wftt, as I also believe Tanner is deeply involved, and 'Tannerman' was hustled up to quickly inject a reasonable doubt to the PJ, as Gerry feared he would be identified imminently by the Smiths.

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by woodforthetrees on 04.12.14 13:04

Ah, i see, as in.........

 "i think i've been rumbled, just say you saw someone earlier heading in the other direction wearing a blue top and cream pants will you Jane, otherwise i'll drop you in the sh8t about your lack of child minding, cheers"

hence she is involved?

I'm still inclined to think that she got involved for selfish reasons, but much to the joy of Gerry who lept on it as a golden opportunity to divert attention away from the up and coming sighting of him by the Smiths

IMO of course.

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by pennylane on 04.12.14 13:12

@woodforthetrees wrote:Ah, i see, as in.........

 "i think i've been rumbled, just say you saw someone earlier heading in the other direction wearing a blue top and cream pants will you Jane, otherwise i'll drop you in the sh8t about your lack of child minding, cheers"

hence she is involved?

I'm still inclined to think that she got involved for selfish reasons, but much to the joy of Gerry who lept on it as a golden opportunity to divert attention away from the up and coming sighting of him by the Smiths

IMO of course.
Yes words to that effect! I think ROB was mixed up in it in some way, and Jane's efforts were self-preservation.

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 04.12.14 14:11

@woodforthetrees wrote:Wasn't Smithman identified after Tannerman?

If so, then there must be another reason for the Tannerman sighting. I'm not overly convince, Jane was 'in on it', but I do think she got caught up in all the excitement and timeline planning, that she thought she would be helping out by 'spotting a potential culprit'.

Especially as the worlds media would want a piece of her too... 5 minutes of fame and all that...

IMO
When were the two sightings first reported?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 04.12.14 14:27

@woodforthetrees wrote:Wasn't Smithman identified after Tannerman?

If so, then there must be another reason for the Tannerman sighting. I'm not overly convince, Jane was 'in on it', but I do think she got caught up in all the excitement and timeline planning, that she thought she would be helping out by 'spotting a potential culprit'.

Especially as the worlds media would want a piece of her too... 5 minutes of fame and all that...

IMO
No, it makes no difference when Smithman was identified (he hasn't been yet) or the sighting reported (it was on 16 May).

Suffice that GM (if it was he) would have panicked after being spotted by a family of nine and would know then that a contingency is essential. He wouldn't know at that point if the family would report their sighting but was forced into a position where he had to assume they may do so.

He needed an alibi for the same time another sighting was witnessed.  Enter Jez and Jane.

Question arises,  why would JT compromise herself to to this?

More speculation and theory only.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 04.12.14 23:01

Hmm, I've read JRobs theory, and I'm sorry but that's just too elaborate. If a gang of people wanted to commit this kind of crime, they would not have so many uncontrollable variables, so many people, so many potential witnesses, an unknown police force. If the idea was to stage an abduction, there are easier ways.


----

Quite so. But the evidence points towards a gang of people staging an abduction. At what point they decided to stage an abduction - who knows? But stage it they did. (And even managed to get the 'jemmied shutters' wrong - so it was a rubbish staging.)

That's what Detective Amaral thinks - that Madeleine died and the parents simulated an abduction (with collusion from their friends).  And I would imagine he has far more knowledge, experience and evidence than many people writing on here.

OK - so why didn't they stage an easier abduction - you know, one where the shutters were jemmied, for a start, like their friends and family said? How would you go about staging an abduction??

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 04.12.14 23:35

A simple explanation for what happened that week would not account for the very high level support given to the McCanns and their friends from the very beginning. There was MASSIVE support from a very early stage. This would not have been the case if it had just been that Madeleine had had an accident that had been covered up. Or, indeed, if Madeleine had genuinely been stolen by an abductor (I doubt the Establishment could give a damn in either of those cases - simply could not care less.  Eventually, there might have been some diplomatic intervention but that would only have been after pressure.)

Compare this case with the Ben Needham case, say. Why was not the same support given to the family?

Well, I can't even be bothered to go there because it is so obvious, to me at least, that there was some stupid Murdoch press lead - especially Sky - media hoax implicated in all this.

Probably got their septic and toxic ideas from the very few (thankfully) GENUINE parents of children who have gone missing through no fault of their own to stage their own little HOAX. 

And then backed by a very corrupt Gov who just think the public are stupid. But who are, in all probability, a lot more intelligent than they are......

This case just STINKS. 

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

IMO

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by phil_burton on 04.12.14 23:39

JRob, I totally agree that an abduction was staged.

What I don't agree on is that it was as elaborate as you suggest. If they were that devious and meticulous, with friends in the high places, then there wouldn't have been a sniff for the authorities, or those searching the truth.

IMO this was a bunch of very dodgy people, involved in some very unsavoury activities such as swinging, perhaps child abuse. Something unplanned happened on the 3rd that implicated more than just K&G. Ensuring MM was not found benefitted several people.

I don't believe they went on that holiday planning to stage an abduction, too many unknowns. 

The Mccanns aren't criminal masterminds, they have friends in high places who helped them initially, but once the money runs out, their relationship with carter ruck will also. I just hope it's not a lengthy cover up like the Savile case, he clearly had friends in very high places to get the protection he did for so long.

All my opinion of course

phil_burton

Posts : 83
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Smithman's first move

Post by 10:03 on 05.12.14 11:08

4078    “Backtrack a little.  How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”

Reply    “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid.  So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. (Jane Tanner)

4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that?

Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids. (Matt Oldfield)

I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think.  And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. (Jane Tanner)

Gerry went to check at around 9pm. Matt said he left straight away after he returned. Gerald Timeline said his check was 15 minutes later at 9:15.




10:03

Posts : 14
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by jeanmonroe on 05.12.14 12:22

WHY did R O'B, 'writer' of second, handwritten timeline and JT's 'partner' CHECK his kids just 6 1/2-7 MINUTES after JT 'got back to the tapas table'?

JT 'sees stranger walking carrying a child' at 9:20pm, from a distance of 50 (FIFTY) METRES (on both K&GM 'statements': 50 metres is level with 'entrance' to OC) on her way TO her apartment, so takes her 1 minute(1 minute 20secs?) to actually get to her apartment, via the 'long' way around, top of the road, turn left, passed the raised shutter and open window at McCann's apartment, THROUGH the car park, check her kids, then out through her front door, across car park, passing, again, the raised shutter/open window at McCann apartment, taking, say, another minute, to return to the restaurant table.

(As opposed to the 'short' way, along the 'alley' at back of the apartment block, through a small gate and into her apartment, via her patio door, if it had been left unlocked, for 'easy' checking, of her kids, like the McCanns say they left their patio door unlocked, for their friends and themselves to 'easily' check their three kids, in apartment, G5A.)

JT 'sees' at 9:20pm, R O'B 'checks' at 9:30pm

So 10 minutes MINUS JT's 'walking/checking' time. = 6 1/2-7 minutes.

istbc.

R O'B/MO 'check' at 9:30pm, 3rd May 2007.........................'SCENE' SETTING/FAKE SIMULATION?

The McCann 'twins' were never 'on their own' AFTER 9:30pm, as there was either JT/R O'B AT the apartment 'block', until KM's, 10pm, er, 'discovery'!

And, as i have mentioned, many times before, WHY is there NO 'mention', on EITHER 'timeline' R O'B wrote, of Jez W?

A 'central, pivotal' character, 'chatting to GM, right outside gateway to G5A,(even CONFIRMED on a THIRD 'typed' timeline, compiled by ALL of the T9) BOTH on the same pathway that JT is on, who JT 'sees' but dosen't talk to, and manages to get pass, without either man 'seeing' her, at the EXACT time, Madeleine IS being 'carried off'! (according to JT)

And such a 'central, pivotal' character he was later told, by MO, with John Hill in attendance, that he is NOT 'wanted/needed' to join in the 'search' for an 'abducted' child!

I wonder if MO told 'other' holidaymakers, whose doors he knocked on (?) that their 'help' also wasn't needed, to 'search', as well as Jez W, Gerry's tennis 'buddy'?

I'd want EVERYONE and his dog, to join the search, if my child was 'abducted/missing'

Jez Wilkins INCLUDED!

Wouldn't ANYONE want THAT?

It's all very 'odd' isn't it?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 05.12.14 12:44

It is my belief, jean, that Jes was not on the original sticker-book timelines because his chat with Gerry happened a lot earlier, probably nearer 8.45.

It was only later when it became apparent that GM could perhaps need an independent alibi that this was erm, manipulated to the very latest time of Jes' estimate and the chat suddenly occurred at 9.15. This would explain why Jes didn't see either Jane or Tannerman. (Is it forum myth that Jes was contacted to pressure him into reviewing the chat time? I've looked but I can't find the statement alluding to this.)

As I've said, merely my own theory based on my own interpretation of his statements.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by jeanmonroe on 05.12.14 13:08

Dee Coy:

 (Is it forum myth that Jes was contacted to pressure him into reviewing the chat time? I've looked but I can't find the statement alluding to this.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at heir home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team:

Volume XIII p. 3407 - 3409.

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT

Date: 05/11/07

"Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used."

Don't know if 'chat' specific, but............................certainly JW was 'concerned as to the 'method' being USED'

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 05.12.14 18:34

Thanks, jean. Yes, I spotted that one too, but I'm sure there's something else about specifically being under pressure about the time of the meeting. Of course this would have implications for the 'jemmied shutters' theorists and also for how long they intended Tannerman to be wandering aroun Luz before Smithman was spotted.

Can't find it in the statements, perhaps it was a newspaper or, indeed, merely a forum myth.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by SixMillionQuid on 06.12.14 15:04

@Woofer wrote:@Phil Burton - Just so you can get both sides of the story, the Smiths did report the sighting to the Portuguese police 2 days later according to Irish Central News and another national newspaper.  Wouldn`t want you to think this forum is biased in any way.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

"The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now."
Reference to this earlier description given to the Portuguese police isn't in any of the Smiths statements. Two days after the dissappearance, most of the Smith family had already left PdL. So where did unproven this info come from?

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency
avatar
SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum