SMITHMAN 6: Smithman re-evaluated in the light of Richard Hall's film 'THE PHANTOMS' - The discussion on FB 'Madeleine McCann - Abduction or Scam'

The Debate on ‘Smithman’ on the FB Group: “Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam?

I’ve been alerted by a member here to a debate about Smithman raging on the FB group ‘Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam’. I’ve tried to join the group, but failed in the attempt, so here are my replies and observations to some of the points raised over there. The debate is basically a response to Richard Hall’s latest film on Madeleine McCann: ‘The Phantoms’   


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

1. FRANCES GALLAGHER: OPENING POST

Richard continued to infer that the Smith family lied about their sighting to get Murat off the hook. He didn't explain why Kennedy travelled to Ireland to intimidate Martin Smith nor did he explain how 13 year old Aoife was able to describe Gerry's trousers down to the detailed button design on them. Tannerman was after all initially Eggman, then Murat, before morphing into Smithman as shown by David Craig

REPLY:  I think Richard suggests basically that the Smiths were working to the same script as Nuno Lourenco, when he described ‘Sagresman’, and Jane Tanner when she described ‘Tannerman’. I agree therefore with Frances Gallacher when she claims that Richard infers that trhe Smiths were lying. I am not sure that Richard said that Kennedy personally went to Ireland to see the Smiths, but he certainly does record (a) Kennedy’s initial interest in seeing them (b) Metodo 3’s plan to interview them and (c) Henri Exton’s visit when (presumably) he drew up the two e-fits. More than one poster refers to Aoife Smith mentioning buttons on the man’s trousers, so let me deal with that here. First, she only says that the trousers of the man ‘possibly’ had buttons - a very weak statement. Secondly, I think that by the time she made her statement (26 May), pics of Gerry with trousers having buttons on were already in circulation. Third, if anyone cares to look carefully at her statement, it is remarkable for the very large amount of detail she gives about the man and the child, given that on her own admission she only saw the man for a second or two in the dark. Finally, Frances Gallagher mentions an article by David Craig. I will deal with that at the end.    


2. TINA GINGER PRINCESS JONES

I'm confused Francis...is smithman a red herring??? or was it really Gerry...? ahhh...hence the Mac spokesperson going to see the Smiths...thanks Frances, sometimes the info gets muddled and confusing

REPLY: Yes, I suggest that Smithman is a very deliberate red herring. It wasn’t the ‘Mac spokesman’ who spoke of wanting to interview the Smiths, it was the Head of the McCann Team’s private investigations, Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy. Whatever was said by the McCann Team and their detectives to the Smiths, they have ended up becoming witnesses for Operation Grange and for the McCann Team. The Smiths have been used positively by the McCann Tream ever since 2008.


3. THOSE WHO SAY SMITHMAN IS GERRY

REPLY: I will first of all list some posts by those who say that Smithman is Gerry McCann, and then reply at the end.

Frances Gallagher: I am convinced it was Gerry whom the Smith family saw either with a decoy or a dead Maddie.. There were 9 in the family group and I cannot see how all family members would lie more especially when Martin Smith made contact to say he only knew Murat to see .

Dawn Franks: I believe that GM carried Am through the streets so someone could see it but didn't expect the smiths to get such a good look!

Frances Gallagher: I would bet on Tanner's eldest daughter if I was to bet on who was used as a decoy.

Dawn Franks: I'm saying it was Amelia that he carried through the streets remember the white haired small young child!nothing like mm

Wendy Measor: I believe smithman was Gerry , I think MM was in the bushes where the dogs alerted to for a short time , maybe while JW went on his way .Hence why GM insists the JW was across the road to distance himself .

Carol Lewis: If you are on Holiday, and you see someone walking with a child in his arms the first thing you think is Poor baby must have fallen asleep?? I know my first thought would NOT have been he is carrying a dead child. So isnt it possible that who the Smiths saw that night was GM and he was holding a DEAD Madeleine?? You dont automatically think dead child do we?? So i have allways thought who the Smiths saw that night was GM with Madeleine (dead) you wouldnt think any different would you?

(another contributor): I wonder if it may have been another child he was seen carrying to make people think the abductor was seen but with a child similar to MM.

REPLIES: There are still a number of people who insist, often quite vehemently, but against all likelihood, and against all the evidence, that ‘Smithman’ must by Gerry McCann. As the above examples show, they cannot even agree who the man the Smiths say they saw was supposed to be carrying: Madeleine, Amelie or even Jane Tanner’s daughter. So, one more time, let us spell out the only evidence that Smithman is Gerry McCann. It comes from one bloke, Martin Smith, who, we are expected to believe, was ‘60% to 80% sure’ - from viewing a news report of Gerry walking off the plane at East Midlands Airport on 9 September - that he recognised Gerry as the man he said he had seen for a few seconds in the dark on 3 May - 129 days earlier. He says he did so ‘because of the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder’. There are so many reasons why this cannot in any way be accepted as credible evidence, and here are just some of them:

• You see someone for a few seconds in the dark. You tell the police (as Martin Smith and the other two Smiths did) that you’d never be able to recognise him again. Yet 129 days later you claim to recognise him ‘by the way he was carrying his child’?
  
  
• Most people carrying a sleeping or tired child will rest them on their shoulder. So how can that possibly ever be a sole basis for recognising someone
  
  
• None of the rest of the Smith family have supported Martin Smith’s claim that it was Gerry McCann
  
  
• Why did Smith wait 11 days (9 to 20 September) before telling anyone about his ‘recognition’ of Gerry McCann?
  
  
• Why for that matter did Smith wait 13 days (3 to 16 May) before telling the police about their original sighting
  
  
• What is the actual evidential value of a bloke who first of all tells police he didn’t et a clear view of the man, yet 129 days later says he is ‘60% to 80% sure’ it must Gerry? I suggest: none whatsoever     
  
  
• He has since changed his mind. He has publicly told the press that he sympathises with the McCanns and hopes they find the abductor
  
  
• He has allowed his ‘sighting’ to be used and promoted by the McCanns for the past 7 years.  
  

Frances Gallagher says there were ‘9 in the group’ and cannot see how they would all lie. But only three made statements. As to whether children as young as 12 can be made to lie, may I respectfully suggest that Frances reads up on this case:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where it is abundantly clear that two children aged 8 and 9 told the most appalling and detailed lies on behalf of their mother.

Some people who say that Martin Smith could have recognised Gerry from the way he was walking and carrying a child because, they insist, it is indeed possible to recognise someone at a distance just by thir gait. And they would be right. But only in respect of someon whom they knew well, NOT someone seen just for a few seconds in the dark, over 4 months ago.

Finally, what about one of the e-fits, which is said to look like Gerry? 

I agree that one of them bears a passing resemblance. The other clearly does not. Either of them could be the possible faces of tens thousands of European men. But a key question about these e-fits is why the police issued two quite different e-fits. The two e-fits do not look like the same person, one looks older, has longer hair combed back, has a rectangular not a triangular face, a shorter nose, and so on. Further, each looks like it has been produced on a different computer program. Why would the Smiths allow two different representations of the man to be shown? And finally perhaps the most important question of all about the provenance of these two e-fits. The Smiths agree the only saw this bloke for a few seconds in the dark. All agreed that they could not see his face properly. All even said in their written statements that ‘we would never be able to recognise him again if we saw him’. So can anyone possibly explain how, a year or more later, they were suddenly able to recall so much detail for two separate e-fits?             


4. THOSE WHO SAY SMITHMAN IS NOT GERRY

Maureen E Cooke: I don't think for one moment GM was carrying a dead child he would not be that stupid

Lorraine Birks: I am not convinced with either sighting .. Lots of smoke and mirrors ,,,,

Janine Bresnick: This coverup was orchestrated by the establishment with K and G being the puppets and Mitchell the mouth piece. With that in mind and the fact the cleanup took more than a day and was professional, do people really think after all of that Gerry was carrying anyone, let alone a body, through the streets? This is beyond amateurish. I am not convinced the Smith sighting is any more real than Tanner's. It was a dimly lit street and the Smiths caught a few seconds glimpse of a total stranger, yet could produce a photograph quality efit and describe minute details like the buttons on the trousers. And not one detected cadaver scent

REPLY: I agree with all the above comments. Janine Brenick’s post is IMO by some margin the best one I’ve seen on that thread so far  



5. DID THE MCCANNS COVER UP THE SIGHTING?

Christine Smith: I think Smithman was Gerry - some people have theories which may be right but there again may not - why else would the McCs be so keen to cover up this sighting?

REPLY: How can this absurd myth that the McCanns ‘covered up this sighting’ persist so long? Here are the facts:

a) The McCanns talked to the Smiths early 2008

b) They got them (we presume) to draw up, or agree to, the e-fits

c) They used the Smithman sighting TWICE in the Mockumentary of May 2009, claiming that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same

d) They then immediately stuck up on their website a 30-second audiotape of a man with an Irish accent relating the elements of the Smith sighting. It has been on their website for over 6 years

e) Kate McCann again referred to Smithman over 7 PAGES of her book, including a 3-page blow-by-blow comparison of Tannerman and Smithman, making out, once again, that they were one and the same

f) After that DCI Andy Redwood met Martin Smith twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013. He co-operated with the McCanns, the BBC Crimewatch and Operation Grange to make the October 2013 Crimewatch McCann Show in which his sighting (or at least his purported e-fits) took centre stage.

Let us therefore hear no more talk of the McCanns ‘covering up’ the Smith sighting. They did very much the opposite!    


6. THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SMITHMAN SIGHTING

Maureen E Cooke: All though in one statement cannot remember who said it "the child looked 4 years old had pale WHITE skin" how did he see her face if she was being carried on GM body top shoulder or if carried with arms stretched out..........it was at night in a badly lite street and they were across the road from GM....

REPLY:  Exactly right. Even they admit they could hardly see his face.

Frances Gallagher: Yes Maureen. .I believe that is why the Efits are different. .The head of the child was blocking his face on one side. .

REPLY: The e-fits are clearly of two very different–looking men

Astrid Dornbrach: If - the sighting is really true. It matches a bit too perfectly for my taste.

REPLY: Spot on. Why are the following all almost identical?

[*]* Nuno Lourenco on Sagresman?

[*]* Jane Tanner on Tannerman?

[*]* Martin Smith on Smithman?  

Lynn Axford: Frances, I too was expecting and waiting for Hall to mention Kennedys visit to the Smiths in Ireland. As after that visit Mr Smith changed his mind about how sure he was the man he saw was GM. I think I am right in saying he went from 100% down to 80%.

REPLY: No. He started off by saying he was ‘60% to 80%’ sure, but very soon changed his mind and publicly backed the McCanns’ search for the ‘abductor’. 

Maureen E Cooke: Didn't Smith come up with saying it was GM only when he saw on the news him departing the plane when they came home in September, it was the way he was carrying the child {Sean} over his shoulder he immediately remembered that it was GM that night........................this for me seems odd.

REPLY: Agreed, except that IMO ‘odd’ is an understatement.

Bridget Grehan Kehoe: Oh don't think it odd Maureen, my eyesights not too good but i can tell a person i know, just by their walk, even at a distance and not because i can see their face..

REPLY: Yes, as Bridget Kehoe says, ‘a person I know’. BUT NOT someone you’ve seen, over 4 months previously, for a second or two in the dark.

Christine Smith: There may be a good reason why they didn't give their statements to the police right away - there were 6 of them - maybe the were told by police to wait till they could all be interviewed at the same time.

REPLY: No, there isn’t any good reason. And they were not ‘told by the police to wait’. The fact is that they all waited for 13 days whilst Madeleine was headline news everywhere and they only acted because Peter Smith thought he was dreaming about having possibly seen a man carrying a child and (so they day) ’phoned his Dad about it on 16 May


7. ISABELLE McFADDEN’S VIDEO ABOUT HALL’S ANALYSIS OF THE SMITH SIGHTING

REPLY: Isabelle McFadden is a Californian young lady who became interested in the Madeleine McCann case about 3 or 4 years ago. Amongst other things she collaborated with Brenda Leyland to publish, on Twitter, the e-mail and word addresses of a McCann supporter.  

Her basic ‘take’ on Richard Hall’s film, ‘’The Phantoms’, is that he has made a good film but maybe been unfair to the Smiths and got it wrong about the ‘Smithman’ sighting. 

She actually spends most of the time on her video talking about when she was the President of her local Parent Teachers Association, when a scandal broke about one of the school teachers having been outed as a paedophile, whilst she was the President and her son was at the school. She uses that as an illustration of how the press can misrepresent things.
[*]
She excuses the Smiths for delaying their reporting of their sighting, saying ‘it was ‘only’ 6, 7 or 8 days’. Actually, it was 13.

She also suggests that people look only at the Smiths’ statements, and disregard what the press say (‘exclude the MSM stuff’) and any other ‘hearsay’. She points out that the Smiths have never given a ‘personal interview’.

In response: 

a)  Even looking just at their statements, there are several important contradictions and matters which demand explanation

b)  The Smiths have given personal statements to the press, and we have the right to take notice of those, especially e.g. when they give conflicting information about how well Martin Smith knew Robert Murat.

 
She excuses the Smiths for ‘not checking the news every day’ yet fails to point out that the Smiths were all IN Praia da Luz on 3 May, and several of them stayed over there until 9 May. Madeleine McCann was front-page news and first item on the media news for practically a whole month.

She also compares the Smiths with the Gaspar Drs as saying that perhaps people had evidence but ‘would not want to get involved’. The Gaspars, of course, unlike the Smiths, immediately reported their concerns to the police

She says ‘the whole family’ were involved with the sighting - but only 3 of them made statements.

She says that ‘seeing Gerry come off the plane may have jogged Martin Smith’s memory’. I have dealt above with how weak and fallacious that argument is.


8. DAVID CRAIG’S ANALYSIS OF TANNERMAN AND SMITHMAN

REPLY: This is quoted favourably by Frances Gallagher. Here’s an extract from David Craig’s ‘take’ on Smithman:

“How Tannerman morphed into Smithman,

WHY DID IT TAKE ALMOST SIX MONTHS TO RELEASE THE IMAGE we all know as Bundleman Tannerman .?g

And 5 years for the efits?

Well is it possibly the following , after researching correlation between SMITH sighting and Tanner expanded description I may have something.

I believe very much that GERRY Mccann was seen by the Smiths but he could not be sure how much they noticed .

He definitely panics on his return to ocean club after concealing Maddie. He has to not only make sure he has an alibi for that time but just in case he must have another sighting initially close enough descript wise but not fully as not aware what the smiths may state and this sighting MUST HAPPEN whilst he is about preferably with a non friend as an alibi..... That's it , it must be whilst he was talking to Jez Wilkins Watertight. Ok now he must instruct Jane tanner on what she saw where he was walking from and most importantly the time and she saw him talking to Jez.

He knows it messes timelines up a bit but he is worried...

So first sighting info on 3/4 th may a bit vague but good enough.

Move forward to Smiths sighting statement 26th May ..

Mccanns were aware of this , watch how over the next time period Jane Tanner memory gets better and better .

Jane Tanners description evolves into virtually same as SMITHS , it has to , she has been told to do this by GERRY.

It's simple the more info they find out about Smith description the more specific Jane Tanners must become..”

REPLY: And that’s the gist of it…

“Gerry is seen by the Smiths…when he was on his way to hide Madeleine’s body somewhere…he gets back to the Ocean Club having hidden her body…panics…thinks, who was I with earlier…Ah yes! With Wilkins…so I must tell Jane to make up a story for about 9.10pm to 9.20pm when I was with Wilkins, and get her to say she saw someone then, pity it messes up the timeline for 45 minutes, but, hey ho and away we go…”

It’s an account with virtually no evidence to support it, is improbable in the extreme, yet is approved of by a leading light on one of the most popular FB pages about Madeleine.  

Craig’s analysis of why the descriptions of Sagresman, Tanerman and Smithman all match would he much better informed if he watched and digested ‘The Phantoms’.  

Tony

I am loathe to go through this Smithman stuff again as it's quite confusing.

Is it not just the fact that the McCanns sat on the eFits, as in never mentioned them or that they were in existence that is causing the confusion, and not the "sighting"?

They handed them over but the eFits were not made pulic till the Crimewatch fiasco.

Everything is scheduled to happen at certain times it seems. There is always a contingency plan when either not enough exposure or interest is flagging!

Angelique wrote:Tony

I am loathe to go through this Smithman stuff again as it's quite confusing.

Is it not just the fact that the McCanns sat on the eFits, as in never mentioned them or that they were in existence that is causing the confusion, and not the "sighting"?

They handed them over but the eFits were not made pulic till the Crimewatch fiasco.

Everything is scheduled to happen at certain times it seems. There is always a contingency plan when either not enough exposure or interest is flagging!

The first thing to settle in one's mind is whether or not the Smiths were telling the truth about their 'sighting'.

To assist in deciding this, Richard Hall's film 'The Phantoms' is a 'must watch', as he documents things like:
a) the apparent carbon-copying of the description of Krokowski by:
    (i) Nuno Lourenco (Sagresman)
    (ii) Jane Tanner (Tannerman) and finally
    (iii) Martin Smith (Smithman)
b) their delays in reporting (i) their original claimed sighting and (ii) Martin Smith's claimed identification of Smithman as Gerry McCann, and
c) the many inconsistencies, contradictions and problems with the various statements and actions.

As folk have said, watching the analysis on a video is far, far easier than following all the twists and turns and arguments on a forum. 


Then suppose (contrary to my view) that you are satisfied that the Smith's are telling the God's Honest Truth about what they saw.

You would then have decide (a) if, a year later, they were capable of drawing up ANY e-fit and (b) why, apparently, they came up with images of two quite different-looking men.

These are very important questions to get settled in one's mind before moving on.


So what happened to the e-fits thereafter? I think this is the approximate timeline:

1. Spring 2008 - Exton draws up the e-fits
2. Presumably hands them to the McCanns
3. 'Smithman' plays big part in May 2009 'Mockumentary', but e-fits not used
4. May 2009 - 'Smithman' audio tape uploaded to McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, but e-fits not used
5. 'By October 2009', say the McCanns [Sunday Times apology, Dec 2013], they say they have informed the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police forces of the existence of these e-fits
6. May 2011 - 'Smithman' features on seven pages of Dr. Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', but the efits are still not used
7. 'By August 2011', say the McCanns, the two e-fits were handed to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange. He doesn't use the e-fits either
8. During 2012, Martin Smith is interviewed by DCI Andy Redwood. The e-fits are still not used 
9. During 2013, Martin Smith is once again interviewed by DCI Andy Redwood. The evidence is that the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show was first conceived and planning of the programme begun in early 2013. It is my contention therefore that there was a detailed discussion between Martin Smith and DCI Andy Redwood about how the 'Smithman' e-fit images would be used in the finished programme. I believe that during the 2012 and 2013 meetings between Martin Smith and DCI Andy Redwood discussions would have taken place with Smith with a view to obtaining his consent for the use of those images.
10. The e-fits were first released to the British public on 13 October 2013, the day before the Crimewatch show.  


I think it is possible that Martin Smith was coached about what description to give about his claimed sighting. I believe others may have encouraged him to identify 'Smithman' as Gerry McCann. I do not believe that the two e-fits were drawn up by any of the Smiths.

I suggest that there has been a top-level planning group, including government representatives, planning every move as to how this story is covered, and that this group conveniently and strategically conspired to hold back the 'Smithman' sighting until it could be usd for maximum effect.  

All this is my own humble opinion, based on all the evidence I've looked at...



@ Angelique  It follows from the above that I very much tend to agree with your statrement:

"Everything is scheduled to happen at certain times it seems".

Tony

Many thanks for your "schedule of events" - it has made things much clearer and I am wading through Richard Hall's - The Phantoms. I also must order them from his site.

ETA
I voted 2 naturally.

Whether real or fabricated, I do not think Smithman was welcome for the McCanns. Kate makes a desperate attempt, unsuccessfully imo, to morph together Tannerman and Smithman. Despite the 45 minute gap between the sightings. And despite some basic differences in appearance such as Smithman having close cropped brown hair and Tannerman having shoulder length black hair. 

Kate acknowledges in her book that the Portuguese police do not believe the sightings are related and, furthermore, that the police imply that the two men may not even exist at all!

Kate writes: "The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn't dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing."

This strikes me as a fairly desperate measure by Kate to shoehorn Smithman into Tannerman. She insists on downplaying the fact that the sightings are 45 minutes apart which would make it very unlikely to be the abductor who would surely want to make a speedy getaway? And she insists on emphasizing the similarities between the two. when I think there are some major differences.


Why? Why is Kate so desperate to morph the two sightings? Why does she not just accept that Smithman could have been an innocent men carrying a child (And Tannerman had been the abductor at 9.15pm) or Smithman could, in theory, have been Madeleine's abductor taking her away at the later time of 10.03pm? And Tannerman was an innocent man carrying a child at 9.15pm?

Huge red flag here! Team McCann refuse to countenance anything but a 9.15pm 'abduction' and insist that Smithman is Tannerman who is still hanging around the area at 10.03pm. Kate repeatedly, in her book, attempts to point out the similarities between the two and how much the two sightings are likely to be related. 

What is it about the 10.03 'sighting' - whether fabricated or not - that is so sensitive to the McCanns. And why do they so doggedly stick to the 9.15pm Tannerman script?

Kate also writes that the police:  "seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all).

This latter statement is absolutely intriguing, imo. While it is evident that Portuguese police never took Jane Tanner's Tannerman sighting seriously, is it also true, as Kate suggests in the statement above, that the Portuguese police also didn't take Smithman seriously?

Yet, despite what Kate alleges, it is on record that Mr Smith visited Portuguese police in Portugal shortly after Robert Murat was made arguido. And would have given detailed statements. As well of course as descriptions of the man and child. 

Is it true that the Portuguese police were as equally sceptical about Smithman as they were about Tannerman? Or is this Kate attempting to give the impression that the police were as sceptical about the Smithman sighting as they had been about Tannerman?

When, perhaps, this had not been the case?

We know that the police were sceptical about Tannerman from the beginning. Jane's description of Tannerman was only released on 25th May - a whopping three weeks after Madeleine went missing and only after the McCanns had pleaded with the Portuguese police to agree to an informal meeting. Which took place at the British Consulate on 24th May and was described in the Portuguese media as 'special treatment' for the McCanns. Very shortly after this, Mr Smith flew to Portugal and spoke to police about his sighting.

The timings here cannot be ignored, imo.

Whether Smithman was Gerry carrying Madeleine -either dead or alive.
Whether Smithman was a man who looked like Gerry carrying Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was a man who looked a bit like Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was fabricated.

Any of these scenarios is possible. But the ONLY scenario that Team McCann will countenance is that Smithman is Tannerman. Which would mean that the abduction occurred at precisely 9.15pm and most certainly not at 10.03pm

Why is the later 'abduction' timing of 10.03pm so unpalatable for the McCanns? And why, out of all the sightings, does Kate insist on morphing Tannerman and Smithman when she doesn't attempt to morph any other of the sightings?

Despite what Kate says, I think the Smithman efits look a lot more like Gerry McCann than they look like Tannerman. But I do agree that Tannerman and Sagresman are similar. Curiously, there is no mention of the Sagres sighting in Kate's book. Clearly another 'hot potato'.

I've not posted for a long time because, as the days go on, I get back to thinking what I did almost first off... A sad and simple explanation, without all the complexities of conspiracies, or paedophilia, is likely to be the solution. Believe me, I've tried everything else on for size. The rest of it all likely just snowballed, or to mix metaphors, blew up lke a hurricane, and was exacerbated by the protagonists for their own ends. I know that leaves some loose strands and inconsistencies... but so do more complex explanations.

@ j.rob    Let me answer your post with a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose a there is a group of people with young children, and one of the children dies in circumstances that cannot possibly be allowed to go to an autopsy. Something really really bad has happened to that child. 

You find one of your group that will tell the police that she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm. But the child's parent admits to seeing the child at 9.10pm on a check. There is only a 'window' of less than 5 minutes for the abduction to take place.

You have a problem. The group member who comes up with the 9.15pm sighting is rightly ridiculed, and the internet is alive with amateur sleuths, let alone the former head of the investigation, who pour scorn on the idea of an abductor removing the child without being seen, heard, or leaving any forensic trace, in a time frame of probably less than 3 minutes.

You learn about another claimed sighting at 10.00pm. You're unsure how to handle it at first. 

So you start raising the possibility of it being the same man - tentatively at first - by floating the idea in a 'Mockumentary'. It's a totally ridiculous theory, a bloke walking around the village for 45 minutes with a child he's just abducted.

But you have the mainstream media backing you all the way. No mainstream journalist dare say the obvious - that the idea is a totsl non-starter.

So you are encouraged. You stick the 10.00 sighting on your website. Then you make a more serious attempt to morph the two sightings in a book that is heavily plugged worldwide by the mainstream media.

You keep on begging for a Scotland Yard review of the case - and you get one. A senior cop who fitted up the wrong bloke in a high profile murder of a well-known TV personality is put in charge of the review, and a plausible puppet is put in charge.

The senior cop and the puppet want to find a way to end this. All efforts are made with trips abroad and endless statistics to impress on the public that this really really is a genuine attempt to get to the truth. A lot of people buy this.

But there's still a problem - how to end it. You have some big problems. A major forensic issue, for starters. A clearly fabricated 9.15am sighting that you are desperate to get rid of. 

The senior cop and the puppet discuss options. They need to get rid of the embarrassing 9.15pm sighting and at the same widen the time frame for the abduction from 5 minutes to about 50 minutes. That would help a great deal with a certain forensic issue.

I will leave you to finish the story.

===============================       

Now to answer your post:    

Kate makes a desperate attempt, unsuccessfully imo, to morph together Tannerman and Smithman...

Yes, though it succeeded up to a point and for quite a long time

Why is Kate so desperate to morph the two sightings?

Because it tended to reinforce - at least in the minds of some - the abduction theory?

Huge red flag here!

Massive

And why do they so doggedly stick to the 9.15pm Tannerman script?

Because, as yet, they do not have an alternative

While it is evident that Portuguese police never took Jane Tanner's Tannerman sighting seriously, is it also true, as Kate suggests in the statement above, that the Portuguese police also didn't take Smithman seriously?

Yes, after Amaral left, they took no interest in 'Smithman' - and on that point IMO they were correct.

Jane's description of Tannerman was only released on 25th May - a whopping three weeks after Madeleine went missing and only after the McCanns had pleaded with the Portuguese police to agree to an informal meeting. Which took place at the British Consulate on 24th May and was described in the Portuguese media as 'special treatment' for the McCanns. Very shortly after this,

26 May - the day after 'Tannerman' was made public

Mr Smith flew to Portugal and spoke to police about his sighting.

The closeness of the dates is very interesting

The timings here cannot be ignored, imo.

Whether Smithman was Gerry carrying Madeleine - either dead or alive.
Whether Smithman was a man who looked like Gerry carrying Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was a man who looked a bit like Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine.
Whether Smithman was fabricated.

All 5 are in theory possible, but some are a great deal more likely than the others

But the ONLY scenario that Team McCann will countenance is that Smithman is Tannerman.

@ J.rob  Not now. This has been dropped since the Crimewatch programme. I know Tannerman may still be somewhere on their website, maybe that is just to keep an option open though, or they just can't be bothered to remove him 

Why is the later 'abduction' timing of 10.03pm so unpalatable for the McCanns?

It isn't. Everyone - Operation Grange, the BBC, the McCann Team have moved on from that and now rely on the Smithman sighting

Despite what Kate says, I think the Smithman e-fits look a lot more like Gerry McCann than they look like Tannerman.

I might agree with you that one of the e-fits bears a passing resemblance, no more, to Gerry McCann (the other one doesn't) but either e-fit man could be one of hundreds of thousands of European men

I agree that the Smithman sighting is suspect. Given the delay in approaching police and then the fact that as time goes on Mr Smith's recall gets better to the extent that he becomes 60% to 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann! Even though it was dark when he saw Smithman

But what is or was the motive of the Smiths? To get Murat off the hook? But Murat got very handsomely paid for being a patsy and the arguido status did not seem to duly affect him, despite claims that it did.  The telephone conversation between Jennifer and Robert Murat and Martin Brunt is  ridiculously staged, imo.

So who are the Smiths and what is their role in all this?

j.rob wrote:I agree that the Smithman sighting is suspect. Given the delay in approaching police and then the fact that as time goes on Mr Smith's recall gets better to the extent that he becomes 60% to 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann! Even though it was dark when he saw Smithman

But what is or was the motive of the Smiths? To get Murat off the hook? But Murat got very handsomely paid for being a patsy and the arguido status did not seem to duly affect him, despite claims that it did.  The telephone conversation between Jennifer and Robert Murat and Martin Brunt is  ridiculously staged, imo.

So who are the Smiths and what is their role in all this?

I think we need to know a whole lot more about the precise relationship between Martin Smith and Robert Murat.

Let's examine a few facts:

1. Martin Smith's recorded statements about his knowledge of Robert Murat have varied considerably. In summary, it started with 'I met him once/twice in a bar' but ended up with 'I'd met him several times and had known him for 2 years' [prior to May 2007]. We now know that Smith had had an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex for years and went to Praia da Luz several times a year

2. He and his family do NOTHING about their dramatic 'sighting' of a bloke, alone, carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas at 10pm on a cold, dark night - for thirteen days - despite saturation international coverage of the case. Then, within a few hours of Murat being made a suspect, they suddenly 'remember' - and Martin Smith says 'I didn't see him properly but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat'    

3. He threatened to sue an Irish newspaper, using a Solicitor to do so, which he said published 'incorrect' information about his relationship with Robert Murat

4. After apparently watching Richard Hall's entire 4.5-hour video, in which there is quite a lot about him and the Madeleine McCann casem and he is incidentally described by Hall as a 'friend' of Murat, he sends an e-mail to Hall, making no comment whatsoever on the rest of the film, but merely points out that it is not correct to describe him as a 'friend' of Murat.


I suggest that all of that tends to suggest a connection with, and a sensitivity to the mention of, Robert Murat