Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

by Guest 09.01.16 18:53

Posters - stay on topic, please.

A new thread "kakistocracy" has been opened to discuss child abuse.

by kaz 09.01.16 19:37

Just a thought: If 'Smithman' was Gerry McCann , why didn't the dogs find ' the smell of death' on any of HIS clothes? Whoever 'Smithman ' was ( IF HE WAS ) he would have been in contact with the dead body for quite some time. Some of Kate's clothes alerted, so why not his?

by Guest 09.01.16 19:55

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.16 20:41

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

I believe the Smiths in their statements were subtly, but deliberately, suggesting that the child they claimed to have seen was dead - see bits in red below from their statements:

Martin

she was was ‘very white’, her skin was very white, typical of a Brit, and she was ‘in a deep sleep’. She wore ‘light-coloured’ pyjamas, had no cover over her, he can’t remember if she was barefoot or not, but others in her group say she was.

Aoife

she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder; she appeared to be sleeping; her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck; she thinks the child was white; she had no covering; she was wearing light, white or light-pink trousers that ‘may have been pyjamas, made of light material’ and ‘could have been cotton’. She can’t remember if they were patterned as it was dark. She also had ‘a light top, with long sleeves’. She can’t remember seeing any shoes on her feet.

Peter

white skin which looked ‘typically British’, blonde hair, of medium tone (not shiny) . She appeared to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed - he didn’t remember the girl’s clothing very well, but “believes it was light summer clothing, light in colour”. He can’t say if she was covered with a blanket or whether or not she was barefoot. Having now seen various photographs of Madeleine and various TV images, he says that the child being carried by the individual ‘might have been her’. He and all his family are ‘convinced’ that it ‘could have been Madeleine’.

by comperedna 10.01.16 3:01

That is what I thought might have been being suggested when I first read those reports. However deeply asleep a child is they tend to stir when you pick them up and 'hang on' by putting their arms around your neck. It was particularly the 'arms hanging down' that perturbed me. Now, of course, I'm not sure what to think...

by Guest 10.01.16 3:41

comperedna wrote:That is what I thought might have been being suggested when I first read those reports. However deeply asleep a child is they tend to stir when you pick them up and 'hang on' by putting their arms around your neck. It was particularly the 'arms hanging down' that perturbed me. Now, of course, I'm not sure what to think...

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

I'm pretty sure this child is not dead.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.01.16 3:56

BlueBag wrote:
comperedna wrote:That is what I thought might have been being suggested when I first read those reports. However deeply asleep a child is they tend to stir when you pick them up and 'hang on' by putting their arms around your neck. It was particularly the 'arms hanging down' that perturbed me. Now, of course, I'm not sure what to think...

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

1. Take a long look at this photo.

2. Then recall that (allegedly) it was seeing Gerry McCann carrying Sean this way that made Martin Smith think: "Gosh, I must have seen Gerry McCann 4 months ago!" (admittedly he was only '60% to 80%' sure though winkwink

)

3. Then have a careful look and see what you see of Sean's eyes.

4. Answer: NOTHING

5. So who can explain these comments:

Martin Smith

"The child was in a deep sleep"

Peter Smith

"The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed".

Did Peter Smith see her eyes clearly and long enough to know that "Her eyelids were closed"?

by kaz 10.01.16 5:10

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

I probably didn't explain myself very well so I'll try and do better this time. If Mr Smith saw a man carrying a child as he stated and that man wasn't Gerry McCann I think we can safely conclude that the child was well and truly in the land of the living. However many people insist that 'Smithman' WAS Gerry McCann . My point then is: If Smithman WAS Gerry McCann walking the streets of PDL carrying a child I think we can safely conclude that the child was Madeleine and that she was dead. My question is: How come that the dog who alerts to cadaver 'scent' did not alert to any of GMC's clothes whilst it DID alert to some of Kate's? Obviously that possibility had not been foreseen and no adult clothing had been dumped. My conclusion therefore is that the man the Smiths allegedly saw was NOT Gerry McCann .

by Anna 10.01.16 5:27

kaz wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

I probably didn't explain myself very well so I'll try and do better this time. If Mr Smith saw a man carrying a child as he stated and that man wasn't Gerry McCann I think we can safely conclude that the child was well and truly in the land of the living. However many people insist that 'Smithman' WAS Gerry McCann . My point then is: If Smithman WAS Gerry McCann walking the streets of PDL carrying a child I think we can safely conclude that the child was Madeleine and that she was dead. My question is: How come that the dog who alerts to cadaver 'scent' did not alert to any of GMC's clothes whilst it DID alert to some of Kate's? Obviously that possibility had not been foreseen and no adult clothing had been dumped. My conclusion therefore is that the man the Smiths allegedly saw was NOT Gerry McCann .

Or Gerry got rid of all the clothes he was wearing.

disclaimer: Not that I believe Gerry was even carrying his dead daughter around the streets of PdL.

In fact, he couldn't have got rid of all the clothes because he was seen wearing them on TV.

by worriedmum 10.01.16 8:03

Or the child was not Madeleine?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.01.16 9:06

worriedmum wrote:Or the child was not Madeleine?

Or the Smiths made it all up to help their ~~friend~~ acquaintance Robert Murat?

And later crossed over to the McCann camp after a visit from Brian 'my-men-intimidated-witnesses-into-silence' Kennedy and MI5's ex-Head of Covert Intelligence, Henri Exton?

The idea that Peter Smith could see the child's eyes close enough to see her eyelids closed is fantasy, right?

by worriedmum 10.01.16 9:57

I don't agree about seeing the child's eyelids- I think you would have noticed if they were OPEN-ergo,if they were not open, they were closed...

by Verdi 10.01.16 10:20

THE WEAKNESSES IN JANE’S WITNESS STATEMENT

Friday May 4th, at 8pm, we criss-cross Praia da Luz to take note of the activity in the village at dinner time and to check the street lighting. We stay there until 10pm while the forensic team from the police laboratory get on with their investigation.

Certainly, today there are people who wouldn’t normally have been here: police officers and journalists. But, even so, it is noticeable that there is very little movement. The place where the abductor happened to be is dimly lit: how did Jane manage to describe him so accurately? Witnesses confirm that the streets were also deserted yesterday.

Why did the potential abductor choose to walk around like that, in the open, running the risk – in spite of the darkness – of being recognised by a passer-by? If he had planned the abduction, he would have taken the time to study, not only the habits of the family, but also the topography of the place. If he wasn’t from the village, he would probably have come by car, and he would have sought to conceal it in a dark corner. But the darkest area is situated in exactly the opposite direction to that indicated by Jane Tanner. Did she actually see that man going towards the east? Wouldn’t he rather be going towards the west? Leaving by car, he would inevitably have had to go towards the centre of the village, in which case, he would have to go either past the entrance to the restaurant where Madeleine’s parents were dining, or by the main road that leads to EN125*

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

Now that's what I call a revelation moment spin

!

by **Tony Bennett** 10.01.16 10:52

worriedmum wrote:I don't agree about seeing the child's eyelids - I think you would have noticed if they were OPEN - ergo, if they were not open, they were closed...

Which way was Sean being carried by Gerry McCann when Martin Smith says he (more or less) recognised him?

To answer my own question - face hidden, not visible.

As Aoife testifies, quote: "She didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder".

@ worriedmum

Explain to me please how Aoife couldn't see the child's face at all, yet Peter could see that her eyelids were closed?.

In the dark at 10pm?

by Verdi 10.01.16 11:36

THE WEAKNESSES IN JANE’S WITNESS STATEMENT

We walk around Vila da Luz, covering all the roads, trying to imagine the options that presented themselves to the abductor. Without a car, and not knowing the place, the safest approach to the village is the beach. In the few bars, restaurants and cafés open at this time of year, no one noticed anything at all strange during the evening of May 3rd, no suspicious behaviour, nothing out of the ordinary. Most of the establishments had closed at around 9pm.

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

This is an account of 4th May 2007, the day after MBM was reported missing. The little town is buzzing with genuine searchers, police and journalists and yet still the Smith family failed to report their alleged sighting until weeks later? The Irish bar for example - surely the main topic of gossip for days must have been the little girl that had been 'abducted' in every establishment around PdL, yet still the Smith family failed to report their alleged sighting until weeks later?

As an aside, I consider myself to be quite observant but if I passed a total stranger at night having eaten and stopped at a bar for while, feeling relaxed and ready for bed, I'm blowed if I'd be able to recall the stature or clothing of the stranger days or weeks after the event or any detail about a child being carried - why would you? If they'd stopped for a chat that would be different but they didn't did they? Even Gerry McCann nor his wife and friends could recall what he was wearing on the night of 3rd May so it's stretching the imagination more than a bit to expect a total stranger to be able to accurately describe the appearance of another stranger walking the streets in the dark - apparently a normal sight around PdL so even less reason to take particular notice.

I really can't understand how anyone can take the Smith family sighting seriously.

by kaz 10.01.16 20:48

Verdi wrote:
THE WEAKNESSES IN JANE’S WITNESS STATEMENT

Friday May 4th, at 8pm, we criss-cross Praia da Luz to take note of the activity in the village at dinner time and to check the street lighting. We stay there until 10pm while the forensic team from the police laboratory get on with their investigation.

Certainly, today there are people who wouldn’t normally have been here: police officers and journalists. But, even so, it is noticeable that there is very little movement. The place where the abductor happened to be is dimly lit: how did Jane manage to describe him so accurately? Witnesses confirm that the streets were also deserted yesterday.

Why did the potential abductor choose to walk around like that, in the open, running the risk – in spite of the darkness – of being recognised by a passer-by? If he had planned the abduction, he would have taken the time to study, not only the habits of the family, but also the topography of the place. If he wasn’t from the village, he would probably have come by car, and he would have sought to conceal it in a dark corner. But the darkest area is situated in exactly the opposite direction to that indicated by Jane Tanner. Did she actually see that man going towards the east? Wouldn’t he rather be going towards the west? Leaving by car, he would inevitably have had to go towards the centre of the village, in which case, he would have to go either past the entrance to the restaurant where Madeleine’s parents were dining, or by the main road that leads to .............

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

Now that's what I call a revelation moment !

Exactly! Does anyone doubt that a genuine abductor would have had a car ready and waiting for the quick getaway? This is a kidnap of a small child ! Would any abductor really walk the streets of PDL and take the risk of being seen?
I always thought it strange that Jez Wilkins wasn't mentioned on the Sticker Book timeline. You'd expect an entry like, '' ~~Ella~~ Jane sees Gerald McCann ( ! ) talking to man with pushchair ...'' (It just has to be Russell writing this ) but no, no mention which makes me believe that the scrapbook timeline really WAS a pre written script and that Jane saw no one at all. Was she even there ? JW was a fly in the ointment that night , an unexpected factor. Now why would she pretend that she saw someone and even come up with a vivid description and if she was pretending, how very convenient that ~~Deadwood~~ Redwood managed to find another fall guy. All been said before I know by other posters but it becomes clearer by the minute.
Obviously I really don't know the truth of the matter and am only surmising but I'm tending to agree with the Richard Hall interpretation now.

by worriedmum 11.01.16 0:59

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I don't agree about seeing the child's eyelids - I think you would have noticed if they were OPEN - ergo, if they were not open, they were closed...

Which way was Sean being carried by Gerry McCann when Martin Smith says he (more or less) recognised him?

To answer my own question - face hidden, not visible.

As Aoife testifies, quote: "She didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder".

@ worriedmum

Explain to me please how Aoife couldn't see the child's face at all, yet Peter could see that her eyelids were closed?.

In the dark at 10pm? ''

Aoife was smaller than the adults so her viewpoint is different, possibly looking upwards?

Peter, Martin and Aoife passed the person carrying a child at slightly different times and positions.

I seem to remember the reaction of the forum to the light coloured trousers with buttons.

Is there such a thing as a 'double-bluff theory' too far?

by Guest 11.01.16 2:22

Posters - topic drifting into Smithman. Stay on topic, please.

by Verdi 11.01.16 7:55

The British are renowned for talking of the weather when they meet - if conversation didn't progress beyond, once the intiital greeting was over, we would be a nation of meteorological automatons with no conversation but the weather.

Of course it's possible to enter into every possible detail about the temperature, humidity, wind chill factor, rainfall in millimetres, the forecast for the ensuing week etc but my oh my how boring that would be. How can discussion progress if not for an association of thoughts?

Sorry mods but this is becoming rather ridiculous. Not as though the subject is being derailed by some interloper is it? Surely a little deviation from Tannerman to Crecheman to Smithman is permissible - the primary subject matter is still intact isn't it?

by sar 12.01.16 2:33

Ladyinred wrote:Posters - stay on topic, please.

A new thread "kakistocracy" has been opened to discuss child abuse.

Presuming this was aimed at me? if not my apologies. I wasn't aware of this, but no thank you, I don't want to discuss it.

by Liz Eagles 12.01.16 4:42

Verdi wrote:The British are renowned for talking of the weather when they meet - if conversation didn't progress beyond, once the intiital greeting was over, we would be a nation of meteorological automatons with no conversation but the weather.

Of course it's possible to enter into every possible detail about the temperature, humidity, wind chill factor, rainfall in millimetres, the forecast for the ensuing week etc but my oh my how boring that would be. How can discussion progress if not for an association of thoughts?

Sorry mods but this is becoming rather ridiculous. Not as though the subject is being derailed by some interloper is it? Surely a little deviation from Tannerman to Crecheman to Smithman is permissible - the primary subject matter is still intact isn't it?

Oooh I don't know Verdi, at least talking of the weather involves less wind, less arrogance, less self belief in having a captivating sense of humour, less verbosity, less self attention to centre stage...and a lot less criticism of moderators on this forum who do a darned fine job.

Wind your neck in.

by tungsten tel 12.01.16 5:00

I think it was nice of Gerry to keep the clothes and lend them to the Met for crecheman to model.....Should have let the dogs sniff them though.....

by Verdi 13.01.16 23:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: ...moderators on this forum who do a darned fine job.

I couldn't agree more! I don't envy their job for one moment, must be hell trying to keep everyone happy. Special 2016 thumbs up for the forum owner, admin and mods..

thumbsup

!

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman