Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant'

Columbo wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:No matter how I try I cannot get my head around Gerry being Smithman.

I have to say I can't get my head around any Smithman theory whereby it could really be Gerry carrying a decomposing Maddie or even an alive substitute sleeping/drugged child.

And if it was a substitute child he was carrying where did he put her because presumably he had to get back to the apartment to play the panic-stricken dad of an abducted daughter?

Sorry for the confusing post, but that's because I'm confused about it all!

I'm not saying the Smiths didn't see someone, like CrecheDad, but for me it couldn't have been Gerry with a dead Maddie or an alive substitute child.

I agree Get'em, it is all most confusing.

I'm of the view that no-one was carrying any child in their arms around PdL around 9pm that night. I did wonder if some perfectly innocent person had in fact been carrying their sleeping child and the co-incidence of this and the disappearance, along with JT's story - and I think it is just that, a story - had thrown confusion and maybe a red herring into the mix.

But, any innocent person carrying a child could have been identified and eliminated very early on. No 'abductor' would walk casually through the streets with a kidnapped child - not even the stupidest of criminals.

Smithman/Tannerman/Crecheman have sown confusion - as I think they were meant to - and if I were trying to solve the case I'd go as far as to say I'd ignore them.

I also don't believe Gerry was Smithman, but there are members here who do believe Maddie died on Thursday and Gerry was seen walking towards the beach and I'd love to hear their theories about what could have happened after they believe Gerry was seen by the Smiths walking towards the beach.

I've been asking for this theory for more than 4 hours now and....nothing! Why?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:No, I haven't read it.

But there are members here who believe Maddie died during the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that the person who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann.

So please give me a brief scenario of where he could be going, how long Maddie would have to be hidden, how he got Maddie back so the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed, or how he got the substitute back as in my previous posts while the place was buzzing with Police.

Tell me. I want to believe Gerry was Smithman.

But I don't want to go and wade through a Textusa article.

Hi GGG,The Brief Scenario,Textusa,Thesis.
JT has awaits with her daughter inside 5a.
JW sees GMC outside of apartment,then has to wait for JW to clear the area.
GMc,then takes his own Daughter to (RM's) property,stored in a motor vehicle until 04.00 4 May 2007.
GMc returns to 5a,picks up (JT's daughter) travels towards the Beach Area.
After being spotted by the Family,returns promptly to Ocean Club to return (JTs daughter to her family,then they proceed with the supposed Abduction Thesis alert to GNR.
This is a brief version of the Textusa article,please do not shoot the messenger,it's a Thesis?

willowthewisp wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:No, I haven't read it.

But there are members here who believe Maddie died during the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that the person who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann.

So please give me a brief scenario of where he could be going, how long Maddie would have to be hidden, how he got Maddie back so the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed, or how he got the substitute back as in my previous posts while the place was buzzing with Police.

Tell me. I want to believe Gerry was Smithman.

But I don't want to go and wade through a Textusa article.

Hi GGG,The Brief Scenario,Textusa,Thesis.
JT has awaits with her daughter inside 5a.
JW sees GMC outside of apartment,then has to wait for JW to clear the area.
GMc,then takes his own Daughter to (RM's) property,stored in a motor vehicle until 04.00 4 May 2007.
GMc returns to 5a,picks up (JT's daughter) travels towards the Beach Area.
After being spotted by the Family,returns promptly to Ocean Club to return (JTs daughter to her family,then they proceed with the supposed Abduction Thesis alert to GNR.
This is a brief version of the Textusa article,please do not shoot the messenger,it's a Thesis?

Textusa's blog should come with the warning of 'you are now entering a parallel universe'.

For the benefit of newbies, Lazzeri has been a prominent and respected commentator over the years, and in 2012 offered the following on the Smith sighting;

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Smith_Sighting.html

The reason (on balance) I believe the Smith sighting is genuine comes down to the following paragraphs......

Some are suggesting that the Smith sighting never happened at all.
 
I would have to disagree.
 
I cannot see that an entire family (as far as we know, who are not connected in any way to the McCanns or to Murat, other than Murat is known to them by sight, as he is a prominent figure in Praia da Luz known by many and where the Smith family own a property) would invent such a tale.
 
Martin Smith’s young daughter, who was around 11/12 years of age at the time of the sighting, gave a witness statement to police also.
 
If for no other reason, this would make me inclined to believe the family did in fact see a man carrying a child.  I cannot imagine that a girl so young would be able to carry off when interviewed by police a scam such as pretending she saw something she did not. I would imagine for anyone giving a police witness statement it would be somewhat distressing especially in the case of a missing child.  For a girl so young to have had to do so, I just cannot believe that she would have been able to lie, and why would she?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Smith family saw what they said they did. There is not a reason in the world that I know of for them to have lied.

And not a reason in the world for loving caring parents to put their daughter through the ordeal of giving a police witness statement unless the child had something important to tell regarding what she witnessed on the night Madeleine vanished. Something which may have helped recover the missing child.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Smith's are anything other than what they appear to be - a decent caring and honest family.

Hi carryonDoctor,thanks for the Lazzari article!

willowthewisp wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:No, I haven't read it.

But there are members here who believe Maddie died during the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that the person who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann.

So please give me a brief scenario of where he could be going, how long Maddie would have to be hidden, how he got Maddie back so the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed, or how he got the substitute back as in my previous posts while the place was buzzing with Police.

Tell me. I want to believe Gerry was Smithman.

But I don't want to go and wade through a Textusa article.

Hi GGG,The Brief Scenario,Textusa,Thesis.
JT has awaits with her daughter inside 5a.
JW sees GMC outside of apartment,then has to wait for JW to clear the area.
GMc,then takes his own Daughter to (RM's) property,stored in a motor vehicle until 04.00 4 May 2007.
GMc returns to 5a,picks up (JT's daughter) travels towards the Beach Area.
After being spotted by the Family,returns promptly to Ocean Club to return (JTs daughter to her family,then they proceed with the supposed Abduction Thesis alert to GNR.
This is a brief version of the Textusa article,please do not shoot the messenger,it's a Thesis?

I'm not going to shoot the messenger, willowthewisp, I just want to explore and understand how people believe Gerry could be Smithman.

So, Gerry takes a decomposing Maddie to Murat's property (presumably in the blue bag, having laid the bag in the flowerbed while he waits for JW to clear the area) and stores her in a car (not a freezer) until the early morning of 4th May when she would be decomposing even more. And why 4 am?

Gerry returns to the apartment to pick up JT's daughter and goes towards the beach, presumably wanting to be seen then, because with Maddie safely out of the way then the abduction would go well - abductor comes in, takes her, and vanishes into thin air. Job done.

But Gerry decides to elaborate and returns to the apartment to risk a pretendy abduction with JT's daughter - and was only seen walking towards the beach but not back again?

He was lucky, then, not to be seen on the return journey with JT's daughter because that would put a spanner in the works. Abductor takes 'Maddie' (JT's daughter) but then is seen bringing her back again? And what if the Smiths didn't see him walking towards the beach but, instead, saw him walking back towards the apartment? Or, worse, if someone else saw him walking back towards the apartment?

How could Gerry be sure the elaborate faked abduction would work and he wouldn't be seen by other holidaymakers/residents/OC staff? If a whole family could see him, then why not other people?

Risky. Unless Martin Smith was in on it, was in the right place at the right time, and he didn't tell the rest of his family, hence there would be no need for them to lie.



And I still don't get it.

Hi GGG,I know you have doubts about the Madeleine McCann Case,Smithman/Tannerman/Creche Dad?
DCI Andy Redwood has supposedly met with Creche Dad,has he introduced him to the Portugal PJ under the "Joint working,Review"?
At 22.00 pm 3 May 2007, Crime Watch October 2013 DCI Andy Redwood has a sighting of Creche Dad taking his daughter home in the"Opposite direction" site of the Ocean club night Creche?
As you are well aware,Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwood,DCs Hamish Campbell have issued various statements declaring the Tapas friends and the Parents of Madeleine McCann as not suspects into Madeleine's disappearance!?
GGG,you state why 04.00am,that was when the GNR closed down operations for that time,you also state decomposition,the weather was described as being a cold temperature in Portugal,JT wearing a fleece,21.00pm the evening of the disappearance?
Two Tapas friends were out early on the 4 May 2007,then Kate and Gerry began searching for Madeleine at 06.30 am?
Enough said for now.

Eddie and Keela searched Murat's property didn't they, and didn't alert?

hogwash wrote:Eddie and Keela searched Murat's property didn't they, and didn't alert?

Hi Hogwash,The dogs may have searched the property,but the article from Textusa quotes placed in a motor vehicle?

willowthewisp wrote:

hogwash wrote:Eddie and Keela searched Murat's property didn't they, and didn't alert?

Hi Hogwash,The dogs may have searched the property,but the article from Textusa quotes placed in a motor vehicle?

They alerted to the McCann's hire car, so placing a body in a motor vehicle at Murat's property wouldn't have deterred them from finding cadavar scent.

willowthewisp wrote:

JRP wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

JRP wrote:I don't understand the logic.
A child is reported missing by the parents and to prove she's still alive, the father borrows another child from somebody and carries her around the streets.
But then doesn't that prove she wasn't missing at all, as she was with her father? 

Just askin

You don't understand my logic? 
Well she WASN'T missing on that night of the third ,rather  her body had been taken , away that is , on a different date . 
To support the abduction a pseudo Madeleine had to be seen in the arms of an adult male on the night of the 3rd . 
Does that explain it better?

Yeah I get it.
Why did she have to be seen in the arms of a male though? 
I've never really tried body snatching, but thinking about it right now, I'd use a car, or like Get'em said, she'd use a bag. 
I don't believe it anyway, it doesn't ring true to me at all.

Hi JRP,A male person was identified by JT and the Smith Family as to have been in close proximity to the Apartment 5a,Ocean Club,seen carrying a young Girl between 21.15-22.00pm 3 May 2007.

Hi WillowtheWisp that bold bit above your bit, applies to both sightings.

willowthewisp wrote:Hi carryonDoctor,thanks for the Lazzari article!

You are very welcome! Lots of links to other good articles there too.

Whilst doubt about certain circumstances surrounding the Smith sighting is understandable, they seem to be all outweighed by one single argument set out so well by Lazzeri.

One further point - The Smith couple, and their family, including grandchildren, knowingly did all of this to protect paedophilia ?

I don't think so.

willowthewisp wrote:
A male person was identified by JT and the Smith Family as to have been in close proximity to the Apartment 5a,Ocean Club,seen carrying a young Girl between 21.15-22.00pm 3 May 2007.

Clarence Mitchell later publicly suggested that Jane Tanner could have been mistaken - it might have been a woman !!!

Well, eight people so far have voted in the Poll that 'Smithman is key and the Last Photo is irrelevant', so I'd still like these eight people to convince me of a credible scenario that Smithman is key.

The one that willowthewisp posted by Textusa is let down by Eddie and Keela not alerting to the motor vehicle at his property as posted by hogwash. Depending on which motor vehicle was used it might not still have been there, but the scent would be wouldn't it, just as it was months later when Eddie alerted behind the sofa and to the wardrobe and flowerbed?

So how else can this theory be perfected?

Maddie died early on Thursday evening, Kate and Gerry went to dinner, then came back and cleaned up then presumably moved her from behind the sofa and put her in the blue bag in the wardrobe. Then Gerry allegedly took her to Murat's house, where the dogs didn't alert, and then staged an abduction where, conveniently, only the Smith family saw him.

Isn't it possible that Martin Smith (who apparently knew Murat and Gerry) agreed to be in the right place at the right time, without his family knowing the reason?

Could that explain why the Smithman sighting was 'successful' and how the rest of the family were able to give truthful statements about what they saw?

I also feel uncomfortable with suggestions of Martin Smith's children being untruthful, so how else could it all be explained?

If Maddie had already been taken to Murat's property and Jane Tanner provided the Tannerman sighting, why was there a need for Smithman at all?

For what it's worth, though, I believe Maddie died on the Sunday/Monday and was moved well before the Thursday to a freezer, but obviously there was a staged abduction.

So if we can accept there was a staged abduction, as per Amaral and the PJ, then is it feasible that only Murat and Martin Smith could be key players?

And what was the point if all that's happened is people think it's Gerry abducting his own dead daughter?

Could there be a simpler solution?

The Smith sighting was reported nearly two weeks after the event. 

Could they have seen a perfectly normal man holding a child, perfectly normally, exactly as they stated, but on a different day?

After two weeks I find it difficult to recall exactly what happened on a specific day on a holiday. By definition you are relaxed and not paying a great deal of attention.

I have been to P d L and it is a friendly, busy resort full of families. We visited (2+little one) in October and even at 10pm the streets were never deserted, front doors were open, grans and garndads sat outside houses. Nearly everyone wished us good evening/night as we passed.

A man carrying a child would not be unusual. He may simply be lagging behind the rest of the family, or (being a man) striding ahead of the gang.

We tried to eat out most nights (the South African restaurant is wonderful) and occasionaly the little one would wake up and cry (he was alseep in his pram) and I would take him outside to sing and lull him back to sleep.

How would I hold him? 

Exactly

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Well, eight people so far have voted in the Poll that 'Smithman is key and the Last Photo is irrelevant', so I'd still like these eight people to convince me of a credible scenario that Smithman is key.

The one that willowthewisp posted by Textusa is let down by Eddie and Keela not alerting to the motor vehicle at his property as posted by hogwash. Depending on which motor vehicle was used it might not still have been there, but the scent would be wouldn't it, just as it was months later when Eddie alerted behind the sofa and to the wardrobe and flowerbed?

So how else can this theory be perfected?

Maddie died early on Thursday evening, Kate and Gerry went to dinner, then came back and cleaned up then presumably moved her from behind the sofa and put her in the blue bag in the wardrobe. Then Gerry allegedly took her to Murat's house, where the dogs didn't alert, and then staged an abduction where, conveniently, only the Smith family saw him.

Isn't it possible that Martin Smith (who apparently knew Murat and Gerry) agreed to be in the right place at the right time, without his family knowing the reason?

Could that explain why the Smithman sighting was 'successful' and how the rest of the family were able to give truthful statements about what they saw?

I also feel uncomfortable with suggestions of Martin Smith's children being untruthful, so how else could it all be explained?

If Maddie had already been taken to Murat's property and Jane Tanner provided the Tannerman sighting, why was there a need for Smithman at all?

For what it's worth, though, I believe Maddie died on the Sunday/Monday and was moved well before the Thursday to a freezer, but obviously there was a staged abduction.

So if we can accept there was a staged abduction, as per Amaral and the PJ, then is it feasible that only Murat and Martin Smith could be key players?

And what was the point if all that's happened is people think it's Gerry abducting his own dead daughter?

Hi GEG, Murat hired a car for a few days? So a different car to the family motors for just a few days.

I always assumed that Gerry rushed out in a panic to get the body out of the apartment, so that any injuries / medication etc. could be blamed on someone else.  I don't even think he thought the body wouldn't be found at that point - he just needed to dump it somewhere. Maybe dumped it in a bin even? Later that night when the search was scaled down, they retrieved the body and found a better hiding place, further away, to improve their alibi. Claimed to have been out searching...

I don't know when the blue bag disappeared, but I don't see why the dog alerting to the wardrobe shelf necessarily means the body was in the bag there. The bag could have been put there after the body was removed, maybe to cover something else up.

Possible scenario: Madeleine sedated - wanders out unnoticed and falls off steps into flowerbed - dies - Gerry comes home -  Kate tells him all children asleep - both relax, shower, wine etc. - go to check on kids - finds Madeleine missing - where is she - find body - already starting to produce cadaverine, enough to leave vague scent - body carried into sitting room - resuscitation attempt - realise it's futile - Kate about to get hysterical - Gerry grabs her fiercely, causing bruising - dins it into her that they will lose everything if she doesn't shut up - hatches abduction plan - moves body to wardrobe while everything cleaned up - hides it behind sofa when they go out. Etc. etc. Rest of group drawn into deception as a result of using/supplying same sedatives and/or fear of negligence charges - persuaded to create timelines and alibis. 

So the Smiths just saw Gerry carrying the body away - nothing more to it.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:RTI always assumed that Gerry rushed out in a panic to get the body out of the apartment, so that any injuries / medication etc. could be blamed on someone else.  I don't even think he thought the body wouldn't be found at that point - he just needed to dump it somewhere. Maybe dumped it in a bin even? Later that night when the search was scaled down, they retrieved the body and found a better hiding place, further away, to improve their alibi. Claimed to have been out searching...

I don't know when the blue bag disappeared, but I don't see why the dog alerting to the wardrobe shelf necessarily means the body was in the bag there. The bag could have been put there after the body was removed, maybe to cover something else up.

Possible scenario: Madeleine sedated - wanders out unnoticed and falls off steps into flowerbed - dies - Gerry comes home -  Kate tells him all children asleep - both relax, shower, wine etc. - go to check on kids - finds Madeleine missing - where is she - find body - already starting to produce cadaverine, enough to leave vague scent - body carried into sitting room - resuscitation attempt - realise it's futile - Kate about to get hysterical - Gerry grabs her fiercely, causing bruising - dins it into her that they will lose everything if she doesn't shut up - hatches abduction plan - moves body to wardrobe while everything cleaned up - hides it behind sofa when they go out. Etc. etc. Rest of group drawn into deception as a result of using/supplying same sedatives and/or fear of negligence charges - persuaded to create timelines and alibis. 

So the Smiths just saw Gerry carrying the body away - nothing more to it.

 You're suggesting Madeleine wandered out ? Opened the child gate closing it  carefully behind her  then  goes and falls down the steps and dies .
  Body already producing cadaverine?   I don't somehow think so, how long had she been lying where she fell and completely unnoticed by anyone going up or down that street ? 

But going along with that theory there's a couple of  snags , how do two people who have just found their daughter dead manage to compose themselves ,clean a flat  , go out to meet the others and act perfectly normally ? At what point did they tell the others without involving Mrs Webster because I don't think for a second that she was involved .

Gerry risks all then carrying Madeleine's body  after all chances are he might be spotted .   Where did he put her and why didn't the original dogs on the scene pick up where she was  and what did he do with his clothes  ?

I think it's a stretch to say that Martin Smith knew Gerry. There is zero evidence to back this up. I do think he knew Murat, exactly as he said - he knew who he was and what he looked like. I also believe he  might have known people who actually knew Murat and who felt he was being wrongly accused by the McCann's friends. I still believe he came forward because he knew the man he had seen that night was not Murat. I think they were led in their statements, influenced by descriptions which had already been leaked and anxious to please. Smith's identifying of Gerry in Sept came at the time the media had been luridly reporting for weeks that the McCanns were guilty.  Later, Kennedy contacted them. I can imagine how forcefully he vouched for the "poor parents", together with hints of how they intended to sue those who pointed the finger at them. Seeing as Smith was never 100% sure about it being Gerry, he thought the better of sticking his neck out.

Nina wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Well, eight people so far have voted in the Poll that 'Smithman is key and the Last Photo is irrelevant', so I'd still like these eight people to convince me of a credible scenario that Smithman is key.

The one that willowthewisp posted by Textusa is let down by Eddie and Keela not alerting to the motor vehicle at his property as posted by hogwash. Depending on which motor vehicle was used it might not still have been there, but the scent would be wouldn't it, just as it was months later when Eddie alerted behind the sofa and to the wardrobe and flowerbed?

So how else can this theory be perfected?

Maddie died early on Thursday evening, Kate and Gerry went to dinner, then came back and cleaned up then presumably moved her from behind the sofa and put her in the blue bag in the wardrobe. Then Gerry allegedly took her to Murat's house, where the dogs didn't alert, and then staged an abduction where, conveniently, only the Smith family saw him.

Isn't it possible that Martin Smith (who apparently knew Murat and Gerry) agreed to be in the right place at the right time, without his family knowing the reason?

Could that explain why the Smithman sighting was 'successful' and how the rest of the family were able to give truthful statements about what they saw?

I also feel uncomfortable with suggestions of Martin Smith's children being untruthful, so how else could it all be explained?

If Maddie had already been taken to Murat's property and Jane Tanner provided the Tannerman sighting, why was there a need for Smithman at all?

For what it's worth, though, I believe Maddie died on the Sunday/Monday and was moved well before the Thursday to a freezer, but obviously there was a staged abduction.

So if we can accept there was a staged abduction, as per Amaral and the PJ, then is it feasible that only Murat and Martin Smith could be key players?

And what was the point if all that's happened is people think it's Gerry abducting his own dead daughter?

Hi GEG, Murat hired a car for a few days? So a different car to the family motors for just a few days.

Yes, that's a possibility Nina.

Although surely the PJ would have discovered that when they were checking him out?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

Unless he borrowed a car which wouldn't register on his bank account.

Phoebe wrote:I think it's a stretch to say that Martin Smith knew Gerry. There is zero evidence to back this up. I do think he knew Murat, exactly as he said - he knew who he was and what he looked like. I also believe he  might have known people who actually knew Murat and who felt he was being wrongly accused by the McCann's friends. I still believe he came forward because he knew the man he had seen that night was not Murat. I think they were led in their statements, influenced by descriptions which had already been leaked and anxious to please. Smith's identifying of Gerry in Sept came at the time the media had been luridly reporting for weeks that the McCanns were guilty.  Later, Kennedy contacted them. I can imagine how forcefully he vouched for the "poor parents", together with hints of how they intended to sue those who pointed the finger at them. Seeing as Smith was never 100% sure about it being Gerry, he thought the better of sticking his neck out.

Yes, fair enough, but I was just trying to think of ways that the Smiths could be the only people to see Smithman/Gerry.
Mootle says it's a busy resort so what were the odds that Gerry would take the risk of walking towards the beach with a dead Maddie or JT's daughter in his arms, or walking back from the beach with JT's daughter?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11217-smithman-7-what-is-the-actual-evidence-that-makes-people-think-that-smithman-was-gerry-mccann

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:I think it's a stretch to say that Martin Smith knew Gerry. There is zero evidence to back this up. I do think he knew Murat, exactly as he said - he knew who he was and what he looked like. I also believe he  might have known people who actually knew Murat and who felt he was being wrongly accused by the McCanns' friends. I still believe he came forward because he knew the man he had seen that night was not Murat. I think they were led in their statements, influenced by descriptions which had already been leaked and anxious to please. Smith's identifying of Gerry in Sept came at the time the media had been luridly reporting for weeks that the McCanns were guilty.  Later, Kennedy contacted them. I can imagine how forcefully he vouched for the "poor parents", together with hints of how they intended to sue those who pointed the finger at them. Seeing as Smith was never 100% sure about it being Gerry, he thought the better of sticking his neck out.

Yes, fair enough, but I was just trying to think of ways that the Smiths could be the only people to see Smithman/Gerry.

Mootle says it's a busy resort so what were the odds that Gerry would take the risk of walking towards the beach with a dead Maddie or JT's daughter in his arms, or walking back from the beach with JT's daughter?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11217-smithman-7-what-is-the-actual-evidence-that-makes-people-think-that-smithman-was-gerry-mccann

At all times, when discussing the alleged 'Smithman' sighting and persistent claims by some that 'the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying a recently dead Madeleine McCann to the beach' these facts must be recalled:

1. None of the Smiths said they saw the man's face properly

2. They only saw the man for a matter of seconds in the dark 

3. All three said they'd never be able to recognise him of they saw him again

4. The Smiths' description of 'Smithman' matched the descriptions by Nuno Lourenco of 'Sagresman' and Jane Tanner of 'Tannerman' in no fewer than 17 respects - beyond coincidence

5. All three claimed sightings: Lourenco's, Tanner's and the Smiths, used the descriptive phrase 'Didn't look like a tourist' - and that phrase was used again by the McCanns when on May 2009 they uploaded to their website a 30-second recording of an Irish voice summarising Martin Smith's evidence. In response to this, several people have asserted:"Oh well, the Smiths were  just answering the PJ's question: 'Did the man look like a tourist?'" The absurdity of this proposition can be summarised by asking members and guests here: If you were asked by the police: 'Did the man you saw look like a tourist?', surely your correct and obvious response would be: 'Well, first of all tell me what a tourist walking around the streets of Praia da Luz at 10 'clock at night is supposed to look like'.

6. Martin Smith's identification of Gerry Smith was (a) over 4 months after the event (b) it was based not an any facial recognition but merely on the everyday fact that Gerry was carrying his son on his left shoulder (c) he was merely '60% to 80% certain' and (d) he effectively withdrew his identification of Gerry McCann on agreeing to work for the McCanns in January 2008.

7. How could the Smiths possibly come up with ANY efits of the man they said they saw (never mind TWO quite different ones!), as much as a year or more after they saw him for a few seconds in the dark and said they would not be able to recognise him ever again?

@ Phoebe   If you think the Smiths really did see someone and haven't invented him, you would need to explain why their description was identical to the description of Wojchiech Krokowski given by Lourenco and Tanner.  I would also point out that whe the Smiths gave their statements on 26 May (not 6 May as wrongly stataed by Admin in another place), NO detailed description of the abductor had yet been given out to the public, only a very sketchy one the day before. I have maintained for a long time that the Smiths must have got their description of Wojchiech Krokowski either from the McCann camp, or the Murat camp or possibly from a leak by a PJ officer. On the subject of why the Smiths were batting for the McCanns from January2008 (which some still refuse to recognise), I agree that pressure and threats from Brian Kennedy are a distinct possibility.

@ Get 'em Goncalo   Not one person has ever given a remotely sensible answer to the questions: (a) Why would someone whose daughter had just been found dead take the obvious and serious risk of walking half a mile or so through the streets of a tourist resort? - and (b) choose do so at the very moment his wife and friends were raising the alarm? - and (c)where at short notuce did he find a hiding place for the body which no-one discovered?

Wasn't it said that Gerry was supposed to have been wearing the trousers with the buttons, which were photographed on the bed, and was later seen wearing them in this photo, yet the dogs didn't alert to them?

Agreed, the Smiths gave their first statement on May 26th and a subsequent one to the Gardai at the request of the P.J. in Jan.08. I also agree that there are marked similarities between what emerges in their statements, Lourenco's and Jane's and,what I find peculiar, these similarities continue with the McCluskey statement. To me, that suggests an outside influence on the actual final wording of these statements. IMO its possible this influence came from someone connected to the L.P. who might have been influencing the Smiths, since contact was first made with them, before official statements were taken. I don't believe a 12 year old herself volunteered a phrase like "cotton, heavier than linen". I think this had been suggested to her and she agreed. None of the Smiths saw pyjamas, describing the girl as wearing light clothes. Only Smith's daughter's statement goes on to add "possibly pyjamas". I think that was a clarification to a question put to her -"could they have been pyjamas?". When she answers that this could be the case it's recorded as "possibly pyjamas" etc.

Yet after the alarm was raised he was wearing jeans.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I always assumed that Gerry rushed out in a panic to get the body out of the apartment, so that any injuries / medication etc. could be blamed on someone else.  I don't even think he thought the body wouldn't be found at that point - he just needed to dump it somewhere. Maybe dumped it in a bin even? Later that night when the search was scaled down, they retrieved the body and found a better hiding place, further away, to improve their alibi. Claimed to have been out searching...

I don't know when the blue bag disappeared, but I don't see why the dog alerting to the wardrobe shelf necessarily means the body was in the bag there. The bag could have been put there after the body was removed, maybe to cover something else up.

Possible scenario: Madeleine sedated - wanders out unnoticed and falls off steps into flowerbed - dies - Gerry comes home -  Kate tells him all children asleep - both relax, shower, wine etc. - go to check on kids - finds Madeleine missing - where is she - find body - already starting to produce cadaverine, enough to leave vague scent - body carried into sitting room - resuscitation attempt - realise it's futile - Kate about to get hysterical - Gerry grabs her fiercely, causing bruising - dins it into her that they will lose everything if she doesn't shut up - hatches abduction plan - moves body to wardrobe while everything cleaned up - hides it behind sofa when they go out. Etc. etc. Rest of group drawn into deception as a result of using/supplying same sedatives and/or fear of negligence charges - persuaded to create timelines and alibis. 

So the Smiths just saw Gerry carrying the body away - nothing more to it.

......so how would the initial conversation with the Tapas 7 go/start?  " Errmmm.....I need to speak with you all about something........"?
Tbh there's that many discrepancies with everything that I wouldn't know where to start but I can't believe the basic policing on all sides. Simple questions not properly answered or contradict each other. e.g. .well you two.....were the shutters jemmied ot not.....
JohnyT

hogwash wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

hogwash wrote:Eddie and Keela searched Murat's property didn't they, and didn't alert?

Hi Hogwash,The dogs may have searched the property,but the article from Textusa quotes placed in a motor vehicle?

They alerted to the McCann's hire car, so placing a body in a motor vehicle at Murat's property wouldn't have deterred them from finding cadavar scent.

Hi Hogwash,according to the files,Mark Harrison,Search Dogs,PJ files,state that Mr Murat's access to motor vehicles had a forensic investigation,but no"specialist Dogs"had been used to examine these vehicles?
Hi Hobbs,had another look at search of vehicles,dogs were used to detect on a VW Transpoter,Peugeot 205,and a Hyundi Getz,but no alerts detected. i Stand corrected on search of motor vehilces,by sniffer dogs.

JohnyT wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I always assumed that Gerry rushed out in a panic to get the body out of the apartment, so that any injuries / medication etc. could be blamed on someone else.  I don't even think he thought the body wouldn't be found at that point - he just needed to dump it somewhere. Maybe dumped it in a bin even? Later that night when the search was scaled down, they retrieved the body and found a better hiding place, further away, to improve their alibi. Claimed to have been out searching...

I don't know when the blue bag disappeared, but I don't see why the dog alerting to the wardrobe shelf necessarily means the body was in the bag there. The bag could have been put there after the body was removed, maybe to cover something else up.

Possible scenario: Madeleine sedated - wanders out unnoticed and falls off steps into flowerbed - dies - Gerry comes home -  Kate tells him all children asleep - both relax, shower, wine etc. - go to check on kids - finds Madeleine missing - where is she - find body - already starting to produce cadaverine, enough to leave vague scent - body carried into sitting room - resuscitation attempt - realise it's futile - Kate about to get hysterical - Gerry grabs her fiercely, causing bruising - dins it into her that they will lose everything if she doesn't shut up - hatches abduction plan - moves body to wardrobe while everything cleaned up - hides it behind sofa when they go out. Etc. etc. Rest of group drawn into deception as a result of using/supplying same sedatives and/or fear of negligence charges - persuaded to create timelines and alibis. 

So the Smiths just saw Gerry carrying the body away - nothing more to it.

......so how would the initial conversation with the Tapas 7 go/start?  " Errmmm.....I need to speak with you all about something........"?
Tbh there's that many discrepancies with everything that I wouldn't know where to start but I can't believe the basic policing on all sides. Simple questions not properly answered or contradict each other. e.g. .well you two.....were the shutters jemmied ot not.....
JohnyT

Everyone rushes back to apartment - someone finds body - McCanns feign shock - make sure they drum in the implications for everyone else.

David Payne is last non-McCann to see Madeleine (not good). Matthew Oldfield is last person to check on Madeleine (not good). Russell O'Brien  left the table with him at the same time (not good). Jane Tanner panics when she realises that and makes up a story to underline that Madeleine was taken before Russell left the table (not good). All of them left their babies alone (not good). Quite possibly all were sedated in the same way (not good). In the panic of the moment, a child clearly beyond resuscitation and all their careers on the line, why wouldn't they go along with a cover-up?

I think the timelines were deliberately obscured. Pamela Fenn only heard them shouting at around 10.30pm; police only called at 10.40pm; some tapas bar staff put the initial alarm at nearer 9.30pm... it was the McCanns and friends who put the timing of the alarm at 10pm.

I don't think Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine away at the same time everyone else was raising the alarm. I think 10pm was picked later, and quite possibly deliberately because Gerry needed an alibi at that time, having been seen by the Smiths.

-------

A Mod writes:  I am sorry, but are members and guests here expected to take your post seriously? 

According to what you've written:

...David Payne really did see Madeleine alive between 6.30pm and 7.00pm
...Madeleine died after that (you don't say if Sean & Amelie were there when she 'died') 
...the McCanns then covered this up from their friends for the entire evening, leaving a dead body in the flat along with Sean and Amelie
...their friends only discovered this near to 10.00pm
...Gerry McCann then dashed off carrying his daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz (and managed to find a secure hiding place as well)  
...he was seen by the Smiths and therefore they changed the time of the alarm to 10.00pm
...Jane Tanner makes up the description of an abductor which happens to be precisely the same as one given the next day by Nuno Lourenco of Wojchiech Krokowski...???

None of this matches what the facts are. Indeed, it is wholly at variance with them.

Posts are not normally removed for sheer absurdity, but this one comes very close. It certainly wins first prize for the daftest suggestion yet to fit in with the belief that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann - Mod

Get'emGonçalo wrote:OK, fair enough...maybe someone else can describe a scenario then, as asked in my previous post, where Gerry was Smithman on the basis that Maddie did die on Thursday and he was seen walking towards the beach.

I do not have all the answers but I think something like this ......

If MM had died on the evening of 3 rd May, (and the McCanns could somehow be held responsible), 

GM might decide to cover this up (either in haste, he discovers MM on his check and acts on impulse, or he has a couple of hours to come up with the best plan he can) 

(I was interested to note that there is a medical centre in the area where Smithman was seen. Could it be possible that GM ran, in haste, towards the medical centre, as a hopeless last ditch attempt to save MM's life but that it was closed and instead, realising that she could not be saved, left her on the beach?)

But, most likely, imo MM had an accident around 6.30 pm, at the time when KM said she went for a shower leaving 3 small children in the lounge. (I wonder whether the children were sedated by this time, with the twins asleep and MM wandering drowsy around the apartment)

At the outset it may not have been important whether the body was hidden temporarily or permanently, for example 
if MM had a fatal head injury, the McCanns could claim, when she was found, that an abductor was responsible. I don't know how long would be needed to cover up that a child had been given a sedative (but the McCanns as doctors might know this) 

Most likely MM was originally lying behind the sofa, being moved later on to the wardrobe. Someone once suggested that GM intended to move MM when it went dark (at the time when he encountered JW) and so laid her in the flower bed and had to wait until later to go back again.

It's possible that it was GM who was absent from the table from 9.30 pm and not ROB (so that there would still appear to be 3 men at the tapas table) and that MO and JT were look outs (MO went to the apartment just prior to GM's 9.05 pm check, followed shortly after by JT. This sequence was repeated at 9.30 pm MO left the table with ROB (possibly GM) followed shortly after by JT.

Either way GM's plan might have been to hide her, temporarily for now, on the beach, when it was dark and quiet in PdL, the beach is only 6 mins away, and he is a runner, if he sets off at 9.45 pm he could be back, and sitting at the tapas table by 10 pm.

On the walk to the beach he encountered the Smith family. To cover this up, he may have said to JT, describe a similar man, but alter the details, make him look darker skinned, longer hair, darker clothes. JT may have made a mistake, she might have been supposed to say she saw the abductor on her second trip round to her apartment at 9.45 pm (not at the time GM was talking to JW at 9.15 pm)

In the middle of the night he could, in theory, move the body to another spot if he wanted to. When it became clear that MM's body was not going to be found during searches over the next few days (and they could hardly draw attention to it themselves), KM might have been thinking in terms of some kind of funeral service and of laying her to rest properly. By this time they were also thinking of renting a hire car.

As doctors they would naturally know to keep a body cool. I don't know how this could be achieved but can think of the four following possibilities 1) some kind of natural phenomena on the coast 2) in their fridge freezer (unlikely) 3) in situ using plenty of ice) or 4) by arranging for a friend or relative (with a different name) to pay for another apartment and using this freezer (simple enough)

The blue tennis bag was photographed by the PJ on the wardrobe shelves in apartment 5A, but had disappeared later on in the police investigation. this bag (with plenty of ice) could have been used to retrieve the body to take it in the hire car for burial elsewhere.