POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

by **Jill Havern** 05.02.18 18:03

I thought I would start a new thread for this particular issue rather than post it on the 'Gemma O'Doherty thread' to make it easier for people to comment on this rather than detract from Gemma's article.

For those who believe the 'McCann's have never promoted Smithman', if you go to their Official Find Madeleine website you will see that they have uploaded the two efits drawn up with the help of Martin Smith - the sighting of the potential abductor, aka 'Smithman'.

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

And if you click on the link on that page where the arrow points you will hear a man with an Irish accent (not Martin Smith) speaking a 30-second summary of Martin Smith's statement about his sighting of 'Smithman' (the two e-fits) and which has been up there since 3 May 2009 - nearly nine years.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So how can people say the McCanns have been ignoring Smithman or were rattled about it? Or that we, on CMOMM, have been helping the McCanns by discrediting this sighting?

To repeat what Tony wrote in his post:
Why, when her husband is '60% to 80% sure' that the man the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann, his wife Mary Smith says: "...our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours. 'I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own. The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

This is my understanding of it all, and believe me I'm still not 100% sure I've got this right, so please feel free to comment/correct me/debunk:

First of all, the people who want us to focus on Thursday/Smithman are:

The McCanns
The Met Police
The BBC
The mainstream media

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

Smithman keeps the focus on Thursday as it backs up the abduction, which is what the McCanns want and which is what Operation Grange, the BBC, the Mainstream Media, and the Government want, in order for the cover-up to be accepted by the masses. The masses are being brainwashed, in my opinion, into believing that 'Smithman' is the most important aspect of the investigation as per DCI Redwood's "Revelation moment" which increased the tiny window of opportunity to allow an abduction to happen in accordance with their remit: to investigate the abduction as though it happened in the UK. They've already dismissed the dogs. Even Gemma didn't mention the dogs.

There is NO evidence to support the McCann's fairystory of an abduction on Thursday, but that's the day they want us to focus on. So they have to keep us looking for an abductor. Without Smithman, the McCanns have nothing.

They also want us to focus on neglect as the lesser crime, because the McCanns will never be charged for that now.

Despite evidence of an earlier death, the Establishment will not look there.

Most people on CMOMM believe that Madeleine died days before Thursday 3rd, and that's where our research is focusing, and Madeleine was most likely already hidden in a freezer somewhere waiting to be transported in the hire car. Therefore, in our view, Smithman must be a red herring to divert us away from that.

For us to be focusing on an earlier date does not help the McCanns in any way and an earlier date, if proven, is surely where any charges could be brought?

Over the years we have submitted many letters to the Police and the Establishment with our theory of an earlier death, yet still they continue with 'Smithman' (any old patsy) and ignore the dogs. Even Colin Sutton, who appeared on the scene for the 10th anniversary giving us hope, ignored the dogs when he said "The most likely scenario is that Madeleine was stolen to order by slave traders and smuggled into Africa for a rich family who wanted a white child."

Grange are looking for a suitable 'patsy to pin the tale' on...

Nuno Lourenco based 'Sagresman’ on Krokowski – of that there is no doubt. Nuno Lourenco’s story is a clear fabrication - why, even Textusa and Tony Bennett agree on that one (so it must be right!). As Jane Tanner used a near-identical description of Tannerman, it is reasonable to assume she also used a description of Krokowski. But then 'Tannerman' was supposedly found to be 'Creche Dad', as claimed by DCI Redwood on the BBC Crimewatch Show.

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

To quote Tony: "My allegation is that those who planned the abduction hoax after Sunday night rehearsed Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco with a set description (based as we now know on Krokowski) which included 'dark jacket' and 'light trousers'. In the photo of Krokowski above, he is seen wearing dark trousers and a light-coloured jacket. Probably he took more than one outfit with him on holiday.

At some stage before 26 May 2007, the Smiths almost certainly had access to that description - and all three of the Smiths must more or less have copied it, because their description is a near-identical match to those of Tannerman and Sagres Man.

In other words, there was a ready-made Krokowski template...

...this game was so successful that it fooled Gonçalo Amaral. On the day he was removed from his post, 2 October 2007, he was still thinking that Tannerman, Sagres Man and Smithman were probably all the same man.

He was right in one sense – they were all Wojchiech Krokowski!

But every single one (including Redwood’s ‘Creche Dad’) was ‘Fake News’."

(And so also says Richard D Hall).

And former US Prosecutor, Wendy (‘I’m-not-buying-it’) Murphy.

Dan Hodges, The Telegraph: "Two e-fits have been produced this morning. According to police they are of the same man. But in fact, they are of two men. Their hair is different. Their eyebrows are different. Their noses are different. Their ears are different. Their lips are different. Their cheekbones are different.
But we’re all part of the circus now. So we say nothing."
------------

Reference:

From Kate McCann's book 'madeleine':

KEY SIGHTINGS

Four years on, as we strive to piece together the puzzle of what happened to Madeleine, many questions remain unanswered and several people who may be able to help us have yet to be identified.

The following sightings are still of great interest to us. Explaining them is very important to our continuing investigation, if only to eliminate the individuals concerned from our inquiry.

Artists’ impressions and sketches based on the descriptions given by witnesses can be found at the end of the Picture Section.

SIGHTINGS ONE AND TWO

Witness One: Jane Tanner
Witness Two: Holidaymaker from Ireland

These two crucial sightings of a man carrying a child in the street, made around the time of Madeleine’s abduction on the night of 3 May 2007, have been discussed in detail in this book. The description of the man seen by Jane Tanner was eventually made public three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance and an artist’s impression commissioned by our own investigative team was released in October 2007. Yet to this day no man has come forward to identify himself as the father, relative or family friend of the child in either case.

Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five-minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves.

Artist’s impressions of the man seen by Jane Tanner are reproduced at the end of the Picture Section.
Witness One sighting Witness Two sighting
Date and time of sighting 3 May 2007; 9.15pm approximately 3 May 2007; 10pm approximately
Location Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, Praia da Luz Rua da Escola Primária, Praia da Luz
Age of man 35–40 34–35
Height of man About 5ft 10ins/1.78m (recorded incorrectly in statement as 1.7m)
1.75–1.8m (5ft 9ins–5ft 10ins)
Hair Thick, dark, slightly longer at back of neck Short, brown
Clothing Beige or gold trousers wide and straight, chino style; dark jacket Cream or beige trousers; classic cut
Other Carrying child across arms at front of chest; child's head to the left of man's chest Carrying child over arms with child's head towards left shoulder
Walking hurriedly Did not carry child in a comfortable way
Not felt to be a tourist because of the clothing worn Not felt to be a tourist because of the clothing worn
Age of child Young child, not a baby; assumed to be female because of clothing
Approximately four years; female;
medium-blonde hair; pale skin, typically British
Clothing of child Pale pink and/or white pyjamas with floral pattern Light-coloured pyjamas
Other Barefoot
No blanket or covering Witness unsure (family members say child was barefoot)
No blanket or covering

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

------------------

Pages from Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' where she discusses Smithman:

Pages 370-373 are the line-by-line comparison of Tannerman with Smithman. Kate says the "similarities speak for themselves".

The other references to Smithman are on pages 98-99, 328-9 and 364-5.

How anyone can still say 'The McCanns avoided all mention of the Smith sighting' is beyond me.

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

by Copodenieve 05.02.18 19:06

Thanks for reminding us of all these important points Jill
My theory: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns. Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn. Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together, hence the meeting between Brian Kennedy and Martin Smith. At this meeting they then came to an agreement to work together and the sighting was then used to the advantage of the McCanns. I say “to the advantage of the McCanns” because they maintain that Gerry was at the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it should be obvious to all that it was the “phantom abductor” who the Smith’s saw.
I imagine that most people are more willing to believe this was an authentic sighting for two reasons 1. Gonzalo Amaral thought the Smith family were credible and he wanted to investigate further. However, one must remember that he never got the opportunity to do so. 2. Most people want to believe the sighting was real and the man seen was actually Gerry McCann.

by Phoebe 05.02.18 19:43

In answer to GEG's question -
"Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?"
the answer is no. How could they? That particular cat was well and truly out of the bag, as was the fact that Martin Smith had pointed the finger at Gerry. What to do? Unable to put the cat back into the bag without it looking like a guilty admission of fear which would damn them further, they embraced Smithman, actively promoting the "similarities" with Jane's sighting. Kate McCann went on to suggest that it could well be the SAME man, albeit walking in a different direction forty-five minutes later! They have done their utmost to link the two sightings. After all,(they probably reasoned) Gerry has seven cast-iron alibis who will swear blind that he was at the Tapas Bar table when the Smiths encountered their man! The Met. obviously accept that. No need to act suspiciously or play it down. Instead let's all push the idea that it was Tannerman as much as we can!
Incidentally, I don't feel the Smith sighting in any contradicts the theory an earlier death.

by **HiDeHo** 05.02.18 20:11

In the translations for videos I have often seen Goncalo Amaral claim that the Tapas staff do NOT place Gerry at the restaurant around 10pm.

Here is one example..

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

If he was missing, it doesn't mean he was roaming the streets.

Lot's of things needed to be n place in anticipation of the big moment...

For the record... I have never believed Gerry was walking around the streets of PdL with his dead daughter, not wrapped in a blanket after enough blood to be present on the tile in the apartment, but I don't doubt the Smiths saw SOMEONE. No idea who...

by Phoebe 05.02.18 21:03

@ HiDeHo "In the translations for videos I have often seen Goncalo Amaral claim that the Tapas staff do NOT place Gerry at the restaurant around 10pm"

Agreed. However, his fine pillar-of-the-community, Tapas buddies will continue to swear blind that he was there. I smile sadly to myself when optimists sometimes predict that some of the tapas 7 will crack and confess. They won't unless they fancy charges being brought against them too - at best charges of withholding information and seeking to pervert the course of justice, or worse still, being found guilty under joint enterprise. To avoid this the Tapas 7 will continue to protect the McCanns and by extension themselves.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.02.18 21:21

Copodenieve wrote:Thanks for reminding us of all these important points Jill

My theory: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns. Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn. Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together, hence the meeting between Brian Kennedy and Martin Smith. At this meeting they then came to an agreement to work together and the sighting was then used to the advantage of the McCanns. I say “to the advantage of the McCanns” because they maintain that Gerry was at the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it should be obvious to all that it was the “phantom abductor” who the Smith’s saw.
I imagine that most people are more willing to believe this was an authentic sighting for two reasons 1. Gonzalo Amaral thought the Smith family were credible and he wanted to investigate further. However, one must remember that he never got the opportunity to do so. 2. Most people want to believe the sighting was real and the man seen was actually Gerry McCann.

Undoubtedly this theory of Copodenieve's deserves a lot more attention - and arguably has a sufficient basis for the subject to have its own thread.

I would amend the theory in one important respect and at the same time throw in a few observations.

These are some of the issues that have a bearing on what I might term the 'two camps' theory.

Murat's rush over to Praia da Luz on the first available flight on Tuesday 1 May

The obvious lies told by Murat about his movements on 1, 2 and 3 May, brilliantly explored in Richard Hall's film: 'Why the Cover-Up', where he displays a map showing Murat's actual movements on those two days compared with what he told the PJ when first questioned on 15 May 2007

Murat being recommended as a translator by the British Embassy, which knew him well (see Paulo Reis article)

Murat put in place to do most of the translations of the all-important evidence of the nannies

Murat's outrageous behavior as the PJ translator, so bad that Inspector Varanda reported him to Goncalo Amaral and shortly afterwards he was relieved of his interpreting duties

The apparent eagerness of the MI5 & CEOP 'criminal profilers' who seemed terribly eager to prove that Murat was '90% the likely abductor' (see Amaral's book)

Jane Tanner identifying Murat as the 'abductor' on Sunday 13 May

The way that Martin Smith suddenly 'remembered' his sighting the very day after Murat, whom he had 'met several times', had been made a suspect

The strange conversations between Murat and Martin Brunt in which Brunt offered him the services of SKY News' lawyers

The way three members of the Tapas 7 (Fiona P, Russell O'B and Rachael O), in the 48 hours after Murat was declared a suspect, all rushed to the PJ to say 'we saw Murat outside the McCanns' apartment on the evening of 3 May'

26 May - Smiths make statements to the PJ in Portugal, using the same descriptions of the 'abductor' as Tannerman and Sagresman

August - Pamela Fenn statement - Murat rings the PJ about it

September - McCanns made arguidos

Martin Smith's bizarre statement 'I'm at least 60% sure I saw Gerry McCann on 3 May' based on nothing more than 'the way he was carrying Sean', and the fact that he delayed making it by 11 days

THEN WE HAVE

The historic McCann camp vs Murat camp 'summit' at the Eveleigh's villa on 13 November 2007, when the Murat extended family and their lawyer (Pagarete) met Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' lawyer (Smethurst). Undoubtedly this was a 'deal-making' summit where the two sides 'locked horns' but sorted things out

When news of this meeting leaked out, Kennedy lamely said that he had flown to Portugal to 'offer Murat a job', a claim faithfully circulated by the British media

Immediately after that meeting came the Rothley Court Manor summit (17/18 November 2007)

Just weeks after that came a thawing of relations...members of the Tapas 7 emerge in the press to say they may have mixed up Robert Murat with Angus Symington

More thawing of relations...Jane Tanner now not so sure it was Murat she saw - tells News of the World that the man she saw looked like 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man'

December - Martin Smith talks to Brian Kennedy and agrees to help him and the McCanns

Kate McCann not so sure now that Murat was the abductor

Murat gets £600,000 payout

Murat urges the world to 'look for the abductor'

Michaela Walczuk gets £100,000 payout

Sergey Malinka gets £100,000 payout

Martin Smith and family do two efits of different men for Henri Exton, ex-Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5

McCanns get £550,000 payout

Investigation archived; Murat & the McCanns de-arguidoed

PJ files released on DVD.

These are only notes. Much more could be written about the apparent early hostility between the McCann and Murat 'camps' - and of how 'peace broke out' after the November 13 'Salsalitas Summit' at the Eveleighs' villa in Burgau

by **Jill Havern** 05.02.18 21:33

Thank you for your comments ladies, and Tony.

For further reference I'll add these threads and also Richard's 'Phantoms' and the 'Crimewatch' videos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Guest 06.02.18 0:28

Copodenieve wrote: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns. Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn. Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together,

Or they could all have been working together but throwing out false leads to confuse the investigation.

The Tapas group (excluding the McCanns, who were very careful not to make any direct accusations) fingered Murat in the very early hours/days with the help of witnesses such as Charlotte Pennington (amongst others), who claims to have seen Murat in the vicinity of apartment 5a on the night of 3rd May 2007, post abduction alert. Sometime later they back tracked.

Three weeks later, it dawns on the Smith family that the man they allegedly saw carrying a child on the streets of Praia da Luz, might just be connected with the disappearance of a little three year old child they heard about on Friday 4th May. In the process of assisting the police with their investigations, Martin Smith was anxious to exonerate Robert Murat as the stranger seen on the streets that fateful night - why Robert Murat of all people?

Robert Murat is made arguido prior to the Smith family's revelation moment.

Four months later, Martin Smith allegedly sees news coverage of the McCanns alighting from an aircraft on their escape from Portugal in September 2007. Again Martin Smith has a revelation moment, this one supported by his wife who seemed reluctant to give another (?) statement, when he recognizes Gerry McCann as the man he saw in the dark streets of Praia da Luz four months earlier - because of the way he was carrying a child !?!

Since September 2007, there has been a fusion of stories relating to the Smith and Tanner sightings involving any number of ancillary persons to add to the confusion. Meanwhile, on the surface, Martin Smith has remained silent representing an outstanding citizen caught up in a horrendous web of lies and deceit. Named and/or implicated - Martin Smith has never, to my knowledge, publicly cleared his name. He contacted Richard D Hall via the Rich Planet website to correct the allegation that he knew Robert Murat - why didn't he demand a public apology for the allegations made on Crimewatch 2013 and the BBC documentary productions? Because he is a fine upstanding Irish citizen or because he knows more than he's prepared to admit.

The Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special was 100% fabrication from beginning to end. It implied Martin Smith was instrumental in drawing up the efits presented by ex-DCI Andy Redwood - if not an integral part of this deception, why did Martin Smith let it ride without challenge?

by MayMuse 06.02.18 2:30

And in all of this how big a part did Martin Brunt play?
Did he already know the Murats? That sure was a weird telephone call they had?
Does he plan to doorstep Mr Smith and gain an exclusive for Sky?
Was he the mediator for Madeleine's hairbrush to gift it back to the grateful McCanns, such a missed opportunity to air news of an emotional reunion?

A bit OT but so many key players muddying the waters in a poorly scripted production ....it's that confusion is good thing again!

My heart bleeds for Madeleine and for her siblings!

by Rogue-a-Tory 06.02.18 9:53

Copodenieve wrote:Thanks for reminding us of all these important points Jill
My theory: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns. Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn. Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together, hence the meeting between Brian Kennedy and Martin Smith. At this meeting they then came to an agreement to work together and the sighting was then used to the advantage of the McCanns. I say “to the advantage of the McCanns” because they maintain that Gerry was at the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it should be obvious to all that it was the “phantom abductor” who the Smith’s saw.
I imagine that most people are more willing to believe this was an authentic sighting for two reasons 1. Gonzalo Amaral thought the Smith family were credible and he wanted to investigate further. However, one must remember that he never got the opportunity to do so. 2. Most people want to believe the sighting was real and the man seen was actually Gerry McCann.

I concur with this theory but think it should be expanded a little. My theory is this.

Murat had been framed by Tanner together with the British Police profilers, CEOP and MI5. He’d agreed to be a patsy to deflect the heat away from the Mcs after the Krokowski lead had been unwound but Murat was in the deep stuff. Was MI5 about to cut him free, let him take the rap because he was expendable? Possibly, so he needed an alibi.

I believe Smith knew Murat and agreed to help. Smith created that important diversion away from Murat. Murat blames the Mcs for getting him in right in the doggy doo and wants payback, in more ways than one. When the Mcs return to England, Smith is encouraged to stiffen up his evidence by making the Easyjet Steps pronouncement. The Mcs were fleeing their arguido status in Portgugal and with the Smith evidence they’re firmly in the picture. Fortunately Gordon Brown steps in a few weeks later, Amaral never gets the chance to disprove the Smith’s evidenece and expose them.

But the Smithman efits are really interesting. I believe they’re fake. But why make them look so much like Gerry? A good friend of mine knew little of the case in 2013. He saw the efits on Crimewatch and blurted to me, ‘It’s Gerry McCann’. Well confusion is good, isn’t it? By 2013 and the Mcs had their watertight alibi, or so they thought. Anyone in MSM that blurted out the same as my friend would be sued. There’d be more money for the Fund and there was no chance of a case from Grange coming along nor the PJ opening its case. Job done, now Martin Smith needs to keep his head down, until someone in TM clicks their fingers. Presumably that’s now happened.

by Phoebe 06.02.18 10:32

"Martin Smith needs to keep his head down, until someone in TM clicks their fingers. Presumably that’s now happened"

Whyever would now be an opportune time for the McCanns to decide that Martin Smith should again state on the public record, in an English language publication from across the pond , that he remains up to 80% certain that he saw Gerry McCann carrying an unresponsive blonde girl on the night of the "abduction"?

Op Grange is expected finish its "Last throw of the dice" investigation in a matter of weeks. All avenues including bungling burglars, paedophile kidnappers and purple women etc.etc. have come to naught. The public will shortly launch a hue and cry over wasted millions unless this investigation produces something! Grange has been publicly criticized by Sutton and others for never re-questioning the parents and Tapas 7. The Portuguese S.C. has gone on the record to publicly state that the McCanns were never cleared of involvement.
I cannot imagine a worse time for the McCanns to have Smith's confirmation and the fact that he had previously objected to being misrepresented by media and BBC coming to public attention.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.02.18 11:09

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Copodenieve wrote:Thanks for reminding us of all these important points Jill

My theory: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns. Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn. Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together, hence the meeting between Brian Kennedy and Martin Smith. At this meeting they then came to an agreement to work together and the sighting was then used to the advantage of the McCanns. I say “to the advantage of the McCanns” because they maintain that Gerry was at the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it should be obvious to all that it was the “phantom abductor” who the Smith’s saw.
I imagine that most people are more willing to believe this was an authentic sighting for two reasons 1. Gonzalo Amaral thought the Smith family were credible and he wanted to investigate further. However, one must remember that he never got the opportunity to do so. 2. Most people want to believe the sighting was real and the man seen was actually Gerry McCann.

I concur with this theory but think it should be expanded a little. My theory is this.

Murat had been framed by Tanner together with the British Police profilers, CEOP and MI5. He’d agreed to be a patsy to deflect the heat away from the Mcs after the Krokowski lead had been unwound but Murat was in the deep stuff. Was MI5 about to cut him free, let him take the rap because he was expendable? Possibly, so he needed an alibi.

I believe Smith knew Murat and agreed to help. Smith created that important diversion away from Murat. Murat blames the Mcs for getting him in right in the doggy doo and wants payback, in more ways than one. When the Mcs return to England, Smith is encouraged to stiffen up his evidence by making the Easyjet Steps pronouncement. The Mcs were fleeing their arguido status in Portgugal and with the Smith evidence they’re firmly in the picture. Fortunately Gordon Brown steps in a few weeks later, Amaral never gets the chance to disprove the Smith’s evidenece and expose them.

But the Smithman efits are really interesting. I believe they’re fake. But why make them look so much like Gerry? A good friend of mine knew little of the case in 2013. He saw the efits on Crimewatch and blurted to me, ‘It’s Gerry McCann’. Well confusion is good, isn’t it? By 2013 and the Mcs had their watertight alibi, or so they thought. Anyone in MSM that blurted out the same as my friend would be sued. There’d be more money for the Fund and there was no chance of a case from Grange coming along nor the PJ opening its case. Job done, now Martin Smith needs to keep his head down, until someone in TM clicks their fingers. Presumably that’s now happened.

@ Rogue-a-Tory A very good and most welcome post, thank you.

The dark goings-on behind the scenes in this case are hidden from us, but if we use our eyes and read what is available, we get some significant clues.

Copodenieve has opened up the subject, which was good, and I agree more or less with all your observations above.

I would just like to respond on the subject of the efits.

We know they are a nonsense because who would produce two efits of quite different-looking men?

We know they are a nonsense because there is no way on earth that anyone, one year later, could possibly produce an efit of a man they saw for about 2-3 seconds in the dark, his face partly obscured according to some of the Smith family witnesses, all of whom said: "We would never be able to recognise him if we saw him again".

I don't personally think that either of the efits closely resembles Gerry McCann.

How interesting it was that Gemma O'Doherty only chose ONE of the two efits for her article, thus withholding from her readers that there was another one with a quite different-looking face.

Not only that, but the cunning O'Doherty also displayed on the same page a photo of Gerry McCann that did bear a reasonable closeness to one of the efits.

It is my case that the two efits were NOT produced by the Smiths talking to Henri Exton but that Exton simply derived them from two photographs of real people, quite probably nothing to do with the case.

I really don't think there was any intention to produce an efit similar to Gerry McCann. Either image could fit tens of thousands of white British men.

I have circumstantial evidence as to who one of those two images might be. It is unfortunately too tentative at this stage to put forward openly on the forum. A couple of us are researching the gentleman in question who works in the field of health and I.T.

by ChippyM 06.02.18 12:12

I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him.

Also I showed yesterday from the Smith's statements, they were prompted in the interviews, such as describing things in percentages or 'not like a tourist' or 'typical Brit'. This would explain why some wording or phrases may sound re-hearsed or suspicious to some.

All that's left after that is a timeline of Martin Smith's reports and his memory being jogged. Basically it's speculating based on the timing of his reports and not believing people's memory can be jogged by seeing something after an event. That's all there is.

I also agree with Phoebe when she says Smithman was not 'promoted' but mentioned and played down.
It's a recurring M.O. of team McCann, control the narrative with propaganda, emphasise some things but not others as it suits. They didn't need to hide it literally, just bend it to their preferred narrative.

I must ask, if some people believe Martin Smith and family fabricated their sighting, does that mean they didn't see a man at all? If that's the case four members of the same family including a 12 year old are lying to police and actually made the whole even up?

It's a risky strategy, a 12 year old keeping to the story and having no compunction about making a thing like that up? Why not just get the adults to claim a false sighting if that's what you were aiming for?

by Phoebe 06.02.18 12:19

@Tony Bennett - "I don't personally think that either of the efits closely resembles Gerry McCann.

"Not only that, but the cunning O'Doherty also displayed on the same page a photo of Gerry McCann that did bear a reasonable closeness to one of the efits"

Surely this is a contradiction? And, by describing Gemma O'D. as "cunning" can you clarify, please, if you believe that she has become part of "Team McCann and is working to promote their interests?

"I really don't think there was any intention to produce an efit similar to Gerry McCann. Either image could fit tens of thousands of white British men"

Tony, everyone I have ever asked to look at the e-fits and then Gerry's pictures has commented on the strong resemblance and the internet is positively awash with people who feel the resemblance is very strong . I accept that you don't see it like that but the fact is, that if it this was a ploy to have the e-fit not look very like Gerry, then it has failed spectacularly!

by Guest 06.02.18 12:23

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Murat had been framed by Tanner together with the British Police profilers, CEOP and MI5. He’d agreed to be a patsy to deflect the heat away from the Mcs after the Krokowski lead had been unwound but Murat was in the deep stuff. Was MI5 about to cut him free, let him take the rap because he was expendable? Possibly, so he needed an alibi.

That sounds like a scene from a Philip Marlowe 'ace private dick' movie - think Humphrey Bogart big grin

.

by ChippyM 06.02.18 12:35

@ Rogue-a-Tory "Murat had been framed by Tanner together with the British Police profilers, CEOP and MI5. He’d agreed to be a patsy to deflect the heat away from the Mcs after the Krokowski lead had been unwound but Murat was in the deep stuff. Was MI5 about to cut him free, let him take the rap because he was expendable? Possibly, so he needed an alibi.

I believe Smith knew Murat and agreed to help. Smith created that important diversion away from Murat. Murat blames the Mcs for getting him in right in the doggy doo and wants payback, in more ways than one. When the Mcs return to England, Smith is encouraged to stiffen up his evidence by making the Easyjet Steps pronouncement. The Mcs were fleeing their arguido status in Portgugal and with the Smith evidence they’re firmly in the picture. Fortunately Gordon Brown steps in a few weeks later, Amaral never gets the chance to disprove the Smith’s evidenece and expose them."

Still I ask, why would Smith do this exactly? How good a friend would you have to be to go up against the UK Police, PJ police, UK government and secret services to fabricate evidence - even to the point of forcing the rest of your family including your 12 year old daughter to do it too?

To link Martin Smith and Murat - we have what? He said he knew him and had seen him in the town. Sorry but that isn't evidence that he would get his whole family to lie for him.

by Phoebe 06.02.18 12:38

@ ChippyM. Exactly! If the Smiths, a random family from Ireland, were somehow prevailed upon by shadowy U.K. forces to come forward with a false sighting and perjure themselves why on earth would they agree? Why would they not have just had Mr. and Mrs. Smith see this man (in the bizarre event that they were somehow coerced into it) Why involve children in such a humongous crime? Also, if the "plan" was to say they saw Gerry but later claim to have been mistaken surely this would have been easier to achieve with just one or two witnesses? It makes absolutely NO sense to suggest that an Irish family of nine, including children and a teenager should be the ones approached by British under-cover forces in order to provide such false testimony. Were the "shadowy forces" who were allegedly behind this "sighting" so stuck that they could not find anyone else in Luz to do this dirty work for them? Are we to seriously believe they really hand-picked a random Irish grandfather and eight others of his family to serve their dastardly purposes?

by ChippyM 06.02.18 12:45

Phoebe wrote:@ ChippyM. Exactly! If the Smiths, a random family from Ireland, were somehow prevailed upon by shadowy U.K. forces to come forward with a false sighting and perjure themselves why on earth would they agree? Why would they not have just had Mr. and Mrs. Smith see this man (in the bizarre event that they were somehow coerced into it) Why involve children in such a humongous crime? Also, if the "plan" was to say they saw Gerry but later claim to have been mistaken surely this would have been easier to achieve with just one or two witnesses? It makes absolutely NO sense to suggest that an Irish family of nine, including children and a teenager should be the ones approached by British under-cover forces in order to provide such false testimony. Were the "shadowy forces" who were allegedly behind this "sighting" so stuck that they could not find anyone else in Luz to do this dirty work for them? Are we to seriously believe they really hand-picked a random Irish grandfather and eight others of his family to serve their dastardly purposes?

yes, that is where it falls down for me.

I think Rogue-a-Tory was suggesting Murat himself actually called in a favour from Martin Smith...but still the question stands as to why he would agree to include and co-erce his family of 9 including a 12 year old girl? Doesn't make any sense.

by Guest 06.02.18 12:51

.

Phoebe wrote:...everyone I have ever asked to look at the e-fits and then Gerry's pictures has commented on the strong resemblance and the internet is positively awash with people who feel the resemblance is very strong . I accept that you don't see it like that but the fact is, that if it this was a ploy to have the e-fit not look very like Gerry, then it has failed spectacularly!

These two images issued by ex-DCI Andy Redwood, are said to be one and the same person..

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

When the internet rumour that the image bore a close resemblance to Gerry McCann first kicked off, whoever started it selected a mug-shot of McCann that could vaguely be said to resemble the efit - that was cunning!

Whatever Gerry McCann was doing at around 10:00 pm on the night of Thursday 3rd May, he was most certainly not roaming around the streets of Praia da Luz with the corpse of his own child, or indeed decoy. Based on available information and informed commentary, the consensus of opinion, indeed the basis of so much research and analysis undertaken by CMoMM, is that Madeleine McCann met with her fate at the beginning of the holiday. To believe that the Smith family saw what they thought to be Gerry McCann on the night of 3rd May, then you must also believe that Madeleine met with her fate sometime late afternoon/evening on the Thursday.

To quote Clarence Mitchell - ludicrous

by Phoebe 06.02.18 13:03

@ Verdi. As I have said in a previous post, the issue of whether the Smiths are lying about seeing a man carrying a girl that night and the issue of whether anyone believes it was indeed Gerry McCann are two entirely different matters. Conflating the two makes the discussion of each separate matter less efficient. IMO.

by **Jill Havern** 06.02.18 13:16

ChippyM wrote:I must ask, if some people believe Martin Smith and family fabricated their sighting, does that mean they didn't see a man at all? If that's the case four members of the same family including a 12 year old are lying to police and actually made the whole even up?

It's a risky strategy, a 12 year old keeping to the story and having no compunction about making a thing like that up? Why not just get the adults to claim a false sighting if that's what you were aiming for?

I have to say, this is the bit I'm stuck on too.

But, as Lizzy says, she has no doubt the Smiths saw someone, just not sure who.

I'm in the process of going back to the beginning by re-watching Richard's 'Phantoms' film then will attack Tony's 'Smithman' threads again.

I may be gone some time...

by Guest 06.02.18 13:17

ChippyM wrote:I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him

.

Praia da Luz is a small coastal resort with a notional population of 3,000-4,000, largely comprising expats from various parts of Europe. From my experience, expats form communities where everybody knows everybody - and knows their business. You can't hide from them, they spend their idle days and nights at cafés and bars, they're gossipy and mischievous - I could even say jealous and vindictive. Far more likely that Murat and Smith were acquainted than not, believe me, you can't avoid it. Same nationality expats and frequent visitors, crave company that speak their own tongue - not for them those funny foreign languages!

They've only got to hear someone speaking Ingleesh (for example) and they pounce, before you know it you're at some bar exchanging life history - that's if you're not very very careful smilie

.

by Phoebe 06.02.18 13:24

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

For those who claim that the e-fits could not possibly be of the same man see the above link (hope it works) which certainly convinced me to the contrary.

by **Jill Havern** 06.02.18 13:26

I can't get that link to open Phoebe.

Can you copy/paste please?

by ChippyM 06.02.18 13:32

Verdi wrote:
ChippyM wrote:I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him
.

Praia da Luz is a small coastal resort with a notional population of 3,000-4,000, largely comprising expats from various parts of Europe. From my experience, expats form communities where everybody knows everybody - and knows their business. You can't hide from them, they spend their idle days and nights at cafés and bars, they're gossipy and mischievous - I could even say jealous and vindictive. Far more likely that Murat and Smith were acquainted than not, believe me, you can't avoid it. Same nationality expats and frequent visitors, crave company that speak their own tongue - not for them those funny foreign languages!

They've only got to hear someone speaking Ingleesh (for example) and they pounce, before you know it you're at some bar exchanging life history - that's if you're not very very careful .

Which is speculation not evidence isn't it? Again, friends enough to get his whole family to commit perjury? It's just not logical.

re. Gerry certainly not carrying a child dead/ alive around the town. That's not a certainty is it? We can't know for sure. As per Goncalo Amaral's theory a body may have been kept some-where and then moved. This doesn't mean she died on that night.

Maybe something went wrong in the plan and a child had to be moved quickly for some reason. We would be talking about a situation where everything was at stake if that body ( or live child) wasn't moved in a hurry.

That's speculation obviously but I'm not going to present it as factual unlike the theory that the Smith Family are all lying which IMO has very little to back it up.

by Phoebe 06.02.18 13:35

Sorry GEG. My computer skills are woeful. It can also be got by going into google and typing in Suspect Number One E-fits public reaction by Genreith (I think) on the Just Five Hours In May site. mayb someone with better skills could get the images up to see what people think of them?

by **Jill Havern** 06.02.18 13:43

Phoebe wrote:Sorry GEG. My computer skills are woeful. It can also be got by going into google and typing in Suspect Number One E-fits public reaction by Genreith (I think) on the Just Five Hours In May site. mayb someone with better skills could get the images up to see what people think of them?

Thank you.

Here we go: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Jill Havern** 06.02.18 13:49

ChippyM wrote:re. Gerry certainly not carrying a child dead/ alive around the town. That's not a certainty is it? We can't know for sure. As per Goncalo Amaral's theory a body may have been kept some-where and then moved. This doesn't mean she died on that night.

Maybe something went wrong in the plan and a child had to be moved quickly for some reason. We would be talking about a situation where everything was at stake if that body ( or live child) wasn't moved in a hurry.

That's speculation obviously but I'm not going to present it as factual unlike the theory that the Smith Family are all lying which IMO has very little to back it up.

I was listening to a crime programme the other day and happened to catch part of a conversation where the Priest said "Rigor mortis sets in around 3-4 hours after death but it can be delayed by placing the body in cold water, like a bath". I didn't know that, but obviously the McCanns would.

by Rogue-a-Tory 06.02.18 14:02

ChippyM wrote:I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him.

Also I showed yesterday from the Smith's statements, they were prompted in the interviews, such as describing things in percentages or 'not like a tourist' or 'typical Brit'. This would explain why some wording or phrases may sound re-hearsed or suspicious to some.

All that's left after that is a timeline of Martin Smith's reports and his memory being jogged. Basically it's speculating based on the timing of his reports and not believing people's memory can be jogged by seeing something after an event. That's all there is.

I also agree with Phoebe when she says Smithman was not 'promoted' but mentioned and played down.
It's a recurring M.O. of team McCann, control the narrative with propaganda, emphasise some things but not others as it suits. They didn't need to hide it literally, just bend it to their preferred narrative.

I must ask, if some people believe Martin Smith and family fabricated their sighting, does that mean they didn't see a man at all? If that's the case four members of the same family including a 12 year old are lying to police and actually made the whole even up?

It's a risky strategy, a 12 year old keeping to the story and having no compunction about making a thing like that up? Why not just get the adults to claim a false sighting if that's what you were aiming for?

"Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him." Truth of the Lie

by nglfi 06.02.18 14:07

I stated on another thread, if Gerry was so assured of protection already, before the crime was even reported, then he may well have transported Madeleine in this way. What does it matter if anyone sees you, if you already know the British govt are going to ensure you remain protected? The tapas 7 were also going to adamantly proclaim that he was with them at the restaurant, so it's one person's word against another.
Again, it doesn't preclude Madeleine dying earlier in the week. In the dark, he may have thought it was worth the risk transporting her in this way.

An example of someone else taking exactly the same risk, well more of a risk in fact:

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

POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Smithman: Real or fake? Where are we all currently at?

POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

Latest topics