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

At the time Smith made his statements that he was up to 80% sure that he had seen Gerry, the McCanns had just fled Portugal having been made suspects in their daughter's disappearance. The dogs findings of cadaver odour and blood in the apartment, car etc. were gripping the headlines. I believe that if I were in their predicament I would be very "rattled" about such a development. There they were, desperately trying to convince the world that their daughter was abducted by a stranger/s while they were at dinner in the Tapas Bar. Along comes a man who gives a formal police statement claiming that he saw Gerry elsewhere at the relevant time, carrying away an unresponsive, little, blonde girl. No wonder they hired lawyers who specialized in avoiding extradition and refused to return for a reconstruction.

No wonder they hired lawyers who specialized in avoiding extradition....”


All paid for by those generous donations requested to help in the SEARCH

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:I note poll option 4 is running away with it but I wonder if, had option 1 started with "I believe Maddie died days earlier and the McCanns are rattled.......", the votes cast would be the same ?

Agreed. The fact that option 4 appears to be the ONLY one that allows for an earlier death is the reason I haven't voted. I believe Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd AND that the McCanns are rattled by Martin Smiths claim that he saw Gerry up to no good.

I wrote Option 1 like that for the benefit of those who believe Maddie died on 3rd May and that Gerry is Smithman - the Poll is open to guests and quite a few people on twitter and facebook believe that.

I tried to look at it from all angles but clearly didn't write all the options correctly, soz

Thank you Jill, I am one who strongly believes Gerry is Smithman, and that Maddie met her demise on 3rd May

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:I note poll option 4 is running away with it but I wonder if, had option 1 started with "I believe Maddie died days earlier and the McCanns are rattled.......", the votes cast would be the same ?

Agreed. The fact that option 4 appears to be the ONLY one that allows for an earlier death is the reason I haven't voted. I believe Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd AND that the McCanns are rattled by Martin Smiths claim that he saw Gerry up to no good.

I wrote Option 1 like that for the benefit of those who believe Maddie died on 3rd May and that Gerry is Smithman - the Poll is open to guests and quite a few people on twitter and facebook believe that.

I tried to look at it from all angles but clearly didn't write all the options correctly, soz

Thank you Jill, I am one who strongly believes Gerry is Smithman, and that Maddie met her demise on 3rd May

Yes, I know you are pennylane, I actually thought of you but not the others who believe Maddie died earlier.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:I note poll option 4 is running away with it but I wonder if, had option 1 started with "I believe Maddie died days earlier and the McCanns are rattled.......", the votes cast would be the same ?

Agreed. The fact that option 4 appears to be the ONLY one that allows for an earlier death is the reason I haven't voted. I believe Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd AND that the McCanns are rattled by Martin Smiths claim that he saw Gerry up to no good.

I wrote Option 1 like that for the benefit of those who believe Maddie died on 3rd May and that Gerry is Smithman - the Poll is open to guests and quite a few people on twitter and facebook believe that.

I tried to look at it from all angles but clearly didn't write all the options correctly, soz

Thank you Jill, I am one who strongly believes Gerry is Smithman, and that Maddie met her demise on 3rd May

Yes, I know you are pennylane, I actually thought of you but not the others who believe Maddie died earlier.

Do I sense another Smithman poll on the horizon

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

I would add another option, but unfortunately there's a certain person from twitter who's been sabotaging the Poll anyway and comes here to vote as a guest on various devices, iPhones, and browsers to inform us that 'Gerry is Smithman'.

Just this afternoon, for instance, he's voted 6 times.

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:I note poll option 4 is running away with it but I wonder if, had option 1 started with "I believe Maddie died days earlier and the McCanns are rattled.......", the votes cast would be the same ?

Agreed. The fact that option 4 appears to be the ONLY one that allows for an earlier death is the reason I haven't voted. I believe Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd AND that the McCanns are rattled by Martin Smiths claim that he saw Gerry up to no good.

I wrote Option 1 like that for the benefit of those who believe Maddie died on 3rd May and that Gerry is Smithman - the Poll is open to guests and quite a few people on twitter and facebook believe that.

I tried to look at it from all angles but clearly didn't write all the options correctly, soz

Thank you Jill, I am one who strongly believes Gerry is Smithman, and that Maddie met her demise on 3rd May

Yes, I know you are pennylane, I actually thought of you but not the others who believe Maddie died earlier.

Do I sense another Smithman poll on the horizon

If there is, I'd want everyone to post their option for me! I'm not doing it again on my own....!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would add another option, but unfortunately there's a certain person from twitter who's been sabotaging the Poll anyway and comes here to vote as a guest on various devices, iPhones, and browsers to inform us that 'Gerry is Smithman'.

Just this afternoon, for instance, he's voted 6 times.

Crikey!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
I wrote Option 1 like that for the benefit of those who believe Maddie died on 3rd May and that Gerry is Smithman - the Poll is open to guests and quite a few people on twitter and facebook believe that.

I tried to look at it from all angles but clearly didn't write all the options correctly, soz

Thank you Jill, I am one who strongly believes Gerry is Smithman, and that Maddie met her demise on 3rd May

Yes, I know you are pennylane, I actually thought of you but not the others who believe Maddie died earlier.

Do I sense another Smithman poll on the horizon

If there is, I'd want everyone to post their option for me! I'm not doing it again on my own....!

If you do decide to do another poll: No.1 is perfect for moi, except could add Maddie met demise on 3rd May, and G was carrying her in direction of the beach (as destination is unknown imo)

lemonbutter wrote:I know that many people think it's a crazy idea that Martin Smith made much of the way in which Gerry McCann carried Sean down the plane stepTs and across the tarmac upon arrival back in the UK.

I remember the first time I saw the clip too. My first reaction was "What's wrong with that child?" He seemed to look so lifeless, with his left arm just dangling, and so 'vertical' (silly word I know, just can't think of any other way to describe it).

This is one of the reasons I believe Martin Smith. If the man they passed on 3rd May was carrying a female child in a very similar way, I can understand it resonating with him as an instant flashback.
 

You couldn't ask for a closer reconstruction of GM coming down the road carrying a lifeless/sleeping Maddie, than that of GM coming down the plane steps and walking across the tarmac similarly carrying a lifeless/sleeping Sean.That's one heck of a reconstruction with bells on (imo)

I believe Maddie met her demise on 3rd May, the McCanns are rattled by Smithman, and HAVEN'T promoted him, because it really WAS Gerry carrying Maddie's corpse in the direction of the beach. He DIDN'T intend to be seen;


Is this ok? I can add it.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I believe Maddie met her demise on 3rd May, the McCanns are rattled by Smithman, and HAVEN'T promoted him, because it really WAS Gerry carrying Maddie's corpse in the direction of the beach. He DIDN'T intend to be seen;


Is this ok? I can add it.

Oh thank you Jill, that's very kind of you

That is precisely my belief (and others out there would concur), but would it not at this juncture confuse this particular poll, as many have already voted?  No 1 as it stands is still very good (imo).

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I believe Maddie met her demise on 3rd May, the McCanns are rattled by Smithman, and HAVEN'T promoted him, because it really WAS Gerry carrying Maddie's corpse in the direction of the beach. He DIDN'T intend to be seen;


Is this ok? I can add it.

Oh thank you Jill, that's very kind of you

That is precisely my belief (and others out there would concur), but would it not at this juncture confuse this particular poll, as many have already voted?

Unfortunately, yes it would....

But I can't delete this Poll and create a new one on this thread.

So, what am I to do? Add it, or leave it?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I believe Maddie met her demise on 3rd May, the McCanns are rattled by Smithman, and HAVEN'T promoted him, because it really WAS Gerry carrying Maddie's corpse in the direction of the beach. He DIDN'T intend to be seen;


Is this ok? I can add it.

Oh thank you Jill, that's very kind of you

That is precisely my belief (and others out there would concur), but would it not at this juncture confuse this particular poll, as many have already voted?

Unfortunately, yes it would....

But I can't delete it this Poll and create a new one on this thread.

So, what am I to do? Add it, or leave it?

I personally think it is a very good poll and covers many options fairly.  

You want me to leave it as it is then?

(just checking!)

Get'emGonçalo wrote:You want me to leave it as it is then?

(just checking!)

Yes, I think you've done a good job of it! 

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:You want me to leave it as it is then?

(just checking!)

Yes, I think you've done a good job of it! 

 

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:You want me to leave it as it is then?

(just checking!)

Yes, I think you've done a good job of it! 

 

 Awww I like that little guy! 
Honestly I think you must be seeing stars after covering all those varying options    I appreciate the work that went into it.  Thank you Jill 

As Verdi correctly stated, you could have offered 20 options and still not covered them all such are the convolutions of the case.

You did well and I’d leave it at that for fear of giving yourself a coronary !!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I would add another option, but unfortunately there's a certain person from twitter who's been sabotaging the Poll anyway and comes here to vote as a guest on various devices, iPhones, and browsers to inform us that 'Gerry is Smithman'.

Whoever this interloper is, he/she/they/that/those must be pretty desperate. This is just an innocent forum poll to gauge general opinion - when a rough idea of of opposing opinion is realised, then it's time to concentrate on specific areas in order to iron out the creases.

My advice to the saboteur - leave it until you've got a good case to present against the prevailing opinion. Only next time, to add more credence to your opposition, try being open and not anonymously voting on an open poll.

You know it makes sense.

'As Verdi correctly stated, you could have offered 20 options and still not covered them all such are the convolutions of the case.

You did well and I’d leave it at that for fear of giving yourself a coronary !!'

Completely agree!
I would add again though, to those who feel it is preposterous that Gerry would carry Madeleine in the street , isn't it also preposterous therefore that she was moved in the Scenic?
3 weeks after her 'disappearance', her body would have started to decompose (sorry to be graphic). Hypothetically after dealing with something so traumatic as the death of one's baby, (most normal people would find this traumatic), either Gerry or Kate had to return to the scene of wherever they left her. Then pick her dead body up, put it in the Scenic, and drive around with it to wherever it finally lay, and still is now. They can't have been 100% sure no govt agency was tailing them. Yet they took that risk. To me this is a horrendous and bizarre situation, yet this is what the dogs suggest may have happened. Either way 'A' dead body was moved in that car. And I believe that hypothesis.
All IMO.

The moving of the body in the Scenic has to be the most bizarre twist in this awful saga. I can only assume that they feared the searches might find her. This would have played badly for them on several fronts - Whatever they were afraid of an autopsy uncovering might still be discernible; if it emerged that their negligence had cost Madeleine her life, public opinion would completely lose any sympathy and turn against them them and, of course, there would be no opportunity for them to jump on the missing children bandwagon as they did. The search fund would also be at risk. But why oh why use their own vehicle if they were being given such high level help and assistance? Why didn't those powerful agencies allegedly involved take care of this extremely risky undertaking for them?

One of the members of CMOMM facebook is a geneticist and I know I've posted one of her articles on this forum, although can't find it at the moment, but I saw a comment from her the other day which seems apt to post on this thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] There is no actual evidence that her body was in the car weeks later.
Tiny traces of her blood was found which could have come from previously frozen, bloodied cleaning cloths and clothing that was subsequently transported to the tip and it melted.

'

ngllfi wrote:As Verdi correctly stated, you could have offered 20 options and still not covered them all such are the convolutions of the case.

You did well and I’d leave it at that for fear of giving yourself a coronary !!'

Completely agree!
I would add again though, to those who feel it is preposterous that Gerry would carry Madeleine in the street , isn't it also preposterous therefore that she was moved in the Scenic?
3 weeks after her 'disappearance', her body would have started to decompose (sorry to be graphic). Hypothetically after dealing with something so traumatic as the death of one's baby, (most normal people would find this traumatic), either Gerry or Kate had to return to the scene of wherever they left her. Then pick her dead body up, put it in the Scenic, and drive around with it to wherever it finally lay, and still is now. They can't have been 100% sure no govt agency was tailing them. Yet they took that risk. To me this is a horrendous and bizarre situation, yet this is what the dogs suggest may have happened. Either way 'A' dead body was moved in that car. And I believe that hypothesis.
All IMO.

Realistically, it could have have been any number of persons driving the Renault Scenic - following the 10:00 pm alert on Thursday 3rd May, there was no shortage of helping hands ever present in the form of friends and relations.

Besides, the dog alerts were never corroborated by forensic laboratory analysis so it's only an assumption that it could have been connected with Madeleine's disappearance.  Alas, the PJ were prevented from following where the investigation was leading.

Still, this is straying off topic.

Verdi wrote:'

ngllfi wrote:As Verdi correctly stated, you could have offered 20 options and still not covered them all such are the convolutions of the case.

You did well and I’d leave it at that for fear of giving yourself a coronary !!'

Completely agree!
I would add again though, to those who feel it is preposterous that Gerry would carry Madeleine in the street , isn't it also preposterous therefore that she was moved in the Scenic?
3 weeks after her 'disappearance', her body would have started to decompose (sorry to be graphic). Hypothetically after dealing with something so traumatic as the death of one's baby, (most normal people would find this traumatic), either Gerry or Kate had to return to the scene of wherever they left her. Then pick her dead body up, put it in the Scenic, and drive around with it to wherever it finally lay, and still is now. They can't have been 100% sure no govt agency was tailing them. Yet they took that risk. To me this is a horrendous and bizarre situation, yet this is what the dogs suggest may have happened. Either way 'A' dead body was moved in that car. And I believe that hypothesis.
All IMO.

Realistically, it could have have been any number of persons driving the Renault Scenic - following the 10:00 pm alert on Thursday 3rd May, there was no shortage of helping hands ever present in the form of friends and relations.

Besides, the dog alerts were never corroborated by forensic laboratory analysis so it's only an assumption that it could have been connected with Madeleine's disappearance.  Alas, the PJ were prevented from following where the investigation was leading.

Still, this is straying off topic.

The dog alerts weren't corroborated, making a court case very difficult to assemble. Logical deduction points the finger in one clear direction though . I'd say the presence of cadaver odour on Gerry and Kate's clothes suggests they had a hand in moving her.
Sorry if it's straying off topic, I'm just trying to illustrate that in desperation people are capable of things that under normal circumstances none of us would ever consider. And in this sense it' not impossible that Smithman is genuine, on the mere basis that it's unlikely he'd carry her body through the street in order to dispose of her.

Only three members of the Smith family gave formal statements to the PJ on 26th May 2007. Martin Smith being the main man, I reproduce here part of his witness statement relative to the stranger encountered carrying a child. This needs to be scrutinized carefully in order to identify grey areas and it's also important to not that Martin Smith's scheduled leaving date from Praia da Luz was 9th May - six days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance..

As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season.

He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.

She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.


Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.

Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
----------

So..

It's common to see people carrying children, especially at that time of year - and yet the stranger didn't look like a tourist. The stranger fully clothed carrying a child in pyjamas, in all probability bare foot, at around 10:00 pm at night in the beginning of May?

The lighting was poor and they only passed by in the street - and yet Mr Smith can be so precise about detail, noting specifics but not noticing other detail?

The child was pale skinned, like a Brit - and yet the child's face was obscured and the lighting was poor. Why a Brit, why not Swedish or Icelandic or Australian?

Mr Smith received a phone call the following day about a missing child - and yet he waits so long before giving a formal statement, knowing full well that he and his family saw a stranger walking the streets the night before?

On 26th May after seeing photographs of the missing child and television reports, he is almost certain the child he and his family saw could have been Madeleine - and yet, as has been pointed out so many times before, the resort was swamped by journalists and police within hours of Madeleine's alleged disappearance?

Mr Smith clearly says he wouldn't be able to recognize the stranger again in person or photograph - and yet four months later he can identify someone seen on television, alighting an aircraft in broad daylight within 60/80% certainty?

Go figure!

nglfi wrote:The dog alerts weren't corroborated, making a court case very difficult to assemble. Logical deduction points the finger in one clear direction though . I'd say the presence of cadaver odour on Gerry and Kate's clothes suggests they had a hand in moving her.
Sorry if it's straying off topic, I'm just trying to illustrate that in desperation people are capable of things that under normal circumstances none of us would ever consider. And in this sense it' not impossible that Smithman is genuine, on the mere basis that it's unlikely he'd carry her body through the street in order to dispose of her.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, the dogs never alerted to any item of clothing belonging to Gerry McCann - in all probability because his clothing wasn't available for inspection .

The odour on the Kate McCann's clothing, as with other items one wouldn't expect to have come into direct contact with a cadavar, could have been by contamination or even she was wearing the clothes when Madeleine met with a tragic accident. The latter I think unlikely for the simple reason that Kate McCann was still wearing the harlequin trews after the event - even on return to the UK !!! In panic mode, the first thing anyone would think is to destroy the evidence.

Personally, I don't believe any of this strengthens the argument that it could have been Gerry McCann carrying the body of a child around the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May. A dark night, a three year old child - so many alternative possibilities to consider, the Smith sighting being the most unlikely. Or as I said - preposterous!

The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.


As the child was being carried over Smithman's shoulder, how could Martin Smith see her eyelids to tell that she was asleep? Was he walking behind Smithman?

He said he only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.  So if, as he implies, Smithman was walking towards him why did he turn around to check out the child if there was nothing suspicious about it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Phoebe's answer to Mr Noodles

Makes it sound as though MI5 or MI6 were looking for somebody to make a sighting of Smithman on the spare of the moment and couldn't find anyone better than a Granddad already returned home from holiday to Ireland.

I have no idea if Smith is an MI5/6 asset or not, he probably isn't,  but MI5/6 employ ordinary people so that they blend in without being noticed. That's the whole point of being a spy/asset, that nobody knows who they are.

Also, as far as I'm aware these people don't have any great power, they are left to their own devices and rely on cunning which is part of their training. If caught by another government, they get very little help and can't say who they work for.

On another note, during the mid 2000's around 2005/6 there was a lot of activity in Ireland as there was a push to build new houses and flats. A large number of property speculators who buy "new builds" to sell on later or those who "buy to let" (off plan) i.e purchaseing a property or flat in a new building before the building was complete were attracted.

Large amounts of properties were sold to speculators and when the financial crisis stuck, those properties were not built. I think that domestic buying caused a problem in Ireland and not the likes of Smith buying a holiday home abroad.

Verity wrote:The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.


As the child was being carried over Smithman's shoulder, how could Martin Smith see her eyelids to tell that she was asleep? Was he walking behind Smithman?

He said he only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.  So if, as he implies, Smithman was walking towards him why did he turn around to check out the child if there was nothing suspicious about it?

Think Jane Tanner !  Apart from Smithman's child being vertical and Tannerman's child being horizontal - the description is almost word perfect.  Funny that innit?

Don't anyone dare say Martin Smith wouldn't have been aware of Tanner's sighting.  There were any number of people in and around who could have spread the news - not excluding Robert Murat who aroused suspicion when snooping around the PJ investigation + of course, Murat was used by the PJ as interpreter for witness statements.