SMITHMAN 12: Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent

By Angela McCormick
Wednesday June 06 2007

A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz.

They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police.

The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.

The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent.

Portuguese police are convinced that the child, who vanished during a family holiday in the Algarve on May 3, was abducted.

A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments.

'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise,' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor.
----------

The report was published early June 2007.  As the visit to Portugal  was said to have been in secret, according to Gonçalo Amaral and as it was reported by the Smith family's local newspaper, such a potentially important piece of evidence, it makes you wonder who leaked the information to the Drogheda Independent.  Reading between the lines, it would appear the information came from the Smiths themselves  Ostensibly only the Smith family knew of the arrangement along with Snr Amaral and the PJ team - this could make their position even more tenuous.

Who knows - maybe the McCanns or one of their team did contact the Smith family after all.

Only 3 days later, on 9th June 2007, Gerry McCann made the following entry on his blog..

"Kate and I had a slightly busier day on the media front than expected. We did a short press interview for the Irish Sunday papers, mainly to thank the Irish for their fantastic level of support....

After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch-'Crimecall'. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine's disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. The address to upload photographs is: to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com. We have also asked for people to contact their local police if they have seen a man matching the description of the suspect carrying a child seen around the time of Madeleine’s abduction. He is 30-40 years, 1.70-1.80m (5'7"-11"), caucasian and was wearing a dark jacket, beige or mustard coloured trousers with dark shoes. No major news on the investigation front- we still believe it is just a single phone call away.

Reading between the lines I would imagine that the gentleman quoted, Jem O'Neill, was the likely source for the local rag. The Smiths co-owned their apartment with a man named Liam O'Neill, possibly a relative. I imagine the Smiths, before they decided to report their sighting to the Gardai on May 16th, spoke freely about what they had seen to extended family, friends and the co-owner, especially when they began to wonder whether they should report what they had seen. After all, no one had sworn them to secrecy at that stage. In a small town like Drogheda that news would have spread like wildfire. I suspect the Smiths were convinced by others back home that what they had seen could be important  and they were encouraged to speak up. I see that the Smiths had enough cop on not to entertain the press (according to the reporter the family declined to give any comment when she approached them) but reported their sighting responsibly to the authorities.

Edited to add - I also imagine that upon their being requested to return to Portugal to make a statement the Smiths did not go into top -secret mode and hide from friends, neighbours and extended family where they were going and why. They had no reason to. For all they knew the P.J. would decide that what they had seen was unconnected. No one asked them to keep schtum at that stage and I imagine Aoife, like any normal kid of her age, told all her friends about how she was going to Portugal to help the police in this famous case.  They told their friends and parents, who told their friends and family and voila!  the word was out.Of course the local reporter picked up on the story and went fishing as soon as they returned.

From Gonçalo Amaral's book', The Truth of the Lie'..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. 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. With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they went back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.

Snr Amaral states in his book that the Smiths' visit back to Portugal and their subsequent statements were kept secret. But I wonder whether that means just from Joe public and the press (until the leak back in Drogheda 11 days later)? I suspect that the McCanns' info machine would have kept them informed in real time.

Coincidently or otherwise (and I haven't thought this through yet), the week prior to the Smiths gaving their statements in Portimao (morning of 26 May) the McCanns were battling behind the scenes, with the help of several phone calls from Gordon Brown to the Portuguese authorities, to have the Tannerman details released to the general public. On the night before (Friday 25 May) the Smiths gave their statements, the PJ held a press conference and Tannerman was released to the world.

Coincidently or otherwise, the battle for the release of Tannerman/Eggman is only reported to have started after the Smiths approached the Irish Police (and consequently the British Police in Portimao/the PJ) with their siting. I have been pondering (for a minute or two only) why the press conference wasn't held back a few days and both 'sitings' released together.

The Smith siting has to be one of the most mind-blowingly complicated scenarios (IMO). I don't believe for a nano second that GM was walking around the streets with Madeleine; I can't believe that a 12 year old child (Aoife) would be capable of sticking to such a lie so convincingly, so I do believe that she saw someone; I do believe that there is some reason that 10pm is a critical time point for the McCanns.

I believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm. The chances of there being a father carrying a child with a striking resemblance (size; hair colour; clothing) to MBM within the right time frame and location (general area of 5A) and who hasn't come forward are, IMO, miniscule. Therefore, there has to be an alternative explanation and all I can come up with is a plant. For the plant to work there had to be a willing witness (singular).

It's easy to get carried away speculating the possible reasons but perhaps in the planning stages it was felt that Tannerman needed a backup. IMO, there also has to be a planned reason why Martin Smith later pointed a finger towards GM (who was sitting at the table at 10pm anyway, wasn't he). The McCann camp had to run with however the situation evolved and react on a day-to-day basis.

I still wonder whether many of the surrounding players drawn in to all this believed or were persuaded that there was some genuine altruistic grounds for helping. 

I believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm. The chances of there being a father carrying a child with a striking resemblance (size; hair colour; clothing) to MBM within the right time frame and location (general area of 5A) and who hasn't come forward are, IMO, miniscule. Therefore, there has to be an alternative explanation and all I can come up with is a plant. For the plant to work there had to be a willing witness (singular).

It's easy to get carried away speculating the possible reasons but perhaps in the planning stages it was felt that Tannerman needed a backup. IMO, there also has to be a planned reason why Martin Smith later pointed a finger towards GM (who was sitting at the table at 10pm anyway, wasn't he). The McCann camp had to run with however the situation evolved and react on a day-to-day basis.

I still wonder whether many of the surrounding players drawn in to all this believed or were persuaded that there was some genuine altruistic grounds for helping. 

This is along the lines of a theory I put forward recently on another thread. I can't be sure that GM WAS at the table at 10pm, we only have the T7/T9 word for that, he was apparently back at 5A after Kate had run to the table, raised the alarm and returned.

If someone was carrying say, Ella through the streets. if stopped it would be very easy to say she was ill and needed some fresh air for example. It not being Madeleine, there wouldn't be a problem.

Or is this another of my blurred theories ?

Although G.A. says in his book that the Smiths return to Portugal to give statements was kept quiet there, in some ways it would have been a case of shutting the stable door when that particular horse had already long bolted, which IMO, was why it was reported in Ireland 11 days later. The P.J. may have tried to keep the fact that the Smiths were returning under wraps in P de L, but I have no doubt that the news that they had seen something was well and truly out back in Drogheda. 
After returning to Drogheda the Smiths would have found friends, neighbours and extended family agog for first hand reports of what was going on in P de L. It was no secret that the Smiths had been there while it all went down and the case was the topic de jour everywhere. Later, while the Smiths pondered over the potential importance of what they had seen I'm sure this was discussed quite openly while they decided what to do about it. There was no reason it shouldn't be, no one had asked them to keep quiet at that stage. It would also have been difficult to prevent youngsters like Aoife and Tadhg from telling their peers in school about their potential involvement in such a famous event. Heck - many adults would have dined out on it! Aoife was back at school (it was term time) when it was arranged for them to return to P de L so that she could give her statement. I suspect her classmates and teachers were fully aware of where she had gone and why. Again, at this stage no one had urged them to keep it secret. In any case, it would have been too late for secrecy.
The fact that they had seen something of potential significance and  had been back to Portugal to give statements was public news in this country less than two weeks after they spoke to the P.J. The McCanns have umpteen relatives here who would have learned of this and passed the news to them. However, the McCanns made NO attempt to either speak directly with or to meet the Smiths, such potentially crucial witnesses. Instead, with maximum publicity for each trip, they hared off all over the world as far away from the Smiths as they could  possibly get. That tells its own story IMO.

Have I misremembered? 
But did the Smiths, as in, all of them, say they did not see Bundleman's face?
If so, how come TWO of the Smiths gave Exton the descriptions for his eFits?

Here's a snippet from
http://fytton.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/smiths-exton-sy-and-e-fits-part-two_4.html

"The e-fits were constructed by two different members of the Smith family 
Both depict the same man, namely the one they met on the evening of the 3rd of May carrying a child.
The e-fits were made after Henri Exton and his colleagues visited the Smiths in Ireland. 
Henri Exton stated that the Smiths were sincere, their e-fits a much better image of the possible abductor than the faceless image conjured up by Jane Tanner. 
The e-fits were done between 31st of January 2008 and the end of that year. They were submitted to the Leicestershire police who curiously did nothing with them. This was October 2009,  so that means nothing was done with them for at least a year. 
The McCanns stated that they also submitted them to  Operation Grange a few months after they started their review. "

Mark Willis wrote:Have I misremembered?
But did the Smiths, as in, all of them, say they did not see Bundleman's face?
If so, how come TWO of the Smiths gave Exton the descriptions for his eFits?

1. As near as makes no odds. Two of the witnesses interviewed fomally said the lighting was too poor and a) that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph and b) that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. The third witness said at the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.

2. Very good question!

This stands out for me. Martin Smith was recorded to have said of the bundleman..

He had an average build, a bit on the thin side.


I wouldn't say Gerry McCann is a bit on the thin side - he's built like a brick privvy.

Verdi wrote:This stands out for me.  Martin Smith was recorded to have said of the bundleman..

He had an average build, a bit on the thin side.


I wouldn't say Gerry McCann is a bit on the thin side - he's built like a brick privvy.

He is of random and needless adipose visceral displacement.
That's me agreeing lol.
Anyway, no further discourse required apropos eFit origin, I am satisfied my question has been answered.
I will now get back to my "who knew who" Venn Diagram of Smiths, Gerry and Murat, discreetly.
See how that pans out! 

Both Aoife Smith's and Peter Smith's statements say they saw the man's face with Peter Smith noting that he was "Somewhat tanned as the result of sun exposure". Peter Smith also stated that when he saw him the man made no attempt to "hide his face or lower his look" We do not know what the other members of the family (who did not give personal statements to the P.J.) saw of his face. However, Mary Smith obviously saw enough to agree with her husband's later statement that the man they saw was very similar to Gerry.

Verdi wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:Have I misremembered?
But did the Smiths, as in, all of them, say they did not see Bundleman's face?
If so, how come TWO of the Smiths gave Exton the descriptions for his eFits?

1.  As near as makes no odds.  Two of the witnesses interviewed fomally said the lighting was too poor and a)  that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph and b)  that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.  The third witness said at the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.

2.  Very good question!

How is it a very good question?

They gave descriptions because they were asked to by ex mi5 geezer - I doubt there was much scope for "no thanks I decline".

Gosh, this Smithman issue really has got the pack divided, hasn’t it ?

There are elements to it that I find make it very plausible (mainly the fact a number of them returned to Portugal seemingly willingly) and elements that I don’t (the fact that, in that low light, you can determine someone has recent tanning).

I still fall on the side of it being a true sighting of someone carrying a child. IMO, as a decoy on the abduction night. I can’t say who the carrier or child was.

Did I miss the 'significant evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat much better than he is admitting' ? The question was asked a while back above, but does not appear to have been addressed. 

The quoted passage from The Truth of the Lie is hardly an admission - MS  volunteered the information to the Irish Police that he knew RM by sight and not just from the TV reports. We don't know that he told Snr Amaral any more than that in terms of his knowledge of Murat .. but whatever he said as the statement was volunteered  it is hardly an admission. (The MS statement would be meaningless without a certain level of knowledge.. ie 'I don't know him but it was not him..'would hardly make him a credible witness.) 

The inconsistencies quoted at question 9/60 may be indicative of deception, but equally they may not. Firstly because they come from multiple media sources over a  period of time...they may be multiple journalists using different words to describe broadly the same thing. Whether he says he met him once , twice or on several occasions, but sufficient to recognise him,  it speaks consistently  of something which is a low level acquaintance at best , and falls short of evidence of a friendship or association which would justify perjury by MS (and his family).

As for the argument advanced above that ex-pat communities are all the same and 'birds of a feather..' this seems to have no evidentiary value unless there is some specific evidence that these particular birds flocked together. The normal standards of evidence can't be cast aside to enable this generalisation to stand without some back-up evidence relating to these two individuals. 

So what is the 'significant evidence' that these two were friends or associates, in league together, and that one would perjure himself (and his family) on behalf of the other ??
is there evidence that they visited each other's residences?
were they known to eat together or drink together?
were they seen together in bars, restaurants or other public locations?
has anyone ever actually seen them speaking together for longer than the few seconds needed  to achieve the personal  introduction which was mentioned?
is there evidence that they ever communicated by letter, phone, email, text???
is there any evidence that they had an association which was facilitated by a third party ? (I am not ruling it out, but this one is harder to prove). 
has any independent witness come forward in 10 years, either from the ex-pat community in PDL or from the local Portuguese community to say that they knew of a different level of association between MS and RM than has been suggested by either party?

Any of the above could be regarded as 'significant evidence' which would influence me to disregard the Smith testimony. I assumed that someone had that level of evidence and was about to give it or refer to elsewhere on the site where it has been provided previously.

Cut to the chase, whether Martin Smith came across Robert Murat once or whether he came across him a thousand times, fact remains by his own admission, he knew Robert Murat well enough to be able to state categorically it was not he the family saw on the night of 3rd May.

Martin Smith called his local police after seeing the news that Robert Murat was a prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this discourse is not on public record so It's not known what information Martin Smith gave to the Irish police, other than 'he told them everything he'd seen' - or words to that effect.

According to Goncalo Amaral..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. 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. With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they went back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.
----------

Martin Smith witness statement

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.

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

Aoife Smith witness statement

The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.

— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:

— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.

— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.

— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.

— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.

— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

Peter Daniel Smith witness statement

The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

— He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual.

— States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
----------

Come October 2013, the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, the description given by Martin Smith and his son and daughter of the sighting, morphed into this..



Spot the deliberate mistake!

According to Martin Smith, on the morning of 4th May 2007, his daughter telephoned him to tell of the missing child.  At this time he thought the stranger he and his family had witnessed the night before might have been the abductor carrying Madeleine.  His son Peter heard of the child abduction whilst at Faro airport on his way back to Ireland - beyond a shadow of doubt, it the statements are to be believed, the Smith family were aware of Madeleine's disappearance on the 4th May 2007, both in Ireland and in Portugual.

Still they wait until after Robert Murat is declared the prime suspect - over three weeks later and even then, only to exonerate Robert Murat.  I've yet to see a compelling argument to persuade me otherwise.

Verdi wrote:
According to Martin Smith, on the morning of 4th May 2007, his daughter telephoned him to tell of the missing child.  At this time he thought the stranger he and his family had witnessed the night before might have been the abductor carrying Madeleine.  His son Peter heard of the child abduction whilst at Faro airport on his way back to Ireland - beyond a shadow of doubt, it the statements are to be believed, the Smith family were aware of Madeleine's disappearance on the 4th May 2007, both in Ireland and in Portugual.

Still they wait until after Robert Murat is declared the prime suspect - over three weeks later and even then, only to exonerate Robert Murat.  I've yet to see a compelling argument to persuade me otherwise.

I think the timing is paramount with regards to how long it took them to speak up.


The tiniest piece of information you may possibly possess about a missing toddler.....is not something you hold onto. It just isn't. Well, not me anyway. Call me old fashioned again.

I don't think it's a genuine sighting based on this alone.


It would appear, this sighting may be beneficial to a number of people, but not to that of a missing little girl.

"Spot the deliberate mistake" I'm afraid it eludes me. What I see are two e-fits - one rather grainy, the other much clearer and more life-like. The grainy one shows the full face whereas the more life-like, better coloured e-fit shows only part of the face with the jaws and jaw line not fully depicted. In fact in the latter e-fit, much more of the suspect's right cheek and jaw are shown than on the left corresponding side. Both efits show similar hair, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, ears and noses. The main difference is the amount of the lower face shown and the quality of the finish. Place a piece of paper or card just below the lower lip to block out what is shown below that on both pictures and the similarity between both e-fits is immediately apparent.

@ Verdi. I don't know who the Smiths saw but I firmly believe that by September they had convinced themselves that it was Gerry. The press coverage had grown increasingly hostile toward the McCanns and they had just been made suspects in their daughter's disappearance and fled Portugal. Now, if I became convinced that I had seen Gerry McCann that night and was then asked to draw up an e-fit I would of course describe features which closely matched Gerry McCann. It was not difficult to know what he looked like. His mug was wall to wall coverage on T.V. and in newspapers! Let's not forget Richard McCluskey who became convinced that the blonde woman he had seen was none other than Kate McCann - despite the fact that this woman was jabbering away in fluent Portuguese! Humans are quite suggestible after all. Once the McCanns entered the frame as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance it was, IMO, an understandable progression when the Smiths "remembered" seeing  Gerry. Whether they really did see him, or just someone who didn't look dramatically unlike him, I don't know but I believe the McCanns needed this claim like a hole in the head. They obviously could not provide concrete, independent proof that it could not have been Gerry so, instead they ignored the Smith sighting for as long as they could. How much of their memory that it was Gerry they saw is fact and how much is imagination or false memory is, for me, the 6 million dollar question.

If Martin Smith is to be believed, it was when he saw television footage of the McCanns descending the aircraft stairs that it dawned on him it was Gerry McCann he and his family saw on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Not by his appearance but by the way he was carrying a child - quite a normal way of carrying a child a far as I'm aware.  

This transpired on 9th September 2007 but again, it wasn't until 11 days later on 20th September 2007, that this revelation was recorded by the Irish police and sent  to Portugal.  Despite Smiths claim that he couldn't sleep at night, so distraught was he.  

Just prior to his removal from the case, Gonçalo Amaral the case coordinator, decided to arrange for the Smiths to return to Portugal to give further statements - this never transpired.

Firstly consider how detailed the description of the nocturnal rambler proffered by the Smith family was, over three weeks after the event.  A stranger passing in the night, not looking like a tourist yet carrying a scantily clad child.  A fleeting glance, a second or two, that's a remarkable recollection over 3 weeks after the event - and so similar to that of Jane Tanner. A coincidence too far for my reckoning. 

It takes a lot of believing - and I'm not believing.

polyenne wrote:I believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm. The chances of there being a father carrying a child with a striking resemblance (size; hair colour; clothing) to MBM within the right time frame and location (general area of 5A) and who hasn't come forward are, IMO, miniscule. Therefore, there has to be an alternative explanation and all I can come up with is a plant. For the plant to work there had to be a willing witness (singular).

It's easy to get carried away speculating the possible reasons but perhaps in the planning stages it was felt that Tannerman needed a backup. IMO, there also has to be a planned reason why Martin Smith later pointed a finger towards GM (who was sitting at the table at 10pm anyway, wasn't he). The McCann camp had to run with however the situation evolved and react on a day-to-day basis.

I still wonder whether many of the surrounding players drawn in to all this believed or were persuaded that there was some genuine altruistic grounds for helping. 

This is along the lines of a theory I put forward recently on another thread. I can't be sure that GM WAS at the table at 10pm, we only have the T7/T9 word for that, he was apparently back at 5A after Kate had run to the table, raised the alarm and returned.

If someone was carrying say, Ella through the streets. if stopped it would be very easy to say she was ill and needed some fresh air for example. It not being Madeleine, there wouldn't be a problem.

Or is this another of my blurred theories ?

I am on the same wavelength,it would have given more credence to Jane Tanner,though Jez Wilkins put a spanner in the workings.IMO

Jazega:
 
‘it would have given more credence to Jane Tanner’
 
Really?
 
The ficticious ‘Tannerman’ seen (?) walking to the east away from the OC at 9.15 (and ‘identified’ by the bullshitter Redwood) doubles back past the OC and is then ‘seen’ again 45 minutes later walking south, a matter of a few hundred yards on the other side of the OC.
 
Maybe he decided to pop back to 5A for a coffee and to kill some time!
 
Sorry, but it’s all nonsense, as are the Smith’s statements and photofits, none of which stand up to scrutiny under cross-examination.

Doug D
Consider this : if the abduction shout was planned to be earlier at 9.30am then Tannerman would fit the required timing. But Gerry met Jez at the time that Jane was (supposedly) walking up the road seeing the "abductor" and that screwed their plan.
So, after a hasty re-working, a new plan was an abduction shout at 10pm and this necessitated a new "abductor" movement. Hence the Smith sighting.

Phoebe wrote:Both efits show similar hair, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, ears and noses. The main difference is the amount of the lower face shown and the quality of the finish. Place a piece of paper or card just below the lower lip to block out what is shown below that on both pictures and the similarity between both e-fits is immediately apparent.

Thank you Phoebe... I had never attempted that exercise before, and I agree that if you cover up the chin then the two E-fits are much more consistent. 

Aren't these E-Fits put together by 'assembling' different parts of the face?? I am surprised (on purpose, incompetence?) that the people who prepared these E-fits didn't resolve this contradiction around the chin area before (belatedly) publishing  them ... either by further interviews with the witnesses, by deciding that one of the witnesses had the better view, or simply by softening the chin area. The most common reaction I have heard to the 2 E-fits is that they appear to be of two completely different people, casting further doubt on the report of the sighting, and the credibility of the testimony of the Smith family. In my view this has more to do with the people who prepared  the two images than with the Smiths themselves.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

The Death of MancCannstein's Monster

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Brilliant, fantastic, scrumpical likeness Jane. Arr!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-death-of-manccannsteins-monster.html