Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

by Phoebe 18.10.18 10:58

@ Tony Bennett. Tony, you have not answered the question I put to you re the Smith sighting, and, as I understand it, the claim that the Smiths were inventing their sighting is heavily based on the (flawed) idea that their description of the man they saw matches those of Jane T and Lourenco, which you interpreted as "proof" of collaboration and pre-planning. Therefore, I think I important to thoroughly examine this claim.

@ Verdi. I have no idea of what that particular rant (above) is about. I got your post for reference (solely lest it be claimed I was not backing up what I claimed with evidence) simply by using the search bar on this forum!!!! Ask the forum owner to check it out if you wish!

I also asked you the same question re. the very obvious differences in the descriptions given by the Smiths and Tanner and you have not answered it either!

Since I began this post I have seen that another message has been posted.

For the record - as I have stated before, I don't give a fig who like or dislikes my posts and cannot be responsible for who dislikes or likes them. Nor can I control other peoples reactions be they positive or negative!
I do NOT know Ben Salmon. He once messaged me on this forum when I raised the issue of a phone call which Jane Tanner speaks about in her rogatory interview (but if I remember correctly he had a user name here, April 28th). I had pointed out that there had been phone contact between someone with connections to the FSS lab with an almost identical name and Jane.
April 28th sent me a P.M. to sate that he too had noted this and he provided the phone number evidence to show that it was this same scientist to whom Jane had spoken.
I posted this information and was challenged, (by Verdi if I recall) to produce evidence to back up this claim.
Having basic good manners, I asked April 28th (by P.M.) if he was Ben Salmon (as I knew this name in association with most phone research about this case). I asked his permission to reproduce his evidence and he kindly agreed. That is the one and only occasion on which I have ever had contact with Ben Salmon and it was done through this forum!

by Crackfox 18.10.18 11:06

Things are spiralling here.

Is Martin Smith a reliable, credible witness?

No.

Would any half decent lawyer call him?

No. It would seriously undermine their case.

That's about it folks.

by Phoebe 18.10.18 11:28

4078    “Do you know a John, John CLAXMAN”?
Reply    “Ah yes, that’s erm, the reason that’s Christine is his wife and he, so I can show you her number, I haven’t actually got his number in, haven’t actually got his number in here but I’ve got Christine, I’ve actually called her PAXMAN because I thought her name was PAXMAN”.

4078    “That’s on there yes, yes”.
Reply    “Oh does that say, oh right okay yeah sorry”.

4078    “Ends in 510 yes”?
Reply    “Yeah it does yeah, you know it’s cos it’s under Christine”.

4078    “Do you remember why you were in touch with him that day”?
Reply    “Erm well I think it would be Christine, I think she’s obviously, erm she’s just a friend from Exeter again, what day was that”?

4078    “That was on the second”?
Reply    “Erm, can only think that she would have text me to say do you want to come somewhere with us, she’s got kids the same age as me, do you want to come somewhere with the kids and I would have text back saying no, sorry we’re on holiday, I can’t think, I can’t

4078    “Yes I know”.
Reply    “No, that’s the only thing I can think”

The above snippet from Jane Tanner's rogatory statement is what first caused me to be suspicious and investigate Cristine Claxman or Paxman. One google of this name immediately brought up the name Cristine Flaxman who is a research Dr. with links to FSS. When I posted this suspicion, April 28th P.M. d me to say that the number given for Jane was indeed for Cristine Flaxman. Not wishing to be led astray I asked April 28th if he was the person who had done all that trusted research into phone contacts ie. Ben Salmon. He confirmed he was and was also a member here. I asked permission to reproduce his evidence, given that I was being sneered at over my idea. He kindly agreed and I posted the confirmation re that number as having come form Ben Salmon. that was and is my only ever contact with the man. Incidentally, I don't do twitter and have never twittered or tweeted or whatever bird noises it is they make in my life!!!!

by Phoebe 18.10.18 12:06

@ Crackfox. Given that SO much has been made of the Smith family's alleged lies and involvement in the plot to impede the investigation, this matter surely deserves clarification. Otherwise, there will be a "Groundhog" style rehashing of allegations of their "involvement" based on flawed claims again and again (as has been the pattern)
True, the Smith testimony would not stand up in any court, that however, is very different from claims that they themselves are liars and were involved in some dastardly plot to derail the investigation. Such serious allegations need to addressed.

by **Mainline** 18.10.18 14:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?
My view is that the Smiths did not see anyone at all. This is at present a minority view on the forum, though it does have quite a few supporters, and that number is growing.

A rather bigger number think that the Smiths saw somebody else - another bloke mysteriously carrying a young girl in pyjamas around the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold early May evening at 10pm.

The claim that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter's body to the beach would appear still to be the most popular view on the forum, despite my best efforts to suggest otherwise.

********

My (evidenced) hypothesis can be summed up like this:

When Martin Smith contacted the police on 16 May, he was doing so to support a man he knew, Robert Murat.

When he 'phoned the police on 20 September, he was AGAIN supporting Murat, but was now also pointing the finger directly at Gerry McCann.

THEN came the all-important SALSALITO SUMMIT when the lawyered-up Murat Team met the lawyered-up McCann Team. They settled what were obviously major differencs between them, and reached a deal.

Part of that deal, I suggest, was that the IMO fabricated Smithman sighting would now be used to help the McCanns pursue their abduction narrative, via what Wendy Murphy once described as a 'fake suspect'.

And this is actually what has happened.

In spades.

There are many places one could duck into and avoid being seen. Dumpster bins on both sides of the road, a stairwell, the hotel at the top of the street etc. My view is that if someone was seen (and I remain agnostic on it for now), they must have wanted to be seen.

The idea of carrying a dead child through the streets so openly is hard to swallow because (he) would definitely be seen. All the bars and restaurants there with people coming and going. If he turned right he would go past one. If he turned left he would go past several (going left would also make no sense due to the fact that he could have just gone down the M537-1 in the first place), and if he went down the same stairwell the Smiths came from he'd be literally walking into a hub of them. Why take such a risk? Other than for the sake of being seen, I can't think of a sensible reason.

There's also the fact Gerry was alibi-ed at the Tapas at the very same time, not just by the group.

by Phoebe 18.10.18 14:37

@ Mainline. You posted above -

"There's also the fact that Gerry was alibi-ed at the Tapas at the very same time, not just by the group."

Could you please provide a link to this alibi (other than the group) Thanks.

by Doug D 18.10.18 14:52

Mainline:

‘My view is that if someone was seen (and I remain agnostic on it for now), they must have wanted to be seen.’

Or not ‘not wanted to be seen’.

A random stranger walking home with a sleeping daughter in his arms, who wasn’t in the slightest bit interested in whether he was seen or not.

But if that was the case, why has he not come forward after all this time to say it was probably him that was seen?

Oh well, it took Redwood’s ‘Tannerman’ over six years to come forward and still be able to produce his child’s pyjamas, so what’s another five years or so!

No doubt Smithman will still have his ‘not a tourist’ clothes and these pyjamas as well, he just hasn’t quite got round to speaking to the PJ yet, but he will one day when he gets time.

We wait with baited breath for Nicky ‘Nick ‘em so Quick’ to reveal all!

by **Mainline** 18.10.18 14:55

@Phoebe

Jeronimo Salcedas Rogatory:

'On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.'

Interestingly though, we have these two statements which say Kate went to the apartment upon Gerry's return:

Vitorino Starikova:

'Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

Joaquim Batista:

'[size=13]The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;'[/size]

@DougD

A good point. Surely after all these years that person would've come forward. Then again, it's surprising how little knowledge of the case some people have. There are some witnesses who aren't even aware the files are online. It always amazes me that people so close to the events haven't followed every moment of the case like we do.

by Phoebe 18.10.18 15:08

@ Mainline - The above citations do not give Gerry and alibi for the time when the Smiths encountered Smithman. In fact, the citation from Vitorino Starikova states that -
"one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes"
Why Smithman has never been traced is indeed a mystery.

by **Mainline** 18.10.18 15:15

Yes, I included those two quotes to highlight just that. They imply he got back to the table at around ten.

by Phoebe 18.10.18 15:15

Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

by Phoebe on 12.08.17 14:48

I've received a p.m. from a member indicating that there was indeed contact via text messages between JaneTanner and Dr. Christine Flaxman at 8:21:46 and 10:05:20 on May 2nd 2007. I haven't put the chart up as I can't separate it from the rest of the message (too techno challenged) but if I get the member's permission I will post it. Why then did Jane Tanner lie and designate the contact as either Claxman or Paxman, claiming to be unsure of her name? She works at the same university, Exeter, as Dr. Flaxman so it's most unlikely she didn't know her name! Was she trying to hide the fact that she had been in contact with Dr. Christine Flaxman, a published expert in the area of low copy DNA analysis, who also had worked at the F.S.S. Birmingham where the blood samples recovered from 5G were tested with such controversial results? Or, did she have another reason for hiding the contact made on May 2nd?

This is the jist of my contacts with April 28th Ben Salmon

by Phoebe 18.10.18 15:37

Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

by Phoebe on 12.08.17 21:10

[size=11]From April28th To Phoebe, Today at 18:25
Hey, no problem. This is her:

http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/people/profile/index.php?web_id=Christine_Flaxman
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Flaxman
http://exeter.crf.nihr.ac.uk/node/22 (scroll down)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-flaxman-642a6748/

Linkedin is the most important as it confirms she worked at FSS!

Please feel free to share these links as I see verdi is being pedantic on the basis of not finding the name on 192 or some such. I don't post anymore myself so please don't worry about crediting me.

@ Verdi. Message received this eve. I believe the poster April28th has already done some extensive research into the whole area of the phone records in the Madeleine case other than this Flaxman contact. I can find no reference to the name Claxman through ANY internet search, even beyond Exeter.
[/size]

I trust this clears up the matter of "Ben Salmon knows" Phoebe!!

by Crackfox 18.10.18 18:09

Phoebe wrote:@ Crackfox. Given that SO much has been made of the Smith family's alleged lies and involvement in the plot to impede the investigation, this matter surely deserves clarification. Otherwise, there will be a "Groundhog" style rehashing of allegations of their "involvement" based on flawed claims again and again (as has been the pattern)
True, the Smith testimony would not stand up in any court, that however, is very different from claims that they themselves are liars and were involved in some dastardly plot to derail the investigation. Such serious allegations need to addressed.

Phoebe I disagree. There are some things there simply isn't enough concrete evidence to establish and determining the motive of Mr Smith is one of those things IMO. I do find this testimony very odd and I can at least see the potential that Mr Smith was defending Murat - but I don't know for sure. I think Tony's theory is plausible and makes sense on a number of levels.

I don't see the Smiths as special cases - as far as I'm concerned it's a fair cop to explore the motives of all the players in this case - Smiths included! And that's about it - Mr Smith throws no light on this case and so long as he keeps being such a hot topic he will continue to cast shade, IMO.

by willowthewisp 18.10.18 19:01

Phoebe wrote:
Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

by Phoebe on 12.08.17 21:10

[size=11]From April28th To Phoebe, Today at 18:25
Hey, no problem. This is her:

http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/people/profile/index.php?web_id=Christine_Flaxman
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Flaxman
http://exeter.crf.nihr.ac.uk/node/22 (scroll down)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-flaxman-642a6748/

Linkedin is the most important as it confirms she worked at FSS!

Please feel free to share these links as I see verdi is being pedantic on the basis of not finding the name on 192 or some such. I don't post anymore myself so please don't worry about crediting me.

@ Verdi. Message received this eve. I believe the poster April28th has already done some extensive research into the whole area of the phone records in the Madeleine case other than this Flaxman contact. I can find no reference to the name Claxman through ANY internet search, even beyond Exeter.
[/size]

I trust this clears up the matter of "Ben Salmon knows" Phoebe!!

Hi Phoebe,First and foremost,thanks for continuing on the Smith Family sight evidence E-fit identity,Tannerman,Lourenco.

It must now ring "Alarm Bells" in someones personae,that Jane T has contact with a"Friend from Exeter 2 May 2007" to FSS.Birmingham results,DNA/LCI,a Police log on missing Madeleine McCann,a day earlier than she vanished without trace,3 May 2007!

A Three year old girl disappears?

A friend of the parents has contact with a Blood expert(as above)?

The "Friend" picks out a possible Abductor on the proposed evening of the event having to have happened,who just so happens to pick Mr Robert Murat from inside a Police Surveilance van,then twelve moths later rescinds her description of Mr Robert Murat?

During this Twelve moth period the mysterious benefactor has contact with all Three Arquido's through various dubious legal shenanigans, with contact with Sky News Corporation,(Contract Robert Murat)Martin Brunt,yet there is No "Hoax Scenario",collusion?

The harassment by Sky News,Martin Brunt, death of Mrs Brenda Leyland,Dossier to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe on behalf of the McCann's, needed to be exposed silenced,Jim Gamble make an example of, Suicide?

Yet non of these events have anything to do with the McCann family who have lost their eldest Daughter Madeleine?

Operation Grange DCI Andy Redwood,the friends,(Tapas 7/9 "Are Not suspects or Person's of interest"?

by Guest 18.10.18 21:03

Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?

Hello again Mainline,

Please forgive my former bluntness, it was late at night and on the spur of the moment I thought your introductory post was a bit odd.

I was about to log-out so rather than lock the thread for a few hours which would not only cause confusion but prevent members from continuing discussion, I moved your posts to a safe place for a few hours. I've been busy all day, this is the first real opportunity I've had to get back on it, so to speak.

So, if you will allow, I will start again.

Hello Mainline and welcome

to the forum. I look forward to you contribution thumbup

.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.18 0:24

NO REASON TO LIE ?

@ crackfox Once again I would like to thank you very much for your measured and considered approach to the Smiths’ evidence and that of Martin Smith especially. I can’t fault what you say. I have repeatedly stated that EVERY witness statement in this deeply mysterious case must be examined for whether it has the ‘ring of truth’ about it, whether it is credible, the circumstances in which it came to be made, whether it is inconsistent or contradictory etc. etc.

I don’t in the least expect rapid acceptance of my hypothesis that Martin Smith was acting to help Robert Murat, and then switched to supporting the McCanns a few weeks after the key ‘SALSALITO SUMMIT’ between the lawyered-up rival Murat and McCann Teams at the home of Ralph and Sally Eveleigh on 13 November 2007. I shall be developing that theory further, with evidence, when time permits.

In the meantime, I want to share a relevant video. It deals with a problem that I’ve faced throughout the four years now that I have been querying the Smiths’ evidence. I’ve lost count of the number of times that people have said of Martin Smith’s evidence:

“He seems like a credible person”

“There’s no reason to doubt what he says”

“He seemed sincere” or

“He had absolutely no incentive to lie” etc. etc.

Two weeks ago, a 55-year-old woman, Christine Blasey Ford, gave evidence before a Senate Committee that she had been nearly raped by Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15 years old. If her account was true, Kavanaugh would not have been elected to the Supreme Court. The Committee did not believe her, and Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Judge.

During the past two weeks, overwhelming evidence has accumulated that she deliberately lied AND that her rape claim had been covertly planned by the left-wing Democratic Party beforehand for several weeks. In particular:

1 She could recollect no details of where the incident took place, what the floor plan was, how she got there, how she got back etc.

2 She couldn’t recollect who was there except that she named two people. Both of those gave sworn testimony that there never was such an incident and they were not there

3. She lied about several things, including a wholly fabricated claim that she had a fear of flying and enclosed spaces

4. She changed her story several times

5. It emerged at the hearing that she regularly rented out her house to Google internees. Days before she made her dramatic revelation, Google wiped almost every reference to her on the internet. This could only have been done manually

6. It emerged that Christine Blasey Ford had for years been involved in training in hypnosis and ‘self-hypnosis’ including training in ho to ‘get away with’ a false statement. The training also included specific lessons on how to beat a lie detector. Christine Blasey Ford took a lie detector test before she made her dramatic ‘revelation; and passed it.

Besides that, 75 women who had known Kavanaugh since his teenage years and throughout his professional life voluntarily came forward to testify to his unimpeachable integrity and correct conduct with women.

I could go on. There is much more.

This video is by Michelle Malkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV019fkNOqs (5 minutes)

Malkin: 'Sincere' Christine Blasey Ford...or sincere BULLCRAP…?

.

by Phoebe 19.10.18 9:37

@ Tony Bennett.
I have asked you several times Tony whether you accept that the men described by Smith, Tanner and Lourenco, are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers). The Smiths' man is described as having light skin, and short, light brown hair. Tannerman is described as having dark skin and copious long, dark, glossy hair while Sagresman is described as having a Latino appearance with long dark hair in a ponytail.

You persist in ignoring this question about a straightforward facts which have been used to underpin the theory of the Smiths being liars.

Diverting into tales of American political skullduggery is irrelevant to the Madeleine case. Claiming that the said descriptions are "carbon copies" when the evidence contradicts this IS an important, relevant issue which needs addressing. It is the one of the linchpins underpinning the theory of the Smith family being liars.
I do wish you would answer this straightforward, evidence based question, instead of making wild untrue allegations against me in retaliation for asking it or introducing irrelevant American political wrangling. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question.

by Crackfox 19.10.18 10:54

@Tony Bennett thank you for the link - a great analysis! What's happening in America reminds me of The Crucible - a witch hunt if ever there was one. People trying to use emotion to evaluate truth are very scary.

Regarding the evidence of Mr Smith, it seems people approach it the wrong way. From a forensics angle, you start by looking at the external conditions that may affect the reliability: light, distance, length of contact. You consider other factors such as alcohol, whether there was discussion between witnesses, the emotional state and personality of each witness - confident witnesses are often the least reliable. After that, you look at the system variables and how this may affect testimony - in this case GM being identified as a suspect has a huge significance because in effect, Mr Smith identified a suspect from a two man media identity parade. If you tell a witness that the perpetrator is in the line up research shows witnesses are more likely to pick someone than if you say the perpetrator may or may not be in the line up.

I understand why people say things like "He had no reason to lie" because it's a very human response but it's not scientific. From a forensic point of view you have to evaluate the reliability of the evidence and Mr Smith's testimony falls at the first hurdle when you do that.

I only know a bit about this because I did a free Open University course and it taught me it is important to eliminate what's not credible and look at what's left. When you do that you see that there is a shocking lack of credible eye witness testimony in this case and that in itself is a red flag.

by Phoebe 19.10.18 11:21

@ Crackfox y ou wrote -" Regarding the evidence of Mr Smith, it seems people approach it the wrong way"

I agree. The first thing to establish is whether the Smiths DID see a man carrying a child. The whole family say they did, and the police believe their testimony is credible.
It has been claimed that they invented seeing someone. Examining this claim is surely the first port of call before pondering who they saw, or how well they could see, remember and describe him.
The reason touted to suggest the Smiths are liars are based on two theories. The first, that they were "given" a description which was a "carbon copy" of those given by Tanner and Lourenco. This claim is patently false as evidenced in the files.
The second is that they knew Robert Murat well enough to perjure themselves, including getting children to join in this false testimony.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the Smiths knew Murat, other than by sight, as Martin Smith explained. An explanation which satisfies the police.
Before wondering who the Smiths saw, or how well they saw and remembered him, it is vital to establish whether they are lying about seeing someone in the first place, and - there is no supporting EVIDENCE for any claim that they did not see what they reported.

by Crackfox 19.10.18 12:30

@Phoebe - If you evaluate Mr Smith's evidence, it soon becomes apparent that it is not credible. If it's not credible, then the argument as to whether or not he deliberately lied is a semantic one - unless you have a theory as to why he lied - and I think it's okay to explore that possibility.

Personally and from a wanting to get as close to the truth as I can POV, I start where I trust a detective would start and ask myself is it credible? If not, I move on!

Because it was dark, because the interaction was fleeting, because Mr Smith had alcohol in his system and because scientifically, the first statement has more validity than any subsequent statements and because his identification was from a very loaded two man media parade, I've eliminate Mr Smith's testimony from my armchair investigation because it doesn't further my understanding of the timeline. I don't need to know if he saw someone else - I know enough to discount it being a credible sighting of GM carrying Madeleine.

Whether or not he lied is a matter of opinion. He certainly wasn't helpful. Personally, I'm satisfied with that.

by Phoebe 19.10.18 12:52

@ Crackfox. My own position ( based on available evidence) is that the Smiths are telling the truth about having seen a man carrying a child, at the time they said on May 3rd '07.
Who they saw, I don't know, but I see no evidence to brand them liars or link them to some conspiracy.
Their first descriptions are compatible with Gerry McCann in terms of age, height, build, complexion, skin tone, hair colour and style. The description of the child is a good match for Madeleine in age, hair colour and hair length.
Therefore, I am not at all surprised that they later concluded that the man they saw was Gerry.
To what extent this conclusion may have been influenced by contemporaneous wall-to-wall media reports of the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, and the news that they had recently been made Arguidos we cannot know. I suspect it did have some influence, but only the Smiths can comment on that and they have not done so.
Whether the Smiths were mistaken about the man they saw being
Gerry is one mystery. The other is the McCanns extraordinary behaviour over this sighting. They made no move to contact these witnesses who potentially had information about the "abduction", they did not urge the police to follow this lead up nor urge the public to come forward with any information they might have about what the Smiths reported, (until they could no longer avoid it, the sighting being recorded in the published files)
Their lack of reaction is an inarguable fact, and an extraordinary fact to boot!

by Crackfox 19.10.18 13:19

@Phoebe my own opinion as to why the McCanns showed little interest in pursuing the Smith sighting is that like the trip in the car to follow a potentially crucial lead during which the McCanns acted disgruntled and Kate opined that the driver was going too fast, they were only interested in their own narrative. Anything else detracted from that.

Early on, it seems to me, that they wanted to get the focus as far away from the crime scene as possible - hence the grand tour. I don't think they wanted attention too close to home, until they had spotted a suitable patsy and then they changed gear. That's my opinion, pure speculation but that's how I see it. So I don't think you can read too much into the lack of reaction even though their lack of reaction is a fact.

by skyrocket 19.10.18 13:48

@Phoebe - the problem is that there is no evidence to prove they did see anyone either.

The reason I don't believe the statements is not based on either of the theories you state i.e. description of the man and whether or not Smith knew Murat, although these points are worthy of investigation, IMO.

I'm not convinced that the Smiths saw anyone for the simple reason that they didn't report it straight away, DESPITE Martin Smith saying on the morning of 4 May: 'At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual'.

Although McCluskey's second statement is extremely dubious (which may well be none of his doing), his first one made on 9 May, when he and his wife returned to the UK, is interesting and makes my point.

Here was a couple who were aware of the 'abduction'. On the evening of the 4 May they went out in to Alvor and walked back to their hotel late on. This is what Richard McCluskey tells us:

'He said he had phoned the police. Thinking everything was alright we left the couple, woman and van in situ and entered our apartment.
Upon entering the apartment we put on Sky news and became aware of a news report about a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of the British child. I therefore went to the complex and informed them of what I had seen and gave him the registration on the paper. We then returned to the area and saw the woman and the vehicle still in place. I returned to the apartment and after an hour hadn’t heard anything so I contacted the police. Eventually I got through to an English speaker and explained what had happened. The police stated they were sending someone to reception. I decided to go down and wait for them. As I got downstairs I could see two police in a patrol vehicle outside reception. The officers spoke English and I explained the situation and gave them another copy of the registration which we had written down. They told me they were dealing or had dealt with the situation. Then at about 03.15 we checked the area again and the van and woman had gone'.

After the initial encounter, the McCluskeys are still concerned. Note the number of actions Richard McCluskey carries out. He returns to the area twice more, finally at 3.15am in the morning. This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from middle aged people who are aware that a 3 year old child has been 'abducted' by a man. Not waiting 2 weeks to report something which just might be significant; not wanting the guilt of doing nothing haunting them in the future; not worrying about having to deal with a foreign police force; double/treble checking it had been dealt with; not worrying about getting to bed; only worrying about a missing little girl.

If the Smiths did see someone then I don't believe that we are getting the full picture from their statements. Context, background and possible connections between the protagonists is an extremely valid area of research IMO, and probably the only route to getting closer to the truth on this particular subject.

@Crackfox - some good points.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.18 16:49

Phoebe made this post recently:

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

QUOTE:

I have asked you several times Tony whether you accept that the men described by Smith, Tanner and Lourenco, are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers).
The Smiths' man is described as having light skin, and short, light brown hair. Tannerman is described as having dark skin and copious long, dark, glossy hair while Sagresman is described as having a Latino appearance with long dark hair in a ponytail.

You persist in ignoring this question about a straightforward facts which have been used to underpin the theory of the Smiths being liars.
Diverting into tales of American political skullduggery is irrelevant to the Madeleine case. Claiming that the said descriptions are "carbon copies" when the evidence contradicts this IS an important, relevant issue which needs addressing. It is the one of the linchpins underpinning the theory of the Smith family being liars.

I do wish you would answer this straightforward, evidence based question, instead of making wild untrue allegations against me in retaliation for asking it or introducing irrelevant American political wrangling. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question.
UNQUOTE

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

Before answering Phoebe's question directly, I would like to make these observations to both her and also to other members and guests here.

First, I do not have time to answer every question within the next few minutes of few hours. I have been asked many many questions about the Madeleine McCann case over the years, especially on this forum, and older members here will be well aware that I have invariably taken the time to answer them as fully and honestly as I possibly can.

For the record, most of the time in the past three days has been taken up with (a) a whole day spent with two documentary film-makers who came up from London the day to pick my brains and discuss in depth the murder of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home - they are making a film about it (b) filling in and collating all the information for two paper Tax Returns (mine, and one of my late mother who died in July) - in order to beat the 31 October deadline  (c) carrying out the duties of an Executor as it has fallen to me to administer my mother's modest estate and (d) in between that, caring for a younger family member.

I find it highly regrettable that any member here should be so hasty as to point the finger and accuse me of being 'reluctant to answer', 'ignoring this question' etc. I also find the aggressive, angry tone incompatible with the normal politeness of our exchanges here. Even robust views can be put firmly but politely. How about something like: "Tony, I would be grateful for a reply"?

On the question of the video I posted being irrelevant, please see @ crackfox's posts. One of he commonest charges against me in relation to my Smithman theory is: "Martin Smith had no reason to lie". I have many times explained that there are numerous reasons why people tell the most awful lies. The video I posted is but one clear and very public illustration of this.

Phoebe wrote this: "are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers)".

REPLY: Phoebe has got this wrong. I allege collusion between Robert Murat's Team and Martin Smith, NOT the McCanns and Martin Smith. THAT came later, after the all-important SALALITO SUMMIT.

====

Now, to provide an answer (short as I have to pick up a family member from the station in a few minutes), here is my ORIGINAL post - 25 October 2013, jusr 11 days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special that triggered my deep interest in the Smithman sighting. Everybody will see the reference I made was to 'remarkable similarities', not 'carbon copies'. Agreed I may have said 'virtual carbon copies' on one occasion, but five years later I stand fully behind what I wrote - below (I have to get down to the station right away):

++++++++++++++++++++

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8297-smithman-2-what-can-account-for-the-17-remarkable-similarities-between-tannerman-and-smithman?highlight=smithman

25 October 2013
The descriptions of a mystery man claimed to have been seen by Jane Tanner and by members of the Smith family are remarkably similar.

A senior Metropolitan Police Officer, D.C.I. Andy Redwood, heading up a 3-year, £6 milion Scotland Yard investigation, has now told the nation, on the record, and in front of an audience of 6.7 million people on the BBC, that Tannerman was a crecheman carrying his infant home from the night crèche. Clearly as a nation of people who have faith in what has been described as ‘the worlds’ finest police force', we must believe him. There can be no room for doubt.

However, let us return to the similarities between the original descriptions given by Jane Tanner and the Smiths, both in May 2007. These were:

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair

3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl

5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas

7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side

9. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists

11. They were wearing a dark jacket

12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)

14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build

16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen.

What could account for these remarkable 17 similarities – now that Redwood has told us the truth about Tannerman/crecheman?

1. Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche.

OR

2. There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere – just one of those amazing coincidences.
OR

3. Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone.

OR

4. Some other reason.
==============================================

by Phoebe 19.10.18 16:51

@ skyrocket.
Actually, I find the entire McCluskey reports decidedly odd! According to him (May 9th 07) he and his wife were returning from a night out in Alvor at about ten minutes to two on the morning of Saturday May 5th when they saw a man park a truck in the middle of the road and "stagger" up a bank carrying a child. He gives no description of said child nor does he explain why he thought it might be Madeleine (other than saying he was aware that a child was missing in the area)
Why he would imagine that a child, who had been kidnapped on the previous Thursday night, would be carried around in open view early on Saturday morning, by a man and woman who had drawn attention to themselves by abandoning a vehicle in the middle of the road and by having a vicious row in full public view, is beyond me!
He claims to have persisted in getting this checked out (although he was aware there were other witnesses who actually spoke Portuguese and could communicate better with the police (whom these witnesses had ALREADY called).
He cites a Sky news report which mentioned "a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of a British child". Has anyone any information about this report which would have been shown between 2 and 3 a.m. on Sat 5th May. I don't remember any such report at that stage.
It can't have come from George Burke Brooks as this "sighting" only became known to Michael Wright on May 6th (Wright did not even arrive in P. da L. until May 5th).
In any case, McCluskeys later behaviour, IMO, smacks of someone determined to have seen something of importance, as evidenced by his later bizarre claims that the Portuguese-speaking woman he had seen was Kate McCann and the swarthy male Gerry! And this, even after they had been traced and eliminated!
Everything about McCluskey's sighting, IMO, smacks of someone thrilled at the prospect of being involved with a famous case.
The Smiths, on the other hand, are noted by the Irish police not to be inclined to indulge in "courting the press".
Some people are private and reticent about thrusting themselves into the limelight or thinking that they have something important to say. IMO the evidence certainly suggests the Smiths were like this. I'd be the same myself!

by Phoebe 19.10.18 17:14

@ Tony Bennet.
Firstly, I appreciate you, like the rest of us, have lives outside of the McCann case and please accept my condolences on the passing of your mother.
Secondly, I have not been aggressive, merely persistent, whereas Tony, you posted yesterday a rather lengthy article (answering my question wouldn't have taken nearly as long!) in which you questioned my motivation, integrity and falsely alleged some relationship between myself and Ben Salmon! Ben Salmon does not "know" me nor I him and our sole communication over the Tanner rogatory is here for all to see.
Above, you posted -
However, let us return to the similarities between the original descriptions given by Jane Tanner and the Smiths, both in May 2007. These were:

3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl

Jane Tanner never claimed to have seen anything other than, initially, a bundle in the man's arms, then later, a child's legs from the knees down. She never mentioned the child having blonde hair or even being a girl, she only "guessed" the child's sex from the "pinkish aspect" of the pyjamas.

7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side

Jane Tanner could only see the child's legs from the knees to the ankles, therefore she could scarcely offer an opinion on the child's age! The Smiths did estimate her age.
Jane said the man was carrying the child horizontally, across both his outstretched arms - the Smiths said he held the child vertically, against his shoulder

11. They were wearing a dark jacket

12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers

Jane describes the man as wearing notably baggy, ill fitting clothes, the man the Smiths saw was wearing trousers of a classic fitted cut. Jane's man wore a puffy anorak, the Smiths man wore a jacket.

Add to all these differences the fact that the man the Smiths saw was light-skinned with short light-brown hair, cut short at the back and sides. The man Jane describes seeing was dark-skinned, with copious, long, dark, glossy hair, long at the back.

by Crackfox 19.10.18 17:44

One point regarding Mr Smith I find interesting - and this has probably been said somewhere already but it's just occurred to me - is the point at which his memory was aroused.

GM was disembarking from a plane, returning home to a place of safety. It was starting to look like GM was untouchable. Gerry landing on British soil has symbolic power - if Mr Smith wasn't sleeping well and was worried that someone he thought was culpable was going to get away with it, this would have an impact. Something in that image acted as a trigger, if his story is correct and it's a very significant moment in terms of the unfolding of the case. It's also an emotive image if you are of the view that the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, seeing GM in a parenting role with a sleeping child is a highly charged image.

So I think this image could have potentially been a trigger but I don't think this is good enough for a credible identification, it's too emotionally charged and too convenient. At best, Mr Smith is a rescuer, IMO.

by willowthewisp 19.10.18 17:50

Jane Tanner put Mr Robert Murat forward as the person she had seen carrying the person Horizontal in his arms,heading towards Mrs Murat's Home?
Two other tapas friends came forward to state seeing Mr Murat outside the apartment on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance!

DCI Andy Redwood introduces Dr Julian Totman and his Daughter into the equation as Crehce Dad,Crime Watch October 14 2013,the "Moving time Frame to suit the timings of who seen what?

Sandra Felguaires,Gerry, "Did you know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared,cough,I'm Not going to comment on that"!

Robert Murat was summoned back to Portugal 1st May 2007,Two days before the disappearance of Madeleine,is there a link?

3 May,Gerry McCann retires from Tennis with "Achillies"problem,yet there are No,is Evidence of such an injury for the rest of the Day/evening,meeting Jez Wilkens standing outside of the Apartment,checks on children?
No visible signs on impediments Speech video for Madeleine's whereabouts 4 May 2007 of walking,standing?

Then you have Gerry and his little jig on the Balcony,2/3 days after the disappearance,happy as Larry,but No Hoax or simulation collusion scenario has taken place!

Its all down to a close knit fraternity of cohorts,"Super Injunctions",mystery benefactors and dubious legal representatives,who know!

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.18 19:53

willowthewisp wrote:Jane Tanner put Mr Robert Murat forward as the person she had seen carrying the person horizontal in his arms, heading towards Mrs Murat's Home?

Yes, but then changed her mind and said he looked like Monsterman (Jan 2008).

Two other tapas friends came forward to state seeing Mr Murat outside the apartment on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance!

THREE actually - Russell, Rachael and Fiona. And they carried on with this the 'confrontation' with Robert Murat on 11 July 2007 in Portimao.

DCI Andy Redwood introduces Dr Julian Totman and his daughter into the equation as Crehce Dad, CrimeWatch October 14 2013, the "Moving Time Frame" to suit the timings of who seen what?

Skulduggery and deceit by Britain's top cops, which a few still can't see.

Sandra Felguaires, Gerry, "Did you know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared, cough, I'm not going to comment on that"!

Not surprising that some treated this as a virtual admission that he DID know Robert Murat already (all those golfing trips he had to Portugal, before 2007, remember?). IMO this short video clip is one of the biggest pieces in the whole jigsaw.

Robert Murat was summoned back to Portugal 1st May 2007, two days before the disappearance of Madeleine, is there a link?

Or was it two days AFTER the disappearance?

3 May, Gerry McCann retires from tennis with "Achilles" problem, yet there is no evidence of such an injury for the rest of the day/evening, meeting Jez Wilkens standing outside of the apartment, checks on children?

You mean he INVENTED the Achilles tendon?

No visible signs on impediments speech video for Madeleine's whereabouts 4 May 2007 of walking, standing?

(Sorry, you lost me on that one , willow)

Then you have Gerry and his little jig on the balcony, 2/3 days after the disappearance, happy as Larry, but No Hoax or simulation collusion scenario has taken place!

Not many people can laugh and chuckle and share jokes within 3 days of their 3-year-old daughter being abducted, probably by paedophiles.

It's all down to a close knit fraternity of cohorts, "Super Injunctions", mystery benefactors and dubious legal representatives, who know!

I think so.

REPLIES IN BLUE ABOVE

by Guest 19.10.18 23:52

05-01-Apensos V, Vol 1, Pages 136

apenso5_vol_1_Page136

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 2 Apenso5_vol_1_Page136_small

Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police

13th September 2007

Please find attached a witness statement provided by Richard McCluskey. Firstly may I apologise for the delay in forwarding but the system crashed at this end and the problem has taken some time to resolve.

Mr. McCluskey states he has already provided a witness statement in relation the enquiry having been on holiday in Portugal at the relevant time. He provided a statement in relation to suspicious activity he observed in the early hours of Saturday 5 May 2007.In the original statement Mr. McClusky states he described a male alighting a white coloured van and walking along a road carrying what appeared to be a motionless child. He then states he observed a distressed female run down a road and approach the same white coloured van.

Mr McCluskey did go into detail regarding the incident but then stated that all details were covered in his first statement, provided in May 2007. Not having had sight of the original statement it is obviously difficult to comment on the context and accuracy of the account given.

Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, M, McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann( the missing child?s mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police. He is acutely aware of the possibly implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would , in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."

Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)