The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

by **Tony Bennett** 20.09.18 15:25

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

SUMMARY OF THE SMITHMAN THEORY:

1 Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
2 Gerry McCann began to carry his dead daughter’s body through the streets of Praia da Luz at about the very same moment that his wife was raising the alarm about Madeleine’s disappearance
3 A few minutes later, nine members of the Smith family saw him heading towards the beach
4 In January 2008 Gerry was happy, via Brian Kennedy and Henri Exton, to approach the Smiths for help. He asked the Smiths to draw up efits, knowing full well that the Smiths had seen him carrying Madeleine’s dead body to the beach on 3 May
5 According to a MetPolice reply to an FOIAct question, Exton drew up two efits, based on the Smiths’ recollections, in September 2008
6 Gerry and the McCann Team then milked this sighting of him, using it on a C4 documentary (2009), on their website (from 2009) and in Kate’s book (2011)
7 Gerry then co-operated with Operation Grange and the BBC to produce a programme seen by 7 million people which included two efits of him
8 Dozens of people who have followed the McCann case for years sincerely believe this to be the truth.

=====================================================

It is known that I oppose this theory. I began to oppose it publicly for the first time on 27 October 2013 on the CMOMM forum, just 13 days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, transmitted on 14 October 2013 and watched by an estimated 7 million.

All I want to do here is set out the key facts relied on by those who still maintain that Smithman = Gerry McCann.

I will do so with a timeline.

This is their theory:

They believe, in harmony with Goncalo Amaral and his PJ Team, that Madeleine was alive and present at a ‘high tea’ in the Tapas bar between about 5pm and 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

They believe, again in harmony with Goncalo Amaral and his PJ Team, that Madeleine died sometime after 6pm that evening. Without sufficient evidence to say otherwise, the Team declared that she died as a result of an ‘accident’.

They say that, in terms, the following happened during the ensuing four hours:

1 The McCanns decided to cover up the death

2 Probably together with most or all of their Tapas7 friends, they all decided to hush up this death. They planned a hoax abduction which would be triggered by one of them raising the alarm at between 9.30pm and 10pm that night

3 They planned that Gerry McCann would walk through the streets of Praia da Luz from about 9.50pm to 10.10pm carrying Madeleine’s dead body, clad only in white/pink pyjamas (presumably hoping that no-one would see him)

4 Having laid these plans, they all sat down together between 8.30pm and 8.45pm for a hearty dinner and plenty of wine, during which some of them checked on their children. The McCanns’ account of events is that Madeleine and the two children were asleep in their apartment, G5A

Some minutes before 10.00pm, the alarm was raised and people began looking for Madeleine.

At almost exactly the same time, Gerry McCann picked up Madeleine’s body and carried it through the streets of Praia da Luz.

The believers in this theory say that nine members of the Smith family saw Gerry McCann walking in the direction of the beach carrying Madeleine. By then, he would have been around 8-9 minutes’ walk from his holiday apartment. He obviously knew he had been seen.

The believers in this theory do not explain in detail what may have happened next. But the following may be presumed from their theory:

1 Gerry McCann proceeded further, carrying Madeleine somewhere

2 He presumably found a hiding-place for Madeleine where nobody could find it (it must have been very good as a massive search which began hours later never found it)

3 Having hid the body he must have swiftly returned to the Ocean Club and its environs, where there appears to be adequate confirmation that he was present from about 10.30pm onwards.

As we now know, within 24 hours the disappearance of Madeleine McCann became an international media sensation.

On 16 May, the day after Robert Murat was arrested, the Smith family in Ireland suddenly remembered that they had seen a man carrying a child at about 10pm on the evening of 3 May. They ’phoned the Irish Police.

On 26 May, three of them made statements to the Portuguese Police: Martin Smith, his son Peter and his daughter Aoife. They described a man in near-identical terms to a man said to have been seen by Jane Tanner (‘Tannerman’) and to a holidaymaker, Wojchiech Krokowski, who had allegedly tried to kidnap a child at Sagres on Sunday 29 April or Monday 30 April.

On 20 September, Martin Smith told the Irish Police that he believed that the man he’d seen on 3 May was Gerry McCann. The basis for this was ‘the way he was carrying Sean, the way he walked and the way he turned his head down’. He was however only ‘60%-80% sure’ about this.

On 13 November at Salsalito, the family home of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, two representatives of the McCanns, multi-millionaire Brian Kennedy, the head of the McCanns’ private investigation team, and Edward Smethurst, lawyer and senior Freemason, met with the entire Murat family and their lawyer, Francisco Pagarete.

By early January 2008, a series of media announcements explained that Martin Smith had agreed to talk to Metodo 3, the Spanish detectives who had been hired by Brian Kennedy on behalf of the McCanns.

----

[COMMENT: The believers in the Smithman = Gerry McCann theory have never explained why, given (their theory says) that Gerry McCann knew he had been seen by the Smiths at 10pm on Thursday 3 May, he would want to talk to the Smiths.

If Martin Smith really believed by then (January 2008) that it was Gerry McCann he had seen, we must ask: “Why did he not tell Brian Kennedy: ‘The man I saw carrying a young child that night was Gerry McCann’?”]

----

At the end of July 2008, the majority of the PJ files were released, and Goncalo Amaral’s book: ‘The Truth of the Lie’ was published. By then, if not well before, the McCanns and their Team must have been aware that Martin Smith had positively identified him Gerry McCann (60% to 80%) as having carried his daughter Madeleine round the streets of Praia da Luz at around 10pm on 3 May.

----

[COMMENT: It remains a mystery why Martin Smith ever agreed to work with the McCann Team in the first place, given he believed he was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann that night. It remains another mystery why he continued to do so after this point].

----

Nevertheless, the McCann Team, according to a variety of sources including answers to Freedom of Information Act questions, did continue to seek the Smiths’ help. The Smiths co-operated with one of the McCanns’ investigators, Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, and (according to the BBC and Operation Grange) produced two efits of different-looking men whom (we are told) they believed were accurate sketches of the man they said they had seen on the evening of 3 May 2007.

They did this, according to an FOIAct request, in September 2008.

This was despite the Smiths only having seen the man for a few seconds, in the dark and with weak street lighting, and the fact that the three of them who made statements (Martin, Peter and Aoife) told the Portuguese Police that they would never be able to recognise the man again.

Despite the fact that they had not seen the man for over 16 months in those conditions, they produced surprisingly detailed efits. Curiously there were many differences between the two efits, the shape of the head, the length of the nose, the shape of the chin and hairstyle, among others.

----

[COMMENT: Once again, if Gerry McCann knew he’d been seen by the Smiths carrying Madeleine, who on earth were he and his Team even doing these efits?

The same question must be asked of the Smiths. If Martin Smith was sure that Gerry McCann was the man he’d seen, why was he bothering to do these efits at all when he believed he had seen Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine?]

----

During late 2008 and early 2009 the McCanns were preparing for a Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary which would reproduce their version of events about Madeleine’s disappearance.

It was transmitted in May 2009. Twice during the programme there were segments strongly suggesting that the abductor was the man seen by the Smiths. The efits, however, were withheld from the programme. The McCanns have since said that they gave the efits to the police, who did not advise their release.

According to the believers in the Smithman = Gerry theory, Martin Smith made no comment about this programme despite (they say) still fully believing that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann. (Or if he did, the media never published it).

Either Martin Smith knew in advance that his sighting was going to be used in the documentary, or he didn’t. Either way, he made no protest.

Likewise, around the time the programme was being transmitted, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second summary of his sighting to their website, recorded in an Irish voice (not that of Martin Smith).

Again, Martin Smith made no protest.

Again it must be asked why the McCanns featured the Smithman sighting at all if he knew he had been seen by the Smiths?

The website upload of the Smithman sighting described the man’s age as ’34-35’. This was curious, to say the least. In his first statement, he had said the man was ‘about 35-40’. In his second statement, he said ’40’. Now the age had come down to ’34-35’. Why?

Again it seems that Martin Smith made no protest about this second change to his estimate of the man’s age.

The Smith sighting was again mentioned in Kate McCann’s book, ‘madeleine’, published May 2011. The sighting was referenced on seven pages, with three of them devoted to an analysis by Kate McCann of the ‘striking similarities’ between Jane Tanner’s Tannerman and Martin Smith’s Smithman.

Once again, there was no protest from Martin Smith, despite the fact that he presumably still believed that he had seen Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine on the night of Thursday 3 May.

We know that Martin Smith was interviewed twice by DCI Andy Redwood, or one of his colleagues from Operation Grange, once in 2012 and once in 2013. It may safely be assumed that these conversations were about the forth coming BBC Crimewatch McCann Special programme.

Irish couple to help new Maddie probe
Missing Maddie
Niall O'Connor
19 March 2012

AN Irish family holidaying in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine McCann went missing say they will "fully cooperate" with any new police probe.

Louth couple Martin and Mary Smith were quizzed by investigators after they claimed to have seen a man carrying a young child through the town on the night of the May 3, 2007.

Madeleine was almost four years old when she vanished from her bed in her parents' apartment at the Ocean Club holiday resort in Praia da Luz between 9.35pm and 10pm on May 3, 2007.

Despite a massive police investigation and huge publicity worldwide, she has not been found. However it has now emerged that a group of Portuguese detectives have been appointed to carry out a fresh review of the investigation.

Now, the Irish couple who were interviewed by police following the girl's disappearance are bracing themselves to be reinterviewed.

Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect.

Tragedy

Mary Smith told the Herald today that the family still sees Madeleine story as a "terrible tragedy" and that they will co-operate fully with investigators.

"At this point we just don't know whether we will be called but of course we will cooperate fully. Madeleine's disappearance was just a terrible tragedy," she added.
"We have not been contacted by police yet and we will wait for their instructions," she added.

Police reports state that Mary and Martin left Kelly's Bar in the resort at approximately 10pm when they passed a male they said was carrying a young girl who was barefoot.

http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2012/03/irish-couple-to-help-new-maddie-probe.html

The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special was transmitted on 14 October 2013. The main feature, or ‘the centre of our focus’ according to DCI Redwood, was the two efits. Operation Grange wanted to trace the ‘man of the efits’.

The Crimewatch programme, as with the Channel 4 Documentary in 2009, rehearsed the McCanns’ account of events.

During the programme, the BBC mentioned that Martin Smith had once thought that the man he had seen that night was Gerry McCann, but said he had now ‘changed his mind’.

Some people became very excited after the progamme about one of the two efits which they believed to be an image of Gerry McCann. Many of them telephoned the BBC to say so. Most of these people assumed that Operation Grange presented this image to the public because they really suspected Gerry McCann was the man seen by Martin Smith.

Others, like myself and U.S. child expert Wendy Murphy, called the programme a ‘con’ and a deliberate attempt to promote a fake abductor and to maintain the abduction narrative in the minds of the British people.

In December 2017 Irish journalist Gemma O’Doherty said she had spoken to Martin Smith who had confirmed to her that he still maintained that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007. She contacted the BBC who, she says, changed their record to omit the claim that Martin Smith had ‘changed his mind’.

Today, there is a chorus of voices maintaining that Gerry McCann was seen by Martin Smith carrying Madeleine, dead, on the night of Thursday 3 May.

There are many others who believe either that the Smiths saw someone else that night, or that their accounts were fabricated.

How much support each view has is difficult to gauge.

I will add a poll with the simple question:

Did Martin Smith see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz at about 10pm on 3 May? - YES or NO?

There is no settled forum view on Smithman. Anyone who still believes that Gerry McCann walked by Martin Smith and his family at 10pm on 3 May is welcome to contribute an informed and reasoned justification for their belief.

.

by willowthewisp 20.09.18 17:27

Hi Mr Tony Bennett,thanks for your time taken in composing the information on Smith Family sighting Gerry or Not?

So No Metropolitan Police force Officer from within the UK has constructed any E-fit images after interviewing the Smith family in 2012/13 in regard to a sighting of a Man carrying a young girl on his Left shoulder in Portugal on the evening of 3 May 2007,spending over £12 Million pounds in that process,are they taking the piss or what-No Official Police E-fits on a Police investigation?

Imagine turning up in a Crown Court,please submit your evidence on Material gathered,er we didn't do any e-fits,cos we relied on the Two or more persons we have in the Dock to provide them via their own investigators,why are you dismissing the case!

I have not taken part in the poll for One reason.
The Ruling out of a"Substitute,Decoy Child" being used on 3 May 2007?

If some sort of subterfuge has been used in Madeleine McCann's disappearance,it is not impossible for deception to be used.

There is a lot of "Assumption" based on the Smith's, belief that it was Gerry they had seen,that Gerry knew their paths had met?
How do you Not know that the Smith Family had told Brian Kennedy,they believe they had met Gerry that night?

So why would they agree to meet,when all articles state it was Representatives meeting Detectives, Brian Kennedy,family Reps,legal teams?

Can you confirm that the Smith's had met Gerry personally,as I doubt very much this had happened for purely legal reasons,?

The Crime Watch Programme 14 October 2013 and the Metropolitan Police,DCI Andy Redwood are responsible for what they make on E-fits,Henri Exton 2008,Smith family collaboration,"Moving time frame"to fit the Smith Family sighting of a Man carrying a young girl at 22.00 PM,3 May 2007?
I Note there is No mention of the now infamous Mr Julian Totman"Could" have been the person claiming to have been carrying Home is daughter from a Night Creche,who DCI Andy Redwood(Moving time Frame) has interviewed,as per Crime watch Programme,having kept hold of his own clothes and Daughters Pyjamas,are they not part of Operation Grange any more!

E-fit Man has not yet been discovered by Crime Watch October 14 2013 showing except in Portugal(Legal Reasons)Fair Trail,Four years later,Zilch,One last Throw of the Dice?

Rule out the Smith Family sighting,who was the Abductor,One of the as yet 600 Operation Grange suspects or person's of interest,but not Kate,Gerry or the Tapas 7/9,keep your prying eyes off these people,geddit,Why are they protected by Government sources!

But still No Cover Up,yeah,ding,ding?

by Phoebe 20.09.18 18:17

by Tony Bennett Today at 15:25

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

SUMMARY OF THE SMITHMAN THEORY:

1 Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
2 Gerry McCann began to carry his dead daughter’s body through the streets of Praia da Luz at about the very same moment that his wife was raising the alarm about Madeleine’s disappearance
3 A few minutes later, nine members of the Smith family saw him heading towards the beach
4 In January 2008 Gerry was happy, via Brian Kennedy and Henri Exton, to approach the Smiths for help. He asked the Smiths to draw up efits, knowing full well that the Smiths had seen him carrying Madeleine’s dead body to the beach on 3 May
5 According to a MetPolice reply to an FOIAct question, Exton drew up two efits, based on the Smiths’ recollections, in September 2008
6 Gerry and the McCann Team then milked this sighting of him, using it on a C4 documentary (2009), on their website (from 2009) and in Kate’s book (2011)
7 Gerry then co-operated with Operation Grange and the BBC to produce a programme seen by 7 million people which included two efits of him
8 Dozens of people who have followed the McCann case for years sincerely believe this to be the truth.

@ Tony Bennett.you state above -

1) Madeleine died after 6 p.m. on 3rd May.

Even the P.J. final report places the last independent sighting of Madeleine alive at 5.30 p.m. not 6 p.m. (which means the P.J. have discounted the evidence of David Payne and Charlotte Pennington). There are some who believe that Madeleine may have died even earlier that day, or the previous night or even before that. Madeleine dying after 6 p.m. on May 3rd is not a prerequisite for the theory that Smithman was Gerry.

2) There are conflicting accounts of what time the alarm was raised with some witnesses claiming it was much earlier -

eg. Arlindo Peleja puts it at 9.20 p.m. and Stephen Carpenter states that he and his wife left the Tapas bar between 9.15 -30 p.m. and that as they walked home his wife recalls someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine".
Maria Manuela Martins Da Silva says she passed in front of the McCanns block, having left her apartment at precisely 9.58 p.m., and saw no signs that an alarm had just been raised nor did she see any "movement of people" anywhere near Block 5 or the McCanns' apartment. Which is decidedly strange if the alarm was raised at 10 p.m.!!

3) When the Smith sighting became widespread news the McCanns could hardly continue to ignore it indefinitely without casting suspicion on themselves. Gerry would have been, IMO, perfectly confident that, when push came to shove, his eight friends would swear blind that it could not have been him the Smiths saw as he was elsewhere with them. He would also have been confident of being protected by no less than the U.K. government.

4) Oddly, during this alleged "Milking of the Smith sighting" by Team McCann they have steadfastly neglected to mention that Martin Smith claimed to have been 60-80% sure that Smithman was Gerry!! In fact they went so far as to lie and state that Martin Smith had recanted this claim. That is not "milking" - it is MANIPULATION of the Smith sighting in the same way the McCanns tried for years to suggest that Tannerman was also Smithman.

by Sundance 21.09.18 7:36

Phoebe wrote: by Tony Bennett Today at 15:25

SUMMARY OF THE SMITHMAN THEORY:

8 Dozens of people who have followed the McCann case for years sincerely believe this to be the truth.

I'm not sure point 8 comprises part of the summary of the theory. Besides, despite the assertion, it would appear that at least 60% of the active members of this forum disagree.

Apologies, I've quoted the wrong members post, but the content is the same.

by lemonbutter 22.09.18 3:34

Is this poll still open for members to vote?

Only asking because I checked the poll as a guest and it was open to vote, but as a member it is only showing the results.

Thanks

by **Jill Havern** 22.09.18 9:31

lemonbutter wrote:Is this poll still open for members to vote?

Only asking because I checked the poll as a guest and it was open to vote, but as a member it is only showing the results.

Thanks

That would be because you've already voted. thumbsup

by lemonbutter 22.09.18 9:37

Thanks Jill, was not intending to try and vote twice, just confused 2thumbs

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.18 17:34

Sundance wrote:
Phoebe wrote: by Tony Bennett Today at 15:25

SUMMARY OF THE SMITHMAN THEORY:

8 Dozens of people who have followed the McCann case for years sincerely believe this to be the truth.
I'm not sure point 8 comprises part of the summary of the theory. Besides, despite the assertion, it would appear that at least 60% of the active members of this forum disagree.

Apologies, I've quoted the wrong members post, but the content is the same.

@ Sundance

I think you misunderstood my Point 8, which in fact was stating that dozens of people who have followed the McCann case for years sincerely believe that Smithman = Gerry McCann.

For members and guests who are not aware, there has been a Twitter poll run on the #McCann hashtag.

The text of the question was loaded in a number of ways and clearly not neutral, but here is the question and the results:

Question: "Who do you believe Martin Smith saw carrying an inert girl, who looked just like Madeleine McCann, down to the beach the night Madeleine disappeared?"

Results (329 voted):

Gerry McCann: 285 (87%)

Stranger in Gerry's kecks: 7 (2%)

Nobody, the liar: 37 (11%).

I am disappointed, but by no means dismayed by that result. My case is a hard one to argue: that three people deliberately fabricated their statements. That 37 people agree with me that the evidence favours 'Nobody' is progress.

You are right, my hypothesis is behind on the CMOMM poll so far. I will make a comment when rather more people have voted.

========

@ Phoebe

REPLIES BELOW:

Even the P.J. final report places the last independent sighting of Madeleine alive at 5.30 p.m. not 6 p.m. (which means the P.J.have discounted the evidence of David Payne and Charlotte Pennington), there are some who believe that Madeleine may have died even earlier that day, or the previous night or even before that. Madeleine dying after 6 p.m. on May 3rd is not a prerequisite for the theory that Smithman was Gerry.

REPLY: One of the hardest things for the ‘Smithman=Gerry Brigade’ to explain is why on earth Gerry McCann should occupy some 10-15 minutes carrying his dead daughter to the beach at the very time that the alarm was being, or had been raised. It makes no sense whatsoever, never has done, and never will – and no-one has yet come close to explaining it.

There are conflicting accounts of what time the alarm was raised with some witnesses claiming it was much earlier –

REPLY: You could well be right that the alarm was raised up to 45 minutes before 10pm. But surely that would make Gerry McCann walking through PdL for quarter-of-an-hour even more crass?

The same applies to those who claim Maddie that died (quote) “even earlier that day’, or the previous night or even before that” – or even, as some say, as early as Monday or Sunday. Is it not even more spectacularly stupid and reckless for someone whose child died hours or days earlier to walk his dead daughter through the streets of a popular tourist resort just when people started looking for her?

When the Smith sighting became widespread news the McCanns could hardly continue to ignore it indefinitely without casting suspicion on themselves…He would also have been confident of being protected by no less than the U.K. government.

REPLY: I agree with both points. As a matter of fact they did, in effect, ignore it until December 2007/January 2008, when they approached Martin Smith. They then PLANNED the milking of the sighting, but didn’t really do so until the May 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary. And, yes, I believe government protection has been available to them from Day One, or even before Day One.  Don't forget that it's my case that the McCanns being able to milk the Smithman sighting was only possible after the McCann/Murat 'Salsalito Summit' - to which most people who follow the Madeleine case pay such scant attention. It was crucial

Oddly, during this alleged "Milking of the Smith sighting" by Team McCann they have steadfastly neglected to mention that Martin Smith claimed to have been 60-80% sure that Smithman was Gerry!! In fact they went so far as to lie and state that Martin Smith had recanted this claim. That is not "milking" - it is MANIPULATION of the Smith sighting in the same way the McCanns tried for years to suggest that Tannerman was also Smithman.

REPLY: I totally agree they appear to have manipulated the sighting, indeed that is the very core of my argument. Suggesting that Tannerman was also Smithman was an integral part of their case - until, of course, DCI Andy Redwood ‘found’ Crecheman…when he was able to elevate Smithman to his highest-ever status to date: “The Centre of our Focus”.

by Sundance 22.09.18 17:52

I actually agree with you that it wasn't Gerry at all. Although I do believe they saw someone (totally unconnected) and reported it. As I've stated before, I don't care how desperate Gerry may have been in those moments, there's absolutely no chance he'd stroll down to the beach carrying his supposedly dead child. It's far more likely that he temporarily disposed of her locally in the sports bag or similar in one of the many up and over bins located outside each block. Let's not forget, they were all looking for a live wandering child, and wouldnt be inspecting bins so vociferously.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.18 18:13

Sundance wrote:I actually agree with you that it wasn't Gerry at all. Although I do believe they saw someone (totally unconnected) and reported it. As I've stated before, I don't care how desperate Gerry may have been in those moments, there's absolutely no chance he'd stroll down to the beach carrying his supposedly dead child. It's far more likely that he temporarily disposed of her locally in the sports bag or similar in one of the many up and over bins located outside each block. Let's not forget, they were all looking for a live wandering child, and wouldnt be inspecting bins so vociferously.

Thank you very much for that.

Now that - if you and I are correct on that point - makes the Smithman sighting totally irrelevant.

Unless, that is, you are suggesting that they saw a real abductor? I don't think you are?

by Sundance 22.09.18 18:45

No, I would suggest they saw just a random dude carrying a child - a total coincidence. I don't believe the Smiths made it up to assist Murat, as he was pretty conformable with his alibi with his mother and his phone records, etc. I would be surprised, however, if the Smiths and the Murats didn't know each other given the frequency of their respective visits.
Smithman was, however, very convenient for the McCanns and they wrung out every drop of obfuscation.
I also don't subscribe to the multifarious players theory - not everyone was lying, this wasn't Murder on the Orient Express. I don't think all of the T7 knew what they were signing up to when they hastily constructed the timeline. Tanner knew and potentially Payne, but the others may have been constructing a narrative to avert scrutiny of child neglect, oblivious to the actual events that ensued.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.18 21:03

Sundance wrote:No, I would suggest they saw just a random dude carrying a child - a total coincidence. I don't believe the Smiths made it up to assist Murat, as he was pretty conformable with his alibi with his mother and his phone records, etc. I would be surprised, however, if the Smiths and the Murats didn't know each other given the frequency of their respective visits.
Smithman was, however, very convenient for the McCanns and they wrung out every drop of obfuscation.
I also don't subscribe to the multifarious players theory - not eveNo, I would suggest they saw just a random dude carrying a child - a total coincidence. I don't believe the Smiths made it up to assist Murat, as he was pretty conformable with his alibi with his mother and his phone records, etc. I would be surprised, however, if the Smiths and the Murats didn't know each other given the frequency of their respective visits.
Smithman was, however, very convenient for the McCanns and they wrung out every drop of obfuscation.
I also don't subscribe to the multifarious players theory - not everyone was lying, this wasn't Murder on the Orient Express. I don't think all of the T7 knew what they were signing up to when they hastily constructed the timeline. Tanner knew and potentially Payne, but the others may have been constructing a narrative to avert scrutiny of child neglect, oblivious to the actual events that ensued.ryone was lying, this wasn't Murder on the Orient Express. I don't think all of the T7 knew what they were signing up to when they hastily constructed the timeline. Tanner knew and potentially Payne, but the others may have been constructing a narrative to avert scrutiny of child neglect, oblivious to the actual events that ensued.

No, I would suggest they saw just a random dude carrying a child - a total coincidence.

But such a remarkable coincidence, don't you think, that the man and the girl that they saw matched almost exactly the descriptions of:
1 Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco
2 Tannerman by Jane Tannner &
3 Crecheman by DCI Andy Redwood?

I don't believe the Smiths made it up to assist Murat, as he was pretty conformable with his alibi with his mother and his phone records, etc.

How strange then that he should do nothing about the sighting for 13 days, then jump to it as soon as someone whom he knows is made a suspect

I would be surprised, however, if the Smiths and the Murats didn't know each other given the frequency of their respective visits.

Thank you for that, and glad you can see that. Others seem to deny how well the two knew each other

Smithman was, however, very convenient for the McCanns and they wrung out every drop of obfuscation.

Agreed

I also don't subscribe to the multifarious players theory - not everyone was lying, this wasn't Murder on the Orient Express.

People have misrepresented my position by claiming I am accusing 'everyone' of lying. For the record, I suggest that the statements of all the following are riddled with contradictions & changes of story:
The T9
Smiths
Robert Murat
Catriona Baker
Pamela Fenn.

Given the huge international dimension of this case and the extraordinarily high level of British government involvement in it, possibly it is even more complex than Murder on the Orient Express?

I don't think all of the T7 knew what they were signing up to when they hastily constructed the timeline.

How do we know it was 'hasty'? Maybe they had four days?

Tanner knew and potentially Payne, but the others may have been constructing a narrative to avert scrutiny of child neglect, oblivious to the actual events that ensued.

But there's no evidence whatsoever of 'child neglect' that week, unless you count leaving the children for periods of time and the 'checking' regime. But as far as I am aware there is no evidence from ANYONE of the checking regime being in operation until the Thursday evening?

I am open to correction

by Sundance 22.09.18 21:28

Apologies, Tony, child neglect as in the collective abandoning of the children. It may have been persuasive enough for some of them to sign up to a cobbled together timeline (and to answer your point
, if they potentially had a few days to agree a timeline, surely they would have come up with something more refined than the ham-fisted, ludicrous version scribbled twice on a sticker book page, although the sticker book page may also have been an attempt at giving the impression of improvisation).

There was a time when I thought the Krokowski / Lourenco thing was the key, but I sort of dismissed all that having been way too far down that rabbit hole. The answers are much closer to home than all that, including this enigma that is Murat, who I can't tell if he's a fanciful, narcissistic crackpot or a machiavellian, scheming player in all this. But having read the PJ surveillance transcript, I'm convinced he knew he was being followed and was purposely keeping his movements mundane.

by Verdi 22.09.18 21:44

Tony Bennett wrote:How strange then that he should do nothing about the sighting for 13 days, then jump to it as soon as someone whom he knows is made a suspect

So, taking up your point, let's break down and analyse the section of Martin Smith's statement taken on 26th May 2007 that alludes to Robert Murat..

— 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.

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

1. It goes way beyond coincidence that the child carried by Smithman was a girl, about three years of age, shoulder length dark blond hair, dressed in light coloured pyjamas - possibly barefoot. Likewise the clothing, stature and demeanour of the man carrying the child..

2. Why did Martin Smith deem it necessary to say "the child was in a deep sleep"? How could he know the child was in a deep sleep - unless he was cementing the 'children were drugged by abductor' claim?

3. It is not possible for him, Martin Smith, to recognise the individual in person or by photograph - yet he did in September 2007. What is video if not photographic imagery?

4. Martin Smith adds, not asked, not questioned, not urged but adds? Why did Martin Smith deem it necessary to bring the name of Robert Murat into the equation - unprompted?

From everything I've read in response to this subject, I've not seen one convincing argument to explain why Martin Smith, his daughter and son, waited for over three weeks before reporting the sighting to the police. Plenty of maybe, what if, perhaps, he could have, kids don't lie, why would he etc. but not one convincing argument. Any more than I've seen a convincing argument to explain why he, Martin Smith, waited from 9th September 2007 to 20th September 2007, to report his concerns about Gerry McCann having seen video of footage of the McCanns arrival back in the UK on television.

The McCanns must have had more televised and press coverage in the summer of 2007 than Brexit has today. They were indeed superstars.

by Verdi 22.09.18 21:59

The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED Madeleine-mccann-1

Mother and father, Kate and Gerry McCann (REX/Shutterstock)

by Phoebe 22.09.18 23:31

@ Tony Bennet - You state above -

"But such a remarkable coincidence, don't you think, that the man and the girl that they saw matched almost exactly the descriptions of
1) Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco
2) Tannerman by Jane Tanner
3) Crecheman by DCI Andy Redwood."

The fact of the matter is that the man the Smith's described does NOT match the description of Krowkoski or Tannerman. Both of these men are described as having long hair (in a pony-tail according to Lourenco) while the man the Smiths described had short hair in a traditional male cut ie short back-and-sides. The clothing described by Lourenco (Sagresman) and Tanner (Tannerman) does NOT match the description given by the Smiths. Nor does the skin complexion or height described by Tanner match that given by the Smiths.
Additionally, the Smiths claimed that the child they saw was wearing a LONG-sleeved top while the McCanns described Madeleine as being dressed in SHORT-sleeved pyjamas!

2)The P.J. would have quickly established if the Smiths knew Murat. It is obvious that no such relationship was found and that they were perfectly happy with Martin Smith's evidence about this. You have been posting for days that the P.J. found Martin Smith an "unreliable witness". If that were true his relationship with Murat would certainly have been questioned.!!!

@Verdi - You state above -

Why did Martin Smith deem it necessary to say "the child was in a deep sleep"? How could he know the child was in a deep sleep - unless he was cementing the 'children were drugged by abductor' claim? -

I presume he used the past tense because he was speaking about a past event.
When a child of 3 or 4 years old is obviously too limp to place her arms for balance and security around the neck of the person carrying her but has them dangling instead - when she shows no awareness of her surroundings, the temperature, or the fact that she is in motion - when her eyelids are closed ( as per testimony of Peter Smith) and when the hour is almost 10 p.m. - then the normal reaction is to assume the girl is asleep!

You state above -

"It is not possible for him, Martin Smith, to recognise the individual in person or by photograph" - yet he did in Sept 2007. What is video if not photographic imagery"

Firstly, video is a moving image, showing the individual both in motion and from several different angles, whereas a photo is a single, still image, devoid of movement and offering only a single perspective.
We can actually recognise people from the way they move.
Research has shown that we can recognise people with surprising accuracy from their movement alone. This fascinating research shows that it is possible to recognise people we know, even when watching a PITCH BLACK screen with just "point lights" attached to various joints and limbs! Merely from observing the "light points" alone in motion, without any other visual cues, subjects have been able to identify (with significant accuracy) which person they are observing!

(check out the research of Ramon Mollineda at the Universitat Jaume 1.

"We all have a very personal way of walking. "Although it is easy to manipulate and consciously change, each person walks in a different way", says Mollineda. "There are experiments in which a person has to recognize familiar people just watching his/her silhouette in motion and the success rate is very high", he adds)
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-07-people.html#jCp

You state above @(4)

"Martin Smith ADDS, not asked, not questioned, not urged but ADDS. Why did Martin Smith deem it necessary to bring the name of Robert Murat into the equation - unprompted."

I would be absolutely astonished if the P.J., having had Jane Tanner identify Robert Murat as Tannerman on May 13th, failed to ask Martin Smith two weeks later whether the man he had seen could possibly be the man who was now the main focus of the investigation! Heavens above, there's incompetent and then there's incompetent but the failure to do so would have been incomprehensible.
In any case. as has been said before - if the Smiths were trying to give Murat an alibi, they could have done it much more effectively by simply stating he was with them during the time Madeleine was "abducted". No need to "invent" any sighting.

by **Jill Havern** 23.09.18 9:02

@Phoebe

I just want to say thank you for continuing to add your counter-argument to the Smithman threads, and keeping a cool head whilst doing so!

It is only posts such as yours which help us all get to the likely truth. PeterMac once said: "It is refreshing once in a while to go right back to the start and to pick away at what was said, ’until it bleeds’. In this case it becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdam’ ". (reduction to absurdity)

I, for one, am still on the fence regarding the truth about Smithman so it is very useful to read your posts aswell as Tony's and others. I believe Madeleine died on the Sunday or Monday so do not believe, for one minute, that Gerry was carrying the three/four-day-old corpse of Madeleine, but he could have been carrying Jane Tanner's daughter to create another red herring/fake sighting, or the Smiths could have genuinely seen someone else - a different man with a child...and perhaps used that sighting to help Murat/McCanns. Or he could have just made it all up, for whatever reason.
$i don\'t know$

Fact is, I spend so much time 'behind the scenes' designing/maintaining the forum; helping Peter with his e-book and my other blogs and facebook group etc, that I don't spend enough time reading the files, which is why I rarely comment on them. I've discovered that some women simply cannot multi-task!

I personally think your contribution is equally important to keep the debate going until the truth emerges, just as it did with PeterMac's Pool Photo research.

hide

<<< (is Tony around?)

by The Rooster 23.09.18 9:03

Gerry McCann carrying a dead child around town is not believeable in my opinion. Very risky and not supported by strong evidence.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.09.18 13:06

The Rooster wrote:Gerry McCann carrying a dead child around town is not believeable in my opinion. Very risky and not supported by strong evidence.

+1

by Phoebe 23.09.18 13:34

@ Jill Havern. Thank you for your kind comments Jill. roses

Firstly, let me say I think this forum is an invaluable site with a wealth of information, well laid out and readily accessible.
I have always been wary of espousing any particular theory without hard evidence. To do so can easily lead to bias. This does not mean people should be discouraged from thinking and reasoning out likely scenarios but I feel we should always remember that in the absence of hard proof they remain theories and hypotheses.
I think it is very useful that the MMRG has put forward the hypothesis of Madeleine having died before May 3rd and eagerly await a response to same. Until that response comes we cannot fully know what convinced the P.J. that Madeleine was alive that day. Is this belief just based on the testimony contained in the files or are there other, convincing informal accounts of Madeleine having been seen after the Sunday. Until I see the response I'll have to suspend judgement.
I do not believe the Smiths were part of any conspiracy. The notion is too far-fetched for my liking and has, IMO, absolutely no evidence to support it. If their alleged role was to save Murat's bacon they could have simply said he was with them at the crucial time.
Nor do I see any evidence that they are helping the McCanns. They have cast suspicion on Gerry McCann by identifying him as the man they saw that night. Far from helping him, that is damning. We are told that the reason Gerry McCann has not been questioned further is because "He was where he was" ie. at the Tapas table, when Madeleine disappeared. The main challenge to this claim and, therefore, a compelling reason why Gerry might be re investigated over this alibi, comes from the Smiths' evidence. Even if the Smiths were mistaken about who they saw, I think it useful that attention be focused on where exactly each of the Tapas 9, including Gerry, was in the immediate run-up to the announcement that Madeleine was gone. I believe that fear of any such investigation was one of the main reasons for Team McCann's down-playing of the Smith sighting for so long.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.09.18 12:43

Jill Havern wrote:@Phoebe

I just want to say thank you for continuing to add your counter-argument to the Smithman threads, and keeping a cool head whilst doing so!

It is only posts such as yours which help us all get to the likely truth. PeterMac once said: "It is refreshing once in a while to go right back to the start and to pick away at what was said, ’until it bleeds’. In this case it becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdam’ ". (reduction to absurdity)

I, for one, am still on the fence regarding the truth about Smithman so it is very useful to read your posts aswell as Tony's and others. I believe Madeleine died on the Sunday or Monday so do not believe, for one minute, that Gerry was carrying the three/four-day-old corpse of Madeleine, but he could have been carrying Jane Tanner's daughter to create another red herring/fake sighting, or the Smiths could have genuinely seen someone else - a different man with a child...and perhaps used that sighting to help Murat/McCanns. Or he could have just made it all up, for whatever reason.
$i don\'t know$

Fact is, I spend so much time 'behind the scenes' designing/maintaining the forum; helping Peter with his e-book and my other blogs and facebook group etc, that I don't spend enough time reading the files, which is why I rarely comment on them. I've discovered that some women simply cannot multi-task!

I personally think your contribution is equally important to keep the debate going until the truth emerges, just as it did with PeterMac's Pool Photo research.

<<< (is Tony around?)

REPLIES BELOW
I, for one, am still on the fence regarding the truth about Smithman so it is very useful to read your posts as well as Tony's and others.
REPLY: Three things are revealed by this thread:
1 That contrary to deliberate lies put about by a small and malicious clique on the #McCann tag on Twitter, this is a forum where open, robust debate IS allowed, that there is NO collective forum view on Smithman, and that NO-ONE is banned for allegedly having the 'wrong view' on Smithman
2 That the topic of Smithman is still of great interest - look at the numbers of those (a) viewing and (b) who have already replied to this thread, and
3 The question of whether the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann at 10pm on Thursday 3 May is still far from settled.
I believe Madeleine died on the Sunday or Monday so do not believe, for one minute, that Gerry was carrying the three/four-day-old corpse of Madeleine,
REPLY: Agreed. And that's why I continue to point out that the very idea that Smithman=Gerry McCann goes right against the forum view that something very serious may have happened to Madeleine Sunday (or Monday)
but he could have been carrying Jane Tanner's daughter to create another red herring/fake sighting,
REPLY: That and all the other 'decoy' theories that have from time to time been canvassed on here seem remote in the extreme
or the Smiths could have genuinely seen someone else - a different man with a child...and perhaps used that sighting to help Murat/McCanns.
REPLY: It's really implausible. Let's just recall for a moment that Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman' was meant to point to an abductor at 9.15pm. On 26 May 2007 three Smiths made statements clearly meant to give the impression they had seen an abductor carrying Madeleine: e.g. blonde hair, white/pink pyjamas, 'deep sleep', barefoot, 'looked about 4 years of age' etc. etc. Now how likely is it that:
on a cold & windy night, at 10.00pm in the dark, a man (with nobody with him), with no buggy, would be carrying a barefoot child clad only in pyjamas?
Or he could have just made it all up, for whatever reason.

REPLY: IMO, all the other alternatives are so unlikely that, however unpalatable it may be to accuse someone of making up a sighting, this seems the most likely. And then when you look at all the contradictions in the Smiths' accounts [SMITHMAN 5], and consider e.g. how likely it is that one can 'recognise' someone just by the way they walked and carried a child, and how they could possibly draw up efits 16 months after seeing someone in the dark, etc etc, this possibility becomes ever more probable to the point where it seems really the only explanation

.

by Verdi 24.09.18 13:14

Tony Bennett wrote:....and how they could possibly draw up efits 16 months after seeing someone in the dark, etc etc

If I may add - in the dark for only a second and still able to recall specific detail.

Admittedly we are all different, thank goodness, if I walked past someone at ten o'clock at night in the dark on a quiet dimly lit street, I wouldn't pay any attention other than the presence. Carrying a semi-clad child, my attention I'm sure would be drawn to the child, not the man's stature, demeanour and clothing.

Remember, they only saw this man in passing - allegedly.

by willowthewisp 24.09.18 15:12

Hi Verdi,Tony Bennett.Whatever the outcome there has been a "Cover Up " by UK Government,why?

You now have at least two Police Forces involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance since 3 May 2007,what have they been able to find on a "Possible Prosecution Basis",Zilch?

The same Police force leaders stood back and Never ever once gave praise to the Portugal PJ,they had deserted in 2007 on their investigation,only to state possible failures of the case!

Just suppose it is an "Hoax" that was put into fruition,that a simulation of an action was to be used for whatever reason(Tanner sighting),that Jez Wilkens was in the wrong place at the time of the "simulation"21.05 PM?

The"Murat comment",re-run of simulation pt 2,but this time someone may have seen something they were meant Not to see but did and the simulated Abductor knows that too,hence,Mr Brian Kennedy,legal team!

Then you have the Metropolitan Police Force,No Official E-fits of an "Abductor",yet have Mr Julian Totman and his daughters clothing they worn that night seen by DCI Andy Redwood,who could now be Tannerman,moving Time frame moment,A/C Mark Rowley,to "Assist the McCann's",Crime Watch 14 October 2013?

Just all coincidences,"blow it out your Arses",you'll feel better but it still stinks!

All over the World it is being reported of "Child abuse",Religions,Royalty hiding guilty person's in their premises for the past near Seven decades,yet here in the UK,it is still being propagated as an "Can We be Certain,Attitude",the children could all be wrong!

Major Cover Up of child abuse by the UK Establishment,"Conspiracy Theory, Idiots"!

If the McCann's have ECHR overturned by Supreme Court Portugal,then Portugal have to compensate the McCann's?

Where would that leave a future Portugal PJ Re-investigation,MMRG?

The Madeleine McCann case can only involve one very serious aspect pervading all Societies world wide that has also been Covered Up,think about Marc Dutroui and his links across Continents,in the continuation to have that Covered Up aswell!

by Phoebe 24.09.18 17:10

Where on earth did anyone get the idea that the Smith family only saw "Smithman" for " A second"!
Say aloud - "One, Mississippi" - at normal talking speed - that's a second! Now, unless Smithman was also Superman - faster than a speeding bullet - there is no way on this earth that the Smiths' view of his approach, his drawing level and his passing them lasted only "a second"!
Nor was there only one witness. We can see, in the files, ONLY the accounts of Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith re. what they saw. We do NOT have an account of what any of the other witnesses noticed, although we do know (from the files) that Tadhg Smith described what he saw to the Gardai when questioned.
We also have confirmation via Gemma O'Doherty that Mrs. Smith addressed the man. It's reasonable to deduce that she looked at him when speaking to him!
The entire Smith group would have pooled their various recollections of Smithman approaching, drawing level and passing each of their sub-groupings (which were spread out from each other) when discussing the matter among themselves, collectively giving them quite a lengthy viewing of Smithman.
The lighting was merely dim, not pitch dark. Of course one can see details of a person in reduced lighting. I attempted a small experiment in May of this year in Spain, while walking along a narrow, sparsely-lit alleyway. I was actually surprised by how much detail I could see of those people who were walking toward me!
As an aside, I thought it had been established that the night of May 3rd 2007 was not particularly windy, hence the disbelief of the McCanns tale of whooshing curtains. - @ Tony Bennett above "..How likely is that on a cold & windy night".
Finally, I cannot help but believe that the Smiths are accused of lying for fear their evidence might negatively reflect on the theory that Madeleine was dead by May 30th. Ditto for Mrs.Fenn's claims. I wonder what the reaction would be if she had claimed to have heard the crying on Sunday or Monday night, when some people claim Madeleine met her end. I cannot but suspect that her account would be lauded and taken as "proof" that something dreadful happened to Madeleine earlier in the week!

by **sharonl** 24.09.18 20:54

Not matter how long Smith says he saw Gerry, the following is from his statement:

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

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. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion