The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

Jill Havern wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:At, Leveson inquiry,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Home secretary Theresa May,"Front page of the scum unless you repent",ping,review granted?

You have such a way with words!

Hi jill Havern,in the Smith family sighting a person carrying a young girl over their Left Shoulder on 3 May 2007,Fact.

What is so far known is that all Nine people of the Smith Family were present along the alley way,fact.

The person and young girl have not been identified,fact.

Robert Murat was Not the person carrying the young girl on 3 May 2007,by Mr Smith,Fact.

We are informed via Tapas 7/9,that Mr McCann was present at the Tapas table when Kate informed them 22.00 PM,"They have taken her,Madeleine or Madeleine has disappeared,fact?

So the conundrum is,people are asked to believe 7/8 place Mr McCann at Tapas Bar,apartment 5a at 22.00 pm?

Mr McCann admits to being present when Kate Raises the alarm at Tapas Table,before leaving to search the Apartment?

Yet No staff can directly state seeing/being present to Mr McCann at 22.00 pm?

To discount the sighting of a Man carrying a Girl over his Left shoulder,as to be in anyway be involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance,whom the family had reported as missing on 3 May 2007 to the GNR at 22.41 pm?

Madeleine McCann is the only Three Year old girl known to have disappeared in Portugal on 3 May 2007,fact.

The people to doubt are the "Smith Family",due to what has formally been explained over the past Eleven years,where inaccuracies as to what the Smith family had stated, have been instigated as facts, yet later retracted by the BBC about the,Crime Watch special 14 October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,E-fits,Julian Totman,Jane "Moving time frame" Creche Dad,daughters clothing incident?

Person's have "Brazenly"sat in on Crime watch Programme stating the necessity to identify E-fit Man,which they had drawn up by their "Own Private Investigators" in 2007,copies given to Metropolitan Police several years later 2011, operation Grange, Review,but withheld from public by the McCann family in trying to trace their daughter?

It has taken considerable time to expedite the e-fits evidence as Mr Tony Bennett can verify,yet No UK Police force has manged to present E-fits after Eleven years of involvement,surely this must ring alarm bells,especially when Leicestershire Police Officers were present on Mr Robert Murat Identified by Jane Tanner!

I sincerely look forward to any Prosecutions as to likely,"Pervert The Course of Justice" in regard to Madeleine McCann's disappearance,as an absolute minimum charge to any person's involved with the case?

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. You state above -
 
"Instead they put emphasis on, and extensively promoted, their friends fictitious sighting which coincidentally matched that of one or two other significant witness sightings so they were able to deviously slip them into focus - culminating in the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special broadcast in October 2013"


The McCanns, (when they could no longer ignore the Smith sighting without it looking darned suspicious) certainly did try to imply that Smithman and Tannerman might be one and the same. No argument from me about that!


 However, the description given by the Smiths and Jane Tanner of the men they saw differs so much that anyone reading the Smiths statement would realise that Smithman, with his short-back-and-sides-light brown hair, and light skin, could not possibly be the hirsute man with the abundant, shiny, long black hair and swarthy complexion who Jane claimed to have seen.

Add to this that, by September, the Smiths had decided that Smithman looked very like Gerry McCann while Jane's "abductor" doesn't resemble Gerry in the slightest and it is patently obvious that the two men could not possibly be the same person.
 Given that the BBC took the extraordinary step of lying when claiming that Martin Smith had changed his mind, and now accepted that it was not Gerry he had seen, and it is easy to see that moves were afoot to mislead the public about what the Smiths described seeing.
 Further add to that the ridiculous lies from the Press that the Smiths had broken judicial secrecy and spoken to them to confirm that they had never contacted the police after May 26th '07 (conveniently airbrushing out Martin Smith's identification of Gerry as the man they met) and it becomes patently obvious that the Smith sighing is a sensitive subject which must be controlled and manipulated.
 The sighting could no longer be safely ignored after the P.J. files became public, so every attempt was made to down-play and manipulate it!

Sorry Phoebe, but which version of Jane's sighting are you referring to here?  The first one when she didn't see his face?  The e-fit with the moustache? Robert Murat? When she saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist? or some other version? 

Which version of the Smith sighting are you referring too?  The one when he wouldn't recognise the man again?  When he saw Gerry McCann? When he saw one of the e-fit men?  When he saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist?

sharonl wrote:

Sorry Phoebe, but which version of Jane's sighting are you referring to here?  The first one when she didn't see his face?  The e-fit with the moustache? Robert Murat? When she saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist? or some other version? 

Which version of the Smith sighting are you referring too?  The one when he wouldn't recognise the man again?  When he saw Gerry McCann? When he saw one of the e-fit men?  When he saw a man in beige trousers who didn't look like a tourist?

I have to laugh at dear old @ Phoebe trying to claim that the BBC 'lied', based on Gemma O'Doherty's weird article.

Maybe Phoebe has forgotten that it's on the record that Martin Smith was TWICE interviewed by either DCI Andy Redwood or one of Operation Grange's senior detectives as they prepared for their CrimeWatch epic, once in 2012 & once in 2013.

Does she really believe that SMITH, on both occasions, told Redwood to his face: "Look, I'm telling you that the man we all saw that night was Gerry McCann. Don't you dare use my sighting to promote the lie that Madeleine McCann was abducted!"?

NO. He co-operated with the BBC and Operation Grange and didn't bat an eyelid when they blatantly used his sighting to frame another phantom abductor (as former U.S. prosecutor Wendy Murphy so succincly Put it when asked about those two phoney efits.
 
He raised not a whisper of protest...

...until Gemma O'Doherty came a-knocking at his door looking for a good story

@ sharonl. _ you asked which version of Jane Tanners sighting I was  referring to. For clarity, here they are -

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

Time: 11.30


"Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type"

                ----------------------------------------------------
AUTO examination of witnesses 
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m 
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner



At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the OC, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the creche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service. Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes with a Slight "heel"
           ---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Tanner Rogatory Statement 8th April 2008

  “But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head.  And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than.  And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.........Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy


4078    “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”
Reply    “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes"


So Jane Tanners description of Tannerman on 3 occasions - Dark-skinned; Lots of long glossy dark hair: Horrible corticine- mustard trousers, dark puffy anorak; Baggy, ill-fitting clothes!
         ------------------------------------------------------
Now for the Smiths - Martin Smith 26th May 2007 -
 His hair was SHORT, in a basic male cut, BROWN in colour..He was wearing CREAM or BEIGE-coloured cloth trousers in a CLASSIC CUT"


Aoife Smith 26th May 2007 -
(1)" the individual was male, Caucasian, LIGHT-SKINNED... His hair was thick-ish, LIGHT BROWN in colour, SHORT AT THE BACK (normal) and a bit longer on the top...His trousers were SMOOTH "rights" along the legs, BEIGE in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration. 


Peter Smith 26th May 2007 -
Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. SHORT hair, BROWN in colour.


So in a nutshell, from the reliable evidence in the files- the man Jane saw was dark-skinned with lots of dark, glossy hair reaching down the back of his neck. He wore yellowish or mustard, baggy trousers and a dark puffy anorak. His clothing was notably baggy


 Meanwhile, the man the Smiths saw was light-skinned, with short, light-brown hair and cream - beige trousers of a normal, classic, fitted cut.

Tony Bennett wrote:I have to laugh at dear old @ Phoebe trying to claim that the BBC 'lied', based on Gemma O'Doherty's weird article.

That occurred to me also.  This is what Gemma O'Doherty had to say in the Village Magazine article published in February 2018..

Gemma O'Doherty:  The Village magazine - 9th February 2018

Last month, I asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.
....................

I think I said at the time the subject was being discussed on CMoMM - show us the evidence !!!  Without such it's just words - hearsay.

She then goes on to use Colin Sutton to bolster her argument ....

"Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation."

Colin Sutton, whose public persona so far has been less than convincing.   His documented opinions regarding to case have vacillated beyond recognition - rather like that of Mark Williams-Thomas.

However, the description given by the Smiths and Jane Tanner of the men they saw differs so much that anyone reading the Smiths statement would realise that Smithman, with his short-back-and-sides-light brown hair, and light skin, could not possibly be the hirsute man with the abundant, shiny, long black hair and swarthy complexion who Jane claimed to have seen.

I'm not concerned with minute detail, the important factor between Jane Tanner's description and that of Martin Smith and his son and daughter is ....

A man walking the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007. 

The man fully clothed (didn't appear to be a tourist).

Carrying a young child, most likely a girl of about 3/4 years of age. 

Child uncovered and dressed only in pyjamas;  maybe barefoot. 

That's all you need to know to realize a similarity between the two sightings, the rest is just window dressing.

@ Tony Bennet. Hi Tony, could you please provide the link containing the evidence that Martin Smith was interviewed by either Andy Redwood or another senior detective from Operation Grange in 2012-2013 as I seem to be unable to locate it.

Given that the police state that Operation Grange already had the e-fits in their possession since September 2008, one has to wonder why they waited until 2012 - 2013 to speak to Martin Smith!
 
If Martin Smith ever spoke with Andy Redwood, (and I eagerly await the evidence of this) I would certainly not expect him to attempt to instruct a Senior Officer, from a foreign country, heading up a major investigation in that country, on how to proceed with police work!
You claim that Martin Smith did not"raise a whisper of protest" about how his sighting was used by Operation Grange. Can you please provide the evidence re. this claim.

 After all, we hear that Dr. Amaral has protested about recent MSM claims that the is suing the McCanns, yet this alleged protest has, to date, failed to be publicly acknowledged or confirmed. In the absence of such confirmation should one conclude that Dr. Amaral is quite sanguine regarding these claims about his litigious intent. The only place I have seen suggestions of his displeasure is on internet fora such as this.  

Finally, would you be so kind as to provide the evidence to show that Martin Smith happily co-operated with the BBC and Operation Grange or that Wendy Murphy said anything negative about the Smiths' veracity as witnesses. Thanks.

@ Verdi.

I confess myself astonished that you state above that you are not interested in the "minute detail" of the descriptions of the men seen by Tanner and the Smiths!
 Many, many, many pages have previously been dedicated to the alleged "similarities" between these men's appearance, so much so that some have declared (based on the minutiae of these  descriptions) that they are "remarkably similar" and "almost identical"!

 I think it reasonable, necessary and important that, in order to ensure unbiased research, the obvious differences and contradictions between these two descriptions (and indeed that of "Sagresman") be noted and acknowledged and discussed.

The inescapable truth, unpalatable or not, is that - 
From the reliable evidence in the files, the man Jane saw was dark-skinned, with lots of dark, glossy hair, reaching down the back of his neck. He wore yellow-brown-mustard baggy trousers and a dark puffy anorak. His clothes were notably baggy.
Meanwhile, the man the Smiths saw was light-skinned, with short, light-brown hair. He was dressed in cream-beige trousers of classic, fitted cut with absolutely no suggestion of baggy clothing.

It is, IMO, ludicrous and misleading to expend so much time and ink on labouring "similarities" and stressing how important such "similarities" in appearance are, while at the same time totally ignoring obvious differences and deeming them unimportant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I confess myself astonished that you state above that you are not interested in the "minute detail" of the descriptions of the men seen by Tanner and the Smiths!

Yet you fail to acknowledge the salient point.

Verdi wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I confess myself astonished that you state above that you are not interested in the "minute detail" of the descriptions of the men seen by Tanner and the Smiths!

Yet you fail to acknowledge the salient point.

With respect, the salient point, for me, is that much time has been dedicated to poring over the minute details of the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman, with the emphasis on any "similarities." This emphasis on seeking "similarities" has led to the bold declaration that the descriptions of both men, in terms of clothing and physical appearance are "remarkably similar" and "nearly identical" - something which is clearly an erroneous claim. 
If the actual description details themselves are irrelevant, why has there been an obsessive interest in the details the Smiths gave re. their sighting.

@  Tony Bennett.
Tony, you cast doubt in an earlier post on the veracity of Gemma O'Doherty's claim that Martin Smith revealed to her that he had not changed his mind about Smithman being Gerry, and that he was annoyed with the BBC over falsely stating that he had done so. You avow that this is proven by the "fact" that Martin Smith did not protest to the BBC or demand a retraction or clarification re. this claim. 

This gives the following equation -

Lack of protest over a claim = the claim made must true. 

Now, Gemma O' Doherty herself, made a very serious claim about the BBC. She claimed that they had misled viewers (and even uses the damning suggestion that the BBC "bent the truth").
Since her article was published there has been no protest whatsoever from the BBC over her claim - no demand for a retraction of her statement that Martin Smith never told the BBC that he had changed his mind - No protest over O'Doherty's published claim that Smith contacted the BBC to register his concern over this false claim - No protest over any suggestion that the BBC bent the truth! No demand that she retract the suggestion that the BBC bent the truth.

Applying the same equation -

Lack of protest = claim is true

one must conclude that the lack of protest from the BBC proves that Gemma O'Doherty's statement must be true!!

Phoebe wrote:

Verdi wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I confess myself astonished that you state above that you are not interested in the "minute detail" of the descriptions of the men seen by Tanner and the Smiths!

Yet you fail to acknowledge the salient point.

With respect, the salient point, for me, is that much time has been dedicated to poring over the minute details of the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman, with the emphasis on any "similarities." This emphasis on seeking "similarities" has led to the bold declaration that the descriptions of both men, in terms of clothing and physical appearance are "remarkably similar" and "nearly identical" - something which is clearly an erroneous claim. 
If the actual description details themselves are irrelevant, why has there been an obsessive interest in the details the Smiths gave re. their sighting.

Yet you still fail to acknowledge the salient point.

I've asked you before and I'll ask again - please don't include me in some sort of collective.  Members of CMoMM are individuals, each with their own perspective, not a united force that follows only one line of thought.

Everything I write comes from me alone - I haven't a puppeteer pulling the strings or a ventriloquist gottle of geer'ing.

I thank you.

@ Verdi -

 I assure you that I was not including you in "some sort of collective" but referring to comments you, yourself, have posted on the matter.
For example, in the thread entitled -

 "Smithman 5: The evidence from the Smith family from Drogheda Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions"

Tony Bennett states -
"15. The description he did give of the man-carrying-a-child was a virtual carbon copy of the descriptions given to the PJ by Jane Tanner on 4 May and by Nuno Lourenco on 5 May of a man he said had tried to kidnap his daughter a week earlier"


In your own response to this -

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 14.07.15 23:40


You state -

"Every point you make Tony I think is valid, even though one or two areas are perhaps slightly tenuous, that trifle doesn't detract from the overall picture."

The above response clearly implies that you agree with the assertion that the description the Smiths gave of the man carrying a child was a virtual CARBON COPY of the descriptions given to the P.J. by Jane Tanner on 4th May and Nuno Lourenco on 5th May.
 Indeed, on several occasions on that thread Tony Bennett reiterates that the descriptions given for Tannerman, Smithman and Sagresman are "near identical "- with - nary a word of dissent from you. 

Perhaps you might clarify whether you accept that the description given by Jane Tanner of a dark-skinned man, with long-to-the-neck, very dark, glossy hair is the polar opposite of the description of the light-skinned individual with short-back-and-sides light brown hair, described by the Smiths. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I assure you that I was not including you in "some sort of collective" but referring to comments you, yourself, have posted on the matter.
For example, in the thread entitled -

 "Smithman 5: The evidence from the Smith family from Drogheda Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions"

Yet still you fail to acknowledge the salient point.  I've been around this case for too long to be sucked in by semantics.

Sorry you went to so much trouble digging around looking for something I've posted in the past in the hope of proving a point.

Time wasted I'm afraid.  My comment is exactly as it's written, no hidden meaning, no implication..

"Every point you make Tony I think is valid, even though one or two areas are perhaps slightly tenuous, that trifle doesn't detract from the overall picture."

I could likewise say I think your comments are valid, it doesn't mean I agree with you.

Still, I can't help the way you interpret what others say, that's your business alone.  I've nothing more to add, enough time has been wasted on a fruitless cause.

@ Verdi. - I posed a direct question to you, ergo, a direct, unambiguous answer would negate any danger of me "interpreting" or misinterpreting your response! No semantics nor room for misunderstanding involved. Forgive me, but you seem rather reluctant to answer this perfectly reasonable, simple question. To rephrase for clarity -
 
Do you accept that the man is described by Jane as having long, very dark, glossy hair while the man described by the Smiths has short, light-brown hair. Do you accept that Jane describes the man she saw as dark-skinned, while the Smiths describe the man they saw as light-skinned.

It is a simple question which does not encourage ambiguity or misunderstanding.

We seem to regard different points as "salient". I believe that the erroneous claims (which have been made repeatedly) that the descriptions of  Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman are "carbon copies" and "near identical" must not go unchallenged. The evidence to support the fact that such claims are incorrect is in the files. I firmly believe that ignoring such evidence is foolish and misleading.

I  do so agree with Phoebe  continuing with this question . 
A mental pic of Tannersman for instance imposes  itself on my mind as I type , the fact that he wore a jacket , at odds with the sparse clothing the child was dressed in .

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. - I posed a direct question to you, ergo, a direct, unambiguous answer would negate any danger of me "interpreting" or misinterpreting your response! No semantics nor room for misunderstanding involved. Forgive me, but you seem rather reluctant to answer this perfectly reasonable, simple question. To rephrase for clarity -
 
Do you accept that the man is described by Jane as having long, very dark, glossy hair while the man described by the Smiths has short, light-brown hair. Do you accept that Jane describes the man she saw as dark-skinned, while the Smiths describe the man they saw as light-skinned.

It is a simple question which does not encourage ambiguity or misunderstanding.

We seem to regard different points as "salient". I believe that the erroneous claims (which have been made repeatedly) that the descriptions of  Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman are "carbon copies" and "near identical" must not go unchallenged. The evidence to support the fact that such claims are incorrect is in the files. I firmly believe that ignoring such evidence is foolish and misleading.

Touche.
As an aside, at least the Smiths account is verifiable, in so far as they were actually there. Jane Tanner saw a dude whilst not being seen herself!

Getting back to the title of this thread - The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann - CAREFULLY EXPLAINED.

The police concluded that the McCanns were involved in the occultation of their daughter's body. 

"Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation  of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann." (Taveres Da Almeida interim report.)
 
The P.J. believed that Madeleine died sometime after 5.30 p.m on May 3rd - ergo the occultation of her corpse must have taken place sometime between 5.30 pm. May 3, and when the disappearance was reported.

The Smith family reported seeing, at around 9.50- 10 p.m. on May 3rd, a man carrying a blonde unresponsive child aged about 4. The child's age, hairstyle and colour are a perfect match for Madeleine. They describe the man they saw as light-skinned, with short back and sides light brown hair, 175-180 cm tall, of medium build, in good shape. 

The police believe the Mccanns were involved in hiding the corpse.

Gerry McCann looked like this in '07

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 In  Sept '07 Martin Smith states that he and his wife are up to 80% certain that the man they met carrying the child was Gerry McCann.

There are no independent witnesses who can place Gerry at the table when the Smiths saw Smithman. 
It is easy to see where the theory that Smithman= Gerry comes from and why it persists.

Phoebe wrote:Getting back to the title of this thread - The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann - CAREFULLY EXPLAINED.

The police concluded that the McCanns were involved in the occultation of their daughter's body. 

"Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation  of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann." (Taveres Da Almeida interim report.)
 
The P.J. believed that Madeleine died sometime after 5.30 p.m on May 3rd - ergo the occultation of her corpse must have taken place sometime between 5.30 pm. May 3, and when the disappearance was reported.

The Smith family reported seeing, at around 9.50- 10 p.m. on May 3rd, a man carrying a blonde unresponsive child aged about 4. The child's age, hairstyle and colour are a perfect match for Madeleine. They describe the man they saw as light-skinned, with short back and sides light brown hair, 175-180 cm tall, of medium build, in good shape. 

The police believe the Mccanns were involved in hiding the corpse.

Gerry McCann looked like this in '07

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 In  Sept '07 Martin Smith states that he and his wife are up to 80% certain that the man they met carrying the child was Gerry McCann.

There are no independent witnesses who can place Gerry at the table when the Smiths saw Smithman. 
It is easy to see where the theory that Smithman= Gerry comes from and why it persists.

Yes!  And it’s an emphatic yes!