Re: The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

by Guest 27.09.18 13:07

Tony Cadogan wrote:I still haven’t told her to shut up

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?

by Guest 27.09.18 13:17

So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

That aside, my point was not intended to be about timings but about the unlikely event of Gerry McCann walking the streets of Praia da Luz in the hope of being seen - and possibly recognized.

In the words of Clarence Mitchell - it's ludicrous!

by Sundance 27.09.18 13:43

Verdi wrote:So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

But we're (or at least I am) taking it as read that GA's theory is correct, so it follows that the veracity of his assertion that she was seen at approx 1730 on 03/05/07 is not in question, as his whole premise is based on it. I would be extremely surprised if he and his team had not been meticulous about this 'fact', as his competence has never been questioned by anybody that matters.
I understand that it's based on witness testimony, so they must have filtered out the wheat from the chaff at some point and decided to hang his fedora on it.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 14:17

Verdi
Tony Cadogan wrote:I still haven’t told her to shut up
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?

“Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?”

I don’t, but I will.

“My intuition has been telling me for years that Dr Amaral is not the kind of person to make a mistake with the timing of crucial importance. I still haven’t told her to shut up.”

My intuition is a female if you must know. I call her The White Goddess.

My post was not intended for you, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to understand what I was saying. Taking of appearances… To me, you often appear suspicious, rude, and lacking sense of humour.

Should you feel like questioning me in the future, please be good enough to afford me the same courtesy you afford many others on this forum. You have been obnoxious to me before, PLEASE STOP.

I love that Van Dyckian red hook in you post btw. I don’t suppose you are Van Dyck, are you?

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 14:58

Sundance wrote:
Verdi wrote:So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

But we're (or at least I am) taking it as read that GA's theory is correct, so it follows that the veracity of his assertion that she was seen at approx 1730 on 03/05/07 is not in question, as his whole premise is based on it. I would be extremely surprised if he and his team had not been meticulous about this 'fact', as his competence has never been questioned by anybody that matters.
I understand that it's based on witness testimony, so they must have filtered out the wheat from the chaff at some point and decided to hang his fedora on it.

You very good at making sense, Sundance. No wonder: it happens when the Sun and the dance get together.

“Blessed are the meek:
for they shall inherit the earth”

by Phoebe 27.09.18 15:01

@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

by Sundance 27.09.18 15:17

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

Your attention to detail is a credit to you and the forum. You regularly, inadvertently, provide me with the answers I am too bone idle to look for myself.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 15:27

Phoebe@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

Thank you, Phoebe, I am aware of that. I'll dream and get back to you if I have anything to get back with. The till receipts are what I have in mind.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 15:42

Sundance wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).
Your attention to detail is a credit to you and the forum. You regularly, inadvertently, provide me with the answers I am too bone idle to look for myself.

Seconded.

by Phoebe 27.09.18 15:47

@ Tony Cadogan. The P.J. paid a visit to Kelly's Bar on October 10th 2007. They did get copies of the till receipts which are annexed to their report but which just show the cost of drinks ordered and the change due, so they don't really reveal much and the staff could n't remember the Smith s visit -

Snipped from report-

On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.

"When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities"

It's in the P.J files 3276-3280 under the "Bars and Restaurants" banner if that helps.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 16:08

@"Phoebe

It’s very kind of you, thanks. I knew the receipts were in the files, but I didn’t remember what the PJ had made of them. You are quick. Thanks again.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 16:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From where I stand, that supports the view that the PJ where diligent in trying to get to the bottom of the Smiths incident.

by Phoebe 27.09.18 17:16

Tony Cadogan wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From where I stand, that supports the view that the PJ where diligent in trying to get to the bottom of the Smiths incident.

I agree. If they bothered to check out whether the Smiths had actually gone to Kelly's Bar (and this was after Martin Smith's claim that it was Gerry McCann he had seen) it suggests that they were interested enough in this information to follow it up. I also believe (given this level of checking) that they would have uncovered very quickly any information or evidence that Robert Murat and Martin Smith were better known to each other than they claimed.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 22:30

Phoebe wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From where I stand, that supports the view that the PJ where diligent in trying to get to the bottom of the Smiths incident.
I agree. If they bothered to check out whether the Smiths had actually gone to Kelly's Bar (and this was after Martin Smith's claim that it was Gerry McCann he had seen) it suggests that they were interested enough in this information to follow it up. I also believe (given this level of checking) that they would have uncovered very quickly any information or evidence that Robert Murat and Martin Smith were better known to each other than they claimed.

Yes, I agree. You may remember that there was a note on RDH’s website from Martin Smith making it clear that he (MS) hardly knew Murat and met him only a couple of times, thus correcting what RDH said in his video.

by willowthewisp 28.09.18 13:08

Martin Brunt had more contact with Robert Murat,Brian Kennedy has met everyone bar the dogs,but there is still No evidence,especially if you rule out FSS "deliberate f*** up"on DNA/LCI,then inadvertently destroy what was left of the samples on,"Health Grounds"!

But no Cover Up,patience wearing a bit thin of all the s**t involved with the case,ti'll turn out like the Un-solved Murder of Daniel Morgan,with all traces leading to a certain,"Murdoch" Clan Empire, chicanery No doubt!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 8:27

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Yes, I agree. You may remember that there was a note on RDH’s website from Martin Smith making it clear that he (MS) hardly knew Murat and met him only a couple of times, thus correcting what RDH said in his video.

What Richard Hall said in his video was that Martin Smith was a 'friend' of Robert Murat.

All Martin Smith did was to 'correct' Richard and say: "Murat and I were not friends".

However, since the Smiths' credibility is in doubt, can we trust anything he says? After all, he was quoted back in January 2008 as saying that "I've met Robert Murat several times and known him for years".

---------

After 85 votes have been cast in the poll on this thread, I will make a brief comment.

It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

by lemonbutter 01.10.18 8:56

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

"It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007."

I would not call 34% nearly half.

More than half of those who have voted do accept that the Smith family saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

by polyenne 01.10.18 8:57

After 85 votes have been cast in the poll on this thread, I will make a brief comment. It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

Tony, that's a great bit of spin you've applied there, you should be a politician.

Over half, 55%, of those voting DO think that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying a child that night.

by polyenne 01.10.18 8:58

Whoops, Lemonbutter beat me to it !

by polyenne 01.10.18 8:59

After 85 votes have been cast in the poll on this thread, I will make a brief comment. It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

Tony, that's a great bit of spin you've applied there, you should be a politician.

Over half, 55%, of those voting DO think that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying a child that night.

by Doug D 01.10.18 10:13

Frankly I’m gobsmacked that more than a handful of people have voted that:

Martin Smith and family DID see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine around 10pm, 3 May 2007

although it is a very small vote, ( and maybe just an anti-TB one?).

Did they actually read the statement properly?

Even if you are of the belief that Smithman was indeed Gerry and he wanted to be seen to evidence the supposed ‘abduction’, do they really think he would have let his face be in any way visible?

You’d make damn sure you walked close to the right hand side so that everybody had to pass you on the left side and make sure that your face was well covered with the child and your arms when you passed anyone by.

by Sundance 01.10.18 10:38

Doug D wrote:Frankly I’m gobsmacked that more than a handful of people have voted that:

Martin Smith and family DID see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine around 10pm, 3 May 2007

although it is a very small vote, ( and maybe just an anti-TB one?).

Did they actually read the statement properly?

Even if you are of the belief that Smithman was indeed Gerry and he wanted to be seen to evidence the supposed ‘abduction’, do they really think he would have let his face be in any way visible?

You’d make damn sure you walked close to the right hand side so that everybody had to pass you on the left side and make sure that your face was well covered with the child and your arms when you passed anyone by.

To be fair, if the poll was less prescriptive, although obviously it's a poll so it needs to be, we may have seen more voting ambiguity. If there was another question, which I think is missing: Martin Smith and family saw someone else unconnected to the case, carrying a child around 10pm, 3 May 2007, then there would be a more even split.

by Phoebe 01.10.18 11:35

@ Tony Bennett. You state above -

"However, since the Smiths' credibility is in doubt, can we trust anything he says? After all, he was quoted back in January 2008 as saying that "I've met Robert Murat several times and known him for years".

The "quote" you proffer came from a newspaper. That's how trustworthy it is!!

Actually, the Smith sighting was the very first aspect in this case which disabused me of my early notion (back in 2007) that what might have happened was the following -

Back then I had come to believe that the Tapas 9 were lying about the events of that night. That what might have happened was that the alleged checking was not as claimed - that they never checked anyone other than their own children and that the McCanns did so only at considerable intervals, well in excess of the stated half hour. That when they finally were forced by evidence to admit to leaving the door (perhaps doors) open, that this was true, and that perhaps Madeleine had got out and wandered before a third party caused her to disappear. Initially, I believed that what they were desperate to cover this neglect up, hence the insistence that Madeleine was taken form the room - and the fabrication about jemmied shutters, open windows, strange door angles and Jane having actually witnessed Madeleine being carried away from the apartment. It also explained the rushed and ridiculous time-line hastily concocted on a sticker book to bolster the claims about frequent checks and responsible parenting.

What disabused me of this idea - SMITHMAN!

If it were true that the McCanns were guilty of gross neglect alone and trying to hide this, it would have meant that they did not know what had happened after Madeleine got out of the apartment and, lousy parents or not, they would have done everything to assist in her recovery.
When news broke that a family had seen a man carrying an unconscious child, who matched Madeleine's description and around the time her absence was noticed, I would have expected them to grab it and promote it. They could have done so while still keeping alive the suggestion that this unknown man took her from 5A.
Instead, what happened - the McCanns completely ignored the sighting. They made no attempt to contact the witnesses ASAP, they did not question the P.J. about what the Police were making of, or doing about, following up this potentially vital lead. They did not seek to spread the news of the Smith sighting in the media, whilst eagerly promoting other rubbish. And all this was long before Martin Smith claimed it was Gerry he had seen with the aforementioned child.
What this told me categorically was that the McCanns did not believe that Madeleine might have escaped and been picked up and abducted by a stranger who crossed her path! When the dogs came later, their findings clearly pointed to a death in the apartment, which changed everything!

For me, Smithman is a crucial event, which clearly suggests that the McCanns knew full and well that whichever child the Smiths saw that night - it couldn't possibly have been Madeleine.

by Guest 01.10.18 12:25

Doug D wrote:although it is a very small vote, ( and maybe just an anti-TB one?).

Amen to that !!!

Let evidence and critical thinking prevail. Watching within the forum and without, there is no logical argument presented to counter the conclusions of case researchers about the Smith sighting.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 12:50

lemonbutter wrote:@Tony Bennett [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007."

I would not call 34% nearly half.

More than half of those who have voted do accept that the Smith family saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

You have misunderstood.

You have omitted the 12% or so that are not sure either way. They obviously count WITH those who DO NOT accept that Smithman # Gerry McCann.

So nearly half (12% plus 34% = 46%] DO NOT accept that Smithman = Gerry McCann.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 12:53

polyenne wrote:After 85 votes have been cast in the poll on this thread, I will make a brief comment. It is encouraging to me to see that nearly half of those who have voted DO NOT accept as true that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on the evening of 3 May 2007.

Tony, that's a great bit of spin you've applied there, you should be a politician.

Over half, 55%, of those voting DO think that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying a child that night.

With the very greatest of respect to you, there was no spin whatsoever in my post.

I gave a wholly accurate perspective on the results so far after 85 votes.

Your perspective is also wholly accurate.

Both are wholly accurate and legitimate perspectives.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 13:01

Doug D wrote:Frankly I’m gobsmacked that more than a handful of people have voted that:

Martin Smith and family DID see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine around 10pm, 3 May 2007

although it is a very small vote, ( and maybe just an anti-TB one?).

Did they actually read the statement properly?

Even if you are of the belief that Smithman was indeed Gerry and he wanted to be seen to evidence the supposed ‘abduction’, do they really think he would have let his face be in any way visible?

You’d make damn sure you walked close to the right hand side so that everybody had to pass you on the left side and make sure that your face was well covered with the child and your arms when you passed anyone by.

You wrote: although it is a very small vote, ( and maybe just an anti-TB one?).

REPLY: I am certainly aware that a noisy group of cronies on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag on Twitter who continually bad-mouth me variously as 'a government shill' or 'having done a dirty deal with the McCanns' or 'now employed by the McCanns' etc. etc. have been boasting about how they have voted in this CMOMM poll. They are utterly convinced that Smithman = Gerry McCann and anyone who disagrees with them is shouted down and vilified.

Unlike on CMOMM where the debate about Smithman is robust but civilised

by Phoebe 01.10.18 13:15

@ Tony Bennett. Tony can you answer these questions please.

Why did the McCanns not seek to have the Smithman sighting investigated ASAP by their own investigators.
Why did they not push the P.J. to give them information about it, or exhort the police to investigate it.
Why did they not promote it publicly as soon as they learned of it and appeal for further information.
Why did they not immediately seek to contact the family to speak to them about what they saw. After all, they were desperate to speak to an O.C. employee who wasn't even at work that night and who had seen nothing!
Why did they ignore a large group of witnesses who had seen an unconscious girl, matching their "missing" daughter's description, being carried by a man at the crucial time.
Why would they get the Smiths to invent a sighting and then totally ignore it when it was reported!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 13:34

Sundance wrote:
To be fair, if the poll was less prescriptive, although obviously it's a poll so it needs to be, we may have seen more voting ambiguity. If there was another question, which I think is missing: Martin Smith and family saw someone else unconnected to the case, carrying a child around 10pm, 3 May 2007, then there would be a more even split.

I always try and make my polls scrupulously fair, for example, I invariably put first the option I am against (unlike a lot of other opinion pollsters)!

I did consider whether to include the option "Martin Smith & family saw someone else unconnected", but I reasoned that anyone of that view would be bound to vote: 'Smithman is NOT Gerry McCann'.

As a matter of interest, anyone who believes that, quote 'Martin Smith and family saw someone else unconnected to the case, carrying a child around 10pm, 3 May 2007' is automatically declaring that the sighting is utterly irrelevant to the case.

Except of course for the BBC, Operation Grange, the McCanns, and all those behind them, who are all no doubt delighted that the handy Smithman sighting has enabled them to continue to promote the abduction narrative and make us believe in a fake abductor - AND, into the bargain, cause an unseemly row between those who do and don't believe that Smithman is Gerry McCann.

Oh well.

.

by Cmaryholmes 01.10.18 13:47

If I may add my thoughts, which probably won’t add anything of value, but I’ll say it anyway ....
Such a strange sideshow as the Smith sighting creates more questions than answers. For instance, why on earth would Gerry take part in the Crime Watch programme showing the e fits which look so much like him, if not to muddy the waters even more?
Another thought I had is the question, just how many ways are there to carry a young child downstairs? Apparently the way Gerry did this rang alarm bells !
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the Smith sighting is a bit like throwing some random pieces into a jigsaw puzzle in order to confuse and obscure the picture.