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

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 13:59

Phoebe wrote:@ 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!!

That is a very lazy and very bad argument to use, and you know it.

Most of us on here and I myself fully acknowledge that the mainstream media have omitted huge swathes of facts about the Madeleine McCann case and have in addition been guilty of many inaccurate comments and outright fabrications.

You may recall that I put in a lot of effort to successfully get the Daily Express to retract a false claim that Goncalo Amaral had lied in court.

But your post amounts to saying: "You can't trust one word that's written in the newspapers".

That's an absurd proposition. Most journalists are not habitual liars and take reasonable care to quote people accurately.

Why should we distrust Martin Smith's admission that: "I've met Robert Murat several times and known him for years"?

Moreover, that's not the only time that he and his son have made very similar statements.

Have we seen Martin Smith deny these statements? No we haven't.

The references to how well Martin Smith knew Murat are all over the place:

met him once

met him twice in May and August

known him for years

met him several times over two years...etc. etc.

If I couple this with Martin Smith & family doing NOTHING about their sighting for 13 days and then leaping into action the moment Murat is pulled in for questioning and made a suspect, then - along with others - I am fully entitled to question just how well the two men knew each other.

And judging by the amount of lies that have been told by certain witnesses in this case, generally speaking I would put more reliance on a newspaper quote (which has not been denied by the maker of the statement) than on some of the statements made by witnesses in this case.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 14:02

Cmaryholmes wrote: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.

+1

Great post, actually thumbup

. You've sussed it 2thumbs

by Sundance 01.10.18 14:05

Cmaryholmes wrote:
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 !

Not sure why, having managed this process myself several times; carrying a sleeping child down slippy aircraft steps, cradling the child in one arm like Garth, peering over the child's shoulder looking for your footing and gripping the handrail to avert slipping on ones coccyx.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 14:15

Phoebe wrote:@ 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!

REPLY: You’ve not been reading and understanding my posts on the subject.

1 Why did the McCanns not seek to have the Smithman sighting investigated ASAP by their own investigators.

REPLY: Because the Smiths contacted the police on 16 May 2007 to help Robert Murat. The McCanns could not use that sighting until the lawyered-up McCann Team had met with the lawyered-up Murat team at the Salsalito Summit at the Eveleighs’ house on 13 November 2007. I most respectfully suggest that you read up all that you possibly can about that summit meeting in order to gain a better understanding of it

2 Why did they not push the P.J. to give them information about it, or exhort the police to investigate it.

REPLY: Same answer as to Question 1

3 Why did they not promote it publicly as soon as they learned of it and appeal for further information.

REPLY: Same answer as Question 1. Just weeks after the Salsalito Summit, the McCann Team approached the Smiths via Brian Kennedy, Metodo 3, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton. They got the Smiths to approve the efits and thereafter milked the Smith sighting

4 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!

REPLY: Same answer as to Question 1

5 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.

REPLY: Same answer as to Question 1

6 Why would they get the Smiths to invent a sighting and then totally ignore it when it was reported!

REPLY: They didn’t. They USED the Smith sighting only after the Salsalito Summit. The sighting was I believe invented by Martin Smith at the instigation of Murat or those in his ‘camp’.

All my answers IMO based on information readily available in the public domain

by polyenne 01.10.18 14:58

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.

And with all due respect to you Mr Bennett, on the basis that you allow yourself to add, to the 34%, the 12% that are not sure either way then one can add those same "unsure" 12% to the 55% to reach a positively heady 67% (over 2/3rd) who DO accept Smithman = Gerry McCann.

Why do they OBVIOUSLY count WITH ??

by Phoebe 01.10.18 17:24

IMO, the hypothesis that Gerry was Smithman carrying Madeleine presents challenges because of the risks such a course of action would pose.

The main risk was that someone would see and recognise him.

Against that, he would have weighed the odds. In favour of following such a course of action were the following factors -

It was a short journey to where he met the Smiths, about 4 mins. and much of it could have been achieved over rough ground or alleyways.

It was after dark and because it was out of season (Easter hols long over) the resort was very quiet with few people about.

He had eight solid, respectable witnesses who would swear that it could NOT have been him if he had been seen. He also had the Carpenters who would testify to seeing him arrive for dinner at the Tapas and Jeremy Wilkins to testify meeting him on a quick child-check during this meal.

It still would have been an audacious plan.

On the other hand, if we are to believe that Madeleine died on Sunday night, that presents, IMO, even more risks.

They had to run the risk of trying to hide Madeleine's absence from the nannies, the Ocean Club staff, the Tapas staff at high tea, the sailing instructors, the tennis instructors, the other parents and the children of the Tapas 9 for all of Monday and Monday night, all of Tuesday and Tuesday night, all of Wednesday and Wednesday night, all of Thursday until 10 p.m. that night.

They had to hope that there would not be a fire-drill in creche, or any game played which involved the children being called by name or talking about themselves.

They had to hope Raj Balu would not contradict them over the playground photo in which he features (which they claimed was taken on Tuesday).

They had to attend tennis lessons, mix with other holiday-makers, go to the creches and dine at the Tapas each night, all the while pretending nothing was wrong after their child had just died.

Now that's a pretty audacious plan!

Some might say that Gerry could never have hoped to get away with being Smithman. The reality is, if he WAS Smithman, then he HAS got away with it!

WAS Gerry Smithman - I don't know. But, if he had the audacity and daring to risk trying to cover up her death in a complex full of potential witnesses for four long days, then I don't see him balking at a four minute run with less chance of witnesses to expose him!!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 17:33

polyenne wrote: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.

And with all due respect to you Mr Bennett, on the basis that you allow yourself to add, to the 34%, the 12% that are not sure either way then one can add those same "unsure" 12% to the 55% to reach a positively heady 67% (over 2/3rd) who DO accept Smithman = Gerry McCann.

Why do they OBVIOUSLY count WITH ??

With very great respect to yourself once again @ polyenne, you have both misunderstood once again and been inaccurate once again.

Let me try to explain again.

Take the 11% that are 'unsure'. They cannot possibly be counted as ACCEPTING that Smithman is Gerry McCann, can they?

So what I said originally was absolutely correct. That is, take the 11% 'Unsure' with the 34% who say 'NOT Gerry' and you have 45% NOT SURE that Gerry is Smithman i.e. nearly half.

--------

Now you claimed this: "Then one can add those same "unsure" 12% to the 55% to reach a positively heady 67% (over 2/3rd) who DO accept Smithman = Gerry McCann".

With great respect, NO.

I will of course allow you to add the 11% or 12% unsure to the 55%, making your 67%.

But you must be ACCURATE in what you claim. Your statement was wholly inaccurate. None of my statements have been either misleading or inaccurate.

This, and only this, is what you may say:

"67% either think Smithman is Gerry McCann (55%) or that he may be (12%)".

Please confirm that you accept my statement above as accurate.

.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 17:39

Phoebe wrote:IMO, the hypothesis that Gerry was Smithman carrying Madeleine presents challenges because of the risks such a course of action would pose.

The main risk was that someone would see and recognise him.

Against that, he would have weighed the odds. In favour of following such a course of action were the following factors -

It was a short journey to where he met the Smiths, about 4 mins. and much of it could have been achieved over rough ground or alleyways.

It was after dark and because it was out of season (Easter hols long over) the resort was very quiet with few people about.

He had eight solid, respectable witnesses who would swear that it could NOT have been him if he had been seen. He also had the Carpenters who would testify to seeing him arrive for dinner at the Tapas and Jeremy Wilkins to testify meeting him on a quick child-check during this meal.

It still would have been an audacious plan.

On the other hand, if we are to believe that Madeleine died on Sunday night, that presents, IMO, even more risks.

They had to run the risk of trying to hide Madeleine's absence from the nannies, the Ocean Club staff, the Tapas staff at high tea, the sailing instructors, the tennis instructors, the other parents and the children of the Tapas 9 for all of Monday and Monday night, all of Tuesday and Tuesday night, all of Wednesday and Wednesday night, all of Thursday until 10 p.m. that night.

They had to hope that there would not be a fire-drill in creche, or any game played which involved the children being called by name or talking about themselves.

They had to hope Raj Balu would not contradict them over the playground photo in which he features (which they claimed was taken on Tuesday).

They had to attend tennis lessons, mix with other holiday-makers, go to the creches and dine at the Tapas each night, all the while pretending nothing was wrong after their child had just died.

Now that's a pretty audacious plan!

Some might say that Gerry could never have hoped to get away with being Smithman. The reality is, if he WAS Smithman, then he HAS got away with it!

WAS Gerry Smithman - I don't know. But, if he had the audacity and daring to risk trying to cover up her death in a complex full of potential witnesses for four long days, then I don't see him balking at a four minute run with less chance of witnesses to expose him!!

Rambling, unevidenced speculation that tries - but miserably fails - to explain why Gerry McCann would deliberately remove his dead daughter's body, presumably from Apartment G5A, and then carry it for 15 minutes or so through the streets of Praia da Luz (presumably without having found a hiding place) at the very time (or just after) his wife and his T7 friends were raising the alarm.

Can we please have posts on this thread based on evidence

by Phoebe 01.10.18 18:04

@ Tony Bennett You will notice Tony, that throughout the above piece I referred to it, clearly, as a "hypothesis" and used the term - IMO.

Can I ask you where is the EVIDENCE that Martin Smith lied about seeing Smithman.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat other than as he claimed.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Murat was SUMMONED to P da L.

Where is the EVIDENCE that the meeting between Murat's lawyers and the McCanns legal supporters dealt with anything other than Murat's threat to sue for defamation over the Tapas 9's assertions that he was Tannerman and that he had been seen outside 5A on the night of May 3rd.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Madeleine died before May 3rd.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Cat Baker knew the McCanns before May 3rd. and lied for them.

Where is the EVIDENCE that all the others who claimed to have seen Madeleine alive after Sunday were either lying or mistaken.

Where is the EVIDENCE that the playground photo with Raj Balu was not taken on Tuesday.

Where is the indisputable EVIDENCE that Madeleine was not seen after Sunday.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Mrs. Fenn lied.

Where is the EVIDENCE that it takes "15 minutes" (as you claim) to travel from 5A to where the Smiths saw Smithman