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

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 #McCann 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

by polyenne 01.10.18 18:25

Tony, I accept your statement. If I’d added “......67% who think Smithman might be Gerry McCann” would that be better ?

by willowthewisp 01.10.18 19:31

First and foremost.

The Tapas 7/9 have a "Pact Of silence" partially confirmed by Dianne Webster to PC 4078,Leic Police April 2008.

They have "all" refused to go back to Portugal,to reconstruct of what they could recollect of 3 May 2007,for "fear" of what, the "Truth"!
They have hid behind all possible legal loop holes,Eleven years later most of them are used up,bar ECHR!

The Smith family state they had seen a Man carrying a young Girl over his Left side Shoulder,along a small alleyway on 3 May 2007 in Portugal.
When asked was it Mr Murat,Mr Smith, stated Not Robert Murat,as per Mr Bennett's knowing each other,from recognising them,Mr Hall some years later?

Mrs Smith asked the Man was the "Girl asleep"-No reply from the Man,his choice Not to respond,was she drugged,limp arms,legs?

The Smith family state factually,not being able to recognise the person facially,due to Girls head covering Males Face,one side Not visible.

They clearly state the "Stature 60-80%" of a person descending an Areoplane bore remarkable similarities to the figure passing them in an alleyway 3 May 2007.
There was only a fifty percent chance of how that person exited the flight,but that person came down the stairs in a similar manner,Fact.

I find it discerning that a "Decoy Child" or Hoax scenario gives credence to an Abductor and not used in the context as per Mr Bennett's percentage of votes Gerry=Smithman,it doesn't!

No One knows at the present moment who the girl was on that person's shoulder,the Vote is an Assumption,as to who it was,with No Evidence.

The people creating the doubt,are friends of person's named as Arquidos,Fact as Mr Bennett states,Salisto meeting Legal Teams,between Mr Brian Kennedy,Job Offer or job well done,when none of them were to discuss the case,Fact?

You have Martin Brunt Sky News Corporation having very secret phone contacts behind the scenes,about special contracts being honoured?

Martin Brunt misrepresents DNA/LCI Evidence as 100% before the Portugal PJ have written confirmation on Birmingham,FSS results?

You have Senior UK Police Officers having Phone conversations to Gerry,Merridyd Hughes,Stu Prior over Martin grimes dogs,Eddie,Keela,when hie was an Arquido,Not to discuss the case?

Your worried about percentages of a sighting,when collusion is all around the Madeleine McCann case!

It's a Cover Up,but No One is allowed to know why,due to Government interference,which part of their cronies could it have been,there is enough of them to investigate i'll bet.

by Doug D 01.10.18 21:53

Phoebe:

‘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!!’

Irrespective of their backline story, on the following link Textusa walks a possible route from 5A, with pictures, showing the street lighting and numerous escape routes that could be taken once ‘Smithman’ heard or saw the Smiths. There are so many alternative options to avoid close contact and possible future identification, that they conclude that if it was GM he must have wanted to be seen, presumably to give bones to an ‘abduction’ scenario.

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/intentional-not-debatable-fact.html

Duck and dive down the escape routes and there would have been no witnesses to expose him.

Walk through it yourself.

If you were a guilty ‘Smithman’ abductor, you would have avoided the Smiths at all costs.

If you were GM wanting to be seen as the ‘abductor’ you would have got close enough to attract their attention one way or another, and be seen, before ostentatiously ducking down an escape route or even turning back on yourself, kicking over a bin or something in your apparent haste, just to make sure. Being seen apparently taking avoiding action before they got close, would attract far more attention than just walking past and would guarantee no later identification.

Alternatively, a completely innocent ‘not a tourist’ would behave in the manner described, but if this was the case, why the hell has he not come forward in the last eleven years?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.18 22:02

polyenne wrote:Tony, I accept your statement. If I’d added “......67% who think Smithman might be Gerry McCann” would that be better ?

Yes, thank you very much.

I'm fine with that. That's perfectly accurate

by Phoebe 01.10.18 22:54

@ Doug D. Hi Doug, yes I have read that Textusa claim, but for me there are several nonsensical bits in it. Textusa claims that Gerry was Smithman, out to be seen and that to ensure this he stopped beside the Smiths so they could get a good look at Smithman. Textusa bases this on the fact that Mary Smith addressed a question to Smithman about the child being asleep. For the life of me, I cannot see where this idea comes from. There is no need to stop when making or receiving a comment, literally in passing.
As you say above -

" Being seen apparently taking avoiding action before they got close, would attract far more attention than just walking past.."

Perhaps this very thought was also in Smithmans mind!

I would be inclined to absolutely believe that the Smiths encountered just a completely innocent man, save for one lingering caveat - the McCanns' lack of reaction to the Smith sighting when it first became public in June.
I could understand the McCanns avoiding the Smith sighting like the plague from Sept 07 onward, since Smith had announced that Gerry was Smithman. Having been made arguidos and fled Portugal the McCanns, that September, needed more suggestions of their guilt like a hole in the head!
What I don't understand is why they failed to use this sighting before the Smiths pointed the finger at Gerry. Fair enough, it didn't help them in their attempt to blame Murat (since the Smiths asserted that the man they met was NOT Murat) but it would have been a useful asset in the abduction narrative. Why were they so loathe to mention it or draw attention to it. How could they have known that the Smiths would point the finger of blame at Gerry. What on earth could have made the McCanns fear this
sighting so!

by Tony Cadogan 02.10.18 8:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Thank you for your comment.

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

I do not have Mr Smith’s message to RDH in front of me, but I recall that that he also said in the message that he only met R Murat only twice.

Perhaps we differ in our present evaluation of the veracity of the genuine Mr Smith’s message and someone’s quoting Mr Smith (hearsay).

I take note of and am grateful for your drawing attention to my use of the word ‘correcting’. However, in the same sentence I also said “making ... clear” (= clarifying). Further, you understood the gist of my comment as I had intended, and that is all that really counts in this instance. I hope we might agree on this.

“However, since the Smiths' credibility is in doubt…”

Speaking pragmatically, I beg to differ. With reference to their sighting, I know not of any evidence that rationally justifies such doubt.

It might be helpful if you or someone else would kindly post links to Mr Smith’s message to RDH and the source of the quote you have referred to. I truly have no time at the moment to find the message and the source of your quote.

Kind regards.

PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

by Doug D 02.10.18 8:15

Phoebe:

‘Hi Doug, yes I have read that Textusa claim, but for me there are several nonsensical bits in it.’

That’s why I said ‘irrespective of their backline story’. Just use the pictures and descriptions to walk it through yourself and draw your own conclusions.

by Tony Cadogan 02.10.18 9:06

@Tony Bennett
@polyenne

Tony Bennett:
“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% (sic) = 46%] DO NOT accept that Smithman = Gerry McCann.”

It would seem that the unbiased way to deal with the 12% of the ‘not sure either way’ voters who potentially might cast their vote ether way is to divide 12% by 2 and add the result of the division to both Yeys and Nays. Thus ‘DID see’ 62%, ‘DID NOT see’ 38%.

by Phoebe 02.10.18 10:19

@ Tony Bennett.

You made an extraordinary claim above - namely that, if Gerry McCann had been Smithman, he would have to carry his daughter's body "FOR 15 MINUTES OR SO". Can you please explain this claim.

The distance to from 5A to where the Smiths encountered Smithman is put at three and a half to five minutes by many commentators who have actually walked the route. eg -

(Snipped from the McCann Mosaics) -

"To get from the McCanns apartment to the site of the Smith sighting, Smithman will almost certainly have gone right to left along the zig-zag of roads across the top of the aerial view shown above. It would have taken between 3:30 and 4:00 minutes and been very quiet, so it’s unlikely he would have been seen by anyone else..."

(Snipped from Textusa) -

"To give an idea, from apartment 5A to the Smith sighting area is a 3 to 4 minute walk. 5 minutes at the most." (Textusa)

(Snipped from Pat Brown) -

"When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes.

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner"

I fail to see where your "15 minutes or so" comes from.

Secondly, you claim that Smithman was seen -
"At the very time (or just after) his wife and his T7 friends were raising the alarm."
As has been pointed out on many occasions, we do NOT know exactly when the alarm was raised. The McCanns were careful to note in writing on the sticker book that it was at 10 p.m. however, numerous witnesses give different times.

by Verdi 02.10.18 12:37

Tony Cadogan wrote:PS Tried many times without success to log in yesterday. If my login difficulties persist, I will not be able to comment any more, I am afraid.

Would you be so good as to describe the problems you're experiencing on this thread..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f9-technical-support-ask-for-help-here

It's important that admin are made aware of any technical problems experienced by members. Thanks.

by Tony Cadogan 02.10.18 14:54

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y at 33:51

GM: “I think, absolutely. We do not know what’s happened to Madeleine. We don’t know who’s taken her. Probably our best chance of finding her is identifying that person, and that’s why the e-fits and sketches and the new information tonight are so important to us. Because that’s probably the best chance we’ve got of finding Madeleine.”

It is a fact that the two e-fits of the person the Smiths had (allegedly) met appeared on the McCanns’ website only after the 2013 Crimewatch. It is also a fact that the McCans had known about the e-fits’ existence long before 2013. Taken at face value, these two facts, in the light of the above GM’s statement, contradict each other, and this contradiction gives reasonable grounds to doubt GM’s truthfulness.

I know nothing like that about the Smiths. Does anyone?