Re: Smithman theory

by **Silentscope** 17.05.24 8:35

Was that the more than thirty minutes after meeting Jez W to the time of raising the Alarm by Kate perhaps?

No wonder Tanner was so keen to have seen Madeleine being Abducted before Gerry could be suspected by the PJ.

THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL ON THAT NIGHT.

Four days after Madeleine disappeared, Mr Wilkins sat with detectives and gave a statement.
He drew a map which showed police where he remembered he had met Gerry, stood and chatted for several minutes.
The 'X' marked by Mr Wilkins was the same place Mrs Tanner claimed to have seen the men.
Nine.com.au has repeatedly contacted Mr Wilkins and Mrs Tanner for comment but neither have responded.

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

by **crusader** 17.05.24 8:41

That's right, the football was on the night before, so I'm now thinking something happened to Madeleine on the 2nd of May and not the 3rd.
I've never been fully sure about Jez Wilkins either, I'm not saying he wasn't talking to Gerry on the 3rd though.

by Cake Lover 17.05.24 8:43

crusader wrote:"It does not matter whether, at the time of the sighting by Martin S.'s family, the father of the child was in fact dining in the restaurant of the complex. The employees of the restaurant, Svetlana S. and Joaquim B., claim that the father was absent for more than thirty minutes, but their testimony was not considered relevant.”

And we have Jane Tanner Backing this up in her statement.
Kate was moaning that Gerry had been gone ages, probably watching football.

Do you know who decided that the testimonies of Svetlana S. and Joaquim B were not relevant? Was it the British interference, who investigated the case 'as though it had happened in England', where the two witnesses could not have been? I would be surprised if Goncalo Amaral had made that decision.

by **crusader** 17.05.24 8:51

I was quoting from Silentscope's post, perhaps he will know.

by Cake Lover 17.05.24 8:54

Ok, thanks.

by **crusader** 17.05.24 8:57

I'm just having a look to see if I can find anything, my bit was on the bottom about Jane Tanner.

by **Silentscope** 17.05.24 9:21

Cake Lover wrote:
crusader wrote:"It does not matter whether, at the time of the sighting by Martin S.'s family, the father of the child was in fact dining in the restaurant of the complex. The employees of the restaurant, Svetlana S. and Joaquim B., claim that the father was absent for more than thirty minutes, but their testimony was not considered relevant.”

And we have Jane Tanner Backing this up in her statement.
Kate was moaning that Gerry had been gone ages, probably watching football.
Do you know who decided that the testimonies of Svetlana S. and Joaquim B were not relevant? Was it the British interference, who investigated the case 'as though it had happened in England', where the two witnesses could not have been? I would be surprised if Goncalo Amaral had made that decision.

Possibly the same forces that withhold the other Tapas Guests Statements during the evening of Thu May 3?

thinking

by Cake Lover 17.05.24 9:40

Among the staff and patrons of the bar that night, there only two people who can relate something important, and they are dismissed. That's dreadful.

by Paddingtom 17.05.24 14:49

I got the quote from Goncalos book but he didnt elaborate. However, given that the book is crammed full of all the inconsistencies in the case and how insulted Goncalo felt by the british taking over, I took it as yet another incident where the portugese police wanted to follow a lead and the might of the british did their best to make sure he didnt........in other words, Goncalo was all over it like a rash and the british dragged him away...
Crusader, if you go for 2nd, I think that ties in with the new book thats just come out doesnt it?.........how does it affect your theory of gerry carrying a child and. or smiths>

by Paddingtom 17.05.24 15:23

Cake Lover, if you think thats bad, just listen to this extract from his book.....

“None of the facts reported so far seem to be of interest to the british police. In october 2013, after two years of intense work to re-evaluate the investigation, a pseudo reconsitution of the facts takes place, a reconstitution that I consider humiliating for potugese justice, carried out in the absence of the judicial police, the prosecutors office and the procedural procedures, but supported by a british television channel: Ecce Homo.”

Never heard of them. This was the point when they converted Tannerman into Crecheman because Tannerman had become unsustainable.........out of interest, probably nothing sinister, but did you know that Crecheman *the chap who said he was collectiong his child) was a doctor>,,,,Mmmm,

by **crusader** 17.05.24 16:17

Jane said in her interview, Kate was moaning about Gerry watching the football, so that must have been on the Wednesday not Thursday as there was no football on Thursday.
That is a major slip up in my opinion.
If Madeleine died on the 2nd, they had time to hide her body, and concoct an abduction theory.
Raising the alarm to Thursday and trying to prove she was abducted that night, they thought that would prove Madeleine was still alive on the Wednesday.
If someone saw a man with a child in his arms on the Thursday, they would assume it was Madeleine and hey presto someone proved their story for them.
I believe that is exactly what the Smith's saw.

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 7:20

Although I believe we lost maddie a few days bfore that, I agree with you that the Smiths saw a man with a child whom they later presumed was Maddie.... My theory is that this staging was done for the benefit of CCTV and the last thing they wanted was to be seen by anyone that could identify them at close quarters......It was because of the Smith sighting that Jane sent Tannerman in the opposite direction....had thir plan gone how they wanted it to, Tannerman would have been sent towards the beach and the Mccanns would have demanded the police seize the beach route cctv........ even in Goncalos book he said that he belived Tannerman was sent in the opposite direction because of the Smiths sighting.

by **Silentscope** 18.05.24 7:44

Tannerman was created BEFORE the McCanns even knew about the Smiths.

The Timelines were created BEFORE the Smiths even reported their
sightings.

So Tannerman could only be Jane sending the PJ in exactly the opposite direction that she knew Gerry was going to take.
Assuming that Gerry was Smithman.

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 7:55

Silentscope, Gerry would have told everyone that he had been seen as soon as he got back to the resort about 22.00,
They quickly decided to to send tannerman in the opposite direction to try and keep the police away from the beach route cctv.

Sure, they concocted Tannerman in advance, but he was going to go the beach route......once gerry got back and announced he had been seen, they decided to send Tannerman in the opposite direction....and at an earlier time...to help disconnect the two events.
The police would have turned up asking for information well after Gerry was back.

by **crusader** 18.05.24 7:56

But why was Tanner's sighting nearly an hour earlier? There was always the chance of Gerry being seen by someone.
It must have been Gerry the Smith's saw, otherwise why would Tanner need to send the police in the opposite direction?
When Gerry got back and told the group he was seen by a group of people, It was imperative Tanner told the police what she did but why an hour earlier.

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 8:04

Crusader, Tannerman was "seen" earlier because they were trying to disconnect the two events.....if the people who saw Gerry ever came forward (as they did) they needed to be able to say ...oh, no, wrong direction, wrong time........ as indeed they did.

He deliberately took the quieter route in the hopes of not being seen and indeed, as far as we know, no-one else saw him....he was terribly unlucky to be seen at all.......

I agree with you, it was gerry the smiths saw and that is why Tannerman was hastily sent in the opposite direction.

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 8:10

p.s. they also probably changed the time to be much earlier, to help incase the police got hold of the cctv.....hopefully they would only look at the events on it around 9.15 ish...but if they looked later and saw a geezer carrying a child, they could say, no wrong time, wrong direction...

by **crusader** 18.05.24 8:23

That makes sense, any explanation as to why Gerry and Jez didn't back her story up when she said she walked past them? That would have made her story a lot more believable.
I can understand Jez saying he didn't see her, but why Gerry?

by **Silentscope** 18.05.24 8:44

I do not think that the CCTV was the point of the chosen route.
The Camera and the Smiths were just not foreseen.

Team McCann just Hijacked the Smiths reports later on, and added the Photo fits to add confusion and the Murat friendship to confirm it was not him.

The time of raising the Alert must have been changed - because if the Smiths were right and Gerry was Smithman he could not be at the Tapas at the same time as hiding a body.

By the time the that the Smiths made their Reports , the PJ already had doubts about the Tapas crew claiming that they had seen Murat that night.

The Jon Clarke and Lori Campbell setup of Murat was also being noted.

Latest when Murat was fired as an Interpreter the PJ knew that Team McCann had their tentacles spread out all around.

Tanners sighting was either pre arranged before the Alert was raised or added quickly after. Or she would have changed the timing of it it to suit the new Smithman sighting which she knew nothing about that night.

Ruling out Gerry having said to Jane he had been seen as he obviously never told Jane anything.

by **crusader** 18.05.24 9:43

The only timeline we have is the McCann's and the tapas 7 and the timeline they gave is to their advantage.
Gerry could not be Smithman and be at the scene of the abduction at the same time.
So it's the timeline that's wrong in my opinion.

by **Silentscope** 18.05.24 10:26

Everything that Team McCann ever made Public knowledge is designed to cover the Truth.

Especially Kates Book.

The brighter the Picture, the darker the Negative.

There are at least four versions of the Team McCann Timeline.
There is only one version from multiple sources from the Smiths.
Backed up by timings on Till reciepts.

I find the Smiths are more reliable Witnesses and the CCTV could have absolutely confirmed Dr Amaral’s well founded suspicions that it was Gerry or someone wearing his clothing hiding Madeleine.

The Efits and Smiths friendship with Murat must be Team McCann inventions.

The timing of raising the Alarm as propagated by the Press is wrong.

How long running time backwards would it have taken a Man carrying a Child to get to the OC from where the Smith sighting occurred? 10-15 minutes?

Two Witnesses said Gerry was missing for over half an hour.

15 minutes there.
5 minutes to hand over or hide the body.
15 minutes back.
3 minutes to change clothes.

Call it 40 minutes?

The real ‘Window of Opportunity’?

by **crusader** 18.05.24 11:16

I don't think the Smiths were friends with Murat, they just knew him by sight, after all they did have a holiday apartment there.
They knew him by sight only, not to speak to.
I'm not sure it would take the ultra fit Gerry very long to do his little walk at all, it was he and Kate who told us all about their tennis and jogging sessions, in fact the only time they relaxed was at dinner if they are to be believed.
Let's also keep in mind, the McCann's would never have thought the case files would ever be released and scrutinised.

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 11:19

crusader wrote:That makes sense, any explanation as to why Gerry and Jez didn't back her story up when she said she walked past them? That would have made her story a lot more believable.
I can understand Jez saying he didn't see her, but why Gerry?

I will ponder this more later, but mu immediate thought is because they genuinely didnt......Im desperately trying to fnd the reference in Goncalos book, but Im sure he said he thought she was outside at 22.00, not 9.15 pm...cant rember why thou...still looking...

by Paddingtom 18.05.24 11:29

Silentscope, Im not sure why ypou think that gerry wouldnt have told them all the minute he got back that hed been seen?

Ive got another bombshell....... I said previously (probably a couple of pages ago) that I thought the point of the CCTV sighting was to infer thet the abductor had met a boat at the beach to escape....in jest, I mentioned Morocco, Spain etc.....not thinking that it really mattered...the point was they had escaped by sea.........Ive just had a thought.,,,,,,,the destination was crucial!!!........they wanted th portugese police to think they had eacaped to..........Sagres.

As gerry was seen and they had to abandon plan a, they still stuck with the Sagres connection but would have to suggest it was accessed by road instead.....

by **Silentscope** 18.05.24 12:21

If Gerry was Smithman, and in a panic, he would not have cared less who if anybody saw him or not. Or if there were CCTV Cameras on his route.

But few on this Forum believe that anyone panicked.

More likely it was all Staged to look that way.

by **crusader** 18.05.24 12:34

If as some think, Madeleine died earlier in the week, there would be no need to panic, everything would have been worked out to go as planned.
The Smiths didn't say he looked panicked.

by **Silentscope** 18.05.24 12:39

Good one.

by Cake Lover 18.05.24 14:37

How can St. Kate of The Healey claim to have been relaxed only at dinner? They spent the evening going in and out to check on the children (yeah, right) and hardly sat down.

by **Ladyinred** 18.05.24 14:59

Didn't the group consume quite a lot?

by Cake Lover 18.05.24 15:06

So we are told - they must have been taken drinks with them to do the checks.

Latest topics