Re: Smithman theory

by **Silentscope** 23.05.24 16:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]post#175
If, Madeleine died before the 3rd May and I now think she may have done, It would be to the McCann advantage that someone saw a man with a child on 3rd and linked it to Madeleine being abducted.

Either the Smiths were lying for some strange reason, or Team McCann found out that the PJ were not buying Tanners story, and decided to capitalise on what the Smiths had reported?

Maybe they did see someone carrying a Child, and the description and timing, along with the Efits were the Team McCann invention?

Personally I am not sure which.

by **crusader** 23.05.24 16:32

But how the McCann's know the Smith's had told the police what they saw?
The only way the McCann's would know the Smith's had made a statement is if they knew them and they told them they had, or they were part of the so called "Team McCann"
I can't remember the PJ asking the McCann's anything about being seen that night, can you?

by **Silentscope** 23.05.24 16:44

Someone was feeding the McCanns information, as proved by the local Lady that saw the McCanns airing the trunk of the Hire Car.

She was never formally interviewed or added to the process, but Team McCann found out about her.

Murat was already dismissed as an Interpreter, so who told them?

by **crusader** 23.05.24 16:52

I know Alexander Cameron was asked about it by the PJ and they said it was spillage from the shopping.
Actually, you are right, he volunteered the information, he wasn't asked.

by **crusader** 23.05.24 17:06

Actually, Sandy Cameron's statement was made in April 2008, by that time he was fully aware of the dogs inspection of the car.
Maybe it was retrofit.
Michael Wright put the smell down to the twins dirty nappies.

by Cake Lover 23.05.24 17:31

Could a member of staff told them? One of the pole dancing, bra flashing 'nannies'?

by **crusader** 23.05.24 17:39

I don't think anyone told them, we only found out about it after reading the PJ files and it was 2008 before it was mentioned in a statement.
It wasn't mentioned before 2008 as far as I know, not even by the PJ.

by Cake Lover 23.05.24 18:09

I don't know how you remember the details. nod

by **crusader** 23.05.24 18:30

I don't a lot of the time, I'm obsessed.

by Cake Lover 23.05.24 18:45

I get really confused. Gerry McCann's observation about confusion being good certainly applies to me.

by **AnneCGuedes** 23.05.24 19:58

crusader wrote:I'm thinking they all used the patio doors to their apartments to check the children.
I wonder if the patio doors to the McCann bedroom were checked for fingerprints.

There's no evidence that they all used the patio doors to check, there's even evidence that the OB took good care to double lock the entrance door to prevent their eldest to go outside. Good wondering ! It doesn't seem that the PJ checked the parents' French window for fingerprints, but there is some evidence that M was moved out through that window-door. Not only Eddie alerted just outside it, but a GNR lady found what seems to be the hair band we can see on the "last" photo.

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 6:45

crusader wrote:No, I think it was Gerry with a child.
Sorry to confuse, I know what I want to post in my head, it sometimes comes out wrong.
To be clear.
I believe Madeleine died on either 1st or 2nd May.
I believe the Smith's are 100% telling the truth about what they saw.
I believe it was Gerry McCann carrying a child.
I don't believe the Smith family, or Martin Smith in particular , are in any way part of "team McCann"

Crusader thankyou. Your explanation is very clear. I totally agree with you. However, it does throw up the problem of why was he carrying a live child on 3rd.? The only answer is that it was to help stage the "abduction"....but after he was seen by the smiths, team Mccann for a few months dif everyting they could to discredit it....so what was the point of staging an abduction only to deny it when it was seen?.......this is where my theory comes in,,,,it wasnt to be seen by people, it was to be seen by cctv that couldnt be questioned...... cctv is cctv no cross examinations, no questioning under oath......just plain simple images......... for me it links the inconsistency of maddie dying earlier and the Smiths being truthful...

I know Silentscope thinks they were lying to get their friend Murat off the contrived hook, but for me that lacks credibility,,,,,If Mr Smith had done it on his own, then maybe,,,,but to include your son and daughter in lying to the police for me is a stretch too far,,,,,

As regards the car open boot and who told them......wernt the uk police working with the portugese by then,,,,,and being directed by shady characters?........theres probably plenty of people feeding the mccanns with info......

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 6:49

Cake Lover wrote:I presume a man (or woman) carrying a child at night wouldn't have been unusual; families on holiday, bedtimes not so stringent, etc. I think the biggest risk was in Gerry being stopped by somebody, and engaged in conversation, unless they had decided how to handle that without dropping themselves in it.

Cake lover, this is why I rhink he took the quietest route...trying not to be seen...In goncalos book he says that at that time of year the bars and restaurants were not all open and those that were closed at 9.00pm. so, after chucking out, the streets would have been deserted by about 9.30.......apart from the Smiths.....unfortunately

gery was terribly unlucky to be seen by humans...

by Cake Lover 24.05.24 7:01

Should your theory be correct, Gerry McCann certainly was unlucky. Cctv over rides human testimony every time.

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 7:04

Silentscope wrote:@crusaderpost#175
If, Madeleine died before the 3rd May and I now think she may have done, It would be to the McCann advantage that someone saw a man with a child on 3rd and linked it to Madeleine being abducted.

Either the Smiths were lying for some strange reason, or Team McCann found out that the PJ were not buying Tanners story, and decided to capitalise on what the Smiths had reported?

Maybe they did see someone carrying a Child, and the description and timing, along with the Efits were the Team McCann invention?

Personally I am not sure which.

This is a bit more in line with what I think.... It is my understanding that for several months team mccann tried to dismiss the smith sighting and promote Tannerman,,,,,,it is my belief that Tannerman was only sent in the direction he was because gerry told them he had been seen and they decided to send tannerman in the opposite direction....IF gerry had not been seen, Tannerman would have gone towards the beach and the beach cctv would have shown him carrying a child,,,,,, I then think they wanted the police to think they had escaped by boat,,,,when Sagresman turned up shortly after, it was supposed to link the boat escape and Sagresman....the boat was going to Sagres....

However, after a few months when they realised that Tannerman really was not believed at all, they decide to give it more credibility by linking it with smithman......which ultimately meant Smithman was wandering around PDL half the night hiding in shady corners to avoid beeing seen until such time as he could meet the Sagres boat.....the PJ didnt believe that either,,,,but they persisted for several years and even got the Smiths to supoosedly join team mccann to give their investigation Kudos,,,,The Smith went along with it either a) because they desperately wanted to keep an open mind and really wanted to help despite their misgivings about Gerry or b) They were adked to join by the pj as a kind of spy in the camp or c) they were threatened by shady characters.

Ultimately the mccanns realised Tannerman was just making no sense so they turned him into Crecheman,

Whatever the case, I do belive the Smiths are innocent of any wrong doing and are decent, law abiding citizens just trying to help as much as they could.

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 7:20

Other than Silentscope, noone has come forward with their thory of why the smiths are lying.......Please come forward,,,,I need to know.....Im obsessed with it now, like most of you!!!

Why do you think the Smiths are lying

by **Bluebagthepirate** 24.05.24 7:51

Maybe they are just mistaken and not lying?

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 8:05

I cant see how 9 people could be mistaken and three of them be willing to sign document backing up their mistakenness>......bit odd?

by **crusader** 24.05.24 8:09

Let's not forget the lightbulb moment DCI Redwood had on Crimewatch 2013 when he identified Julian Totman as Tannerman.
Operation Grange did believe Tanner saw a man with a child and even produced the man to prove it!

by **Silentscope** 24.05.24 9:31

Redwood had to sell Tannerman as Julian Totman because no one was believing Tanner.

The Sighting was pre arranged by Team McCann along with the timing which explains why neither Gerry or Jez saw her. She wanted to avoid being seen by Jez. She was already in a state of guilty conscience.
She knew she was up to no good that night.

Who the Smiths claim to have seen that night, is not really important.

The failure of the Tanner sighting meant that Team McCann then had to find another Sighting to promote the Abduction theory.

I do not believe that the Smiths are all lying just to save Murat, who was not a great Friend as portrayed in the Press, but just an Acqaintance.

Whoever they saw that night was definitely not Murat.

Whether it was Gerry McCann and Madeleine needed further investigation.

Which came to an Abrupt end and Dr Amaral’s removal.

All highly questionable.

by **PeterMac** 24.05.24 10:31

crusader wrote:Let's not forget the lightbulb moment DCI Redwood had on Crimewatch 2013 when he identified Julian Totman as Tannerman.
Operation Grange did believe Tanner saw a man with a child and even produced the man to prove it!

Very clearly the McCanns were taken aback by the Totman nonsense as it destroys a key part of their 'script'
Tannerman featured on their website . . .
AND STILL DOES

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

Screenshot taken 11:29/24/5/24

by Cake Lover 24.05.24 10:36

Who would choose to carry someone in that fashion, as though it were a dead body?

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 11:20

Presumably no-one is bothering to look after the website,,,so long as the money keeps coming in...noone cares.

Glad to see youve stuck your head above the tome youre consuming at the moment PeterMac......Youre just the right person to tell me why you think the smiths are lying...what were they brought in to do?........Ive asked loads of times but noone is offering their thoughts other than Silentscope who seems to have a change of heart anyway.....

Please tell us why the smiths are lying in your opinion.....

by **AnneCGuedes** 24.05.24 11:39

Paddingtom wrote:
Cake Lover wrote:I presume a man (or woman) carrying a child at night wouldn't have been unusual; families on holiday, bedtimes not so stringent, etc. I think the biggest risk was in Gerry being stopped by somebody, and engaged in conversation, unless they had decided how to handle that without dropping themselves in it.
Cake lover, this is why I rhink he took the quietest route...trying not to be seen...In goncalos book he says that at that time of year the bars and restaurants were not all open and those that were closed at 9.00pm. so, after chucking out, the streets would have been deserted by about 9.30.......apart from the Smiths.....unfortunately

gery was terribly unlucky to be seen by humans...

Yes, Smithman obviously took the quieter, darker route, car traffic is relentless on the other road, the only way out of PdL at the time. I don't think CCTV eyes would have caught him as these cameras, in Portugal, are not allowed to film the public area, only buildings' entrances/exits (with the exception of some special places like cash machines). He was running out of time, 22:03 !, but 9 pairs of eyes had seen him and would likely remember the child carrier when the ocean brought the body to shore, so he had to change his plan.

by **crusader** 24.05.24 12:00

That would only work if Madeleine had died on 3rd and Gerry was taking her somewhere to hide her.
If on the other hand, Madeleine had died on either the 1st or 2nd, and Gerry had gone out to be seen, not recognised, just someone with a child, this would make sense.
In my opinion, Gerry was trying to prove that Madeleine was still alive on 3rd and was abducted that night.
Witnesses saw Man + child = abduction, it's unfortunate for Gerry he was recognised which wasn't part of his plan.

by **AnneCGuedes** 24.05.24 13:03

Imo, Madeleine died on 2 to 3 night and was discovered dead (and, crucial point, cold) only in the morning (her parents were distracted by the quiz lady issue). One day to grieve wasn't much before night fall.

by **Ladyinred** 24.05.24 14:12

Paddingtom wrote:Presumably no-one is bothering to look after the website,,,so long as the money keeps coming in...noone cares.

Glad to see youve stuck your head above the tome youre consuming at the moment PeterMac......Youre just the right person to tell me why you think the smiths are lying...what were they brought in to do?........Ive asked loads of times but noone is offering their thoughts other than Silentscope who seems to have a change of heart anyway.....

Please tell us why the smiths are lying in your opinion.....

Why are you demanding that posters give you their reasons for believing the Smith family is lying? There are numerous threads on Smithman you could read.

Could you also use fullstops, please,. Makes it easier to read.

by **crusader** 24.05.24 14:21

The statements made by the McCann's are deliberately confusing.
It's only when you move the day's around it begins to make any sense.

I'm not trying to make things fit, it just makes more sense to me that what they say is somewhere near the truth but deliberately misleading by changing the day's around.

Quiz night was on Tuesday 1st, the night Mr's Fenn heard crying that stopped at 11-45 when she heard the parent's arrive back at the apartment.

Kate said she slept in the children's room on Wednesday 2nd, It makes more sense if it was Tuesday 1st.

Rachael Oldfield said she didn't go to dinner on Wednesday, she was ill, she didn't hear any crying.
If the crying was on the Tuesday she wouldn't have.

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 14:58

Ladyinred wrote:
Paddingtom wrote:Presumably no-one is bothering to look after the website,,,so long as the money keeps coming in...noone cares.

Glad to see youve stuck your head above the tome youre consuming at the moment PeterMac......Youre just the right person to tell me why you think the smiths are lying...what were they brought in to do?........Ive asked loads of times but noone is offering their thoughts other than Silentscope who seems to have a change of heart anyway.....

Please tell us why the smiths are lying in your opinion.....
Why are you demanding that posters give you their reasons for believing the Smith family is lying? There are numerous threads on Smithman you could read.

Could you also use fullstops, please,. Makes it easier to read.

Ive read as many as I can and it seems to me that too many people are blindly following RDH who has decided the Smiths are lying because they wouldnt engage with him...despite the PJ telling them not to talk about it....

If anyone has got a good reson to think the smiths are lying, why not say what it is

and I do use fullstops....lots of them....

by **crusader** 24.05.24 15:09

and I do use fullstops....lots of them..

Latest topics