Re: Smithman theory

by Ladyinred 24.05.24 15:13

No-one is blindly following Richard Hall, and not everyone here believes the Smiths are lying. Why should anyone tell you, a member for less than one month, what they think.

No, you don't use full stops. You use lots of dots.......

Now you tell us about your intense curiosity regarding posters' opinions on Smithman.

by Paddingtom 24.05.24 17:49

Oh gosh....sorry......I thought this was the place to discuss/enquire/formulate/theorise issues to do with mccanns......didnt realise I had to be a member for presumably years before Im allowed to have an opinion or ask others for theirs....
FYI I have looked at several posts abot the smiths and ive seen several polls too...what strikes me is that whenever there is a poll that offers an option of the smiths telling the truth, it always wins. I am therfore curious as to why there seems to be a large contingent that still believes they are lying. But it turns out Im not allowed to be curious.... Trouble is now, Im terribly curious as to why you want to shut down discussion about the smiths and only want long standing members to contribute...>interesting.....

by **PeterMac** 25.05.24 8:03

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.....

I am not sure that I Have EVER said that the Smiths are lying.
Do you have a reference to hand so I can see exactly what I said, and the context in which I may have said it ?

This is important, since you make a direct accusation against me.
Thank you
PeterMac
............................

by Paddingtom 25.05.24 8:31

Hi PeterMac

Im not singleing out any particular person. It is my observation that there are those who believe the Smiths saw something and reported it as such.

Then there are those who do not believe the Smiths statements at all and dismiss them....i.e. they are lying. Whilst I have endlessly read the list of inconsistencies, I have struggled to find anyone that can fill in the gap for me as to what they belive the Smiths were doing getting involved if not telling the truth. I am a new recruit to all this and as much as I have read about this, I cannot get my head around their part inall this if not to tell the truth? I thought this forum was for discussion and theorising and I was hoping someone could explain this anomoly for me.

by **Jill Havern** 25.05.24 8:40

I really appreciate the debate on this thread, however have you seen how many threads we've got about Smithman?

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

Your best bet is for someone like Tony to join in - but he seems to be missing in action just lately as he's a very busy boy...and now he's also got Mr Stellander's book to read too.

Maybe Sharon can give him a nudge for you as she's in regular contact with him.

by Paddingtom 25.05.24 8:46

Hi jill thankyou for your comments.... I know peterMac is up to his ears in it and Im sure we are all very grateful for his hard work....

I do seem to have managed to have rubbed several people up the wrong way and for that I am sorry,,,,But I just want to fill in this smith gap that I have got. I know you have got loads of discussion about it already, which prhaps is an indication of the confusion it is causing.
I accept that I am probably the only person that needs to get to grips with their role, if not to be truthful as everyone else seems content in their belief whatever it may be.......Im even willing to accept that I am being very dim in not spotting the gkaring answer.....if so, I confess wholeheartedly....I cant see it.

by **Jill Havern** 25.05.24 8:53

Keep going...9 pages on this thread already thanks to you, and you've got people debating again.

We'll see what we can do about getting Tony back onboard.

Hang tight.

In the meantime, take a look at the link I gave you to see if you can find the answer you're looking for.

by crusader 25.05.24 8:55

Don't be too hard on yourself Paddingtom, we all have had difference of opinions over the years, that's what it's all about.
Carry on debating, It was you who got us discussing the Smith sighting again and I am grateful for that.
Don't be put off.

by Paddingtom 25.05.24 10:56

Thankyou Jil and Crusader for your kind comments. I really appreciate it. However, I have decided that it is just causing too much upset. Ive never been on a forum before because Ive always heard such awful things about them and how vicious the contributors are. It would seem however, that I have managed to cause similar distress to that which I always wanted to avoid.
I suspect that there is a crucial bit of info. that I have yet to come across that all of you have known for years and take for granted. I will continue my research in the hope of finding that missing piece of the jigsaw.
In the meantime, I have a huge request, Please, Jill the next time you come up for air from your tome, would you be kind enough to shut this discussion down as I want to prevent anyone else from being offended. Its not worth it. many thanks.

by Ladyinred 25.05.24 11:10

Hang on in here, there are important developments in the case. grouphug

by **Jill Havern** 25.05.24 11:16

Paddingtom wrote:In the meantime, I have a huge request, Please, Jill the next time you come up for air from your tome, would you be kind enough to shut this discussion down as I want to prevent anyone else from being offended. Its not worth it. many thanks.

Nope, not doing it big grin

You can't come here and create a whole 9 page thread of debate then ask for it to be shut down!

Just hang in there and be patient.

by crusader 25.05.24 11:46

You do what you feel best for yourself Paddingtom, I can assure you, you have caused no upset or distress to anyone on the forum.
We will continue to debate Smithman and indeed all other posts relating to what happened to Madeleine and we will agree and disagree as we allway's have.
Nobody knows any better than anyone else as to what happened that night, we can only go off the information we have and thrash it out.
Nobody on this forum is holding any information back, it's all out there.

by Cake Lover 25.05.24 12:24

Years ago, I developed a bit of a fixation about the pyjamas Madeleine is said to have been wearing on the night of her 'abduction'. Something I couldn't quite nail down, and still can't. So don't think you are on a hiding to nothing, you're not, we all have areas of this case which interest us more than others.

by **PeterMac** 25.05.24 14:41

Paddingtom wrote:Hi PeterMac

Im not singleing out any particular person. It is my observation that there are those who believe the Smiths saw something and reported it as such.

Then there are those who do not believe the Smiths statements at all and dismiss them....i.e. they are lying. Whilst I have endlessly read the list of inconsistencies, I have struggled to find anyone that can fill in the gap for me as to what they belive the Smiths were doing getting involved if not telling the truth. I am a new recruit to all this and as much as I have read about this, I cannot get my head around their part inall this if not to tell the truth? I thought this forum was for discussion and theorising and I was hoping someone could explain this anomoly for me.

But you did single out a particular person - ME, and accused me of having said that I thought the Smiths were lying.
I repeat, I do not believe I have ever said or suggested that were lying.

Whether they actually and factually saw Gerry carrying Madeleine - or some other random bloke carrying a random girl - on 3/5/7 when other evidence puts Gerry in another place doing something else and 'witnessed' by other people is an entirely different matter.

by Paddingtom 25.05.24 18:17

Thankyou Peter. You have made your position clear.

by Silentscope 25.05.24 18:28

I can entertain the possibility that the Smiths might be lying.
But why would they?
Why would they implicate Gerry?

If they were working for Team McCann what would have been their Mission?

Most likely to discount and not to implicate Gerry - surely?

by crusader 25.05.24 18:37

It makes no sense that the Smiths were working with "Team McCann".
If they were, the plan failed miserably.
And if they were, there is no way they would have said they think it was Gerry they saw.
They would have said the man was fat, puffing out of breath, long greasy hair pulled back in a pony tail and was wearing glasses.

by Silentscope 26.05.24 8:44

The only way Gerry can even remotely be ‘Smithman’ is that if the Smiths are true and accurate Witnesses, the timing of Kate raising the Alarm is wrong.

She was reportedly screaming after her 22:00 hours check that Madeleine was taken.

Other Witnesses reported it was around 21:20 that the Alarm was raised.

It is suspected that Dianne Webster remained at the Table in order to be able to explain to others about the commotion.

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

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

by Silentscope 26.05.24 9:59

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

"Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine, Ocean Club guest S.C. and his wife left the Tapas bar to go home: "We walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".

At 21H20, Executive Chef A. E. G. F. P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.

At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine. He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.

Dinner finished at around 21H45 and some minutes passed where waiter R. A.E D. L. O. looked towards the table but saw no one - his colleague told him that all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;

Between 21.30 and 22: Fitness instructor/Waiter J. R. S. went over to the table and joked with (Diane Webster): "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words: "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

Approx. 21.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from 'Kelly's Bar', heading north, all spread out along the street and they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 metre tall. - The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned. (GA)

by crusader 26.05.24 10:01

It's the timeline that is causing confusion in my opinion.
I know of 5 people who said the time was around 9:30 when the alarm was raised.
One waiter at the tapas bar gave 2 statements, in his first statement he said 22:20-22:30 when he noticed lady sitting alone at the table.
Then in his arguido statement in 08 he said it was 21:30-22h00.
The bar staff and waiters have said they saw people leaving and returning to the table during the evening.
It is not impossible in my opinion, one of these people was Gerry.

by crusader 26.05.24 10:08

The statement of Berend Weijdom can be ruled out as being mistaken about the time because he said he went to 5a at
21:45-21:50 and the police arrived 5 minutes later.

by Cake Lover 26.05.24 10:08

Were the twins alone in the apartment, while the searching was going on, and Diane Webster was sitting at the table on her own?

by crusader 26.05.24 10:10

We are led to believe Kate left the twins alone in the apartment while she ran back to the tapas to raise the alarm.
After that the apartment was full of people so I don't think they were.

by Silentscope 26.05.24 10:41

crusader wrote:The statement of Berend Weijdom can be ruled out as being mistaken about the time because he said he went to 5a at
21:45-21:50 and the police arrived 5 minutes later.

He said it took 5 minutes to get to the Scene from where he had been told about the dissappearance.
A crowd had gathered, but the Police were not yet there.
The Police were not even requested before 22:00.

22.50 pm - First call to GNR Lagos precinct (Guarda Nacional Republicana, rural police); The first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was made at 10.50pm and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR.

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

by Silentscope 26.05.24 10:49

If the Twins were not there when Kate raised the Alarm, where were they, and why would they have been brought back comatose?

by crusader 26.05.24 12:15

The twins were in the apartment, Kate left them alone when she went to raise the alarm apparently.

by Silentscope 26.05.24 12:47

Even though someone had just Kidnapped her eldest Daughter...

Right.

Not screaming from the Balcony over the Pool!

by Cake Lover 26.05.24 12:55

And not having taken a mobile phone with her. Oh wait - they didn't have their phones. Or watches.

by Silentscope 26.05.24 13:49

The Smiths KNOW three things.
1. They do not recognise the person they saw as being Murat.
2. They do not recognise the new ‘Prime Suspect’ Christian B.
3. They are 60-80% certain that the person was Gerry McCann.

The PJ KNOW that.
1. The Alarm was raised at 21:20 and not 22:00.
2. 35-40 minutes are unaccounted for.
3. In the confusion (or distraction?) someone could have removed the Body of Madeleine from Apartment 5A.

The Press MSM KNOW.
1. That no one Person can be in two places at the same time.
2. Therefore the REPORTED timing of the Alert had to be changed to cover the time of the Smith sighting, 21:55 -22:03?
3. Gerry cannot then possibly be ‘Smithman’ because he was sat at the Tapas bar table at the same time that the Smiths saw him downtown.

Job done.

by crusader 26.05.24 13:56

I didn't know the police knew the alarm was raised at 21:20, interesting.
That would fit in with the Smith sighting.
Where can I read about that Silentscope.

Latest topics