Smithman theory

Hi Crusader,

It was exactly because gerry was seen that she said she saw the abductor going in the opposite direction. They were desperate to keep the police away from seeing the beach route cctv and also giving too much credit to the smith sighting when it was reported...... As you say, plan A had to be abandoned because of the smiths........they had to direct all attention in the opposite direction....

“nothing to see over there...it was this way......”

Hi Silentscope,

The original plan was for Jane to sell Tannerman going towards the beach....and there he would be on the beach route cctv.... Because the smiths rocked up they had to adandon plan A and she now had to sell Tannerman going in totally the opposite direction.

I get that everyone thinks my theory is out there..so do I ....I have spent ages trying to come up with a better explanation. It seems to me that there are 3 schools of thought.

1. It was gerry carrying maddie
   
2. It was some random geezer and his child
   
3. The smiths were lying.
   

No. 1. a) Why would Gerry carry a corpse through Pdl at exactly the same time as the alarm is being raised and everyone is put on high alert for someone carrying a child.
b) There was a perfectly adequate sports bag available if you needed to carry a corpse somewhere.
c) Youve also got the problem of the enormous amount of work that had to be achieved beforehand....thoroughly cleanse the flat, get your stories straight, move the furniature around, open the shutters , wipe the phones, etc etc......

No 2. If it was a random geezer, youve got a few problems with that too.
a) Why has he never come forward
b) The buttons on the trousers
c)Incredibly similar description to gerry and maddie
e) why did the mccanns try to bury the sighting for months on end....Surely for optics sake they would be all over it like a rash

No. 3 The reason people seem to think the Smiths were lying was to rescue Murat.

If so, the conversation would have gone something like this....

Dad: who wants to go on a trip to Portugal
Daughter/son: Me daddy me
Dad: Right, Theres only one condition...youll have to say we saw a man carrying a child.
Daughter/son: But we didnt daddy
Dad: yes, I know that but we must help our friend whose got himself into a bit of bother.
Daughter/son: But you always tell us we mustn tell lies daddy
Dad: Its alright when its to the police. And dont worry, Ill give you a description and youll have plenty of time to learn it before filing your report.
Daughter/son: Righto daddy . Whats the description?

Really?.....Would you ask your children to lie to the police to help your friend?...Surely you would do it alone so as not to burden anyone else with the problem, especially your family. Also the more people you involved the more likely they would forget something and contradict your story.

Youve also got the sheer good luck that you happened to have been in the right place at the right time to pretend you saw someone (bar bill backed up their presence)....for me, its too far fetched and incredibly irrisponsible to involve your kids in a whopper like this.

Yes, its unfortunate that they didnt come forward sooner but that could have been for several reasons 1. They genuinely did not think their sighting was relevant because all the focus was in the opposite direction
2 Being Irish and having an historical uneasy relationship with the police, their lack of trust of authority inclined them to stay out of it
[list=3][*]Maybe they are a private family and did not wish to join the circus.
[/list]

However, once Murat was in trouble they knew they had to do the right thing and come forward with their sighting.....Yes, it might well have been instigated by Murats arguido, but that doesnt prove they were lying. For me, rather than lying to save Murat, they were telling the truth because it was the right thing to do.

I rest my case.

Hi Silentscope,

If it was gerry carrying maddie, how did they have time to do all the cover up jobs?

I struggle with them waiting for "confusion" to get rid of the body.....they would have done it much earlier

they may or may not have known murat well...to me its irrelevant...they finally decided to come forward becaus they didnt want the wrong man being fingered for something he didnt do.....good citizendhip...

I agree it all happened much earlier and maddie was long gione...so in theory the thursday night abduction scenario is pointless....however, I truly believe the Smiths saw something (as do the portugese police) so you are then back to my original options of it being maddie, a random geezer or gerry and Ella...all of which I have discussed on my previous post.....
Ive got no problem with you disagreeing with me, I know its an outrageous theory,,,but I cannot think of an alternative and noone else has been able to give me a sensible solution that fits all the facts...  I would loveit if they did.

I take it youre an earlier death and Smith lying sort of person>...thats fine......I respect your opinion, but I dont agree with it.

Hi Silentscope,
I would be very interested to hear what you believe...earlier death and smiths lying?...if not, what?

thanks for video.....interesting....does this mean we are back to 3rd may removal or just whenever the removal was?

thankyou Crusader...vey interesting...havent heard the like before,,,I will add it to my options list and ponder its merits at my leisure....with a nice cup of tea,,,,

Hi Silentscope,   Ok, youve got a large window of opportunity there......thats actually a good tactic.....when someone cracks it, youll be able to say that is what you thought too!!!!...he he...

I have already got a sort of timeline that Im adding info to...probablly not as organised as it should be but time is not on my side at the mo ...will do my best to get it more organised when time allows......

It seems to me that the smith sighting is an enormous point of dispute ...What would have been great is if their statements could have been analysed for truthfulness....then we would at least have some guidance..... I suspect its not possible to do that because they are written more as if a policeman is writing the statements having spoken to the smiths,,,,,what a shame...

@ Silentscope and @ Paddington 

It is sad to see you struggling with whether the Smithman sighting is true. 

There are innumerable proofs on this forum that it was an utter invention from start to finish.

As has been pointed out years ago, the last known photo of Madeleine was at about 2.30pm Sunday 29th April, unless you count the 'Make-Up Photo' which may have been taken by persons unknown that afternoon.

Apart from that, there is no alleged verifiable 'sighting' of Madeleine after the Sunday afternoon; all claimed 'sightings' are either from the McCann Team and their allies, and therefore not independent, or so vague as to be useless, as Lizzie Hi-Ho Taylor pointed out years ago on this very forum.

You both, with respect, have turned a Nelsonian "blind eye" to the truth.

Hi Seedsofdoubt,

I agree with you that it happened much earlier in the week...29th is good for me..... but I do not agree that The Smiths lied.....

I have seen some posts here which folow that scenario, but they have not convinced me.....One was saying that  the smiths joined team mccann from december 2009 and the Mccans started promoting the sighting from dec 2007,,,,,, Ive stated many times that the mmccans initially tried to bury the Smith sighting......in my opinion, it was only after they were sure the incriminating cctv had been overwritten, that they felt able to promote the smith sighting....becaus it was beginning to look very suspicious that they wanted to bury it..... I suspect it was a reluctant promotion because the smiths have maintained to this day that they think it  was gerry...any "collusion" with team mccann might have been a willingness to help just incase their belief it was gerry was wrong, and I suspect  the "collusion" was probably emphasised by team mccann, more than was actually happening......

If you have got some specific information about why the smiths are lying, please tell me...Ive read everything I can find and none of it is convincing for me...  tell me what makes you believe they lied?

Hi Crusader,

thanks for that...I think Ive seen it before, but youre right, I will have another look.....I may be some time......  If I remember, Pat thinks it was Maddie....I dont....I think it  was Ella........anyway, thanks again for reminding me of it....

Hi Seedsofdoubt,  yes I get that..youre quite right to point it out......

What is your personal opinion that convinces you they were lying?...Im desperate to find someone that can convince me...

sorry, I mean Crusader...youre right to point it out...   what is your stance on smiths and reasons?

What is most likely. Gerry was actually carrying the body of Madeleine, who had died at least 2 days earlier, to a pre-arranged location. That location was an apartment or villa to the West of PDL, the less popular part where very few if any properties would be let in early May. The body was put in a freezer and removed several weeks later. Realising he’d been spotted just before 10pm the T9 had to manufacture the disappearance being discovered at the very precise time (when all other timings were vague) of 10pm. The hue and cry was actually raised later, as testified by the neighbour upstairs (10.30), consistent with the first police call at 10.40. The false Tanner sighting was to convince police the “abduction” happened 40mins earlier so the the person seen by Smiths could not have been the abductor. The route used by Gerry had no CCTV on it, which is why he went that way and not the more direct route

Tony Bennett listed 12 sets of contradictions in Martin Smith's shifting accounts:

SMITHMAN 12: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A majority on here didn't agree with his view though.

SMITHMAN 2, SMITHMAN 3, SMITHMAN 4, SMITHMAN 6, SMITHMAN 7, SMITHMAN 8, SMITHMAN 9, SMITHMAN 10, SMITHMAN 11 and SMITHMAN12 are also worth a look.  

Smithman was the chief suspect once! - in the Crimewatch hoax of 14 October 2013.

Until Christian Bruckner came along

Did the twelve year old Smith child volunteer her information, or did the police lead her by asking questions? 'Was there anything you noticed about his clothes? A belt, with a distinctive buckle, for example? A tee shirt with a motif?' That sounds a but desperate from me, but she was only twelve.

Hi All,

All your comments have really made me happy...I was under the misunderstanding that you all thought the Smiths were lying.  I have however, been pleasantly surprised to see thats not true....  I agree with Crusader that the Smiths have been demonised and for my money that is a miscarriage of justice.  ...The only ones that have actually met them (portugese police) belive them to be truthful.  They were onto the Tannerman sighting being rubbish starightaway and didnt want to release her desription at all.....I believe im correct in saying they were presurised to bt Gordon Brown!!!....anyway, my point is, the PJ seem to be good judges of character no doubt built up from years of experience.    I am still saddened however that some well respected researchers (RDH) do not believe them...   Dont get me wrong. I love his forensic research, but I do think he has got this one wrong.....not telling tales out of school here, I have told him directly too...... (he ignored me...)  As far as I can make out his dismissal is based on their vague descriptions (I disagree) and the fact that Mr Smith wouldnt engage with RDH......terribly unfair........you cant blame him for only being willing to work with the official parties....its probably a nightmare for him.....he also probably wants to protect his family...
I will look through all the smithman links when i get the chance...hell of a lot of stuff, so I may be sometime....
One other thing, with the deepest of respect Huddo, the Estela de Luz cctv was very well pubicised.....Goncalo Amaral deeply regretted not getting to it before it was overwritten and it is also the one that my theory of it" all being for the benefit of cctv" relies on..... I belive it was Silentscope who provided a video with it being discussed as a crucial camera.   I belive it was the fear of this cctv showing someone very similar to gerry that caused Tannerman to be sent in the opposite direction.  Once they realised the cctv had been overwritten, they relaxed and were then able to give more credit to Smithman.....
I previously had a discusion with Silentscope or Crusader about the risk of this camera not working......Obviously we now know that it was, but when they were planning the events of 3rd May, I belive the reliance on this camera was not that daft.   Now a days when there is a cctv evry couple of yards, there are far too many for them all to be maintained properly and you stand a good chance of some not working....Back then they were rarer and much more likely to be looked after....Much higher chance of any individual cctv working than now....I do not think it was big a leap of faith to trust that the cctv was actally working........as it turned out (smith) they probably desperately hoped it wasnt.......but were saved anyway when it was overwritten due to their delaying tactics...
Anyway, thanks again for all your comments supporting the Smiths, like you. I do belive they were a genuine family telling the truth.

This is just the place for thorough investigation - to quote the professor 'leave no stone unturned' - and equally thorough discussion.

I know there are still some out there who do not believe the Smiths. But I know the Smiths were telling the truth. How do I know? Because the Mccanns told us they were.

Lets pretend for a moment that the Smiths were lying. What would the Mccanns do when their sighting came in? They would do what they did with all the other sightings that they knew were false...they would ignore it.

From 4^th May 2007 onwards sightings were coming in from Spain and Morocco and then further afield. Several local waiffs and strays were investigated and eliminated. The Smith sighting would have been just another avenue that would come to nothing.They had nothing to fear.

The same applies to a random carrying his child home. All the local creche records would have been seized, an appeal would have been put out, he would have been identified and eliminated from their enquiries.

They had their suspect: Tannerman, and they did not want the focus being taken away from that. They wanted to keep control of the the narrative and secure a sustainable, feasible patsy.

With this in mind, they tried to finger Sagresman but he was investigated and swiftly eliminated.

So, when the genuine Smith sighting came in, what did the Mccanns do?.....they tried to bury it. They desperately tried to keep the focus on Tannerman and away from the Smith sighting. They said it was in the wrong direction, the timing was wrong, anything they could think of to get rid of it.

Their fear of it shows us that it was genuine, and not only that, but that the sighting was of a member of team mccann. They needed Smithman to go away.

But he wouldnt go away and worse, it sounded alarmingly like a description of Gerry.
So, after months of fruitlessly trying to bury it they decided on a change of tactic: “Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer”.

They got the Smiths to join team Mccann. As far as the Smiths were concerned, they just wanted to help with solving the mystery and were more than willing to help all they could.

As far as Team Mccann were concerned, it allowed them to take control of the narrative and persuade the Smiths that perhaps the man they saw was a bit shorter or had longer hair, anything to make it sound less like Gerry....Perhaps they could put out some confusing e-fits and credit the Smiths with having helped in their construction to give it gravitas?

Initially they tried to link Tannerman and Smithman and spent years evolving the story but most people believed in Smithman and no-one believed in Tannerman so eventually they descided to abandon Tannerman and he was converted into Crecheman and disappeared into the sunset never to be seen again.

And so it came to pass that the public was finally allowed to believe that the Smith sighting was important after all because it showed a non-Gerry lookalike abducting Madeleine on the night of 3^rd May 2007.

In the battle of Smithman vs Tannerman, Smithman had won because it was the truth.

Remember, in 17 years, no-one, not the Portugese Police, not the English Police, not the Mccanns, not MI5, not MI6, not any of their “private investigators”, no-one has ever managed to destroy the Smith sighting,,,why? Because they were telling the truth.

I just want to make one further point but I freely admit it is a bit of a leap of faith because as hard as Ive tried, I cannot find the exact information that I want. Anyway, here goes.

Jane Tanner and many others fingered Robert Murat resulting in his being made Arguido on 14^th May 2007.

The Smith sighting came in a couple of days later and on 26^th May they travelled to Portugal to make statements and asserted that the man they saw was not Murat because they knew him.

We know from Goncalo's book that “Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret”. He does not specify how long it was kept secret unfortunately.

We also know that after seeing the Mccanns arriving back in England in mid September, the Smiths relayed their suspicion to the police that it was Gerry they had seen.

We know from RDH's wonderful films that on 11^th July 2007 the portugese police gathered some of the accusers and Murat together for a confrontation but Goncalo states “Nothing new comes out of it.... each side stands its ground”.

Then on 13^th November there is a meeting between Mccann representatives and the Murat family and solicitor, followed a few days later by a meeting back in England of many of the Team Mccann members. Shortly afterwards Murat is released from his Arguido status.

Were these meetings to discuss the problem of the Smith sighting which just wasnt going away? Had they finally realised that their use of Murat as a Patsy just wasnt sustainable?

Was the outcome of these meetings that they decided to adopt a policy of “If you cant beat them, join them”? and they decided to do whatever it took to get control of the Smiths and influence their sighting..? I believe it was.

So, the only question you need to ask yourselves is “Who did the Smiths see?”

a) Gerry Buttons Mccann and Maddie
b) Gerry Buttons Mccann and Ella/Amelie
c)Gerry Buttons Mccann lookalike from Team Mccann and A.N.Other?

Which one is it?