Re: BRICK Reviews

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 22:05

Bluebagthepirate wrote:"This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year"

Not what he said in his statement.

So this was after May 28th.

Haven't you had a look at the date of the article ?
Have you noticed that the title mentions a blanket that never appeared in MS's narrative ?

by crusader 03.09.24 22:07

I'm desperate to read what it is.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 22:09

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:"This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year"

Not what he said in his statement.

So this was after May 28th.
Haven't you had a look at the date of the article ?
Have you noticed that the title mentions a blanket that never appeared in MS's narrative ?

Are you avoiding telling us what the anomaly is?

Are you still saying Smith is dependable now Gerry has been airbrushed from his story by January 2008?

Are you not bothered that he has contradicted his previous statement?

Tell us what this anomaly is please.

by crusader 03.09.24 22:17

The article referring to the blanket is from the Daily Mail, a newspaper.
I thought the anomaly was from Martin Smith's statement.
Why would Martin Smith give the Daily Mail more information than what he said in his statement to the police.
Newspaper reports are not to be trusted and definitely should not be considered as a statement.

by **sharonl** 03.09.24 22:26

crusader wrote:Thanks to Anne Guedes we now know,( well I didn't know but some might have done) that Martin Smith did contact the police about what he saw, but we don't know when do we? only to be fobbed off and told that was not news.
It was G Amaral who called in the Smith family to make statements on the 26th May.
He was definitely on the ball wasn't he.

Didn't Smith contact the police shortly after Murat's arrest? It wasn't until a few weeks at least, after Madeleines' disappearance.

think

The Smith's must have heard the commotion that night and in the following days Gerry's mug shot was plastered all over the media. If they suspected anything why didn't they contact the police earlier?

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 22:29

sharonl wrote:

The Smith's must have heard the commotion that night and in the following days Gerry's mug shot was plastered all over the media. If they suspected anything why didn't they contact the police earlier?

Because they saw an anomaly on TV later.

We're trying to figure out what that was.

by crusader 03.09.24 22:30

From Martin Smith's first statement.
[size=30]Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.[/size]

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 22:31

crusader wrote:The article referring to the blanket is from the Daily Mail, a newspaper.
I thought the anomaly was from Martin Smith's statement.
Why would Martin Smith give the Daily Mail more information than what he said in his statement to the police.
Newspaper reports are not to be trusted and definitely should not be considered as a statement.

Of course, newspaper reports are full of inaccuracies. You insisted in knowing from where I knew that MS had called the PT police, as if I had invented it. Well, that's done, I didn't invent it. But may be the Daily Mail did.. ??

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 22:32

Peter S' view of the same meeting with Smithman

Local family's anguish over 'Maddy' sighting Drogheda Independent

Wednesday January 09 2008

Madeleine (4) vanished on May 3rd last while her family were on holiday in the Portuguese resort of Praia Da Luz.

The Drogheda family, who first spoke to the Drogheda Indpendent last August, say despite current media reports that they will be contacted by the detective agency hired by parents Gerry and Kate McCann to find the missing toddler, no one has been in contact with them. 'We are willing to talk to anyone but our information is vague. It cuts us up that we can't be of more help but what we saw is not going to crack the case,' Peter Smith told the Drogheda Independent.

The Drogheda family, Peter, his wife Sheila and their two children Tadgh (13) and Cole (6), along with grandparents Martin and Mary Smith, were holidaying in the same resort at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

Returning from a night out the family saw a sleeping child in the arms of a man, on the night the toddler was taken from her parents apartment. 'It was our last night. We left the restaurant early because my wife, who was expecting our third child at the time was feeling unwell. On the way back to our apartment we saw a man walking down towards the beach with a child in his arms. It's a common enough sight in a holiday resort and we didn't think much of it. In fact it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife,' Peter, who lives in Greenhills, explained. 'When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man,' Peter added.

The family made a statement to the Gardaí who then contacted the Portuguese police. 'About three to four weeks after Madeleine disappeared we travelled back to Portugal and gave a description of the man in a statement to the police there,' said Peter.

Since then the family have heard nothing, from either the Portuguese police or the detectives agency Metodo 3, hired by her family to find Madeleine. 'We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy. However we are willing to help in any way that we can if we are contacted,' the Drogheda man stressed.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 22:34

AnneCGuedes wrote:
crusader wrote:The article referring to the blanket is from the Daily Mail, a newspaper.
I thought the anomaly was from Martin Smith's statement.
Why would Martin Smith give the Daily Mail more information than what he said in his statement to the police.
Newspaper reports are not to be trusted and definitely should not be considered as a statement.

Of course, newspaper reports are full of inaccuracies. You insisted in knowing from where I knew that MS had called the PT police, as if I had invented it. Well, that's done, I didn't invent it. But may be the Daily Mail did.. ??

When did he call them?

We know he called them before the 28th May statements which led to the interviews.

Did he call before that and get fobbed off?

by crusader 03.09.24 22:35

I never accused you of inventing anything, I was intrigued as to what I was missing in M Smith's statement.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 22:39

AnneCGuedes wrote:Peter S' view of the same meeting with Smithman

Local family's anguish over 'Maddy' sighting Drogheda Independent
Wednesday January 09 2008
Madeleine (4) vanished on May 3rd last while her family were on holiday in the Portuguese resort of Praia Da Luz.
The Drogheda family, who first spoke to the Drogheda Indpendent last August, say despite current media reports that they will be contacted by the detective agency hired by parents Gerry and Kate McCann to find the missing toddler, no one has been in contact with them. 'We are willing to talk to anyone but our information is vague. It cuts us up that we can't be of more help but what we saw is not going to crack the case,' Peter Smith told the Drogheda Independent.
The Drogheda family, Peter, his wife Sheila and their two children Tadgh (13) and Cole (6), along with grandparents Martin and Mary Smith, were holidaying in the same resort at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
Returning from a night out the family saw a sleeping child in the arms of a man, on the night the toddler was taken from her parents apartment. 'It was our last night. We left the restaurant early because my wife, who was expecting our third child at the time was feeling unwell. On the way back to our apartment we saw a man walking down towards the beach with a child in his arms. It's a common enough sight in a holiday resort and we didn't think much of it. In fact it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife,' Peter, who lives in Greenhills, explained. 'When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man,' Peter added.
The family made a statement to the Gardaí who then contacted the Portuguese police. 'About three to four weeks after Madeleine disappeared we travelled back to Portugal and gave a description of the man in a statement to the police there,' said Peter.

Since then the family have heard nothing, from either the Portuguese police or the detectives agency Metodo 3, hired by her family to find Madeleine. 'We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy. However we are willing to help in any way that we can if we are contacted,' the Drogheda man stressed.

I'm really missing your point.

They said in their May 28th statements that what they saw that night was normal.

Martin Smith contradicted that later in January and forgot all about Smithman being Gerry. So did Peter by the looks.

Are you trying to tell us that the Police fobbed them off before May 28th and told them what they saw was normal?

I'm failing to see a coherent story here.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 22:40

crusader wrote:I never accused you of inventing anything, I was intrigued as to what I was missing in M Smith's statement.

I think Anne is playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

Her version of events is all over the place.

I think we should try to get this straight for the sake of truth.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 23:07

crusader wrote:I never accused you of inventing anything, I was intrigued as to what I was missing in M Smith's statement.

I didn't say you "accused" me, just that you doubted what I said about MS calling the PT police.

by crusader 03.09.24 23:21

You insisted in knowing from where I knew that MS had called the PT police, as if I had invented it.

I'm sorry if it came across that I doubted you
I didn't doubt what you said, I was intrigued as to what I had missed in M Smith's statement.
I now know the anomaly wasn't in his statement, it was from a newspaper article.
Simple once the penny drops, but it took some time to get there didn't it.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 23:22

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

I'm really missing your point.

They said in their May 28th statements that what they saw that night was normal.

Martin Smith contradicted that later in January and forgot all about Smithman being Gerry. So did Peter by the looks.

Are you trying to tell us that the Police fobbed them off before May 28th and told them what they saw was normal?

I'm failing to see a coherent story here.

Many things are mixed up here.
1) When and why MS alerted the PT police, if he did.
2) A comment by MS in his first statement struck me when I read it (frankly it's easy to find !)
3) The behaviour of João Carlos (the author of the PJ final report) that might explain why Martin S, who had shunned the media, suddenly spoke out in January 2008. After the déjà-vu of 11 September 2007, the GA team had taken the initiative of calling back the S family, but GA left and it was weirdly cancelled. This is complex and I want to be accurate. I have written about it in my book. To-morrow I'll try to translate it.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 23:26

crusader wrote:
I now know the anomaly wasn't in his statement, it was from a newspaper article.
Simple once the penny drops, but it took some time to get there didn't it.

The anomaly noted by MS about Smithman is in his May 26 statement !

by crusader 03.09.24 23:33

I've had enough for today. confused

by Bluebagthepirate 04.09.24 7:12

AnneCGuedes wrote:
crusader wrote:
I now know the anomaly wasn't in his statement, it was from a newspaper article.
Simple once the penny drops, but it took some time to get there didn't it.

The anomaly noted by MS about Smithman is in his May 26 statement !

You keep saying.

What is it though?

by **PeterMac** 04.09.24 7:32

Bernt's next interview should be interesting.
It obviously won't be the same stuff all over again
James E must have something else to ask him . . . or Bernt have something else to tell him

by **PeterMac** 04.09.24 11:59

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
crusader wrote:
I now know the anomaly wasn't in his statement, it was from a newspaper article.
Simple once the penny drops, but it took some time to get there didn't it.

The anomaly noted by MS about Smithman is in his May 26 statement !
You keep saying.
What is it though?

This perhaps ?
"— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."

MS. 26/5.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id162.htm

by **PeterMac** 04.09.24 12:22

Smithman is fascinating.
He could almost have been invented by the McCanns
They invented Tannerman, but probably realised that he/it was going to be blown out of the water very quickly.

As he/it was.
Redwood got embarrassed and invented Totman-man to take the blame
But the McCanns cannot let go of Tannerman, and TO THIS DAY he is still on the Madeleine Website

But then up pops Smithman, and immediately half the researchers and the PJ latch onto him
This suits the McCanns perfectly since half are now ignoring Tannerman, and both 'sightings' reinforce the idea of an Abductor.
OK the times don't fit, but that is not their concern.

Their concern is that there is confusion, and an endless supply of theories to cover up the fact that neither Tannerman nor Smithman have anything at all to do with the death and concealment of Madeleine the previous night,

They now have TWO wild goose chases running, and NO ONE, NOT ANYONE is looking at the Pool Photo, or the creche sheets, or any of the other evidence staring us all in the face for YEARS..
And NO ONE is asking any of the staff or witnesses - in any detail - about what they saw on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, or even Sunday. It was perfect.

And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

And all of which incidentally blunts Occam's Razor so badly that it can never be sharpened again

by crusader 04.09.24 12:40

PeterMac wrote

This perhaps ?
"— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."

Could be, but why do we have to keep guessing, why can't Anne just point out the anomaly?
I've asked over and over again till my head was spinning last night. confused

by Justice for Maddie 04.09.24 12:59

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

by Bluebagthepirate 04.09.24 15:41

Justice for Maddie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's nonsense though isn't it!

That is the most normal way people carry a sleeping child of that age.

The internet is full of pictures of people doing just that - some even look like Gerry (do I need to post the images again?)

But we should remember that by January 2008 Martin and Peter Smith forgot that Smithman was Gerry according to their newspaper interviews.

Latest topics