Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

by Guest 03.05.11 21:36

@ wendy ???

by **Tony Bennett** 03.05.11 21:41

Garth wrote:Amaral is of the belief that the person the Smiths spotted carrying a child was no other than GM himself (although this wasn't apparent to them initially). However. you have a different opinion. What I want to know is, why have you a different opinion, ie why do you believe it wasn't GM? Is it because even you think its too rediculous to contemplate...which is what it appears to be. Or is it some other reason which only you can explain! I look forward to your answer. LATER: I see you're online Tony, a quick couple of lines will do so we can move forward. LATER STILL: Just need a reply from Tony to get this interesting debate off the ground!
...Garth

Whoa!

Um, Garth, you seem to have forgotten your internet etiquette.

I asked you just two questions, just a few posts back, namely:

Now let's see if you can answer two brief questions:

1. Why did the McCanns come up with all those ludicrous explanations for Eddie's alerts?

2. Were the dogs in the Eugene Zapata case right or wrong?

Please have the courtesy to answer those two questions before you ask your own.

Answer those first, and I will answer yours.

by Garth 03.05.11 22:26

Yeah no problem mate

My answer to the first question (which is only my opinion) is that being as the McCanns believed someone entered their apartment and took their daughter then there must be a rational explanation for the dogs findings. Remember, JT had informed them that she had spotted a person carrying a child a little earlier that evening which must have further compounded their belief of an abduction. And so, even though the reasons may appear desperate, they probably were. IMHO

With regard to the second question, I haven't followed that case but briefy googleing the name it would appear your point is that the dogs findings were correct and when the McCanns discovered this fact that stopped referring to this case to discredit the dogs.

The dog findings however do not imo make the findings by Eddie and Keela correct. This has been debated over and over and their are arguments for and against in this case. However, from the McCanns perspective, although it may appear to some that they were trying to discredit the dogs in order to alleviate suspicion surrounding themselves it could also be a reason to show that infact dogs don't always get it right and after their initial explanations they have obviously been made aware of this fact and as such used this case as an example. So it can be looked at from two perspectives imo.

Now if you could answer my quezzy that would be great!

by **Tony Bennett** 03.05.11 22:48

Garth wrote:Yeah no problem mate

My answer to the first question (which is only my opinion) is that being as the McCanns believed someone entered their apartment and took their daughter then there must be a rational explanation for the dogs findings. Remember, JT had informed them that she had spotted a person carrying a child a little earlier that evening which must have further compounded their belief of an abduction. And so, even though the reasons may appear desperate, they probably were. IMHO

Thank you for replying. However, the McCanns did not say: "Heck - who has died there then?" They initially accepted that the dogs did alert to cadaver scent, and then tried to explain why it was there, hence the completely unsubstantiated (any many would say ludicrous) claims of 'certifying six corpses in two weeks' and 'I took Cuddle Cat to work with me in my bag whilst I was certifying deaths'. I agree however with you that they were 'desperate'.

With regard to the second question, I haven't followed that case but briefy googleing the name it would appear your point is that the dogs findings were correct

Yes they were. 100%.

and when the McCanns discovered this fact that stopped referring to this case to discredit the dogs.

Yes that's also true.

The dog findings [in the Eugene Zapata case] however do not imo make the findings by Eddie and Keela correct. This has been debated over and over and there are arguments for and against in this case. However, from the McCanns' perspective, although it may appear to some that they were trying to discredit the dogs in order to alleviate suspicion surrounding themselves it could also be a reason to show that in fact dogs don't always get it right and after their initial explanations they have obviously been made aware of this fact and as such used this case as an example. So it can be looked at from two perspectives imo.

You have Martin Grime's opinion. And you have the McCanns'. Everyone must decide for themselves which of the two is more likely to be corrrect about what the dogs alerted to.

Now if you could answer my quezzy that would be great!

YOUR QUESTION WAS:

What I want to know is, why have you a different opinion, i.e. why do you believe it wasn't GM? Is it because even you think its too ridiculous to contemplate...which is what it appears to be. Or is it some other reason which only you can explain!

My main four reasons why I think Martin Smith saw another man and another child being carried:

1. I have carefully looked at the statements of the various Smith family members and there are quite a few discrepancies between them
2. Even Martin Smith was only '60%-80% certain that the person he saw was Gerry McCann
3. I consider it far-fethced to say the least that at the very moment the McCanns and friends were raising the alarm that Madeleine had disappeared, Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine somewhere
4. There is an Ocean Club witness and others who place Gerry McCann in and around the Ocean Club at around 10.00pm, 'roaring like a bull' according to some.

FINALLY, you described this tonight as a 'fantastic forum'. I also find it a great place to discuss and debate what really happened to Madeleine McCann. I don't have a problem with McCann-believers who come on here for honest, fair and clean debate. Trolls and troublemakers are a different matter.

by Guest001 04.05.11 5:05

I would have serious concerns about anyone who is attempting to publicly "quell suspicion" in the case of a missing child particularly when the fate of the child is officially unknown & unproven. Whether Madeleine was genuinely abducted or not I see nothing to be gained in the quest to find her or the truth behind her disappearance by quelling public speculation in this case.

by Garth 04.05.11 7:02

Good morning Tony, and thankyou for your honest reply.

FINALLY, you described this tonight as a 'fantastic forum'. I also find it a great place to discuss and debate what really happened to Madeleine McCann. I don't have a problem with McCann-believers who come on here for honest, fair and clean debate. Trolls and troublemakers are a different matter.

I whole heartedly agree with you.

We both have a common goal, and that is, the need to understand the truth behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The wealth of information contained within the files, the actions or none actions of both the McCanns, their friends and the investigators have intrigued us all, infact so much so, that we still feel the need to talk about this case on a daily basis on forums such as this.

The only difference between a so-called pro and an anti is our own interpretations of all this information. I accept that the McCanns can appear strange to some and I understand the reservations they hold regarding their innocence. But those questions can be asked not only of the McCanns but everyone involved in this case, including that of Goncalo Amaral and the dogs, Eddie and Keela findings. Nothing, it would appear, in this case, is an absolute certainty and so therefore we must look at each case based on their merits and have an open mind in each one.

Above all else, I see 3 compelling events within this case that tend to push you one way or the other. Those are:

1. The sighting by the Smith family
2. The sighting by Jane Tanner
3. The indications by the dogs

Coupled with everything else, the above are strong arguments for and against an abduction which for many, have compounded their thoughts for and against.

We have started our discussion off regarding the first, the Smith family, and it would appear we are in agreeance that the person carrying the child was not that of Gerry McCann for reasons you have stated.

I look forward to continuing our discussion further to see if we can continue with a rational and honest opinion from both sides of the divide from which we may both learn and people can form their opinions.

Regards

by Guest 04.05.11 8:49

Garth wrote:
REPLY BY TB: If the dogs' findings were so 'dubious', why did the McCanns immediately scramble for such outrageously ludicrous explanations...six corpses in a fortnight...carrying Cuddle Cat around whilst I was filling in death certificates...dirty nappies...rotting meat..? Only after that failed did they then try to diss the dogs, immediately latching on to the Eugene Zapata case, claiming a judge had said these cadaver dogs were useless.

What is ludicrous is the way you interpret things. And that's your problem with this whole case.

So lets have a look at one aspect........the Smith sighting.

Garth, Tony has clearly provided you with not just one, but five different reasons why so many people disbelieve the McCann's story and instead of providing a good counter-argument, you resort to changing the subject. To me, that clearly shows you are not here to debate the facts, but to inflame and dish the dirt.

All I can say is Tony has the patience of an Angel where you are concerned.

by Guest 04.05.11 9:09

I think it is still possible that the person Mr Smith saw could have been Gerry. The timings for the tapas restaurant is unclear, depending on who you speak to. The distance between the spot of the sighting and the restaurant is nothing, if the person had run back. But for me the forensic photos have to be considered. The person Mr Smith saw was wearing beige trousers. There were two lots of forensic photos that night. Look closely at Gerry's bed. Is that a pair of beige trousers sitting on the top in the first one, then missing in the next?

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

Now you don't [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's no wonder the PJ were trying to find out what they were wearing that night.

by Garth 04.05.11 21:33

Stella wrote

Garth, Tony has clearly provided you with not just one, but five different reasons why so many people disbelieve the McCann's story and instead of providing a good counter-argument, you resort to changing the subject. To me, that clearly shows you are not here to debate the facts, but to inflame and dish the dirt.

All I can say is Tony has the patience of an Angel where you are concerned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on, that's a bit unfair. This was supposed to be a civil discussion. The only person who appears to be dishing the dirt presently is you!

I answered Tony's question if you read back and he answered mine. I know it grates because we have agreed on a point but hey that's what this forum is about isn't it?

To answer your thoughts on Gerry Stella, you say it may be possible if he ran back. I take it that's from where the Smiths spotted him. But how do you know where he went. You appear to have overlooked the fact that the child had to be taken to a location that was so well thought out, that she remained undected there for 25 days without being found. Sorry but your arguement to me is highly unlikely and infact, borders ridiculous!

Anyway, back to the discussion with the Tony.

If, as we have agreed it wasn't Gerry McCann, do we agree that it was Madeleine? And the reason I ask this because I cannot believe that it was a total stranger just carrying a child who just happened to be dressed like Madeleine. Not only that, where the hell was he going with a child in pyjamas at that time of night. And to further add doubt to a total stranger, this case has been well documented and so I believe somone would have been identified by now.

The question for me remains, who was this person carrying Madeleine McCann?

Over to you Tony........

by Guest 04.05.11 21:46

Would that be the same person that Jane Tanner saw Garth? I presume you believe her sighting. So, as I said before, JT allegedly saw the man at 9.15 pm, and the Smith's saw the man at 9.50 pm, he sure was having a good old wander around PDL, with an abducted child. Perhaps he was doing a bit of sightseeing while he was at it, or perhaps he got lost big grin

by Garth 04.05.11 22:03

I'll come on to that argument a bit later Candyfloss but for now we need to look at the Smith sighting as it is very significant part of this case.

So, we have a person seen carrying a child by the Smith family yet four years later this person and the child have not been identified. What does that tell you?

And I'm afraid this argument is far more important than quibling about peoples misgivings regarding their actions.

For me, Madeleine McCann has been identified. It's the person seen carrying her that remains the big question. It was either

1. Gerry McCann
2. An accomplice
3. The abductor.

by dragonfly 04.05.11 22:39

Garth wrote:

For me, Madeleine McCann has been identified. It's the person seen carrying her that remains the big question. It was either

1. Gerry McCann
2. An accomplice
3. The abductor.

I do not feel that was a 100% positive sighting of maddie from the smiths
If they believe that was Gerry, he would of had to get changed and dispose the clothes quickly, as the dogs alerted to Kates clothes none of Gerrys, I feel that Jane Tanners statement of
I WAS holding/carrying against like this, Everyone is focusing on a man based solely on Jane Tanners description or the smith sighting yet no ones come forward,
Whos to say it was not a women?,

by **Tony Bennett** 05.05.11 0:30

We both have a common goal, and that is, the need to understand the truth behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

REPLY: That is my goal.

The wealth of information contained within the files, the actions or non-actions of both the McCanns, their friends and the investigators have intrigued us all, in fact so much so, that we still feel the need to talk about this case on a daily basis on forums such as this.

REPLY: That’s true.

The only difference between a so-called pro and an anti is our own interpretations of all this information.

REPLY: Not quite. I think that on the McCann-believer side there is a lot of information available that they are not willing to discuss. There’s a host of relevant information to put on the table, and until all of it is put there, we will never know the full picture. We need first to agree what information goes on the table. A lot of it is hidden from view e.g.

· The McCanns’ credit card details

· Madeleine’s medical records

· Metodo 3’s dealings with Marcos Aragao Correia

· Which witnesses Brian Kennedy and his men intimidated so they were too frightened to give evidence…

...and so on.

I accept that the McCanns can appear strange to some…

REPLY: Please see below.

…and I understand the reservations they hold regarding their innocence.

REPLY: Que? Who is ‘they’ and who is ‘their’ in this sentence?

But those questions can be asked not only of (a) the McCanns but also everyone involved in this case, including (b) of Goncalo Amaral and (c) the dogs, Eddie and Keela findings.

REPLY: Yes, all of these three aspects should be subject to scrutiny.

Nothing, it would appear, in this case, is an absolute certainty and so therefore we must look at each case based on their merits and have an open mind in each one.

REPLY: There is plenty of information about this case about which we can be absolutely certain. To give some examples:

· Dr G McCann told relatives in the early hours of 4 May that an abductor had forced open the shutters and the windows

· He gave a different account (we probably left the patio doors open) the next day

· Dr K McCann refused to answer all 48 questions put to her at a police interview

· Dr G McCann said he had no doubt they could sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long term

· Dr G McCann used Madeleine’s eye defect as a marketing ploy

· Dr K McCann said David Payne knocked at the apartment door at 6.30pm on 3 May but did not let him in as he was dressed only in a towel

· Dr David Payne said he walked through the open patio door and sat amongst the McCanns’ three children who all were all dressed in white and looked angelic

· None of Madeleine’s DNA was found in Praia da Luz

· There is no forensic trace of an abductor

· The Tapas men used the ripped-off cover of Madeleine’s Activity Sticker Book to write down two timelines which referred to Jane Tanner having seen a man carrying a child

· The McCanns appointed Kevin Halligen to search for Madeleine

· Only two photographs of Madeleine on holiday have been produced by the McCanns and all their friends

· That Robert Murat lied in at least 17 respects about his movements 1-4 May when questioned by the PJ

And there are many many more absolute certainties, that was just a baker’s dozen for starters.

Above all else, I see 3 compelling events within this case that tend to push you one way or the other. Those are:

1. The sighting by the Smith family
2. The sighting by Jane Tanner
3. The indications by the dogs.

REPLY: This is where we are strongly at variance. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence in this case, I will come to that in a moment. I regard the Smith sighting of marginal importance as it happens. I agree the other two events are of major significance.

Here are other aspects of the circumstantial evidence in this case which we regard as compelling; I will not repeat the above 12 facts:

· Changes of story by the McCanns and their friends

· Contradictions as between the statements of the McCanns and their friends, notably about the events of 3 May 2007

· Strange conduct by the McCanns; strange things they have said

· Their body language

· The way the McCanns reacted when first told of the dogs’ alerts

· The controversial and incompetent private detectives they have employed

· Their litigious nature

· The collective failure of the McCanns and their friends to attend a reconstruction

Coupled with everything else, the above are strong arguments for and against an abduction which for many, have compounded their thoughts for and against.

REPLY: See above.

We have started our discussion off regarding the first, the Smith family, and it would appear we are in agreement that the person carrying the child was not that of Gerry McCann for reasons you have stated.

REPLY: Yes.

I look forward to continuing our discussion further to see if we can continue with a rational and honest opinion from both sides of the divide from which we may both learn and people can form their opinions.

REPLY: I am content if it is rational, honest and conducted politely.

To answer your thoughts on Gerry Stella, you say it may be possible if he ran back. I take it that's from where the Smiths spotted him. But how do you know where he went. You appear to have overlooked the fact that the child had to be taken to a location that was so well thought out, that she remained undected there for 25 days without being found. Sorry but your arguement to me is highly unlikely and infact, borders ridiculous!

REPLY: I can understand why Stella, and for that matter Goncalo Amaral, think the Smith sighting may be important. On many past occasions where a child has died and the parents have covered this up by faking an abduction, the parents have often succeeded in hiding the child’s body for a lot longer than 25 days. Take ‘Baby Grace’, for example, her battered body washed up in a wooden box in the Gilf of Mexico. You might say that for such a thing to happen ‘borders on the ridiculous’. But it happened.

If, as we have agreed it wasn't Gerry McCann, do we agree that it was Madeleine? And the reason I ask this because I cannot believe that it was a total stranger just carrying a child who just happened to be dressed like Madeleine. Not only that, where the hell was he going with a child in pyjamas at that time of night. And to further add doubt to a total stranger, this case has been well documented and so I believe somone would have been identified by now.

REPLY: I agree it’s unfortunate that the identity of the man and the child remain unknown. I think it was probably a parent - local or tourist - carrying a child home to bed.

The question for me remains, who was this person carrying Madeleine McCann?

REPLY: We are not agreed that it was Madeleine McCann; otherwise please see my previous answer.

So, we have a person seen carrying a child by the Smith family yet four years later this person and the child have not been identified. What does that tell you?

REPLY: That they have not yet been identified. Of course, the ‘Smith sighting’ didn’t become public knowledge until a long time after Madeleine was reported missing, so there was not an early opportunity for whoever was carrying the child to come forward. Is it not curious also that no-one apart from the Smiths saw this man and child?

And I'm afraid this argument is far more important than quibbling about people’s misgivings regarding their actions.

REPLY: The McCanns' actions are not something to ‘quibble’ about but demand the closest possible scrutiny.

For me, Madeleine McCann has been identified.

REPLY: Not for me.

It's the person seen carrying her that remains the big question. It was either

1. Gerry McCann
2. An accomplice
3. The abductor.

REPLY: At this point we must return to Jane Tanner’s evidence, which we have not discussed yet. I for one do not believe her.

She said she saw a man. Two years later, Dave Edgar said she might have seen a woman.

Ten days after Madeleine vanished, Tanner was adamant that the man whom she had seen was Robert Murat. Later, and only after Brian Kennedy and his lawyer had met Robert Murat and his lawyer on 13 November 2007 (an event I would pick out as of major importance in this case), she said he wasn’t.

Now let’s turn to the Channel 4/Mentorn documentary shown on 7 May 2009. In that documentary, the McCanns suggested that the abductor was seen by Tanner carrying Madeleine at 9.15pm and again 35-40 minutes later by the Smiths. Above, you accused Stella of an argument that ‘bordered on the ridiculous’.

The claim that an abdcutor was wandering round near Kelly’s Bar 40 minutes after entering the McCanns’ apartment by the patio door, then leaving with her through the window and shutters as a ‘red herring’, to quote Dr K McCann, does not merely ‘border on the ridiculous’.

It lacks any credibility whatsover.

by Guest 05.05.11 10:43

Garth wrote:

To answer your thoughts on Gerry Stella, you say it may be possible if he ran back. I take it that's from where the Smiths spotted him. But how do you know where he went.

If someone wanted to facilitate the appearance of a person seen abducting a child, one would have to have a decoy. The journey could have been one-way, two-way or even a shared journey. i.e., person A takes child towards beach, person B brings them back under canopy inside a buggy. Person A runs back, person B strolls back and does not reappear that night.

You appear to have overlooked the fact that the child had to be taken to a location that was so well thought out, that she remained undected there for 25 days without being found. Sorry but your arguement to me is highly unlikely and infact, borders ridiculous!

You are assuming Madeleine met her fate that night. There is plenty of evidence in the files to suggest it probably happened many days before that.

Anyway, back to the discussion with the Tony.

I can see you are desperate to get back to Tony now, but before you go, let me ask you this. If the Smith sighting was so important, why have the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell or their bomb disposal expert never pursued it and ensured it became front page headlines, like they did the Beckham lookalike?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.05.11 11:09

Stella wrote:
Garth wrote:

To answer your thoughts on Gerry Stella, you say it may be possible if he ran back. I take it that's from where the Smiths spotted him. But how do you know where he went.

If someone wanted to facilitate the appearance of a person seen abducting a child, one would have to have a decoy. The journey could have been one-way, two-way or even a shared journey. i.e., person A takes child towards beach, person B brings them back under canopy inside a buggy. Person A runs back, person B strolls back and does not reappear that night.

You appear to have overlooked the fact that the child had to be taken to a location that was so well thought out, that she remained undected there for 25 days without being found. Sorry but your arguement to me is highly unlikely and infact, borders ridiculous!

You are assuming Madeleine met her fate that night. There is plenty of evidence in the files to suggest it probably happened many days before that.

Anyway, back to the discussion with the Tony.

I can see you are desperate to get back to Tony now, but before you go, let me ask you this. If the Smith sighting was so important, why have the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell or their bomb disposal expert never pursued it and ensured it became front page headlines, like they did the Beckham lookalike?

This is an interesting discussion.

Let's see if we can analyse this a bit further.

Point 1. You are right Stella, the McCanns and their spokesmen avoided, like the plague, mentioning the Smith sighting in the early months. My theory: because it didn't tally at all with Jane Tanner's (fake) 'sighting' at precisley 9.15pm

Point 2. They changed their minds by the time the Channel 4/Mentorn documentary was transmitted on 7 May 2009. My theory: that by this time the McCanns and their advisers decided it would look good to the viewers to include the Smith 'sighting' as well as Tanner's - basically to 'beef up' Tanner's fake sighting. They knew they could get almost anything past Mentorn; after all, this was a 'documentary' that was scripted by the McCanns and their advisers, not a genuine exploration of the truth.

Point 3. You'll note if you click on to the official Find Madeleine website and then click on the investigation pages that Martin Smith is the 5th witness quoted ('Witness 5' - hear the audio). They even use an actor with an Irish accent! Of further interest is that the McCanns seem on their website to deliberately conflate Tanner man/Bundleman with Spotty man/Yellow T-shirt man with Martin Smith man, almost as if this was deliberate smoke and mirrors.

Point 4. If it was really Dr G McCann that was carrying Madeleine near Kelly's bar at 9.50pm, would he really want that sighting highlighted in the Channel 4 documentary? I don't think so.

Point 5. We probably need to understand why Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith and what they talked about. Something that will no doubt be omitted from Dr K McCann's 'very truthful version' of the truth.

by Guest 05.05.11 15:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:
Garth wrote:

To answer your thoughts on Gerry Stella, you say it may be possible if he ran back. I take it that's from where the Smiths spotted him. But how do you know where he went.

If someone wanted to facilitate the appearance of a person seen abducting a child, one would have to have a decoy. The journey could have been one-way, two-way or even a shared journey. i.e., person A takes child towards beach, person B brings them back under canopy inside a buggy. Person A runs back, person B strolls back and does not reappear that night.

You appear to have overlooked the fact that the child had to be taken to a location that was so well thought out, that she remained undected there for 25 days without being found. Sorry but your arguement to me is highly unlikely and infact, borders ridiculous!

You are assuming Madeleine met her fate that night. There is plenty of evidence in the files to suggest it probably happened many days before that.

Anyway, back to the discussion with the Tony.

I can see you are desperate to get back to Tony now, but before you go, let me ask you this. If the Smith sighting was so important, why have the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell or their bomb disposal expert never pursued it and ensured it became front page headlines, like they did the Beckham lookalike?
This is an interesting discussion.

Let's see if we can analyse this a bit further.

Point 1. You are right Stella, the McCanns and their spokesmen avoided, like the plague, mentioning the Smith sighting in the early months. My theory: because it didn't tally at all with Jane Tanner's (fake) 'sighting' at precisley 9.15pm

I think they initially wanted to put more emphasis on Tanner's sighting for some reason, probably because they had more control over the direction it would take. Unfortunately when everyone started to question her ability to recall specific details, she made herself an unreliable witness and became known as a liar and a fantasist.

Point 2. They changed their minds by the time the Channel 4/Mentorn documentary was transmitted on 7 May 2009. My theory: that by this time the McCanns and their advisers decided it would look good to the viewers to include the Smith 'sighting' as well as Tanner's - basically to 'beef up' Tanner's fake sighting. They knew they could get almost anything past Mentorn; after all, this was a 'documentary' that was scripted by the McCanns and their advisers, not a genuine exploration of the truth.

Yes, why wait 2 years then mention it very briefly in a documentary? At any point before that they could have organised a massive worldwide appeal for anyone who saw the Smith family, or even better this man who looked very much like Gerry McCann with a child in his arms heading towards the beach. But nothing. So I would have to ask myself was the point of the exercise just to skate over the sighting to be able to claim that they were indeed looking into it, to dismiss it, or, was it now safe to mention it knowing there would be no comeback?

Point 3. You'll note if you click on to the official Find Madeleine website and then click on the investigation pages that Martin Smith is the 5th witness quoted ('Witness 5' - hear the audio). They even use an actor with an Irish accent! Of further interest is that the McCanns seem on their website to deliberately conflate Tanner man/Bundleman with Spotty man/Yellow T-shirt man with Martin Smith man, almost as if this was deliberate smoke and mirrors.

I've never visited that site, but it is not the first time that sightings have been deliberately shall we say, muddled up. Just look at Mrs Fenn's neice and her photo-fit that mysteriously disappeared.

Point 4. If it was really Dr G McCann that was carrying Madeleine near Kelly's bar at 9.50pm, would he really want that sighting highlighted in the Channel 4 documentary? I don't think so.

Based on Martin Smith's description, not just of this persons looks, clothes and walk, he also highlighted the exact way in which this person was carrying a child. To me that is worth a lot more than a witness just trying to recall someones facial features. He had specifics. Then we have the issue of the beige item of clothing, most likely to be trousers disappearing off of Gerry's bed, sometime after the apartment had been sealed off. Forensics didn't take them. One would hope that the McCann's were not allowed back in until after the forensic inspections had been completed at 03.00 a.m. and at 15.30 p.m., the following day. For the record I do not believe the child seen was Madeleine. If Gerry knew it was safe to mention Martin Smith's sighting, I think he would have to mention it or else be forever labelled as being to afraid to mention it.

Point 5. We probably need to understand why Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith and what they talked about. Something that will no doubt be omitted from Dr K McCann's 'very truthful version' of the truth.

Years ago, I think that sort of thing was done by the mob and was called intimidating the witness. Maybe it's now the done thing in this modern world we now live in? I wonder if this is why the previous occupier of apartment 5a, Paul Gordon claimed that "there are times when I feel like a chess pawn", after also allegedly being visited by Brian Kennedy?

by Garth 05.05.11 19:06

Your thoughts (both of you) are intriguing to say the least.

The Smith Sighting

I'm pleased we are, at least, talking about this sighting because contrary to your thoughts Tony, I believe this far more important than your misgivings about the McCann actions, reactions, call them what you like etc etc.

And the reason is quite simply this, a little girl goes missing on the evening of 3rd May 2007. The streets are relatively quiet that time of year with not too many people wandering around yet, around the time of the discovery by Kate McCann that her daughter is missing, a family, namely the Smiths, (4 adults) spot a man walking down the middle of a tiny lane with a child in bare feet, pyjamas and about 3-4 years of age uncannilly fitting the description of Madeleine.

Yet for some strange reason you Stella, have been trying to justify the beige trousers by mentioning them going missing off of Gerry's bed, (how you know this I have no idea) which just happens to be the colour of the trousers as described by the Smiths! But, you don't think it was Madeleine. So what was the point of you trying to link the two?

Madeleine McCanns was most definately last seen at 5.35 that evening. Even Goncalo believes the records and statements from the creche and the nannies to be true and authentic, I mean, why wouldn't he, unless you think the whole world is involved in this so-conspiracy.

Anyway, back to the point regarding the Smiths, this young girl being carried by, not a family, not a women, but a man and she was in her pyjamas, miraculously the same colour as Madeleines. Unbelievable isn't it? So why was this person carrying a child at this hour of the evening I wonder? Was it, and I'm playing devils adocate here, because he was collecting her from a creche? If so, which one? Did the PJ not check them all in this area whilst investigating? The PJ have obviously done their checking and found nothing because even they believe the child to be Madeleine.

Yet, and after all this time, investigations by the PJ, the appeals by the McCanns, this person carrying a child, fitting the description of Madeleine perfectly, hasn't come forward and been identified/eliminated. So I rate this highly significant and puts all your misgivings regarding the McCanns well into the shade. And I would think any new members who have visited this site as a result of your leaftlets would feel the same.

Sorry, but I have to say this again:

“The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted”.
Mohandas Gandhi

It's not as bland and meaningless as you think Tony Bennett. IMHO of course!

by Guest 05.05.11 19:18

[quote Garth]

Yet, and after all this time, investigations by the PJ, the appeals by the McCanns, this person carrying a child, fitting the description of Madeleine perfectly, hasn't come forward and been identified/eliminated. So I rate this highly significant and puts all your misgivings regarding the McCanns well into the shade. And I would think any new members who have visited this site as a result of your leaftlets would feel the same.

Garth, we keep going round and round this question. You still haven't answered mine, and said you would get back to that.

Do you believe Jane Tanner saw the abductor? If you do, then how do you link the two sightings. You obviously believe in the Smith sighting, so I say again, what was the abductor doing wandering around PDL with a child in his arms, for 35 minutes. You have snatched a child from an apartment, you wouldn't want to be seen, but you decide to have a walkabout for 35 minutes. Yeah right titter

by Garth 05.05.11 19:39

I haven't got back to your regarding JT because as yet, we haven't finished off the discussion regarding the Smiths.

But, and just to keep you sweet, as I'm sure you are Candyfloss, i, like you, don't think someone would be wandering around the streets carrying a child he had supposedly abducted from an apartment.

by Garth 05.05.11 19:46

........but I do have an idea as to what happened! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 05.05.11 19:53

But surely, they way both JT and the Smiths describe the man and the child that was being carried, and they way she was dressed, they would seem to be one and the same person, wouldn't you agree. Now if one of them was wrong, that may be a different matter, but JT is adamant she saw this man and so are the Smith family. It is a case of who do you believe, cos they both can't be right can they, for the reasons I have explained, and you agree.

by Guest 05.05.11 19:54

Garth wrote: ........but I do have an idea as to what happened! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Spit it out then big grin

Can't wait!

by Garth 05.05.11 20:11

Candyfloss

I agree, going on both descriptions it does appear this person is one and the same. Is one wrong? I wouldnt have thought so personally, even though JT may have added to her description later. But even Mr Smith amazingly thought (6 months later) that he thought it may be GM based on the way he was carrying the child. So, and on that basis I think this person was observed by both parties.