Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

by Lance De Boils 18.10.13 10:53

It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 11:09

Lance De Boils wrote:It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .

There are two other questions to consider.

Where was 'Smith-man' coming FROM - with a young child in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night

AND

Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication? - made up to 'rescue' a man he was already well acquainted with - Robert Murat

by tiny 18.10.13 11:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .
There are two other questions to consider.

Where was 'Smith-man' coming FROM - with a young child in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night

AND

Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication? - made up to 'rescue' a man he was already well acquainted with - Robert Murat

No I don't think this the Smith family are making it up,as one of them described the trouser very like the ones Gerry McCann had on

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 11:19

tiny wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .
There are two other questions to consider.

Where was 'Smith-man' coming FROM - with a young child in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night

AND

Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication? - made up to 'rescue' a man he was already well acquainted with - Robert Murat
No, I don't think this, the Smith family are making it up, as one of them described the trouser very like the ones Gerry McCann had on

1. Is it established that GM was wearing those trousers with buttons that particular night?
2. Did the Smiths really notice that much detail about the man they said they saw?
3. Did it really take Martin Smith looking at TV footage of GM coming down from the plane at East Midlands Airport on 9 Sept 2007 to say "Eureka! It was GM I saw four months ago!"
4. There are discrepancies between what Martin says about this 'sighting' and what his wife and son Peter say
5. What was said between Martin Smith and Brian Kennedy [head of the McCann Team investigation] - when did they speak, and what did they say to each other?
6. Did any of the McCann Team investigators ever talk to Martin Smith? If so: when, why, where, and what was said?

by tiny 18.10.13 11:23

when did brian kennedy visit Mr Smith. scrub that question as it seems we don't know the answer as yet

by MRNOODLES 18.10.13 11:39

Having a good look on Google Earth. On the corner of the street at the Smith sighting. There's a medical centre Luzdoc http://www.luzdoc.com/LuzDocSiteIngles/mapa.html

Has this been looked into? Night callers from holiday makers with sick kids?

by endgame 18.10.13 11:40

One of the things that has always troubled me about the Smith sighting is that, as far as we know, there is no corroboration. GA seems to still think that the sighting is of great significance and that it could have been Gerry McCann. According to the recent Paul Luckman interview GA thinks the man came from the direction of the Ocean Club going towards where the Smiths claim to have seen him. Assuming that this man is not just an innocent bystander [which is possible] but is somehow involved in a cover up/ disposal exercise, there seem to be four possibilities:-

GM with Madeleine
GM with another decoy child
Another member of Tapas 9 with Madeleine
Another member of Tapas 9 with a decoy child

In the first two of these, the person would very much not want to be seen
In the second two it is the opposite. The person would want to be seen in order to create the idea of an abduction but not to be specifically recognised.

In all of these cases, the most likely scenario is that the setting out point would be the Ocean Club [thought not necessarily] and the person would have walked a mile or so including passing two car parks if they took the main route. Why did no one else see them and why did no one else see them after the Smith sighting? There may well be a few short cuts and deserted areas to use but the route GA suggests is along main roads.

Of course nothing is impossible but it does seem to be extremely lucky or unlucky [depending on the scenario] to have walked around like this and not to be seen.

It suggests to me that the journey was likely to have been much shorter and may in fact have been very local and innocent. In which case why hasn't the person come forward?

It all raises far more questions than it answers but I cling to the idea that GA thinks it highly significant. I just wish he would tell us more about why.

by jowie 18.10.13 11:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .
There are two other questions to consider.

Where was 'Smith-man' coming FROM - with a young child in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night

AND

Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication? - made up to 'rescue' a man he was already well acquainted with - Robert Murat

Tony, I am struggling to understand why you would think it may be a fabrication. If it was then why would Smith describe a Gerry look-a-like? Surely he would have described someone totally fictional and therefore untraceable?

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 11:58

endgame wrote:One of the things that has always troubled me about the Smith sighting is that, as far as we know, there is no corroboration...GA seems to still think that the sighting is of great significance...I cling to the idea that GA thinks it highly significant. I just wish he would tell us more about why.

GA, as is clear from his book, is clearly satsified in his own mind that the nanny gave a truthful account of the 'high tea' with Madeleine, said to have taken place at around 5.30pm on 3 May - although the creche children generally had a drink and biscuits at around 4pm according to other statements

by MoonGoddess 18.10.13 12:01

Really useful thread!

Don't know if the opening hours are the same as in 2007, but according to luzdoc website they are only open to 7pm although they do offer 24 hour care by ringing the emergency number.... surely this would show up in the 'phone records'?

http://www.luzdoc.com/LuzDocSiteIngles/equipa.html

It is known that RO was attending his sick child around this time! I think some have described the 'striking resemblance' of his child to Madeleine... just throwing in a possibility.... I know he is taller than GM but bare in mind the Smiths were looking 'up' at him, that is quite a steep hill....

I will try and find a map which shows the location of the Roman Ruins.... I feel sure if 'Smithman' was intentionally heading there, he would have taken an altogether different route...

by endgame 18.10.13 12:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
endgame wrote:One of the things that has always troubled me about the Smith sighting is that, as far as we know, there is no corroboration...GA seems to still think that the sighting is of great significance...I cling to the idea that GA thinks it highly significant. I just wish he would tell us more about why.
GA, as is clear from his book, is clearly satsified in his own mind that the nanny gave a truthful account of the 'high tea' with Madeleine, said to have taken place at around 5.30pm on 3 May - although the creche children generally had a drink and biscuits at around 4pm according to other statements

Sorry Tony, I don't grasp the link between this and the Smith sighting. Could you expand a bit?

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 12:09

jowie wrote:Tony, I am struggling to understand why you would think it may be a fabrication. If it was then why would Smith describe a Gerry look-a-like? Surely he would have described someone totally fictional and therefore untraceable?

It's hard for me to explain. I would note that in many aspects of this unusual, indeed unprecedented case, things turn out to be not at all what they seem.

On 24 August 2007, in an interview with a Scottish TV station, Dr Gerald McCann said this:

“And, in fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not” (the famous 'Confusion is good' quote).

In his statement, Martin Smith said:

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

I find the three statements I have bolded in blue of interest.

by MoonGoddess 18.10.13 12:12

smithman - Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) Map2.jpg.w560h719

I believe 18 is the 'Roman Ruins' - if it was GM and he was starting out from the OC he would have headed straight down, crossed Rua Direita, into Beach Road.... it would have been a far less busy area too!

ETA; 18 is bottom middle on the Promenade

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 12:16

endgame wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
endgame wrote:One of the things that has always troubled me about the Smith sighting is that, as far as we know, there is no corroboration...GA seems to still think that the sighting is of great significance...I cling to the idea that GA thinks it highly significant. I just wish he would tell us more about why.
GA, as is clear from his book, is clearly satsified in his own mind that the nanny gave a truthful account of the 'high tea' with Madeleine, said to have taken place at around 5.30pm on 3 May - although the creche children generally had a drink and biscuits at around 4pm according to other statements
Sorry Tony, I don't grasp the link between this and the Smith sighting. Could you expand a bit?

OK, yes. GA says that the report of Madeleine being alive at the 'high tea' is correct. He is obviously not sure (from his book) that the alleged David Payne visit at 6.30pm is true.

Thus according to GA, Madeleine died some time after high tea at 5.30pm to 6pm. He also says that Madeleine's body was, for a time, in G5A. It follows from that, as no body was found in G5A, that someone must have removed Madeleine's body between say, 6pm and 10pm (Smithman sighting).

For the record, I am merely explaining things related to the Smith sighting and in relation to GA's book, and in answer to a question on a forum. This should not be taken as implying that I necessarily agree with anything said in GA's book.

by sallypelt 18.10.13 12:18

MRNOODLES wrote:Having a good look on Google Earth. On the corner of the street at the Smith sighting. There's a medical centre Luzdoc http://www.luzdoc.com/LuzDocSiteIngles/mapa.html

Has this been looked into? Night callers from holiday makers with sick kids?

Let's not forget the smell of death on Kate's clothes. It was on a t-shirt, black and white check trousers and a red? top of Madeliene's. This suggests to me that Kate held Madeleine after Madeleine had died, as a distraught mum would do. So, the question remains, when was Kate last seen in the black and white check trousers AFTER Madeleine had disappeared. I believe she wore them on the day after. Also, what was Madeleine wearing at the crèche on her last day there?

by endgame 18.10.13 12:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
endgame wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
endgame wrote:One of the things that has always troubled me about the Smith sighting is that, as far as we know, there is no corroboration...GA seems to still think that the sighting is of great significance...I cling to the idea that GA thinks it highly significant. I just wish he would tell us more about why.
GA, as is clear from his book, is clearly satsified in his own mind that the nanny gave a truthful account of the 'high tea' with Madeleine, said to have taken place at around 5.30pm on 3 May - although the creche children generally had a drink and biscuits at around 4pm according to other statements
Sorry Tony, I don't grasp the link between this and the Smith sighting. Could you expand a bit?
OK, yes. GA says that the report of Madeleine being alive at the 'high tea' is correct. He is obviously not sure (from his book) that the alleged David Payne visit at 6.30pm is true.

Thus according to GA, Madeleine died some time after high tea at 5.30pm to 6pm. He also says that Madeleine's body was, for a time, in G5A. It follows from that, as no body was found in G5A, that someone must have removed Madeleine's body between say, 6pm and 10pm (Smithman sighting).

For the record, I am merely explaining things related to the Smith sighting and in relation to GA's book, and in answer to a question on a forum. This should not be taken as implying that I necessarily agree with anything said in GA's book.

Agreed that would make more sense than the idea of a long, tortuous and invisible journey at this precise time. Thanks

by Nereid 18.10.13 12:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
1. Is it established that GM was wearing those trousers with buttons that particular night?
2. Did the Smiths really notice that much detail about the man they said they saw?
3. Did it really take Martin Smith looking at TV footage of GM coming down from the plane at East Midlands Airport on 9 Sept 2007 to say "Eureka! It was GM I saw four months ago!"
4. There are discrepancies between what Martin says about this 'sighting' and what his wife and son Peter say
5. What was said between Martin Smith and Brian Kennedy [head of the McCann Team investigation] - when did they speak, and what did they say to each other?
6. Did any of the McCann Team investigators ever talk to Martin Smith? If so: when, why, where, and what was said?

Some interesting questions Tony.

1. No. Also, what if he was? I think those trousers are quite common for a holiday.

2. No.

Peter Smith said this in his statement of 26 May 2007: “He says that it would not be possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph.”

Aoife Smith said this in her statement of 26 May 2007: “When asked, she says that she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child.

Martin Smith said this in his statement of 26 May 2007: “He says that it would not possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph”

If the above persons are not able to recognise ‘Smith man’ from a photo or in person, how is someone else supposed to recognise ‘Smith man’ from 2 different e-fits (that are very different in my opinion) of the same man.

Can’t answer the other questions.

by Woofer 18.10.13 12:41

I think it would be rather risky for 3 members of the Smith family to perjure themselves in order to `rescue` RM. I could accept perhaps one of them, say MS (if RM has got dirt on MS) but not the wife and the son as well.

by galena 18.10.13 12:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
tiny wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:It was said that Smith-man was heading "towards the beach" or "into town."
Others on here have pointed out out, that the church is in the same direction.
There were newspaper reports in June(?) 2007 about a luxury, seafront, empty villa, where a make-shift "photo-studio" was found. This apt had its own pool. (So not the run down one just back from the coast as someone suggested to me on another thread. Which villa could this have been? It was Paul Luckman who provided us with that information, too.
IF I've got the location correct in my mind, then it seems that the Smith sighting was right near "Luzdocs" - the local medical centre. Who's child was sick that night? Kate made a point of telling us in CW how "pale and drawn" Maddie looked when she picked her up from tea, and she had to carry her back to the apt. [Was this the day of the boat trip, or not? I'm on information overload this week and my brain is addled!]

I think I saw also, that the Roman ruins are in that same direction.

So, we have several possibilities for where "Smith-man" was going. Please feel free to add to, correct, debate, dismiss any of these.

1. The beach.
2. The church.
3. Luz main centre.
4. The villa mentioned in the news article.
5. Some other apt/villa.
6. Luzdocs.
7. Roman ruins.

I'll find links to the villa article in a minute .
There are two other questions to consider.

Where was 'Smith-man' coming FROM - with a young child in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a coldish early May night

AND

Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication? - made up to 'rescue' a man he was already well acquainted with - Robert Murat
No, I don't think this, the Smith family are making it up, as one of them described the trouser very like the ones Gerry McCann had on
1. Is it established that GM was wearing those trousers with buttons that particular night?
2. Did the Smiths really notice that much detail about the man they said they saw?
3. Did it really take Martin Smith looking at TV footage of GM coming down from the plane at East Midlands Airport on 9 Sept 2007 to say "Eureka! It was GM I saw four months ago!"
4. There are discrepancies between what Martin says about this 'sighting' and what his wife and son Peter say
5. What was said between Martin Smith and Brian Kennedy [head of the McCann Team investigation] - when did they speak, and what did they say to each other?
6. Did any of the McCann Team investigators ever talk to Martin Smith? If so: when, why, where, and what was said?

Interesting points. I'm quite dubious about the Smith sighting. I find it hard to believe that Gerry, who has been so cautious throughout the whole process, would take the risk of carrying a lifeless child through the streets in full view. Or that a genuine abductor would run the risk of carrying a (presumably alive) child in full view like that either - unless he was very disorganised/insane/desperate - in which case how has he managed to escape detection and where has he hidden Madeleine (either alive or dead) where no-one has ever managed to find her? You would think someone capable of spiriting her away like that and escaping detection for over 6 years, would been capable of organising a vehicle nearby, a bag or something like that to put the child in.

I've always found something weird about this story - perhaps the level of detail they remembered of a total stranger passing in the street. It's not as if the Maddie furore had broken out then, there was no reason for them to be suspicious ...

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.13 12:51

Woofer wrote:I think it would be rather risky for 3 members of the Smith family to perjure themselves in order to `rescue` RM. I could accept perhaps one of them, say MS (if RM has got dirt on MS) but not the wife and the son as well.

I am not sure if that is perjury, but it might class as 'perverting the course of justice'.

People do all kinds of crazy and evil things for all kinds of reasons.

Money and greed being just one of them.

Fear being another/

Nereid has raised some interesting points, worthy of careful consideration.

by jowie 18.10.13 13:06

Sorry but having to pop in and out as am at work and should'nt be reading. So lets say that Smith fabricated the sighting to keep RM out of the frame - if so why would the McCanns do everything in their power to keep it quiet? If it were me and someone had told of a sighting, however real or fabricated, I would still have wanted the world to know and I would have screamed from the rooftops to have it fully investigated at the time - not hide it for six years! Can't get my head around this one. In fact I can't get my head around anything that has happened lately. Whether or not this is real, SY will do exactly the same as they have done with the Tanner farce - make an explanation fit the scene and say it was just another holidaymaker. Job done - Whitewash effected. Dear little Madeleine you did not deserve this.

by Woofer 18.10.13 13:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:I think it would be rather risky for 3 members of the Smith family to perjure themselves in order to `rescue` RM. I could accept perhaps one of them, say MS (if RM has got dirt on MS) but not the wife and the son as well.
I am not sure if that is perjury, but it might class as 'perverting the course of justice'.

People do all kinds of crazy and evil things for all kinds of reasons.

Money and greed being just one of them.

Fear being another/

Nereid has raised some interesting points, worthy of careful consideration.

Yes of course Tony - I had taken it to court already!

by Guest 18.10.13 13:19

jowie wrote:Sorry but having to pop in and out as am at work and should'nt be reading. So lets say that Smith fabricated the sighting to keep RM out of the frame - if so why would the McCanns do everything in their power to keep it quiet? If it were me and someone had told of a sighting, however real or fabricated, I would still have wanted the world to know and I would have screamed from the rooftops to have it fully investigated at the time - not hide it for six years! Can't get my head around this one. In fact I can't get my head around anything that has happened lately. Whether or not this is real, SY will do exactly the same as they have done with the Tanner farce - make an explanation fit the scene and say it was just another holidaymaker. Job done - Whitewash effected. Dear little Madeleine you did not deserve this.

I agree, this sighting has never been pushed, no press conferences...nothing. Thinking back to the bundleman conference, Clarrie holding up the picture of the man Tanner saw etc., yet not a peep on the Smith sighting ever, just a small clip in their documentary. (which IIRC had the man holding the child the same way as Tannerman. That is why I tend to think it is real.

by Searcher 18.10.13 13:30

What I would like to know is: Who is taking on the task of selecting what can and cannot be included in the media? Such as: An edited version of the Smith sighting? Edited version (or complete omission) of Eddie and Keela? Edited version (or none) of DNA? Edited version (or none) of why the twins did not wake up? Edited version (or none) of Katharina Gaspar statement. Edited version (or none) of the priest's story. And so on. Who decides and to what criteria? There must be a stonking good reason, big enough to have nearly all media on-side. Who is responsible and who is endorsing this? spit coffee

by ChippyM 18.10.13 13:38

I looked up what was in the direction of the beach, there are some good photos taken by Pat Brown on what was around the area. i think there were road works and digging at the time behind the church. Another thing that stood out to me is that Sergy Malinka's house has been described as yards from the church. He was investigated with regards to the case, he was a friend of Murat and a 'computer expert'. Locals (or someone) torched his car and painted the word 'speak' or 'tell' on it. I'm not saying he, or his house is connected to the Smithman but it did catch my eye.

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Who is 'Smith-man'? (MULTIPLE CHOICE - You can vote for more than one answer)

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Log in for more topics