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

by Ashwarya 19.10.13 17:24

Searcher wrote:I don't know much at all about Catholic confession, but there is an absolute law of confidentiality and that nothing must be revealed. I would wonder tho, that each priest would have their own confessional with a priest above them, and so on, probably right up to the Pope. This is pure conjecture on my part and perhaps someone with more understanding of the Catholic faith could say?

If it is any help, I know that priests are never allowed to reveal anything said to them in the confessional, even on pain of death or torture. It is not like reporting something to your line manager for advice, a priest couldn't even reveal a confession to their own confessor, or their Bishop, or even the Pope. I know there was some discussion at the time about whether Fr Pacheco had gone to Rome for advice about how to deal with what he had been told by the McCanns, but this cannot be the case.

On a reassuring note, as I know there was concern about him at one time, I was at a mass held by Fr Pacheco in PdL a week or so ago, and he seemed to be well and happy, and the congregation seemed to be very fond of him.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 17:38

ConcernedCitizen wrote:

Tony Bennett
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

I’m sure Scotland Yard are trying to answer that 1^st question. If the Smith-man can be identified, then they will be able to figure out where the man was coming from. Presumably some of their men on the ground in Portugal? have also already put together some theories as to where he could have been coming from. How “well acquainted” with Robert Murat do you think Smith is? You can meet a person 2, 3, even 4 times, and still not be well acquainted with them.

And more comment by ConcernedCitizen on points about 'Smith-man' on this thread and others...

REPLY:

ConcernedCitizen

Interesting long post of yours which tells me the following:

1. You have very great faith in Scotland Yard, even to the extent of saying that they have ‘a team on the ground’ trying to work out where ‘Smith-man’ came from. I thought he came from, er, Apartment G5A? (though unlikely, as we’ve discussed, that any abductor would hardly be wandering around Praia da Luz with an abducted child for several minutes)

2. You think that whoever he is, he really can be identified after six-and-a-half years

3. You reject any idea that Martin Smith might be better acquainted with Robert Murat than he has stated

4. You say that Smith, though not having had his glasses on the time, could have recognized whether it was Murat or not by his ‘gait’ and ‘general features’ (whatever that really means)

5. You agree that all the Smiths said they could not possibly recognise him if they were able to see him again

6. You think that Smith really did recognize Gerry McCann

7. You think that it’s very unlikely that the Smiths could be making up this sighting

8. You think that because the Smiths were all ‘walking several metres apart from each other’ that their descriptions of Smith-man’s face and other matters could be because they were looking at him from different angles ’

9. You think that there is real significance in the merging two images together (as some Professor has done), despite the fact that can be done with countless such images

10. You see nothing strange in Redwood producing two images – said to be of the same man - that, frankly, look like two different people

11. You think that for the past six years all members of Team McCann may genuinely have believed that ‘Tanner-man’ and ‘Smith-man’ were one and the same

12. You rely on an astrology website, astrologyincrime

13. You think it’s quite possible that Gerry McCann really would risk walking the streets of Praia da Luz with Madeleine at the very same time as his wife was sounding the alarm and saying that she was sure Madeleine had ben abducted

Are all those a correct representation of your views?

by Q71 19.10.13 17:42

Smithman Sighting.

If a hoax and a fabrication , then why ? , motive ?

Does this then bring a return back to RM ? OR A.N Other if untruthful ?

If truthful then who ? GM / One of the T9 , Other ?

Either the sighting is truthful or a lie , obvious but critical , because in one sense , yes it matters , but for now , in a way it matters not.

Either way , it tells us something , one path leads on , the other a dead end.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 17:43

Ashwarya wrote:On a reassuring note, as I know there was concern about him at one time, I was at a mass held by Fr Pacheco in PdL a week or so ago, and he seemed to be well and happy, and the congregation seemed to be very fond of him.

But still unwilling to tell anyone what the McCanns told him? And committed to the Roman Catholic policy of concealing crimes confessed to him from the police, even if they involve the most serious crimes, such as child abuse by fellow priests, rape - and including murder?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 17:48

Q71 wrote:Smithman Sighting.

If a hoax and a fabrication, then why?, motive?

How many hoaxes and fabrications have there been in world history?

What are the reasons for them?

You know as well as I do.

Take the PIltdown Man forgery/hoax, which deceived even a generation of 'experrt' scientists - and the rest of the world - for more than a generation.

Why did a group of clever people get together and agree to deliberately create facial bones of a half-ape, half-man, to deceive millions in this way?

by justathought 19.10.13 17:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:On a reassuring note, as I know there was concern about him at one time, I was at a mass held by Fr Pacheco in PdL a week or so ago, and he seemed to be well and happy, and the congregation seemed to be very fond of him.
But still unwilling to tell anyone what the McCanns told him? And committed to the Roman Catholic policy of concealing crimes confessed to him from the police, even if they involve the most serious crimes, such as child abuse by fellow priests, rape - and including murder?

Mr Bennett. surprised at your comment. as for one the priest may know nothing. secondly even if he did know something. what a moral dilemma for him. one he will still be living with as we speak, if he is hiding something.

by Ashwarya 19.10.13 17:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:On a reassuring note, as I know there was concern about him at one time, I was at a mass held by Fr Pacheco in PdL a week or so ago, and he seemed to be well and happy, and the congregation seemed to be very fond of him.
But still unwilling to tell anyone what the McCanns told him? And committed to the Roman Catholic policy of concealing crimes confessed to him from the police, even if they involve the most serious crimes, such as child abuse by fellow priests, rape - and including murder?

I have no idea whether the McCanns told him anything at all. I was just explaining (as some people seemed interested) that even if someone does confess to child abuse, rape or murder within the confessional the priest is not able to tell anyone about it. If they could just go to the police, then obviously no-one would confess anything to them.

I don't make up the rules, I just follow them. And for the record, I have never abused a child or raped or murdered anyone, despite being a Catholic.

Apologies to everyone for going off the topic of the thread.

by ShuBob 19.10.13 18:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Q71 wrote:Smithman Sighting.

If a hoax and a fabrication, then why?, motive?
How many hoaxes and fabrications have there been in world history?

What are the reasons for them?

You know as well as I do.

Take the PIltdown Man forgery/hoax, which deceived even a generation of 'experrt' scientists - and the rest of the world - for more than a generation.

Why did a group of clever people get together and agree to deliberately create facial bones of a half-ape, half-man, to deceive millions in this way?

As an honourable man yourself, do you believe you are a rare breed and the Smiths cannot be just as honourable as you?

by jay2001 19.10.13 18:05

This current media frenzy is driving me barmy! Have such mixed feelings about the real purpose, other than to detract from the libel trial. If we have to wait another 6 years for Smithman to be debunked then we are left with a vanished child and no evidence of an intruder.

If it was GM seen by the Smiths then the fact that the PI's didn't release the photofits speaks volumes. Plus the visit by the double glazing bloke is very strange, but like everything in this case you don't know if its true or double bluffing or whatever!

UK media is totally controlled by CM PRopaganda and the headlines today like many over the last couple of weeks are an utter disgrace. They have no shame and don't care who they hurt as long as they look like concerned parents.

If one or more of the Tapas crew has changed their statements then it's doubtful that there could be a whitewash. Living in hope that NSY will get to the truth, however unpalatable to their vile Twitter supporters.

by Q71 19.10.13 18:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
Q71 wrote:Smithman Sighting.

If a hoax and a fabrication, then why?, motive?
How many hoaxes and fabrications have there been in world history?

What are the reasons for them?

You know as well as I do.

Take the PIltdown Man forgery/hoax, which deceived even a generation of 'experrt' scientists - and the rest of the world - for more than a generation.

Why did a group of clever people get together and agree to deliberately create facial bones of a half-ape, half-man, to deceive millions in this way?

Mr Bennett , I almost feel like typing Sir. yes

I agree with you.

If each of us on this forum at this moment in time sits on the fence regards the Smithman sighting , then I type again we either have a truth or a lie.
- Fundamentals are good , either it happened or it didn`t.

The fact that you yourself type the words ` I don`t buy it.` - is something in itself. {regards your continued standing in this case}
A fabrication sighting leads back to my question of why ? again motive ?
Again , is this RM.You place significance here , I believe ?.Indeed just how well were RM & MS acquainted ? , more than we are being lead to possibly think or believe for ourselves.

The truth for now as I see it , is , where does this path lead us too ? - Wheather true or false it is screaming something at us.

RM plus others , GM , T9 Member , significant other , non significant other. - Truth or lie , all are still in the mix regard the alleged Smithman sighting , at least at this point.

And , what we have now , is were the Smithman sighting currently stands in the general scheme of this case , a tipping point.imo

One , that if indeed is a hoax would be able to be put to bed and if truthful , then on it must lead , to whatever logical conclusion it draws to.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 19:18

ShuBob wrote:As an honourable man yourself, do you believe you are a rare breed and the Smiths cannot be just as honourable as you?

ShuBob,

Let me come at it this way.

I have often been criticised for being too gullible, too trusting, even having poor judgment about people - and so on.

I probably learnt later in life than most that people are capable of little or great deceits all the time, and I include myself.

There are Jelkyll and Hyde characters all over the place.

Now, in this case, we have been invited to take a great many things on trust.

I could fill a 100-page thread with examples, but I'll just pick out a few:

"The shutters were jemmied open"

"I entered by the front door"

"David Payne never came in my apartmemt at 6.30pm on 3rd May"

"Oakley International are the big boys of international investigation"

"We are closing in on the kidnappers and Maddie will be home by Christmas"

"None of them were wearing watches"

"Sniffer dogs are incredibly unreliable",

...and so on.

As I've researched this case, I find I have to double-check everything I read about it.

Forgive me please if I look at all the circumstances surrounding the claims of the Smiths, their dealings with the private investigators, Martin Smith's acquaintance with Robert Murat - and become sceptical.

I am definitely not persuaded by Martin Smith's claim that he is between 60% and 80% (but not more than 80%) sure that he saw Gerry McCann on 3 May just becuase of the way he carried a two-year-old down the steps from the aircraft over four months later.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 19:31

justathought wrote:Mr Bennett.,surprised at your comment, as for one the priest may know nothing.

He said different at the time (May 2007).

Secondly, even if he did know something, what a moral dilemma for him. One he will still be living with as we speak, if he is hiding something.

Here I was not in any way referring to the Madeleine McCann case - but to the general problem that Roman Catholic priests are authorised by the Pope and by centuries of Roman Catholic tradition to withhold information about all crimes - great or small - disclosed to them in those wooden confessional booths with the metal grilles. It is, frankly, a moral dilemma which every would-be priest has already faced before becoming ordained. In order to earn his living and possible promotions to becoming things like a bishop or even a cardinal, he has to promise in advance not to let the police forces where he minsters know about any crimes, even the most serious, told to him in confession. Who knows what awful crimes have been concealed by priests since the first Pope to order: "Build me confessional booths for all of my churches".

by Daisy 19.10.13 19:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShuBob wrote:As an honourable man yourself, do you believe you are a rare breed and the Smiths cannot be just as honourable as you?
ShuBob,

Let me come at it this way.

I have often been criticised for being too gullible, too trusting, even having poor judgment about people - and so on.

I probably learnt later in life than most that people are capable of little or great deceits all the time, and I include myself.

There are Jelkyll and Hyde characters all over the place.

Now, in this case, we have been invited to take a great many things on trust.

I could fill a 100-page thread with examples, but I'll just pick out a few:

"The shutters were jemmied open"

"I entered by the front door"

"David Payne never came in my apartmemt at 6.30pm on 3rd May"

"Oakley International are the big boys of international investigation"

"We are closing in on the kidnappers and Maddie will be home by Christmas"

"None of them were wearing watches"

"Sniffer dogs are incredibly unreliable",

...and so on.

As I've researched this case, I find I have to double-check everything I read about it.

Forgive me please if I look at all the circumstances surrounding the claims of the Smiths, their dealings with the private investigators, Martin Smith's acquaintance with Robert Murat - and become sceptical.

I am definitely not persuaded by Martin Smith's claim that he is between 60% and 80% (but not more than 80%) sure that he saw Gerry McCann on 3 May just becuase of the way he carried a two-year-old down the steps from the aircraft over four months later.

Not that it matters but my, you have my full respect for that answer Tony.

by boo boos 19.10.13 19:50

I took Martin smith statement to mean Robert Murat was not wearing glasses at that time?

by ShuBob 19.10.13 19:52

Tony, thanks a lot for your reply.

I agree with you that many lies have been told in this case and we should be cautious about believing anything but it seems clear to me that you doubting the Smiths' testimonies stem from your believe that Murat is somehow involved in this sorry case. Do you also question the OC employees and various locals who testified that contrary to what friends of the McCanns claim, Murat wasn't at the scene on the night? I just cannot see any reason for anyone to insinuate the Smiths have cooked up their testimonies. Murat may or may not be involved. It's one thing saying the Smiths may be mistaken with what they saw but to suggest they made it up to cover for someone without any evidence is out of order in my opinion.

by sami 19.10.13 19:55

I must admit that when I read the statement way back when the very big flag that jumped out at me was the fact that Murat was positively stated not to be that man. Fancy that, the one man in the whole of PDL that night that needed an alibi so to speak had got one. If things had turned out differently that could have been a lucky break for him.

Then I reasoned with myself that there were a pile of Smiths all seeing a man with child, not just one Smith making his way home after a few pints in his local bar. Would they all say they saw a man and child that never was ? They would have to know Murat very well indeed to want to help to the point of lying. That led me believe there perhaps there was a man.

The other thing that I thought about was that I could not see the question asked by the PJ of Mr Smith in order for him to state it was not Murat. Did they ask him directly, do you know Murat, was it him or did he just arrive, make a statement and throw that in as a one liner, un-prompted. If he answered a direct question put to him, he could well be genuine. If it was information volunteered it is a different matter.

I also wondered why Smith went back and made a second statement if he was not genuine. Why not stay out of it all together at that point.

Having thought all of that, I decided I was going to believe the family. Now a few years later, I don't know what to think about anything anymore !

by tiny 19.10.13 20:02

tony,are you saying the whole smith family are covering up for Robert murat,may be they don't all know him by sight but would the rest of the family go alone with this cover up by their dad,some how I don't think so
i dont think Robert had nothing to do with Madeleine,

by ShuBob 19.10.13 20:09

tiny wrote:tony,are you saying the whole smith family are covering up for Robert murat,may be they don't all know him by sight but would the rest of the family go alone with this cover up by their dad,some how I don't think so
i dont think Robert had nothing to do with Madeleine,

For the sake of argument, even if he's involved where is the evidence for insinuating no less than four members of the Smith family have cooked up a story to cover for him? It's this point that angers me.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 21:03

boo boos wrote:I took Martin smith statement to mean Robert Murat was not wearing glasses at that time?

Not sure if you are right or wrong, but IMO Robert Murat is always seen in glasses.

by ConcernedCitizen 19.10.13 21:18

I will reply to your questions later Tony. Just wanted to place this link here as there is more discussion about the e-fits released by SY of Smith-man, or more precisely what Carlos Anjos thinks of the e-fits issued by SY.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2708.msg91399#msg91399

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 21:21

ShuBob wrote:Tony, thanks a lot for your reply.

I agree with you that many lies have been told in this case and we should be cautious about believing anything but it seems clear to me that you doubting the Smiths' testimonies stem from your belief that Murat is somehow involved in this sorry case.

I can certainly see why you would think that, ShuBob, but that is not the case at all. I do take from Martin Smith's first statement (26 May) that he admits to being acquainted with Murat. There is an indication within his statement that he has minimised his degree of acquaintance/friendship with Murat - but there are other indications of that friendship as well (elsewhere). I have set out on this thread a number of indications that I do not think we can accept any of the Smiths' statements at face value, and Nereid's contribution by way of researching past statements by and about the Smiths reinforce my severe doubts. As for Murat's involvement, I would refer you to my article about Murat's 17 lies when the PJ asked him about his movements between 1 and 4 May. Those who think Murat is an entirely innocent victim of the Madeleine McCann case have never ben able to explain those

Do you also question the OC employees and various locals who testified that contrary to what friends of the McCanns claim, Murat wasn't at the scene on the night?

On the contrary, and with very good reason, I accept them all! It was Jane Tanner who was 'adamant' that Murat was the man she'd spotted at 9.15pm on 3 May. It was three of the McCanns' friends (FP, RO and RO'B) who, in the 48 hours after Murat ws pulled in for questioning, each made statements saying, in terms, "I saw Murat hanging around the Ocean Club around the time Madeleine disaapperaed". ShuBob, have you not read my article on Robert Murat where I explain in detail how all those four (JT, FP, RO and RO'B), during the period December 2007 to February 2008, all changed their minds, and said that they no longer thought they had seen Murat? (photos of David Payne and Angus Symington looking similar to Murat were produced at the time).

I just cannot see any reason for anyone to insinuate the Smiths have cooked up their testimonies.

Between myself and Nereid, a number of reasons have been given on this very thread.

Murat may or may not be involved. It's one thing saying the Smiths may be mistaken with what they saw but to suggest they made it up to cover for someone without any evidence is out of order in my opinion.

I have given what I would call indications and indeed evidence as to why the Smiths' statements should not be taken at face value.

by Cheshire Cat 19.10.13 21:22

The question I have, why, if it was not actually GM that Mr Smith saw would he say the man was 60-80% Gerry...why Gerry? Why not just say he was 100% certain it was not Murat.

by justathought 19.10.13 21:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
justathought wrote:Mr Bennett.,surprised at your comment, as for one the priest may know nothing.

He said different at the time (May 2007).

Secondly, even if he did know something, what a moral dilemma for him. One he will still be living with as we speak, if he is hiding something.

Here I was not in any way referring to the Madeleine McCann case - but to the general problem that Roman Catholic priests are authorised by the Pope and by centuries of Roman Catholic tradition to withhold information about all crimes - great or small - disclosed to them in those wooden confessional booths with the metal grilles. It is, frankly, a moral dilemma which every would-be priest has already faced before becoming ordained. In order to earn his living and possible promotions to becoming things like a bishop or even a cardinal, he has to promise in advance not to let the police forces where he minsters know about any crimes, even the most serious, told to him in confession. Who knows what awful crimes have been concealed by priests since the first Pope to order: "Build me confessional booths for all of my churches".

Mr Bennett
i am pleased you have explained your comments. as to some, the original post seemed to be directed as to the on-going case.
my post was not meant to be antagonistic. in many ways trying to help you. to give you an opportunity to expand on the comment and why you made it.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 21:29

sami wrote:I must admit that when I read the statement way back when the very big flag that jumped out at me was the fact that Murat was positively stated not to be that man. Fancy that, the one man in the whole of PDL that night that needed an alibi so to speak had got one.

Fully agree.

If things had turned out differently that could have been a lucky break for him.

Then I reasoned with myself that there were a pile of Smiths all seeing a man with child, not just one Smith making his way home after a few pints in his local bar. Would they all say they saw a man and child that never was ? They would have to know Murat very well indeed to want to help to the point of lying. That led me believe there perhaps there was a man.

I completely follow your reasoning. I think for the reasons I've given, and others, that they all said they saw a man who never was.

The other thing that I thought about was that I could not see the question asked by the PJ of Mr Smith in order for him to state it was not Murat. Did they ask him directly, do you know Murat, was it him or did he just arrive, make a statement and throw that in as a one liner, un-prompted. If he answered a direct question put to him, he could well be genuine. If it was information volunteered it is a different matter.

A reasonable inference from his statement is that he was determined to get across to the PJ that: 'This bloke was NOT MURAT'. i.e. it was voluntary.

I also wondered why Smith went back and made a second statement if he was not genuine. Why not stay out of it all together at that point.

People carry 2-year-olds over their shoulder when they are asleep or tired, all the time (if they haven't got a pushchair). I've done it myself many many times. Smith must have seen pictures of Gerry McCann on TV and in the papers dozens of times between 26 May (first statement) and 9 September (Gerry comes off the plane). And he recognises Gerry (only 60% to 80%, mind), by the way he is carrying his 2-year old? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Having thought all of that, I decided I was going to believe the family. Now a few years later, I don't know what to think about anything anymore !

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.13 21:32

tiny wrote:Tony, are you saying the whole Smith family are covering up for Robert Murat, may be they don't all know him by sight but would the rest of the family go alone with this cover up by their Dad, somehow I don't think so...

Yes, I think that helping Robert Murat, who had been made an arguido on 15 May and been subject to a barrage of bad publicity, was definitely a part of this.. I think the Smiths made their statements on 26 May.

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)