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

by corpushining on 18.10.13 13:43

This is an important point for me- yet, who said he had been cautious at this point? Maybe that only came after the disposal of the body.

by macdonut on 18.10.13 13:53

This topic is something I can't quite get a grip of in my own mind.

If we believe Smithman exists and we assume it's GM and we also believe the cadaver dog found traces of Madeleine in the hire car then it doesn't make much sense to me.

Smithman wasn't running or obviously agitated. I'm sure I wouldn't have looked like someone out for a stroll if I was carrying my recently deceased child.

Was he going to a particular place? It was dark and he was in a strange town that he didn't know very well. If he was looking for somewhere to dump a body, why not the waste ground? Too close maybe? Had he already decided upon a location? How would he know where he could go - on foot with limited time - to hide a body that would resist a thorough search of the entire town? This could only have been premeditated in my mind and perhaps only with help. With all the publicity that ensued, it's likely that Madeleine's body would have to have been in that original location up until the McCann's moved it in their hire car over 3 weeks later. Is this realistic? Wouldn't someone have smelled a rotting body that was, at very best, in a shallow grave?

Key for me is GM would only have had a few minutes to dispose of the body and I find it hard to believe that he would have had a location already in his head where a rotting body could quickly be hidden that would lie undetected for such a long period of time despite hundreds of people searching.

In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions (1, Smithman exists; 2, it was GM; 3, Cadaver dog detects Madeleine in boot of car) cannot be true unless GM had much more time to think through and plan everything than current facts suggest.

by **Tony Bennett** on 18.10.13 14:01

@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?

jowie, with great respect, you (and a few others on here) have misunderstood this point.

It is simply and completely untrue that, as you claim, "the McCanns [have done] everything in their power to keep it quiet".

On the contrary, go back to the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary shown in May 2009 (known as the 'Mockumentary').

There - in a documentary that appears to have been made entirely according to the McCanns' script, the Smith 'sighting' is explicitly mentioned as a 'possible second sighting' of the abductor (despite the very obvious absurdity of an abductor strolling around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes having committed one of the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, all the time carrying a 2-3 stone child).

Then, have a look at Dr Kate McCann's book: 'madeleine'. There, not only is the Smith sighting mentioned, but all the hundreds of thousands of people who have read the book are given, on pages 370-372, a detailed description of him and are asked to look for him. PLUS we are told that 'Tanner-man' and 'Smith-man' are one and the same: "the similarities speak for themselves" - Kate, p. 371). This is despite Tanner-man having 'long, black hair' and Smith-man having 'short, brown hair'. Oh well.

Now, Deadwood/Totesholz/Boismort has elevated the Smith sighting into words which have been given descriptions such as 'chief suspect', 'may hold the key' (or, 'may not hold the key'), 'breakthrough' etc. etc. With 'computerised' e-fits which look like two different people. Oh well.

If I was new to this case and observing these details for the first time, I might jump to the assumption that this steady progression and elevation in status of a sighting in which all three 'witnesses' said they 'wouldn't be able to recognise him again', was...

...planned.

by ShuBob on 18.10.13 14:04

Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood sad

by stillsloppingout on 18.10.13 14:08

@macdonut wrote:This topic is something I can't quite get a grip of in my own mind.

If we believe Smithman exists and we assume it's GM and we also believe the cadaver dog found traces of Madeleine in the hire car then it doesn't make much sense to me.

Smithman wasn't running or obviously agitated. I'm sure I wouldn't have looked like someone out for a stroll if I was carrying my recently deceased child.

Was he going to a particular place? It was dark and he was in a strange town that he didn't know very well. If he was looking for somewhere to dump a body, why not the waste ground? Too close maybe? Had he already decided upon a location? How would he know where he could go - on foot with limited time - to hide a body that would resist a thorough search of the entire town? This could only have been premeditated in my mind and perhaps only with help. With all the publicity that ensued, it's likely that Madeleine's body would have to have been in that original location up until the McCann's moved it in their hire car over 3 weeks later. Is this realistic? Wouldn't someone have smelled a rotting body that was, at very best, in a shallow grave?

Key for me is GM would only have had a few minutes to dispose of the body and I find it hard to believe that he would have had a location already in his head where a rotting body could quickly be hidden that would lie undetected for such a long period of time despite hundreds of people searching.

In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions (1, Smithman exists; 2, it was GM; 3, Cadaver dog detects Madeleine in boot of car) cannot be true unless GM had much more time to think through and plan everything than current facts suggest.

Hi ; To the forum .
Reading your post . that is IMO where Amaral's assumption that the body was kept in a freezer emanates from .

Then when the heat was off, [ sorry ] It was Moved via the car , as i have mentioned Ad nauseum they were always free to travel about ,the press NEVER followed them , i know a few who were out there that's why i can say that for sure .

by **Tony Bennett** on 18.10.13 14:08

@macdonut wrote:This topic is something I can't quite get a grip of in my own mind.

If we believe Smithman exists...

SNIPPED

In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions (1, Smithman exists; 2, it was GM; 3, Cadaver dog detects Madeleine in boot of car) cannot be true unless GM had much more time to think through and plan everything than current facts suggest.

We are now meant to think that Smithman exists.

That's one reason alone why, 'I'm not buying it'.

What time did any creche close?

What time was this sighting? (10..00pm).

Come on, let us all think hard about this. Whether here in the UK, or on holiday in the Mediterranean at 10.00pm on a coldish early May evening, how many times have we seen young children being carried about in their pyjamas?

You said: "In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions...cannot be true..."

IMO your 'thick' skull is not thick at all.

I think your reasoning is fine.

I vote for assumption No. 1 being untrue: 'Smithman exists'.

by aquila on 18.10.13 14:12

@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood

I think Tony saying 'mockumentary' is quite the norm on the interweb. I call it a mockumentally and am now calling it a monkeymentally. big grin

To call Redwood by anything other than his own name though is a bit unnecessary as the facts speak for themselves.

by **Tony Bennett** on 18.10.13 14:13

@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood

Online dictionary definition of idioms:

dead wood = people in a group or organisation who are not useful any more and who need to be removed:

e.g. "There's a lot of dead wood in the team which needs to be cleared out".

Do you have any faith and trust in him?

by comperedna on 18.10.13 14:14

I don't think I read in Smith's second, revised statement anything about three things that interest me particularly:

1 - Were the child's arms hanging loosely down each side?
2 - Kate says in her book that the man was carrying the child awkwardly, as if he were not used to carrying children. Is there any evidence that any of the Smiths said this?
3 - Did anyone from the family speak to the man carrying the child?

by Nereid on 18.10.13 14:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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?
jowie, with great respect, you (and a few others on here) have misunderstood this point.

It is simply and completely untrue that, as you claim, "the McCanns [have done] everything in their power to keep it quiet".

On the contrary, go back to the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary shown in May 2009 (known as the 'Mockumentary').

There - in a documentary that appears to have been made entirely according to the McCanns' script, the Smith 'sighting' is explicitly mentioned as a 'possible second sighting' of the abductor (despite the very obvious absurdity of an abductor strolling around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes having committed one of the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, all the time carrying a 2-3 stone child).

Then, have a look at Dr Kate McCann's book: 'madeleine'. There, not only is the Smith sighting mentioned, but all the hundreds of thousands of people who have read the book are given, on pages 370-372, a detailed description of him and are asked to look for him. PLUS we are told that 'Tanner-man' and 'Smith-man' are one and the same: "the similarities speak for themselves" - Kate, p. 371). This is despite Tanner-man having 'long, black hair' and Smith-man having 'short, brown hair'. Oh well.

Now, Deadwood/Totesholz/Boismort has elevated the Smith sighting into words which have been given descriptions such as 'chief suspect', 'may hold the key' (or, 'may not hold the key'), 'breakthrough' etc. etc. With 'computerised' e-fits which look like two different people. Oh well.

If I was new to this case and observing these details for the first time, I might jump to the assumption that this steady progression and elevation in status of a sighting in which all three 'witnesses' said they 'wouldn't be able to recognise him again', was...

...planned.

Naughty naughty.

I see where you are going with this. Just another red herring perhaps. Will need to try and find out the answers to your other questions.

It's hard to believe that after saying they would not recognise the person from a photo or in person, Martin Smith months later does recognise a certain person when he arrives back in the UK. Or is 60% certain that he recognises that person. Hmmm.

by Sietah on 18.10.13 14:18

The cadaverdog didn't smell death on GM's clothes, that makes it impossoble it was GM carrying a dead child?

by tiny on 18.10.13 14:18

I think Mr Smiths statement is solid,he new Murat and he knew it wasn't him,he was going by the way Gerry was holding sean that made him realize that it could have been Gerry.

by aquila on 18.10.13 14:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood
Online dictionary definition of idioms:

dead wood = people in a group or organisation who are not useful any more and who need to be removed:

e.g. "There's a lot of dead wood in the team which needs to be cleared out".

Do you have any faith and trust in him?

DCI Redwood felt honoured to be put in charge of this case. I hope he revisits those words on a daily basis.

by tiny on 18.10.13 14:19

@Sietah wrote:The cadaverdog didn't smell death on GM's clothes, that makes it impossoble it was GM carrying a dead child?

perhaps he change his clothes.

by comperedna on 18.10.13 14:23

I put this up for Tony who, though he appears to me to be fierce, is 'righteous' to find out what happened to Madeleine.

'Oh the Deadwood Stage is a-headin' on over the hills
Where the Injun arrows are thicker than porcupine quills
Dangerous land, no time to delay
So whip crack-away, whip crack-away, whip crack-away'

It is from er 'Calamity Jane'

by **Tony Bennett** on 18.10.13 14:24

@tiny wrote:I think Mr Smith's statement is solid,

Both he and his wife and his son etc. said they wouldn't be able to recognise him again. It was 10.00pm and dark

he knew Murat

I am far from sure that Martin Smih has told us all he knows about his acquaintance with and knowledge of Robert Murat

and he knew it wasn't him,

if there ever was an 'it'/bloke carrying a child

he was going by the way Gerry was holding Sean that made him realise that it could have been Gerry.

tiny - let me ask - are you really convinced by that explanation?

by Guest on 18.10.13 14:26

@aquila wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood
Online dictionary definition of idioms:

dead wood = people in a group or organisation who are not useful any more and who need to be removed:

e.g. "There's a lot of dead wood in the team which needs to be cleared out".

Do you have any faith and trust in him?
DCI Redwood felt honoured to be put in charge of this case. I hope he revisits those words on a daily basis.

I have to say that I do not like people changing peoples names. I have pulled up posters here for that reason. I have no reason to mistrust Det.Chief Inspector Andy Redwood at this moment in time.

by aquila on 18.10.13 14:35

comperedna5 wrote:I put this up for Tony who, though he appears to me to be fierce, is 'righteous' to find out what happened to Madeleine.

'Oh the Deadwood Stage is a-headin' on over the hills
Where the Injun arrows are thicker than porcupine quills
Dangerous land, no time to delay
So whip crack-away, whip crack-away, whip crack-away'

It is from er 'Calamity Jane'

I needed cheering up today and that has just made me belly laugh comperdena5. Thank you.

by galena on 18.10.13 14:39

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@macdonut wrote:This topic is something I can't quite get a grip of in my own mind.

If we believe Smithman exists...

SNIPPED

In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions (1, Smithman exists; 2, it was GM; 3, Cadaver dog detects Madeleine in boot of car) cannot be true unless GM had much more time to think through and plan everything than current facts suggest.
We are now meant to think that Smithman exists.

That's one reason alone why, 'I'm not buying it'.

What time did any creche close?

What time was this sighting? (10..00pm).

Come on, let us all think hard about this. Whether here in the UK, or on holiday in the Mediterranean at 10.00pm on a coldish early May evening, how many times have we seen young children being carried about in their pyjamas?

You said: "In my thick skull one or more of these assumptions...cannot be true..."

IMO your 'thick' skull is not thick at all.

I think your reasoning is fine.

I vote for assumption No. 1 being untrue: 'Smithman exists'.

I agree with your assumptions (and of course if assumption 1 is untrue assumption 2 is also untrue) and the same questions have been niggling at my mind. I don't regard anything in this case as set in stone - but I have to agree with you that if Smithman exists and is actually GM, then the cadaver evidence has to be ruled out. And if we throw out the cadaver evidence that is the only physical piece of evidence against the Mccanns gone. And what about the blue bag - where does that fit in, if he was carrying her openly in his arms? I am getting a bad feeling that instead of getting somewhere we are still going round in circles and we will end up back where we started - only knowing that Madeleine was left in the flat and disappeared without a trace.

by tiny on 18.10.13 14:45

No bundleman,No smithsighting, So what happened to Madeleine.

by jowie on 18.10.13 14:49

@Sietah wrote:The cadaverdog didn't smell death on GM's clothes, that makes it impossoble it was GM carrying a dead child?

How do we know the child was dead ? Could he have been carrying someone else's child?

by Mirage on 18.10.13 14:49

@aquila wrote:
comperedna5 wrote:I put this up for Tony who, though he appears to me to be fierce, is 'righteous' to find out what happened to Madeleine.

'Oh the Deadwood Stage is a-headin' on over the hills
Where the Injun arrows are thicker than porcupine quills
Dangerous land, no time to delay
So whip crack-away, whip crack-away, whip crack-away'

It is from er 'Calamity Jane'
I needed cheering up today and that has just made me belly laugh comperdena5. Thank you.

Lovely! We all need cheering up.
big grin

by aquila on 18.10.13 14:51

candyfloss wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood
Online dictionary definition of idioms:

dead wood = people in a group or organisation who are not useful any more and who need to be removed:

e.g. "There's a lot of dead wood in the team which needs to be cleared out".

Do you have any faith and trust in him?
DCI Redwood felt honoured to be put in charge of this case. I hope he revisits those words on a daily basis.
I have to say that I do not like people changing peoples names. I have pulled up posters here for that reason. I have no reason to mistrust Det.Chief Inspector Andy Redwood at this moment in time.

I think you meant to reply to Tony's post there candyfloss. I didn't call DCI Redwood by anything other than his name.

by ShuBob on 18.10.13 14:53

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Tony, I think it's beneath you to refer to Redwood as Deadwood
Online dictionary definition of idioms:

dead wood = people in a group or organisation who are not useful any more and who need to be removed:

e.g. "There's a lot of dead wood in the team which needs to be cleared out".

Do you have any faith and trust in him?

For my own sanity I do as of now. If I didn't, there won't be much point me being here saying the same thing over and over again. I remain optimistic until there's reason not to be yes

by **Tony Bennett** on 18.10.13 14:56

candyfloss wrote:I have to say that I do not like people changing peoples names. I have pulled up posters here for that reason. I have no reason to mistrust Det.Chief Inspector Andy Redwood at this moment in time.

OK, I'd like to say 'sorry' to you and to Admin for a lapse from this forum's usually high standards. I have to agree with both you and ShuBob that it is not appropriate and detracts from, rather than reinforcing, any argument, to use alternative names as I have done.

There was an old 'Dixon of Dock Green' episode about a bent copper. 'Dixon' introduced the programme with the words: "There's no person on earth lower than a bent copper', and the way he said it was with utter contempt in his voice (OK, I know it was only acting).

Almost by accident, I stumbled 7 years ago on the fact that they not only existed in the UK, but had proliferated in very considerable numbers. One way or another, I have been researching them.

If Andy Redwood is an honest officer doing an honest job, I trust he will forgive my comments on this forum.

However, as you know, I am sorry that I cannot agree with your statement: "I have no reason to mistrust Det.Chief Inspector Andy Redwood at this moment in time".

I trust we can agree to disagree on that point.

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)