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

by jozi 22.10.13 9:15

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I've been ploughing through this thread for quite a while now. Only thing I can say right now, is that I am utterly amazed at the fact that some people doubt the Smith sighting [to the extent that it's a lie and never happened or even served as a cover-up to protect RM ...] thus undermining Dr. Amaral's conviction that it's crucial evidence.
I still believe that the Smiths are genuine. However, Amaral himself has said of the sighting that it is not "evidence" but it certainly requires further investigation.

Agreed Cheshire Cat, Amaral was taken off the case before he could determine if the Smith sighting was true or not they were due to fly to Portugal to give statements etc so we don't really know what was said by Smith. I'm sure I read somewhere that Amaral said Smiths statement is under lock and key but nothing more was done regarding this investigation as he was taken off the case ? The Mcs PI have obviously been very interested as they pursued the Smith family wanting to talk to them and they obviously got a statement, which they could have rewritten ?

by notlongnow 22.10.13 9:16

Sorry to go ot,but what time was the T9 timeline written on the scrap of card?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 9:18

StraightThinking wrote:
fleffer wrote:And there were no other sightings of this man/these men.
Intriguing thoughts, fleffer. The problem I have with the Smith sighting being invented it that it would imply a conspiracy involving all five of them.

I agree that this seems at first sight as far-fetched as any theory.

But Martin Smith has admitted at least to knowing Murat well enough to be able to say, in the gloom of a Praia da Luz early May evening: "It definitely wasn't Murat".

So, is there a previous McCann-Murat connection?

We have two apparent evidences of such a connection:

(1) Asked by a TV interviewer if he already knew Murat, Gerry McCann answers, impatiently, avoiding the interviewer's eye and turning his head rapidly to one side: "I am not going to comment on that". I think the video of that clip is still available somewhere

(2) According to a member of this forum, kikoratan - though I have never seen the original evidence in the PJ files - he says there are synchronicities betwewn the times that Gerry McCann and Robert Murat switched their normal mobile phones off on Wednesday 2 May at about 3pm and then on again together about 11.00pm on Thursday 3 May.

I am not, though, aware of any indication apart from those two.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 9:22

notlongnow wrote:Sorry to go ot, but what time was the T9 timeline written on the scrap of card?

It was not 'a scrap of card' but an infant's work-book belonging to Madeleine.

I think that these two timelines were already written out when the police arrived at 11.10pm, but I could be wrong about that.

It is thought that Russell O'Brien wrote them out while Gerry McCann signed them off at the bottom.

It is thought that the McCanns themselves either ripped off the cover from Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book, OR gave permission for one of their friends to do so.

Jane Tanner's sighting has now been deemed ABSOLUTELY TRUE by one of the Met Police's finest detectives.

by notlongnow 22.10.13 9:27

Ok thanks,i find this extremely bizarre.

by StraightThinking 22.10.13 9:31

notlongnow wrote:Sorry to go ot,but what time was the T9 timeline written on the scrap of card?

The timeline is here together with pictures of the book pages that it was written on

Book timeline

The Smith sighting (21.55) could fit with M's abduction according to version 1 of events, since MO's last check was at 21.35, though that visit isn't recorded in version 2

Worth reading

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 9:48

notlongnow wrote:Ok thanks, I find this extremely bizarre.

But hasn't this whole case been 'extremely bizarre' from the get-go?

It is hardly an Occam's Razor type of case

by jozi 22.10.13 9:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
notlongnow wrote:Sorry to go ot, but what time was the T9 timeline written on the scrap of card?
It was not 'a scrap of card' but an infant's work-book belonging to Madeleine.

I think that these two timelines were already written out when the police arrived at 11.10pm, but I could be wrong about that.

It is thought that Russell O'Brien wrote them out while Gerry McCann signed them off at the bottom.

It is thought that the McCanns themselves either ripped off the cover from Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book, OR gave permission for one of their friends to do so.

Jane Tanner's sighting has now been deemed ABSOLUTELY TRUE by one of the Met Police's finest detectives.

Unbelievable !!!

I have followed this case from the beginning and never heard that he had been found, it was a revelation to me.So much Government input throughout this case ?

by Searcher 22.10.13 9:51

Very good blog / email from Joana Morais this morning with important quote from GA:

Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key deposition was devalued at the time of disappearance

by Sara G. Carrilho

"The testimony of one of the members of the Smith family that identified Gerry McCann as being the man he saw on the night that Maddie disappeared, carrying a child in his arms as he walked towards the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e-fit that the British police now made public is based on the Smith family's witness statement."

The statements are from Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, to Correio da Manhã. They appear following the publication of e-fits by the Scotland Yard that point one of the drawings out as being that of the main suspect over the presumed abduction of the English child, on the 3rd of May of 2007 - which they say was based on the testimony of an Irish family that was on holiday in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms", Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night", the former coordinator explained.

For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside". "The McCann hired detectives who made a portrait, a man that resembled Gerry, in order to devalue the deposition", he concluded.

--

by notlongnow 22.10.13 9:51

Indeed.
I have never seen anything like it.
Every alley of thought that seems to start making sense just ends up in more confusion.

by Sockpuppet 22.10.13 9:55

JT and the Smiths saying that their sighting did not look like a tourist is not evidence of collusion.

It is evidence of the PJ asking the question 'Did he look like a tourist'.

by ProfessorPPlum 22.10.13 10:08

Sockpuppet wrote:JT and the Smiths saying that their sighting did not look like a tourist is not evidence of collusion.

It is evidence of the PJ asking the question 'Did he look like a tourist'.

I agree - and it IS an Occam's Razor case. This is an example of that. Occam's Razor applies all the time - that's the point of it! smilie

by jozi 22.10.13 10:11

Sockpuppet wrote:JT and the Smiths saying that their sighting did not look like a tourist is not evidence of collusion.

It is evidence of the PJ asking the question 'Did he look like a tourist'.

Really, could you provide a link for this ?

by Sockpuppet 22.10.13 10:13

jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:JT and the Smiths saying that their sighting did not look like a tourist is not evidence of collusion.

It is evidence of the PJ asking the question 'Did he look like a tourist'.
Really, could you provide a link for this ?

It's simple common sense.

I don't feel obliged to prove that it was a police officer's question, as it is the simplest answer. The accusation of collusion is not and requires some kind of evidence IMO.

For example, when all the bar staff say 'I didn't see a blonde rasta man', do you think they all colluded to give this pointless bit of information, or more simply, the police asked the question?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 10:16

jozi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
notlongnow wrote:

Sorry to go ot, but what time was the T9 timeline written on the scrap of card?
It was not 'a scrap of card' but an infant's work-book belonging to Madeleine.

I think that these two timelines were already written out when the police arrived at 11.10pm, but I could be wrong about that.

It is thought that Russell O'Brien wrote them out while Gerry McCann signed them off at the bottom.

It is thought that the McCanns themselves either ripped off the cover from Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book, OR gave permission for one of their friends to do so.

Jane Tanner's sighting has now been deemed ABSOLUTELY TRUE by one of the Met Police's finest detectives.
Unbelievable !!!

I have followed this case from the beginning and never heard that he had been found, it was a revelation to me. So much Government input throughout this case ?

jozi, YES.

Maybe you didn't see the Crimewatch programme?

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, chosen by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to head up one of the most controversial and high profile criminal investigations in the world - on the orders of our Prime Minister, David Cameron >> on the orders of the (former) Chief Executive of Rupert Murdoch's News International, Rebekah Brooks - has said that the man said to have been seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm on 3 May 2007 was NOT the abductor but a bloke carrying his child back from the night creche.

Strange perhaps that he had no buggy to help him.

Tanner was quite sure about a lot of things about this man:

His height - 1.70 to 1.75m

Age - 35 to 40

Long black hair

Maybe olive-skinned

Wearing dark jacket

Wearing mustard-coloured chinos

Wearing pointy black shoes

Walking 'purposefully'

Carrying a young girl

With blonde hair

Wearing white, pinkish pyjamas with an identical pattern to those of Madeleine's pyjamas.

It's truly amazing that with such an ACCURATE description, crecheman never came forward fpr 6.5 years.

But, hey, that's why we have one of the finest deetctives in the finest police force in the world, with £6 million and counting to spend.

It's through what Murdoch's the Sun calls the 'round the clock' determination of Redwood, his 28 officers and 7 civilians, that we have now found crecheman.

And just look at who now supports the positive identification of 'Tannerman' as 'crecheman':

1. The Prime Minister of our great country

2. All the most senior staff of the world's finest police force

3. The world's most powerful media mogul, Rupert Murdoch - and all his papers and media (excepting about 85 seconds worth of Wendy Murphy), and

4. ALL of our mainstream media.

Against that background, who is anyone on a tiny forum of nearly 3,000 members with a mere tens of thousands of people viewing it every day to question that...

TANNERMAN IS CRECHEMAN.

So now what is the brilliant Redwood asking us here on this forum, the whole of Britain, all of Holland, the population of Germany, the entirety of Ireland - and the rest of the world to look for?

A bloke who looks, well, THES AME A TANNERMAN:

Not a tourist, dark jacket, light-coloured trousers, sun-tanned/olive skin, face not seen properly, yet two entirely different e-fits...

Simples!

Let me just say this.

I am supremely confident that given another 2.5 years, 28 officers, 7 civilians support staff and, most important, ANOTHER six million quid...

REDWOOD CAN FIND HIM

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 10:19

Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:The accusation of collusion...requires some kind of evidence IMO.

11 characteristics of the 'sighting' being exactly the same for both Tannerman and Smithman?

by Sockpuppet 22.10.13 10:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:The accusation of collusion...requires some kind of evidence IMO.
11 characteristics of the 'sighting' being exactly the same for both Tannerman and Smithman?

Could simply indicate that Smith was correct in identifying Gerry McCann, and that Tannerman was described so as to match the Smith sighting.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 10:23

Sockpuppet wrote:JT and the Smiths saying that their sighting did not look like a tourist is not evidence of collusion.

It is evidence of the PJ asking the question 'Did he look like a tourist'.

LOL!

PJ Detective: "Smith, did he look like a tourist?"

Smith: "What does a tourist look like?"

PJ Detective: "Er, well..."

Sockpuppet - you are going to have to up your game!

by galena 22.10.13 10:25

Estelle wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
Eiileen wrote:I am astonished that forum members here want to denigrate the Smith family and attack their credibility. At the end of the day both Mr Smith and his wife were 60 - 80 percent sure they saw Gerry McCann. There is no reason at all to doubt their honesty or sincerity and it seems clear to me that Dr Amaral takes them most seriously. There is also a short statement in the files from the local Gardai who vouches for Mr Smith's honesty and the regard he is held within his community and which also states he has avoided all publicity. It would seem to me that Mr Smith has resisted attempts to cajole/blackmail/bribe him by certain parties who may want to interfere with any legitimate investigation and prevent the truth from coming out. Mr Smith's courage and decency in not bowing down under this pressure should be commended. It makes me doubt the motives of those who appear to want to paint him as a liar.
If Mr Smith is so honest then why isn't he making it clear now that it was Gerry he saw.
That's what I have been thinking. Now he says he saw Maddie.

I honestly find it even hard how he could possibly identify her from a glimpse on a dark night, when she was being held with her head over the man's shoulder. If you look at the picture of Sean being carried by Gerry there is no way you would be able to identify him from that. He could be any blonde child at all. As an earlier poster demonstrated there is no way on earth at this kind of evidence would stand up in court. Especially after the Find Madeleine campaign and all the associated publicity. There is no way that he could be seen as not being influenced by that.

The problem for me is that if find it very difficult to believe that Gerry was carrying Madeleine's body around openly, glimpsed at a place where it seems logistically impossible for him to be. If he had been caught on CCTV or identified positively by someone who knew him by sight that would be a different matter. But a quick glimpse from a total stranger in the dark is not enough to overturn that alibi for me. If the Smiths did see what they thought they saw then I have to conclude, that ruling Gerry out of the picture:

1) They did see someone but the child was not Madeleine - it was someone else carrying a child.
2) The child was Madeleine and she was still alive being carried off by an unknown abductor (that would conflict with the cadaver dog evidence which would have to be thrown out)
3) Same as above but she was already dead and for some inexplicable reason the intruder who killed her had decided to dispose of her dead body. (again this would conflict strongly with the cadaver dog evidence)
4) The child was Madeleine and she was dead being carried off by some other male in the Tapas group or someone else they had called in to help dispose of the body.

I think that there is a reason why this sighting - though known about for years - has never been raised much on the internet as proof of the McCann's involvement - because when people thought about it they realised that it couldn't possibly be Gerry - according to the timeline we have - so they dismissed it as not fitting into their theories. Until someone comes up with a revised timeline which allows for Gerry to be absent from the table for a significant amount of time - enough to go back, get the body and carry it off to a safe disposal place I will treat Smith's realisation that it was Gerry with some scepticism. Every account I have read states that Gerry was present when Kate announced the 'abduction' - either by shouting from the balcony or by coming to the table, which surely must have been between 21.40 and 22.00 hrs.

by russiandoll 22.10.13 10:26

Tannerman discarded by AR /SY. He had 2 choices here :

1. To demonstrate with ref to evidence that JT was not on the street when she said she was, or if so could not have seen the detail she claimed due to established distance/ lighting conditions at the time.
In short, to call her a liar.

2, To say that she had simply been mistaken, therefore truthful.

Was AR being smart and thus in not revealing his hand allowing his investigation to proceed without all the media hoo ha and comments from Tanner about this sighting which would undoubtedly have followed if he so much as implied that she had fabricated it?

My answer is yes. Interested to hear other opinions.

by pennylane 22.10.13 10:31

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:The accusation of collusion...requires some kind of evidence IMO.
11 characteristics of the 'sighting' being exactly the same for both Tannerman and Smithman?
Could simply indicate that Smith was correct in identifying Gerry McCann, and that Tannerman was described so as to match the Smith sighting.

And that, Sockpuppet, is exactly what Goncalo Amaral said in a live interview that he believes happened! It is also what I believe too.

The McCanns will be thrilled that some people doubt the Smiths, as they were desperate to keep this sighting buried. They waited 2 whole years and then sneakily tried to Morph Jane's sighting with the Smith's sighting. Slippery customers them McCann's, they really make my flesh crawl.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 10:33

russiandoll wrote:Was AR being smart

REPLY: I do not deny for one moment that Redwood is smart

and thus in not revealing his hand allowing his investigation to proceed without all the media hoo ha and comments from Tanner about this sighting which would undoubtedly have followed if he so much as implied that she had fabricated it? My answer is yes.

REPLY: Are you implying that Redwood has been so smart as to deceive the nation into believing there really was a crecheman - when there wasn't?

OR do you think that Redwood is telling us the plain, unvarnished truth about crecheman?

It must be one of those, so I'd be very interested in which one of those two statements you agree with.

Interested to hear other opinions.

by StraightThinking 22.10.13 10:44

In such a fleeting encounter, anyone who could describe his trousers in detail wasn't looking at his face

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 10:45

pennylane wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:The accusation of collusion...requires some kind of evidence IMO.
11 characteristics of the 'sighting' being exactly the same for both Tannerman and Smithman?
Could simply indicate that Smith was correct in identifying Gerry McCann, and that Tannerman was described so as to match the Smith sighting.
And that, Sockpuppet, is exactly what Goncalo Amaral said in a live interview that he believes happened! It is also what I believe too.

The McCanns will be thrilled that some people doubt the Smiths, as they were desperate to keep this sighting buried. They waited 2 whole years and then sneakily tried to Morph Jane's sighting with the Smith's sighting.

As I pointed out to Cristobell the other day, the evidence very very clear that the McCann Team supports the Smith sighting:

1. As you correctly point out, they - to quote you - 'morphed Jane's sighting with the Smith's sighting' in the May 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary') which was a programme effectively scripted by the McCann Team

2. Two years later, in her book, 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann spent FIVE WHOLE PAGES saying that the two sightings were of the same man, quote, 'strikingly similar'

3. Now, in a Crimewatch programme which arguably, once again, was a programme effectively scripted by the McCann Team, and in all our newspapers and in a 12-page special Sun special pull-out supplement which also rehearsed the McCanns' account of events, we are all being asked to 'find Smithman'

4. Before, during and after the Crimewatch programme, the McCanns and their spokesmen were endorsing the Redwood investigation, saying it is 'headed in the right direction', supporting the idea that people come forward and identitfy Smithman etc.

The McCann Team like the Martin Smith sighting. They have been busy promoting the Smithman sighting for the last 4.5 years

by pennylane 22.10.13 10:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:The accusation of collusion...requires some kind of evidence IMO.
11 characteristics of the 'sighting' being exactly the same for both Tannerman and Smithman?
Could simply indicate that Smith was correct in identifying Gerry McCann, and that Tannerman was described so as to match the Smith sighting.
And that, Sockpuppet, is exactly what Goncalo Amaral said in a live interview that he believes happened! It is also what I believe too.

The McCanns will be thrilled that some people doubt the Smiths, as they were desperate to keep this sighting buried. They waited 2 whole years and then sneakily tried to Morph Jane's sighting with the Smith's sighting.

As I pointed out to Cristobell the other day, the evidence very very clear that the McCann Team supports the Smith sighting:

1. As you correctly point out, they - to quote you - 'morphed Jane's sighting with the Smith's sighting' in the May 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary') which was a programme effectively scripted by the McCann Team

2. Two years later, in her book, 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann spent FIVE WHOLE PAGES saying that the two sightings were of the same man, quote, 'strikingly similar'

3. Now, in a Crimewatch programme which arguably, once again, was a programme effectively scripted by the McCann Team, and in all our newspapers and in a 12-page special Sun special pull-out supplement which also rehearsed the McCanns' account of events, we are all being asked to 'find Smithman'

4. Before, during and after the Crimewatch programme, the McCanns and their spokesmen were endorsing the Redwood investigation, saying it is 'headed in the right direction', supporting the idea that people come forward and identitfy Smithman etc.

The McCann Team like the Martin Smith sighting. They have been busy promoting the Smithman sighting for the last 4.5 years

Hi Tony,

This is where we differ. You say they have been busy promoting the SS for 4.5 years, well that leaves 2 long years with their heads down waiting for the case to get good and cold.. My opinion is they had no choice but to support it eventually, in order to show they didn't fear it and it had nothing to do with Gerry McCann. Their big mistake has always been trying to explain everything, just like the blood and cadaver dog alerts and the dirty nappy scenario.

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)