Where was 'Smithman' heading

by jim nasium 22.10.13 11:07

Casey5 wrote:
jim nasium wrote:Hello all - another 'newbie' here - to posting that is - but I have been following the comments on this forum with great interest since just before the BBC CW programme.

I just had to say that I remember that it was only one or two days after Madeleine had gone missing - (although it may well have been the first day - cannot be absolutely positive), Sky News reported that there had been a sighting of a man carrying a child on the evening of May 3rd and heading in the direction of the harbour. The report also contained a description of what the man was wearing. Does anyone else remember this report? I do wonder if the source of this report was in fact the Smith family.
Hi jim,- Is this what you're looking for? from mccannfiles.com - welcome.
[color:092c=000000]"George Brooks, an ex-pat from Liverpool, claims to have seen a suspicious couple carrying a child, near Lagos marina, 7/8 hours after Madeleine had been reported missing. For reasons unknown, in all early media reports he is referred to as 'George Burke'. Despite the claims of many of these reports, it appears that Mr Brooks never made an official statement to the Portuguese police."

Thanks for your reply and sorry that this topic has moved on since - but my mouse decided to pack up just before I responded to it. The Sky report specifically mentioned a man on his own carrying a child and the man was said to be 'smartly dressed' in its description of his appearance and heading towards the Harbour. Sometime later, I googled PDL to see where the Harbour (Marina?) was located and it is quite some way along from the actual town of PDL. If by any chance the source of this report was in fact the Smith's then the defending of the Murat/Smith theory would not hold any credence as any suspicion of Murat had not yet been raised at the time of this report.

Can I just say that after holidaying in small Portuguese resorts made up of mostly apartment/villa/residential accommodation similar to PDL, these resorts are extremely quiet especially early in the season, e.g., May. Nothing like the hustle and bustle of Spanish resorts. I do think that it is quite feasible that someone may have taken the chance of carrying Madeleine through the town at night when it was dark. That is why I have always been so astonished as to why the McCann's et al did not carry out their searches for as long and as vigorously as they should have, preferring it seems to have concentrated their efforts more on getting their timelines sorted out! Who knows, if they had run fast enough and shouted for her loud enough they may have stood a chance of catching up with the 'Abductor'. Did the McCanns and their friends assume that the Abductor had a car? - it seems to me judging by the length of their searches, that they must have done.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 11:17

pennylane wrote: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.

OK, pennylane, let us politely agree to disagree.

Cards on the table, then I'll try to keep quiet:

1. Jane Tanner didn't see anyone.

2. I do not believe that Redwood has successfully identified a crecheman.

3. I do not find the Smith sighting remotely credible.

4. I do not believe that Gerry McCann or anyone else known to him or any other person was carrying either Madeleine or a 'decoy' child or any other child around Praia da Luz at about 10.00pm or at any other time on the evening of Thursday 3 May 2007

5. I agree with Wendy Murphy that the entire BBC Crimewatch programme was about what she called 'a fake sighting'

6. I part company with Goncalo Amaral in his belief that the Smiths are credible witnesses and really did see Gerry McCann.

That's it, I've given my reasons up the thread.

by Searcher 22.10.13 11:26

Without cctv footage, I just don't see how any firm identification can be given to the Smith sighting. My own sense for what it's worth is that one major key could be the alleged cry: "They've taken her." I have suggested here before that, in extremis, a roar can take over, which speaks a truth.

If there is any accuracy, such a cry suggests a) more than one person, possibly with a rendezvous en route to somewhere (the beach, the marina, a car) possibly 'a couple'; b) some level of alleged expectation or arrangement.

I am still seriously interested in 2 May.

by pennylane 22.10.13 11:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote: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.
OK, pennylane, let us politely agree to disagree.

Cards on the table, then I'll try to keep quiet:

1. Jane Tanner didn't see anyone.

2. I do not believe that Redwood has successfully identified a crecheman.

3. I do not find the Smith sighting remotely credible.

4. I do not believe that Gerry McCann or anyone else known to him or any other person was carrying either Madeleine or a 'decoy' child or any other child around Praia da Luz at about 10.00pm or at any other time on the evening of Thursday 3 May 2007

5. I agree with Wendy Murphy that the entire BBC Crimewatch programme was about what she called 'a fake sighting'

6. I part company with Goncalo Amaral in his belief that the Smiths are credible witnesses and really did see Gerry McCann.

That's it, I've given my reasons up the thread.

I have read your reasons, and they do make sense to me, and you could well be correct!

But can you not see that IF Gerry was caught in the act, they would have no choice but to do exactly what they did with Jane seeing him and someone else carrying Maddie away at the same time, and try and turn him into the same person. It's back against the wall stuff.

by galena 22.10.13 11:38

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

Why shouldn't the McCanns support the Smith sighting - when it concerns a report of a unknown male carrying a child off at a time when Gerry and very possibly all of the Tapas group have a rock solid alibi? I'm guessing that didn't initially give it the same billing as the Tannerman sighting as they preferred to go with a sighting they knew they could control. Redwood said at the time that they were not suspects or persons of interest. That can be read two ways - either it was said to lull the McCanns into a sense of false security - or the second explanation is - that he meant exactly what he said. That he has come to the conclusion that it couldn't have been Gerry so he feels that it must have been a genuine abductor. I can see headlines in the not too distant future - Gerry McCanns agony as he is accused by internet trolls of being the man sighted by Martin Smith - swing of sympathy as it is realised that he couldn't have been - and the whole circus starts rolling again winkwink

by jozi 22.10.13 11:38

Sockpuppet wrote:
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?

Its common sense if you read properly instead of interpenetrating what you think has been said ?

Smith sighting identifies Gerry so why would he say not a tourist ? Janes sighting was to give Gerry an alibi IMO so she would say that wouldn't she !!!

They SY know that we know Janes abduction could not have happened within the time frame ,so mysteriously eggman has now been found and eliminated and guess what, it was a tourist. A new time frame for the abduction as been brought into play by SY using Smithman......but as Amaral has said they did not investigate any further because he was removed from the case .

BK and his rent a PI pursued and got a statement from Smith but now his suspect was not a tourist ?

by Eiileen 22.10.13 11:43

The McCanns having been trying to suppress the truth of the Smith sighting not promote it. An integral and undeniable part of that sighting is that Mr and Mrs Smith say it was Gerry McCann. The McCanns have no option but to now pretend to support this sighting, as Jane's has been discredited - they are hoping and praying that not too many members of the public get to hear that the Smiths identified Gerry. At least two national newspapers made sure they got that information in their articles last week.

I am amazed that Tony thinks that the McCanns are happy about the Smith sighting being made public - he will be telling us next they want the Gaspar statements printed on the front page of the Mirror.

What possible motive would have induced Mr Smith to ring the police and tell them it was Gerry he saw after seeing the clip of him getting on/off the plane? Why does anyone think a decent, respectable, retired Irish business man, a Father and Grandfather who had a Grand-Child of his own Madeleine's age would want to go out of his way to deliberately implicate the father of a missing child in her disappearance?

I am disgusted that people who would claim to be interested in justice for Madeleine would want to cast aspersions on the honest witnesses in which Goncalo Amaral has placed his trust. Is it any wonder the media refer to us as "Vile Trolls" and "Nutters" when people talk about the "decoy Child" "the substitute" and even make the ridiculous claim that there was no evidence Madeleine was ever in 5A. (or even Portugal at all)

Since the Tapas table had drank 13 bottles of wine and some aperitifs (not to mention the New Zealand Chardonnay before they came out) - I would not pay any attention to the timings they give for Gerry being present in the restaurant. If they didn't have that much wine - well then you can't take the word of the waiting staff because if they can't accurately tell us how many bottles they took to the table can they honestly tell us who left when and for how long? Have you ever tried to work out the exact timings of everyone you were with in a large party on a night out including exactly what time everyone took a piss? Its impossible even for those who WANT to be honest helpful witnesses. Do you sit and time other diners ? A couple on their balcony have said there was no one walking about at the time she ought to have seen Gerry and Jane milling about the place as they have claimed.

I believe the Smiths. I hope they will not be deterred from sticking by their honest statements by people espousing silly and insulting theories about them on the internet.

by Searcher 22.10.13 12:00

I believe that the Smiths saw something / someone. I don't see any reason for a fabrication. We are given to understand that Martin Smith was greatly distrubed when he saw the news footage.

by endgame 22.10.13 12:29

Searcher wrote:I believe that the Smiths saw something / someone. I don't see any reason for a fabrication. We are given to understand that Martin Smith was greatly distrubed when he saw the news footage.

Yes, I don't see any problem with them being perfectly genuine but mistaken. There is an eagerness to see everything as premeditated, planned, sinister, suspicious, black and white in every single aspect of this case. Reality suggests that genuine mistake and cock up are as likely to account for many of the supposed conspiracies. If you are seeking the truth, you have to accept that this is always an option.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 12:40

sallypelt wrote:Lots of new posters signing up to debate this issue

This was a very pertinent observation, sallypelt. Just after someone calld 'hotrot' joined up and posted on this thread.

It's usually good to welcome lots of new members to any discussion forum - and we have had well over 250 new members this month alone.

But there is something curious about a few of them.

The following members all joined within the last 4 days and all have posted exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on this thread.

They are:

logical

hotrot

Q71

sockpuppet

eiileen, and

jim nasium.

All these six have (a) fully supported the BBC Crimewatch/Redwood appeal to 'find Smithman' (b) stated how very credible the Smiths' sighting is and (c) poured scorn on those who dare to question the credibility of Martin Smith's evidence.

And often in particularly abusive terms, unusual for a brand new poster, like this from 'Eiileen' today:

"I am disgusted that people who would claim to be interested in justice for Madeleine would want to cast aspersions on the honest witnesses in which Goncalo Amaral has placed his trust. Is it any wonder the media refer to us as 'Vile Trolls' and 'Nutters'..."

Strong stuff.

Where are you all coming from?

by Searcher 22.10.13 12:50

A good point, TB, if I may say so .. we watch with interest. high5

by Sietah 22.10.13 13:06

I see not much wrong in the post of Eiilein, I kinda agree with her, maybe in less strong words and not the nutter part that Tony quoted.

But sometimes I think we or I get too much carried away with confusing details, reading too much in all the TM balloons, to lead us away from the "simple" truth.

by Hongkong Phooey 22.10.13 13:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Lots of new posters signing up to debate this issue
This was a very pertinent observation, sallypelt. Just after someone calld 'hotrot' joined up and posted on this thread.

It's usually good to welcome lots of new members to any discussion forum - and we have had well over 250 new members this month alone.

But there is something curious about a few of them.

The following members all joined within the last 4 days and all have posted exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on this thread.

They are:

logical

hotrot

Q71

sockpuppet

eiileen, and

jim nasium.

All these six have (a) fully supported the BBC Crimewatch/Redwood appeal to 'find Smithman' (b) stated how very credible the Smiths' sighting is and (c) poured scorn on those who dare to question the credibility of Martin Smith's evidence.

And often in particularly abusive terms, unusual for a brand new poster, like this from 'Eiileen' today:

"I am disgusted that people who would claim to be interested in justice for Madeleine would want to cast aspersions on the honest witnesses in which Goncalo Amaral has placed his trust. Is it any wonder the media refer to us as 'Vile Trolls' and 'Nutters'..."

Strong stuff.

Where are you all coming from?

As another newbie (to this forum but certainly not others) it's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme, is this because they have a differing view from you? There are in a lot of cases coincidences and sometimes there is a rational explanation others you may very well be correct in that Smith knew Murat more than he let on. However it does take some ‘balls’ to fabricate a story and stand by it (with other family members too) whilst placed under such scrutiny. I think Redwood is playing a game here by calling out Bundleman, where does this leave the rest of the testimony’s of much of the Tapas group.

You are right to call out the similarities in statement i.e. bundleman & smithman and it’s now been established that bundleman was real (ha ha) which leaves the pressure on the Smith family and the Team McCann, who is going to fold first.

by galena 22.10.13 13:28

endgame wrote:
Searcher wrote:I believe that the Smiths saw something / someone. I don't see any reason for a fabrication. We are given to understand that Martin Smith was greatly distrubed when he saw the news footage.
Yes, I don't see any problem with them being perfectly genuine but mistaken. There is an eagerness to see everything as premeditated, planned, sinister, suspicious, black and white in every single aspect of this case. Reality suggests that genuine mistake and cock up are as likely to account for many of the supposed conspiracies. If you are seeking the truth, you have to accept that this is always an option.

I think experiments have been carried out where a group - maybe in a Psychology class - are presented with an unexpected drama acted out in front of them and then asked to write down what happened - it's amazing how the accounts differ! It's very hard for people to come up with accurate descriptions when witnessing events - the significance of which they do not realise at the time and when wrapped up in their own concerns. There is a danger that we assume witnesses - especially those we agree with - have absolute recall of events, timings, descriptions. They don't. That's why we can't accept anything on face value and have to sift through the evidence as we know it.

by galena 22.10.13 13:30

Sietah wrote:I see not much wrong in the post of Eiilein, I kinda agree with her, maybe in less strong words and not the nutter part that Tony quoted.

But sometimes I think we or I get too much carried away with confusing details, reading too much in all the TM balloons, to lead us away from the "simple" truth.

I don't agree with all the theories here but I would never call people 'nutters' - my feeling is that people are entitled to their opinions and it's good sometimes to let your imagination wander - the craziest theory can sometimes hold a kernel of truth.

by sallypelt 22.10.13 13:34

Is there a thread on this forum where nothing other than what's in PJ statements are discussed or debated?
I think such a thread, where people will have to refer to the files, and cross-reference them from later statements, will stop all the bickering on whose opinion is most valid.

If such a thread could be set up, it will be like a court of law, where speculation will count for nothing. There are plenty of other threads going, where members can express their opinions and theories.

by Lance De Boils 22.10.13 13:38

Tony Bennett 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'.
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!

I'm jumping in again without having caught up, so apologies.

Just to say, in my mind, what sockpuppet says is a perfectly rational explanation.

What we have is not a transcript. It's a statement, which, as we all know, is often written by the policeman, then just checked and signed by the witness.

by Woofer 22.10.13 13:42

Lance De Boils wrote:
Tony Bennett 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'.
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!
I'm jumping in again without having caught up, so apologies.

Just to say, in my mind, what sockpuppet says is a perfectly rational explanation.

What we have is not a transcript. It's a statement, which, as we all know, is often written by the policeman, then just checked and signed by the witness.

by RIPM 22.10.13 13:42

Why do people say Jane Tanner's sighting has been discredited?
It has been confirmed as absolutely accurate after two years of meticulous research by DCI Redwood and his team. It is just that the man she saw was an innocent passerby. SY has said so and you cannot get a better recommendation than that (never a whiff of scandal about the MET!).

According to SY we know now she was in the street at 21.15 when she also saw GM and JW as in her statement. If Tannerman walking is accurate SY must believe her seeing JW and GM in the street at 21.15 is also accurate.

Jane Tanner according to SY is the most accurate eye-witness in the history of crime.

by pennylane 22.10.13 13:47

RIPM wrote:Why do people say Jane Tanner's sighting has been discredited?
It has been confirmed as absolutely accurate after two years of meticulous research by DCI Redwood and his team. It is just that the man she saw was an innocent passerby. SY has said so and you cannot get a better recommendation than that (never a whiff of scandal about the MET!).

According to SY we know now she was in the street at 21.15 when she also saw GM and JW as in her statement. If Tannerman walking is accurate SY must believe her seeing JW and GM in the street at 21.15 is also accurate.

Jane Tanner according to SY is the most accurate eye-witness in the history of crime.

You betcha! big grin

by **PeterMac** 22.10.13 13:49

RIPM wrote:According to SY we know now she was in the street at 21.15 when she also saw GM and JW as in her statement. If Tannerman walking is accurate SY must believe her seeing JW and GM in the street at 21.15 is also accurate.
Jane Tanner according to SY is the most accurate eye-witness in the history of crime.

So do SY accept her version of where Gerry was ?
She AND JW say the same thing.
Which means that Gerry . . . . and the mockumentary . . .and Edgar . . .

And it is NOT irrelevant, even though Tannerman is not an abductor.
It is still relevant to show Gerry's total inability to tell the truth.

by Guest 22.10.13 13:55

galena wrote:
Sietah wrote:I see not much wrong in the post of Eiilein, I kinda agree with her, maybe in less strong words and not the nutter part that Tony quoted.

But sometimes I think we or I get too much carried away with confusing details, reading too much in all the TM balloons, to lead us away from the "simple" truth.
I don't agree with all the theories here but I would never call people 'nutters' - my feeling is that people are entitled to their opinions and it's good sometimes to let your imagination wander - the craziest theory can sometimes hold a kernel of truth.

Eileen did not call people 'nutters' the reference was to what the media called us. Many have signed up as a result of crimewatch, and this thread being the most popular at the moment with various opinions. There are many who think the Smith sighting is for real, and those that question it, I see no problem with that.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.10.13 13:57

Hongkong Phooey wrote:As another newbie (to this forum but certainly not others) it's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme, is this because they have a differing view from you?

'Hongkong Phooey', welcome to the forum.

I hope I may just call you 'Phooey' for short.

You have certainly made quite a big impact on the forum already in your three days here.

You wrote: "It's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme..."

Of course!

The six I mentioned have all signed up just 'because of the Crimewatch programme'.

I don't know why I never thought of that.

Try visiting the sections of the forum that deal with the McCanns' choice of private investigators.

And then come back and tell us what you think about that.

by tasprin 22.10.13 14:16

PeterMac wrote:
RIPM wrote:According to SY we know now she was in the street at 21.15 when she also saw GM and JW as in her statement. If Tannerman walking is accurate SY must believe her seeing JW and GM in the street at 21.15 is also accurate.
Jane Tanner according to SY is the most accurate eye-witness in the history of crime.
So do SY accept her version of where Gerry was ?
She AND JW say the same thing.
Which means that Gerry . . . . and the mockumentary . . .and Edgar . . .

And it is NOT irrelevant, even though Tannerman is not an abductor.
It is still relevant to show Gerry's total inability to tell the truth.

Yes, obviously Tanner has a superb memory. She was, according to SY, accurately able to describe fine detail of the abductor and child's clothing, from a distance, in poor orange tinted light. And the man in question has come forward after six and a half years and confirmed that Tanner was indeed spot on. With recall skills like that, she can't possibly be wrong about which side of the road she was walking when she flip-flopped past two big burly men, one of whom was her holiday companion. Can she?

by Joss 22.10.13 14:16

I find it difficult to think of a stranger abduction where a stranger would go into someone's apartment, snatch a child and walk through the street with said child. How would a stranger know that the child was possibly sedated, and wouldn't that stranger risk waking a sleeping child by stealing her from her bed to take her into the cold night air where she would surely wake up crying and possibly screaming loudly for her parent once she realised who was carrying her? If someone took Maddie from her bed and she was possibly still alive it was someone who knew her, and knew she wouldn't wake up. If it was a stranger abduction it would mean that she was killed by that person first, and then why would that person risk walking around with a deceased child? All IMO. I really have no clue what the Smith's think they saw, and if it was really good evidence?

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 was 'Smithman' heading

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"?)

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"?)

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:Smithman sighting

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"?)

Log in for more topics