Re: SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 18:03

Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
sharonl wrote:
A corpse would be quite heavy and awkward to carry wouldn't it?

Surely it would be roughly the same weight as a live child.

As for awkward carrying, Martin Smith stated "that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual."
Martin Smith did not say that WLBTS - those words are Kate's. She changed what he said just as she changed the position in which the man was carrying the child to connect it to the cackhanded way in which Jane Tanner's 'abductor' was carrying the child.

I beg to differ Cristobell :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Cristobell 06.06.14 18:04

sharonl wrote:Not just a dead body but presumably a fresh corpse.

No smell of a cadaver?

No blood stains in her hair, on her skin or on the man?

In her Pyjamas? What time did she die? before or after her bath?

No blanket to cover her body and hide any signs of blood or other indications that she was not alive?

A corpse would be quite heavy and awkward to carry wouldn't it?

According to the Smith family, this man was acting perfectly normal and did not really draw attention to himself. Was he really in a rush? If he did hurry past the Smith family, how were they able to give such a detailed description of both the man and the child?

Though I am loathe to say it Sharon, its possible the body was bathed and re-dressed in pyjamas. What happened to the clothes Madeleine wore that day? the pink top and white shorts she wore in the 'last photo' - the beads that were in her hair?

by Cristobell 06.06.14 18:09

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
sharonl wrote:
A corpse would be quite heavy and awkward to carry wouldn't it?

Surely it would be roughly the same weight as a live child.

As for awkward carrying, Martin Smith stated "that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual."
Martin Smith did not say that WLBTS - those words are Kate's. She changed what he said just as she changed the position in which the man was carrying the child to connect it to the cackhanded way in which Jane Tanner's 'abductor' was carrying the child.

I beg to differ Cristobell :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Martin Smith assumed the pair were father and daughter - therefore not being used to carrying a child is a contradiction. I will stand corrected if you can pinpoint that exact sentence in his statement.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 18:09

sharonl wrote:
The odour would have been less noticeable to humans after a period of time. The apartment had also been cleaned to the extent that even the curtains had been washed. I cannot see how all this cleaning took place between 5.30pm and 8.00pm ( a maximum of 2.5 hrs) that night, it just doesn't seem possible, especially when there were other things to tend to. If Madeleine had died and been removed earlier in the week, then the odour would have been even less noticeable. Even Michael Wright admitted that there was a dreadful smell from the hire car.

Goncalo Amaral claimed that the cadaver had been frozen. So where exactly was Gerry heading with Madeleine? Surely the Smith family would have noticed if she had already been frozen?

Sorry to be negative about this but it doesn't make sense

The odour would also have been less noticeable if she had only recently died, especially to people passing on the street. You may be confusing two separate ideas here - if Smithman was carrying a dead Madeleine, then she must have only been dead a short while.

The cleaning of the apartment has been massively overstated on forums. There were traces of DNA that were not removed from this 'forensic cleaning' of the apartment that is regularly claimed.

The cadaver that may have been in the hire car would surely have been dead for at least a month. I'm not surprised there was a strong odour in the hire car.

Amaral stated that he found it perfectly possible that Madeleine died on the evening of the 3rd, and he had access to all the evidence, including that of Eddie and Keela. I'm just agreeing with him.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 18:11

Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
sharonl wrote:
A corpse would be quite heavy and awkward to carry wouldn't it?

Surely it would be roughly the same weight as a live child.

As for awkward carrying, Martin Smith stated "that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual."
Martin Smith did not say that WLBTS - those words are Kate's. She changed what he said just as she changed the position in which the man was carrying the child to connect it to the cackhanded way in which Jane Tanner's 'abductor' was carrying the child.

I beg to differ Cristobell :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Martin Smith assumed the pair were father and daughter - therefore not being used to carrying a child is a contradiction. I will stand corrected if you can pinpoint that exact sentence in his statement.

It's in the link, I directly quoted from there.

— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

by RIPM 06.06.14 18:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I'm tuning in late and haven't read the complete thread, but ... what kind of question is that to hold a poll ...?

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

without the possibility to vote, that there are no 17 similarities?

I've been doing a lot of questionnaires and derived statistics from it. This poll reminds me of the very old joke we had about a question: "if yes, why not?"
Chatelaine, your point is well made, but, as the poll creator, here is your opportunity.

Here is my original list of similarities:

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair
3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl
5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side
9. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists
11. They were wearing a dark jacket
12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)
14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build
16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen.

I fully accept the challenge and I would be very pleased if you could be as robust as you wish and tell me which ones of the 17 are NOT similar as between Tannerman and Smithman = thanks very much
Chatelaine, I hope you might find time today to answer my point above in bold.

I took great care, looking at all the Jane Tanner statements and then those of the three Smiths, to list all the 17 similarities, and if you think even one of them is incorrect, I would like to know from you, and have the opportunity then of responding to you. Many thanks

Not speaking for Chatelaine but 3&5 are certainly incorrect.

Where in JT's original police statements has she claimed the child was blonde as she clearly states she never saw the childs head?

'The child was barefoot'. Where can we find this definite statement in any of the Smiths statements?

Several of the other similarities are at best ambiguous

by Cristobell 06.06.14 18:24

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
sharonl wrote:
A corpse would be quite heavy and awkward to carry wouldn't it?

Surely it would be roughly the same weight as a live child.

As for awkward carrying, Martin Smith stated "that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual."
Martin Smith did not say that WLBTS - those words are Kate's. She changed what he said just as she changed the position in which the man was carrying the child to connect it to the cackhanded way in which Jane Tanner's 'abductor' was carrying the child.

I beg to differ Cristobell :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Martin Smith assumed the pair were father and daughter - therefore not being used to carrying a child is a contradiction. I will stand corrected if you can pinpoint that exact sentence in his statement.

It's in the link, I directly quoted from there.

— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Apologies WLBTS, I stand corrected. smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 18:25

russiandoll wrote:Tony I told you on another thread where you addressed my explanation that I neither named MADELEINE in it, I did not state when she died nor did I say Gerry deposited her somewhere in PdL before returning to the tapas bar.

I am glad that you are no longer going to comment on what I said, that is twice now that you have added things to my post claiming these came from me. They are your interpretations of what I said.

I am baffled.

These are your exact words:

QUOTE RUSSIANDOLL

"I agree that there are many similarities [between Tannerman and Smithman] because all of the above are consistent with Gerry McCann realising the implications of the Smith sighting and suddenly needing an alibi for the time the balloon went up, when he was missing...poor Jane was called upon to describe her Tannerman of 9.15, who had to look very like Smithman, but not a Gerry double, so there was a tweak or two [hair was one iirc, will check], face not described in detail...well she wouldn't, would she?

END QUOTE

You are quite clear here in saying that Gerry told Jane to describe someone 'who had to look very like Smithman, but not a Gerry double, so there was a tweak or two...'

Just so I don't misunderstand you, you say that Gerry needed an alibi - because he was seen by the Smiths? Am I right so far?

If not, please explain, I am trying to make sense of something that is not plain.

So, you say that Gerry McCann was seen by the Smiths at 10.00pm, and therefore needed an alibi 'for the time the balloon went up' (I presume you mean 10.00pm?).

So he tells Jane something like: "Tell them you saw me at 9.15pm, make your description sound like me, but tweak it a bit, so it's a bit different from me". Is that right?

And according to your statement above, Gerry was not carrying Madeleine at 10.00pm, but another child? Have I got that right?

If I haven't got that right, please explain your hypothesis for 'Smithman' in plain terms, so we cn all understand it, I'd appreciate it.

Plus, if you say that Smithman was Gerry McCann, how do you explain the witness evidence that Gerry McCann was indeed in the Ocean Club/Tapas bar area during the 9.30pm - 10.30pm time zone?

Many thanks

by Guest 06.06.14 18:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Tony I told you on another thread where you addressed my explanation that I neither named MADELEINE in it, I did not state when she died nor did I say Gerry deposited her somewhere in PdL before returning to the tapas bar.

I am glad that you are no longer going to comment on what I said, that is twice now that you have added things to my post claiming these came from me. They are your interpretations of what I said.
I am baffled.

These are your exact words:

QUOTE RUSSIANDOLL

"I agree that there are many similarities [between Tannerman and Smithman] because all of the above are consistent with Gerry McCann realising the implications of the Smith sighting and suddenly needing an alibi for the time the balloon went up, when he was missing...poor Jane was called upon to describe her Tannerman of 9.15, who had to look very like Smithman, but not a Gerry double, so there was a tweak or two [hair was one iirc, will check], face not described in detail...well she wouldn't, would she?

END QUOTE

You are quite clear here in saying that Gerry told Jane to describe someone 'who had to look very like Smithman, but not a Gerry double, so there was a tweak or two...'

Just so I don't misunderstand you, you say that Gerry needed an alibi - because he was seen by the Smiths? Am I right so far?

If not, please explain, I am trying to make sense of something that is not plain.

So, you say that Gerry McCann was seen by the Smiths at 10.00pm, and therefore needed an alibi 'for the time the balloon went up' (I presume you mean 10.00pm?).

So he tells Jane something like: "Tell them you saw me at 9.15pm, make your description sound like me, but tweak it a bit, so it's a bit different from me". Is that right?

And according to your statement above, Gerry was not carrying Madeleine at 10.00pm, but another child? Have I got that right?

If I haven't got that right, please explain your hypothesis for 'Smithman' in plain terms, so we cn all understand it, I'd appreciate it.

Plus, if you say that Smithman was Gerry McCann,

how do you explain the witness evidence that Gerry McCann was indeed in the Ocean Club/Tapas bar area during the 9.30pm - 10.30pm time zone?

Many thanks

Perhaps we should ask Pat Brown, where are you Pat, you haven't posted in ages, I know you read here, as your latest blog re Smith would seem to indicate. yes

.

by russiandoll 06.06.14 18:33

I will not explain my hypothesis as you call it. You go back and read what you posted re my explanation and see the additions you made.

You are not addressing the issues you added, but other things.

Quote my post in full and show me in bold print:

Madeleine's name. Where I said she died May 3rd and where I said she was carried by Gerry and deposited in PdL. where are my exact words here?

You are free to interpret my statements, you are not free to write words saying they were mine when they are yours.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 18:37

If we look at the poll results so far, they are interesting.

80 have voted.

The fact that there are 17 similarities between the two sightings (or 15 if RIPM is right) is clearly hard to explain, hence the number of people (51) voting 'some other reason'. But almost none of those who voted 'some other reason' can think of an adequate explanation - or, if they can, have not said what it is.

Which leaves 29 who 'buy' one of the three explanations offered.

Of these, just 5 (17%) agree that "Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche" (same man).

A further 3 (9.7%) agree that "There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere - just one of those amazing coincidences" (different men, but looking near-identical with identical children

But 21 (72%) agree with the proposition that "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" (no Tannerman, no Smithman)

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 18:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
Plus, if you say that Smithman was Gerry McCann, how do you explain the witness evidence that Gerry McCann was indeed in the Ocean Club/Tapas bar area during the 9.30pm - 10.30pm time zone?

If you can please list the particular evidence you are referring to, I will happily oblige.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 18:40

russiandoll wrote:I will not explain my hypothesis...You are free to interpret my statements...

What a shame you are unwilling to share your hypothesis with fellow-members here and make it plain for us all what you are saying about 'Smithman'

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 18:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
But 21 (72%) agree with the proposition that "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" (no Tannerman, no Smithman)

21 out of 80 people who voted.

ETA - updating as we speak - that's 21 out of 81 people.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 19:13

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
But 21 (72%) agree with the proposition that "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" (no Tannerman, no Smithman)

21 out of 80 people who voted.

ETA - updating as we speak - that's 21 out of 81 people.

True, but then you've entirely missed my point.

The 59 (now 60) who have voted 'some other reason' do not appear to have a clear idea what any 'other reason' may be. Even the articulate russiandoll cannot formulate a clear explanation for us for why she agrees that there are 17 similarities which demand an explanation. For all I know, the 60 people who voted 'some other reason' may have 60 differing explanations for these 17 remarkable similarities.

Which puts my explanation - "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" - with 21 votes, way ahead of the next most popular explanation (with only 5 votes)

by **sharonl** 06.06.14 19:18

Didn't Jane Tanners suspect turn up just after the Crimewatch documentary was shown? Wasn't it reported that he handed in the clothing that he and his daughter were wearing that night?

If this is true then what is the possibility of this being the two who were also seen by Smith? After all, they did say that there was nothing unusual about their sighting.

by RIPM 06.06.14 19:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
But 21 (72%) agree with the proposition that "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" (no Tannerman, no Smithman)

21 out of 80 people who voted.

ETA - updating as we speak - that's 21 out of 81 people.
True, but then you've entirely missed my point.

The 59 (now 60) who have voted 'some other reason' do not appear to have a clear idea what any 'other reason' may be. Even the articulate russiandoll cannot formulate a clear explanation for us for why she agrees that there are 17 similarities which demand an explanation. For all I know, the 60 people who voted 'some other reason' may have 60 differing explanations for these 17 remarkable similarities.

Which puts my explanation - "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" - with 21 votes, way ahead of the next most popular explanation (with only 5 votes)

I am absolutely clear there are not 17 similarities as per the list for reasons previously stated!

by **tigger** 06.06.14 19:52

I find it unlikely that two people would independently dream up a non existent abductor.

I also feel - as I have posted on an earlier occasion. - that the details of bundleman were modelled on Gerry, e.g. The dark top, the beige trousers., dark hair.
In the very likely event that the Smiths would report their meeting on the 4th or 5th there would be sufficient similarities to make Smithman the same person as bundleman - and thanks to JT and Wilkins, Gerry would have a complete alibi.
In other words, he could not be Smithman, because he could prove he wasn't bundleman.

But imo he was Smithman, it went wrong and then he devised a cunning plan -

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 20:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
True, but then you've entirely missed my point.

The 59 (now 60) who have voted 'some other reason' do not appear to have a clear idea what any 'other reason' may be. Even the articulate russiandoll cannot formulate a clear explanation for us for why she agrees that there are 17 similarities which demand an explanation. For all I know, the 60 people who voted 'some other reason' may have 60 differing explanations for these 17 remarkable similarities.

Which puts my explanation - "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" - with 21 votes, way ahead of the next most popular explanation (with only 5 votes)

Which just means that your poll wasn't constructed fairly. The fact that 64% of voters voted 'some other reason' makes that absolutely clear.

by cassius 06.06.14 20:09

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
True, but then you've entirely missed my point.

The 59 (now 60) who have voted 'some other reason' do not appear to have a clear idea what any 'other reason' may be. Even the articulate russiandoll cannot formulate a clear explanation for us for why she agrees that there are 17 similarities which demand an explanation. For all I know, the 60 people who voted 'some other reason' may have 60 differing explanations for these 17 remarkable similarities.

Which puts my explanation - "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" - with 21 votes, way ahead of the next most popular explanation (with only 5 votes)

Which just means that your poll wasn't constructed fairly. The fact that 64% of voters voted 'some other reason' makes that absolutely clear.

I agree with Russian Doll`s earlier hypothesis.

Tannerman morphed into Smithman by TM because JT was found wanting.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 20:19

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Plus, if you say that Smithman was Gerry McCann, how do you explain the witness evidence that Gerry McCann was indeed in the Ocean Club/Tapas bar area during the 9.30pm - 10.30pm time zone?

If you can please list the particular evidence you are referring to, I will happily oblige.

Many thanks for your offer.

I take something from the statements of all the following as suggesting that Gerry McCann, between 9.30pm and 10.30pm on 3 May, was in the proximity of one or more of these locations: Flat G5A, swimming pool near the Tapas bar ('pool area'), Ocean Club reception, and that this amounts to sufficient proof that he could not have been in the vicinity of the Rue de Abril at around 9.55pm to 10.00pm that night as suggested by some on here:

Joaquim Baptista
Stephen Carpenter (9.30pm)
Pamela Fenn (10.30pm)
Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Russell O'Brien
Ricardo da Luz Oliveira
Jane Tanner
Starikova Vitorino
Heronimo Salcedas
Matthew Oldfield
David Payne
Fiona Payne
Diane Webster.

[15 names]

I do not have a ready-made list but I hope that is sufficient for you be able to answer my original query.

I think there may be one or two more but I would need more time to look them up.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 20:22

cassius wrote:
Tannerman morphed into Smithman by TM because JT was found wanting.

So you agree completely with what I've been saying all along, namely that the McCanns have actively used the 'Smithman' sighting - since May 2009 (the 'Mockumentary')?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 20:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Many thanks for your offer.

I take something from the statements of all the following as suggesting that Gerry McCann, between 9.30pm and 10.30pm on 3 May, was in the proximity of one or more of these locations: Flat G5A, swimming pool near the Tapas bar ('pool area'), Ocean Club reception, and that this amounts to sufficient proof that he could not have been in the vicinity of the Rue de Abril at around 9.55pm to 10.00pm that night as suggested by some on here:

Joaquim Baptista
Stephen Carpenter (9.30pm)
Pamela Fenn (10.30pm)
Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Russell O'Brien
Ricardo da Luz Oliveira
Jane Tanner
Starikova Vitorino
Heronimo Salcedas
Matthew Oldfield
David Payne
Fiona Payne
Diane Webster.

[15 names]

I do not have a ready-made list but I hope that is sufficient for you be able to answer my original query.

I think there may be one or two more but I would need more time to look them up.

I'll agree to this if you post evidence here, witness by witness. I'm not talking about the statements of the Tapas 9. What does Gerry's statement about his own whereabouts prove? Independent witnesses please.

You've stated on many occasions that facts and evidence are what matter. Please provide them.

My statement is that Gerry McCann had at least 15-20 minutes, perhaps even up to half an hour, to disappear off the radar, and be in the vicinity of the Smith sighting at 9:55pm. Not that he did, but that the 'window of opportunity' was available.

Please provide evidence that rules out this hypothesis, if you're interest in accepting this challenge. Not a list of names.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 20:33

tigger wrote:I find it unlikely that two people would independently dream up a non existent abductor.

You say that Tanner did - but the Irish family didn't?

I also feel - as I have posted on an earlier occasion. - that the details of bundleman were modelled on Gerry, e.g. The dark top, the beige trousers., dark hair.

Jane meant her description to be very similar to Gerry McCann? Because he'd been seen near the Rue de 25 Abril?

In the very likely event that the Smiths would report their meeting on the 4th or 5th

Although they didn't bother to do so until a whole thirteen days later?

there would be sufficient similarities to make Smithman the same person as bundleman - and thanks to JT and Wilkins, Gerry would have a complete alibi.

Wilkins and Tanner only confirm where Gerry was about 9.00pm to 9.20pm. Not at 10.00pm at the time of the alleged 'Smithman' sighting, though?

In other words, he could not be Smithman, because he could prove he wasn't bundleman.

But imo he was Smithman, it went wrong and then he devised a cunning plan -

Then this is exactly the same as what I would now refer to as 'The Russiandoll Hypothesis', which I will re-state:

1. Madeleine is dead
2. Gerry carried Madeleine (or another) towards the beach
3. Seen by Smiths
4. Puts Madeleine somewhere (or if another girl, puts her somewhere or returns with her to Ocean Club area
5. All 'gone wrong' because seen by Smiths
6. Change of plan: 'Jane, quick, tell them you saw someone like me carrying child about 9.15pm'
7. Timeline says Jane saw man carrying a child at 9.15pm.

Before commenting, tigger, is that the gist of your scenario, please?

by Guest 06.06.14 20:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 20:38

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Many thanks for your offer.

I take something from the statements of all the following as suggesting that Gerry McCann, between 9.30pm and 10.30pm on 3 May, was in the proximity of one or more of these locations: Flat G5A, swimming pool near the Tapas bar ('pool area'), Ocean Club reception, and that this amounts to sufficient proof that he could not have been in the vicinity of the Rue de Abril at around 9.55pm to 10.00pm that night as suggested by some on here:

Joaquim Baptista
Stephen Carpenter (9.30pm)
Pamela Fenn (10.30pm)
Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Russell O'Brien
Ricardo da Luz Oliveira
Jane Tanner
Starikova Vitorino
Heronimo Salcedas
Matthew Oldfield
David Payne
Fiona Payne
Diane Webster.

[15 names]

I do not have a ready-made list but I hope that is sufficient for you be able to answer my original query.

I think there may be one or two more but I would need more time to look them up.

I'll agree to this if you post evidence here, witness by witness. I'm not talking about the statements of the Tapas 9. What does Gerry's statement about his own whereabouts prove? Independent witnesses please.

You've stated on many occasions that facts and evidence are what matter. Please provide them.

My statement is that Gerry McCann had at least 15-20 minutes, perhaps even up to half an hour, to disappear off the radar, and be in the vicinity of the Smith sighting at 9:55pm. Not that he did, but that the 'window of opportunity' was available.

Please provide evidence that rules out this hypothesis, if you're interested in accepting this challenge. Not a list of names.

Your agreement was precisely this: "If you can please list the particular evidence you are referring to, I will happily oblige".

You have now completely changed the agreement.

I am not willing to go further than providing the list you asked for. Therefore it is for you to decide whether you will now fulfil your original offer

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 20:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
Your agreement was precisely this: "If you can please list the particular evidence you are referring to, I will happily oblige".

You have now completely changed the agreement.

I am not willing to go further than providing the list you asked for. Therefore it is for you to decide whether you will now fulfil your original offer

You haven't provided a list of evidence, just a list of names.

Looks like I will just have to post the statements from the independent witnesses on your list for you and discuss them myself.

If you're insisting on the Tapas 9 being on your list, then we're in the territory of the truly bizarre. I'll give you Dianne Webster though.

by cassius 06.06.14 20:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
cassius wrote:
Tannerman morphed into Smithman by TM because JT was found wanting.
So you agree completely with what I've been saying all along, namely that the McCanns have actively used the 'Smithman' sighting - since May 2009 (the 'Mockumentary')?

They reluctantly acknowleged Smithman as he was like a bad smell in the background that wouldn,t go away.

What better way to deal with this problem than by making out he was the same man that their stooge JT had invented.

Lots of similarities but ,as RussianDoll explained ,for a different reason than your theory,with respect.

by Newintown 06.06.14 20:55

candyfloss wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Was there any vodka in that mug, or just coffee?

laughat

by RIPM 06.06.14 20:58

Tony this is the second list today that has very little basis in reality.

In your attempt to discredit the Smith family you are expecting us to accept the witness statements of the Tapas group and Kate & Gerry Mccann as proof of their location at a certain time.

I'm sorry but this is LUDICROUS.

Most of the other names are very vague in their timings but I will check for any precise timings that confirm your opinion