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

Tony Bennett wrote:

cassius wrote:

Mrs Fenn cannot be  a good witness for GM. She confirms that he was not at the one place he should have been at 10pm or shortly thereafter.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I included Pamela Fenn in my list because this is what she told the Portuguese police:

PAMELA FENN STATEMENT

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out ?we have let her down? which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done

UNQUOTE


According to this evidence, Gerry McCann was plainly in G5A before 10.30pm

This just says that Gerry was in 5A at almost 22:30. So according to Oliveira the table was empty at a few minutes after 21:45, and the next thing we hear about Gerry is him being in 5A at nearly 22:30.

That's a significant period of time, and a period of time which perfectly fits the Smith sighting.

Please, please do not question Tony Bennett's point of view on HIS forum.

You should know HE is always right and EVERYONE else is clearly wrong.

Some very good posters on here and you don't want to get banned for DISAGREEING with Sir Tony.

fossey wrote:Please, please do not question Tony Bennett's point of view on HIS forum.

You should know HE is always right and EVERYONE else is clearly wrong.

Some very good posters on here and you don't want to get banned for DISAGREEING with Sir Tony.

Welcome to you too, fossey.

Quite a rude manner to begin your posting here, IMO.

Quite, Ladyinred!

Reasoned debate is welcome here and I look forward to fossey's contributions.

Incidentally, Tony is not the forum owner.

.

Ladyinred wrote:

fossey wrote:Please, please do not question Tony Bennett's point of view on HIS forum.

You should know HE is always right and EVERYONE else is clearly wrong.

Some very good posters on here and you don't want to get banned for DISAGREEING with Sir Tony.

Welcome to you too, fossey.

Quite a rude manner to begin your posting here, IMO.

Very rude, if you wish to continue here then please make an effort to be civil.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Quite, Ladyinred!

Reasoned debate is welcome here and I look forward to fossey's contributions.

Incidentally, Tony is not the forum owner.

.

LIR, NFWTD.

Thank you. Look forward if allowed to contribute. Got a lot to say.

Just know you need to tread very carefully around TB. 

You see over the years MANY people from this forum have been 'whooshed' due to standing up to TB and not agreeing with his views.

Should be about freedom of speech.

JUSTICE for Madeleine.

The end is CLOSE.

Thank you for the warning about TB.  Are you one of the many people who have been "whooshed" in the past for not agreeing with him?

Ladyinred wrote:Thank you for the warning about TB.  Are you one of the many people who have been "whooshed" in the past for not agreeing with him?

No NOT me.

Just don't agree with him. SIMPLE.

Although i'm sure i will get banned for stating that.

I just want JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE and the TRUTH to come out.  

If that last sentence reflects your views fossey you're welcome.

Now let's move on please.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:If that last sentence reflects your views fossey you're welcome.

Now let's move on please.

That last sentence ABSOLUTELY reflects MY views.

Yes, quite. It's NOT all about TB is it.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

cassius wrote:

Mrs Fenn cannot be  a good witness for GM. She confirms that he was not at the one place he should have been at 10pm or shortly thereafter.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I included Pamela Fenn in my list because this is what she told the Portuguese police:

PAMELA FENN STATEMENT

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out ?we have let her down? which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done

UNQUOTE


According to this evidence, Gerry McCann was plainly in G5A before 10.30pm

This just says that Gerry was in 5A at almost 22:30.  So according to Oliveira the table was empty at a few minutes after 21:45, and the next thing we hear about Gerry is him being in 5A at nearly 22:30.

That's a significant period of time, and a period of time which perfectly fits the Smith sighting.

At the risk of being pedantic WLBTS ,at  nearly 10.30pm Mrs Fenn hears KM shouting,this i believe is the start of the  charade.

Mrs Fenn  speaks to GM just after 10.30.

So did she KM sound the alarm and then run/walk/skip to the OC tell the others including GM who went back to 5a!

How long would that take?

The point being if GM is in 5a at around 10.30 when the alarm is raised the sticker book timeline is a lie.

No surprise there.

I give Oliveira's statement weight because he gave a reference point for his times.  He said that dinner ended at 9:45 (this was normal I think), and that everybody had already gone from the table a few minutes later.  He mentions hearing shouts from the McCann's apartment at this point, and then somebody told him that a child was missing.

So of Oliveira's statement is correct, the alert wasn't raised at 10:30, it would have been around 9:45.  On my reading of the rest of the evidence, that time fits.

I suspect Kate's shouting may have had something to do with Gerry's (hypothetical) return to the scene, and it's also possible that the bruising around her wrists and arms may have been inflicted at this time.

Agreed Oliveira sounds credible.
 
The alarm must have been raised twice.

They couldn,t even get that right.

Tony Bennett wrote: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)

I don't think raw data can be subdivided like this  -  there are not 3 but 4 options in all. The majority have voted for option 4.

80 votes are 100%

29 votes =  36.25%
51 votes =   63.75%

5 votes (of the 29) = 6.25%
3 votes ( of the 29) =  3.75%
21 votes (of the 29) =  26.25%

Therefore 63.75 % opted for another scenario than the three given out of a total number of 4 options.

If say the questions had been:
Would you vote for:
Conservative,
Labour
Liberal
Other

All four options  have to be considered imo.

with thanks to twitter  - the press conference we will never see         

           

Tony Bennett wrote:
"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."

---

TB has lost the plot somewhat here.  (Or else I have misunderstood completely.) I take it that "crecheman" is the Tanner sighting behind (north of) the OC supposedly, when JT was walking by herself, she also seeing GM and Jez W talking but neither seeing her. The sighting illustrated also called "Tannerman", brown jacket, beige trousers.

It's really impossible to think, if there were a genuine sighting then by JT, that the person agreed as a likeness in the "Tannerman" illustration could be mistaken for the man of either efit released last year in the Smiths sighting. Very long hair, against very short hair, only supposedly minutes later. I can't think of a less likely candidate than the Smiths' efits man or men to be mistaken for JT's "crecheman" walking. Maybe the illustrations in either or both cases would not be the best representation of the described recollections in words. But the illustrations can't be so far off that these two men could be conceivably the same person. There's no way it could be.

So therefore, TB's poll is more than a little ridiculous. OK, the 2 sightings describe similar coloured clothing - no real evidence or suggestion of anything in itself there. Particularly when the persons concerned were so different, apparently.

Really, for people weighing things up rationally there is not much option in choosing "Some Other Reason" rather than the other poll choices which are more than slightly ridiculous.

JT's sighting may or may not be dependable. Although I believe there was an abduction (which doesn't in itself need to mean complete uninvolvement of parents & Tapas group, I don't know), I've just thought of the possibility that JT didn't see the man carrying child on that night.

Didn't the Met police say that the real father coming from the creche did so more or less every night around this time? Perhaps JT had seen him on previous nights. (Is it possible also that someone had met him or his family and knew his schedule was not planned to change?) It reminds me of the strangeness of that Jez W and then GM would not recall seeing JT there that evening and her claim is they were on the other side of the road to where they both claimed to have been. Unexplained, all of this. Seeming to be unexplainable. I mean, how could she, or they, have gotten the side of the road wrong when walking past was involved?

Questioning JT like this does not even need to mean in itself that she had or knew of any blame or group involvement. One possibility with the consideration that JT was not  speaking the truth could be merely, in fear, to aid her friends, so that there is at least not some very sudden backlash against the McCann parents from police, locals or media. Of course, equally the same possibility can lie with the consideration that JT herself did have some blame, involvement or concealed knowledge, or was covering for others in the group who had that.

G1 wrote (snipped):

"JT there that evening and her claim is they were on the other side of the road to where they both claimed to have been. Unexplained, all of this. Seeming to be unexplainable. I mean, how could she, or they, have gotten the side of the road wrong when walking past was involved?"


Just for the sake of accuracy G1, it is GM that claims he was on the other side of the road that JT and JW claim he was on.
GM said he crossed the road to speak to JW, JW insists that he was the one who crossed the road to stand outside the gate of 5a. 
JT says they were standing on the side of the road outside 5a, the same as JW.

Thanks. I knew that actually years ago, so it it is years I've had the wrong impression of that detail. If JW agrees with JT, that makes JT's claims less dubious, obviously, for my theorising above.

Did someone hit GM, or drug him? Or did someone alter his memory after the event by suggestion? It is strange. To remember crossing the road, for a meeting somewhere else, and crossing back again.

G1 wrote:Thanks. I knew that actually years ago, so it it is years I've had the wrong impression of that detail. If JW agrees with JT, that makes JT's claims less dubious, obviously, for my theorising above.

Did someone hit GM, or drug him? Or did someone alter his memory after the event by suggestion? It is strange. To remember crossing the road, for a meeting somewhere else, and crossing back again.

Your welcome.  IMO If we knew the reason for GM insisting on crossing the road we would have a huge leap forward in solving the case.
Because it can't be to allow a clear view for JT's sighting or she would be in agreement with him.
It is something else.

The strangeness of Jane Tanner.

Later on, it wasn't GM who seemed may have been struck, drugged or delivered some kind of deep suggestion (etc.):

'Miss Tanner excused her misidentification of Mr Murat:
“I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people…..”.  '

...

'Miss Tanner was taken away by Mr Small and the PJ [for the agreed witness identification exercise she would make concerning Robert Murat] and she says Russell O’Brien wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her.'

...

' In April 2008 she told the Leicestershire Police that she was concerned that there “was some strange conspiracy going on” (to abduct her) and that Mr Small had “scared the daylights out of her”. She continued: “But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart (Stewart Prior the lead UK Police Investigator in Luz)”. She knows she had spoken to Mr Prior and thus had no reason to believe that she was about to be abducted. Her histrionics in this regard are absurd.  '

---

Back at the time itself, one thing I thought of was a possibility this really strange behaviour was feigned because JT was frightened and believed she ought to consider a defence for making up a sighting. The defence of paranoia and victimisation and not not being able to think straight. Maybe being able to suggest she was personally quite hysterical, while being able to seem to claim she knew the couple she was protecting had no blame and deserved her protection.

Now, I'd theorise differently, perhaps. It's such strange behaviour, and the first quote above, with the "They've taken her" witness hearings from KM are stranger together. What is the reference to the 'Spanish Police' for the PJ? Perhaps not for the PJ but for a group of people JT had thought to be together - people identified and people unknown, with a threat of that further unknown persons have official rankings and powers beyond the written laws.

It would be so strange if JT's claimed beliefs just materialised with no impetus. What a strange, random occurrence that would be. She suggests she might be "abducted", like Madeleine McCann, rather than arrested or taken for further questioning or being given  a serious talking to about how serious the situation is. The word is not one to associate with authorities or police.

Finding absolutely nothing, AR/SY will permanently bury Smithman

That leaves just the Mecs themselves, as 'them whot could have dunnit'. 

Innit?

I doubt that Smithman can be discounted as easily as Tannerman has been with his transformation to Crecheman, Portia.

Depending on how any case for the prosecution is structured, it may be that Smithman is purported to be the person who removed Madeleine's body from 5A and concealed it temporarily in Luz prior to it being transported to another location.

ultimaThule wrote:I doubt that Smithman can be discounted as easily as Tannerman has been with his transformation to Crecheman, Portia.

Depending on how any case for the prosecution is structured, it may be that Smithman is purported to be the person who removed Madeleine's body from 5A and concealed it temporarily in Luz prior to it being transported to another location.    

I'd agree with that. Tannerman was easy to dismiss as entirely non-credible. AR is clearly staking (what remains of) his reputation on Smithman. He was highlighted on CW, is referred to a lot in the media, and was central to the recent dig. AR appears to be banking on Smithman being real and the girl being Maddie. At the moment he doesn't seem to be considering that it could have been Gerry or a random father.

The problem he has is that he cannot link Smithman to Tractorman, a burglar or smellyman. And so he's basically stuck. One of the 3 burglars remain his best bet so they are likely to figure strongly as the case goes forward.

Back from holiday, and on checking back on the forum (I don't do the internet at all whilst on holiday), I became aware of what I might term the 'Cristobell Suspension Incident'.

Among the charges levelled against me by Cristobell was that my absence last week was 'very convenient'.

A tad harsh, I thought.

I have since seen her blog article titled 'Buried by the Anti's', which is a sweeping attack on this forum, and when I checked last night there were 162 comments on her blog, mostly once again attacking this forum and me personally. Most of them I think from disruptors here who have previously been banned. One of those 162 comments, by Cristobell herself, does call for a brief response, as it focuses, once again, on 'Smithman', the central figure now in Operation Grange's investigation.

The allegation is that my posts re Smithman could 'jeopardise a trial' and are 'attacking the best witness in the case'. Here is Cristobell's argument in full:

QUOTE

Rosalinda Hutton 19 August 2014 16:00_ Comment 162

I am now under fire from pros and a number of antis on twitter = funny old world. They have all merged into one, like the final scene in Animal Farm where you can't tell the pigs from the men.

The response to this post has been amazing and indeed enlightening. So many voices stifled and censored and so many interesting theories. No wonder the discussion on JH has become like a stuck record! I am certainly now starting to wonder if the JH forum has been used as a tool to misdirect the investigation and the trial.

Why are they so determined to dismiss the Smiths' sighting and implicate Robert Murat? It goes against everything we set out to do - get justice for Madeleine Beth McCann.

Tony either:

Truly believes there is a vast network of paedophiles operating from a golf course in PDL and leading directly to the heart of the British Government, or

He is laying the groundwork for discrediting the key witnesses in the event of a trial. What he is doing is very useful to the parents as it diverts attention from them and supplies all the preparing work for their lawyers. Tony has helpfully given hundreds of reasons (in blue) why the Smiths couldn't possibly have identified he man they saw that night, and done his best to smear Henri Exton, who seems to have been the only investigator to have prepared a credible report.

Should Martin Smith be asked about being 60-80% certain it was Gerry he saw, the McCanns' barrister can wave a TB leaflet giving 50 reasons why it couldn't have been!

I have no idea why it is essential for Tony to convince people the Smith sighting doesn't count and why he and others are going to such extreme lengths to shut up and discredit anyone who opposes them on this point. Much food for thought.

UNQUOTE

On a preliminary point, one tactic Cristobell frequently uses is to accuse people of something they have not done and are not doing.

One such false claim is that "he and others are going to such extreme lengths to shut up and discredit anyone who opposes them on this point".

NO. No 'extreme lengths'. No trying to 'shut people up'. No 'trying to discredit' anyone.

But back to Cristobell's central charge in her comment No. 162. She writes:  "Should Martin Smith be asked about being 60-80% certain it was Gerry he saw, the McCanns' barrister can wave a TB leaflet giving 50 reasons why it couldn't have been!".

To be honest, when I first saw the apparently serious suggestion that Martin Smith could be called by the prosecution in any trial, I laughed out loud. It is stunningly obvious, surely, that his testimony would be utterly worthless.

But just to drive the point home, here is how a cross-examination of Martin Smith might go. Let's assume he has told the trial that he was 60% to 80% sure, from the way Gerry McCann was carrying his child on 9th September when descending the steps of an aeroplane at East Midlands Airport, that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3rd May - over 4 months earlier.

Here's how the cross-examination might go:


McCanns' defence barrister: What were the lighting conditions when you say you saw this man?

Smith: It was dark and the street lighting was weak.  

McCanns' defence barrister: How long did you see him for?

Smith: No more than a few seconds.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you see his face clearly?

Smith: No. He had his head down and the child was hiding his face.

McCanns' defence barrister: When interviewed by the PJ, did you tell them that if you saw this man again, you wouldn't be able to recognise him?

Smith: That's true. And Peter and Aoife said exactly the same.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did this man on his own carrying a child in pyjamas as 10.00pm at night make an impression on you?

Smith: Well, er, yes, sort of.  

McCanns' defence barrister:  Were you still in Praia da Luz on 4 May?

Smith: Yes.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you report your sighting?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Why not?

Smith: Er, um, ?????

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you report your sighting when you got back to Ireland on 9th May?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Why not?

Smith: ER, um, ?????

McCanns' defence barrister: You reported your sighting on 16 May, 13 days after Madeleine was reported missing. How come?

Smith: My son Pester 'phoned me up, and said: 'Dad, am I dreaming or something, or did we see a man carrying a child on 3rd May?'

McCanns' defence barrister: I see. So in September, you saw Gerry McCann coming off a plane and you were 60% to 80% sure it was Gerry McCann you'd seen 'because of the way he was carrying his child'?

Smith: Yes.

McCanns' defence barrister: How was he carrying his child?

Smith: On his left shoulder.

McCanns' defence barrister: But isn't that the way most parents carry sleeping or tired young children?

Smith:  I admit that's very true.

McCanns' defence barrister: Final question: Did you or any member of your family draw up either of those 2 e-fits shown by DCI Andy Redwood on the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special on 13 October last year?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Thank you very much Mr Smith, no further questions.

G1 wrote:The strangeness of Jane Tanner.

Later on, it wasn't GM who seemed may have been struck, drugged or delivered some kind of deep suggestion (etc.):

'Miss Tanner excused her misidentification of Mr Murat:
“I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people…..”.  '

...

'Miss Tanner was taken away by Mr Small and the PJ [for the agreed witness identification exercise she would make concerning Robert Murat] and she says Russell O’Brien wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her.'

...

' In April 2008 she told the Leicestershire Police that she was concerned that there “was some strange conspiracy going on” (to abduct her) and that Mr Small had “scared the daylights out of her”. She continued: “But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart (Stewart Prior the lead UK Police Investigator in Luz)”. She knows she had spoken to Mr Prior and thus had no reason to believe that she was about to be abducted. Her histrionics in this regard are absurd.  '

---

Back at the time itself, one thing I thought of was a possibility this really strange behaviour was feigned because JT was frightened and believed she ought to consider a defence for making up a sighting. The defence of paranoia and victimisation and not not being able to think straight. Maybe being able to suggest she was personally quite hysterical, while being able to seem to claim she knew the couple she was protecting had no blame and deserved her protection.

Now, I'd theorise differently, perhaps. It's such strange behaviour, and the first quote above, with the "They've taken her" witness hearings from KM are stranger together. What is the reference to the 'Spanish Police' for the PJ? Perhaps not for the PJ but for a group of people JT had thought to be together - people identified and people unknown, with a threat of that further unknown persons have official rankings and powers beyond the written laws.

It would be so strange if JT's claimed beliefs just materialised with no impetus. What a strange, random occurrence that would be. She suggests she might be "abducted", like Madeleine McCann, rather than arrested or taken for further questioning or being given  a serious talking to about how serious the situation is. The word is not one to associate with authorities or police.

Opps, wrong place.