SMITHMAN 2

by logical 20.08.14 17:42

TONY ,

If you find the time please go back and review the crimewatch update and you most definitely here Dci Redwood report 2 callers have phoned in and have both named the same man in ONE OF THE TWO PHOTO FITS = 2 different men = 1 photofit = smithman and the other photofit =other man seeing lurking about the area earlier .

by logical 20.08.14 17:56

In my opinion and the VAST majority of posters here and elsewhere Believe the Smiths testimonies

The Smiths are unfortunately for them and a pain in the A**e for the mc canns merely witnesses to a Gerry Mc Cann lookalike carrying a Madeleine lookalike on the night Madeeleine was hidden and NOTHING ELSE and I don't understand how Tony Bennett is being allowed posting false after false posts on this Rapidly going down the swanney forum regarding the Smiths with great onesided ease.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 18:53

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Does anyone know which TWO of the Smith family, they were EIGHT, actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008?
Or to put in another way

"Does anyone know IF ANY of the Smith family actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008 ?"

It seems highly likely that the answer may be NO

That's quite right - and I agree the answer may be 'No'.

Among the many questions that this opens up is WHAT did the Smiths and DCI Andy Redwood discuss in their TWO admitted meetings, one in 2012 and one in 2013?

Is it possible, for example, that the Smiths DECLINED permisssion for them to be associated with the two e-fits, explaining perhaps why Matthew Amroliwala of BBC Crimewatch did NOT actually say that these e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths, but instead said - enigmatically - they were drawn up by 'two of the witnesses'?

On the other hand, the Daily Mirror article dated 16 October 2013, quoted up the thread, purports that Martin Smith spoke to the Mirror the day before and he appears from the Mirror article to have endorsed these e-fits.

If only Martin Smith were courageous enough to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his dealings with (a) the McCanns' private investigators and (b) DCI Andy Redwood (and about his relationship to Robert Murat) , we would understand a whole lot more about important matters relating to Madeleine McCann's reported disappearance.

by TheTruthWillOut 20.08.14 19:06

Tony Bennett wrote:If only Martin Smith were courageous enough to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his dealings with (a) the McCanns' private investigators and (b) DCI Andy Redwood (and about his relationship to Robert Murat) , we would understand a whole lot more about important matters relating to Madeleine McCann's reported disappearance.

I don't know what the legal position is in respect of Martin Smith commenting on what he told SY but at the very least it would be poor form to do so at this point IMO.

I'd imagine he has at least been politely asked to say nothing.

by Newintown 20.08.14 19:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Does anyone know which TWO of the Smith family, they were EIGHT, actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008?
Or to put in another way

"Does anyone know IF ANY of the Smith family actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008 ?"

It seems highly likely that the answer may be NO
That's quite right - and I agree the answer may be 'No'.

Among the many questions that this opens up is WHAT did the Smiths and DCI Andy Redwood discuss in their TWO admitted meetings, one in 2012 and one in 2013?

Is it possible, for example, that the Smiths DECLINED permisssion for them to be associated with the two e-fits, explaining perhaps why Matthew Amroliwala of BBC Crimewatch did NOT actually say that these e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths, but instead said - enigmatically - they were drawn up by 'two of the witnesses'?

On the other hand, the Daily Mirror article dated 16 October 2013, quoted up the thread, purports that Martin Smith spoke to the Mirror the day before and he appears from the Mirror article to have endorsed these e-fits.

If only Martin Smith were courageous enough to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his dealings with (a) the McCanns' private investigators and (b) DCI Andy Redwood (and about his relationship to Robert Murat) , we would understand a whole lot more about important matters relating to Madeleine McCann's reported disappearance.

My goodness, I can't believe your post, you leave me lost for words.

Do you really believe that someone who could be a witness to a criminal act has any loyalty to tell you or anyone else on this forum or elsewhere on the internet "to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

This is real life TB, not a game show, or "Big Brother".

Get a grip for God's sake.

by Truthandjustice 20.08.14 19:28

Why on earth should Martin Smith answer any questions posed by this forum and those that call him a liar? He will be cross examined if and when this case gets to court.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 19:58

Newintown wrote:
My goodness, I can't believe your post, you leave me lost for words.

Do you really believe that someone who could be a witness to a criminal act has any loyalty to tell you or anyone else on this forum or elsewhere on the internet "to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

This is real life TB, not a game show, or "Big Brother".

On your high horse, again, Newintown?

Or high up there on your 'moral high ground'?

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps this whole expensive Operation Grange 'investigation' could be a charade, a kind of sinister 'game' being played to conceal some very unpleasant truths?

Examine all the Smiths' actions (and inactions) and statements for more than a few minutes, and the inconsistencies, contradictions and puzzles mount up rapidly.

And that's before we even consider whether the Smith did produce, or could have produced, two e-fits of two different men.

Whether I'm right or wrong about 'Smithman' or anything else to do with case, my record surely shows that I'm playing no game.

In fact I think I'm analysing a very sinister 'game' being played by others.

by Gaggzy 20.08.14 20:10

Wasn't there a Daily Mirror report in the early days saying that Martin Smith reported the sighting 2 days later, ie, the day after they returned home to Ireland?

Or am I mistaken?

It's just something I read on another thread recently.

by Newintown 20.08.14 20:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
My goodness, I can't believe your post, you leave me lost for words.

Do you really believe that someone who could be a witness to a criminal act has any loyalty to tell you or anyone else on this forum or elsewhere on the internet "to come out and tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

This is real life TB, not a game show, or "Big Brother".
On your high horse, again, Newintown?

Or high up there on your 'moral high ground'?

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps this whole expensive Operation Grange 'investigation' could be a charade, a kind of sinister 'game' being played to conceal some very unpleasant truths?

Examine all the Smiths' actions (and inactions) and statements for more than a few minutes, and the inconsistencies, contradictions and puzzles mount up rapidly.

And that's before we even consider whether the Smith did produce, or could have produced, two e-fits of two different men.

Whether I'm right or wrong about 'Smithman' or anything else to do with case, my record surely shows that I'm playing no game.

In fact I think I'm analysing a very sinister 'game' being played by others.

That's a turn up for the books, I thought you were always right about Smithman and nobody could sway you otherwise.

Have I touched a nerve? Have you been reading Cristobell's forum??

I think you play games all the time TB, for instance nobody knew you were "admin" but it has now come to light that you are, which undoubtedly is a shock to some members on this forum.

I stick to my belief in the Smiths' sighting, you can call all of the family liars, that's your choice, but people are beginning to question why you are so determined to call them liars, isn't that playing into the hands of the McCanns???????????

by Guest 20.08.14 20:29

Tony is NOT admin. I never said he was.

by End 20.08.14 20:43

Sockpuppet wrote:Can you please add the option:

'Jane Tanner engineered her sighting to match the appearance of the man witnessed by the Smith family'.

Agree!

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 20:57

Gaggzy wrote:Wasn't there a Daily Mirror report in the early days saying that Martin Smith reported the sighting 2 days later, ie, the day after they returned home to Ireland?

Or am I mistaken?

It's just something I read on another thread recently.

This appears to be a myth, unless you or someone else can provide a link.

In any case, none of the Smiths actually mention this alleged 'report' in their police statements or in any of their numerous interviews with various newspapers.

On the contrary, the Smiths come up with various unconvincing excuses for not reporting their sighting for 13 days, like: 'Oh, we only just found out the exact time she was supposed to have disapperaed'

by Newintown 20.08.14 21:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gaggzy wrote:Wasn't there a Daily Mirror report in the early days saying that Martin Smith reported the sighting 2 days later, ie, the day after they returned home to Ireland?

Or am I mistaken?

It's just something I read on another thread recently.
This appears to be a myth, unless you or someone else can provide a link.

In any case, none of the Smiths actually mention this alleged 'report' in their police statements or in any of their numerous interviews with various newspapers.

On the contrary, the Smiths come up with various unconvincing excuses for not reporting their sighting for 13 days, like: 'Oh, we only just found out the exact time she was supposed to have disapperaed'

Me again

Do you have an agenda for dissing everything and anything the Smiths said or saw as many people on the internet are beginning to wonder whose side you're on?

Just asking.

by Guest 20.08.14 21:36

Gaggzy wrote:Wasn't there a Daily Mirror report in the early days saying that Martin Smith reported the sighting 2 days later, ie, the day after they returned home to Ireland?

Or am I mistaken?

It's just something I read on another thread recently.

Not the Mirror, but Irish Central. Woofer provided the link on page 33 of this thread. Here it is again.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

"Martin has told the BBC programme that the man was carrying the child along the middle of a deserted side street in an uncomfortable position with her head slumped against him.

The report says she had pale ‘typically British’ skin, blonde shoulder-length hair and wore light coloured or pink pyjamas which match the description of those Madeleine was wearing that night.

The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now."

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 22:04

Dee Coy wrote:
Gaggzy wrote:Wasn't there a Daily Mirror report in the early days saying that Martin Smith reported the sighting 2 days later, ie, the day after they returned home to Ireland?

Or am I mistaken?

It's just something I read on another thread recently.

Not the Mirror, but Irish Central. Woofer provided the link on page 33 of this thread. Here it is again.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

"Martin has told the BBC programme that the man was carrying the child along the middle of a deserted side street in an uncomfortable position with her head slumped against him.

The report says she had pale ‘typically British’ skin, blonde shoulder-length hair and wore light coloured or pink pyjamas which match the description of those Madeleine was wearing that night.

The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now."

Exactly! This report came just after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special. (There was a similar one also in the Mirror btw).

Gaggzy thought it was a report in the Mirror 'from the early days'.

But as I said up the thread, this new claim by Martin Smith about reporting things to police 'two days after' Madeleine's disappearance was only made by him in October 2013 - SIX YEARS and FIVE MONTHS late!

He never said anything about it previously in any of his police statements or in his interviews with various newspapers.

It took Martin Smith 13 days to report his 'sighting' and he has given different reasons for the delay

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 22:12

Newintown wrote:
Me again. Do you have an agenda for dissing everything and anything the Smiths said or saw as many people on the internet are beginning to wonder whose side you're on? Just asking.

Yes.

My simple agenda is to get to the truths of these three matters:

1. Did the Smiths actually see anyone at all?

2. Were the two e-fits of different men produced by the Smiths?

3. If not, how were they produced?

I am aware of the some of the recent things said about me on the internet.

Some claim I have been conspiring with the McCanns since Day One.

Others suggest I have done a deal with the McCanns to lower my costs bill by dissing the 'Smithman' sighting.

I daresay there are other suggestions even more absurd than those.

By the way, I am aware of your agenda without even having to ask you.

by Newintown 20.08.14 22:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Me again. Do you have an agenda for dissing everything and anything the Smiths said or saw as many people on the internet are beginning to wonder whose side you're on? Just asking.
Yes.

My simple agenda is to get to the truths of these three matters:

1. Did the Smiths actually see anyone at all?

2. Were the two e-fits of different men produced by the Smiths?

3. If not, how were they produced?

I am aware of the some of the recent things said about me on the internet.

Some claim I have been conspiring with the McCanns since Day One.

Others suggest I have done a deal with the McCanns to lower my costs bill by dissing the 'Smithman' sighting.

I daresay there are other suggestions even more absurd than those.

By the way, I am aware of your agenda without even having to ask you.

You are very paranoid TB, why is that? I don't have an agenda TB, I'm only a blogger on your website seeking the truth for Madeleine. Do you have an agenda? Do you have a monetary gain? Do you have a link with the McCanns? Do any of their agencies have a hold over you?? Why are you dissing the sighting by the Smiths. Why is it so important to you what the Smiths saw? It doesn't matter to most of the population of the World, only the McCanns, but it seems to be high on your agenda to get the Smith sighting dissed at all costs.

Why?????

by TheTruthWillOut 20.08.14 22:20

Actually to be fair reading that article again Tony, Martin Smith isn't quoted claiming he reported it after two days. Maybe someone could email Patrick Counihan to clear things up?

I'm far too shy to do it myself! big grin

by logical 20.08.14 22:24

The only one on a high horse around here Tony is YOU and the way your becoming increasingly obsessed with the unshakable Smiths Testimonies your a model to come tumbling down real soon, only you, yourself and Irene make false and spurious claims about the Honourable decent Smith family.

by Woofer 20.08.14 22:30

Tony where did you get the proof that the Smiths reported the sighting on the 16th May ? I realise GA wrote in his book that they did but he doesn`t give a date - where did you get the 16th from please?

We know Martin Smith knew it could have been Madeleine straight after the event because he said so in his statement. Peter is less clear about when it dawned on him.

FROM VERDADE DA MENTIRA

“- Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.

- The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARTIN SMITH STATEMENT GIVEN TO PJ AFTER TRAVELLING BACK TO PORTIMAO FROM IRELAND ON 26^TH MAY 2007

“• Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual. “

PETER SMITH STATEMENT GIVEN AT SAME TIME

“He only found out about disappearance of the girl the next morning by means of someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on this day.

• At this time, he did not associate the individual with the disappearance, however after having thought about the subject and about the coincidence of the time, he inferred that MADELEINE could have been the girl who was being carried by the individual he saw. “

by logical 20.08.14 22:36

Tony you have no right to have an agenda regarding the Smiths .

The Smiths ,SY and The Macs know the Truth and for now that's all that matters shark

by Woofer 20.08.14 22:40

As we know Martin Smith has already contacted Richard D Hall to advise him that he was not friends with RM and dutifully RDH has quoted it on his DVD.

It is concerning though that RDH will go ahead and make another DVD and cast apersions on the Smiths without knowing the truth. I doubt he will - he seems an honourable fellow to me.

I really don`t know what to think when you assure us all that you do have proof but cannot release same.

by plebgate 20.08.14 22:52

logical wrote:Tony you have no right to have an agenda regarding the Smiths .

The Smiths ,SY and The Macs know the Truth and for now that's all that matters

BORING NOW.

by Newintown 20.08.14 23:16

plebgate wrote:
logical wrote:Tony you have no right to have an agenda regarding the Smiths .

The Smiths ,SY and The Macs know the Truth and for now that's all that matters
BORING NOW.

Ha,ha, very funny plebgate. No doubt you've been reading somewhere else. smilie

by Truthandjustice 20.08.14 23:29

Tony I am interested to hear your reaction to the Smith correction on the R Hall video, stating that he is not a friend of Murat's. Presumably that means a rethink of that particular hypothesis?

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

SMITHMAN 2

smithman 2

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

smithman 2

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

smithman 2

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

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

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

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

Log in for more topics