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

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.

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

"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.

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

"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?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.08.14 23:38

Truthandjustice wrote: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?

Please see my reply to Woofer just now.

by Guest 20.08.14 23:40

I must admit to wondering if the e-mail is genuine in view of Mr Smith never having responded to anything said about him before, as far as I'm aware.

Are you able to say anything as to why you think it could have been sent by Cristobell?

by Doug D 20.08.14 23:50

We do not know for sure whether MS contacted the PJ on 5^th May as reported many years later in the Mirror, Sun & Irish Press, but frankly to me it seems unlikely.

There is no mention in the PJ files statements that he first reported the sighting on 5^th and also no indication that GA was aware of an earlier report.

Hall, in his DVD’s made two statements about MS, one being that he was a friend of Murat, the other about the delay in coming forward with the sighting.

MS has (allegedly) contacted Hall in order to correct the ‘friend’ statement, but made no mention of the ‘delay’. This does not make sense to me, unless the delay statement is factual, (or the e-mail is fraudulent).

If someone makes two (and only two) statements about someone, in a very short section of the film, why would that person only bother to respond and correct one of them if they were both incorrect?

As a slightly separate but connected issue, there is a letter dated 30^th January 2008 from Sergeant Liam Hogan in the files as follows:

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

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

So we have confirmation that no Martin Smith e-fits were done by January 2008, so if we are to accept that the two e-fits were anything to do with MS and one other (Crimewatches ‘two witnesses’), the MS side of them would be relying on at least a 9 month old memory of the features he did not see clearly in the first case, because the face was partly obscured and because it was dark.

Personally, I don’t particularly doubt that the Smith family saw someone carrying somebody that night, but frankly it could have been anybody and even Smith said in his earlier (26^th May 2007) statement (same link as above):

‘he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion’.

by Guest 20.08.14 23:56

I need a bit more proof than that, Patrick!

by Patricko 20.08.14 23:57

In 24 hours you have found all this out ?
You really are knowledgeable. titter

by **Tony Bennett** 21.08.14 0:00

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I must admit to wondering if the e-mail is genuine in view of Mr Smith never having responded to anything said about him before, as far as I'm aware.

REPLY: Indeed. He has stayed silent despite his 'sighting' having been repeatdly queried over the past few months, yet purportedly we are asked to believe that he bought Richard Hall's DVDs, sat and watched them to the end, then calmly sent an e-mail to Richard Hall - using a gmail address - simply denying that he was a friend of Robert Murat. (We know from statements made at different times by Smith that he had known Murat for at least two years and had met him on 'several' occasions)

Are you able to say anything as to why you think it could have been sent by Cristobell?

REPLY: Yes. I am told by a follower of Richard Hall that he has asked Martin Smith, via the g-mail address given, to confirm his identity, but that he has failed to reply. That may have changed by now, if so, then due apologies to Cristobell.

However, in the absence of any furtrher information from RichPlanet, the following circumstantial evidence points us to Christobell:

1. She watched the first 3 DVDs and apparently gave them an enthusiastic reception

2. She then saw a reference to the Smith sighting being dubious and some queries about Murat's role in the 4th video and soon afterwards apparently began ranting on her blog that Hall had got this all wrong and that the Smith sighting was genuine (there is a blog post which goes into this in more detail)

3. About the same time as this, Hall got the e-mail and apparently soon put out a 'correction' on his 4th DVD

4. Immediately after that Cristobell apparently exulted on her blog that Hall had been wrong to describe Murat and Martin Smith as friends and had apparently now admitted it on his website

5. Cristobell's vehement belief in the total honesty and integrity of Martin Smith and her crusading zeal to attempt to prove me utterly wrong about him is of course known.

I say all this not knowing the exact sequence of events here as I was away on holiday ('very conveniently' says Cristobell) when all these events took place.

by Patricko 21.08.14 0:02

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I need a bit more proof than that, Patrick!

I would say his holiday was merely a meeting spin

by Guest 21.08.14 0:05

It is past my bedtime Patrick so please humour me! Who was at this meeting, do you think, and what was discussed?

by Guest 21.08.14 0:06

I agree, Doug, the fact that Martin Smith took the trouble to email to correct the Murat assertion but didn't bother to contradict the 'delay' allegation in the same email indicates he has no issue with Hall's statement that there was a delay in coming forward. I am inclined to believe the email to be genuine, if it wasn't it would have been removed from the front of 'Part 4' tout suite.

Any bystander to this case would not tolerate any inaccuracies linking their name with this car-crash. This fact that the email remains on the front page indicates it's a genuine clarification from Mr Smith. In my opinion.

Tony - Cristobell?? You are joking, surely? smilie

by Truthandjustice 21.08.14 0:07

The thing is Tony there are lots of people who hold the same view as Cristobell regarding the Smiths and they all would have had the same reaction to the video and the correction. Just because she publicly expresses that view in a blog is not evidence that she dunnit.

by Guest 21.08.14 0:16

Truthandjustice wrote:The thing is Tony there are lots of people who hold the same view as Cristobell regarding the Smiths and they all would have had the same reaction to the video and the correction. Just because she publicly expresses that view in a blog is not evidence that she dunnit.

Yes, it is rather an outrageous accusation TB. Especially without any proof.

by Woofer 21.08.14 0:20

After looking through all the statements, newspaper reports and police emails, nothing is consistent regarding the Smiths.

We got Smith saying he thought it was Madeleine he`d seen the night before in his 26th May statement.

We`ve got newspapers quoting him as saying he reported the sighting to the Portuguese Police 2 days after.

There are other newspaper reports quoting him as saying they reported it to the police as soon as they returned to Ireland.

Some are quoting him as saying their grandchildren were frightened by Madeleine`s kidnapping in the days before they returned home (on the 9th). Then he says he was home two weeks and his son phoned him saying was he dreaming or did they see a man that night - (this I find odd because Martin Smith said in his police statement that he knew it could have been Maddie the day after).

Then police emails say Mr. Smith has not helped in any e-fits, then the newspapers say he did help in e-fits.

Total confusion I say.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.08.14 0:51

Woofer wrote:After looking through all the statements, newspaper reports and police emails, nothing is consistent regarding the Smiths.

We got Smith saying he thought it was Madeleine he`d seen the night before in his 26th May statement.

We`ve got newspapers quoting him as saying he reported the sighting to the Portuguese Police 2 days after.

There are other newspaper reports quoting him as saying they reported it to the police as soon as they returned to Ireland.

Some are quoting him as saying their grandchildren were frightened by Madeleine`s kidnapping in the days before they returned home (on the 9th). Then he says he was home two weeks and his son phoned him saying was he dreaming or did they see a man that night - (this I find odd because Martin Smith said in his police statement that he knew it could have been Maddie the day after).

Then police emails say Mr. Smith has not helped in any e-fits, then the newspapers say he did help in e-fits.

Total confusion I say.

Woofer, Thank you so much.

You have taken the trouble to look into the saga of the Smith 'sighting' in detail.

For that alone I am grateful.

I have also highlighted in your post a very obvious inconsistency that you yourself have pointed out regarding the circumstances under which Smith and his family took so long to report their 'sighting'.

I have no fear of anyone examining the Smith's statements in detail, nor examining all that is said about the e-fits in detail, because in doing so we will get nearer to a full understanding of the whole situation - of Smithman, and indeed the whole case.

by logical 21.08.14 2:22

Plebgate

The first part of your name is spot on duh

Tony , woofer,plebgate and whomever, can attempt to discredit the innocent bystander witnesses i.e Smith family until the cows come home

But the truth and the facts of the matter are The Smiths ARE CREDIBLE WITNESSES and Scotland Yard know it,The Pj know it The MC CANNS and Tanner
know it and last but not least the record number of people who phoned crimewatch know it.

So spoof away lads among yourselves, Your in a proven minority.

by joyce1938 21.08.14 9:16

Really we must all realize what us lot on these sites will ever do is keep ourselves busy with constent reading and looking ,what we think we know ,will be of no use come a trial if ever it gets to that .I would not think all has beenrevealed in the pj files ,nor has mr amaral told all he feels . He did remark somewhere that there are no big expectations yet to be told .or words to that effect.But he will have reasons onwhy he sticks to his theory that has been there from the start and Leicester police agreed .We may have a lot more truth one day but right now its not going to affect trials or whoever could have been envolved with the child gone . we need to be more patient with each other and avoid some of remarks that we are seeing here and there.enough of my rambling on .joyce1938

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?