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

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.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

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

by Woofer 21.08.14 9:27

Logical - don`t place me in a particular group please as I am independent of both.

As usual in disagreements, its always the hate-filled entities in the crowd that fan the flames into wars. The original disagreement was jogging along respectfully and calmly until a few hate-filled bystanders shot their venom into it. I firmly believe Tony and Cristobell, on their own, could have reached a balance point.

As regards the statements - I was just looking at what is.

Why don`t you try doing the same and see if you can make sense of all the inconsistencies.

by aiyoyo 21.08.14 9:29

logical wrote:

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.

Quick Question :

If SY gave credence to the Smiths sighting, why did they sit on the e-fits for two years before releasing it on CW?

I am not saying I doubt the Smiths, just wondering why the SY took so long to react if the sighting was of significance to the investigation?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.08.14 10:04

aiyoyo wrote:
Quick Question :

If SY gave credence to the Smiths sighting, why did they sit on the e-fits for two years before releasing it on CW?

I am not saying I doubt the Smiths, just wondering why the SY took so long to react if the sighting was of significance to the investigation?

A very good question, as well as a quick one.

In order to present a carefully-crafted package to the country, i.e. the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October 2013, DCI Redwood, and those calling the shots above him, had to have a credible abduction scenario in place.

From information released by the BBC, by the Met and in the newspapers, it appears that the programme began to be prepared in January 2013.

The purpose of the programme, I would suggest once again, was NOT to find the abductor, but to influence public perception in a major way (it certainly succeeded IMO in that latter aim).

Certain steps in the progress of the preparation occurred.

First, we know from the Sunday Times apology dated 28 December 2013 that the McCanns met DCI Redwood (or one of his team, or his boss Hamish Campbell) in August 2011, soon after Operation Grange was set up. At that point, if not before, Grange had the two e-fits. In my own humble opinion, Redwood and his bosses knew at that stage if not before that the e-fits were not produced by the Smiths.

Then - if these e-fits were to be used - and if it was to be claimed that they originated from the Irish family, then clearly consultations had to take place with Martin Smith. We know from the Met themselves that Redwood (and no doubt others from his team) met with Martin Smith once in 2012 and once in 2013. It is indeed a remarkable fact in this case that the Met saw Martin Smith in 2012, had the e-fits since August 2011, yet did not release them until October 2013. These facts alone should cause any objective researcher to pause and consider what that CrimeWatch Show was really about.

Of course, if Smithman was now to be promoted as the No. 1 suspect (and the McCann Team themselves had been preparing the ground for this ever since before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' in May 2009), Tannerman really needed to be eliminated.

So 'Crecheman' was 'found'. Again, it is my sincere and honest belief that 'Crecheman' does not exist and is a fabrication by DCI Redwood.

Then the BBC had to work for months and months with the Met to get the script right. This involved detailed prerparation of the reconstruction. A script would have to be written, worked out between the Met and the BBC for months. The script would of course have to leave out all the embarrassing changes of story, contradictions and other inconsistencies. Of course the evidence provided by Martin Grime could not possibly be mentioned. And the 20 obvious contradictions between the respective accounts of Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged visit by him to Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm could not feature in the programme, either.

For this CrimeWatch presentation to the British public, actors had to be chosen for the reconstruction. They had to audition. They had to learn their lines. There would be 'takes' and 'double takes' and 'triple takes' of certain scenes. Only when the filming of the reconstruction was perfected could it be shown.

At last, everything was nearly ready. A date for the programme was set. The media and press were carefully tipped off in advance with exciting hints about 'a breakthrough' and 'arrests imminent' etc. - all utter lies, but swallowed wholesale and regurgitated ad nauseam in the compliant and cowed British press.

That, aiyoyo, is why it took so long.

If one (a) accepts that Grange was a charade and a cover-up all along, if (b) one accepts that the remit for Grange ('to investigate the abduction') was never designed to get to the truth, and if (c) one accepts that the goal of Grange was to continue to influence public perception about what happened to Madeleine McCann, then everything that Grange has said and done since it was set up in May 2011 - in my humble, sincere and honest opinion - falls into place.

by HelenMeg 21.08.14 12:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Quick Question :

If SY gave credence to the Smiths sighting, why did they sit on the e-fits for two years before releasing it on CW?

I am not saying I doubt the Smiths, just wondering why the SY took so long to react if the sighting was of significance to the investigation?
A very good question, as well as a quick one.

In order to present a carefully-crafted package to the country, i.e. the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October 2013, DCI Redwood, and those calling the shots above him, had to have a credible abduction scenario in place.

From information released by the BBC, by the Met and in the newspapers, it appears that the programme began to be prepared in January 2013.

The purpose of the programme, I would suggest once again, was NOT to find the abductor, but to influence public perception in a major way (it certainly succeeded IMO in that latter aim).

Certain steps in the progress of the preparation occurred.

First, we know from the Sunday Times apology dated 28 December 2013 that the McCanns met DCI Redwood (or one of his team, or his boss Hamish Campbell) in August 2011, soon after Operation Grange was set up. At that point, if not before, Grange had the two e-fits. In my own humble opinion, Redwood and his bosses knew at that stage if not before that the e-fits were not produced by the Smiths.

Then - if these e-fits were to be used - and if it was to be claimed that they originated from the Irish family, then clearly consultations had to take place with Martin Smith. We know from the Met themselves that Redwood (and no doubt others from his team) met with Martin Smith once in 2012 and once in 2013. It is indeed a remarkable fact in this case that the Met saw Martin Smith in 2012, had the e-fits since August 2011, yet did not release them until October 2013. These facts alone should cause any objective researcher to pause and consider what that CrimeWatch Show was really about.

Of course, if Smithman was now to be promoted as the No. 1 suspect (and the McCann Team themselves had been preparing the ground for this ever since before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' in May 2009), Tannerman really needed to be eliminated.

So 'Crecheman' was 'found'. Again, it is my sincere and honest belief that 'Crecheman' does not exist and is a fabrication by DCI Redwood.

Then the BBC had to work for months and months with the Met to get the script right. This involved detailed prerparation of the reconstruction. A script would have to be written, worked out between the Met and the BBC for months. The script would of course have to leave out all the embarrassing changes of story, contradictions and other inconsistencies. Of course the evidence provided by Martin Grime could not possibly be mentioned. And the 20 obvious contradictions between the respective accounts of Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged visit by him to Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm could not feature in the programme, either.

For this CrimeWatch presentation to the British public, actors had to be chosen for the reconstruction. They had to audition. They had to learn their lines. There would be 'takes' and 'double takes' and 'triple takes' of certain scenes. Only when the filming of the reconstruction was perfected could it be shown.

At last, everything was nearly ready. A date for the programme was set. The media and press were carefully tipped off in advance with exciting hints about 'a breakthrough' and 'arrests imminent' etc. - all utter lies, but swallowed wholesale and regurgitated ad nauseam in the compliant and cowed British press.

That, aiyoyo, is why it took so long.

If one (a) accepts that Grange was a charade and a cover-up all along, if (b) one accepts that the remit for Grange ('to investigate the abduction') was never designed to get to the truth, and if (c) one accepts that the goal of Grange was to continue to influence public perception about what happened to Madeleine McCann, then everything that Grange has said and done since it was set up in May 2011 - in my humble, sincere and honest opinion - falls into place.

I think I am pretty much convinced in what you say, Tony.
However, things I am a bit confused about. In CW 13, Gerry and Kate were seated under the E-fits which do resemble Gm. There was a look of discomfort (putting it mildly) on their faces at a particular point. What were they uncomfortable at? Do you think Grange etc have kept K and G in the loop or not? I feel that they have not been kept in the loop.

I also feel that whilst Op Grange was set up for the purposes you have outlined - that it is possible that the remit will change due to the impossibility of convincing the public that there was an abduction.
Thanks for persisting regarding Smithman

by Guest 21.08.14 12:24

Tony Bennet wrote:So 'Crecheman' was 'found'. Again, it is my sincere and honest belief that 'Crecheman' does not exist and is a fabrication by DCI Redwood.

I think this is a strong possibility.

Is there any way that they could be made to provide details of this person?

Freedom of Information?

After all... he's supposed to be just an innocent passer by and has no impact on the criminal investigation.

by j.rob 21.08.14 13:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

I agree. I really wanted to have 100% confidence in the Smith statements. Wouldn't all of those of us who believe that the McCanns are to some extent behind what happened to Madeleine? And in particular those of us who believe Gerry and Kate have repeatedly lied?

I mean, what could be more simple? One of the chief suspects (last person to see Madeleine alive, allegedly) is caught red-handed by a group of no fewer than NINE people on the night that Madeleine 'disappeared.' So convenient. So simple. So done and dusted.

But then I read through the Smith testimonies very carefully. Took into account the timings of when they approached the police. Plus took into account some inconsistencies regarding statements/media interviews. Then considered their position as co-owning an apartment in Luz (who do they co-own it with, does anyone know?) This obviously adds a different complexion to their testimony as they will have local networks. As opposed to a family who have never visited the area before and have no contacts or local networks.

The Smiths will also have been privy, presumably, to the local speculation and gossip in a way that a family who only went once will not have been.

None of this means that their testimony is unreliable per se, but it simply suggests that it might not be entirely unbiased as we simply do not know who their friends are and what affiliations they have.

Who knows - perhaps they have some fantastic 'insider' knowledge that GM is guilty as hell? The icing on the cake was seeing someone who could answer his description carrying a child who could answer her description at a key time on Thursday evening.

The family at least 'know of' Robert Murat. Which would, in any case, be highly likely given that they own an apartment there and Robert Murat seems to have wide personal and business networks. The timing of the Smith family choosing to contact police, which happens to coincide closely with Murat being made a suspect and the publication of an e-fit of Tannerman, is also of note.

I find it strange that, if the Smith family are entirely neutral eyewitnesses, they did not go to the police with their sighting for almost two weeks. That's a long time to be sitting on this.

And there are some contradictions in what they say. For instance, at first the sighting did not seem that noteworthy as it is common to see parents walking around the resort with sleeping children. But then, later on, an acknowledgement that while it is common to see this in high season, it is not that usual in the low season, which is obviously when the Smiths sighting occurred.

So, there is a contradiction there. They cannot have it both ways.

I've done a very long analysis of their testimony somewhere, which I will try to dig up as it does raise some questions.

I also find it odd that, when he first speaks to police, Mr Smith is adament that the man he saw was not Murat. Despite it being dark and despite the family not being able to see his face. And despite the family not knowing him. And despite the family not having seen him recently. How could Mr Smith not know that Murat had changed his appearance?

I mean, being 'adament' is a very strong assertion, given the provisos above? Why not just say :'pretty sure it wasn't Murat but it was quite dark and I haven't seen Murat recently and have only met him a couple of times so cannot state with certainty?' That would be safer, imo.

And, as time goes on, and after Mr Smith sees Gerry walking off the plane carrrying Sean in the UK, Mr Smith becomes more sure that the person he saw was Gerry. Again, the timing of this is interesting as it clearly coincides with the McCanns very rapid exit from Portugal (and therefore the possibility that they could be evading justice). And it is odd, to my mind, that after so many months Mr Smith could become more sure about the sighting. You would expect the passage of time to have dimmed the recollection?

I wish it could be more straightforward. Nothing would give me, at least, greater pleasure than for the perpetrators of the crime to be caught red-handed. But I fear it is not this straightforward.

I also think it would be foolish to ignore the contacts that Robert Murat has - his wide connections in the area, his wider connections, his police connections, and so.

IMO there are complex networks at play here.

The focus on 'sightings' of pimpleman, Tannerman, monsterman and all the rest of them (possibly including Smithman - although what is good about this sighting is it is of the chief suspect big grin

) have always been, imo, 'red herrings', designed to obfuscate, distract and CONFUSE!

by jeanmonroe 21.08.14 14:03

logical wrote:

2) Smithman was carrying a child that the Smiths were certain was Madeleine
------------------------------------------------------------

Did they? Did they REALLY say that?

CERTAIN?

Please could you, logical, provide the PROOF, if any, that ANY of the Smith family actually SAID that?

I have read that they have said, 'might of been?' 'could of been?' 'may have been?' but i don't EVER recall ANY of the Smith family members saying 'they were CERTAIN..... it WAS Madeleine'

Not much, indeed, NO 'wiggle room' using the word 'certain' is there?

So if you could provide the proof, the 'Smiths' DID say that, they were certain (it WAS Madeleine) i'd be grateful.

Thankyou, in advance.

by **sharonl** 21.08.14 16:51

Martin Smith witness statement - Portimao 26 May 2007

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

As he reached this artery, 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.

He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who 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.

by jeanmonroe 21.08.14 17:04

At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child.
-------------------------------
And that's my point.

logical has said that the Smith's were CERTAIN the child WAS Madeleiine.

From MS statement he states "COULD' have been the child (Madeleine)................NOT stating that he was CERTAIN (the child WAS Madeleine)

If 'if's and and's' were 'pots and pans' there wouldn't be many tinkers left, would there?

by logical 21.08.14 17:10

Jeanmonroe

I stand corrected ,

Just a typo perhaps when way back in NOVEMBER 2013 ! I mistakenly used the word certain instead of convinced (wow shoot Me )

Yes all the Smith family were Convinced the child being carried was Madeleine .

Can you show me any previous posts of yours where you have corrected Tony Bennetts "facts" that Martin Smith and Murat were/are friends or stating as

"FACT" the Smith family made Smithman up and Many other false statements Tony has tried to influence newcomers to this forum with ? nah

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?