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

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Tony wrote REPLY: I have said previously that the notion that Gerry McCann carried his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz from their apartment to the beach at the very same time as his wife and friends were raising the alarm is very far-fetched 

--------------------------
Especially as he had a blue tennis bag he could have 'hid' her in to carry her to the beach/church.

REPLY: Actually, GGS, that is a very good point that I don't think has yet been made in the debate over the 'Smithman' sighting. It adds to the overwhelming impossibility of Gerry McCann openly carrying around his dead daughter, clad only in pyjamas, around the streets of Praia da Luz for several minutes, at the very moment when his wife and friends were raising the alarm.

Even more unlikely is Johanna Renstein's theory ['Unterdenteppichgekehrt'] that not only did the above happen but also that Gerry McCann, after being seen by the Smiths, managed to find somewhere convenient to hide his dead daughter's body, then rushed back breathless to the rest of the Tapas 9, and told Jane: 'Listen, I've been seen by someone, make up a sighting at 9.15pm that looks like me but with a few subtle differences'. I'm sorry to say this about a fellow McCann-researcher who has otherwise done good work, but Johanna's theory is IMO sheer fantasy and utterly improbable    

But anyway, Tony, what is the significance of you trying to discredit the Smithman sighting?

REPLY: Over the years, I noted how, bit by bit, the McCanns not only latched on to 'Smithman', but actively began promoting him.

As long ago as May 2009, they used him in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary to suggest that Tannerman and Smithman might be one and the same. The 'sighting by the Irish family' was then placed prominently on their 'Find Madeleine' website and has remained there ever since - for five-and-a-half years. Then Dr Kate McCann promoted Smithman on 6 pages of her book, using a three-page analysis to highlight the 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman. Ever since May 2009, Smithman had become an essential part of the McCanns' narrative.

In the lead-up to the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 13 October last year, no-one really thought that DCI Andy Redwood's 'revelation moment' would turn out to be the replacement of Tannerman as the chief suspect by Smithman. Indeed, just under a year ago I ran a poll here specifically to get opinion on who the new suspect would be. IIRC only 2 out of 100 or so people on here predicted it would be 'Smithman'.

[ ETA:  I have now found the poll...In fact, out of 42 guesses as to who the new suspect would be, only one predicted he would be Smithman:  https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7962-the-website-of-madeleine-s-fund-will-it-be-swiftly-updated-whilst-the-crimewatch-programme-is-running ]

As I said, Smithman had been quietly promoted by the McCanns for five-and-a-half years.

Then came CrimeWatch.

Suddenly, not only were the McCanns backing Smithman, but also

* DCI Redwood
* Those above him at the Met
* The BBC, at the highest level
* and by implication, the government, who had set up Operation Grange in the first place under orders from the CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International, Rebekah Brooks.

And the mainstream media followed suit.

So I went back to check all that I could find about the Smith sighting.

And I found many aspects of this sighting that concerned me.

It is, for me, only - and  always has been - a search for the truth in all aspects of this case. That's one of the reasons I spent so much time researching the activities of the McCanns' private investigators - because I sensed there was an untold, hidden story there.  

People on a certain blog say you must be working for the McCanns by discrediting the evidence that points away from the parents.

REPLY:  Que? I think you meant 'discrediting the evidence that points to the parents' - yes?

First point - look at the evidence of the Smiths and it is utterly useless in terms of being of any value whatseover in any court case. I hope I don't need to elaborate on that, it is self-evident.

Second, I suggest this is part of what happened.

Smith claimed - not credibly IMO - that the man he couldn't see properly on a dark night was Gerry McCann. Well, he was '60% to 80% sure', whatever that really means. BUT, months later, he was contacted - and visited - by the likes of Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton. Somehow, following that, he seem to have had a change of heart. No longer does he think it was Gerry McCann. On the contrary, Smith has been interviewed by DCI Redwood (or one of his staff) at least twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013.

I suggest that he has in some way gone along with the content of DCI Redwood and Matthew Amroliwala's statements on CrimeWatch last October. Martin Smith has therefore become part of the 'presentational package' in this case which is to represent Smithman as the most likely candidate for the missing abductor.

Yet I am certain that the family did not, and could not have produced, those 2 e-fits of two very different-looking men.

One final point about the blog you mention. One tactic used over and over again by those who want to cover up the truth is to smear and smear again those trying to uncover it. I suggest that those who spout over there that I have done some kind of deal with the McCanns to discredit the Smith sighting are in fact those who are doing their best to frustrate the efforts of those seeking the truth in this case.  

If the Smithman sighting is wrong then what does it mean?

REPLY:  If the Smiths saw someone and it wasn't Madeleine, the sighting is utterly irrelevant, as PeterMac has already pointed out elsewhere on the forum.

If the Smith sighting is an invention, it would be in my submission one of FOUR invented sightings of an abductor who never existed. As follows:

1. Tannerman - fabricated by Jane Tanner

2. 'Sagres photographer man', also fabricated, allegedly seen trying to snatch an infant on 26 April, the description of him is: "The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style". There is an uncanny comparison between the descriptions of this man and Tannerman

3. Smithman - possibly fabricated in order to help Robert Murat

4. Crecheman - fabricated by DCI Andy Redwood in order to promote Smithman and develop the idea that the abductor may have killed Madeleine in the process of a burglary etc.

Examine all four of those claimed 'sightings' and I suggest that not one of those four is in the least convincing.

Moreover, there is an uncanny similarity in the descriptions given of this mystery man, he is always wearing a dark jacket, livght trousers, and always, but always, 'didn't look like a tourist'.

Did someone write out a script, a crib-sheet, for the description of this mystery man?


What else could have happened in its place? I know many people believe Maddy died earlier in the week so there is no way he would have been carrying a badly decomposing body through the streets on the 3rd.

REPLY:  Sorry, can't go there for legal reasons 

Sorry for being thick 

Woofer wrote: I acknowledge that you have information that the efits were made up or specially created but are under a promise not to divulge.

Tony Bennett wrote:

I simply need to do further research and get expert opinion before saying any more on these e-fits.

A former senior army officer - with extensive management and leadership skills acquired during a twenty-five year career both at home and overseas -, his entrepeneurship, vision, enthusiasm and perseverence has aassembled a team of hugely experienced and talented individuals with the combined skill-sets to realise his ambition of creating a global brand. Through the strategic partnerships that he has established, he has positioned Golf Net to rapidly establish a significant international presence. His inventiveness has created an impressive range of unique and innovative products that will be the launch-pad for what will become a major international brand.

palm tree wrote:Re the title of this thread, with km IMO trying to connect tannerman with smithman and tannerman being ruled out, should we now forget about the discriptions of these two? If OG have been truthful

I don't think OG has ever been about the real truth in this case, I'm sure those 2 e-fits were not and could not have been drawn up by the Smiths, and I suggest crecheman is a cunning invention - really, how likely is it that crecheman kept silent for over 6 years? He was walking the wrong way from the creche anyway. How conventient he was mostly wearing a dark jacket and light trousers that week! And carrying a young girl home in her pyjamas at 9.15pm on a cold night - and taking a longer route home than necessary. No buggy? No blanket for her? I don't buy it. The whole Operation Grange is bogus, bogus, bogus IMO from start to finish  

and did find tannerman, that would mean jt did see someone and told the truth,

Yes, that follows...if OG are truthful

but, if jt did make this up, then how can we believe OG! Its kinda like, either we believe OG and jt (both), or we don't believe OG and jt, which leaves both being dishonest.

Agreed. And that is the view I've come to, JMO as they say

I'm stuck because I want to believe OG,

As do so many. It is not pleasant to think of £10 million being spent by police officers who may be corruptly covering up the truth. But then we have Hillsborough, Rotherham, Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan, Operation Tiberius, Plebgate...police lies, lies and lies

but at the same time, I'm finding it hard to believe jt! I'm also finding it hard to believe tannerman didn't come forward in 2007.

Exactly, palm tree, see above

IMO

Tony Bennett wrote:

palm tree wrote:Re the title of this thread, with km IMO trying to connect tannerman with smithman and tannerman being ruled out, should we now forget about the discriptions of these two? If OG have been truthful

I don't think OG has ever been about the real truth in this case, I'm sure those 2 e-fits were not and could not have been drawn up by the Smiths, and I suggest crecheman is a cunning invention - really, how likely is it that crecheman kept silent for over 6 years? He was walking the wrong way from the creche anyway. How conventient he was mostly wearing a dark jacket and light trousers that week! And carrying a young girl home in her pyjamas at 9.15pm on a cold night - and taking a longer route home than necessary. No buggy? No blanket for her? I don't buy it. The whole Operation Grange is bogus, bogus, bogus IMO from start to finish  

and did find tannerman, that would mean jt did see someone and told the truth,

Yes, that follows...if OG are truthful

but, if jt did make this up, then how can we believe OG! Its kinda like, either we believe OG and jt (both), or we don't believe OG and jt, which leaves both being dishonest.

Agreed. And that is the view I've come to, JMO as they say

I'm stuck because I want to believe OG,

As do so many. It is not pleasant to think of £10 million being spent by police officers who may be corruptly covering up the truth. But then we have Hillsborough, Rotherham, Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan, Operation Tiberius, Plebgate...police lies, lies and lies

but at the same time, I'm finding it hard to believe jt! I'm also finding it hard to believe tannerman didn't come forward in 2007.

Exactly, palm tree, see above

IMO

palm tree wrote:
Total confusion Tony, confusion is good, so gm says...

Tony Bennett wrote:

palm tree wrote:
Total confusion Tony, confusion is good, so gm says...

Just for the record, palm tree, the original quote by Dr Gerald McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, 24 August 2007, was:

"And, in fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you read the newspapers, watching TV, to know what's true and what's not".

And how very true that is of this case.

Understandably, people have shortened this to: 'Confusion is Good'

Doug D wrote:REPLY: Thank you for a sudden influx of both raw common sense and expert opinion, Doug D, to the vexed subject of the 'Smith sighting'. I am most grateful - as indeed all of us should be on ths forum - for your input.

We have confirmation from Sergeant Liam Hogan 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 features not seen clearly in the first case, because the face was partly obscured and because it was dark. Redwood said the e-fits are the same person.
To illustrate the nonsense of this, 9 months ago the Queen gave her traditional Christmas message, lasting some 8 minutes. Many people will not have watched this in full, but probably caught snippets of it lasting up to a minute on the news, considerably longer than the few seconds sighting the Smith’s would have had.Who can now honestly remember what colour dress she was wearing, what jewellery she had on or whether she wore glasses throughout the speech or took them on and off? That should be the easy part, without facial shape, hairstyle and colour, shapes of features etc etc.
Frankly an e-fit after that period is barely credible (but not completely impossible).

REPLY: Yes, all very good points, but the delay may have been a lot longer than even you suggest. From various indications, I had earlier placed the date of the e-fiits as in the spring or summer of 2008. However, I saw a recent article, from an official source I'm sure, suggesting that these e-fits were drawn up in October 2008. If that turns out to be correct, then the Smiths drew up their e-fits 17 MONTHS after their alleged sighting.

But whether it was 9 months or 17, or somewhere in between, I thank you again for pointing out the utter impossibility of their being able to draw up any e-fits after such a long time. When you tack on to that the fact that they have come up with two very different-looking people:

fat, rectangular face older man, and
thin, triangular face younger man 

...it must surely be apparent to all that we have NOT been told the truth about these e-fits - not by the McCann Team, and not by DCI Andy Redwood. That means that we need to fiund out where the truth lies. And if the Met Police have lied in front of an audience of 6.7 million people about those e-fits, I for one want to expose that. 
 
I’ve used it before, but refer again to the recent OU Forensic Psychology course relating to identification:
 
‘for ID evidence to be credible two basic requirements are needed, max. distance of 15 metres and a min. illumination of 15 lux.’
 
‘Lux is a measurement of luminance, where 0.3 lux is equivalent to night time with a full moon; 30 lux is equivalent to a badly lit room; and 300 lux is equivalent to a brightly lit room. It is important to note that this research does not mean that identification will be accurate if the perpetrator was seen from less than 15 metres and at more than 15 lux, just that identification evidence cannot be relied on unless these requirements are met.’
 
We know there was a full moon the night before, so about 0.3 lux, but it was a cloudy night so may well have been less than that.
 
REPLY: Yes.

So we not only have the light requirement not being met, we also have the time delay, which renders the sighting virtually useless as far as any sort of identification goes.

REPLY: My only point of disagreement with you is that I would replace the word 'virtually' with 'totally'.
 
I have no particular reason to doubt that the Smiths saw someone carrying a child, but this is certainly not good enough evidence to build a definite sighting around.

REPLY: Let's suppose for one moment that they really did see a man at 10.00pm carrying a young blonde child dressed only in pyjamas. Nine of them. And yet NOT ONE of them did anything about that sighting, despite saturation coverage of the story for weeks afterwards, until 13 days later - the day after Robert Murat ws made a suspect??  
 
The ‘percentage probabilities’ in the statements that this was both GM & M mean little and can only come from very leading questions.

REPLY: Either leading questions, Doug D, or possibly carefully prepared answers. 
 
I would suggest that anybody standing outside a school or nursery as a class of 4 year olds came out, would probably see at least a couple of little blond girls looking like M.  Similarly, take the two e-fits up your local High Street and see how many matches or ‘could-be’s you get.

sharonl wrote:A valid point for discussion but the OC have already stated that no one has ever died in that apartment before. 

Having checked Tamsin' statement, nowhere does she mention where her grandmother had died.  I think that we can be assured that both the British and Portuguese police, also Martin Grime, would have ruled this out. I also think that the girls family would have come forward and said if the gran had died there.

Even if someone had died in the apartment previously, we still have the dogs alerts to Kate's clothing, Cuddlecat, the hire car and the keys etc. not to mention the blood and the DNA.

Woofer wrote:@ Tony, in reply to Doug D :-

"REPLY: Let's suppose for one moment that they really did see a man at 10.00pm carrying a young blonde child dressed only in pyjamas. Nine of them. And yet NOT ONE of them did anything about that sighting, despite saturation coverage of the story for weeks afterwards, until 13 days later - the day after Robert Murat ws made a suspect??  
 
In red above - Tony, has this become a fact now or is just what you believe ?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:@ Tony, in reply to Doug D :-

"REPLY: Let's suppose for one moment that they really did see a man at 10.00pm carrying a young blonde child dressed only in pyjamas. Nine of them. And yet NOT ONE of them did anything about that sighting, despite saturation coverage of the story for weeks afterwards, until 13 days later - the day after Robert Murat ws made a suspect??  
 
In red above - Tony, has this become a fact now or is just what you believe ?

You have to balance...

Their police statements - three of them - which make no reference to any period of agonising or torment by anyone before Martin Smith made his call on 16 May

and

The explicit statements of both Martin Smith and his son Peter that they only decided to act when Peter (allegedly) made his  now-famout 'Am I dreaming?' quote

against

one report only in the Daily Mirror - six-and-a-half years later and two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show - which made an otherwise wholly unsubstantiated claim that Martin Smith made a report to the PJ on 5 May - no detail, no indication of whether it was a 'phone call or a visit, and nothing whatsoever in the PJ files

logical wrote:Tony/ Tigger
Smithman zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn IMO