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

@j.rob 1.36 pm today:

For how long did police continue to carry out searches of OC and surrounding apartments etc after 3rd May I wonder? With all the high level support that was given to them so early on, perhaps TM thought that apartment 5A was some kind of 'safe house'.

IIRC, the police stopped searching locally on Friday 11th May.

Ladyinred wrote:@j.rob 1.36 pm today:

For how long did police continue to carry out searches of OC and surrounding apartments etc after 3rd May I wonder? With all the high level support that was given to them so early on, perhaps TM thought that apartment 5A was some kind of 'safe house'.

IIRC, the police stopped searching locally on Friday 11th May.

Good point. As long as the Mcs were believed to be innocent, there would be no reason to search the apartment(s) again. A 'safe place' indeed.

Dee Coy wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:@j.rob 1.36 pm today:

For how long did police continue to carry out searches of OC and surrounding apartments etc after 3rd May I wonder? With all the high level support that was given to them so early on, perhaps TM thought that apartment 5A was some kind of 'safe house'.

IIRC, the police stopped searching locally on Friday 11th May.

Good point. As long as the Mcs were believed to be innocent, there would be no reason to search the apartment(s) again. A 'safe place' indeed.

At what stage did the doubts set in?

According to 'The Truth of the Lie' only seriously at the beginning of July, I believe.

Dee Coy wrote:According to 'The Truth of the Lie' only seriously at the beginning of July, I believe.

Thanks,so hide a body in plain site during passage from where to where is the conundrum,IMO of course.

I'm doubt if the flat would have been used as a hiding place, but it's possible a body may have been brought back there after the event, temporarily. Particularly if it was a panic situation and any body was removed quickly that night without proper planning.

Some people believe there wasn't enough time for cadaver scent to develop that night from the McCanns leaving for dinner and Madeleine being reported missing. If what happened happened earlier in the week or day this could account for this. Another explanation would be for any body to be brought back briefly to the apartment after the 3rd.

All musings and speculation only.

tigger wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:If we look at the poll results so far, they are interesting.

80 have voted.

The fact that there are 17 similarities between the two sightings (or 15 if RIPM is right) is clearly hard to explain, hence the number of people (51) voting 'some other reason'. But almost none of those who voted 'some other reason' can think of an adequate explanation - or, if they can, have not said what it is.

Which leaves 29 who 'buy' one of the three explanations offered.

Of these, just 5 (17%) agree that "Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche" (same man).

A further 3 (9.7%) agree that "There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere - just one of those amazing coincidences" (different men, but looking near-identical with identical children

But 21 (72%) agree with the proposition that "Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone" (no Tannerman, no Smithman)

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

80 votes are 100%

29 votes =  36.25%
51 votes =   63.75%

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

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

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

All four options  have to be considered imo.

I hope the above is clear enough Tony, as your latest communication to me seemed to take exception to the fact that it was also mentioned elsewhere.

However, I had posted it on the open forum and have never had a reply to this post.

Screenshot 9.05

The theory that I subscribe to regarding Smithman is here:

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

So far, I have found nothing that makes me believe anything else. According to this theory Martin Smith gave details of his sighting in secret to the Police before it was made public.

HelenMeg wrote:The theory that I subscribe to regarding Smithman is here:

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

So far, I have found nothing that makes me believe anything else. According to this theory Martin Smith gave details of his sighting in secret to the Police before it was made public.

@ HelenMeg   

This is hardly a 'theory' - it's a fact that we all know, HelenMeg.

Textusa points out that the Smiths were interviewed on 26 May 2007 and that news about the sighting leaked out in August. Nothing new at all in that - I've covered this point before in my various writings on 'Smithman'.

Unfortunately, Textusa's theory is littered with simple errors.

She writes, for example:

"Martin Smith telephoned Leicester Police the evening of September 9th saying he recognised Gerry McCann".

The evidence however is that he did not make a statement to this effect until 20th September. Unless you can show me a link or article that says otherwise?

Textusa also adds:

"I believe McCann walked through the streets with Tanner's sedated child dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas".

Apart from Smith's highly dubious claim that he 'recognised' Gerry McCann 'from the way he carried his child down the aircraft steps', is there any other evidence whatsoever that supports this bizarre belief?


And, since you 'subscribe to' Textusa's theory, do you personally believe that Gerry was carrying Jane Tanner's child dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10.00pm that evening? Seriously?


As for Textusa's reference:

"Smith had seen Murat, if briefly, before..." 

we have direct quotes from Martin and Peter Smith informing us:

a) that he had known Murat for at least two years and

b) that he and Murat 'had met on several occasions' 


ETA: 

The poll gives three possible explanations for why there are these 17/16/15 remarkable similarities between 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman', and the votes so far are as follows:

(1) 'Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone' - 28 votes

(2) 'Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche' - 6 votes

(3) 'There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere - just one of those amazing coincidences' - 5 votes.

There appear to be two additional explanations now offered on this thread:

(4) The Smiths saw Gerry McCann, which he hadn't bargained for, so after he had hidden Madeleine somewhere, he rushed back to the Ocean Club, got hold of Jane Tanner and said something like: "Quick, make up a description exactly like me, except make the length and colour of my hair a bit different". Russell O'Brien then wrote down that Jane Tanner had seen someone carrying a child at 9.15/9.20pm that evening

(5) What I will refer to as the 'Textusa-&-HelenMeg' explanation:  "The Smiths saw Gerry McCann, which he hadn't bargained for. At the time he was carrying Jane Tanner's child, dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas. He then rushed back to the Ocean Club (with or without Jane Tanner's child is not stated by Textusa), got hold of Jane Tanner and said something like: "Quick, make up a description exactly like me, except make the length and colour of my hair a bit different". Russell O'Brien then wrote down that Jane Tanner had seen someone carrying a child at 9.15/9.20pm that evening.


TWO QUESTIONS:

A. How many members here support one of explanations (4) and (5) above?

B. How many members here reject all 5 explanations above for the 15/16/17 similarities and, if so, do they have any other rational explanation for these remarkable similarities?

@ HelenMeg

Reminder of my question yesterday (above):

And, since you 'subscribe to' Textusa's theory, do you personally believe that Gerry was carrying Jane Tanner's child dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10.00pm that evening?  Seriously?

Tony Bennett wrote:@ HelenMeg

Reminder of my question yesterday (above):

And, since you 'subscribe to' Textusa's theory, do you personally believe that Gerry was carrying Jane Tanner's child dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10.00pm that evening?  Seriously?

Hi Tony
Sorry was not ignoring just simply had been looking at different threads etc.

In my opinion, based on everything I read and also trying to put myself in the situation which I believe occurred that night ( a group of people, IMO, staging an abduction scenario, full of adrenaline, thinking on their feet perhaps at times, making rash decisions possibly and certainly making mistakes), I think that GM took a child and wished to be seen as a potential abductor in the streets of Praia de Luz. I dont think he wished to be scrutinised by any witnesses - simply observed from a distance. This , he believed, on that night would ensure that the wider public believed than an abduction had taken place. It was a stupid decision, perhaps, in hindsight. I believe that they made mistakes and this was one of them. I believe it is human nature under that scenario to make errors - and therefore to me it is highly credible.  I perhaps would have done this too, in that scenario.  'How can we make people believe in an abduction? Lets have one of us or two of us carry a child as if we are abducting it... otherwise who the hell will believe us? '

In the heat of the moment that is what I think happened. But it backfired. IMO.

But a lot of us here have differing opinions as to what happened - whether Smithman existed etc etc etc. That is what I believe, but am not too concerned if noone else here believes it. It is one opinion amongst many!!

Thing is, if Gerry was prancing around the Streets wanting to be seen so that their abduction story would gain credence...he didn't do a very good job of it. To be seen by only one family must have been a massive failure.

nomendelta wrote:Thing is, if Gerry was prancing around the Streets wanting to be seen so that their abduction story would gain credence...he didn't do a very good job of it. To be seen by only one family must have been a massive failure.

Well, from my point of view, he only needed 1 - too many  could be disastrous. As it happened it was disastrous anyway.  Anyway..

I tend to think (though not 100%) that Madeleine died earlier that the 3rd May, possibly the Tuesday eve/early Wednesday morning.

IF the flat had been intensely cleaned then that requires pre-planning. Why would the McCann's decide to remove the body almost at the same time the alarm was given? It just doesn't make sense, surely IF they planned the whole abduction charade wouldn't they have removed the body well beforehand to set the scene?

I am now of the opinion that Gerry McCann was at the Ocean Club at the time of the smith sighting. Didn't Mr Amaral discount the Smith sighting due to witnesses putting McCann there?

Martin Smith and his family probably did see someone carrying a child, and he was telling the truth as he saw it, but it was not Madeleine. 
The whole thing is just a big red herring perhaps.

I am not certain ,but I thought the cleaning must have been sometime after the night she was taken? There were  quite a no . of people in and out of said apt. as soon as the call went out .they have taken her /? so hairs and dne could been left by a no . of folk ? before the pj got there ?just a thought and memory / was the dna of friends and police looked at ?  difficult to know if anyone else could have entrered that apartment  not that I believe she was kidnapped. joyce1938

HelenMeg wrote:

nomendelta wrote:Thing is, if Gerry was prancing around the Streets wanting to be seen so that their abduction story would gain credence...he didn't do a very good job of it. To be seen by only one family must have been a massive failure.

Well, from my point of view, he only needed 1 - too many  could be disastrous. As it happened it was disastrous anyway.  Anyway..

How can GM determine exactly how many people he wanted to be seen by? Their apartments are surrounded by other apartments - if you're on an upper floor you can look down and see all the action. So having left 5A he heads south towards Kelly's bar. The alarm is raised in the Tapas Bar, there's chaos but GM isnt there because he's on his way back with a child in his arms - and no other person spots him! Thats the problem I have. If you're in one of the apartments around 5A you can see what's going on. But nobody spotted GM coming back. Is he that lucky?

The sightings are far too convenient for my liking. In each case, Tanner or Smiths, they bail somebody out of trouble GM and Murat.

HelenMeg wrote:

nomendelta wrote:Thing is, if Gerry was prancing around the Streets wanting to be seen so that their abduction story would gain credence...he didn't do a very good job of it. To be seen by only one family must have been a massive failure.

Well, from my point of view, he only needed 1 - too many  could be disastrous. As it happened it was disastrous anyway.  Anyway..

It would be taking a massive risk though as someone might actually have rung the police and said there was a man acting suspiciously walking round PdL with a child in his arms on a cold night, with bare feet and no jacket/coat on (the child that is).

Not really Plebgate.

If this scenario was played out and someone had reported him and the Police turned up, he could just say:

'Daughters gone missing, out trying to find her and my son (or daughter) was awake so I had to bring him (her) with me. Wife's going out looking with the other child.'

Yes, that's a possibility Doug D, but if "the walker" had said that his child had gone missing then the police would not have left it at that, they would have taken immediate action and gone back to the apartment to see what it was all about?

plebgate wrote:Yes, that's a possibility Doug D, but if "the walker" had said that his child had gone missing then the police would not have left it at that, they would have taken immediate action and gone back to the apartment to see what it was all about?

And the police report would have noted

"We encountered the male parent with a child sometime after 10pm stating his wife was looking for their missing daughter".

The simulated abduction would been destroyed right there.

That might have actually helped them out!
 
They’d have had 45 minutes less to rip up colouring books, phone family , delete texts, sow confusion, trash crime scene, etc etc.
 
All the anomalies that have subsequently been challenged.

eta. Six Million Quid:

At the time they still had Tannerman.

Doug D wrote:
At the time they still had Tannerman.

Then why would GM need to be walking around PdL? Tannerman is going in the wrong direction of the simulated abduction.

Who knows?
 
Just to add to the confusion maybe, if either sighting or the underlying events actually happened?

HelenMeg wrote:

In my opinion, based on everything I read and also trying to put myself in the situation which I believe occurred that night ( a group of people, IMO, staging an abduction scenario, full of adrenaline, thinking on their feet perhaps at times, making rash decisions possibly and certainly making mistakes), I think that GM took a child and wished to be seen as a potential abductor in the streets of Praia de Luz. I dont think he wished to be scrutinised by any witnesses - simply observed from a distance. This , he believed, on that night would ensure that the wider public believed than an abduction had taken place. It was a stupid decision, perhaps, in hindsight. I believe that they made mistakes and this was one of them. I believe it is human nature under that scenario to make errors - and therefore to me it is highly credible.  I perhaps would have done this too, in that scenario.  'How can we make people believe in an abduction? Lets have one of us or two of us carry a child as if we are abducting it... otherwise who the hell will believe us? '

In the heat of the moment that is what I think happened. But it backfired. IMO.

But a lot of us here have differing opinions as to what happened - whether Smithman existed etc etc etc. That is what I believe, but am not too concerned if noone else here believes it. It is one opinion amongst many!!

Thank you very much for for your reply.

I may of course be wrong about 'Smithman' but I have put together pages of evidence and reasoned analysis of the facts as to why there is cause for doubt about the claimed 'sighting'.

You were quite clear in accepting Textusa's beliefs and indeed you've repeated them above.

This is the bit I struggle with: where you say: 'based on everything I have read'.

Would you be kind enough please to share with us the specific things you've read, the specific links and facts you rely on, the EVIDENCE, for believing that the Smiths saw GERRY MCCANN carrying ONE OF JANE TANNER'S CHILDREN at 10.00pm on the evening of 3 May.

I am lost.

And in terms of evidence, what reliance do you place on the evidence of a man who waits for 13 days to report a sighting of a man with a child when the whole world and its media are publicising he day after day, and who then takes 11 days (9 to 20 September) to report that based on the way he was carrying his child on his left shoulder he was '60% to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann he'd seen over 4 months earlier - and after he and his fellow family members admitted that they'd seen him only for a few seconds at most, in the dark, with weak street lighting, and all agreed on 26 May that they would never be able to recognise him again if they saw him?

Surely if you wanted to EITHER remove a child from an apartment without being seen OR remove a child's body from an apartment without raising any suspicion, you would not be walking around carrying that child?

It just doesn't make much sense.

Especially in the manner that Tanner-man was supposed to be carrying a child - in an awkward way across arms so the the child's face would be exposed. I mean, that is just nuts. At the very least, surely, you would make sure the child's face was hidden? You would hold the child against you to conceal the child's identity? At the very least.

So Tanner-man is absurd. That TM resorted to Tanner-man at all suggests, to me, that this was a very last-minute panic reaction that had not been thought out properly. (Jane Tanner in a complete panic covering up for Russell O'Brien's involvement in what happened?

Smith-man - although not quite as nutty as Tanner-man also seems  implausible. Walking along a relatively long road lit (albeit badly) by street-lights at a time of night when there are likely to be people walking back from restaurants or going to bars? Again, not covering the child. Although at least Smith-man is carrying the child is a realistic manner and the face is not exposed to view.

I don't buy Tanner-man (but then no-one does not even Andy Redwood! lol!)  And I don't buy Smith-man as Gerry carrying a deceased Madeleine. If Madeleine was dead by Thursday evening (as detective Amaral believes) then TM would have found a much less suspicious and obvious way of removing her body from the apartment (or from where-ever she was).

For instance, in a sports bag. Or possibly a buggy. Or a laundry carrier. Or something that would attract no particular suspicion if it was seen being carried or pushed around as it would be a normal sight in a holiday resort. 

I also rule out Smith-man as being Gerry being caught by the Smiths in the act of taking an alive Madeleine away somewhere and then pretending that she had been abducted or kidnapped by a stranger.  In other words, being caught red-handed in a faked abduction plot.

Again, this makes no sense. For much the same reasons as why it wouldn't have been Gerry carrying a deceased Madeleine. He might as well have put a stocking over his head and be carrying a swag-bag.

Again, if Madeleine was still alive when removed from the resort but the McCanns were complicit in this but wanted to conceal this, then surely they would do their utmost to conceal this? Not have Gerry wandering along a nearby road at the precise time that the 'abductor' is supposed to have fled? That's nuts, imo. Presumably they would have removed Madeleine prior to the alarm being raised? Well before the arrival of police. And they would do it in a manner which would attract as little suspicion as possible. If Madeleine had been heavily sedated she could have been put into a sports bag or buggy I suppose. 

There are a couple of scenarios which I think are possible for Smith-man, albeit unlikely.

One is that there was a last minute major panic. Madeleine was very ill/injured/abused and required emergency treatment and Gerry or someone who looked like Gerry ran off carrying Madeleine to get help. 

This scenario is possible whether or not there was much pre-planning. If there had been a plan to stage a faked abduction that week (possibly even planned prior to the holiday) then this scenario would to some extent explain why it all seems like such a botch-job. The time-lines going wrong. Different accounts of where everyone was. And so on.

If there had been no pre-planning to stage a faked abduction at all prior to that week, then a straightforward accident in the apartment doesn't really go far enough to explain why such an elaborate hoax was staged (albeit incredibly badly). Why go to such extreme lengths to cover up an accident?

In my opinion, it must have been MORE than just a tragic accident like banging her head. TM must also have have wanted at all cost to avoid Madeleine (and possibly the twins too) being treated in hospital. Why? Possible explanations: to cover up sedation or other drug use; to cover up abuse; to cover up medical negligence (and these are not mutually exclusive of course.)

I'm going to take a look at the route taken by the early sniffer dogs. Which might provide some clues.

And look up the threads on the blue tennis bag.

Just a theory, as always.

joyce1938 wrote:I am not certain ,but I thought the cleaning must have been sometime after the night she was taken? There were  quite a no . of people in and out of said apt. as soon as the call went out .they have taken her /? so hairs and dne could been left by a no . of folk ? before the pj got there ?just a thought and memory / was the dna of friends and police looked at ?  difficult to know if anyone else could have entrered that apartment  not that I believe she was kidnapped. joyce1938

joyce you are probably right about the 'lntense' cleaning being done after Madeleine was taken. I still maintain though that  apartment 5 was set up well before the alarm.
Madeleine's bed for one example. That looked so staged. Imagine going to find your child gone from her bed, the last place you saw her. Wouldn't you rip back the bedclothes in disbelief, looking for some clue like blood, vomit, anything?

Another example. The twins were not in that bedroom, they were hastily returned to their cots, the cots that had no sheets.
Quite possibly sedated so that there would be no interruption to deal with.

I think that the children's bedroom was empty, until Kate raised the alarm.

Tony Bennett wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

In my opinion, based on everything I read and also trying to put myself in the situation which I believe occurred that night ( a group of people, IMO, staging an abduction scenario, full of adrenaline, thinking on their feet perhaps at times, making rash decisions possibly and certainly making mistakes), I think that GM took a child and wished to be seen as a potential abductor in the streets of Praia de Luz. I dont think he wished to be scrutinised by any witnesses - simply observed from a distance. This , he believed, on that night would ensure that the wider public believed than an abduction had taken place. It was a stupid decision, perhaps, in hindsight. I believe that they made mistakes and this was one of them. I believe it is human nature under that scenario to make errors - and therefore to me it is highly credible.  I perhaps would have done this too, in that scenario.  'How can we make people believe in an abduction? Lets have one of us or two of us carry a child as if we are abducting it... otherwise who the hell will believe us? '

In the heat of the moment that is what I think happened. But it backfired. IMO.

But a lot of us here have differing opinions as to what happened - whether Smithman existed etc etc etc. That is what I believe, but am not too concerned if noone else here believes it. It is one opinion amongst many!!

Thank you very much for for your reply.

I may of course be wrong about 'Smithman' but I have put together pages of evidence and reasoned analysis of the facts as to why there is cause for doubt about the claimed 'sighting'.

You were quite clear in accepting Textusa's beliefs and indeed you've repeated them above.

This is the bit I struggle with: where you say: 'based on everything I have read'.

Would you be kind enough please to share with us the specific things you've read, the specific links and facts you rely on, the EVIDENCE, for believing that the Smiths saw GERRY MCCANN carrying ONE OF JANE TANNER'S CHILDREN at 10.00pm on the evening of 3 May.

I am lost.

And in terms of evidence, what reliance do you place on the evidence of a man who waits for 13 days to report a sighting of a man with a child when the whole world and its media are publicising he day after day, and who then takes 11 days (9 to 20 September) to report that based on the way he was carrying his child on his left shoulder he was '60% to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann he'd seen over 4 months earlier - and after he and his fellow family members admitted that they'd seen him only for a few seconds at most, in the dark, with weak street lighting, and all agreed on 26 May that they would never be able to recognise him again if they saw him?

Hi Tony

Firstly, I am a fan of yours - for the work you put in and for the lengths you go to to back up your beliefs. I am a fan of Textusa for the same reasons and admit that until I read her blog then my beliefs regarding Smithman were not formed in any shape or form.  
I have read so many different sources on this case and cant hope to recall them all. But I really dont want to convince anyone to believe what I believe. I dont want to attempt to win people over to my belief because I am too lazy to try and back up my belief with evidence and research. My beliefs regarding Smithman, that were formed after reading various Textusa blog posts on Smithman, fitted in with my overall understanding of the case from having read endless media reports, internet sources, 3 arguidos forum, Mirror forum etc.  Importantly for me, I am comfortable with my beliefs about Smithman. I like observing how people behave and why. GM walking around with a live child to back up the abduction is feasible. It is how I believe he would act under pressure, trying to control the show. It was a mistake.
I am comfortable that the Smiths took a long time to come forward.  It is feasible to me that they needed prompting. It just is. I cant pretend otherwise. I might have taken that long too, depending on various factors or circumstances.  
 However, what I believe and what stands up in court are different matters.   You make a very good case for your beliefs and I applaud that. But for whatever reason, I still believe what I have outlined in previous posts. But as I keep saying, it is not important to me to try to convince anyone else here.