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

thetruthbeknown wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:To help the discussion as to why Mr. Smith would have mentioned Smithman was not a tourist. He was asked a question:

Smith Statement May 26, 2007 in Portimao, Portugal

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.

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

And to help the discussion as to WHEN Mr. Smith contacted the police [in Ireland] and how he mentioned it was not Murat.

Summary from “A Verdade da Mentira” bij Gonçalo Amaral

-  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.

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

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

Thanks Chatelaine, so it looks as if he was asked the question if the man looked like a tourist.

Is there a tanscript?? Ive seen others online, but not one for the smiths??...You are insinuation the police almost 'fed' information to obtain answers...this would not be usual..it would be seen as the witness being 'influenced' or 'coerced'...usually the only prompting would be the showing of an ID photo..and certainly no names mentioned

candyfloss wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:To help the discussion as to why Mr. Smith would have mentioned Smithman was not a tourist. He was asked a question:

Smith Statement May 26, 2007 in Portimao, Portugal

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.

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

And to help the discussion as to WHEN Mr. Smith contacted the police [in Ireland] and how he mentioned it was not Murat.

Summary from “A Verdade da Mentira” bij Gonçalo Amaral

-  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.

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

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

Thanks Chatelaine, so it looks as if he was asked the question if the man looked like a tourist.

Is there a tanscript?? Ive seen others online, but not one for the smiths??...You are insinuation the police almost 'fed' information to obtain answers...this would not be usual..it would be seen as the witness being 'influenced' or 'coerced'...usually the only prompting would be the showing of an ID photo..and certainly no names mentioned

No one is insinuating anything.  People are making suggestions and airing opinions and views.  We don't know how the Portuguese police work it may be totally different from our system.

thetruthbeknown wrote:I can only guess Smith volunteered the name when showed the photo and said it wasnt Robert, and carried on from there...

tiredofthebs wrote:If Smith was working to a script then why did he say he was pretty sure it was Gerry he saw?

I can't see a McCann script containing that, can you?

Châtelaine wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:I can only guess Smith volunteered the name when showed the photo and said it wasnt Robert, and carried on from there...

***
Read my post again, quoting from Amaral's book:

-  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.

ETA
As for transcript of Mr. Smith's statement in Portimao, follow the link I gave.

Châtelaine wrote:Link is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And read this:

"Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me. "

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Link is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And read this:

"Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me. "

No, thats the statement...the transcript includes the questions asked by the officer.

Exactly, in your second paragraph, what your saying there goes exactly to what I have been saying...im not sure what your point is :/ The Smiths came forward to clear Murat, then saw GM on tv, which they then thought showed the same mannerisms of the person they saw....

Châtelaine wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Link is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And read this:

"Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me. "

No, thats the statement...the transcript includes the questions asked by the officer.

Exactly, in your second paragraph, what your saying there goes exactly to what I have been saying...im not sure what your point is :/ The Smiths came forward to clear Murat, then saw GM on tv, which they then thought showed the same mannerisms of the person they saw....

***
There IS no transcript of the interview.
And we will to agree to disagree.
Smiths are genuine IMO.

thetruthbeknown wrote:I did not disagree with you that the Smiths were genuine..Its a shame there is not transcript..it would clear up a few things

Nereid wrote:What if he carried Madeleine (or other child in case of decoy) to wherever he went to do whatever he did. He returned to the Ocean Club and told the group he had been seen by a group of holiday makers. Hence Tanner inventing Tannerman.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Nereid wrote:What if he carried Madeleine (or other child in case of decoy) to wherever he went to do whatever he did. He returned to the Ocean Club and told the group he had been seen by a group of holiday makers. Hence Tanner inventing Tannerman.

 The trouble with that theory is that it flies in the face of all common sense that at the very point of announcing that a child has gone missing, it is being seriously suggested that one of the same Tapas group who made that sensational announcemnt was walking through the streets of a holiday village - for at least several minutes, carrying a dead child - and then returned immediately to Apartment G5A.

It is so far-fetched, surely, as to require dismissal.

The 'decoy' theory is even more far-fetched.

Evidentially, all we have is a claimed sighting, of a bloke whose face wasn't seen, allegedly carrying around a young child in the cold early May late evening.

And the circumstances under which this sighting was first notified to the police is only one of a number of grounds for suspicion about the whole sighting

The value of that sighting is, well...

...under debate on two threads.

 

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Nereid wrote:What if he carried Madeleine (or other child in case of decoy) to wherever he went to do whatever he did. He returned to the Ocean Club and told the group he had been seen by a group of holiday makers. Hence Tanner inventing Tannerman.

 The trouble with that theory is that it flies in the face of all common sense that at the very point of announcing that a child has gone missing, it is being seriously suggested that one of the same Tapas group who made that sensational announcemnt was walking through the streets of a holiday village - for at least several minutes, carrying a dead child - and then returned immediately to Apartment G5A.

It is so far-fetched, surely, as to require dismissal.

The 'decoy' theory is even more far-fetched.

Evidentially, all we have is a claimed sighting, of a bloke whose face wasn't seen, allegedly carrying around a young child in the cold early May late evening.

And the circumstances under which this sighting was first notified to the police is only one of a number of grounds for suspicion about the whole sighting

The value of that sighting is, well...

...under debate on two threads.

 

But i cant help thinking that the Smiths themsleves thought this, also knowing the possible 'disbelief' of any 'sighting' they put forward, as by their own admission they had been out on the lash    Hence why it was not a 'few days after' statement. My alternative theory is that having found out that Murat was under scrutiny, and being quite sure the sighting they saw was definately not him, decided to at least come forward and discount them from the person whom they saw in case relevant. And then of course we have the alleged sighting of Gerry on TV...It could of happened, facial recognition is not the only way of idntifying or recognising someone, mannerisms etc, also trigger recognition too...

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'.

Tony Bennett wrote:

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'.

Sockpuppet, NO.

That is impossible, like most of your ideas.

Tanner told the rest of the Tapas group about her sighting before one of the group ripped the cover off Madeleine's Activity Sticker book to write down two (different) timelines before the PJ arrived.

How the heck would she know about the Smith sighting already?

Doh!  

sami wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Nereid wrote:What if he carried Madeleine (or other child in case of decoy) to wherever he went to do whatever he did. He returned to the Ocean Club and told the group he had been seen by a group of holiday makers. Hence Tanner inventing Tannerman.

 The trouble with that theory is that it flies in the face of all common sense that at the very point of announcing that a child has gone missing, it is being seriously suggested that one of the same Tapas group who made that sensational announcemnt was walking through the streets of a holiday village - for at least several minutes, carrying a dead child - and then returned immediately to Apartment G5A.

It is so far-fetched, surely, as to require dismissal.

The 'decoy' theory is even more far-fetched.

Evidentially, all we have is a claimed sighting, of a bloke whose face wasn't seen, allegedly carrying around a young child in the cold early May late evening.

And the circumstances under which this sighting was first notified to the police is only one of a number of grounds for suspicion about the whole sighting

The value of that sighting is, well...

...under debate on two threads.

 

But i cant help thinking that the Smiths themsleves thought this, also knowing the possible 'disbelief' of any 'sighting' they put forward, as by their own admission they had been out on the lash    Hence why it was not a 'few days after' statement. My alternative theory is that having found out that Murat was under scrutiny, and being quite sure the sighting they saw was definately not him, decided to at least come forward and discount them from the person whom they saw in case relevant. And then of course we have the alleged sighting of Gerry on TV...It could of happened, facial recognition is not the only way of idntifying or recognising someone, mannerisms etc, also trigger recognition too...

For gods sake, where does it say the Smiths were "out on the lash".  Are you seriously suggesting their statement was a few days afterwards because they were hung-over ???

Perhaps there are statements I have not read, but those that I did told me his son was with his heavily pregnant wife who was ill so he was looking after her and part of their group were returning to Ireland the next day so they were going back to their apartment early that night.

galena wrote:

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'.

It's even more possible that Smith engineered his sighting to fit Jane's - all the information was already in the public domain - all he had to do was change the hair colour to brown to emphasise that it wasn't Murat.

Mirage wrote:The main difficulty I have with both Crecheman and Smithman sightings is as follows:-

a) At the time of reporting his sighting - some four months after the event - Mr Smith was able to give an accurate time, courtesy of his bar bill receipt showing 9.55pm, which he must have retained for some reason.

and....

b) Crecheman waits 6yrs 5mths before coming forward to identify the world-wide e-fit of himself. He is even able to produce the pyjamas his daughter had on that night, if I have understood things correctly - (Some propositions being so bizarre I wonder if I've dreamt them).

thetruthbeknown wrote:

sami wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Nereid wrote:What if he carried Madeleine (or other child in case of decoy) to wherever he went to do whatever he did. He returned to the Ocean Club and told the group he had been seen by a group of holiday makers. Hence Tanner inventing Tannerman.

 The trouble with that theory is that it flies in the face of all common sense that at the very point of announcing that a child has gone missing, it is being seriously suggested that one of the same Tapas group who made that sensational announcemnt was walking through the streets of a holiday village - for at least several minutes, carrying a dead child - and then returned immediately to Apartment G5A.

It is so far-fetched, surely, as to require dismissal.

The 'decoy' theory is even more far-fetched.

Evidentially, all we have is a claimed sighting, of a bloke whose face wasn't seen, allegedly carrying around a young child in the cold early May late evening.

And the circumstances under which this sighting was first notified to the police is only one of a number of grounds for suspicion about the whole sighting

The value of that sighting is, well...

...under debate on two threads.

 

But i cant help thinking that the Smiths themsleves thought this, also knowing the possible 'disbelief' of any 'sighting' they put forward, as by their own admission they had been out on the lash    Hence why it was not a 'few days after' statement. My alternative theory is that having found out that Murat was under scrutiny, and being quite sure the sighting they saw was definately not him, decided to at least come forward and discount them from the person whom they saw in case relevant. And then of course we have the alleged sighting of Gerry on TV...It could of happened, facial recognition is not the only way of idntifying or recognising someone, mannerisms etc, also trigger recognition too...

For gods sake, where does it say the Smiths were "out on the lash".  Are you seriously suggesting their statement was a few days afterwards because they were hung-over ???

Perhaps there are statements I have not read, but those that I did told me his son was with his heavily pregnant wife who was ill so he was looking after her and part of their group were returning to Ireland the next day so they were going back to their apartment early that night.

Then you should read their statements...they say they were visiting bars...Their statement was on the 26th, 3 weeks after and 11 days after Murat was made arguido. Im saying they didnt make immediate statements because 1. They were not at the complex where the incident took place and 2. Maybe thought their sighting was not as relevant or may not be believed.

bodiddly wrote:IMO it was known by the guilty parties that smith man had been seen, so tanner man was described similarly yet
different slightly,  to cover for that fact. IMO.