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

by Guest 25.10.13 17:47

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.

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 17:50

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.

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 yes

by Guest 25.10.13 18:40

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

***
All of the PJ files interrogations are in the form of statements. A recap of what has been said and signed by the witness.

It's a pity that there's no rogatory interview of Mr. Smith. These rogs are transcripted into detail. IIRC only requests were sent to the U.K. [who delayed seriously with complying], but the Smiths are in IRELAND ...

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 19:12

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.

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 19:34

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 big grin

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...

by sami 25.10.13 19:43

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.

by galena 25.10.13 19:43

Sockpuppet wrote:Can you please add the option:

'Jane Tanner engineered her sighting to match the appearance of the man witnessed by the Smith family'.

Its even more possible that Smith engineering 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.

by suzyjohnson 25.10.13 19:45

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!

If GM was Smithman, then Gerry could have told her. At any time after 10 pm.

As far as I know the PJ arrived shortly after 11 pm.

by whmon 25.10.13 19:47

I've just googled 'recognising people by their gait' and found hundreds of studies on the subject. Apparently it is a large area of study, the only one of which I skim read reported 'excellent results'.

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 19:50

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 a bar...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.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 19:51

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.

galena - yes, that explanation seems to fit the facts as we know them much, much better

by suzyjohnson 25.10.13 19:52

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).

Smith returned to Portugal on 26/5/07 to make a statement regarding his sighting. It's possible that his receipt was still lying around at his flat in PdL or the PJ could have obtained a copy from the restaurant.

There's nothing to say that crecheman wasn't spoken to and eliminated by the PJ back in May 2007. Under those circumstances he wouldn't think he needed to speak to police again. It was the McCanns who promoted the Tanner sighting, not the PJ. He might have kept the pyjamas for the simple reason that the family have younger children that the pyjamas now fit.

by bodiddly 25.10.13 19:54

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.

by sallypelt 25.10.13 19:55

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.

No, they visited a restaurant. Then they visited Kelly's bar on the way back to their apartment for less than an hour.

This is taken from Martin Smith's statement:

Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day.

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 19:57

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.

That is a theory (in sure ive seen one similar) that says it was known a man had been 'spotted' by a family and so Tannerman was created, to throw out that sighting...

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 19:58

???

MARTIN SMITH

''I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann that I met that night carrying a child," Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.

''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''

Mr Smith's claim was passed to the Portuguese police who took it as more evidence in support of their mistaken belief that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearence.

Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may.

One said ''Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland.

"The McCanns returning to England - It was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry.

MARY SMITH

This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

by Guest 25.10.13 20:07

It may just be me being over-inquisitive but, as far as I know, there have never been any photos of Martin Smith issued.

Now of course it isn't vital to know what he looks like but, with most other sightings - including the really barmy ones involving drunken holidaymakers who saw Madeleine two years earlier - we get a photo of the witness.

Has anyone seen a photo of him and / or has read what his former occupation was?

by thetruthbeknown 25.10.13 20:10

Sami..going on the lash..is something I use to mean going for a drink..like they serve in kellys bar? Its just a saying :) Didnt mean it to sound offensive. But they did go to a bar..

But that was not the important part of the post....

Tony, so you think that Smithman is not a real person? I have looked and read..I wasnt sure at first, but im falling on the side of him being real

by Hicks 25.10.13 20:13

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It may just be me being over-inquisitive but, as far as I know, there have never been any photos of Martin Smith issued.

Now of course it isn't vital to know what he looks like but, with most other sightings - including the really barmy ones involving drunken holidaymakers who saw Madeleine two years earlier - we get a photo of the witness.

Has anyone seen a photo of him and / or has read what his former occupation was?

NFWTD , scroll down there is a picture of him and his dog.
Looks like a decent enough chap.

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

by Nereid 25.10.13 20:16

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It may just be me being over-inquisitive but, as far as I know, there have never been any photos of Martin Smith issued.

Now of course it isn't vital to know what he looks like but, with most other sightings - including the really barmy ones involving drunken holidaymakers who saw Madeleine two years earlier - we get a photo of the witness.

Has anyone seen a photo of him and / or has read what his former occupation was?

I don't think he was happy about his picture being used in a tabloid, and who can blame him. "His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment."

He is a former Unilever Executive.

by Nereid 25.10.13 20:18

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.

I see your point Tony, I really do. It is far-fetched, but not impossible. Just trying to look at all possibilities.

I still have a hard time understanding that if the Smith sighting was invented to clear Murat, why he would involve his 12 year old daughter in it all. He could have left her out of making a statement, as he did with his wife.

by galena 25.10.13 20:20

Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It may just be me being over-inquisitive but, as far as I know, there have never been any photos of Martin Smith issued.

Now of course it isn't vital to know what he looks like but, with most other sightings - including the really barmy ones involving drunken holidaymakers who saw Madeleine two years earlier - we get a photo of the witness.

Has anyone seen a photo of him and / or has read what his former occupation was?
NFWTD , scroll down there is a picture of him and his dog.
Looks like a decent enough chap.

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

I notice that he admitted that he wasn't wearing his glasses at the time and that dozens of witnesses confirmed that Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the time.

But I agree with you he looks a decent enough chap.

by suzyjohnson 25.10.13 20:21

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It may just be me being over-inquisitive but, as far as I know, there have never been any photos of Martin Smith issued.

Now of course it isn't vital to know what he looks like but, with most other sightings - including the really barmy ones involving drunken holidaymakers who saw Madeleine two years earlier - we get a photo of the witness.

Has anyone seen a photo of him and / or has read what his former occupation was?

There was a picture of him in one of the newspapers a few days ago (the first I've seen) NFWTD.
His occupation is given as 'retired businessman'

by Guest 25.10.13 20:23

Thanks to those who've answered me about Mr Smith - he's no longer a mystery man to me!

by sami 25.10.13 20:49

thetruthbeknown wrote:Sami..going on the lash..is something I use to mean going for a drink..like they serve in kellys bar? Its just a saying :) Didnt mean it to sound offensive. But they did go to a bar..

But that was not the important part of the post....

Tony, so you think that Smithman is not a real person? I have looked and read..I wasnt sure at first, but im falling on the side of him being real

Actually I beg to differ. It is important. His sighting has been discussed at length, so has he, indeed I commented very early on that from the time I first read it I had a reservation about Murat having an alibi. However that is all it is, an opinion.

On the other hand, going on the lash is a well used phrase in Ireland, Smiths home country and most certainly does not mean visiting a bar for one drink. Given that you seem to suggest that the delay in him making a statement was because he was on the lash would suggest he was hungover.

I don't see a need to cast those accusations at him, whilst discussing the validity of his police statement.

by Hicks 25.10.13 20:53

Don't forget the new witnesses who were interviewed by SY. The female was sitting on her balcony having a whisky at 9.15, she can state in all certainty that there was no one in the road at that time. Her apartment( in the same block ) has the best view , she did not see Jane Tanner nor Gerry McCann talking to Jeremy Wilkins. I think therefore we can say that the JT sighting did not happen, it was a lie to help GM get off the hook.

GM was seen by the Smith family so he had to act pretty hastily to counteract this as soon he would be telling the world that the child seen in his arms was missing.

A poster on another thread made a very good point, the JT sighting should have been at the top of the sticker book list yet it looks to have been scribbled in as an after thought.....and that is exactly what is was.
JT had to give a false sighting in order to match the man the Smiths saw.....GM.

Maybe I have got it wrong but I don't see that anyone has put forward a clear timeline for that evening that can be proved correct.

I am putting my money on the Smithman being GM.

by whmon 25.10.13 21:02

Hicks wrote:Don't forget the new witnesses who were interviewed by SY. The female was sitting on her balcony having a whisky at 9.15, she can state in all certainty that there was no one in the road at that time. Her apartment( in the same block ) has the best view , she did not see Jane Tanner nor Gerry McCann talking to Jeremy Wilkins. I think therefore we can say that the JT sighting did not happen, it was a lie to help GM get off the hook.

GM was seen by the Smith family so he had to act pretty hastily to counteract this as soon he would be telling the world that the child seen in his arms was missing.

A poster on another thread made a very good point, the JT sighting should have been at the top of the sticker book list yet it looks to have been scribbled in as an after thought.....and that is exactly what is was.
JT had to give a false sighting in order to match the man the Smiths saw.....GM.

Maybe I have got it wrong but I don't see that anyone has put forward a clear timeline for that evening that can be proved correct.

I am putting my money on the Smithman being GM.

Agree.

by johara 25.10.13 21:14

Hicks wrote:Don't forget the new witnesses who were interviewed by SY. The female was sitting on her balcony having a whisky at 9.15, she can state in all certainty that there was no one in the road at that time. Her apartment( in the same block ) has the best view , she did not see Jane Tanner nor Gerry McCann talking to Jeremy Wilkins. I think therefore we can say that the JT sighting did not happen, it was a lie to help GM get off the hook.

GM was seen by the Smith family so he had to act pretty hastily to counteract this as soon he would be telling the world that the child seen in his arms was missing.

A poster on another thread made a very good point, the JT sighting should have been at the top of the sticker book list yet it looks to have been scribbled in as an after thought.....and that is exactly what is was.
JT had to give a false sighting in order to match the man the Smiths saw.....GM.

Maybe I have got it wrong but I don't see that anyone has put forward a clear timeline for that evening that can be proved correct.

I am putting my money on the Smithman being GM.

I don't know now. So far the theories are that the smithman was invented to clear murat, the tannerman was invented to protect the smithman if it was GM or was invented to show an abduction. Then we've got SY inventing the crecheman. Nothing seems convincing yet i suppose mirrors the whole case. Just when something appears to fit some new piece of the puzzle puts it out of shape. Well done to everyone in this forum who dedicate time and energy searching the truth.

by russiandoll 25.10.13 21:25

My position unchanged from long ago when I stated my belief that Gerry McCann was carrying Ella O Brien when Smith saw him.

Look at the sticker book timeline written by ROB....he writes and crosses out his child's name more than once...the only child on his mind should have been Maddie. Prep for the PdL walkabout was why he was away from the table for so long that evening

all imo of course.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 22:25

russiandoll wrote:My position unchanged from long ago when I stated my belief that Gerry McCann was carrying Ella O Brien when Smith saw him.

Look at the sticker book timeline written by ROB....he writes and crosses out his child's name more than once...the only child on his mind should have been Maddie. Prep for the PdL walkabout was why he was away from the table for so long that evening

all imo of course.

I am very curious about the reasons for your 'belief'.

Even if I'm wrong and the Smiths really did see someone, I have at least set out an evidential basis for my hypothesis.

In this case, the only fact that you quote is R'OB having twice written Ella and then crossed it out. There could of course be all sorts of reasons for that.

Is this correct? - that whatever you say happened to Madeleine...

...Russell O'Brien went to Ella's bed...

...picked her up in her pyjamas...

...which were pinkish...

...walked out of the Tapas bar/Ocean Club carrying Ella...

...walked towards the beach...

....was seen by the Smiths...

...and Martin Smith said later he was 60% to 80% sure they'd seen Gerry McCann...

...Russell must have 'not looked like a tourist'...

...must have been wearing a dark jacket...

..,and light-coloured trousers...

...then Russell came back carrying Ella in his arms...

...probably he must have been walking like this for at least 20 minutes

...and during this time...

...not one other person reported seeing him carrying Ella...?

...and he did all this as 'a decoy'?

Please tell me if I have got this right - or if I have misunderstood anything, please tell me what.

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?