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

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 22:30

Hicks wrote: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.

But - Hicks - both you and the other poster are simply wrong.

The JT 'sighting' is not at the top as it comes later than the earlier checks of MO and GM.

In no way do the two entries about JT 'look to have been scribbled' or inserted.

They are an intetgral part of the overall timeline runing from 9pm to 10pm.

I would like to ask if you have seen the two handwritten timelines yourself? - I don't think you can have seen them, as the evidence contradicts what you say.

by Hicks 25.10.13 23:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hicks wrote: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.
But - Hicks - both you and the other poster are simply wrong.

The JT 'sighting' is not at the top as it comes later than the earlier checks of MO and GM.

In no way do the two entries about JT 'look to have been scribbled' or inserted.

They are an intetgral part of the overall timeline runing from 9pm to 10pm.

I would like to ask if you have seen the two handwritten timelines yourself? - I don't think you can have seen them, as the evidence contradicts what you say.

Tony, you seem to have misunderstood my point, I wrote that ...' the JT sighting SHOULD have been at the top of the sticker book list' due to it's apparent importance. The JT sighting--the one that has been central to the investigation these last six years-- should have been given more significance on the list if it was a true account. Apologies for failing to get my point across.

by garfy 25.10.13 23:15

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

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 23:22

Hicks wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hicks wrote: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.
But - Hicks - both you and the other poster are simply wrong.

The JT 'sighting' is not at the top as it comes later than the earlier checks of MO and GM.

In no way do the two entries about JT 'look to have been scribbled' or inserted.

They are an intetgral part of the overall timeline runing from 9pm to 10pm.

I would like to ask if you have seen the two handwritten timelines yourself? - I don't think you can have seen them, as the evidence contradicts what you say.
Tony, you seem to have misunderstood my point, I wrote that ...' the JT sighting SHOULD have been at the top of the sticker book list' due to it's apparent importance. The JT sighting--the one that has been central to the investigation these last six years-- should have been given more significance on the list if it was a true account. Apologies for failing to get my point across.

OK, point taken, what you were doing, then, was inserting a value judgment that (in your opinion) both time lines should have been at the top of the timeline.

But that is to miss the whole point of a timeline, Hicks!.

A timeline is a line of times in the correct chronological order.

Not a list of bullet points in priority order.

You also (it may have been an oversight) failed to deal with your claim that the JT sighting 'looks to have been scribbled in as an afterthought'.

Now that candyfloss has published copies of the original timelines making it clear that the JT sighting was clearly not 'scribbled in as an afterthought', I shall proceed on the assumption that you accept the correction...so that we can move on to another point.

by Nereid 25.10.13 23:32

Tony, why do you think someone would drag their 12 year old daughter to Portugal to make a statement, when he didn't want to drag his wife there? Surely the two statements of him and his son would have been sufficient?

by russiandoll 25.10.13 23:39

Tony you have misunderstood one thing. I never said I believe that ROB was carrying Ella. but Gerry.

I have reasons why I believe this and will set them out tomorrow, way too tired now!

by Hicks 25.10.13 23:39

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Hicks wrote: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.
But - Hicks - both you and the other poster are simply wrong.

The JT 'sighting' is not at the top as it comes later than the earlier checks of MO and GM.

In no way do the two entries about JT 'look to have been scribbled' or inserted.

They are an intetgral part of the overall timeline runing from 9pm to 10pm.

I would like to ask if you have seen the two handwritten timelines yourself? - I don't think you can have seen them, as the evidence contradicts what you say.
Tony, you seem to have misunderstood my point, I wrote that ...' the JT sighting SHOULD have been at the top of the sticker book list' due to it's apparent importance. The JT sighting--the one that has been central to the investigation these last six years-- should have been given more significance on the list if it was a true account. Apologies for failing to get my point across.
OK, point taken, what you were doing, then, was inserting a value judgment that (in your opinion) both time lines should have been at the top of the timeline.

But that is to miss the whole point of a timeline, Hicks!.

A timeline is a line of times in the correct chronological order.

Not a list of bullet points in priority order.

You also (it may have been an oversight) failed to deal with your claim that the JT sighting 'looks to have been scribbled in as an afterthought'.

Now that candyfloss has published copies of the original timelines making it clear that the JT sighting was clearly not 'scribbled in as an afterthought', I shall proceed on the assumption that you accept the correction...so that we can move on to another point.

Tony, I am sorry to be pedantic but I still maintain that 'Jane see's stranger child' appears to be added on next to her check as though it was an after thought. I should not have used the word -scribbled-. You are quite right in that the words were not 'scribbled on. Phew...ok lets move on. thumbup

by Gillyspot 25.10.13 23:41

Perhaps we should question why "R o'b" "poorly daughter" needs to appear on Maddie's "abduction" timeline"??

ETA - On second version only- ON 1st version it would seem that R O'B did check with MO. - What a tangled web we weave.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.13 23:44

Nereid wrote:Tony, why do you think someone would drag their 12 year old daughter to Portugal to make a statement, when he didn't want to drag his wife there? Surely the two statements of him and his son would have been sufficient?

What is the name of the 12-year-old 'daughter'?

I thought there was an adult daughter who made a statement.

I thought the 12-year-old granddaughter was said to be present at the 'Smith sighting' but did not actually make a statement.

I thought the three making statements were Martin Smith and his son and daughter. How old were they?

Am I wrong?

by Hicks 25.10.13 23:45

Gillyspot wrote:Perhaps we should question why "R o'b" "poorly daughter" needs to appear on Maddie's "abduction" timeline"??

Now that is a very good observation Gillyspot. Why indeed? Time for bed though, I shall ponder on that tomorrow.

Nite nite all byebye

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?