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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Gillyspot wrote: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.

russiandoll wrote: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!

Tony Bennett wrote:

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?    

Nereid wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

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?    

The name of the 12 year old daughter is Aoife, the one who made the statement.
Do you understand my confusion now? It must have been so traumatic for this poor girl to be dragged to Portugal to make a statement about a possible abductor. Surely a father would not do that to his daughter if it was to protect a 'friend'.

Nereid wrote:The name of the 12 year old daughter is Aoife, the one who made the statement.
Do you understand my confusion now? It must have been so traumatic for this poor girl to be dragged to Portugal to make a statement about a possible abductor. Surely a father would not do that to his daughter if it was to protect a 'friend'.

— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.
— Asked to tell the truth, she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.
— And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it inconformity, ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.

+++++++++

As it is late, I have marked the sections I may refer back to another day, but briefly in response:

No, I do not accept that there would be anything remotely 'traumatic' about a trip to Praia da Luz, a place she knew very well, with her father and older brother, when she was not suspected of anything. I should think the police officer interviewing her would have been friendly.

The next thing I notice is that she says she walked to the top of the stairs, 'looked to her left' and saw a man, two metres (6 feet) away walking towards her.  

They both continued to walk in opposite direction to each other.

If two people are walking towards each other, two metres apart, after one pace, they will be practically level with each other. After the next pace, they will be past each other.

Most people walk at about 100 to 120 paces a minute. Therefore in half a second or so, Aofie Smith would be level with 'Smithman', and after one second he would be behind her.

I am completely unable to accept that the highly detailed description she gives (see items highglighted in red) would be remotely possible in half a second.

Or, being generous, one second.

Or, say, two, three or four seconds.

Finally, I find that claim that she is 60% sure that the girl she saw was Madeleine McCann is absurd. It was dark, poorly lit, and, quote, 'She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position...'

Moreover, the selection of the 60% figure, albeit in relation to the child and not the adult they claimed to have seen, is strongly suggestive of prior collusion amongst members of the Smith family.

I find her account wholly without credibility and, as before, I'm not buying it.

Wendy Murphy called the whole Crimewatch charade about 'a fake sighting'.

I agree, and if anything re-reading Aofie Smith's statement reinforces my view.  

Rob Royston wrote:Are you saying that a family of nine people made all this up?

I have provided extensive analysis surrounding the three (not nine) statements that we actually have from the Smiths and this IMO provides severe doubt as to whether any of them saw anyone. The most likely explanation IMO, including accounting for the remarkable SEVENTEEN similarities between the Jane Tanner statement about Tannerman and the Smiths' statements about Smithman, is that both Tanner and the Smiths fabricated their sightings, for whatever reason (in the Smiths' case, possibly connected with Martin Smith's acquaintance with Robert Murat). I am watching the poll results on this thread with interest.  

The girl says she saw the man with the child two metres to her left when she was at the top of the stairs. In such circumstances it would be normal for her to stop and let the man pass before they continued in opposite directions like she says.

She doesn't say that, she says they passed each other. Her elaborate statement is based on her claim of seeing this man for half a second or so in the dark.

If he passed in front of her I can understand how she could have noticed detail down to the buttons on his trouser legs

In half a second - in the dark?

...not commonly seen but Gerry McCann was photographed wearing identical trousers in PDL.

Was this photograph available to the Smiths before they made their statements?

loopzdaloop wrote:You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the smiths are anything but independent, impartial witnesses.

That's the subject of debate. You may be ignoring indications that they are not.

I understand after the misinfo why scrutiny is applied everywhere, but it would be best placed elsewhere. 

I know they are impartial as the McCanns sought to downplay what they saw.

OK, do you accept the following please?

1. That the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary in May 2009 (the 'Mockumentary'), which was based on the McCanns' account of events, sought to merge Tannerman and Smithman?

2. That Dr Kate McCann in her book (May 2011) spent five pages (pp. 72, 329 and 370-372 urging people to come forward on the basis that (p. 372) there were 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman?

3. That in a Crimewatch programme seen by 6.7 million and again based on the McCanns' account of events, and to which the McCanns contributed, Smithman was put forward as the man most wanted by Scotland Yard?

If you accept those three points (which surely you must), how does that square with your claim above that  "the McCanns sought to downplay what they saw"? They haven't 'downplayed' it for the past 4.5 years. They have very actively promoted Smithman.

Haven't they?

I dont believe the 'sighting' by Tanner...Everyone knows she made up the sighting...

thetruthbeknown wrote:Has anyone 'officially mentioned' who Tannerman was or might have been? Having heard of him being cleared by SY as a British tourist? Or has his name never been released?

PeterMac wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:Has anyone 'officially mentioned' who Tannerman was or might have been? Having heard of him being cleared by SY as a British tourist? Or has his name never been released?

Fascinating that he has not sold his story to the press
Suspected for 6 years, life in ruins, always bear the guilt of having bug****ed up the enquiry by not coming forward, didn't realise that they meant me,  . . .  [fill in your own headlines]
No 15 minutes of infamy, no money, no name, nothing.

So . . .

Does he exist ?
Did he exist ?
Was Tanner right ?
Was Tanner deluded ?
Was Tanner hallucinating ?
Did Tanner invent the whole thing?
If so, why have SY chosen to totally discredit that whole episode.

COULD it be that they had to, because with Tannerman they are left with the "Window of Opportunity" of ONE minute and TWENTY seconds,
and there is no way round that inconvenient truth.
No amount of re-constructions, mockmentaries or anything else could POSSIBLY show how anything much could be done in that time.

And SY does not wish to be left in that position.

Tony Bennett wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the smiths are anything but independent, impartial witnesses.

That's the subject of debate. You may be ignoring indications that they are not.

I understand after the misinfo why scrutiny is applied everywhere, but it would be best placed elsewhere.

I know they are impartial as the McCanns sought to downplay what they saw.

OK, do you accept the following please?

1. That the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary in May 2009 (the 'Mockumentary'), which was based on the McCanns' account of events, sought to merge Tannerman and Smithman?

2. That Dr Kate McCann in her book (May 2011) spent five pages (pp. 72, 329 and 370-372 urging people to come forward on the basis that (p. 372) there were 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman?

3. That in a Crimewatch programme seen by 6.7 million and again based on the McCanns' account of events, and to which the McCanns contributed, Smithman was put forward as the man most wanted by Scotland Yard?

If you accept those three points (which surely you must), how does that square with your claim above that  "the McCanns sought to downplay what they saw"? They haven't 'downplayed' it for the past 4.5 years. They have very actively promoted Smithman.

Haven't they?

PeterMac wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:Has anyone 'officially mentioned' who Tannerman was or might have been? Having heard of him being cleared by SY as a British tourist? Or has his name never been released?

Fascinating that he has not sold his story to the press
Suspected for 6 years, life in ruins, always bear the guilt of having bug****ed up the enquiry by not coming forward, didn't realise that they meant me,  . . .  [fill in your own headlines]
No 15 minutes of infamy, no money, no name, nothing.

So . . .

Does he exist ?
Did he exist ?
Was Tanner right ?
Was Tanner deluded ?
Was Tanner hallucinating ?
Did Tanner invent the whole thing?
If so, why have SY chosen to totally discredit that whole episode.

Dr What wrote:I sense that the McCanns only really started to acknowledge 'Smithman' when to do otherwise would have appeared suspicious.

At the very beginning, they tried to brainwash everyone into believing that 'Tannerman' was the culprit.The PJ refusal to play along with this tale must have been worrying to the McCanns.But that did not really matter as long as there was no media/public focus on 'Smithman'.As long as that remained 'buried', all was well.Assuming 'Smithman' was/is Gerry, then Gerry must have been living on a knife's edge for that initial first few weeks because he knew he had walked into one family, but other people just might have seen him.Any publicity to this sighting in these first few months risked others coming forward.It must have seemed like all his prayers had been answered when Amaral was removed from the case.

As time has gone on, it has been their strategy to try to merge 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman'. After all, if they were one and the same, then Gerry's alibi remains.He has an alibi for 'Tannerman', hence he has an alibi for 'Smithman'.

Now, however, if you take 'Tannerman' out of the equation as NSY have done, Gerry looks rather more exposed.

Time for a new strategy.Now where are all those Roma gypsies?

thetruthbeknown wrote:Im not even sure if I can say this...Id heard a name put around for Tannerman, I wasnt sure if it was official (thats why I asked) The name was Stephen Carpenter?? If that was the case (and true, which of course seems to be either hearsay or someones theory) then could it be counted out as Tannerman and Smithman being the same person? As Carpenter was staying in an apartment on the complex and taking his children back to there??