Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Hey Mr Smithman, are your ears burning at all?   

(Sorry for bump, please delete if need be!)

I'm hoping that all those "digging" on the wrong topic will wend their way over here!

candyfloss wrote:Bumping this for Smith discussion to continue here.

Move along from the digging topic please!

Iin reply to Haroldd2's comment on the digging thread - the Irish Army have been active overseas since the early sixties

Petermac you are way off there. The Irish army serve as UN peace keepers all over the world eg Lebanon.

Casey5 wrote:Sharoni said:- This statement was backed up by his family and accepted by Goncalo Amaral and his team.   When summoned to Portugal to give evidence, Mr Smith failed to attend and since then we have heard no more of his sighting that puts Gerry in the frame, on the contrary, we hear that a sketch has been produced and a new suspect identified.  Was Mr Smith silenced? Or was there more to this than meets the eye?

-----------------------------------

Sharoni, that's not quite the whole story. Goncalo Amaral had requested Mr Smith to return to PDL and was in the process of booking accommodation etc. for the Smiths when he was taken off the case and replaced by Rebelo (the cleaner) who failed to follow up on the Smiths and so the chance to investigate the Smith's evidence was missed. It's in Mr Amaral's book.

From chapter 20 'The truth of the lie'

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.
Unquote

So it seems that the Irish police also employed  delaying tactics. Just like LP.

Hi Peter Mac - I was simply referring to the the Irish Army. My Dad proudly took the lot of us down to Baldonnel (then military) airport in 1960 to see the first-ever Irish troops to go abroad (on the peace-keeping mission to the Congo). I'd have to look up all their other missions but I do know they're out trying to do the same in Syria right now.

Hi Tigger - I have read here references to the Irish police interviewing Mr. Smith (saying he seemed "above board" etc) - I don't recall anyone previously saying they delayed things

Can anyone explain in a paragraph or less, if Mr Smith was intent on perverting the course of justice by giving false evidence, in order to help his "friend" Murat,why complicate matters by involving his whole family?

Why not just himself as a witness with a golfing buddy, or him and his wife, or him and his 22 year old son?

But no, Mr Smith puts his 12 year old daughter's future at risk by telling her to commit perjury and subjecting her to very stressful police investigations and possibly a court appearance.

This constant defamation of this family is ridiculous and pointless.

So, in a paragraph or less, why would any parent expect their child to commit perjury.

For what reason?

Is it possible they simply reported what they saw?

RIPM wrote:Can anyone explain in a paragraph or less, if Mr Smith was intent on perverting the course of justice by giving false evidence, in order to help his "friend" Murat,why complicate matters by involving his whole family?

Why not just himself as a witness with a golfing buddy, or him and his wife, or him and his 22 year old son?

But no, Mr Smith puts his 12 year old daughter's future at risk by telling her to commit perjury and subjecting her to very stressful police investigations and possibly a court appearance.

This constant defamation of this family is ridiculous and pointless.

So, in a paragraph or less, why would any parent expect their child to commit perjury.

For what reason?

Is it possible they simply reported what they saw?

Great post and very valid point.

RIPM wrote:Can anyone explain in a paragraph or less, if Mr Smith was intent on perverting the course of justice by giving false evidence, in order to help his "friend" Murat,why complicate matters by involving his whole family?

Why not just himself as a witness with a golfing buddy, or him and his wife, or him and his 22 year old son?

But no, Mr Smith puts his 12 year old daughter's future at risk by telling her to commit perjury and subjecting her to very stressful police investigations and possibly a court appearance.

This constant defamation of this family is ridiculous and pointless.

So, in a paragraph or less, why would any parent expect their child to commit perjury.

For what reason?

Is it possible they simply reported what they saw?

Bravo RIPM, I agree.  They simply reported what they saw.  It may be that they did not want to become involved in the circus that was developing in PDL and may have assumed that there were other witnesses to what they saw.  It is not an endearing human trait, but most people are reluctant to come forward as witnesses and hope somebody else will do it.  However, they did come forward, and they have maintained a dignified silence ever since.

I think it is unfair and discourteous to scrutinise their backgrounds simply because we have their names and the tools to do so.  The Smith family have not been accused of anything, nor are they suspected of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.  That Martin Smith knows or may have had business dealing with Robert Murat, matters not a jot, RM was eliminated - no dog alerts at his property.  

I doubt anybody put under the spotlight would come out squeaky clean, especially if that scrutiny extended to their family, friends, colleagues, and fellow members of any (golf or whatever) club, they belonged to.  In any event, the examination of the Smith family is a false trail, it leads away from examination of those close to the central crime, the one we are all here for, the disappearance of Madeleine.  

The idea of Martin Smith asking his family to perjure themselves for 7 years for a mate of his, is absurd.  I think it was brave of them to come forward, and having seen the scrutiny and criticism they have come under for doing so, we can perhaps understand their initial reluctance and their refusal to engage in the circus surrounding this case.  Imo, their quiet dignity is admirable and they will be alongside Goncalo Amaral as heroes when justice is finally achieved.

RIPM wrote:Can anyone explain in a paragraph or less, if Mr Smith was intent on perverting the course of justice by giving false evidence, in order to help his "friend" Murat, why complicate matters by involving his whole family?

Why not just himself as a witness with a golfing buddy, or him and his wife, or him and his 22 year old son?

But no, Mr Smith puts his 12 year old daughter's future at risk by telling her to commit perjury and subjecting her to very stressful police investigations and possibly a court appearance.

This constant defamation of this family is ridiculous and pointless.

So, in a paragraph or less, why would any parent expect their child to commit perjury.

For what reason?

Is it possible they simply reported what they saw?

I accept the challenge, being the member here who has most robustly questioned whether the Smiths' sighting may be a fabrication. And I will do so concisely. But first I must reproduce a summary of Aoife Smith's statement which is an extract from an article not yet fully published:

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE

The main features of Aoife Smith’s statement were as follows:

•           she was staying in Praia da Luz with her mother (Mary) and father (Martin), her elder brother, Peter, his wife Sian and two children aged 10 and 4, her aunt Barbara and her two children aged 13 and 6, in the Estrela da Luz complex (where the family go three times a year)

•           they left the Dolphin restaurant at about 9.30pm [NOTE: Martin Smith says ‘about 9.00pm]. They were then in Kelly’s bar for ‘about 30 minutes’, leaving ‘around 10.00pm’. She claims that she knows the time “because her brother and father decided to leave early that night”. There were two reasons for this: her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other reason had to do with her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law, who were catching a flight to Ireland the very next day”.

•           she recollects seeing the man just after reaching the top of some steps leading to the Rua 25 de Abril. She says she turned left at the top of the steps, “looked to her left and saw a man carrying a child in his arms, walking down the Rua 25 de Abril”. He was about 2 metres (6 feet) away. She says that the man “crossed to the other side of the Rua 25 de Abril and began walking on the street that leads to the primary school, in the direction of their apartment complex”. She didn’t see which way he walked after that”. [NOTE: If she saw the man 6 feet away, and was passing him in the opposite direction, there would only be about half a second before they crossed, a very short time in which to absorb any information].

•           she has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. She is “about 60% certain”.

•           the street lighting there was ‘weak’.

•           she was able to give the following detailed description, although she added that “she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child again”:

-  the man was white

- ‘light-skinned’ but ‘of normal complexion’

- between 20 and 30 year old

- 1.75m to 1.8m in height (5’ 9” to 5’ 11”)

- of ‘normal physique’

- thinks he was clean-shaven, doesn’t remember any tattoos, scars or earrings

- had thickish, light brown hair, cut short

- was wearing trousers which were beige in colour,

- his trousers were made of cotton

- his trousers possibly had buttons on them

- she can’t say what he was wearing on top because ‘the child he was carrying covered him completely from the top’

- he was walking ‘normally’

- the child he was carrying was female, and had straight, long, light or light brown hair down to the neck, she says she was about four years old ‘because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height’; she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder; she appeared to be sleeping; her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck; she thinks the child was white; she had no covering; she  was wearing light, white or light-pink trousers that ‘may have been pyjamas, made of light material’ and ‘could have been cotton’. She can’t remember if they were patterned as it was dark. She also had ‘a light top, with long sleeves’. She can’t remember seeing any shoes on her feet.

[COMMENT: It is a very detailed description indeed, given that she had, according to her own testimony, less than a second before he passed her on the street].

UNQUOTE

I will now answer your challenge with the following points:

1. As stated above, the description she gives of this man and of the child was extraordinarily detailed considering that, by her own account, she only had a second or two, and in the dark, to see this man and child   

2. Then we need once again to question why Aoife, her elder brother Peter and Martin Smith waited day after day after day [THIRTEEN DAYS] before even mentioning this sighting to each other, let alone mentioning it to the police

3. At this time the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was on the front page of newspapers in Portugal, Britain and Ireland every day, and TV footage including pictures of Madeleine were usually the lead TV news in each of those three countries

4. Not one of them stirred until the day after their friend, Robert Murat, was pulled in for questioning and made a suspect. Then Peter is claimed to have 'phoned his father, and said: 'Dad, did we see a man carrying a child on the evening Madeleine went missing?'. To say that that account 'lacks credibility' would surely be to make an understatement

5. How credible is it that Aoife Smith could determine that the man's trousers and the child's pyjamas were 'made of cotton'?

6. How credible is it that Martin Smith could claim he was '60% to 80% certain' that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based solely on the claim that 'it was because of the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'?

7. How credible is it that despite it being dark, the man's face being hidden (see Aoife's statement above), and then only having a second to see him, that Martin Smith should pronounce: "It definitely wasn't Robert Murat'?

8. We know from Martin Smith's own mouth that he used to 'see Murat in bars' and had known him for at least two years. It is possible that he knew him better than that.     

++++++++++++++

Now, to answer this question:

"Can anyone explain in a paragraph or less, if Mr Smith was intent on perverting the course of justice by giving false evidence, in order to help his "friend" Murat, why complicate matters by involving his whole family?"

ANSWER: My hypothesis is not, as you suggest, that his motivation was 'being intent on perverting the course of justice' but rather that his prime motivation may have been to help his friend Robert Murat, whom he may have perceived as having unfairly been made a suspect. I also suggest that it is possible that he knew or believed Murat was being consciously framed by members of the McCanns' circle of friends. We now of course know that to be absolutely true as during the three-day period 13 to 16 Jane Tanner said it was Murat she'd seen carrying the child and Fiona Payne, Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield and Russell O'Brien all made statements implicating Murat. I further think it is very possible that the very same motivation - i.e. helping Murat - prompted him to claim that he 'recognised' Gerry, walking off the plane on 9 September, as the man he said he had seen in Pdl on 3 May. I think it is very possible that the Smiths had a discussion about helping out their friend Murat and agreed to pretend that they had seen someone.    

You also asked: "Is it possible they simply reported what they saw?"

ANSWER: Yes, I think it is possible, but unlikely for these specific reasons:

1. The delay in reporting their claimed sighting

2. The very detailed descriptions each of them gave, despite

a) it being dark
b) the street lighting being weak
c) the fact that they only saw him for a second or two
d) the fact that [see Aoife's statement] his face was completely hidden, and

3. The uncanny coincidence of the descriptions of 'Smithman' matching those of 'Tannerman' in 17 different respects. We have to explain this. I suggest collusion, namely that Smith already had access to the detailed description given by Jane Tanner. AFAIK no other member on this forum has yet been able to satisfactorily explain these 17 similarities in the descriptions   

Tony Bennett wrote:
3. The uncanny coincidence of the descriptions of 'Smithman' matching those of 'Tannerman' in 17 different respects. We have to explain this. I suggest collusion, namely that Smith already had access to the detailed description given by Jane Tanner. AFAIK no other member on this forum has yet been able to satisfactorily explain these 17 similarities in the descriptions

With all due respect, surely that's not for you to decide as you don't speak on behalf of every member of the forum, you can only speak for yourself.  Russiandoll explained the similarities well enough for me in that poll thread only just recently. I found Russiandoll's explanation far more satisfactory than yours.  Your sentence starting 'AFAIK' is your opinion, despite being stated as fact.

ETA - That said, I don't want to enter into a protracted argument, just thought I'd say my piece :)

I've steered well clear of this debate because I'm not clever enough to understand it.

What I will say though is that an interview is only as good as the person who devises the questions and elicits the answers to those questions.

If you take the rogatory interviews they looked good on first reading but nothing was probed by the interviewer, so at face value or first read it was all good stuff but it wasn't, it really wasn't good enough and didn't portray the LP in a good light.

The Smiths testimony is only as good as the questions they were asked.

It's a bit like a referendum. You ask the question to give the answer you wish to be given.

I hope this makes sense.

aquila wrote:I've steered well clear of this debate because I'm not clever enough to understand it.

What I will say though is that an interview is only as good as the person who devises the questions and elicits the answers to those questions.

If you take the rogatory interviews they looked good on first reading but nothing was probed by the interviewer, so at face value or first read it was all good stuff but it wasn't, it really wasn't good enough and didn't portray the LP in a good light.

The Smiths testimony is only as good as the questions they were asked.

It's a bit like a referendum. You ask the question to give the answer you wish to be given.

I hope this makes sense.

You are right Aquila, and it has been proved here that the PJ asked more or less the same sort of questions of witnesses. The proven one being 'did he look like a tourist.' Therefore I take it that most of the witnesses would have been asked and probed with a list of questions such as colour of cloths, material, thick, thin like cotton etc. That is how the answers come out similar.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
3. The uncanny coincidence of the descriptions of 'Smithman' matching those of 'Tannerman' in 17 different respects. We have to explain this. I suggest collusion, namely that Smith already had access to the detailed description given by Jane Tanner. AFAIK no other member on this forum has yet been able to satisfactorily explain these 17 similarities in the descriptions

With all due respect, surely that's not for you to decide as you don't speak on behalf of every member of the forum, you can only speak for yourself.  Russiandoll explained the similarities well enough for me in that poll thread only just recently. I found Russiandoll's explanation far more satisfactory than yours.  Your sentence starting 'AFAIK' is your opinion, despite being stated as fact.

Just for the record on this thread, WLBTS, this is russiandoll's explanation for the 17 remarkable similarities (which she fully admits) for why the Smith family's description of 'Smithman' is all but exactly the same as Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman':

(and bearing in mind that there are several witnesses who confirm that Gerry McCann was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club during, say, the period 9.30pm to 10.30pm, when russiandoll says he was rushing around Praia da Luz with a dead body).

russiandoll's explanation for the 17 remarkable similarities between Smithman and Tannerman:  

1. Madeleine was dead. She died sometime during the early evening of 3 May (as per Goncal Amaral's theory).

2. Gerry decided to make a run for it, carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz to...well, somewhere.

3. The alarm was due to be raised by Kate (or someone else) at about 10.00pm or just before.

4. Gerry was suddenly spotted by 9 Irish people and said to himself: "B*gger. That's torn it.

5. He hurriedly deposited Madeleine's body somewhere, then dashed back to the Ocean Club.

6. Whereupon he got hold of Jane Tanner and said: 'Look, make up a description of someone you saw, say about 9.15pm - to give me time to be seen by the Irish people at 10.00pm. But, you know, tweak it a bit here and there, hair colour or something, so they don't think it's me'.


I said that IMO no-one has yet provided a satisfactory explanantion for these remarkable similarities which (again IMO) suggest that one description was copied from the other (as russiandoll also fully agrees).

I note that you think russiandoll's hypothesis adequately explains these 17 similarities

Good post Aquila! Makes perfect sense.

candyfloss wrote:

The proven one being 'did he look like a tourist?'  

Which begs the question: What does a tourist look like?

It is a strange question to ask.

If I were asked it by the police, I'd say: "What does a tourist look like?"

PeterMac wrote:You are falling into their trap.
Madeleine was not abducted, not by Tannerman nor by Smithman nor by anyone else.

Exactly, there was no abduction, period.
Whether Smithman exists or not is immaterial. He could just be an innocent man carrying his daughter home.

It can't have been Gerry taking his daughter to the nearby scrubland (the current dig of Met) at that time when the alarm was being raised, to have done such an effective job without tool, and still be able to return in good clean condition in good time to be seen by witnesses at the resort.

Besides there is the lab-style clean out apt leaving not a trace of Madeleine, all that does not fit into the time line as they told it.

Think where Gerry could have gone on the afternoon of the 3rd with a laden blue bag to dispose of her.
Could he have gone to the snail scrubland? What gave OG reason to focus there for a start?

Tony Bennett wrote:
Just for the record on this thread, WLBTS, this is russiandoll's explanation for the 17 remarkable similarities (which she fully admits) for why the Smith family's description of 'Smithman' is all but exactly the same as Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman':

(and bearing in mind that there are several witnesses who confirm that Gerry McCann was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club during, say, the period 9.30pm to 10.30pm, when russiandoll says he was rushing around Praia da Luz with a dead body).

russiandoll's explanation for the 17 remarkable similarities between Smithman and Tannerman:  

1. Madeleine was dead. She died sometime during the early evening of 3 May (as per Goncal Amaral's theory).

2. Gerry decided to make a run for it, carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz to...well, somewhere.

3. The alarm was due to be raised by Kate (or someone else) at about 10.00pm or just before.

4. Gerry was suddenly spotted by 9 Irish people and said to himself: "B*gger. That's torn it.

5. He hurriedly deposited Madeleine's body somewhere, then dashed back to the Ocean Club.

6. Whereupon he got hold of Jane Tanner and said: 'Look, make up a description of someone you saw, say about 9.15pm - to give me time to be seen by the Irish people at 10.00pm. But, you know, tweak it a bit here and there, hair colour or something, so they don't think it's me'.


I said that IMO no-one has yet provided a satisfactory explanantion for these remarkable similarities which (again IMO) suggest that one description was copied from the other (as russiandoll also fully agrees).

I note that you think russiandoll's hypothesis adequately explains these 17 similarities

1. You've quoted your own words, those aren't the words of russiandoll.

2. I don't agree that nobody has provided a satisfactory explanation, for me russiandoll's explanation is satisfactory.

3. I don't think that you have given a satisfactory explanation.

I'm happy for us to have different opinions.  I've heard yours, and I disagree, I'm sticking to the option that you've described as 'Some other reason / IMPOSSIBLE'.

Pat Brown's latest post is very relevant here:

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/why-i-believe-smithman-is-real-and.html

Petermac has a point, and I am weary of going around in circles on this issue, so I will say finally:

   re Aoife Smith . I did not read anywhere in Tony's post re her statement that SHE said that she only saw the man and child for a second or two.
                           Nor did I see her describing the man having his face hidden, as claimed by Tony. I read her say that she could not see the child's face due to the way her head was resting on the man's shoulders.


 Now for Tony's comment on my post re the 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman. I do not object to this being brought over from the other thread and discussed here, in fact I will do so in order for a comparison to be made between what I posted and Tony's rewrite of it.


russiandoll's explanation for the 17 remarkable similarities between Smithman and Tannerman:  

1. Madeleine was dead. She died sometime during the early evening of 3 May (as per Goncal Amaral's theory). NOT PART OF MY EXPLANATION

2. Gerry decided to make a run for it, carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz to...well, somewhere. NOT PART OF MY EXPLANATION

3. The alarm was due to be raised by Kate (or someone else) at about 10.00pm or just before.

4. Gerry was suddenly spotted by 9 Irish people and said to himself: "B*gger. That's torn it.

5. He hurriedly deposited Madeleine's body somewhere, then dashed back to the Ocean Club. NOT PART OF MY EXPLANATION

6. Whereupon he got hold of Jane Tanner and said: 'Look, make up a description of someone you saw, say about 9.15pm - to give me time to be seen by the Irish people at 10.00pm. But, you know, tweak it a bit here and there, hair colour or something, so they don't think it's me'.

 your sarcasm is not lost on me, but I would say in response that you suggest that rather than one adult ask another adult for an alibi, a man asks multiple people including a child from his family to risk a charge of perverting the course of justice to help out a friend/acquaintance.

 my post  re the similarities :


   I agree that there are many similarities and have voted other reasons, because all of the above are consistent with Gerry McCann realising the implications of the Smith sighting and suddenly needing an alibi for the time the balloon went up, when he was missing.

 Jez had been an independent witness but far too early, so poor Jane was called upon to describe her Tannerman of 9,15, who had to look very like Smithman, but not a Gerry double, so there was a tweak or two [ hair was one iirc, will check], face not described in detail.. well she wouldn't, would she?

 The 2 had to morph into each other, it was the police's job to wonder why an abductor was walking about with a child for 45 minutes.


 Jane didn't mention the buttons on the trousers, even though she saw Tannerman side-on. Managed to get the flowers on the pj bottoms in the dark,  though.
 

 So we agree on the similarities Tony but not for why they exist.


  It is quite clear what I did and did not give as an explanation. Please do not put words into my mouth, Tony, because nowhere did I mention Maddie nor the time that I believe she died.