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

by nobodythereeither 30.10.13 13:31

candyfloss wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:Sounds like Smithman is going to be a deceased ex employee of the Ocean Club, according to CM this morning....
What do you mean? Have I missed something?

Could you expand on that? Thanks!
Here...

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8351p160-pj-searches-for-maddie-s-body-again

Thanks Candyfloss, I hadn't seen that thread yet.

Oh dear, more reading .....

by thetruthbeknown 30.10.13 14:31

as its relevant to this thread thought id reiterate my post on the other thread regarding 'speculation' on developments regarding 'Smithman':

My take on the Smithman development (if it can be called that)

1. This does not come from PJ, no identity would be revealed, there is a secrecy order on any developments

2. As both SY and PJ have been doing reviews and sharing information, Smithman sighting has been known about at least 2 years by both, but was not seen by itself as significant enough to warrant an immediate reopening

3. PJ said in April 2012 that there was no intention of reopening at that time, it would only be reopened on significant evidence, not hypothesis..IMO the evidence that caused the reopening to be allowed, is more then just Smithman...I think, even with damning evidence, every other possibility has to be accounted for. Tannerman is said to be accounted for..maybe now Smithman may have been identified and accounted for? Anyone want to offer another sighting of some other abductor??? No?? Then lets get to the truth shall we? Maybe?

Im sorry if this has been covered already, my pc is playing up a bit and pages are taking an age to load smith - Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 2 847771

smith - Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 2 847771

by galena 30.10.13 14:34

thetruthbeknown wrote:as its relevant to this thread thought id reiterate my post on the other thread regarding 'speculation' on developments regarding 'Smithman':

My take on the Smithman development (if it can be called that)

1. This does not come from PJ, no identity would be revealed, there is a secrecy order on any developments

2. As both SY and PJ have been doing reviews and sharing information, Smithman sighting has been known about at least 2 years by both, but was not seen by itself as significant enough to warrant an immediate reopening

3. PJ said in April 2012 that there was no intention of reopening at that time, it would only be reopened on significant evidence, not hypothesis..IMO the evidence that caused the reopening to be allowed, is more then just Smithman...I think, even with damning evidence, every other possibility has to be accounted for. Tannerman is said to be accounted for..maybe now Smithman may have been identified and accounted for? Anyone want to offer another sighting of some other abductor??? No?? Then lets get to the truth shall we? Maybe?

Im sorry if this has been covered already, my pc is playing up a bit and pages are taking an age to load

Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?

by thetruthbeknown 30.10.13 14:44

galena wrote:Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?

I was refferring to the review..the Smiths statements had been taken and noted in 2007, but I think proceedings were mainly thwarted by PIs, McCanns and their spin, the focus was deliberately guided to Tannerman. The case was shelved because of the lack of evidence, which I believe was hampered.

But for the new 'efits' and the follow up of the Smith sighting, that had been established during the review. However, was not 'significant' enough for a reopening in 2012. IMO

by galena 30.10.13 15:00

thetruthbeknown wrote:
galena wrote:Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?
I was refferring to the review..the Smiths statements had been taken and noted in 2007, but I think proceedings were mainly thwarted by PIs, McCanns and their spin, the focus was deliberately guided to Tannerman. The case was shelved because of the lack of evidence, which I believe was hampered.

But for the new 'efits' and the follow up of the Smith sighting, that had been established during the review. However, was not 'significant' enough for a reopening in 2012. IMO

I have to say that if the efits are all they have it hardly seems worth re-opening the case. Efits done weeks later by witnesses who said at the time they wouldn't be able to identify the man they saw immediately afterwards?

by thetruthbeknown 30.10.13 17:00

galena wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
galena wrote:Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?
I was refferring to the review..the Smiths statements had been taken and noted in 2007, but I think proceedings were mainly thwarted by PIs, McCanns and their spin, the focus was deliberately guided to Tannerman. The case was shelved because of the lack of evidence, which I believe was hampered.

But for the new 'efits' and the follow up of the Smith sighting, that had been established during the review. However, was not 'significant' enough for a reopening in 2012. IMO
I have to say that if the efits are all they have it hardly seems worth re-opening the case. Efits done weeks later by witnesses who said at the time they wouldn't be able to identify the man they saw immediately afterwards?

Yes, I think there is some kind of damning evidence, against someone or maybe in another area? I doubt we would know at present..I have a feeling PJ would not have agreed to reopen without a feeling of it being a clear cut, and the Smith/efits etc were evidence im pretty sure was around when they said it was unlikely to reopen back in 2012. and as said, all other possiblities must be discarded and proved as to why they are not relevant..I would expect that to happen first before the final blow with the reopening..

by sar 30.10.13 17:39

Just been google earthing pdl, where smithman was sighted, tapas bar etc. [switched to satellite image] distances don't look that far, for someone who's fit, a trip one way with "something" and an unburdened return journey. Even at night by street lighting. To come back up around the tennis courts "puffing and panting/ distressed" at the right moment, not that hard.

by Spandex 31.10.13 6:51

I have a gut feeling that one of the tapas have turned and together with the Smith sighting and phone records may be enough evidence?

by Silver Shuffle 31.10.13 6:55

Spandex wrote:I have a gut feeling that one of the tapas have turned and together with the Smith sighting and phone records may be enough evidence?

Gosh I hope you're Feeling is right... think with the spin

they are definitely trying to bury Smithman!

by Research_Reader 31.10.13 10:18

I think Smithman was sighted fairly near to where Sergey Malinka was living.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.13 10:29

Is it clear or "Clarrified" that Smithman and Flatman / Tractorman are supposed to be one and the same
or is the pink one trying to introduce yet another suspect.A ohoto of Tractorman whould help.

(I note that according to one account he originally came from the Cap Verde Islands - which suggests the colour of his skin might be at the extreme end of Swarthy !)

by jeanmonroe 31.10.13 10:32

WHERE could Smithman/Tractorman have been heading?

Obviously, to the farm that his mate, ol' Macdonald, had!

by thetruthbeknown 31.10.13 10:33

PeterMac wrote:Is it clear or "Clarrified" that Smithman and Flatman / Tractorman are supposed to be one and the same
or is the pink one trying to introduce yet another suspect.A ohoto of Tractorman whould help.

(I note that according to one account he originally came from the Cap Verde Islands - which suggests the colour of his skin might be at the extreme end of Swarthy !)

Nothing is clear in this case smilie

IMO I think tractorman is just another process of elimination of earlier theories/sightings

by jeanmonroe 31.10.13 10:37

thetruthbeknown wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Is it clear or "Clarrified" that Smithman and Flatman / Tractorman are supposed to be one and the same
or is the pink one trying to introduce yet another suspect.A ohoto of Tractorman whould help.

(I note that according to one account he originally came from the Cap Verde Islands - which suggests the colour of his skin might be at the extreme end of Swarthy !)
Nothing is clear in this case

IMO I think tractorman is just another process of elimination of earlier theories/sightings

So NOT a blonde Scandanavian 'LURKER' chap wearing BIGGGGG sunglasses?

( I'll NEVER, EVER 'forget' those BIGGGGGG glasses, says 'witness')

by Sietah 31.10.13 10:42

PeterMac wrote:A ohoto of Tractorman whould help.

Think it would be something like this:

smith - Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?) - Page 2 Tapase11

by StraightThinking 02.11.13 7:37

Why does everyone assume that Smithman might have been taking M from 5a to a hiding place?

It's much more likely that she wandered off and was found close to where Smithman was spotted

ie everything is back-to-front

That means that K was genuinely surprised when she found her missing, which seems fair enough

Where was Smithman going? Maybe to a temporary hiding place, and eventually back to 5a when the initial search was over and everyone had gone home

That would allow the cadaverine time to develop and for the scent to accumulate after the body was placed behind the sofa

The best place to hide a body is the place that has already been thoroughly searched

by ProfessorPPlum 02.11.13 7:57

So MM wandered off into the night, KM was genuinely surprised to find her gone and raised the alarm. Smithman then kills MM and - despite a huge and genuine police, public and then press furore - brings her body back to 5A and puts her behind sofa so that weeks later the dogs will alert?

Have I read your post right straightthinking?

by StraightThinking 02.11.13 20:53

by Guest 02.11.13 21:16

Inasmuch as I know the McCanns left 5A May 3 late night/early morning May 4 for the Payne's apartment and were allocated in another apartment at OC the next day. AFAIK they were escorted out of 5A with their belongings the morning of May 4. I've seen pictures of that. So WHEN could Madeleine's body have been hidden in 5A and NOT discovered by the PJ? I'm losing you ...

by StraightThinking 02.11.13 21:30

Link here:

May 3 - May 4 timeline