The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Page 3 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
13% 13% 
[ 6 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
87% 87% 
[ 39 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
 
Total Votes : 45

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by aquila on 29.04.14 11:23

@AndyB wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
Has she committed an offence though? If there is any justice that has been perverted it is surely Portuguese justice. (I'm not defending her, I'm just asking)
Your allegation/claim is that Jane Tanner lied about a missing child by fabricating a 'sighting' of her. That is a very serious offence indeed.

If she did that in this country, yes it would be 'perverting the course of justice'. And your claim is that she did indeed lie to a British police force - Leicestershire Constabulary.

I do not know the law in Portugal, but in most jurisdictions the world over there are severe penalities for lying to police and lying to the courts.
It wasn't actually my allegation or my claim. What I was questioning is whether someone, having lied to the English police about an alleged crime that happened abroad, has committed an offence in English law given that, in this case, the justice that would have been perverted is Portuguese. It seems that the answer is yes, anyone who lies to the police about anything has automatically perverted the course of justice. Am I correct?
I don't even understand your question AndyB
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Hicks on 29.04.14 11:32

SY know full well that JT was not on the street at the time she says. There were independent witnesses, sat on the balcony of their apartment at 9.15, who had a clear view of the street. The whisky drinker is 100% sure that no one was on the street at that time.
GM probably met JW much earlier that he said. JW is not sure of the exact time he met GM. I bet it was somewhere very near 8.45 pm. 

JT was not on the street therefore she did not see any man. The stories of the three just don't match up because two were lying.

The fact that JT says she saw this man( some hours later!) clearly gives the game away.
SY had to rid this nonsense out of the equation to move forward. IMO.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.
avatar
Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 59

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tangled Web on 29.04.14 11:39

@Tony Bennett wrote:According to the gospel according to DCI Redwood (Revised version, 14 October 2013, op. cit.), there were two instances on the evening of 3 May 2007 when the following were seen, on a coldish night, with the temperature about 13 deg C, 55 deg F):

1. A man

2. About say 25 to 40

3. On his own

4. With no mother, partner, girlfriend or other companion

5. Carrying a child

6. Whose head was on the man's left arm or shoulder

7. He was walking 'purposefully' (Tannerman or crecheman - the same individual according to Redwood) or fast (Smithman)

8. The child was female

9. The child was blond

10. The girl was 'about 4 years old'

11. She was dressed only in pyjamas

12. She had nothing on her feet

13. She had no covering on her to protect her against the cold

14. Her pyjamas were whiteish/pinkish

15. Her pyjamas were patterned in some way  

16. The man had no buggy or pushchair

17. He was not carrying any day clothes back home with him

18. The two lone men were wearing very similar clothing, darkish jacket and lightish trousers.


One 'sighting' was at precisely 9.15pm.

The other was, give or take a few minutes, around 9.55pm to 10.00pm.


I'm not buying either of them.

I believe neither of them ever existed.

They are both fabrications - IMO.

DCI Redwood knows this - IMO.

Common sense tells me that a child abductor would prefer to have a quick getaway i.e. a car, as opposed to wandering the streets with an abducted child in full view. I don't believe either 'sighting' and I don't understand why a whole family (Smiths) lied.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 11:43

@ Aquila

Ok, let me put it another way. Is the offence "Perverting the course of English justice" or "Perverting the course of justice anywhere in the world".

My thinking was that, because the crime happened in Portugal and is therefore the jurisdiction of the Portuguese justice system, perhaps lying to the English police about it would not constitute the English offence of perverting the course of justice. In other words, if JT has lied to the police about Tanner man, it might not be possible to prosecute her for it in England, even if SY wanted to

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Hicks on 29.04.14 11:49

Why would a whole family lie though? If what I have read it correct, Mr Smith seems a decent man who is well thought of in his community. perhaps the reason JT lied was to counteract GM being caught out by the Smith family. Don't forget she was seen acting suspiciously on the street outside the McCann's apartment an hour or so before the fake abduction. She (being Portuguese looking and wearing purple). Again, an independent witness saw her.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.
avatar
Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 59

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by aquila on 29.04.14 11:50

@AndyB wrote:@ Aquila

Ok, let me put it another way. Is the offence "Perverting the course of English justice" or "Perverting the course of justice anywhere in the world".

My thinking was that, because the crime happened in Portugal and is therefore the jurisdiction of the Portuguese justice system, perhaps lying to the English police about it would not constitute the English offence of perverting the course of justice. In other words, if JT has lied to the police about Tanner man, it might not be possible to prosecute her for it in England, even if SY wanted to
Thank you.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tangled Web on 29.04.14 12:17

@Hicks wrote:Why would a whole family lie though? If what I have read it correct, Mr Smith seems a decent man who is well thought of in his community. perhaps the reason JT lied was to counteract GM being caught out by the Smith family. Don't forget she was seen acting suspiciously on the street outside the McCann's apartment an hour or so before the fake abduction. She (being Portuguese looking and wearing purple). Again, an independent witness saw her.

I thought the same at one time but then I just can't get my head around GM risking being caught on CCTV etc. carrying a child at the same time his own daughter was, supposedly, abducted. It's just too risky, unless it did all happen on the 3rd and it was rushed, but there are so many discrepancies that start earlier, suggesting something happened before the 3rd. Even if it was all rushed, I'm sure GM could've come up with a less conspicuous plan than that! As far as why the Smith family lied, there is probably a reason they want GM in the frame. Maybe somebody knows something that knows him. Nothing would surprise me about this case. Maybe they saw an innocent father with child and let their imaginations run away with them? It's quite a jump to give a fairly vague description of somebody carrying a child at night and then claim to recognise this person months later walking down some aeroplane steps....

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 13:02

@Tangled Web wrote:
It's quite a jump to give a fairly vague description of somebody carrying a child at night and then claim to recognise this person months later walking down some aeroplane steps....
They didn't actually 'recognise' him. Mr Smith claims it was 'the way he was carrying his child on his left shoulder' that made him '60% to 80% certain' that the man he claims to have seen was Gerry McCann. Since about half the population carry their child on their left shoulder and the other 50% on the right, this was patent nonsense.

There are a great many reasons why I disbelieve the Smiths.

Among them are:

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 4 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 5 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 6 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 7 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 8 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 9 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz and flew back to Ireland on 10 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 11 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 12 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 13 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 14 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 15 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Robert Murat was made an arguido on 15 May 2007

* Smith had met Muart 'many times' in Praia da Luz over a period of over 2 years, including 'in bars'

* Smith rents an apartment at the Estrela dal Luz complex and goes there 'several times a year'

* Smith claimed that on 16 May 2007 his son 'phoned him and said: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child?' Smith, apparently, suddenly remembered that 'Yes, I did'

* Only then did Smith contact police, and the only thing he was really sure about was that the person he claimed to have seen was 'definitely not Robert Murat'.


I have many other reasons for my view which I've stated on the 'Smithman' threads

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 13:20

I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 13:40

Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.
Thanks very much for your comments.

I have struggled to get across my doubts about the whole 'Smithman thing' - and that's why on this occasion I chose to emphasise - by listing all the dayes between 3 and 16 May one by one - how, amidst the world-wide publicity on the TV, and hundreds of police and searchers and TV cameras and journalists milling around Praia da Luz, he chose to sit there, day after day, no doubt dropping down to Kelly's bar for a pint of Guinness or whatever, and, having (as he claims) seen a man carrying a young blond child in her pyjamas, did...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

He then flies back to Ireland, and once again does...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

Only when his drinking chum over the past two years, Robert Murat, gets made a suspect, does he stir himself - and only then, according to the 'Smith story', his son had to remind him by saying: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?'.  And then, conveniently, he at last picks up his telephone, and tells the police: "I saw someone, it was dark, there was very poor lighting, I only saw him for a second or two, his face was hidden by the child so I didn't see it - but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat". 


If anyone can see any credibility in that, I'm amazed

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Watching on 29.04.14 13:43

@1soapy wrote:Hi Watching/others.

And so your verdict upon me in clearer language that can be easily understood please?

@1soapy

Impossible to make my position any clearer (we both know this) therefore fruitless to try.    Feigning ignorance, acting obtusely - doesn't cut it with me.

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 29.04.14 13:48

I think it would be very difficult to prosecute Jane Tanner for attempting to pervert the course of justice in either the UK or Portugal. The reason being it would be a virtual impossibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying, particularly in the vein that a senior police officer has now confirmed in the form of Crecheman, that there was a person in the vicinity vaguely resembling her description.

Inspector Redwood would be her main defence witness and what could he say, ''Well actually Crecheman was a fictitious character I invented to mislead the meeja and further ensure the McCanns would never be prosecuted.''

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 13:51

@russiandoll wrote:O/T re Tannerman and crechedad.... but Martin Smith changed his recall re clothing after 6 months. In May 2007, his memory had been the same as Aoife re the clothing worn top half... could not see/ recall what Smithman wore, then 6 months later, Martin remembered

" Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer."
Yes, RD, hugely significant, along with all the other reasons to doubt all members of the Smith family, thanks very much for reminding us all   x

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 13:57

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.
Thanks very much for your comments.

I have struggled to get across my doubts about the whole 'Smithman thing' - and that's why on this occasion I chose to emphasise - by listing all the dayes between 3 and 16 May one by one - how, amidst the world-wide publicity on the TV, and hundreds of police and searchers and TV cameras and journalists milling around Praia da Luz, he chose to sit there, day after day, no doubt dropping down to Kelly's bar for a pint of Guinness or whatever, and, having (as he claims) seen a man carrying a young blond child in her pyjamas, did...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

He then flies back to Ireland, and once again does...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

Only when his drinking chum over the past two years, Robert Murat, gets made a suspect, does he stir himself - and only then, according to the 'Smith story', his son had to remind him by saying: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?'.  And then, conveniently, he at last picks up his telephone, and tells the police: "I saw someone, it was dark, there was very poor lighting, I only saw him for a second or two, his face was hidden by the child so I didn't see it - but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat". 


If anyone can see any credibility in that, I'm amazed

So, the Smith's saw no-one carrying a child, TB?  If they are lying I do hope they will join the (long) list of people charged with perverting the course of justice if/when this case is ever resolved.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 14:01

@diatribe wrote:I think it would be very difficult to prosecute Jane Tanner for attempting to pervert the course of justice in either the UK or Portugal. The reason being it would be a virtual impossibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying, particularly in the vein that a senior police officer has now confirmed in the form of Crecheman, that there was a person in the vicinity vaguely resembling her description.

Inspector Redwood would be her main defence witness and what could he say, ''Well actually Crecheman was a fictitious character I invented to mislead the meeja and further ensure the McCanns would never be prosecuted.''
I don't follow how inventing Crecheman helps ensure the McCann's are never prosecuted. The only person I can see it helping is JT: Like you say, it protects her from a charge of perverting the course of justice and, in my more optimistic moments, I believe Crecheman may have been invented for precisely this reason in exchange for JT telling SY what really happened/giving evidence

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 29.04.14 14:02

Ladyinred wrote:

So, the Smith's saw no-one carrying a child, TB?  If they are lying I do hope they will join the (long) list of people charged with perverting the course of justice and if/when this case is ever resolved.

The way this case is going, Ladyinred, they will all have to be charged posthumously by a nation of people whose normal means of transport are flying saucers. big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 29.04.14 14:07

@AndyB wrote:
I don't follow how inventing Crecheman helps ensure the McCann's are never prosecuted. The only person I can see it helping is JT: Like you say, it protects her from a charge of perverting the course of justice and, in my more optimistic moments, I believe Crecheman may have been invented for precisely this reason in exchange for JT telling SY what really happened/giving evidence

But Andy, Crecheman was merely substituted by Smithman, yet another fictitious character. big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 14:22

Ok - so if the Smith sighting is fabricated to get chum Robert Murat off the hook then why did he say he was 60 - 80% sure it was Gerry Mccann?

Why if the Smith family are lying as some forum members assume, then why didn't he just say that the person he vaguely saw was not Robert Murat and not a Gerry lookalike. Maybe just Crechedad number 2. Another innocent father. Why did he and other family members lean towards it being Gerry. What purpose does this serve if they were in fact lying?

What was the Smith's business interests? Could it be that it was not quite legit, therefore didn't want to draw attention to himself straight away. Maybe assuming that other witness's would come forward sooner and therefore he might not of needed to speak up and remain in the background.

Almost everyone believed the parents / MSM version of events in the first few weeks. It would take some balls to turn round and say actually i'm pretty sure that i saw the father of the missing girl walking down towards the beach at the time of the 'abduction'.  

Maybe after a few weeks when his mate Murat was in the frame that he decided to speak up and also say he was fairly sure that the man he saw could of been GM as he felt guilty for not speaking up sooner. Again, hoping that other people would do so.

Just purporting theories as IMO i'm yet to be convinced that the Smith Sighting is fabricated.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 14:26

@diatribe wrote:But Andy, Crecheman was merely substituted by Smithman, yet another fictitious character. big grin
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Watching on 29.04.14 14:56

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.
Thanks very much for your comments.

I have struggled to get across my doubts about the whole 'Smithman thing' - and that's why on this occasion I chose to emphasise - by listing all the dayes between 3 and 16 May one by one - how, amidst the world-wide publicity on the TV, and hundreds of police and searchers and TV cameras and journalists milling around Praia da Luz, he chose to sit there, day after day, no doubt dropping down to Kelly's bar for a pint of Guinness or whatever, and, having (as he claims) seen a man carrying a young blond child in her pyjamas, did...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

He then flies back to Ireland, and once again does...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

Only when his drinking chum over the past two years, Robert Murat, gets made a suspect, does he stir himself - and only then, according to the 'Smith story', his son had to remind him by saying: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?'.  And then, conveniently, he at last picks up his telephone, and tells the police: "I saw someone, it was dark, there was very poor lighting, I only saw him for a second or two, his face was hidden by the child so I didn't see it - but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat". 


If anyone can see any credibility in that, I'm amazed


In respect of Smithman (not crecheman) I understand absolutely why you find it incredible that Smith did not report sooner to police.  However - a whole family, to go along with this, seems equally as incredible if it was not the truth.

 With regards Robert Murat, and do correct me if I am misunderstanding - Smithman did not exist until Murat was made arguido?  Murat made arguido 15th May 2007, Smithman on the scene the following day, 16th May 2007, created by Smith Snr to take heat off Murat?


  • On 15th, how well "developed" was Tannerman?  Had hair sprouted on his head at this time, his former egg like self gone for good?
  • Had Jane filled in his missing bits by 15th in such a way that Murat could be considered by police as a ringer for Tannerman?


  • And did not Murat have an alibi - his mother- did he then need Smith and his family to invent a story for him - and if he was innocent? 
  • Did Murat communicate with Smith between the time he was made arguido on 15th and Smith inventing/reporting to police on 16th?
  • On the 15th May at whatever time Smith became aware of Murat becoming arguido he would then have had to make a huge decision to invent a story which involved not only adult members of his family but a child his daughter, putting them all at serious risk of their 'crime' being discovered making them criminals. 
  • Would a father do this to his child put a child in such a terrible position with the law? 
  • How could he be sure the child would be able to carry it off?
  • Or, are we saying, Smith had this 'sighting' of Smithman invented prior to 15th/16th and on back burner all waiting and ready should Murat have his collar felt?  
  • And the child - did she not say Smithman wore trousers with buttons?
  • Did Murat own such a pair?
  • Did Murat ever discover that Smith had given him such an alibi?  Or did/does Murat believe Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl?
  • How close are they, Smith and Murat?
  • What would make Smith think Murat required an alibi - did he doubt his "friend" think it possible that he could have abducted a child? 

I would think whatever the relationship between Murat and Smith (if any) would have to be even more than pretty close pals for Smith to put his entire family at risk, and also for Smith to do so, he must have thought there was a possibility Murat would be charged with a crime, and for whatever reason, he was going to attempt to prevent that from happening.  Did Smith have something to lose if charges brought against Murat?

Not a lot in this case makes sense, and I don't have answers - but invention of Smithman by Smith seems to me to have been quite unnecessary!  Tannerman - well I think most are in agreement about him!

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 29.04.14 15:09

@AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

The timeline, Andy, Tannerman being the kidnapper was all but a physical impossibility with the timings according to the McCanns, whereas Smithman at least made kidnapping a physical possibility, albeit limited. Remember Redwood's words ''There was a window of opportunity.'' I took this to mean than there wasn't with Tannerman.

Redwood not only allowed Tanner to walk away unblemished, he also created a more viable opportunity for a kidnapping to have occurred than the McCann's hypothesis. I don't see how you could possibly have any faith with an investigating body which doesn't have jurisdiction rights over the crime they are purportedly investigating. If they were investigating a potential fraud in respect to the McCann's Foundation Fund where they do have jurisdiction rights, then it would a least appear to be an authentic investigation, even if it wasn't.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 29.04.14 15:14

@diatribe wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

The timeline, Andy, Tannerman being the kidnapper was all but a physical impossibility with the timings according to the McCanns, whereas Smithman at least made kidnapping a physical possibility, albeit limited. Remember Redwood's words ''There was a window of opportunity.'' I took this to mean than there wasn't with Tannerman.

Redwood not only allowed Tanner to walk away unblemished, he also created a more viable opportunity for a kidnapping to have occurred than the McCann's hypothesis. I don't see how you could possibly have any faith with an investigating body which doesn't have jurisdiction rights over the crime they are purportedly investigating. If they were investigating a potential fraud in respect to the McCann's Foundation Fund where they do have jurisdiction rights, then it would a least appear to be an authentic investigation, even if it wasn't.

Somebody really should tell the McCanns that they should take Tannerman off their website, seeing as Redwood eliminated him to clear them.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 15:23

@diatribe wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

The timeline, Andy, Tannerman being the kidnapper was all but a physical impossibility with the timings according to the McCanns, whereas Smithman at least made kidnapping a physical possibility, albeit limited. Remember Redwood's words ''There was a window of opportunity.'' I took this to mean than there wasn't with Tannerman.
Thanks

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by canada12 on 29.04.14 15:31

I'm of the opinion that Jane Tanner's oh-so-helpful sighting of the gentleman carting Madeleine off was an attempt to provide an alibi for not only herself, but Gerry, Jez Wilkins and every single one of the other Tapas friends. If Tannerman existed, none of the Tapas 9, plus Jeremy, could have been the "kidnapper".

With the elimination of Tannerman, the investigation is now wide open. Jane Tanner has no alibi for her whereabouts. Jeremy Wilkins only has the word of Jane Tanner and Gerry.  Gerry only has the word of Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins. The whereabouts of the Tapas friends is subject to the eyewitness recollections of the Tapas staff.

This may not be of interest to SY, who are off chasing pot bellied smelly bedsitters wearing distinctive t-shirts.

But the Portuguese police may have an excellent use for this development. IMO.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tangled Web on 29.04.14 15:41

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tangled Web wrote:
It's quite a jump to give a fairly vague description of somebody carrying a child at night and then claim to recognise this person months later walking down some aeroplane steps....
They didn't actually 'recognise' him. Mr Smith claims it was 'the way he was carrying his child on his left shoulder' that made him '60% to 80% certain' that the man he claims to have seen was Gerry McCann. Since about half the population carry their child on their left shoulder and the other 50% on the right, this was patent nonsense.

There are a great many reasons why I disbelieve the Smiths.

Among them are:

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 4 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 5 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 6 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 7 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 8 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 9 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz and flew back to Ireland on 10 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 11 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 12 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 13 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 14 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 15 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Robert Murat was made an arguido on 15 May 2007

* Smith had met Muart 'many times' in Praia da Luz over a period of over 2 years, including 'in bars'

* Smith rents an apartment at the Estrela dal Luz complex and goes there 'several times a year'

* Smith claimed that on 16 May 2007 his son 'phoned him and said: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child?' Smith, apparently, suddenly remembered that 'Yes, I did'

* Only then did Smith contact police, and the only thing he was really sure about was that the person he claimed to have seen was 'definitely not Robert Murat'.


I have many other reasons for my view which I've stated on the 'Smithman' threads


Thank you Mr Bennett and sorry you have to reiterate these issues, it must get very frustrating!

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum