Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

[sofieellis]

Gareth Owen ‏[ltr]@GarethITV[/ltr]  32s
I understand UK Police have been granted another seven days to work on the search area. #mccann @ITVCentral

[Cristobell]

It was a cold evening on May 3rd. Tanner told us she had to go and get a fleece to put on. What parent would, A.let their child be used as a decoy on such a cold evening in only light jammies. B. not insist that she had a blanket or coat on especially as the child appeared to be in a deep sleep..... you could also interpret that as.... 'lifeless'.

The Smiths description of the man most likely fitting GM.

The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speak volumes.

@ Hicks - I must intervene yet again to remind you - and everyone else here - that

1. The possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was first mentioned - and very definitely so - in the Mentorn Media/Channel 4 'Mockumentary' just TWO YEARS after Madeleine went missing, i.e. in May 2009

2. Subsequently - and for a FURTHER FIVE YEARS EVER SINCE - the McCanns featured the sighting 'by an Irish family' - and prominently so - on their 'Find Madeleine' website, as a possible suspect, AND

3. There were SIX PAGES of references to 'Smithman' in Dr Kate McCanns' book, 'madeleine', including three pages in an Appendix systematically comparing Tannerman and 'Smithman' and VERY STRONGLY suggesting they were one and the same.   

I will keep on reminding everyone here of these absolute facts until, hopefully, we all come to see that the statement: "Team McCann made no mention of Smithman for 5 years" is wholly false, and grossly misleading.

If we get our facts wrong, our assumptions will also prove to be wrong.

You say: "The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speaks volumes".

I reply: "The fact that TM have been promoting Smithman as a possible suspect - and that DCI Redwood now agrees with  them - speaks volumes".  

Please do not see this as a 'telling off'. I have made innocent mistakes myself over the years in discussing this case.

I am just concerned that if you stick with a claimed fact that is demonstrably false, as here, you are likely to arrive a false assumption and a wrong conclusion.

Tony, surely the question of whether Smithman was promoted by the McCanns is a matter of opinion and interpretation, it is not a fact.  I agree with Hicks, imo, the McCanns have buried Smithman.  When they couldn't hide his existence any longer, the McCanns tried to blur the issue by morphing him with Tannerman, but those familiar with the files knew he was a separate entity.  

The McCanns have never held a press conference dedicated to Smithman.  In the faux documentary, they changed his appearance giving him the long hair described by Jane, rather than the short, neat haircut described by the Smith family.  They have never asked the public to look for Smithman, despite the fact that he was seen by 6 witnesses, rather one individual.  Kate may have mentioned him in her book, but she is trying to convince the reader that he is the same man that Jane saw, she even quotes the Smiths as saying 'the man looked uncomfortable carrying a child', or words to that effect, but in any event, the words she attributed to the Smiths were totally untrue! 

I think it is disingenuous to say that it is fact the McCanns promoted Smithman.  It was my stumbling on 'Smithman' many years ago, that aroused my suspicions still further.  I could not understand why the McCanns were not publicising the Smith family sighting, nor could others on the forum and there were many discussions about it.  In referring to Smithman and the e-fits, Andy Redwood announced his existence as a 'revelation' - ie. he was acknowledging the fact that the majority of the public were not aware of this particular sighting, and in doing so he whooshed Tannerman.    

The Times may have had to backtrack their story, but its basis was sound.  Exton received a letter from McCann lawyers threatening him not to publicise his findings.

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

Judging by this Guardian journalist's tweets, it would appear something potentially significant is being unearthed:

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday

Following him now, looks very interesting.

[worriedmum]

Shubob ''Interesting that the burglar only targeted British families. How did he know they were British? Did they only wear Union Jack clothing while the males made a point of wearing socks with sandals   

 

[ShuBob]

Cristobell, I agree with your post @ 7:23pm in its entirety.

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  4s
DCI Andy Redwood and team of Scotland Yard officers have now left Praia da Luz scrubland after third day of searches

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  34m
...at same site

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  35m
Madeleine McCann search:  Unclear how significant this activity is, but this longest I've seen DCI Redwood and other senior officer at s ...

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  37m
There's now about a dozen officers that we can see standing thing outside this tent. DCI Redwood now inside tent.

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  46m
Madeleine McCann search: 3 TV cameras now pointing at DCI Redwood, stood looking into tent where digging is taking place

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  58m
Madeleine Mccann search: DCI Andy Redwood, the officer leading the investigation, now at digging site with local police chief

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  1h
The Faro regional police director is here talking to detectives while digging work goes on inside tent.

Josh Halliday @JoshHalliday  ·  1h
As evening closes in, officers now digging into earth where they used ground penetrating radar earlier. Shielded by white tent.

[Tony Bennett]

Tony, surely the question of whether Smithman was promoted by the McCanns is a matter of opinion and interpretation, it is not a fact.  

I will make my reply brief.

Which, if any, of the three facts I stated above, do you say is untrue?

[Guest]

Judging by this Guardian journalist's tweets, it would appear something potentially significant is being unearthed:

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday

Following him now, looks very interesting.

For those of us not on twitter could you please expand on this ?    Ty.

[Research_Reader]

Is the consensus here still that Smithman was likely to be Gerry? I'm so confused (been away for months and playing catch-up).

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

Judging by this Guardian journalist's tweets, it would appear something potentially significant is being unearthed:

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday

Following him now, looks very interesting.

For those of us not on twitter could you please expand on this ?    Ty.

I've just posted his tweets from this evening a few posts back :)

[Research_Reader]

Judging by this Guardian journalist's tweets, it would appear something potentially significant is being unearthed:

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday

Following him now, looks very interesting.

For those of us not on twitter could you please expand on this ?    Ty.

You don't need to be a member of Twitter to click on the link and follow his updates (just refresh your screen to see new updates, but sounds like they've all left the site for the evening now).

[Guest]

Thanks @ rr and wlbts.     I was a bit slow catching up.

[Markus 2]

SOMETHING GOING ON BY THE SOUND OF THOSE TWEETS

[Research_Reader]

You're welcome. It took me ages to figure out twitter.

[sofieellis]

It was a cold evening on May 3rd. Tanner told us she had to go and get a fleece to put on. What parent would, A.let their child be used as a decoy on such a cold evening in only light jammies. B. not insist that she had a blanket or coat on especially as the child appeared to be in a deep sleep..... you could also interpret that as.... 'lifeless'.

The Smiths description of the man most likely fitting GM.

The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speak volumes.

@ Hicks - I must intervene yet again to remind you - and everyone else here - that

1. The possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was first mentioned - and very definitely so - in the Mentorn Media/Channel 4 'Mockumentary' just TWO YEARS after Madeleine went missing, i.e. in May 2009

2. Subsequently - and for a FURTHER FIVE YEARS EVER SINCE - the McCanns featured the sighting 'by an Irish family' - and prominently so - on their 'Find Madeleine' website, as a possible suspect, AND

3. There were SIX PAGES of references to 'Smithman' in Dr Kate McCanns' book, 'madeleine', including three pages in an Appendix systematically comparing Tannerman and 'Smithman' and VERY STRONGLY suggesting they were one and the same.   

I will keep on reminding everyone here of these absolute facts until, hopefully, we all come to see that the statement: "Team McCann made no mention of Smithman for 5 years" is wholly false, and grossly misleading.

If we get our facts wrong, our assumptions will also prove to be wrong.

You say: "The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speaks volumes".

I reply: "The fact that TM have been promoting Smithman as a possible suspect - and that DCI Redwood now agrees with  them - speaks volumes".  

Please do not see this as a 'telling off'. I have made innocent mistakes myself over the years in discussing this case.

I am just concerned that if you stick with a claimed fact that is demonstrably false, as here, you are likely to arrive a false assumption and a wrong conclusion.

Tony, surely the question of whether Smithman was promoted by the McCanns is a matter of opinion and interpretation, it is not a fact.  I agree with Hicks, imo, the McCanns have buried Smithman.  When they couldn't hide his existence any longer, the McCanns tried to blur the issue by morphing him with Tannerman, but those familiar with the files knew he was a separate entity.  

The McCanns have never held a press conference dedicated to Smithman.  In the faux documentary, they changed his appearance giving him the long hair described by Jane, rather than the short, neat haircut described by the Smith family.  They have never asked the public to look for Smithman, despite the fact that he was seen by 6 witnesses, rather one individual.  Kate may have mentioned him in her book, but she is trying to convince the reader that he is the same man that Jane saw, she even quotes the Smiths as saying 'the man looked uncomfortable carrying a child', or words to that effect, but in any event, the words she attributed to the Smiths were totally untrue! 

I think it is disingenuous to say that it is fact the McCanns promoted Smithman.  It was my stumbling on 'Smithman' many years ago, that aroused my suspicions still further.  I could not understand why the McCanns were not publicising the Smith family sighting, nor could others on the forum and there were many discussions about it.  In referring to Smithman and the e-fits, Andy Redwood announced his existence as a 'revelation' - ie. he was acknowledging the fact that the majority of the public were not aware of this particular sighting, and in doing so he whooshed Tannerman.    

The Times may have had to backtrack their story, but its basis was sound.  Exton received a letter from McCann lawyers threatening him not to publicise his findings.

This is exactly how I see it as well. The McCanns only acknowledged Smithman's existence when they knew they no longer had any choice. And then, as you say, they tried to confuse him with Tannerman in the public's minds.

[Cristobell]

Tony, surely the question of whether Smithman was promoted by the McCanns is a matter of opinion and interpretation, it is not a fact.  

I will make my reply brief.

Which, if any, of the three facts I stated above, do you say is untrue?

I too will be brief.  I didn't say any of your points were untrue Tony, I said they were a matter of interpretation.

[Guest]

 
Please we have some important developments happening.  It looks from tweets that the cops have found what they were looking for imo.  Something is happening I think....


So let's stay on topic.  If you wish to discuss Smithman there are plenty of threads but NOT THIS ONE

[Hicks]

Hicks, I'm not sure the extent of these suspects being "currently" talked about. Your link is from March, the link posted last night was from May 8th, and as far as I know nobody has clarified or confirmed the mention of ITV.

If there is genuinely any article from the last day or even two that mentions 8 suspects to be interviewed please can someone share it, as otherwise this is something that no others media seems to have mentioned and may be a misunderstanding based on old links and Chinese whispers...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-eight-prime-suspects-3511716. Sorry I was referring to this.

Yes, May 8th.
A long time has passed since then and SY are in Portugal with permission specifically for digging unless anyone knows otherwise.

With respect gbwales, the article mentions the eight suspects, then the following," The met detectives are understood to be 'fine tuning' the details of a series of searches across an area of wasteland  just yards from the Ocean Club, A cobbled road close to the towns 16th century church and a car park near the beach. It is not known exactly when the searches will take commence but sources claim the presence of specialist forensic officers could be a sign that the dig are days away".
 I am not stating as fact that the digging is due to info on the British cleaners. I am saying that when reading the above I get a bad feeling that the cleaners will conveniently fit the frame, in my opinion.  I hope my explanation clears things up for you.

[MrsC]

Please we have some important developments happening.  It looks from tweets that the cops have found what they were looking for imo.  I think we may have an announcement on it's way.  They wouldn't have finished so quickly otherwise imo.

 Bless little Madeleine.  :-(

[Hicks]

It was a cold evening on May 3rd. Tanner told us she had to go and get a fleece to put on. What parent would, A.let their child be used as a decoy on such a cold evening in only light jammies. B. not insist that she had a blanket or coat on especially as the child appeared to be in a deep sleep..... you could also interpret that as.... 'lifeless'.

The Smiths description of the man most likely fitting GM.

The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speak volumes.

@ Hicks - I must intervene yet again to remind you - and everyone else here - that

1. The possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was first mentioned - and very definitely so - in the Mentorn Media/Channel 4 'Mockumentary' just TWO YEARS after Madeleine went missing, i.e. in May 2009

2. Subsequently - and for a FURTHER FIVE YEARS EVER SINCE - the McCanns featured the sighting 'by an Irish family' - and prominently so - on their 'Find Madeleine' website, as a possible suspect, AND

3. There were SIX PAGES of references to 'Smithman' in Dr Kate McCanns' book, 'madeleine', including three pages in an Appendix systematically comparing Tannerman and 'Smithman' and VERY STRONGLY suggesting they were one and the same.   

I will keep on reminding everyone here of these absolute facts until, hopefully, we all come to see that the statement: "Team McCann made no mention of Smithman for 5 years" is wholly false, and grossly misleading.

If we get our facts wrong, our assumptions will also prove to be wrong.

You say: "The very fact TM had made no mention of Smithman for five years speaks volumes".

I reply: "The fact that TM have been promoting Smithman as a possible suspect - and that DCI Redwood now agrees with  them - speaks volumes".  

Please do not see this as a 'telling off'. I have made innocent mistakes myself over the years in discussing this case.

I am just concerned that if you stick with a claimed fact that is demonstrably false, as here, you are likely to arrive a false assumption and a wrong conclusion.

Tony, surely the question of whether Smithman was promoted by the McCanns is a matter of opinion and interpretation, it is not a fact.  I agree with Hicks, imo, the McCanns have buried Smithman.  When they couldn't hide his existence any longer, the McCanns tried to blur the issue by morphing him with Tannerman, but those familiar with the files knew he was a separate entity.  

The McCanns have never held a press conference dedicated to Smithman.  In the faux documentary, they changed his appearance giving him the long hair described by Jane, rather than the short, neat haircut described by the Smith family.  They have never asked the public to look for Smithman, despite the fact that he was seen by 6 witnesses, rather one individual.  Kate may have mentioned him in her book, but she is trying to convince the reader that he is the same man that Jane saw, she even quotes the Smiths as saying 'the man looked uncomfortable carrying a child', or words to that effect, but in any event, the words she attributed to the Smiths were totally untrue! 

I think it is disingenuous to say that it is fact the McCanns promoted Smithman.  It was my stumbling on 'Smithman' many years ago, that aroused my suspicions still further.  I could not understand why the McCanns were not publicising the Smith family sighting, nor could others on the forum and there were many discussions about it.  In referring to Smithman and the e-fits, Andy Redwood announced his existence as a 'revelation' - ie. he was acknowledging the fact that the majority of the public were not aware of this particular sighting, and in doing so he whooshed Tannerman.    

The Times may have had to backtrack their story, but its basis was sound.  Exton received a letter from McCann lawyers threatening him not to publicise his findings.

My thoughts too Cristobel, but explained far more eloquently. Thank you.

[Guest]

Please we have some important developments happening.  It looks from tweets that the cops have found what they were looking for imo.  I think we may have an announcement on it's way.  They wouldn't have finished so quickly otherwise imo.

 Bless little Madeleine.  :-(

I have changed my post MrsC, to something is happening, I may be a bit premature with the announcement bit.  Just read the tweets in a hurry and got confused  

[russiandoll]

 
Please we have some important developments happening.  It looks from tweets that the cops have found what they were looking for imo.  Something is happening I think....


So let's stay on topic.  If you wish to discuss Smithman there are plenty of threads but NOT THIS ONE

 noted and I will reply to Hicks re the Smith sighting on the relevant thread. 

[Justformaddie]

Please God, if they've found her, a least she will have a proper burial and can rest in piece IMO  

[Lance De Boils]

Could we perhaps have a thread JUST for actual news updates, no discussion?
 :please: 
It's a nightmare wading through so many pages of (occasionally 'off topic') posts, trying to catch up what is actually happening.

[Justformaddie]

Please we have some important developments happening.  It looks from tweets that the cops have found what they were looking for imo.  I think we may have an announcement on it's way.  They wouldn't have finished so quickly otherwise imo.

 Bless little Madeleine.  :-(

I have changed my post MrsC, to something is happening, I may be a bit premature with the announcement bit.  Just read the tweets in a hurry and got confused  

Don't know whether to be happy or sad, hard work when feelings are involved! IMO