Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Truthandjustice wrote:  I have been on the forum for only a year or so  and only became aware of the Smith controversy on this forum recently.  I have to say I was utterly gobsmacked that he was being accused of lying in order to get a friend off the hook. I understand that people have their own opinions and that theorising certain scenarios can be interesting but I did find this view extreme and somewhat disturbing given there is no evidence to back it up, merely supposition. Now Mr Smith has spoken out and asked Richard Hall to publish a correction on his video stating that he is not a friend of Murat and knows him only by sight. I would hope that this statement would cause his accusers to rethink their stance. It is one thing theorising without evidence but quite another to accuse someone of lying following a clarifying statement and may have legal  implications in addition to the moral ones. I understand that this theory has been a long time in the making and the road may appear to be well travelled and defined, however that doesn't make it right and there is now a new piece of evidence to be considered in the form of Mr Smith's first public statement in many years. I would hope that forum members are open minded and reasonable enough to accept it unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

fred c dobbs wrote:

Truthandjustice wrote:  I have been on the forum for only a year or so  and only became aware of the Smith controversy on this forum recently.  I have to say I was utterly gobsmacked that he was being accused of lying in order to get a friend off the hook. I understand that people have their own opinions and that theorising certain scenarios can be interesting but I did find this view extreme and somewhat disturbing given there is no evidence to back it up, merely supposition. Now Mr Smith has spoken out and asked Richard Hall to publish a correction on his video stating that he is not a friend of Murat and knows him only by sight. I would hope that this statement would cause his accusers to rethink their stance. It is one thing theorising without evidence but quite another to accuse someone of lying following a clarifying statement and may have legal  implications in addition to the moral ones. I understand that this theory has been a long time in the making and the road may appear to be well travelled and defined, however that doesn't make it right and there is now a new piece of evidence to be considered in the form of Mr Smith's first public statement in many years. I would hope that forum members are open minded and reasonable enough to accept it unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

   

pennylane wrote:

fred c dobbs wrote:

Truthandjustice wrote:  I have been on the forum for only a year or so  and only became aware of the Smith controversy on this forum recently.  I have to say I was utterly gobsmacked that he was being accused of lying in order to get a friend off the hook. I understand that people have their own opinions and that theorising certain scenarios can be interesting but I did find this view extreme and somewhat disturbing given there is no evidence to back it up, merely supposition. Now Mr Smith has spoken out and asked Richard Hall to publish a correction on his video stating that he is not a friend of Murat and knows him only by sight. I would hope that this statement would cause his accusers to rethink their stance. It is one thing theorising without evidence but quite another to accuse someone of lying following a clarifying statement and may have legal  implications in addition to the moral ones. I understand that this theory has been a long time in the making and the road may appear to be well travelled and defined, however that doesn't make it right and there is now a new piece of evidence to be considered in the form of Mr Smith's first public statement in many years. I would hope that forum members are open minded and reasonable enough to accept it unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

   

 I absolutely agree!

Justformaddie wrote:

pennylane wrote:

fred c dobbs wrote:

Truthandjustice wrote:  I have been on the forum for only a year or so  and only became aware of the Smith controversy on this forum recently.  I have to say I was utterly gobsmacked that he was being accused of lying in order to get a friend off the hook. I understand that people have their own opinions and that theorising certain scenarios can be interesting but I did find this view extreme and somewhat disturbing given there is no evidence to back it up, merely supposition. Now Mr Smith has spoken out and asked Richard Hall to publish a correction on his video stating that he is not a friend of Murat and knows him only by sight. I would hope that this statement would cause his accusers to rethink their stance. It is one thing theorising without evidence but quite another to accuse someone of lying following a clarifying statement and may have legal  implications in addition to the moral ones. I understand that this theory has been a long time in the making and the road may appear to be well travelled and defined, however that doesn't make it right and there is now a new piece of evidence to be considered in the form of Mr Smith's first public statement in many years. I would hope that forum members are open minded and reasonable enough to accept it unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

   

 I absolutely agree!

Add me too, Amaral Goncalo and Martin Smith are probably the only two that can be relied upon to tell the truth in this case! If gm reads the debate on here, and if he was smithman, he's well and truly laughing.
IMO

inspirespirit wrote:I am on the fence re Smithman.  When I hear what Cristobell has to say it makes sense to me, but then again when Tony Bennett states what he believes, that makes sense to me as well.

Just read this over on facebook which was taken from twitter, and this contradicts what he said this week to Hall re his DVD's.

inspirespirit wrote:I am on the fence re Smithman.  When I hear what Cristobell has to say it makes sense to me, but then again when Tony Bennett states what he believes, that makes sense to me as well.

Just read this over on facebook which was taken from twitter, and this contradicts what he said this week to Hall re his DVD's.

Martin Smith wrote:Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

comperedna wrote:TTWO... Your avatar pic is giving me the creeps. What IS it?

comperedna wrote:OK TTWO... shows how much I know about dogs . They looked like chimeras to me... three babies with dog's heads. So glad to know I was wrong. Ha Ha. Sorry for disrupting this thread just a little bit.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

comperedna wrote:OK TTWO... shows how much I know about dogs . They looked like chimeras to me... three babies with dog's heads. So glad to know I was wrong. Ha Ha. Sorry for disrupting this thread just a little bit.

Chimeras   I've changed it to a more obviously cute avatar.

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

aiyoyo wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

Gerry sat beneath the e-fits - what better chance than that for identity matching?
Yet Redwood the top-notch super experienced detective did not see the obvious.  How can that be?
Neither did any of the TV crews connect the obvious.  How can that be?
And for that matter neither did any of the million viewers phone into the station pointing out the obvious - hey the efit-man is right under your nose!

No, zilch, Gerry who some posters believed to be Smithman eludes Police detection right under the Police nose, what hope is there of public members identifying Gerry as the Smithman? Zero chance.

Do I think Smithman was Gerry? Hell, NO!

Whoever it was that the Smith family saw, it was not Gerry.

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

Gerry sat beneath the e-fits - what better chance than that for identity matching?
Yet Redwood the top-notch super experienced detective did not see the obvious.  How can that be?
Neither did any of the TV crews connect the obvious.  How can that be?
And for that matter neither did any of the million viewers phone into the station pointing out the obvious - hey the efit-man is right under your nose!

No, zilch, Gerry who some posters believed to be Smithman eludes Police detection right under the Police nose, what hope is there of public members identifying Gerry as the Smithman? Zero chance.

Do I think Smithman was Gerry? Hell, NO!

Whoever it was that the Smith family saw, it was not Gerry.

You seem so sure that smithman was not Gerry,have inside info.

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

Gerry sat beneath the e-fits - what better chance than that for identity matching?
Yet Redwood the top-notch super experienced detective did not see the obvious.  How can that be?
Neither did any of the TV crews connect the obvious.  How can that be?
And for that matter neither did any of the million viewers phone into the station pointing out the obvious - hey the efit-man is right under your nose!

No, zilch, Gerry who some posters believed to be Smithman eludes Police detection right under the Police nose, what hope is there of public members identifying Gerry as the Smithman? Zero chance.

Do I think Smithman was Gerry? Hell, NO!

Whoever it was that the Smith family saw, it was not Gerry.

You seem so sure that smithman was not Gerry,have inside info.

No, tiny.
I deduced that, OK?
List one possibly reasonable reason why 38 elite Scotland Yard officers can fail to see the obvious staring them in the face if any one of the two efits was of Gerry.

If witnesses themselves cannot emphatically confirmed that the man they saw was Gerry, if they can't say it who can?

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

Gerry sat beneath the e-fits - what better chance than that for identity matching?
Yet Redwood the top-notch super experienced detective did not see the obvious.  How can that be?
Neither did any of the TV crews connect the obvious.  How can that be?
And for that matter neither did any of the million viewers phone into the station pointing out the obvious - hey the efit-man is right under your nose!

No, zilch, Gerry who some posters believed to be Smithman eludes Police detection right under the Police nose, what hope is there of public members identifying Gerry as the Smithman? Zero chance.

Do I think Smithman was Gerry? Hell, NO!

Whoever it was that the Smith family saw, it was not Gerry.

You seem so sure that smithman was not Gerry,have inside info.

No, tiny.
I deduced that, OK?
List one possibly reasonable reason why 38 elite Scotland Yard officers can fail to see the obvious staring them in the face if any one of the two efits was of Gerry.

If witnesses themselves cannot emphatically confirmed that the man they saw was Gerry, if they can't say it who can?

but we do not know if sy have failed to see the obvious,in fact we don't know what they are up too,but I live in hope they are not stupid and want justice for Madeleine.

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Smithman is real.
I believe that AR set up Crimewatch in order to place GM under the photo fits of Smithman so that he could squirm.  We have all seen the images of G and K as they sit under the spotlight on CW beneath the e-fits that were suppressed for a long time by the Mac Canons. 

Gerry sat beneath the e-fits - what better chance than that for identity matching?
Yet Redwood the top-notch super experienced detective did not see the obvious.  How can that be?
Neither did any of the TV crews connect the obvious.  How can that be?
And for that matter neither did any of the million viewers phone into the station pointing out the obvious - hey the efit-man is right under your nose!

No, zilch, Gerry who some posters believed to be Smithman eludes Police detection right under the Police nose, what hope is there of public members identifying Gerry as the Smithman? Zero chance.

Do I think Smithman was Gerry? Hell, NO!

Whoever it was that the Smith family saw, it was not Gerry.

You seem so sure that smithman was not Gerry,have inside info.

No, tiny.
I deduced that, OK?
List one possibly reasonable reason why 38 elite Scotland Yard officers can fail to see the obvious staring them in the face if any one of the two efits was of Gerry.

If witnesses themselves cannot emphatically confirmed that the man they saw was Gerry, if they can't say it who can?

but we do not know if sy have failed to see the obvious,in fact we don't know what they are up too,but I live in hope they are not stupid and want justice for Madeleine.

They must have, haven't they (failed to see the obvious I mean) ?

They were appealing for info on the 2 e-fits weren't they?

Why do that if they had seen the obvious?

They had the efits for some years now, prior to the programme.

Can't tell me they'd seen the obvious yet spent a fortune producing a CW to appeal for info on the 2efits?

Be it they may be clueless about what happened to Madeleine, I doubt they can be that stupid as to waste money seeking info they don't need.

tiny wrote:
cant disagree with you there really and I do see where you are coming from,so when do you think they will wrap this case up then.

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:
cant disagree with you there really and I do see where you are coming from,so when do you think they will wrap this case up then.

Gone on long enough now.
Indefinite finance of this operation can't go on forever if nothing tangible is found after x number or years then surely it must come time to cut off.
Before this year is out I expect to hear Redwood's closing report, indictment or no indictment.

If it stretches beyond this year I'm inclined to think it is not a normal operation; that the investigation may be on a bigger scope than we know, meaning more than the mcs were under investigation, and I am not talking just the holiday friends.

It's normal to wrap up operation if it is going to lead nowhere.
By 3 years if they can't find cast iron evidence to take to court, it is never going to happen.  
Unless they are investigating additional stuff (the peripheral characters involved in the pi operation and board trustees for example) incriminating stuff that emerged during process of the main line of investigation that compels further in depth scrutiny to complete the investigation.

Just my opinion as usual.

aiyoyo wrote:

tiny wrote:
cant disagree with you there really and I do see where you are coming from,so when do you think they will wrap this case up then.

Gone on long enough now.
Indefinite finance of this operation can't go on forever if nothing tangible is found after x number or years then surely it must come time to cut off.
Before this year is out I expect to hear Redwood's closing report, indictment or no indictment.

If it stretches beyond this year I'm inclined to think it is not a normal operation; that the investigation may be on a bigger scope than we know, meaning more than the mcs were under investigation, and I am not talking just the holiday friends.

It's normal to wrap up operation if it is going to lead nowhere.
By 3 years if they can't find cast iron evidence to take to court, it is never going to happen.  
Unless they are investigating additional stuff (the peripheral characters involved in the pi operation and board trustees for example) incriminating stuff that emerged during process of the main line of investigation that compels further in depth scrutiny to complete the investigation.

Just my opinion as usual.

Poppyfox wrote:The dogs don't lie!! Really cute puppies! 

Poppyfox wrote:The dogs don't lie!! Really cute puppies!