Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed

jeanmonroe wrote:
Me neither!

As NOBODY from the Smith 'family' 'saw' the man's FACE, the portrayed FACES, on the posters, must have come from SOMEWHERE.

WHERE did the full frontal facial 'image/s'  on the posters, come from?

That's all i'm asking.

nobodythereeither wrote:
...

Please can't admin keep a check on Tony and his conspiracy theory mates?

Bishop Brennan wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:
...

Please can't admin keep a check on Tony and his conspiracy theory mates?

I've news for you, we are ALL conspiracy theorists on here!       Just read any newspaper in the UK.   Even the Met agrees - any theory involving the parents is by (their) definition a Conspiracy Theory.  

Here's a classic example:  

"Conspiracy theorists believe that it’s only a matter of time before the McCanns are held culpable for their daughter’s disappearance."

Full article here:   http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-search-digs-up-3659944

Rejoice in being one of the club!   

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:
Me neither!

As NOBODY from the Smith 'family' 'saw' the man's FACE, the portrayed FACES, on the posters, must have come from SOMEWHERE.

WHERE did the full frontal facial 'image/s'  on the posters, come from?

That's all i'm asking.

Well, your point is similar to one of those perpetuated by Tony, the 'fact' that nobody saw Smithman's face.

Martin Smith said in his statement:

"Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good."

So he did see Smithman's face, but it was dark; however, he was able to describe his hairstyle and gave several details which clearly point to him having seen the man's face.

Aoife Smith said:

"(1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top."

She actually stated that she saw his face, but that she couldn't remember it at the time of the statement.

I am of the opinion that the reason that Martin Smith and his daughter claimed that they couldn't remember his face, and that they wouldn't even recognise him from a photograph, is that they already had a good idea who it was that they saw but didn't want to say for various reasons.  I'll state clearly that this is just a hunch I have, not based on evidence.

However, it simply isn't true that nobody saw Smithman's face.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

endgame wrote:
... The idea that in any murder or missing person inquiry the police start by ignoring the evidence that exists, brainstorm all sorts of hypotheses based on no evidence at all and then decide that they need to explore all those hypotheses for several years before they might actually get round to looking at the evidence is utterly bizarre. The fact that there are many posters on this forum who genuinely believe that this is how the police do operate and that AR is pursuing possibly the most sophisticated operation ever undertaken by the Met Police is something I find difficult to come to terms with and which the whole of the Portuguese media, ex Home Secretary Rui Pereira and Goncalo Amaral find completely laughable.

The alternative is just so awful to contemplate though.  It would suggest a level of cover-up or incompetence that is unheard of here in the UK.   Apart from Hillsborough of course.  Oh and Plebgate.   The Lawrence case, yup.   Oh and Elm House.  And the 40-year Saville case.  Did I mention Cyril Smith?  Luckily there is no hint of cover-up in this latest Leon Britten saga.   So how can you imply there is in the Maddie case.   Outrageous!   

Bishop Brennan wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:
...

Please can't admin keep a check on Tony and his conspiracy theory mates?

I've news for you, we are ALL conspiracy theorists on here!       Just read any newspaper in the UK.   Even the Met agrees - any theory involving the parents is by (their) definition a Conspiracy Theory.  

Here's a classic example:  

"Conspiracy theorists believe that it’s only a matter of time before the McCanns are held culpable for their daughter’s disappearance."

Full article here:   http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-search-digs-up-3659944

Rejoice in being one of the club!   

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:
Me neither!

As NOBODY from the Smith 'family' 'saw' the man's FACE, the portrayed FACES, on the posters, must have come from SOMEWHERE.

WHERE did the full frontal facial 'image/s'  on the posters, come from?

That's all i'm asking.

Martin Smith said in his statement:

"Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good."

So he did see Smithman's face, but it was dark; however, he was able to describe his hairstyle and gave several details which clearly point to him having seen the man's face.

Aoife Smith said:

"(1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top."

She actually stated that she saw his face, but that she couldn't remember it at the time of the statement.

I am of the opinion that the reason that Martin Smith and his daughter claimed that they couldn't remember his face, and that they wouldn't even recognise him from a photograph, is that they already had a good idea who it was that they saw but didn't want to say for various reasons.  I'll state clearly that this is just a hunch I have, not based on evidence.

It simply isn't true that nobody saw Smithman's face.

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:
...

Please can't admin keep a check on Tony and his conspiracy theory mates?

I've news for you, we are ALL conspiracy theorists on here!       Just read any newspaper in the UK.   Even the Met agrees - any theory involving the parents is by (their) definition a Conspiracy Theory.  

Here's a classic example:  

"Conspiracy theorists believe that it’s only a matter of time before the McCanns are held culpable for their daughter’s disappearance."

Full article here:   http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-search-digs-up-3659944

Rejoice in being one of the club!   

Where exactly does it say in that article by Kay Burley that the Met says that any theory involving the parents is a conspiracy theory?

And even if it had done, unless it is from a video of a Met spokesman or an official Met press release or statement, then I wouldn't believe anything I read in the press or see on the television.

This kind of misinformation being spread on here is really unhelpful.

And admin has just asked people to get back on topic.

elasticandy wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The Telegraph article is from August 2008.......

This 'shop' that SY want to search, could it be LUZDOC? The 24hr doctors, I guess. Right near the Smith sighting.

always been in my mind - doctors have oath of confidentiality - who knows who the mccanns knew at the practice IMO - makes an interesting hypothesis

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:
Actually it dosen't 'matter' WHO was putting up the 'posters, as the two 'faces' shown, were not 'real' people but were from computer generated/ e-fit artists  'input/imagination'

NOBODY, afaik,  'saw' these 'made up/invented  'face/s' of this/these 'suspect/suspects'

ISTBC.

It does matter when it's being put forward as part of an argument to show that SY are just there as a public relations exercise, when the people in the photo are nothing to do with the police.  It does matter that people get their facts correct.

nobodythereeither wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:

Please elaborate FrankS

FrankS has been on this forum before, making very strange utterances. I think that his 100-plus posts so far in under 5 days is an all-time record for the forum. He must have had a very good reason for joining so enthusiastically. To coin a topical phrase: 'Can anyone tell what it is yet?'

As soon as anybody posts on this forum who actually seems to have normal common sense about this case, Tony (and a few others) immediately leap on them accusing them of being God knows what.

We've already lost some really good posters, including Russian Doll.

Please can't admin keep a check on Tony and his conspiracy theory mates? Because this forum is in danger of losing what little credibility it has left, in my opinion.

By all means state your opinion on the case itself, Tony, but please lay off making all sorts of wild accusations about other posters.

And now, let me predict - Tony and/or his mates will leap in and accuse me of being in cahoots with FrankS. Psychic or what?

Bishop Brennan wrote:What will SY do next I wonder?   The dig is done, the 4 Arguidos and 11 witnesses seen and interviewed.   The OG team are packing their bags and heading home.  To do what?    These were presumably the imminent arrests that BHH told us about on live radio?  Certainly AR's hottest leads - the product of 3 years of meticulous analysis by 38 officers, and the hundreds of calls from CW viewers.  

What now?  Is Smellyman now the lone suspect?  Is the hunt now on for him?   Are the 4 Arguidos to be seen as innocent, or to be whispered about but never charged?  Will we start having some new 'sightings'?     OG has now come to a major crossroads - it will be fascinating to see which path they take.  

ChippyM wrote:

jozi wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:What shop

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/police-cctv-file-photos-is-this-madeleine-maddie-mccann/story-e6frev00-1111117121454?nk=f3ac204a496465aade854e11e5b1672f

It can't be the same lead, surely.  What would be the point of cadaver dogs?

This is a article is old and I think this is when Kate was whisked back to the Police Station to see if she could identify the child in the cctv clip and all she did was complain the Police drove too fast !!!

It has been reported in todays Mirror as a current line of enquiry though.

lj wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

jozi wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:What shop

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/police-cctv-file-photos-is-this-madeleine-maddie-mccann/story-e6frev00-1111117121454?nk=f3ac204a496465aade854e11e5b1672f

It can't be the same lead, surely.  What would be the point of cadaver dogs?

This is a article is old and I think this is when Kate was whisked back to the Police Station to see if she could identify the child in the cctv clip and all she did was complain the Police drove too fast !!!

It has been reported in todays Mirror as a current line of enquiry though.

Anything that leads away from the parents.

Ochosi wrote:Did someone on this thread somewhere/some thread somewhere that some Met have gone back already, but Redwood is still there and didn't respond re how long for?
i.e re what next? 
No idea, is a bit of a guessing game.

stargazer59 wrote:

Ochosi wrote:Did someone on this thread somewhere/some thread somewhere that some Met have gone back already, but Redwood is still there and didn't respond re how long for?
i.e re what next? 
No idea, is a bit of a guessing game.

The Mirror is saying a dozen Met officers are still in Portugal as are the dogs

Ochosi wrote:Thanks stargazer59. 
Now the quandary is - is The Mirror reporting accurately? If it is, what could this mean? If it isn't, what could this mean?  

stargazer59 wrote:

Ochosi wrote:Thanks stargazer59. 
Now the quandary is - is The Mirror reporting accurately? If it is, what could this mean? If it isn't, what could this mean?  

I agree, it is a quandary, not sure what it means but it seems to be saying they want to search a commercial building/shop and can only do so if either a judge allows it, which will take time , or the owner agrees  , but it IS the Mirror