Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Estuarine on February 28, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
Title: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on February 28, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
Up until October 2013 the abductor was Tannerman. To some it was:- obviously therefore an abduction, case closed QED. Then that nice Mr Redwood stuck a bit of Semtex under Tannerman. Nary a thought along the lines of "Oh! the Tannerman sighting was bum steer maybe there was no abduction". Perish the thought; it WAS an abduction so another perp is required. But that is off the topic. There is still no convincing argument for making off with a child from a holiday apartment rather than an easier location. Smacks of looking for a likely tale to add credence to a preconceived idea.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on February 28, 2014, 10:59:51 PM
Andy Redmond quite chirpily blew Tannerman and all of the associated lies, completely out of the water and replaced them with the suppressed efit.
All while smiling and appearing to be fairly gormless. Just like he appeared on his morning tv "Madeleine may be alive" burble.
Look over here! See what I did? Basic magic - trick the audience into staring at the box, meanwhile the dove is being shoved in unseen to explode with a glamorous flutter.
I expect more sleight of hand from Andy before he's done. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 01, 2014, 04:01:55 AM
What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.
That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.
Which he was. Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.
Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit. He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before.
I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving. Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
Seriously, what are the chances?
We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.
It's like the DNA.
15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.
Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.
That's why they have trials. Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.
Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2014, 09:35:03 AM
If you believe that. you're a bigger fool than the rest of them.
Andy Redmond quite chirpily blew Tannerman and all of the associated lies, completely out of the water and replaced them with the suppressed efit of Gerry.
All while smiling and appearing to be fairly gormless. Just like he appeared on his morning tv "Madeleine may be alive" burble.
Look over here! See what I did? Basic magic - trick the audience into staring at the box, meanwhile the dove is being shoved in unseen to explode with a glamorous flutter.
I expect more sleight of hand from Andy before he's done. 8@??)(
-- moderated for possible libel -- SH
I don't believe the McCanns have fooled SY I was being ironic...no more than I believe what you post...I believe SY have effectively cleared the McCanns as they are no longer considered to be suspects.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2014, 09:37:02 AM
What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.
That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.
Which he was. Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.
Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit. He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before.
I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving. Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
Seriously, what are the chances?
We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.
It's like the DNA.
15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.
Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.
That's why they have trials. Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.
Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.
75% is not a good indicator..its NO indicator at all...particularly as family members who would have similar dna profiles were present
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 01, 2014, 09:57:53 AM
What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.
That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.
Which he was. Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.
Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit. He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before.
I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving. Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
Seriously, what are the chances?
We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.
It's like the DNA.
15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.
Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.
That's why they have trials. Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.
Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
What are the chances?
Obviously very high indeed because SY have 'effectively cleared' the McCanns.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on March 01, 2014, 10:00:34 AM
What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.
That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.
Which he was. Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.
Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit. He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before.
I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving. Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
Seriously, what are the chances?
We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.
It's like the DNA.
15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.
Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.
That's why they have trials. Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.
Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.
I'm picking you up on this again SW. Those 15/19 markers were in a mixed bag of 38 (?) . A mixed sample is virtually meaningless. I spent ages trying to get my head around it, with the help of my husband and an ex member of the forum named Dhingra,
DNA was contributed from possibly 5 individuals* and there's no way of knowing if those 15 markers came from one person or bits from all five.
It's possible that I share DNA with Madeline, say 2 markers, you share 3, Joe Bloggs shares 10. we all leave DNA together and it's impossible to rule out that Madeleine Mccann was there.
I agree with your comments re Andy Redwood. I don't believe he's half as green as he's cabbage looking. I have much more faith in him since his crime watch stunt.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2014, 11:14:09 AM
I'm picking you up on this again SW. Those 15/19 markers were in a mixed bag of 38 (?) . A mixed sample is virtually meaningless. I spent ages trying to get my head around it, with the help of my husband and an ex member of the forum named Dhingra,
DNA was contributed from possibly 5 individuals* and there's no way of knowing if those 15 markers came from one person or bits from all five.
It's possible that I share DNA with Madeline, say 2 markers, you share 3, Joe Bloggs shares 10. we all leave DNA together and it's impossible to rule out that Madeleine Mccann was there.
I agree with your comments re Andy Redwood. I don't believe he's half as green as he's cabbage looking. I have much more faith in him since his crime watch stunt.
So the 15 marker is meaningless and Redwood is a smart bloke....and he's said the McCanns are not suspects
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 01:41:47 PM
There is not too much doubt that the e-fit was suppressed - that wasn't the libelous part - but it is not the case that Martin Smith 'positively identified him', as you say.
MS said he was 60% - 80% certain, a nonsensical comment considering his initial statement that he would not recognise the person if he saw him again.
They all and rightly said so and, frankly, would you be able to identify someone you never met and you crossed in the day time ? A fortiori in the darkness ! You would perhaps be able to say it's not this one nor that one, but positively recognizing is imo impossible. Unless you noted some special feature. And that's what happened in the case of the Smith couple. What stroke them wasn't related to the face (such a detail would have permitted to exclude eventually Mr McCann) but to something extra-ordinary in the way of carrying that was difficult to describe, being uncommon. Saying that the carrier seemed not to be at ease, Mr Smith attributed the "odd" thing to the carrier. But it could be related to the carried. If the child was deeply sedated or in a coma, her muscles would still be tense. If she was dead, they wouldn't.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on March 01, 2014, 02:07:56 PM
They all and rightly said so and, frankly, would you be able to identify someone you never met and you crossed in the day time ? A fortiori in the darkness ! You would perhaps be able to say it's not this one nor that one, but positively recognizing is imo impossible. Unless you noted some special feature. And that's what happened in the case of the Smith couple. What stroke them wasn't related to the face (such a detail would have permitted to exclude eventually Mr McCann) but to something extra-ordinary in the way of carrying that was difficult to describe, being uncommon. Saying that the carrier seemed not to be at ease, Mr Smith attributed the "odd" thing to the carrier. But it could be related to the carried. If the child was deeply sedated or in a coma, her muscles would still be tense. If she was dead, they wouldn't.
IMo Mr. Smith would have pricked up his ears/eyes - as soon as the McCanns were mentioned on TV and would already be relating back to his own part in the case - by the time he saw Gerry coming down the steps. He was struck by the similarity of how the child was being carried - but I ask you - how many different ways ARE there of carrying a sleeping child down steps? And anyone would be careful not to trip or fall whilst carrying a child in that way - nothing extraordinary about that at all IMO.
If it had been a stranger of similar build, age, height he had seen coming down the steps carrying a child, I doubt if he would have made the same connection. It was only because it was Gerry that it reminded him of what he had seen on 3rd May. imo.
I would be very surprised if M. Smith still believes it was Gerry he saw that night.
-- modified to shorten blank space. No alteration to original text -- SH
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 02:13:31 PM
IMo Mr. Smith would have pricked up his ears/eyes - as soon as the McCanns were mentioned on TV and would already be relating back to his own part in the case - by the time he saw Gerry coming down the steps. He was struck by the similarity of how the child was being carried - but I ask you - how many different ways ARE there of carrying a sleeping child down steps? And anyone would be careful not to trip or fall whilst carrying a child in that way - nothing extraordinary about that at all IMO.
If it had been a stranger of similar build, age, height he had seen coming down the steps carrying a child, I doubt if he would have made the same connection. It was only because it was Gerry that it reminded him of what he had seen on 3rd May. imo.
I would be very surprised if M. Smith still believes it was Gerry he saw that night.
Please first read what I wrote about the child's muscles and remember Mr Smith meditated three days before calling the Gardai.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on March 01, 2014, 02:37:05 PM
Please first read what I wrote about the child's muscles and remember Mr Smith meditated three days before calling the Gardai.
I'm afraid I don't see your point Anne. You've lost me.
IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep. I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.
If Mr Smith had been certain - then IMO he wouldn't have wasted any time in contacting the Garda. And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.
Anyone who is claiming that any of the Smith family 100% identified Gerry as the man they saw - is re-writing history - in the name of 'wishful thinking' IMO.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 01, 2014, 02:52:09 PM
I'm afraid I don't see your point Anne. You've lost me.
IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep. I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.
If Mr Smith had been certain - then IMO he wouldn't have wasted any time in contacting the Garda. And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.
Anyone who is claiming that any of the Smith family 100% identified Gerry as the man they saw - is re-writing history - in the name of 'wishful thinking' IMO.
IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep. I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.
Nobody believes that Sean is dead.
And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.
With the exception of Mrs Smith.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 03:46:20 PM
IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep. I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.
Nobody believes that Sean is dead.
And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.
With the exception of Mrs Smith.
Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 01, 2014, 05:01:06 PM
What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?
Seriously, what are the chances?
We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.
I bow to your superior powers of deduction.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 01, 2014, 05:05:15 PM
IMo Mr. Smith would have pricked up his ears/eyes - as soon as the McCanns were mentioned on TV and would already be relating back to his own part in the case - by the time he saw Gerry coming down the steps. He was struck by the similarity of how the child was being carried - but I ask you - how many different ways ARE there of carrying a sleeping child down steps? And anyone would be careful not to trip or fall whilst carrying a child in that way - nothing extraordinary about that at all IMO.
If it had been a stranger of similar build, age, height he had seen coming down the steps carrying a child, I doubt if he would have made the same connection. It was only because it was Gerry that it reminded him of what he had seen on 3rd May. imo.
I would be very surprised if M. Smith still believes it was Gerry he saw that night.
Seeing Gerry on the news report was just a trigger for remembering the incident as a whole.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 01, 2014, 05:27:02 PM
Anyone who is claiming that any of the Smith family 100% identified Gerry as the man they saw - is re-writing history - in the name of 'wishful thinking' IMO.
It would not make sense to say that one was 100% sure of being able to identify a person (or even 60% - 80% 'certain', whatever that means) and also say that one would not recognise him if he saw him again.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 05:33:42 PM
It would not make sense to say that one was 100% sure of being able to identify a person (or even 60% - 80% 'certain', whatever that means) and also say that one would not recognise him if he saw him again.
Is Mr Smith part of the conspiracy against the poor McCanns, along with their bad advisers ? If you had once hold a dead child in your arms, you would know that it's not at all like holding a sleeping one.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 01, 2014, 07:28:16 PM
Is Mr Smith part of the conspiracy against the poor McCanns, along with their bad advisers ? If you had once hold a dead child in your arms, you would know that it's not at all like holding a sleeping one.
You mean the Smith family are conspiring against the McCanns?
That's foil helmet time!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on March 01, 2014, 07:43:56 PM
Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman.
I think you are splitting hairs Anne.
Quote from Martin Smith
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. Unquote
So he didn't just speak to his son and wife, he spoke to ALL the family members and none of them agreed with him except one. Seems pretty conclusive to me.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2014, 07:54:30 PM
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. Unquote
So he didn't just speak to his son and wife, he spoke to ALL the family members and none of them agreed with him except one. Seems pretty conclusive to me.
Doesn't make it wrong.
Often first impressions.....
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 07:55:19 PM
You mean the Smith family are conspiring against the McCanns?
That's foil helmet time!
Who knows ? Why did Mr Smith state that Mr McCann could be Smithman ? Had he something to gain with it ? Was he paid ? If not why did he contact the Gardai and was so disturbed, according to them ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Redblossom on March 01, 2014, 07:58:23 PM
Who knows ? Why did Mr Smith state that Mr McCann could be Smithman ? Had he something to gain with it ? Was he paid ? If not why did he contact the Gardai and was so disturbed, according to them ?
The Mccanns had become celebrities by then fawned and aided and abbetted by the whole media, of course he would be shaking and thinking for days before ringing up to say what he thought! But he trusted the police and did the right thing
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. Unquote
So he didn't just speak to his son and wife, he spoke to ALL the family members and none of them agreed with him except one. Seems pretty conclusive to me.
That's hearsay, isn't it ? What's pretty conclusive is that, as long as you believe, the world goes round !
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 08:16:01 PM
The Mccanns had become celebrities by then fawned and aided and abbetted by the whole media, of course he would be shaking and thinking for days before ringing up to say what he thought! But he trusted the police and did the right thing
The funny part is that, had Mr Smith seemed to recognize Mr McCann's face, he would be doubtful as a witness, especially four months later. But his son's phone call re-enacted the scene and prepared the recalling of the weird carrying that had struck his mind.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 01, 2014, 08:22:42 PM
Who knows ? Why did Mr Smith state that Mr McCann could be Smithman ? Had he something to gain with it ? Was he paid ? If not why did he contact the Gardai and was so disturbed, according to them ?
Mr Smith comes across as a sincere, publicity shy person. Why assume his intentions are anything but straighforward unless anything else presents itself to suggest that? He could have made a lot of money out of this in interviews and so on, and he has chosen not to.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on March 01, 2014, 08:24:59 PM
That's hearsay, isn't it ? What's pretty conclusive is that, as long as you believe, the world goes round !
No need to get personal. I was merely replying to your post below pointing out that it was Mr. Smith who said that only one member out of all of his family members agreed with him. That leaves quite a large number who didn't.
Your post:- Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman. Unquote
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 08:31:46 PM
Mr Smith comes across as a sincere, publicity shy person. Why assume his intentions are anything but straighforward unless anything else presents itself to suggest that? He could have made a lot of money out of this in interviews and so on, and he has chosen not to.
Why did he contact the Gardai, why was he so disturbed ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 08:45:41 PM
Why was he so disturbed (according to the Gardai) ?
Seriously?
Imagine if you realised you were THE ONLY WITNESS to one of the biggest crimes of the century.
Governments of several countries are involved, millions of pounds, a little girls life, the might of Team McCann's lawyers and PR power, let alone the attention of the world and the tabloids.
I think I'd be disturbed beyond measure, if I were in his place.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 01, 2014, 09:00:25 PM
Imagine if you realised you were THE ONLY WITNESS to one of the biggest crimes of the century.
Governments of several countries are involved, millions of pounds, a little girls life, the might of Team McCann's lawyers and PR power, let alone the attention of the world and the tabloids.
I think I'd be disturbed beyond measure, if I were in his place.
I don't think that this disburbed him. Remember that he must have known why the McCanns were flying away.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on March 01, 2014, 10:49:31 PM
According to Anne - it was three days before he contacted the Garda. That is far from 'immediately' - especially in this important context.
There are thousands of men who would match that e-fit.
BTW - If you believe the Times article about the Efits - then don't forget the following extract from it:-
Quote There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects. Unquote
-- moderated for continuity -- SH
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 01, 2014, 11:08:53 PM
There are thousands of men who would match that E-fit.
I wonder how many of them were close to the Ocean Club around 10pm that night.
-- moderated for continuity -- SH
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 01, 2014, 11:18:33 PM
UK police communication re: Martin Smith's sighting, 20 September 2007
Origin: Mr Martin Smith Ireland.
Text: Reported that he had passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th May and returned to UK. Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM news on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children.
Is asking a member of OP task ring him back. He was with group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite worried and shaken whilst speaking to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co. Louth, Mr Smith recalled the sighting, which is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the mans rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.
He explained: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting.
"My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another.
"He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 02, 2014, 02:13:37 PM
GA: Before withdrawing me from the case, a director came to see me, who knows me and who tells me, 'look you have to think that there are cases that have no solution'.
PC: But it seems to me incredible... but it seems to me inconceivable...
GA: ... I have already said so, we will arrive to where it is possible to arrive, this has not finished for us, later it turned out that I did not give an interview that was attributed to me at a given moment, it happened in an interesting moment, when we were trying to bring the Smith family to Portugal, who said that they saw Gerry McCann, with a possibility of 80%... of having seen Gerry McCann carrying an inert girl towards the beach.
CLS: An Irish family that seems that they saw the father...
PC: The Smiths...
GA: It was part of the investigation and they removed me, and three or four months passed until the Smith family speaks for the indictment, and this procedure occurs in Ireland, not in Portugal as we had wished. During this time, it is said that this family has been the object of several visits, I do not want to speak about pressures, they have been the object of visits by persons who...
PC: Two or three months passed, these Irish...
GA: ... had to change their phone number, it is said that they had to move house and resort to the services of a lawyer.
PC: As if they had received pressure …
GA: To avoid these persons... It is sad that this has happened this way, that shouldn't have happened... and now it has been withdrawn from the investigation.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on March 02, 2014, 02:52:54 PM
GA: Before withdrawing me from the case, a director came to see me, who knows me and who tells me, 'look you have to think that there are cases that have no solution'.
PC: But it seems to me incredible... but it seems to me inconceivable...
GA: ... I have already said so, we will arrive to where it is possible to arrive, this has not finished for us, later it turned out that I did not give an interview that was attributed to me at a given moment, it happened in an interesting moment, when we were trying to bring the Smith family to Portugal, who said that they saw Gerry McCann, with a possibility of 80%... of having seen Gerry McCann carrying an inert girl towards the beach.
CLS: An Irish family that seems that they saw the father...
PC: The Smiths...
GA: It was part of the investigation and they removed me, and three or four months passed until the Smith family speaks for the indictment, and this procedure occurs in Ireland, not in Portugal as we had wished. During this time, it is said that this family has been the object of several visits, I do not want to speak about pressures, they have been the object of visits by persons who...
PC: Two or three months passed, these Irish...
GA: ... had to change their phone number, it is said that they had to move house and resort to the services of a lawyer.
PC: As if they had received pressure …
GA: To avoid these persons... It is sad that this has happened this way, that shouldn't have happened... and now it has been withdrawn from the investigation.
Where is this from ? I agree that it seems many people involved in this case, were sadly hounded by certain people. Has this line of investigation really been withdrawn? because I thought it was still ongoing.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 02, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
This is a new thread with an old theme.
It is worth commenting as follows. An Irish person holidaying in Portugal meets a stranger one night and politely asks him if the child he is carrying is asleep and she is surprised he didn't answer? FFS... ...it is Portugal after all ...they speak Portuguese!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 02, 2014, 03:19:41 PM
It is worth commenting as follows. An Irish person holidaying in Portugal meets a stranger one night and politely asks him if the child he is carrying is asleep and she is surprised he didn't answer? FFS... ...it is Portugal after all ...they speak Portuguese!
Everybody speaks to you in English in PDL, the tourists do it because they only know that language (apart from their own language), and the native do it if you don't look Portuguese.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 02, 2014, 03:24:05 PM
Everybody speaks to you in English in PDL, the tourists do it because they only know that language (apart from their own language), and the native do it if you don't look Portuguese.
Is that not a somewhat overt generalisation Anne? So every Portuguese citizen and other foreigners in PdL all speak English?
PS. I doubt it somehow so I will test this out when I visit the Region later this year?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 02, 2014, 03:37:41 PM
It is a pretty strong Irish accent to be fair. >@@(*&)
Good point, John.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 02, 2014, 03:45:46 PM
Of course a strong accent may also be a reason why somebody wouldn't reply also.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 02, 2014, 03:49:02 PM
Is that not a somewhat overt generalisation Anne? So every Portuguese citizen and other foreigners in PdL all speak English?
PS. I doubt it somehow so I will test this out when I visit the Region later this year?
Test it ! I'm not speaking of the lawless region full of lairs of course ! Had had Mrs Smith the faintest idea about the northern origin of the little girl and hence of her father, she would just have said "hi" or "hello" or "good night" or "boa noite", whatever words to support the intonation of her voice which only mattered.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 02, 2014, 03:52:55 PM
It is worth commenting as follows. An Irish person holidaying in Portugal meets a stranger one night and politely asks him if the child he is carrying is asleep and she is surprised he didn't answer? FFS... ...it is Portugal after all ...they speak Portuguese!
Running to catch the last bus was he? ?{)(**
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 02, 2014, 04:12:06 PM
Of course a strong accent may also be a reason why somebody wouldn't reply also.
Excellent point Lyall, I have lived on the island of Ireland off and on since the mid 50's and I cannot even understand the southern brogue. ...but then again everyone thinks I hail fae Wick. @)(++(*
Having had business interests in Spain for many years I am always astounded when Brits out there think that locals should speak to them in English. If a Spaniard walled into Tesco's in Luton would he expect to be greeted in Spanish?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 02, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Excellent point Lyall, I have lived on the island of Ireland off and on since the mid 50's and I cannot even understand the southern brogue. ...but then again everyone thinks I hail fae Wick. @)(++(*
Where's Mrs Smith from? Do we know? Peter Smith spoke on Sky News, and he has a strong accent, but I don't think we've ever heard the others >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 02, 2014, 04:25:08 PM
Excellent point Lyall, I have lived on the island of Ireland off and on since the mid 50's and I cannot even understand the southern brogue. ...but then again everyone thinks I hail fae Wick. @)(++(*
He didn't even acknowledge her in any way, he diverted his eyes and put his head down.
"As we made our way back to our apartment in Estrella da Luz, we met a guy with a child that appeared to be asleep. It looked like a blonde child, and I thought she might be four years old, as she was the same size as my grandchild who was with us. None of us was 100 per cent sure what he was wearing but we all told police he was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s. I didn't think he was Portuguese." (Martin Smith)
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues, 03 January 2008
Excellent point Lyall, I have lived on the island of Ireland off and on since the mid 50's and I cannot even understand the southern brogue. ...but then again everyone thinks I hail fae Wick. @)(++(*
Having had business interests in Spain for many years I am always astounded when Brits out there think that locals should speak to them in English. If a Spaniard walled into Tesco's in Luton would he expect to be greeted in Spanish?
English has turned into a lingua franca, that's why. It's no good news for the English language to be deformed as it is in its basic English form.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 02, 2014, 04:40:54 PM
Who knows ? Why did Mr Smith state that Mr McCann could be Smithman ? Had he something to gain with it ? Was he paid ? If not why did he contact the Gardai and was so disturbed, according to them ?
Strange that for Mr Smith to come forward, there had to be something in it for him, yet for tourists in other countries around the world to identify MM they are being public spirited.,
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 03, 2014, 09:41:02 AM
Strange that for Mr Smith to come forward, there had to be something in it for him, yet for tourists in other countries around the world to identify MM they are being public spirited.,
I have never had any reason to doubt that Martin Smith was anything other than public-spirited and simply conveyed his doubt in case it could be relevant. My issue is that the suggestibility factor doesn't seem to have been taken into account by the first PJ team. And his original "60-80%" impression became progressively exaggerated: it turned into "80%"... and then to "he was sure that..." (which I would understand to be 100% certain). Depending on the various forum (and quite possibly media) accounts of this, it has morphed into the suggestion that the entire family was certain, which is far from the truth.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 03, 2014, 09:57:26 AM
I have been pondering this entire episode yet again since it has renewed interest following DCI Redwoods Crimewatch appearance and the debacle over the hidden e-fits which team McCann sat on for several years.
You have to look at this incident logically. The sighting of Smithman happened that's for sure, there were too many witnesses for it to have been invented.
The question now is, why did Martin Smith report it?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 03, 2014, 10:03:03 AM
Did he report the sighting to the Irish Gardai because this chappie was a suspect or was it because he thought it was Gerry McCann?
We know that he only reported the matter once he saw Gerry walk down the aircraft steps since he claims in his statement that it was the way that Gerry was holding the child which reminded him of the earlier encounter in Praia da Luz.
After being very sure that it was Gerry McCann whom he met that night carrying a child we now are told that he has changed his mind and no longer considers this to be the case.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 10:53:35 AM
The family reported it first in May Angelo >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 03, 2014, 11:05:39 AM
You're correct of course. So if he reported it on return to Ireland do we know when the first claims were made that Smithman was Gerry?
To put it another way, did the identification of Gerry only arise after the McCanns arrived home or was this accusation voiced earlier?
Yes, after the flight back to UK.
It wasn't a strong identification even then and appears to have been changed altogether now, but clearly the family did see someone. A group of people is obviously a great deal more indicative than one person (especially when that one person didn't see a face or actually identify the child).
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 11:23:17 AM
After being very sure that it was Gerry McCann whom he met that night carrying a child we now are told that he has changed his mind and no longer considers this to be the case.
By whom ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 11:46:39 AM
The only public comments made by any of the family that I know of are the Daily Mirror article in October (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328)) where Martin Smith doesn't say anything either way, and Peter Smith briefly speaking in the Sky News programme, also in October (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ) 17 mins in).
Are there any more?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Luz on March 03, 2014, 11:59:17 AM
I don't believe the McCanns have fooled SY I was being ironic...no more than I believe what you post...I believe SY have effectively cleared the McCanns as they are no longer considered to be suspects.
I believe SY knows perfectly what the Mccann did but their assignment is to clear the UK Government - not one minister, but 3. The McCann don't matter at all, what matters are the errors that were committed on their behalf by high members of the Politburo.
Now it is a question of saving face.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 12:07:00 PM
I believe SY knows perfectly what the Mccann did but their assignment is to clear the UK Government - not one minister, but 3. The McCann don't matter at all, what matters are the errors that were committed on their behalf by high members of the Politburo.
Now it is a question of saving face.
I agree with this.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Luz on March 03, 2014, 12:16:01 PM
Blair, that was already burned by his support to Bush, was with one foot out, and allowed himself to be involved in this because he was working for a place as benemerit. Left a bad inheritance for the feeble Gordon that never stood elections. When the time came to blackmail the President of UE, that was being investigated for corruption in UK, the McCann seemed a good instrument to show who was in charge. Cameron got arrested by his stupidity on trying to please the MSM - I wonder how he will get this boot off.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 12:36:45 PM
The only public comments made by any of the family that I know of are the Daily Mirror article in October (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328)) where Martin Smith doesn't say anything either way, and Peter Smith briefly speaking in the Sky News programme, also in October (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ) 17 mins in).
Are there any more?
Thank you very much, Lyall. Mr Smith changing his mind about the GMClookalike carrier is a rumour then. He precisely observes that “from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.” Mr Smith is right about the PJ not taking as seriously as they should his second statement, but he's wrong in his explanation for this. Tannerman didn't occult Smithman. It wasn't politically correct to focus on him, at least before a reconstitution took place.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 12:41:24 PM
I believe SY knows perfectly what the Mccann did but their assignment is to clear the UK Government - not one minister, but 3. The McCann don't matter at all, what matters are the errors that were committed on their behalf by high members of the Politburo.
Now it is a question of saving face.
SY good name tarnished and ruined over this case? Top detectives becoming known as a joke! This case is too big and the people expect answers and the TRUTH! Releasing the Smithman Efits and discarding Tannerman on CW means they are moving in the right direction.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Luz on March 03, 2014, 12:50:59 PM
SY good name tarnished and ruined over this case? Top detectives becoming known as a joke! This case is too big and the people expect answers and the TRUTH! Releasing the Smithman Efits and discarding Tannerman on CW means they are moving in the right direction.
Are they?
I would say they don't know where they are moving to. They just know they have to move away from the McCann, otherwise it's the British Government that becomes a felon.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 01:03:50 PM
I would say they don't know where they are moving to. They just know they have to move away from the McCann, otherwise it's the British Government that becomes a felon.
Lawyers Luz, I think we all forget that lawyers (for the police and all other involved parties) dictate what's said in public. Certainly what was said on Crimewatch anyway because if language used isn't very carefully chosen there could/will be trouble, and careers can/will be broken.
They didn't volunteer for this investigation. We should always remember that.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 01:09:31 PM
I would say they don't know where they are moving to. They just know they have to move away from the McCann, otherwise it's the British Government that becomes a felon.
I would say from CW that they do know which way they are moving. Jill Renwick being a neighbour to Gordon Brown's brother and telling him about Madeleine is going to bring down the Government? Gordon Brown, Cherie Blair giving the McCann's preferential treatment is going to bring down the Government? Please explain how is it going to bring down the government? Mind you that wouldn't be a bad thing lol.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 01:12:48 PM
Lawyers Luz, I think we all forget that lawyers (for the police and all other involved parties) dictate what's said in public. Certainly what was said on Crimewatch anyway because if language used isn't very carefully chosen there could/will be trouble, and careers can/will be broken.
They didn't volunteer for this investigation. We should always remember that.
Yes, but could they refuse ? Anyhow I think they must feel confortable checking all kinds of burglars, gypsies and paedophiles. At least they will be able to say they have followed and eliminated all still warm leads.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 03, 2014, 02:40:52 PM
I would say they don't know where they are moving to. They just know they have to move away from the McCann, otherwise it's the British Government that becomes a felon.
Why would the British Government (more than one in fact) become a felon?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 02:53:21 PM
Yes, but could they refuse ? Anyhow I think they must feel confortable checking all kinds of burglars, gypsies and paedophiles. At least they will be able to say they have followed and eliminated all still warm leads.
No they couldn't refuse. I agree with you, they will investigate anything that doesn't go anywhere near the conclusion of the investigation in 2008. To do anything else would be disastrous if you were unable to take it to a court, you'd be stuck in no man's land in the sights of the machine guns.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 04:39:40 PM
No they couldn't refuse. I agree with you, they will investigate anything that doesn't go anywhere near the conclusion of the investigation in 2008. To do anything else would be disastrous if you were unable to take it to a court, you'd be stuck in no man's land in the sights of the machine guns.
Sure. No man's land would be unbearable. CW's Smithman might have been the unique possible attempt by DCI Redwood to find and eliminate a father and child couple. He will not go further, as he knows where going further would lead him to.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on March 03, 2014, 04:46:13 PM
Why would the British Government (more than one in fact) become a felon?
You have to believe in conspiracy theories to work that out. Believing in Father Christmas, Easter Bunnies, Boy Wizards and 'Obbits probably helps too. Must dash; just off to feed me Unicorn @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 03, 2014, 04:59:09 PM
SY good name tarnished and ruined over this case? Top detectives becoming known as a joke! This case is too big and the people expect answers and the TRUTH! Releasing the Smithman Efits and discarding Tannerman on CW means they are moving in the right direction.
Moving in the direction of a sighting of a man with a young girl, corroborated in some detail by several witnesses, at a time when the Tapas nine were all in the Ocean Club.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 03, 2014, 05:14:41 PM
Moving in the direction of a sighting of a man with a young girl, corroborated in some detail by several witnesses, at a time when the Tapas nine were all in the Ocean Club.
Sorry?
Can you please guide me to where the whereabouts of the Tapas is confirmed at every point during the night?
For example, Gerry was allegedly OUTSIDE the OC when Tannerman stole Madeleine, chatting to Wilkins.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 03, 2014, 05:18:04 PM
Contrary to what was suggested earlier as being a rumour, Martin Smith does not now believe that Gerry McCann was Smithman. From the elusive Sunday Times article which was whooshed we have the following stated...
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Contrary to what was suggested earlier as being a rumour, Martin Smith does not now believe that Gerry McCann was Smithman. From the elusive Sunday Times article which was whooshed we have the following stated...
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
If it's not a rumour, John, what do you call a rumour ?
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 05:59:19 PM
Moving in the direction of a sighting of a man with a young girl, corroborated in some detail by several witnesses, at a time when the Tapas nine were all in the Ocean Club.
Only if you're working from an incorrect timeline. What did DCI Redwood say about the timeline on CW? I can't believe that bringing the timeline forward can easily con so many people. Extraordinary @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 05:59:45 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
And if he hadn't said they not suspects it might have all kicked off again in the papers (or courts). I expect he says what lawyers say to say.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 03, 2014, 06:01:20 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.
Or would they... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 03, 2014, 06:10:17 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
By "original assertion", are you referring to the 60-80% issue?
If so, they would also presumably be quite familiar with the effects of suggestibility and I'd be very surprised if SY hadn't interviewed the family.
If the SY had remaining doubts, I would assume that they would be adept enough at giving waffly non-committal answers, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 06:10:22 PM
2nd September 2007 :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said "I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 06:14:45 PM
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said "I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
And he was right, they were not witnesses then, but victims.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 06:18:57 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
Mr Smith wasn't 100% sure (how could he be ?), then why should DCI Redwood try to find a possible innocent father ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 06:22:40 PM
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said "I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
He I think never changed his mind and didn't agree with subsequent decisions?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on March 03, 2014, 06:28:04 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.
Or would they... >@@(*&)
There is always the possibility of an unspoken but implied ".......at the moment".
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 06:28:46 PM
Imagine what would happen if they were named suspects. The investigation would become a farce! They want to get on and do their job without it turning into a circus. It's the police way by the looks of it to not give anything away.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on March 03, 2014, 08:51:05 PM
Imagine what would happen if they were named suspects. The investigation would become a farce! They want to get on and do their job without it turning into a circus. It's the police way by the looks of it to not give anything away.
The police changed their minds a few days later didn't they!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carew on March 03, 2014, 09:06:28 PM
Imagine what would happen if they were named suspects. The investigation would become a farce! They want to get on and do their job without it turning into a circus. It's the police way by the looks of it to not give anything away.
Exactly........and how can anyone be ruled out for ever when at any time evidence, changes of story/ confessions could emerge?
I`ve read on here that the investigative team would look "foolish" and would never be believed or taken seriously again were they to declare the McCanns and friends to be "not suspects" if in reality they were keeping all options open. I don`t agree.
Situations change........it`s not set in stone for all time.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Redblossom on March 03, 2014, 10:52:18 PM
Exactly........and how can anyone be ruled out for ever when at any time evidence, changes of story/ confessions could emerge?
I`ve read on here that the investigative team would look "foolish" and would never be believed or taken seriously again were they to declare the McCanns and friends to be "not suspects" if in reality they were keeping all options open. I don`t agree.
Situations change........it`s not set in stone for all time.
The Mccanns have not been cleared by SY, as some suggest, thats all, they are just not treating them as suspects, alledgedly, big difference
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 04, 2014, 04:16:31 AM
Only an idiot would believe they are NOT suspects, especially now Tannerman is blown to smithereens and the suppression of the e-fit, alongside the lies changing stories, the dogs, the DNA and the bizarre behaviour afterward.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: colombosstogey on March 04, 2014, 05:43:35 AM
Only an idiot would believe they are NOT suspects, especially now Tannerman is blown to smithereens and the suppression of the e-fit, alongside the lies changing stories, the dogs, the DNA and the bizarre behaviour afterward.
Sadly its only a few who know the story of the McCanns properly.
My sister came on Sunday and we were chatting about Pistourias and the upcoming trial, and then she said well I thought they were arresting someone in Portugal for the McCann childs disappearance it was in all the newspapers. I said why do you believe that then, and she said yes.
After talking to her about it, she knew nothing, didnt even know dogs had gone into apartment, the car, villa, she only really knew what she had read. This is about the fourth person recently who has said the same.
The whitewash machine has worked well methinks.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: colombosstogey on March 04, 2014, 05:50:40 AM
Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman.
YES ANNE. To be honest I find it very coincidental that when Amaral became interested in this sighting, and was arranging for Smiths to come back to Portugal etc, he was chucked off the case, then this sighting was buried.....from what i have read/recollection, he has NEVER said it wasn't Mr McCann and has kept quiet.....
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 04, 2014, 08:21:24 AM
Only an idiot would believe they are NOT suspects, especially now Tannerman is blown to smithereens and the suppression of the e-fit, alongside the lies changing stories, the dogs, the DNA and the bizarre behaviour afterward.
So no evidence still
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 04, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
After talking to her about it, she knew nothing, didnt even know dogs had gone into apartment, the car, villa, she only really knew what she had read. This is about the fourth person recently who has said the same.
The whitewash machine has worked well methinks.
People have no time to question what they read, they have doubts because the media have discredited themselves repeatedly. But they don't reject the media stories, they can't, having no alternative. As they know they'll never know the truth, their interest in the case tends to diminish. It's not whitewash though, it's saturation.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 12:58:02 AM
IMO it s a possibilty (as witness AS says ) that smithman may have went down this lane with steps, here is a photo (credit Jeanne d'Arc)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/v.JPG)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 07, 2014, 01:56:54 AM
IMO it s a possibilty (as witness AS says ) that smithman may have went down this lane with steps, here is a photo (credit Jeanne d'Arc) http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/v.JPG
You're kidding.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 02:08:59 AM
Witness AS says it is possible that the man, after she saw him, might have gone down the lane with steps. I posted a photo of that lane.
No, that's not what she said : She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended the street via the stairs or if he continued via the 25 of Abril street. Hence you, Pegasus, deduce it's possible. Abril is dark and steps are illuminated. Why do you think he went from the east side of the street to the west side ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 02:48:06 AM
"She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended the street via the stairs or if he continued via the 25 of Abril street." Precisely, the witness AS says she thinks there are two possibilities for which way the man went after she saw him. I posted a photo of one of those two possibilities.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 07, 2014, 02:50:13 AM
"She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended the street via the stairs or if he continued via the 25 of Abril street." Precisely, the witness AS says she thinks there are two possibilities for which way the man went after she saw him. I posted a photo of one of those two possibilities.
She didn't see and didn't say there were two possibilities. What if he lived next door ? The photo gives a wrong idea of those steps. Have you seen them ? At night ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 11:20:05 AM
I have never been there. But there is a very good witness map of (when AS saw him) exactly the mans position on south pavement of R 25 Abril and the mans direction east. AS did not look back so was not sure whether the man continued east along R 25 Abril, or turned south down the lane with steps. Yes it is possible he goes in a building or plot, for example PJ checked out the building and plot adjacent to where AS saw him.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 07, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Very doubtful - I don't believe he went down the steps moving as Anne says from West to East across the road to go down it towards the church.
"The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a child (2) in his arms, walking along the path Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in their direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres." (Aoife Smith)
So he was very close to Aoife when he passed her?
"She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, cut in a short style, short from behind (normal) and a bit longer on the top. His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration. The child was female . She had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was light/light brown. She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height. She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck." (Aoife Smith)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 11:57:38 AM
The label "A" marks the exact location of the man (when witness AS saw him) The man walks from "P" to "M" to "A". The most likely continuation is the lane of steps IMO
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 07, 2014, 12:04:27 PM
And where do you think he was going down those steps on a narrow brightly lit path where he would be easily seen or bump closely past other potential eye witnesses?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 12:06:12 PM
Another photo. Label "A" marks the exact spot where the man was (when witness AS saw him)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 07, 2014, 12:06:47 PM
I've already posted that image. He had to be moving across the road in front of Aoife coming from Primaria i.e. west to east going down 25 de Abril in the direction towards the church. Why would he go down steps when other eye witnesses could be following Aoife coming up the steps?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 12:13:54 PM
And where do you think he was going down those steps on a narrow brightly lit path where he would be easily seen or bump closely past other potential eye witnesses?
I dont know. Are you sure really about travessa das escadhinas is better lit and and busier than R 25 Abril? The mans trajectory through points P and M and A indicates southerly continuation down the travessa IMO
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 07, 2014, 12:17:35 PM
I dont know. Are you sure really about travessa das escadhinas is better lit and and busier than R 25 Abril? The mans trajectory through points P and M and A indicates southerly continuation down the travessa IMO
The road was a lot wider and darker. He can cross the road to avoid other eye witnesses. That brightly lit narrow lane you would be on top of any witnesses.
Why would he go down steps when other eye witnesses could be following Aoife coming up the steps? It is not a clever move to go down those steps.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 12:25:35 PM
I've already posted that image. He had to be moving across the road in front of Aoife coming from Primaria i.e. west to east going down 25 de Abril in the direction towards the church. Why would he go down steps when other eye witnesses could be following Aoife coming up the steps?
When witness AS is coming out of travessa she looks to her left (west) and sees man on south pavement walking east towards her. IMO its an obvious possibility that the man, 2 paces later, may turn right down the travessa. From the top of the travessa he can see that no more people are coming up.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 07, 2014, 12:41:51 PM
When witness AS is coming out of travessa she looks to her left (west) and sees man on south pavement walking east towards her. IMO its an obvious possibility that the man, 2 paces later, may turn right down the travessa. From the top of the travessa he can see that no more people are coming up.
What does the (illogical considering A) fact he passed from P to M indicate ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 12:52:12 PM
What does the (illogical considering A) fact he passed from P to M indicate ?
It means that two people walking opposite directions will slightly alter their trajectories to pass without collision.
The man's general direction as marked by points P and M and A was south. IMO its probable he continued south. If he continued east, along R 25 Abril, that takes him toward the busiest part of town centre?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 07, 2014, 01:39:37 PM
It means that two people walking opposite directions will slightly alter their trajectories to pass without collision.
The man's general direction as marked by points P and M and A was south. IMO its probable he continued south. If he continued east, along R 25 Abril, that takes him toward the busiest part of town centre?
Going past the church and derelict house in the dark is not the busy town centre - the road on the right before you get to the church takes you to Kelly's bar. That lane and steps the Smiths came from takes you there and more people?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Going past the church and derelict house in the dark is not the busy town centre - the road on the right before you get to the church takes you to Kelly's bar. That lane and steps the Smiths came from takes you there and more people?
If the man commences down lane of steps, there are then branches of possible route, no need to walk past fronts of bar and restaurant the witnesses had come from
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 07, 2014, 02:36:51 PM
It means that two people walking opposite directions will slightly alter their trajectories to pass without collision.
The man's general direction as marked by points P and M and A was south. IMO its probable he continued south. If he continued east, along R 25 Abril, that takes him toward the busiest part of town centre?
No, Pegasus. Smithman would have passed on Peter Smith's right, had he maintained his trajectory. He moved, and not slightly, to pass on his left. 25 de Abril is desert and dark, no restaurant, no pub, no nothing except leading to the church. The steps lead to animation and they are well lit because they are steps and used. If he headed to the rocks overhanging the ocean, then there was no advantage to go down the steps instead of turning right in 25 de Abril.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 07, 2014, 03:07:12 PM
... If he headed to the rocks overhanging the ocean, then there was no advantage to go down the steps instead of turning right in 25 de Abril.
From the junction of R 25 Abril and R Escola Primeira, the shortest route to the shore, it is to walk down Travessa das Escadhinas. To go west on Rua 25 Abril and then south on Travessa das Fontainhas is a much longer route.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 09, 2014, 12:01:44 AM
YES ANNE. To be honest I find it very coincidental that when Amaral became interested in this sighting, and was arranging for Smiths to come back to Portugal etc, he was chucked off the case, then this sighting was buried.....from what i have read/recollection, he has NEVER said it wasn't Mr McCann and has kept quiet.....
Yep, his interest suddenly appeared when he thought that he was about to be given the evidence that would back his theory that the Mccanns dunit.
He lost interest again when the rest of the Smiths said that they didn't think it was Gerry. Also when various statements made his theory defunct.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 09, 2014, 12:13:43 AM
From the junction of R 25 Abril and R Escola Primeira, the shortest route to the shore, it is to walk down Travessa das Escadhinas. To go west on Rua 25 Abril and then south on Travessa das Fontainhas is a much longer route.
You're speculating that Smithman didn't mind being spotted in a lighted area with people around the cafés and restaurants. The fact that he turned his head when spoken to indicates he didn't wish particularly to be noticed. You're also speculating that Smithman was heading to the shore. What do you think he would do there?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 09, 2014, 01:27:42 AM
You're speculating that Smithman didn't mind being spotted in a lighted area with people around the cafés and restaurants. The fact that he turned his head when spoken to indicates he didn't wish particularly to be noticed. You're also speculating that Smithman was heading to the shore. What do you think he would do there?
I seem to remember smith saying he didn't see the mans face...so how did he make the efit
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 01:33:34 AM
@dave1 and Benice . Even if you are correct, the claim I was replying to was clearly incorrect in stating that Mr Amaral "lost interest" in the Smith sighting. I think there is plenty of evidence he has retained a strong interest.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 01:39:36 AM
I seem to remember smith saying he didn't see the mans face...so how did he make the efit
Good point. All 9 people in the group saw the man. A few are too young to do an efit. So which two did the efits?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 01:59:44 AM
If an innocent man with child is found to have been Smithman, what next? That would leave us with JT sighting irrelevant and Smith sighting irrelevant. Is it possible for someone to carry something out with absolutely no-one seeing?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 09, 2014, 02:03:36 AM
If an innocent man with child is found to have been Smithman, what next? That would leave us with JT sighting irrelevant and Smith sighting irrelevant. Is it possible for someone to carry something out with absolutely no-one seeing?
According to you, Pegasus, a burglar opened the shutters and window and for some reason had to leave right after. Innocent. Mrs McCann found those shutters and window open and thanks to the burglar she could immediately deduce that Madeleine had been abducted. Innocent. Mr McCann confirmed what Mrs McCann said. Innocent. Before Ms Tanner had seen Crecheman whom she erroneously thought was Tannerman but finally was Innocentman. Innocent. Finally the Smith family meets Smithman who openly strolls in PDL, passes by cafés and restaurants towards a shore likely to get some fresh air. Innocent. Where has Madeleine gone ? Did she fall down the rabbit hole or go through the Looking Glass ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 09, 2014, 02:14:26 AM
Smithman was heading towards the church when passing the Smith family i.e. 25 de Abril.
Two things Pahfinder 1) He was heading either towards Sergie Malinkas and the Church down Rua 25 abril .... or he was heading down the steps towards the little rocky beach cove. Or, tbh, I suppose anywhere that we haven't thought of.
2) at the final Smith sighting stage he was almost 150 metres away from the Church. When considering a case such as this, even if he were going in that direction, realistically150 metres could not be classed as near the Church.
Could it?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 09, 2014, 04:17:56 AM
If an innocent man with child is found to have been Smithman, what next? That would leave us with JT sighting irrelevant and Smith sighting irrelevant. Is it possible for someone to carry something out with absolutely no-one seeing?
In a quiet place in the dark, why not?
Madeleine could have been put into a car at the back of apartment 5A, witnessed neither by neighbors who were in their apartments minding their own business, nor by T9 or any other potential passers by - the net result of a combination of planning and luck.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 04:21:34 AM
According to you, Pegasus, a burglar opened the shutters and window and for some reason had to leave right after. Innocent. ---
Not some vague reason, but a specific reason, being disturbed. But first, essential to the whole theory, is the assumption that the person thinks there is no-one in.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 04:35:26 AM
Ok but what about time? When Innocenttouristman was the main focus, that put the event at about 9.20pm Later when when Smithman became the focus, that put the event at about 10.00pm But if Smithman also gets found to irrelevant (as proposed by this thread), what time did the event happen?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 09, 2014, 10:37:20 AM
Two things Pahfinder 1) He was heading either towards Sergie Malinkas and the Church down Rua 25 abril .... or he was heading down the steps towards the little rocky beach cove. Or, tbh, I suppose anywhere that we haven't thought of.
2) at the final Smith sighting stage he was almost 150 metres away from the Church. When considering a case such as this, even if he were going in that direction, realistically150 metres could not be classed as near the Church.
Could it?
Smithman was not going down narrow lanes or brightly lit steps that he'd never used before. He knew how to get to his destination so he reached the church IMO - you follow that road and it takes you there. Go past the church and derelict house and it leads you to Kate's rocks.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on March 09, 2014, 11:31:35 AM
No need to get personal. I was merely replying to your post below pointing out that it was Mr. Smith who said that only one member out of all of his family members agreed with him. That leaves quite a large number who didn't.
Your post:- Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman. Unquote
From memory Mr Smith said that he had spoken to all his family with him that night, and the only one who felt he might have had a point was his wife.
Among those to disagree with Mr Smith, then, was his daughter Aoife, for my money, far the most astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 09, 2014, 12:03:27 PM
From memory Mr Smith said that he had spoken to all his family with him that night, and the only one who felt he might have had a point was his wife.
Among those to disagree with Mr Smith, then, was his daughter Aoife, for my money, far the most astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Interestingly then, since we know for a fact that Maddie was definitely wearing a short sleeved pair of Eeyore jammies, because that's what the McCanns have said and they should know because they put her to bed (one or both of them, not sure which, neither are they) the Smiths sighting definitely wasn't Maddie, that explains why the efits didn't feature in Kates book, no need.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on March 09, 2014, 12:23:55 PM
Interestingly then, since we know for a fact that Maddie was definitely wearing a short sleeved pair of Eeyore jammies, because that's what the McCanns have said and they should know because they put her to bed (one or both of them, not sure which, neither are they) the Smiths sighting definitely wasn't Maddie, that explains why the efits didn't feature in Kates book, no need.
As likely as not, a translation error ...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 09, 2014, 12:37:00 PM
Which bit, the jammies or the McCanns having a suspiciously poor recollection of who exactly put their precious daughter to bed?
Mr McCann wasn't sure about the pyjamas, but looking at the remaining pyjamas how could they be wrong ? If the pyjamas don't match, the girl clearly wasn't Madeleine (remember how well they matched Tannerman's child's legs), which would explain that the e-fits weren't published. Smithman's girl's long sleeves (and pants) pyjamas match more Innocentman's daughter, but she has a dark hair..
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 09, 2014, 01:00:36 PM
Smithman was not going down narrow lanes or brightly lit steps that he'd never used before. He knew how to get to his destination so he reached the church IMO - you follow that road and it takes you there. Go past the church and derelict house and it leads you to Kate's rocks.
Mr McCann wasn't sure about the pyjamas, but looking at the remaining pyjamas how could they be wrong ? If the pyjamas don't match, the girl clearly wasn't Madeleine (remember how well they matched Tannerman's child's legs), which would explain that the e-fits weren't published. Smithman's girl's long sleeves (and pants) pyjamas match more Innocentman's daughter, but she has a dark hair..
Smithman could have taken Maddie out to sea on a surfboard.
Funny that the MW boat instructor is not in the files who Charlotte Pennington claimed she saw. I think she meant Benjamin Wilkins? His passport photo is in the files. Have we a confirmed name?
Smithman was not going down narrow lanes or brightly lit steps that he'd never used before. He knew how to get to his destination so he reached the church IMO - you follow that road and it takes you there. Go past the church and derelict house and it leads you to Kate's rocks.
Do you mean the Rocha Negro ? Pat Brown went on about it intimating that it had a special significance to Kate and Gerry. ?>)()<
Pathfinder , even if Smithman WAS going towards the church, he had almost a mile to go to Rocha Negro !
And he was going in the opposite direction to the route he originally chose. Have you been up there, to that volcanic outcrop? It is one hell of a climb and would be a bit uneven in the dark. I had a lift part way up, then gave up on the flat area about half way up.
Heri has a very good analysis and vector diagram showing the likely direction that he weas heading for >.. and it certainly wasn't Rocha Negro
With thanks to Heriberto, Heris vector diagram indicating the likely places he was heading for. The top part of the arrow stem indicates 5A and the arrow head indicates Aoifies [sp?] sighting
Do you mean the Rocha Negro ? Pat Brown went on about it intimating that it had a special significance to Kate and Gerry. ?>)()<
Pathfinder , even if Smithman WAS going towards the church, he had almost a mile to go to Rocha Negro !
And he was going in the opposite direction to the route he originally chose. Have you been up there, to that volcanic outcrop? It is one hell of a climb and would be a bit uneven in the dark. I had a lift part way up, then gave up on the flat area about half way up.
Heri has a very good analysis and vector diagram showing the likely direction that he weas heading for >.. and it certainly wasn't Rocha Negro
With thanks to Heriberto, Heris vector diagram indicating the likely places he was heading for. The top part of the arrow stem indicates 5A and the arrow head indicates Aoifies [sp?] sighting
With Rocha Negro the best part of a mile to the east, dont think he was heading there tbh,
He didn't have time to go to Rocha Negra. I never said he went there. Rocha Negra is a possible moving to place at 5-6am but getting the keys to the church makes me think different.
1. Asking directions to church re alibi 2. Getting church keys
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 09, 2014, 04:51:17 PM
Funny that the MW boat instructor is not in the files who Charlotte Pennington claimed she saw.......
Is that based on the statistical logic that her coming to know the person during the week makes it more likely to be an employee? BTW this interesting sighting seems to have been on the 5th at about 2330 IMO (might be wrong)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 09, 2014, 06:15:59 PM
Is that based on the statistical logic that her coming to know the person during the week makes it more likely to be an employee? BTW this interesting sighting seems to have been on the 5th at about 2330 IMO (might be wrong)
She hadn't been working there long had she? So she probably was getting to know other MW employees. Not sure but it's interesting that his passport photo is in the files but nothing else?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 08:00:24 PM
There are several waterfront people listed Processos Vol IV Pages 856 to 858
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 09, 2014, 09:29:36 PM
Thanks.
04-Processos Vol IV Pages 856 to 858
Service Information
Date: 09-05-2007
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: Inspector Pontes
Subject: Informal Conversation
An informal and individual conversation was held with the following witnesses after having examined all involvement relevant to the current investigation, it was found that the following reports do not imply anything of significance:
- John Hill, MW Resort General Manager at the OC, born on 04/10/1976, resident in Espiche, who arrived in Portugal for the first time on 4th March, 2006.
- Nathan D***** S*****, Waterfront Manager (recreation company - boat trips, of which he is the manager) at the OC, resident in Luz, having arrived in Portugal on 15th March 2007, immediately entering into the functions described above. This is his first time in Portugal whether for leisure or work purposes.
- Lauren D****** from West Sussex, Sailing instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal on 21st March 2007 for the first time.
- Sebastian G*******, from Derbyshire, Sports Instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 21st March 2007.
- Alice S*******, from Cambridge, Sailing Instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 21st March 2007.
- Fraser N****, Water sports instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the time on 21st April 2007.- Benjamin W******, from Gloucester, employee of the OC in Luz (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Christopher U******, from Leeds, employee of the OC in Luz, (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Stephen C****** from Bristol, employee of the OC in Luz, (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Robert C***, from Doncaster, Maintenance Driver, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 18th May 2007.
Signed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Missing from files
Processo 04 page 852
Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_867 Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_862. Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_866. Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_865. Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_859. Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_861 Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_864. Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor 04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_863.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 09, 2014, 11:46:30 PM
On the "prevous residents" thread, someone pointed out the excellent accuracy and detail in the statement of a teenage girl TS.
At the Smith sighting we have a similar situation where younger witnesses recall more small details. 12 year old AS remembered that the child's top was long-sleeved. 13 year old TS remembered that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket/coat, and also remembered that the child was barefoot. Details the young members of the group recalled but the adults did not.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 09, 2014, 11:55:01 PM
On the "prevous residents" thread, someone pointed out the excellent accuracy and detail in the statement of a teenage girl TS.
At the Smith sighting we have a similar situation where younger witnesses recall more small details. 12 year old AS remembered that the child's top was long-sleeved. 13 year old TS remembered that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket/coat, and also remembered that the child was barefoot. Details the young members of the group recalled but the adults did not.
Both very bright girls with outstanding observation ability ... and recall. I always valued Aofies statement hiigher than the others because of her sharp eye and attention to detail. Same with Tasmin.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 12:01:51 AM
On the "prevous residents" thread, someone pointed out the excellent accuracy and detail in the statement of a teenage girl TS.
At the Smith sighting we have a similar situation where younger witnesses recall more small details. 12 year old AS remembered that the child's top was long-sleeved. 13 year old TS remembered that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket/coat, and also remembered that the child was barefoot. Details the young members of the group recalled but the adults did not.
It's not TS, but TA. What do you infer, Pegasus ? Who was wrong about the pyjamas ? Aoife, Mrs McCann or the translator ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 12:03:23 AM
It's not TS, but TA. What do you infer, Pegasus ? Who was wrong about the pyjamas ? Aoife, Mrs McCann or the translator ?
TA ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
Apologies for my previous post being unclear. Here I improve it. ----------------------------------------------------------- On the "previous residents" thread, someone pointed out the excellent accuracy and detail in the statement of a teenage girl T.Sillence. At the Smith sighting we have a similar situation where younger witnesses recall more small details. 12 year old A.Smith remembered that the child's top was long-sleeved. 13 year old T.Smith remembered that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket/coat, and also remembered that the child was barefoot. Young members of the Smith group recalled those important details, which the adults did not. -------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 12:17:29 AM
Apologies for my previous post being unclear. Here I improve it. ----------------------------------------------------------- On the "previous residents" thread, someone pointed out the excellent accuracy and detail in the statement of a teenage girl T.Sillence. At the Smith sighting we have a similar situation where younger witnesses recall more small details. 12 year old A.Smith remembered that the child's top was long-sleeved. 13 year old T.Smith remembered that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket/coat, and also remembered that the child was barefoot. Young members of the Smith group recalled those important details, which the adults did not. -------------------------------------------------
T isn't a Smith, he's the son of Sire's first union. Who's wrong on the pjs ? Aoife, Mrs McCann or the translator ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 12:22:00 AM
Both very bright girls with outstanding observation ability ... and recall. I always valued Aofies statement hiigher than the others because of her sharp eye and attention to detail. Same with Tasmin.
Yes, and as I said I would add a third observant child witness (see P.Smith statement) from whom we learn of smithman's longsleeved black jacket/coat and the child's bare feet.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 12:38:56 AM
... Who was wrong about the pyjamas ? Aoife, Mrs McCann or the translator ?
IMO the mother is telling the truth that her child was wearing a short sleeved top the last time she saw her, and the young witness AS is likely to be correct that the child she saw was wearing a long-sleeved top, and there are no translation errors in those details. (P.S. Apologies for getting a surname wrong earlier)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 12:39:54 AM
Yes, and as I said I would add a third observant child witness (see P.Smith statement) from whom we learn of smithman's longsleeved black jacket/coat and the child's bare feet.
Ah, yep 8((()*/
These kids run rings around the adults when it comes to observation and recall.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 12:40:45 AM
IMO the mother is telling the truth that her child was wearing a short sleeved top the last time she saw her, and the young witness AS is likely to be correct that the child she saw was wearing a long-sleeved top, and there are no translation errors in those details
ergo Smithman's child isn't Madeleine. Do you agree ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 12:44:25 AM
IMO the mother is telling the truth that her child was wearing a short sleeved top the last time she saw her, and the young witness AS is likely to be correct that the child she saw was wearing a long-sleeved top, and there are no translation errors in those details
I think you are right and that if the Smithman child was Madeleine, Smithman had popped in somewhere and managed to get her a warmer top.
I have always thought that there was a stop off at the Staff quarters in Rua D'Escola. Just about 50 metres up the road from the first Smith sighting (was it Peter Smiths?)
According to someone on the old 3A's a scream was heard coming from there.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 12:45:53 AM
ergo Smithman's child isn't Madeleine. Do you agree ?
I do not know. IMO is possible they are the same but if so that would mean a change into (or addition of) a longsleeved top occured prior to smith sighting.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 12:54:22 AM
I do not know. IMO is possible they are the same but if so that would mean a change into (or addition of) a longsleeved top occured prior to smith sighting.
Exactly.
And if it wasn't Madeleine being carried, then why hasn't the man come forward after all the publicity ?
As presumably a father, if he wre not the abductor, surely he would want to help the search for a missing girl of about the same age as his daughter.
Nah, sorry Anne. Good try.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 01:04:49 AM
In this building, in addition to the apartments where the uk holiday company housed a good number of the seasonal workers (eg some of the nannies and instructors etc), there are also apartments of permenant residents, also apartments which are holiday second homes / holiday rentals.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 01:08:34 AM
In this building, in addition to the apartments where the uk holiday company housed a good number of the seasonal workers (eg some of the nannies and instructors etc), there are also apartments of permenant residents, also apartments which are holiday second homes / holiday rentals.
Didn't know that. Thanks pegasus.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: icabodcrane on March 10, 2014, 01:12:29 AM
But you insisted the man Jane Tanner saw was abducting Madeleine didn't you ?
You spoke to Scotland about your theory, you assured us
Well, it appears they put your theory in the [ censored word ] file, doesn't it ?
So why should we give credibility to anything else you say, when you have been completely, and utterly, ignored by the police you have been pestering with your nonsense for years ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 01:18:35 AM
But you insisted the man Jane Tanner saw was abducting Madeleine didn't you ?
You spoke to Scotland about your theory, you assured us
Well, it appears they put your theory in the [ censored word ] file, doesn't it ?
So why should we give credibility to anything else you say, when you have been completely, and utterly, ignored by the police you have been pestering with your nonsense for years ?
I think they put a certain other theory in the [ censored word ] file actually.. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: icabodcrane on March 10, 2014, 01:48:01 AM
I do not know. IMO is possible they are the same but if so that would mean a change into (or addition of) a longsleeved top occured prior to smith sighting.
At least your account of the truth is clear : both Smithman and Mrs McCann are innocent. What about Mr McCann ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 10, 2014, 02:17:32 AM
If folks are honest with themselves they will admit what their first thought was on seeing the Smithman
-- moderated libel---
If you have evidence for them I am sure they would be delighted to hear from you.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on March 10, 2014, 10:43:48 AM
I have posted this link before 8(>(( https://www.google.co.uk/#q=metropolitan+police If you look in the right place you can find all the official comment by the MPS. Hint enter Madeleine McCann in the search box on the MPS site then trawl.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lace on March 10, 2014, 11:32:35 AM
SY have told us in no uncertain terms that Smithman is The One.
The one who took Madeleine.
If Smithman wasn't The One, we still wouldn't know about him. Just another dad, no reason to announce it on Crime watch.
I don't know Portugual at all, but if this was just another Dad, where might this man have been going with his child?
If a holiday maker could records be checked to see if any one was renting down that area? Police seem to think he was on his way to the beach area, where on the beach area could he have been staying, have they checked?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 10, 2014, 01:39:10 PM
I don't know Portugual at all, but if this was just another Dad, where might this man have been going with his child?
If a holiday maker could records be checked to see if any one was renting down that area? Police seem to think he was on his way to the beach area, where on the beach area could he have been staying, have they checked?
If he was another dad returning from somewhere with his child, not only where was he going but also where did he come from is of interst.
And as the father of a little girl the same sort of age as Madeleine, why hasn't he come forward ? ... any father would feel for Madeleine, especially if he had a daughter of the same age, and he knew the talk was about him and his daughter. I cant believe that such a man would not come forward.
Mainly because of this , I cant help thinking that Smithman was carrying Madeleine and that is why he hasn't come forward. Crechman came forward it seems, so why hasn't Smithman?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 02:24:43 PM
If the man seen by the irish family was an innocent father with child, its likely he understands portuguese not english (BIG CLUE: didnt answer when greeted in english). But you could argue, why didnt he watch on portuguese TV the full portuguese edition of the special BBC Crimewatch appeal and come forward after seeing it? You would think everyone in PDL watched that complete BBC Crimewatch appeal portuguese edition? Well you'd be wrong, There was no portuguese edition of that Crimewatch special. And its not the fault of the portuguese TV companies, they asked and got refused.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 10, 2014, 02:51:21 PM
Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann and he passed the Smith family at 10.03pm. I have no doubts whatsoever!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 03:07:14 PM
If the man seen by the irish family was an innocent father with child, its likely he understands portuguese not english (BIG CLUE: didnt answer when greeted in english).
This is a groundless deduction, Pegasus. 1) All Portuguese study English for at least 5 years at school. 2) Anyhow the words don't intend to mean anything in particular, greeting is expressed by the voice and words are just a vector.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 03:10:58 PM
If the man seen by the irish family was an innocent father with child, its likely he understands portuguese not english (BIG CLUE: didnt answer when greeted in english). But you could argue, why didnt he watch on portuguese TV the full portuguese edition of the special BBC Crimewatch appeal and come forward after seeing it? You would think everyone in PDL watched that complete BBC Crimewatch appeal portuguese edition? Well you'd be wrong, There was no portuguese edition of that Crimewatch special. And its not the fault of the portuguese TV companies, they asked and got refused.
But there was huge publicity at the time pegasus, Why didn't he come forward then?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 03:48:30 PM
So you have exactly 36 minutes from the credit card transaction at the Dolphin until the sighting. Do you think there was just one cash payment at Kelly, or two?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 04:06:12 PM
But there was huge publicity at the time pegasus, Why didn't he come forward then?
The portuguese TV stations were refused permission to broadcast a portuguese-translation version of the crimewatch special, Did SY and the limited company ensure that appeals were broadcast on in portuguese language on all major portuguese TV channels for this man to come forward? Did those appeal broadcasts state the street location, direction, date and time as well as the 2 efits?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 04:13:19 PM
What year was the 5 years compulsory Engliish schooling introduced?
Compulsory ? English and French, now more years of English than of French, are taught in secondary school in Portugal, as it happens in all small countries. It's a question of survival, though Portuguese is the fifth most spoken language of the world, if considering the number of persons who have it as mother language.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: AnneGuedes on March 10, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
The portuguese TV stations were refused permission to broadcast a portuguese-translation version of the crimewatch special, Did SY and the limited company ensure that appeals were broadcast on in portuguese language on all major portuguese TV channels for this man to come forward? Did those appeal broadcasts state the street location, direction, date and time as well as the 2 efits?
Foreign programs are almost never dubbed, it's much too expensive. They are subtitled.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 10, 2014, 04:22:48 PM
This family are from the Irish Republic not Essex. I would have difficulty understanding a fleeting comment made in passing let alone a Portuguese native speaker. The argument that Smithman didn't respond to Mrs Smith because he had something to hide is possible but not infallible. Not everyone you meet in the street in Praia da Luz is going to greet you as if you were lifelong neighbours and especially so in the semi darkness.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Lyall on March 10, 2014, 04:27:04 PM
But there was huge publicity at the time pegasus, Why didn't he come forward then?
>@@(*&) Because it was six years too late?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 10, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
An interesting question in order to gauge how serious the Portuguese are at wanting to find this fellow.
If you were to wander around Praia da Luz today how many posters would you find showing the two latest e-fits, you know the ones which remained hidden to us for 5 years?
Less than 5? None? Maybe we should send Luz out on a reconnoitre?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 10, 2014, 04:56:36 PM
An interesting question in order to gauge how serious the Portuguese are at wanting to find this fellow.
If you were to wander around Praia da Luz today how many posters would you find showing the two latest e-fits, you know the ones which remained hidden to us for 5 years?
Less than 5? None? Maybe we should send Luz out on a reconnoitre?
I think we know the answer to that question already....
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 10, 2014, 04:56:41 PM
So you have exactly 36 minutes from the credit card transaction at the Dolphin until the sighting. Do you think there was just one cash payment at Kelly, or two?
9.39 13.75 euros (Kelly's Bar)
So the sighting is 24 minutes later. Paid for one round of drinks at Kelly's bar at 9.39 and left about 20 minutes later.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Redblossom on March 10, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
An interesting question in order to gauge how serious the Portuguese are at wanting to find this fellow.
If you were to wander around Praia da Luz today how many posters would you find showing the two latest e-fits, you know the ones which remained hidden to us for 5 years?
Less than 5? None? Maybe we should send Luz out on a reconnoitre?
Did the PJ routinely put efits up of persons of interest in the streets? or do the Leicester Police and SY do also?Dont answer, rhetorical question really. fact remains the Mccanns were happy to do press conferences and efits of any tom dick or harry spending money to do so too and publishing dm in their book, but THIS ONE....if thats not strange to you I give up
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 08:32:33 PM
Thanks for your clear answer. What do you think re PS statement "a few drinks" ?
Yes Peter said they arrived at Kelly's bar at 9pm and had a few drinks. How can that be possible when they were at the Dolphin restaurant? Aoife said they left there at around 9.30 and moved onto Kelly's bar. I repeat she was the only one certain about the time they left at 10pm and a more reliable witness not being under the influence of alcohol and we don't know how many Martin and Peter had. As you know the Irish hate their drink @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2014, 09:23:59 PM
Yes Peter said they arrived at Kelly's bar at 9pm and had a few drinks. How can that be possible when they were at the Dolphin restaurant? Aoife said they left there at around 9.30 and moved onto Kelly's bar. I think she is a more reliable witness not being under the influence of alcohol and we don't know how many Martin and Peter had. As you know the Irish hate their drink @)(++(*
If even just one or two persons of the group had a second drink at Kelly, that would IMO be a seperate transaction, therefore it would be the next till record after the one you are using, which would determine the earliest possible time the witnesses left Kelly.
.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 10, 2014, 09:27:38 PM
If the man seen by the irish family was an innocent father with child, its likely he understands portuguese not english (BIG CLUE: didnt answer when greeted in english). But you could argue, why didnt he watch on portuguese TV the full portuguese edition of the special BBC Crimewatch appeal and come forward after seeing it? You would think everyone in PDL watched that complete BBC Crimewatch appeal portuguese edition? Well you'd be wrong, There was no portuguese edition of that Crimewatch special. And its not the fault of the portuguese TV companies, they asked and got refused.
I remember a Portuguese poster saying, the Portuguese know what happened because their equivalent of sir bhh came on telly and told them.
Perhaps Anne can confirm this.
-- moderated --
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 10, 2014, 09:42:00 PM
If even just one or two persons of the group had a second drink at Kelly, that would IMO be a seperate transaction, therefore it would be the next till record after the one you are using, which would determine the earliest possible time the witnesses left Kelly. .
I think 20 minutes is a average estimate to drink one pint not two.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: slartibartfast on March 10, 2014, 09:46:01 PM
I remember a Portuguese poster saying, the Portuguese know what happened because their equivalent of sir bhh came on telly and told them.
Perhaps Anne can confirm this.
I don't confirm that. I don't think that it's specific to Portuguese to believe the more plausible : death in the flat and radical disposal of the corpse.
-- quote edited for continuity --
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 10, 2014, 10:10:28 PM
If it was a lads night out I would believe you. Not with all the family.
Even more reason to scull it down..!
I am Mrs average and I can down a pint in 5 minutes on a hot day, then another then another. Yes I'm genetically blessed but even at a slow rate I'd knock off 3 in the first hour then slow to about one an hour if I continue to drink. If I'm eating I stop drinking at that point so would never have "nightcaps" like this crew.
What I'm saying is, I can drink a surprising amount if I'm in the mood. Especially beer yum.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2014, 12:24:25 AM
I am interested in checking the time of the sighting primarily from the Dolphin credit card transaction and the Kelly till cash transaction/transactions.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 11, 2014, 09:45:12 PM
I thought in his original statement smith didnt see the suspects face
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on March 11, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
It was definitely a male who at that moment was wearing trousers of a colour similar to cream . Surely that rules out every male who at that moment was wearing blue jeans.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2014, 11:41:22 AM
It was definitely a male who at that moment was wearing trousers of a colour similar to cream . Surely that rules out every male who at that moment was wearing blue jeans.
Interesting point...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
It was definitely a male who at that moment was wearing trousers of a colour similar to cream . Surely that rules out every male who at that moment was wearing blue jeans.
Could they have been white? New white decorators overalls with a jacket over? Would fit into SY theory by the sound of it. Weren't they decorators?
And am I imagining it or was there a report on here very rtecently , or maybe in the files, of three road sweepers wearing white overalls / boiler suits ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
Could they have been white? New white decorators overalls with a jacket over? Would fit into SY theory by the sound of it. Weren't they decorators?
And am I imagining it or was there a report on here very rtecently , or maybe in the files, of three road sweepers wearing white overalls / boiler suits ?
I doubt that whoever it was was wearing a boiler suit, Sadie. Even if someone had just been wearing the bottom half, covered by a jacket, well after dark, might it have attracted attention.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2014, 07:55:21 PM
I doubt that whoever it was was wearing a boiler suit, Sadie. Even if someone had just been wearing the bottom half, covered by a jacket, well after dark, might it have attracted attention.
Yep, you are right, Carana
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on March 13, 2014, 08:21:05 PM
Lady in 5a from 31 march 2007 They were road sweepers wearing outfits that looked like surgical outfits , so probably green. This lady's daughter cut her chin at the crèche and she thinks it had nearly stopped bleeding when she collectedher, but took her to a doctor in PDL and had it stitched.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post2887.html#p2887
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2014, 08:31:22 PM
Lady in 5a from 31 march 2007 They were road sweepers wearing outfits that looked like surgical outfits , so probably green. This lady's daughter cut her chin at the crèche and she thinks it had nearly stopped bleeding when she collectedher, but took her to a doctor in PDL and had it stitched.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post2887.html#p2887
@)(++(* You are right too !
Thanks Anna
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 14, 2014, 12:40:19 PM
Wearing a boiler suit / painting overalls wouldn't stand out to me during the day, but I'd probably notice it late in the evening.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 14, 2014, 09:18:52 PM
Two T9statements state (correctly I believe) was wearing blue jeans. Two of the Smith group statements certainly rule out blue jeans. Logical deduction is: not same person.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 17, 2014, 01:42:44 AM
Two T9statements state (correctly I believe) was wearing blue jeans. Two of the Smith group statements certainly rule out blue jeans. Logical deduction is: not same person.
either that or, one group is not telling the truth.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2014, 01:52:41 AM
I thought the street lighting may have caused a colour distortion, but since they saw the pink pyjamas, their observations must be correct.
I think I am right in saying that they wouldn't see colour by sodium lighting Anna, but certain vehicle types have headlamps that show trueish colour. Also lights from windows would. They may have had torches, of course.
Was it sodium lighting in Rua D'Escola and in Rua 25 Abril ? Anyone know?
There was a damned great searchlight sort of thing high in the air near where Aofie and (was it?) Martin saw Smithman at the junction of Rua D'Escola.with Rua 25 Abril. Wonder if that was sodium?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on March 17, 2014, 10:35:22 PM
I think I am right in saying that they wouldn't see colour by sodium lighting Anna, but certain vehicle types have headlamps that show trueish colour. Also lights from windows would. They may have had torches, of course.
Was it sodium lighting in Rua D'Escola and in Rua 25 Abril ? Anyone know?
There was a damned great searchlight sort of thing high in the air near where Aofie and (was it?) Martin saw Smithman at the junction of Rua D'Escola.with Rua 25 Abril. Wonder if that was sodium?
Well I am sure that somewhere in here says that the light outside the Apt distorted colour.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 17, 2014, 10:46:56 PM
Well I am sure that somewhere in here says that the light outside the Apt distorted colour.
Yep, you are right Anna. They were and still are, I think, sodium lights.
IIRC sodium lights are monochromatic. For Jane or the Smiths to have seen colour there had to be a secondary lighting source, such as from a window, or balcony or from the headlights of passing vehicles. IIRC four wheel drive vehicles have multi chromatic headlights and some vans. Most cars do not.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 18, 2014, 12:11:27 AM
I think I am right in saying that they wouldn't see colour by sodium lighting Anna, but certain vehicle types have headlamps that show trueish colour. Also lights from windows would. They may have had torches, of course.
Was it sodium lighting in Rua D'Escola and in Rua 25 Abril ? Anyone know?
There was a damned great searchlight sort of thing high in the air near where Aofie and (was it?) Martin saw Smithman at the junction of Rua D'Escola.with Rua 25 Abril. Wonder if that was sodium?
An actual picture taken at night showing the street Smithman walked down. The lighting seems very poor but sodium all the same and improves towards the junction itself.
(http://i.imgur.com/av9K5X1.png)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 18, 2014, 12:22:38 AM
An actual picture taken at night showing the street Smithman walked down. The lighting seems very poor but sodium all the same and improves towards the junction itself.
(http://i.imgur.com/av9K5X1.png)
Thankyou john. That illustrates it very well. We can all see red and blue (I think) in that image, which shows that some of the lighting was NOT sodium at the junction
Was it car headlights or was it the massive overhead lamp at the crossing, which showed the colour?. I rather think it was the later. Maybe there was some other light source that we cant see?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 18, 2014, 12:24:21 AM
Police photos showing the positions of Aoife, Martin and Peter Smith during the encounter with Smithman. I would say 12-year-old Aoife got the best look at him.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 18, 2014, 12:28:57 AM
There dont seem to be any lights up there, do there?
My bet is that they carried torches; they had a fair walk.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: icabodcrane on March 18, 2014, 12:35:46 AM
The narrow lower part, between buildings seems not have any, but the rest does.
Street map date appears to be 2013 or 2014 (both dates given)
I think they had some lights fixed .Well they did outside of 5A because a previous holidaymaker said it was very dark and the lamp was hanging. Later after, it was said to be quite bright. Anyway, I always carried a small torch in my bag in case I was attacked...........................and I could poke him in the eye with it @)(++(* Joking apart though, I really did carry a small torch.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 19, 2014, 12:18:21 PM
Carrying a torch isn't really relevant since they wouldn't have shone it in the guys face. At least I hope they didn't. ?{)(**
The street light at the junction appears to be at the top of the steps the Smiths walked up from the pub. It also appears to be rather bright and the same type as that fitted further up the street as shown in the pic below.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 19, 2014, 01:00:38 PM
You can see the street light lantern just to the left of the telegraph pole which is itself just to the left of the steps.
This is the view Smithman would have had (albeit at night) as he made for the steps, passing Martin Smith stood on the footpath to the right before reaching Aoife Smith who was just coming up the steps.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/t.JPG)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/u.JPG)
Closer view showing steps (centre) and large telegraph pole just left of them.
This is where Smithman passed Aoife Smith.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 19, 2014, 05:10:55 PM
Carrying a torch isn't really relevant since they wouldn't have shone it in the guys face. At least I hope they didn't. ?{)(**
The street light at the junction appears to be at the top of the steps the Smiths walked up from the pub. It also appears to be rather bright and the same type as that fitted further up the street as shown in the pic below.
Strange that your image should show a lamp there on the corner of the building and at the road junction, because there isn't one on the corner of the building on my GEarth street scene. There is on the opposite side of the steps to the one showing in your photo, but of a totally different type.. It is getting on for three metres away and possibly 2 metres higher, being situated on the top of the tall telegraph pole, one designed to illuminate the whole crossing area, I think.
Now was it like my GEarth image or was it like your image Angelo? We dont know, do we?
I dont think it is a sodium light. I think it is a normal, but powerful floodlight type white lamp .... a bit like the one in Pat Browns photo of the back of 5A.
With any possible torches, I agree, but some periferal light would catch Smithmans face, unless it was a pencil beam torch.
Martin and Aofie at the road junction would have had quite good light and it seems from the photo posted earlier that that light was multi chromatic [showed colours] rather than monchromatic [[shades of greys, whites and blacks]. The monchromatic lights near OC were sodium, IIRC and that would cast a nasty orangy yellow glow over everything, but there would be no other colours .... just shades of white, grey and black orange tinted.
So Aofie and Martin would have quite good light, whilst Peters would have been monochromatis it seems, with an orange glow. No lights between the two lamps mentioned that I can see.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 19, 2014, 05:42:36 PM
In the first photo, you can see the street light lantern just to the left of the telegraph pole to the left of the image, which is itself just to the left of the steps.
This is the view Smithman would have had (albeit at night) as he made for the steps, passing Martin Smith stood on the footpath to the right before reaching Aoife Smith who was just coming up the steps.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/t.JPG)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/u.JPG)
Closer view showing steps (centre) and large telegraph pole just left of them.
This is where Smithman passed Aoife Smith.
Yep, the top photo shows it fairly clearly. The big ?white street lamp is on the top of the concrete telegraph pole and NOT on the corner of the building to the right of the steps, as it appears to be in the night scene.
In the lower picture the upright post to the right of the steps is just the bottom of a street sign.
Aofie was coming up the steps immediately to the right of the telegraph pole / steet lamp and by the time Smithman reached the road junction , she was already coming across the pavement towards him. The pavement there is built right out, narrowing the road to one cars width and we dont know if Aofie had reached the roadside edge of the pavement or not. IIRC, she describes Smithman as being on her left and coming towards her.
What we dont know is ... was she saying that he was crossing her on her ledft to pass her and go down the steps,
or,
was she saying that he was coming from her left and he passed in front of her going down Rua 25 Abril, towards Malinkas and The Church. As the junction is dog-legged and road [Rua 25 Abril] is only one car wide, cos of the built out pavement at that point, it could have been either.
So the long and the short of it is, Smithman was either going South down the steps or east towards The Church. At that stage, he wasn't going west.
I bet SY know which way Smithman was going tho ... and that is what matters.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 19, 2014, 09:46:25 PM
Daytime view showing the street lamp.
(http://i.imgur.com/AWCoyzH.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on March 19, 2014, 09:57:05 PM
Sadie, I see what you mean about that other light up on the building corner beside the steps. If you zoom in you will see there is something there.
(http://i.imgur.com/zCbq2uW.png?1)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Moderator on March 20, 2014, 12:23:03 AM
I would hazard a guess that the little lamp shown on the original photos and mounted on the corner of the wall of that building beside the steps has been replaced since 2007 by the larger one on the telegraph pole. The base of the original lamp can still be seen on the photo above.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 20, 2014, 01:10:24 AM
I would hazard a guess that the little lamp shown on the original photos and mounted on the corner of the wall of that building beside the steps has been replaced since 2007 by the larger one on the telegraph pole. The base of the original lamp can still be seen on the photo above.
We just dont know when It was changed really, do we Mr M ? There is no date on Angelos photo even
I dont think I can see the base, but I can see cables that might have gone to it. Might.
But in any case, if this is about the colour of the ?navy? slacks worn by Smithman, any passing vehicle may have illuminated them ... as may lights shining from nearby buildings or torches. We just dont know.
Do we?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 20, 2014, 02:10:17 AM
If the man went on the lane with steps all the way to Calheta Rd he would be visible from the dining area of Dolphin restaurant which was probably still open?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on March 20, 2014, 02:57:00 AM
What ? ... who 'carried torches' ... the Smith family ?
Just the cleaning lady rewriting history...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 20, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
Streetlights cannot turn blue jeans into cream/white trousers. Streetlights cannot turn short sleeves into long sleeves.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 20, 2014, 08:16:36 PM
Go to the Met site click "portugues" to get the version for portuguese speakers and and scroll down to the 2 smithman efits. The text on the efits is in english. Why not in portuguese? This error could potentially lose SY a crucial witness.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 20, 2014, 08:40:18 PM
Streetlights cannot turn blue jeans into cream/white trousers. Streetlights cannot turn short sleeves into long sleeves.
So are you saying that Smithman was wearing blue trousers Pegasus? And bundleman was wearing white cream beige trousers?
ETA. I have been responding rather too quickly cos I am short of time atm. I find I misread your previous post, Pegasus. My apologies. I attributed the comment incorrectly.
However, I do think that in sodium light a very pale washed out set of blue jeans could look orangy / yellowish. Sodium light was very strongly coloured when we used to have it in the UK, and it overpowered other colours, probably because it was monochromatic .... so we just got shades of orange rather than hues.
In other words, any colours became greys of different depths and there was a strong mix of orangy yellow mixed in with the light, medium or dark grey. Foul, it was, but better than no light. Thank gawd it has gone.
The point I am making is that deep cream trousers would look exactly the same as pale blue jeans ... or pink or grey trousers, or ......
I think that bundleman stopped off probably at The Staff Quarters and if it was Madeleine, he put something warm on her there
What do you think?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 20, 2014, 08:42:04 PM
Streetlights cannot turn blue jeans into cream/white trousers. Streetlights cannot turn short sleeves into long sleeves.
Very funny Pegasus. It's impossible to change from trousers to jeans? A top secret operation that takes how long after you know that 9 eye witnesses have seen you wearing cream trousers? It's impossible that Madeleine was wearing a long sleeve white top over her short sleeve eeyore top? Don't believe a word what the people involved in Madeleine's disappearance reveal. They want to put you off the scent - luckily that doesn't wash with the dogs 8)-)))
And for the final time to everyone Fiona Payne asked Matt to go and call the police at 10.10 (NOT Gerry or Kate!). I don't know where Gerry asking him to do it comes from?
Fiona Payne
"Dave, erm, Matt, Russell and myself split up in four different directions just to do a search, you know, again assuming that she must have just wandered off. Erm, tut, so, you know, I don’t know which way they went, but I, I went round the back of, erm, tut, well this way around the back of the apartments and round the back of the tennis courts on the main road and then cut down in front of the Baptista Supermarket and back up, that was the route I did. And by the time I got back everyone else had done their loop and at that point then no-one had seen Madeleine. Erm, I remember saying to Matt at that point ‘You go down to main reception and phone the Police’. Erm, and I, I don’t know what Matt, erm, I don’t know what Dave and Russell did at that point. I said ‘I’m going to go up to the’, erm, ‘Kate and Gerry’s apartment’."
"Dave and Russell were just running off sort of shouting, so Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police." (Matt Oldfield)
After Fiona tells Matt to go and phone the police at 10.10 she then goes into 5A where she finds Kate on her own with the twins. Fiona asked Matt to go and phone the police NOT the McCann's! Gerry is not there! He is also missing in the first searches:
"Dave, erm, Matt, Russell and myself split up in four different directions." (FP)
No Gerry? Where is he from 10 to 10.10?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 20, 2014, 08:49:17 PM
Very funny Pegasus. It's impossible to change from trousers to jeans? A top secret operation that takes how long? It's impossible that Madeleine was wearing a long sleeve white top over her short sleeve eeyore top? Don't believe a word what the people involved in Madeleine's disappearance reveal. They want to put you off the scent - luckily that doesn't work with the dogs 8)-)))
And for the final time to everyone Fiona Payne asked Matt to go and call the police at 10.10pm (NOT Gerry!). I don't know where Gerry asking him to do it comes from?
Fiona Payne
"Dave, erm, Matt, Russell and myself split up in four different directions just to do a search, you know, again assuming that she must have just wandered off. Erm, tut, so, you know, I don’t know which way they went, but I, I went round the back of, erm, tut, well this way around the back of the apartments and round the back of the tennis courts on the main road and then cut down in front of the Baptista Supermarket and back up, that was the route I did. And by the time I got back everyone else had done their loop and at that point then no-one had seen Madeleine. Erm, I remember saying to Matt at that point ‘You go down to main reception and phone the Police’. Erm, and I, I don’t know what Matt, erm, I don’t know what Dave and Russell did at that point. I said ‘I’m going to go up to the’, erm, ‘Kate and Gerry’s apartment’."
"Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police." (Matt Oldfield)
After Fiona tells Matt to go and phone the police at 10.10 she then goes into 5A where she finds Kate on her own with the twins. Gerry is not there! He is also missing in the first searches:
"Dave, erm, Matt, Russell and myself split up in four different directions." (FP)
Where is Gerry from 10 to 10.10pm?
I am doing this from memory Pathfinder, but I think that Gerry and Matt went again when no-one came for such a long time . It was about 50 minutes after Matt alerted at about 10.10 at the Main reception that the GNR finally arrived.
I think it is somewhere in the statements, but I am happy to be corrected if I am misremembering.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 20, 2014, 08:58:44 PM
I am doing this from memory Pathfinder, but I think that Gerry and Matt went again when no-one came for such a long time . It was about 50 minutes after Matt alerted at about 10.10 at the Main reception that the GNR finally arrived.
I think it is somewhere in the statements, but I am happy to be corrected if I am misremembering.
You are correct Sadie. Gerry went to reception with John Hill (Matt was also there) when the PJ are contacted for the first time at 10.40. This is 30 minutes after Fiona asked Matt to call at 10.10 (The McCann's were not involved in Matt going to call the police at the earlier time because Gerry is out searching somewhere and Kate is in 5A with the twins).
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 20, 2014, 09:00:35 PM
So are you saying that Smithman was wearing blue trousers Pegasus? And bundleman was wearing white cream beige trousers?
I think that bundleman stopped off probably at The Staff Quarters and if it was Madeleine, he put something warm on her there
What do you think?
To your 3 questions 1. IMO smithman was definitely wearing trousers of colour cream white or similar. 2. IMO the man seen by JT was wearing trousers as shown in SY innocentman photo. 3. Re the building you mention yes it is on Rua Escola just north of the sighting, and yes a good percentage of the MW seasonal staff lived there (you did very well to find that out BTW). Is it only from those two facts you build your theory?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 20, 2014, 09:03:07 PM
To your 3 questions 1. IMO smithman was definitely wearing trousers of colour cream white or similar. 2. IMO the man seen by JT was wearing trousers as shown in SY innocentman photo. 3. Re the building you mention yes it is on Rua Escola just north of the sighting, and yes a good percentage of the MW seasonal staff lived there (you did very well to find that out BTW). Is it only from those two facts you build your theory?
Cant take the credit; I didn't find it out. Someone on 3A's mentioned it and I used to sneak in and read. Some good stuff posted by the locals. harmony IIRC used to get on her bike and have a look then report back
They said that a scream came from there too.
They also hypothesized that someone at the Staff quarters could have watched the comings and goings to 5A from there. Using binoculars or a telescope.
Not sure that I find that very convincing tbh ... a long way, especially in the dark ... and IIRC there are some scrappy trees in between.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 21, 2014, 04:37:32 AM
Probably no-one on this forum has an actual copy of the official files DVD?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 21, 2014, 09:34:12 AM
Probably no-one on this forum has an actual copy of the official files DVD?
I have a friend who has all the statements etc. Official ones and I have been offered them BUT they are in PT, both physically and language wise
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on March 27, 2014, 02:19:16 AM
1606 to 1610 Witness testimony of Martin Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting 06 Processo 06 pages 1606 to 1610
As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season.
This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.
1611 to 1614 Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26 6-Processos, Volume VI, pgs. 1611 to 1614
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
1615 to 1624 Witness Testimony of Peter Daniel Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting 6-Processos, Volume VI, pgs. 1615 to1624
Immediately at the beginning of this road he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally, with a fairly quick step because he was coming downhill.
The Smith family gave remarkably detailed descriptions of this individual when the poor lighting and brevity of the encounter are considered. IMO they would have noticed and their suspicions aroused if he was running or was breathless because he had been running while carrying a weight.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 27, 2014, 02:31:47 AM
SY knows he's the one. How many detectives are working on this case >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 02:34:30 AM
People say "if smithman was an innocent father carrying his sleeping child home why hasn't he come forward?" Well show me a single official police appeal to find him which names the street location? Scotland Yard's appeal does not bother to name the street location. (Correct me if I'm wrong?)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 27, 2014, 02:42:22 AM
I think they know who the man is 8(0(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 02:57:42 AM
IMO they dont know for certain who the man is. It would be a serious oversight to publish an appeal which fails to mention the street location. Maybe someone can check SY website and hopefully correct me.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on March 27, 2014, 08:27:05 AM
IMO they dont know for certain who the man is. It would be a serious oversight to publish an appeal which fails to mention the street location. Maybe someone can check SY website and hopefully correct me.
Perhaps they are not too keen to identify him - they do have a mass of other people of interest to occupy them.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 01:48:13 PM
Perhaps they are not too keen to identify him - they do have a mass of other people of interest to occupy them.
SY's current public appeal is in effect something like a vague "If you were walking carrying a child in PDL that night about 10pm please come forward" Here is what it should say (with the all important street location and direction added) "If you were walking carrying a child along Rua Escola southwards onto the junction with Rua 21 Abril at about 10pm that night please come forward" (Also the appeal should show a photo of the junction because, of the many potential unfound witnesses who walked/drove along Rua Escola or Rua 21 Abril that night, those that were tourists may not know the road names). But show me that public appeal anywhere? Correct me if I'm wrong?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 27, 2014, 03:21:04 PM
I agree that they should release more information about his walking route and where he may have be seen e.g. on Rua 21 Abril or in close proximity to the church IMO. And anybody out and near to that area at around 10pm should come forward.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on March 27, 2014, 03:36:37 PM
I agree that they should release more information about his walking route and where he may have be seen e.g. on Rua 21 Abril or in close proximity to the church IMO. And anybody out and near to that area at around 10pm should come forward.
I don't believe they have any intention of identifying Smithman as they don't want to go where he might lead. They would rather devote their efforts towards numerous red herrings, all of which will almost certainly lead nowhere
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
I don't believe they have any intention of identifying Smithman as they don't want to go where he might lead. They would rather devote their efforts towards numerous red herrings, all of which will almost certainly lead nowhere
IMO Mr Redwood absolutely wants to identify smithman, innocent or not. But the incomplete information presented may miss potential witnesses. Like on SY's website the english text on the portuguese/dutch/german versions of the smithman efit-images[/b] should be translated into the relevant three languages, not left in english!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on March 27, 2014, 04:20:21 PM
IMO Mr Redwood absolutely wants to identify smithman, innocent or not. But the incomplete information presented may miss potential witnesses. Like on SY's website the english text on the portuguese/dutch/german versions of the smithman efit-images[/b] should be translated into the relevant three languages, not left in english!
I swither to and fro regarding Redwood. I feel he nailed his colours to the mast early on, so to speak, by referring to the McCanns as Kate & Gerry and saying that SY were only pursuing an abduction line.
Since then he has drawn back somewhat, so I'm now uncertain of his motives.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on March 27, 2014, 04:59:47 PM
I swither to and fro regarding Redwood. I feel he nailed his colours to the mast early on, so to speak, by referring to the McCanns as Kate & Gerry and saying that SY were only pursuing an abduction line.
Since then he has drawn back somewhat, so I'm now uncertain of his motives.
IMO the motive is unquestionable, to solve the case. And IMO SY may be cleverer than anyone imagines.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on March 27, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Well, yes, his future career depends on that, but will he arrive at the truth, or just some convenient, possibly dead, 'patsy' ?
IMO arriving is more likely, as he has already shown the important ability to adapt a theory to fit newly found information, as illustrated already by his first revelation.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 31, 2014, 01:55:01 AM
What statement did you get that from? Didn't know Mrs Smith had given a statement.
Mary Smith didn't travel to PDL to give a statement. Hopefully she has given one by now.
Martin Smith said: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues, 03 January 2008
Mary Smith didn't travel to PDL to give a statement. Hopefully she has given one by now.
Martin Smith said: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues, 03 January 2008
I wonder how accurate that quote is. What would be the point of asking someone whether their child was asleep... as opposed to what? She might have noticed a sleeping child without actually verbalising it. None of the statements mention her saying this. Even if she had in passing, if the person didn't understand English (or the accent), he might not have realised in the general family banter that he was being asked a question. If this person did have Madeleine, there would be a reason to hurry on past whether he understood or not.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 31, 2014, 05:09:35 PM
'Is she asleep' really means asleep as opposed to awake, though, doesn't it?
When we ask if someone is asleep, we are not trying to find out if they are really dead.
She knew the child looked asleep but something triggered that made it look strange and not normal IMO. She wouldn't ask oh is she asleep if she knew she was awake - it's not like she wanted to take a closer look at the child in the dark. I think it's more "is she alright?" subconsciously.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on March 31, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
Sherlock, I think you read Sadies theory? If so you will know that I believe a car was coming to pick Tannermann and Madeleine up, ...but that it was frustrated because of two things 1. Gerry and Jez chatting on the edge of the pavement at the corner of the alleyway. Where the car had to pass and also within sight, all-be-it at a distance from Gerry, of Tannerman/ bundleman 2. Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction. No way would the driver go up there and risk a pick up. If fact I think he wet his pants and buzzed off leaving Tannerman in the lurch.
I dont think it was a choice to carry Madeleine thru the streets; I think it became a necessity
I do remember this, Sadie, quite well. We conversed at length about it not long after I came on the forum.
It is my belief however that in the case of their being a car in an initial plan and that plan going wrong, walking through the middle of the town with the child would be an unlikely plan B. She would still have to be concealed and I would have thought that going to one of the secluded areas or into a nearby apartment that could have been being used as a base / vantage point would have been a more sensible option over walking through the middle of the town and traversing that road with all the bars and restaurants.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 31, 2014, 05:18:06 PM
I wonder how accurate that quote is. What would be the point of asking someone whether their child was asleep... as opposed to what? She might have noticed a sleeping child without actually verbalising it. None of the statements mention her saying this. Even if she had in passing, if the person didn't understand English (or the accent), he might not have realised in the general family banter that he was being asked a question. If this person did have Madeleine, there would be a reason to hurry on past whether he understood or not.
Yes, and if that person did have Madeleine he either changed her jammies or the McCanns have been less than totally honest about the night clothes she was wearing.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on March 31, 2014, 05:18:52 PM
Yes, and if that person did have Madeleine he either changed her jammies or the McCanns have been less than totally honest about the night clothes she was wearing.
Not necessarily. Don't forget these are witnesses who were trying to remember details of someone who had simply passed by them as they were ambling back to their flat two weeks earlier. I would be hard pressed to remember details of who I'd passed even yesterday.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 31, 2014, 05:27:26 PM
Not necessarily. Don't forget these are witnesses who were trying to remember details of someone who had simply passed by them as they were ambling back to their flat two weeks earlier. I would be hard pressed to remember details of who I'd passed even yesterday.
Whatever.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on March 31, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Sherlock, I think you read Sadies theory? If so you will know that I believe a car was coming to pick Tannermann and Madeleine up, ...but that it was frustrated because of two things 1. Gerry and Jez chatting on the edge of the pavement at the corner of the alleyway. Where the car had to pass and also within sight, all-be-it at a distance from Gerry, of Tannerman/ bundleman 2. Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction. No way would the driver go up there and risk a pick up. If fact I think he wet his pants and buzzed off leaving Tannerman in the lurch.
I dont think it was a choice to carry Madeleine thru the streets; I think it became a necessity
Tannerman is Innocentman according to sy. He has been identified and ruled out as the 'abductor'. SY are now concentrating on Smithman.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 31, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
I do remember this, Sadie, quite well. We conversed at length about it not long after I came on the forum.
It is my belief however that in the case of their being a car in an initial plan and that plan going wrong, walking through the middle of the town with the child would be an unlikely plan B. She would still have to be concealed and I would have thought that going to one of the secluded areas or into a nearby apartment that could have been being used as a base / vantage point would have been a more sensible option over walking through the middle of the town and traversing that road with all the bars and restaurants.
Gawd, Sherlock, when we were there mid summer 2010 it was so quiet. Everyone seemed to go to bed at 9 pm-ish. There are two routes that I can think of that involve virtually no road walking except for crossiing quickly.
The first involves doubling back thru the car parks of A block and the next block in a more westerly direction, then crossing the main road onto semi derelict land. The main road would have been almost as dead as a dodo at that time of night imo. For its whole length, until the Staff quarters, that wasteland followed the Rua D'Escola, which is the road that the Smiths saw Smithman in . Doubling back might have been a bit tricky.
The second and probably the more likely route is via the rabbits warren of alleyways. There is one that goes in a southerly direction and has an off shoot alleyway going west from behind Fazackerleys villa, number 35, then across Rua Francisco GM right on to the Baptista car park. From there across another car park, cross the main road and onto yet another car park. Travel across some wasteland which comes out near The Staff quarters and just up from where Martin Smith saw him.
Apart from crossing two almost deserted roads, it is all alleyways, car parks and wasteland. No-one to see him until he had the misfortune to bump into the Smiths
As for Madeleine being asleep, it seems likely that she was drugged initially with chloroform and later possibly with a measured injection.
All this is conjecture of course, but entirely possible.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 31, 2014, 05:55:55 PM
Ok sadie, so Mrs Smith didn't say it & the daily mail made it all up.
One question, why?
WSpam, it is on a level to my seeing things but not being able to verify them any longer. In my case i remember and recount. In Mrs Smiths case her hubby speaks for her (third party)... and it is published in a rag.
Neither is totally satifactory. I accept that and you should too. Both are worth recounting, but how well would either stand up in Court, I wonder?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 31, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Gawd, Sherlock, when we were there mid summer 2010 it was so quiet. Everyone seemed to go to bed at 9 pm-ish. There are two routes that I can think of that involve virtually no road walking except for crossiing quickly.
The first involves doubling back thru the car parks of A block and the next block in a more westerly direction, then crossing the main road onto semi derelict land. The main road would have been almost as dead as a dodo at that time of night imo. For its whole length, until the Staff quarters, that wasteland followed the Rua D'Escola, which is the road that the Smiths saw Smithman in . Doubling back might have been a bit tricky.
The second and probably the more likely route is via the rabbits warren of alleyways. There is one that goes in a southerly direction and has an off shoot alleyway going west from behind Fazackerleys villa, number 35, then across Rua Francisco GM right on to the Baptista car park. From there across another car park, cross the main road and onto yet another car park. Travel across some wasteland which comes out near The Staff quarters and just up from where Martin Smith saw him.
Apart from crossing two almost deserted roads, it is all alleyways, car parks and wasteland. No-one to see him until he had the misfortune to bump into the Smiths
As for Madeleine being asleep, it seems likely that she was drugged initially with chloroform and later possibly with a measured injection.
All this is conjecture of course, but entirely possible.
As for Madeleine being asleep, it seems likely that she was drugged initially with chloroform and later possibly with a measured injection.
Yep, the burglaring sex offender was also a trained anaesthetist.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on March 31, 2014, 05:59:24 PM
How hasn't he come forward in 7 years? SY disagree.
Please give me a single link to a single appeal in portuguese for this man to come forward. You can't, because IMO there is none. I am happy to be proved wrong, please do give me a link from Correio Da Manha, or SIC TV (long wait .............). If the appeal is out there in portugal surely you can find it? SY's translation of the smith efits into portuguese and german and dutch is ... in English! Have a look on the Met site, they never bothered to translate the posters. Derrrrrr.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 01, 2014, 02:52:04 AM
Long wait for anyone to post a single example of SY's smithman efit images with superimposed text in portuguese or german or dutch (not english) .......... zzzzzz........
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on April 01, 2014, 03:48:45 AM
Long wait for anyone to post a single example of SY's smithman efit images with superimposed text in portuguese or german or dutch (not english) .......... zzzzzz........
Significant, isn't it, Pegasus.
Perhaps SY have reason to believe he is not Portuguese, German or Dutch ??
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 01, 2014, 04:17:14 AM
Well look at SY website at their portuguese dutch and german versions of the 2 smithman efits. They are in english. Please correct me if am wrong. And the text like "We are stilll looking for this man" Here is how it looks to the important non-english-speaking potential portuguese dutch or german witness or innocentman "Vo art stale vaaalink poo dete miiin" I am proposing there has been no realistic portuguese appeal in PDL to find innocentman2(=smithman). I will welcome your post to to indicate I am wrong with any link whatsoever to a portuguese appeal...... ...... rather long wait......
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on April 01, 2014, 07:19:17 AM
Well look at SY website at their portuguese dutch and german versions of the 2 smithman efits. They are in english. Please correct me if am wrong. And the text like "We are stilll looking for this man" Here is how it looks to the important non-english-speaking potential portuguese dutch or german witness or innocentman "Vo art stale vaaalink poo dete miiin" I am proposing there has been no realistic portuguese appeal in PDL to find innocentman2(=smithman). I will welcome your post to to indicate I am wrong with any link whatsoever to a portuguese appeal...... ...... rather long wait......
So is the assumption that Smithman is British or that they aren't really looking for him? Or that they know who he is?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 01, 2014, 06:45:23 PM
I don't think Smithman was British or Irish, had he been he would have acknowledged at least one of the Smith clan. Anyone else think it really bizarre that he walked past every one of the Smiths group and never acknowledged one of them even when asked a question by Mrs Smith?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 01, 2014, 07:37:00 PM
Well look at SY website at their portuguese dutch and german versions of the 2 smithman efits. They are in english. Please correct me if am wrong. And the text like "We are stilll looking for this man" Here is how it looks to the important non-english-speaking potential portuguese dutch or german witness or innocentman "Vo art stale vaaalink poo dete miiin" I am proposing there has been no realistic portuguese appeal in PDL to find innocentman2(=smithman). I will welcome your post to to indicate I am wrong with any link whatsoever to a portuguese appeal...... ...... rather long wait......
The McCann's could have put his E-fits in their book many years ago and on their website but they hid them away instead just like Smithman is still hiding.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 01, 2014, 07:53:43 PM
Well it's a quote from her husband that she did say it to Smithman but only she can confirm it.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 01, 2014, 08:14:49 PM
Not good enough for a Court. As you say only she can confirm it but has anybody so far bothered to ask?
She didn't travel back to PDL in 2007 so she never gave a statement. Only 3 went - Martin, Peter and Aoife. I would definitely think that SY will have one or they need shooting!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 01, 2014, 08:20:44 PM
Don't be stupid she didn't go back to give a statement. She was there 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on April 01, 2014, 10:47:00 PM
Significant, isn't it, Pegasus. Perhaps SY have reason to believe he is not Portuguese, German or Dutch ??
Thats not what I meant. SY correctly recognised that to prompt a new witness to come forward (this might be either a further witness who saw smithman, or it might be smithman himself), it is important to target not only english readers, but also portuguese dutch and german readers (the primary languages of many people in PDL that night) . So on the SY website, they do provide translated text in those three languages briefly describing smithman. I was just pointing out that the translation work on their site omitted to also translate the text on the actual 2 e-fit images which remains in english only. I think SY are doing a great job, I was just pointing out a small omission which could be easily rectified.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on April 02, 2014, 02:03:31 AM
The CPS has the file so we (I) can assume the POI's are British. 8(0(*
The CPS has no authority to act in any other country apart from the UK.
I think Swiskas has something here.
Anyway it fits with my theory ... thanks Swiskas
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 02, 2014, 03:23:05 AM
I don't think the Smiths initially realised the significance of their encounter with Smithman. My home in Spain is in a small town very similar in size to Praia da Luz and it also has a large British/Irish population. I am acquainted with most of the residents and can usually tell if someone is not a local. Mr and Mrs Smith were regular visitors to Praia da Luz and would have been similarly familiar with most of the locals. The fact that neither of them recognised this man in 2007 and have never seen him since leads me to conclude that he was not a local.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2014, 04:07:59 AM
I don't think the Smiths initially realised the significance of their encounter with Smithman. My home in Spain is in a small town very similar in size to Praia da Luz and it also has a large British/Irish population. I am acquainted with most of the residents and can usually tell if someone is not a local. Mr and Mrs Smith were regular visitors to Praia da Luz and would have been similarly familiar with most of the locals. The fact that neither of them recognised this man in 2007 and have never seen him since leads me to conclude that he was not a local.
Good point. Then there are possibilities like a portuguese resident of another town having a holiday in PDL or visiting relatives in PDL. Or a dutch/german/polish/french/etc person having a holiday in PDL. If he is an innocentman (which is how I lean currently although I might be wrong) I think the non-response to Mrs S's greeting (as reported in press) favours it being someone with little understanding of the foreign language english. If someone on a dark street in some small UK seaside resort greeted me in some foreign language I did not understand I would probably ignore them.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 02, 2014, 08:34:14 AM
Good point. Then there are possibilities like a portuguese resident of another town having a holiday in PDL or visiting relatives in PDL. Or a dutch/german/polish/french/etc person having a holiday in PDL. If he is an innocentman (which is how I lean currently although I might be wrong) I think the non-response to Mrs S's greeting (as reported in press) favours it being someone with little understanding of the foreign language english. If someone on a dark street in some small UK seaside resort greeted me in some foreign language I did not understand I would probably ignore them.
I can't remember how many were in the Smith group but for every single one of them to be ignored over the 30 seconds or so it took for this man to pass them all is definitely suspicious imo. An adult carrying a child at night in a holiday resort usually acknowledges other adults with children but not in this case. I have a feeling there is more to this than the Smiths were able to impart in a statement.
Put this together with the description of the child being carried, the time relative to Madeleine last being seen and several other factors and it all leads me to agree with DCI Redwood. Smithman is top of the suspect list imo.
But why are the two e-fits so different if they are supposed to be the same man? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on April 02, 2014, 02:03:30 PM
Thats not what I meant. SY correctly recognised that to prompt a new witness to come forward (this might be either a further witness who saw smithman, or it might be smithman himself), it is important to target not only english readers, but also portuguese dutch and german readers (the primary languages of many people in PDL that night) . So on the SY website, they do provide translated text in those three languages briefly describing smithman. I was just pointing out that the translation work on their site omitted to also translate the text on the actual 2 e-fit images which remains in english only. I think SY are doing a great job, I was just pointing out a small omission which could be easily rectified.
Ok thanks for that clarification, pegasus.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 02, 2014, 04:02:46 PM
If you have ever taken young children on such a holiday you would know that sedatives would be totally unnecessary to induce sleep. The children would be totally worn out by evening
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 02, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
sadie has been chloroformed more times than you have had hot dinners. No I am exaggerating. Soz, but I have been chloroformed a good few times.
I think that it would have been only used for the initial sedating. Afterwards i think a measured injection.
Tannernam has been bypassed, but NOT absolutely ruled out. There could have been two men.
I reckon there was a man walking behind innocent creche man who was just another innocent man. And then after that man, walked another man, who was also innocent, but the man after that, he did it.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on April 02, 2014, 06:51:28 PM
I reckon there was a man walking behind innocent creche man who was just another innocent man. And then after that man, walked another man, who was also innocent, but the man after that, he did it.
@)(++(* 8(>((
What can we do with you?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 02, 2014, 07:07:16 PM
Speaking in the third person again too ... that's always a sign that we have some major fantasy stories coming our way
Yep, big fantasie story coming up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am about to have something to eat and then I am going to my S.inLaws to spend a bit of time with her. Will that do? 8**8:/: Might do a bit of grocery shopping too.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2014, 07:19:34 PM
... But why are the two e-fits so different if they are supposed to be the same man? >@@(*&)
My theory is, the private detective spoke with the family group and determined that two of them had some recollection of facial features. Probably IMO the detective used e-fit software on a laptop. Can anyone here tell from the e-fits whether they are hand-drawn or software drawn? So the detective sits down with one witness, and produces an e-fit based on the recollection of that witness. When finished, the detective then sits down, totally seperately, with the other witness, and makes a second e-fit based on the recollection that second witness. So the detective ends up with two e-fits, of the same man, but based on two different witnesses's memories. This is good scientific method IMO, to produce the 2 e-fits completely seperately.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2014, 07:47:17 PM
Be interesting to know if Aoife did one as she saw the man passing close by and by the street light so possibly got a better look and she was sober.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2014, 08:06:36 PM
Be interesting to know if Aoife did one as she saw the man passing close by and by the street light so possibly got a better look and she was sober.
Also observant was the boy who was the only one in the group who remembered the child's bare feet and the man's jacket/coat, so he is another possibility re efit source JIMO.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2014, 08:12:00 PM
Also observant was the boy who was the only one in the group who remembered the child's bare feet and the man's jacket/coat, so he is another possibility re efit source JIMO.
Agreed. It would be interesting to know what new information SY have got from all 9 in regards to the sighting.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 02, 2014, 08:48:11 PM
I would love to hear what the Smiths have to say about these e-fits.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on April 02, 2014, 08:51:58 PM
I would love to hear what the Smiths have to say about these e-fits.
Maybe we will one day. Saying that though, one of the things that makes them so credible is their complete refusal to get caught up in the media circus.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Estuarine on April 02, 2014, 09:00:33 PM
For the poster claiming that Tannerman has been bypassed but not ruled out, that is what the OFM site would have the public believe, as to wave bye bye to Tannerman AS SY HAVE MOST CERTAINLY DONE] is to ge themselves into all sorts of problems.
Read the timelines. Read the witness statements and the rogatories........esp Gerry McCann words re MO and the were they weren't they closed shutters.
SY site and Redwood could not be clearer. Tannerman is in the bin.
I have no contact with the Official Find Madeleine site. The fact that Tannerman has not been completely ruled out has nothing to do with them as far as I am concerned.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a little girl at about 9.15 ish. She is clear that he walked across her along the top street Rua A S, coming from west to east, and close by. I believe her completely. Seems there were two men carrying a child that evening.
You rule that possibility out. Who are you to be so authoritive? Were you there for the 45 minutes being considered?
I believe that there was a second man.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on April 03, 2014, 10:33:59 AM
I have no contact with the Official Find Madeleine site. The fact that Tannerman has not been completely ruled out has nothing to do with them as far as I am concerned.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a little girl at about 9.15 ish. She is clear that he walked across her along the top street Rua A S, coming from west to east, and close by. I believe her completely. Seems there were two men carrying a child that evening.
You rule that possibility out. Who are you to be so authoritive? Were you there for the 45 minutes being considered?
I believe that there was a second man.
Scotland Yard don't seem to be considering that and are concentrating on Smithman.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2014, 10:49:46 AM
Along with umpteen burglars, sex-offenders and a former junkie alas now RIP. You couldn't make it up could you?
Desperate, isn't it. Hopefully they will sort it out before they manage to spend another 6 million.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2014, 11:16:28 AM
They have to investigate all possibilities because when/if they make arrests critics will say, well you never checked out tom, dick and harry and they can respond by saying we investigated all leads and these are the ones that did it 8((()*/
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on April 03, 2014, 11:33:07 AM
They have to investigate all possibilities because when/if they make arrests critics will say, well you never checked out tom, dick and harry and they can respond by saying we investigated all leads and these are the ones that did it 8((()*/
Good thinking pathfinder.
Also, if the perp is as influential, clever and slippery as i think he is, hopefully they will have got rid of all the other possibilities that he could have presented ... and just be able to hone in on him
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: valeria on April 03, 2014, 11:46:14 AM
on metropolitan police page there is an PDL interactive map with Taner's sighting. when you click on it although initially there is an announcement that they may have identify this man, immediately after you watch the video with the represedation of the sighting and finally there is an appeal for informations. this means that tanerman has not ruled out completely. Or i get it wrong?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on April 03, 2014, 12:08:49 PM
They have to investigate all possibilities because when/if they make arrests critics will say, well you never checked out tom, dick and harry and they can respond by saying we investigated all leads and these are the ones that did it 8((()*/
I agree. Eliminating what is potentially innocent to zoom in on what can't be eliminated as innocent is surely a major task in any modern investigation in order to maximise the chances of a successful prosecution. But try explaining that to a certain self-styled criminal profiler...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on April 03, 2014, 02:08:55 PM
If an innocent smithman is found (both sightings discounted) where would that leave the timeline?
Interesting question, pegasus, but practically-speaking would it make much difference?
The time that Smithman was seen is virtually the same time that Kate reports having discovered Madeleine missing. That ten o clock (approx) time is always going to be there.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 03, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
Also, if the perp is as influential, clever and slippery as i think he is, hopefully they will have got rid of all the other possibilities that he could have presented ... and just be able to hone in on him
...or her.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2014, 05:25:51 PM
on metropolitan police page there is an PDL interactive map with Taner's sighting. when you click on it although initially there is an announcement that they may have identify this man, immediately after you watch the video with the represedation of the sighting and finally there is an appeal for informations. this means that tanerman has not ruled out completely. Or i get it wrong?
That follows my line of thought, too, Valeria. I don't think they have categorically eliminated the man seen by Jane Tanner. I think he remains in the frame.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2014, 05:37:40 PM
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2014, 05:55:32 PM
Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 but mistakenly remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives tracked him down
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.
But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.
The revelation will be a blow to Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, as they endure a seventh Christmas without their oldest daughter.
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.
Ms Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry, previously told officers that she saw the dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas at 9.15pm on May 3, 2007.
One of the so-called “Tapas Seven”, she had been dining with the McCanns in a nearby restaurant when their daughter went missing.
Her sighting meant that from 2007 onwards, Portuguese and British police presumed any abduction most probably took place between 8.30pm, when the McCanns went to dinner, and 9.15pm.
The realisation that it was a false lead has shifted detectives’ focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.
The revelation was described by DCI Andy Redwood, the Met officer leading the new investigation called Operation Grange, as a “revelation moment” when it was finally made by his team.
DCI Redwood said in October: “Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine’s abductor.
“It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.”
The innocent dad agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz at the time to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.
His two-year-old’s pink pyjamas, which were described by Ms Tanner, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence.
The new prime suspect was spotted by Martin Smith from Drogheda, Co Louth, as he returned to his apartment in Praia da Luz about 9.50pm.
He saw a British-looking man carrying a motionless, barefoot girl in pyjamas. Madeleine was noted to be missing by Kate at 10pm.
The Smith family provided two efit images of the man more than five years ago. However, the sighting was viewed as too late to be significant because of Ms Tanner’s sighting– which is why the efits were only released publicly in a Crimewatch appeal broadcast in October.
on metropolitan police page there is an PDL interactive map with Taner's sighting. when you click on it although initially there is an announcement that they may have identify this man, immediately after you watch the video with the represedation of the sighting and finally there is an appeal for informations. this means that tanerman has not ruled out completely. Or i get it wrong?
Hi valeria. I had a look at that, the keywords appear to be 'believe we have identified'. The Met website include the following statement...
Update on previous appeal
We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child
Hi valeria. I had a look at that, the keywords appear to be 'may have identified'. The Met website include the following statement...
Update on previous appeal
We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child
If you scroll through the images on the page the words "Man now identified by Operation Grange" are written beneath the Bundleman sketch.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2014, 06:31:32 PM
The strange route taken by Tannerman has already been discussed on this forum - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2702.0
It does seem to have been a circuitous detour from the creche when carrying a sleeping child - but for a person exiting apartment 5a quite a direct one.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: peter claridge on April 03, 2014, 06:44:07 PM
In the documentary provided by the McCann's they portrayed Tannerman and Smithman as the same person altering the detail of the carrying style described by the Smith family. If they thought this then, why did they not release the e-fits provided by Mr & Mrs Smith at the time?
Also according to Oldfield At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
Oldfield again That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both [bedroom windows] were facing in the same direction.
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.
The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of Madeleine's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.
So the shutters must have been open prior to 9.30 giving the abductor 30+ minutes to not get very far.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: peter claridge on April 03, 2014, 06:47:53 PM
The strange route taken by Tannerman has already been discussed on this forum - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2702.0
It does seem to have been a circuitous detour from the creche when carrying a sleeping child - but for a person exiting apartment 5a quite a direct one.
Which is exactly where Jane Tanner stated he had come from, she provided a sketch to prove this http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanner2.jpg&target=tlx_pic89z5
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Cariad on April 03, 2014, 07:52:28 PM
I'm perfectly happy to consider what SY says as a guideline and not absolute set in stone fact, but I can't help but notice that it seems that the very people who use DCI Redwoods "the Mccann are not suspects" as though it is an undeniable truth, seem quite happy to ignore his dismissal of Tannermen.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on April 03, 2014, 08:13:15 PM
Which is exactly where Jane Tanner stated he had come from, she provided a sketch to prove this http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanner2.jpg&target=tlx_pic89z5
You mean, someone may have taken this route....... 1st one
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/RICH.htm
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: peter claridge on April 03, 2014, 08:22:18 PM
You mean, someone may have taken this route....... 1st one
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/RICH.htm
No, Tanner indicates the person she saw as coming from apt 5A - how could she have known this?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2014, 08:38:57 PM
Evening 28th April the Mccann family walking west from dinner at Millenium to apartment missed a left turn and went too far west so ended up IMO walking east to reach apartment. Just an example of tourists getting lost.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 03, 2014, 08:59:54 PM
Notice how many deceased suspects there have been? When the current investigations fail, and I believe it is inevitable that they will, watch who gets the blame.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2014, 09:03:08 PM
No, Tanner indicates the person she saw as coming from apt 5A - how could she have known this?
Amazing insight Ms Tanner has.
I reckon she has positively identified creche man by his hair, each individual bit.
“But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
I reckon she has positively identified creche man by his hair, each individual bit.
“But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
I think JT's description of the man matches well the SY photo of the actual innocentman tourist they interviewed. Re the thread title, What if the smith sighting does get eliminated as another innocentman? Will the investigation, with both such sightings eliminated, still assume that someone openly carried through the streets?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 04, 2014, 01:06:03 AM
They're going to run out of suspects at some stage. It's not as if the streets of Praia da Luz were swarming with people on the night Maddie disappeared.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2014, 01:19:54 AM
Yes, the revelation resulting from finding innocentman1 was fairly easy, it increased the focus on the smith sighting, and shifted the likely time from something past nine pm, to about ten pm. But if hypothetically an innocentman2 is found to eliminate the smith sighting, what other sighting is there to shift the focus onto, and how will it shift the time?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2014, 09:57:38 AM
I think JT's description of the man matches well the SY photo of the actual innocentman tourist they interviewed. Re the thread title, What if the smith sighting does get eliminated as another innocentman? Will the investigation, with both such sightings eliminated, still assume that someone openly carried through the streets?
I'm not mug enough to believe he existed in the first place.
And neither are Kate & Gerry apparently 'It's not possible to be certain'.
How can you identify someone who was never there in the first place.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2014, 10:16:44 AM
They're going to run out of suspects at some stage. It's not as if the streets of Praia da Luz were swarming with people on the night Maddie disappeared.
If you google 'Lurking near McCann apartment' you will find there were plenty of suspects seen doing just that.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 04, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
Notice how many deceased suspects there have been? When the current investigations fail, and I believe it is inevitable that they will, watch who gets the blame.
I believe the case will be archived again with the only conclusion reached by SY being Mr & Mrs McCann didn't do it because we say so.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2014, 10:22:03 AM
Redwood and his team have been put in an impossible position, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't!!
I don't think anyone apart from a handful of people on a few forums take a lot of interest in this case...redwoods impossible situation is that he cannot investigate as he would wish at the moment
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
I don't think anyone apart from a handful of people on a few forums take a lot of interest in this case...redwoods impossible situation is that he cannot investigate as he would wish at the moment
I fancy you may underestimate public interest, though few avidly follow the various forums.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on April 06, 2014, 02:59:59 AM
I don't think anyone apart from a handful of people on a few forums take a lot of interest in this case...redwoods impossible situation is that he cannot investigate as he would wish at the moment
It seems clear that he is not receiving the cooperation from Portugal that he would have liked but I said as much months ago. The Portuguese don't want any foreign coppers on their patch showing them up.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 05, 2014, 03:54:46 AM
Everything considered I am beginning to think the Smith sighting was yet another innocent man walking home with his child.
Just assume for a moment that Madeleine was abducted. The abductor was not to know when the next check would be so he was hardly going to be wandering about the streets with a child in his arms for any length of time. If Madeleine was taken it had to be someone with a motor vehicle which was parked nearby imo.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 05, 2014, 06:15:07 AM
Everything considered I am beginning to think the Smith sighting was yet another innocent man walking home with his child.
Just assume for a moment that Madeleine was abducted. The abductor was not to know when the next check would be so he was hardly going to be wandering about the streets with a child in his arms for any length of time. If Madeleine was taken it had to be someone with a motor vehicle which was parked nearby imo.
And if we assume Maddie wasn't abducted, what then?
IMO the Smiths sighting is genuine, all of it. Always was & that's why Gerry sent Kate to check on the kids at roughly 10:03, in his version.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: peter claridge on May 05, 2014, 08:28:37 AM
Everything considered I am beginning to think the Smith sighting was yet another innocent man walking home with his child.
Just assume for a moment that Madeleine was abducted. The abductor was not to know when the next check would be so he was hardly going to be wandering about the streets with a child in his arms for any length of time. If Madeleine was taken it had to be someone with a motor vehicle which was parked nearby imo.
The Smith sighting is pivotal to the whole case.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2014, 03:39:11 PM
If Madeleine was taken shortly after Gerry's last check at about 9.10pm any abductor would realise that he only had a short time to get away. Wandering around the centre of the town with what appeared to be a sleeping child after 10pm was a no no.
In any event, aren't we told that Madeleine was a poor sleeper and tended to wake easily? Then we are expected to swallow the nonsense that she would sleep through an abduction and a trip down town with all sorts of street noise? I don't believe for a minute that Smithman was an abductor.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on May 17, 2014, 04:51:27 PM
...we have a situation where a child has gone missing between 21:15 ish and 22:00 ish cause unknown. "Smithman" could be the perpetrator because he is the only reported person seen at the right sort time carrying a female child of the correct GISS. Two (?) police forces have asked " Smithman" to come forward with no takers that we have been informed of. So given that "Smithman" remains alive he is unaware of the appeal, is aware and for whatever reason does not want to come forward or the police are not telling us the full story. Then of course to sustain an abduction theory it is essential to put the child in the proximity of the abductor. Now I fear I am wandering off topic and this possibly should be on another thread.
If Smith man is Madeleine's abductor, he is scarcely likely to come forward ...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2014, 06:09:43 PM
In light of the fact that it took 7 years for the man seen by Jane Tanner to be id'ed and ruled out it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there is a perfectly innocent explanation for the Smith sighting as well, why these people don't come forward earlier is a bit of a mystery but if it can happen once, it could happen twice.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 17, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
The searches are tracking Smithman from the wasteland to the church.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Fern on May 17, 2014, 07:04:38 PM
The searches are tracking Smithman from the wasteland to the church.
I gather the wasteland along side the Ocean Club complex was being searched however please could you site your source in stating that the search then proceeded left along Rua 25 de Abril, rather than down towards the beach ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 17, 2014, 07:39:25 PM
I gather the wasteland along side the Ocean Club complex was being searched however please could you site your source in stating that the search then proceeded left along Rua 25 de Abril, rather than down towards the beach ?
Read my previous posts if it concerns you so much and look where Aoife was situated when Smithman passed her heading in the direction of the church. It could be the KEY to the case ?>)()<
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2014, 09:01:41 PM
Read my previous posts if it concerns you so much and look where Aoife was situated when Smithman passed her heading in the direction of the church. It could be the KEY to the case ?>)()<
It was only a few days ago that there was a reminder to be more welcoming to newbies on here... Never mind.
What key are you referring to? If you mean the key to the church, what would substantiate that any of the T9/OC staff / any one else in contact with them had one to even give them that night?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 17, 2014, 11:34:25 PM
One observation of the Smiths sighting continues to puzzle me. Daughter Aoife who was the rear guard of the family as they made their way home records the following in her police statement of 26 May 2007.
The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
Now, what I find strange is why this man was on the pavement if he had just walked directly across the street unless he was purposely trying to avoid a close encounter with Aoife?
If this unidentified person had intended to cross from Rua da Escola Primaria to Travessa das Escadinhas or even intended to go along Rua 25 de Abril, then why not go across at an angle (shortest route)? No need to go straight across then walk along the footpath as appears to have happened.
If nothing else Aoife's observation clearly indicates that he was walking east but where he went appears to be unknown.
(http://i.imgur.com/VSFNtZr.png?1)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 12:27:49 AM
One observation of the Smiths sighting continues to puzzle me. Daughter Aoife who was the rear guard of the family as they made their way home records the following in her police statement of 26 May 2007.
The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
Now, what I find strange is why this man was on the pavement if he had just walked directly across the street unless he was purposely trying to avoid a close encounter with Aoife?
If this unidentified person had intended to cross from Rua da Escola Primaria to Travessa das Escadinhas or even intended to go along Rua 25 de Abril, then why not go across at an angle (shortest route)? No need to go straight across then walk along the footpath as appears to have happened.
If nothing else Aoife's observation clearly indicates that he was walking east but where he went appears to be unknown.
(http://i.imgur.com/VSFNtZr.png?1)
He could've taken any sort of circuitous route, if he was out walking with a body and dodging being seen.
It's a shame TANNER didn't perform her "checking" (for possible witnesses) more thoroughly, she might have sent him down a different path where he'd never be seen.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 12:28:09 AM
Now another anomaly in this sighting. Peter Smith recorded the following in his police statement.
States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
This is crystal clear, the unidentified man was coming down the left hand side of the road. Martin Smith talks of walking up the middle of the road in his statement so the mystery man was forced to the left.
First point I want to make about this is that when Amaral did the reconstruction video they depicted the mystery man walking down the right hand side of the road - this was an error.
Secondly, referring to my other observation above, if the mystery man was walking down the left side of the road he had to move to his right for Aoife to have observed him on her left walking along the pavement. For some reason the route taken by this man as he approached the intersection was determined by the unexpected appearance of the other members of the Smith family ending with Aoife appearing. I think mystery man took a circuitous route in order to avoid the last of the Smiths but didn't expect Aoife to pop up at the top of the steps.
It all sounds very suspicious from mystery mans point of view.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on May 18, 2014, 01:07:26 AM
Now another anomaly in this sighting. Peter Smith recorded the following in his police statement.
States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
This is crystal clear, the unidentified man was coming down the left hand side of the road. Martin Smith talks of walking up the middle of the road in his statement so the mystery man was forced to the left.
First point I want to make about this is that when Amaral did the reconstruction video they depicted the mystery man walking down the right hand side of the road - this was an error.
Secondly, referring to my other observation above, if the mystery man was walking down the left side of the road he had to move to his right for Aoife to have observed him on her left walking along the pavement. For some reason the route taken by this man as he approached the intersection was determined by the unexpected appearance of the other members of the Smith family ending with Aoife appearing. I think mystery man took a circuitous route in order to avoid the last of the Smiths but didn't expect Aoife to pop up at the top of the steps.
It all sounds very suspicious from mystery mans point of view.
That is a good point John, but I do wonder if Aoife was already on that sticking out bit of pavement about to cross R 25 Abril, when she saw him on her left walking towards her. If she was standing or walking at a point just under the 2 of Rua de 25 Abril in the google image, then he had room to pass her as he went down the steps.
However it is also the case that had he come down the right /middle of the Rua D'Escola, when he reached the junction he would still have been to her left (NW of her ) and he could have swung in an easterkly direction as she walked across the road, and he would have ben walking towards her
To be honest, we just dont know enough to judge whether he carried on, down the steps, in a southerly direction or whether he turned in a easterly direction along Rua 25 Abril towards Malinkas and the Church
Both directions lead to the little beach.... and other places.
Am off to bed now. Mind is tired
Nigh Night
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 01:16:02 AM
we just dont know enough to judge whether he carried on, down the steps, in a southerly direction or whether he turned in a easterly direction along Rua 25 Abril ...
Agreed, and witness AS confirms this, she does not know whether he went south down the steps, or east.
IMO if he goes south down the steps he may go to the small beach. IMO if he goes east along Rua 25 Abril it indicates strongly he does not go to the small beach (unless you have him walking through the Bull beer garden walking between the outside tables and down that path)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 01:31:48 AM
The point I am trying to make is this. The mystery man walked down the left hand side of Rua da Escola Primaria, if he was intending to go east along Rua 25 de Abril all he had to do was turn left around the corner.
He didn't do that. He veered slightly right probably to avoid the Smith stragglers but encountered Aoife as he made to go down the steps.
The aerial view below depicts the direction mystery man was moving ie from bottom to top.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ohSYn5.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 01:57:30 AM
... He veered slightly right probably to avoid the Smith stragglers but encountered Aoife as he made to go down the steps ...
Yes IMO it is most likely he went down the steps
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 02:00:59 AM
"when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street" (Martin Smith)
"the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street." (Peter Smith)
Coming down to his right is incorrect? He would have passed Peter to his left? And if he passed him to his right if Peter was in the middle of the street it looks like he was planning on turning left towards the church. If he was coming down the middle of the road when he passed Martin he would have been straight in front of Aoife when she got to the top of the steps? They need to be further questioned on their exact positions and where they saw the man. It doesn't add up from the locations here. So he went passed Martin went right then turned back again. Something is not right.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith3.jpg)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 02:12:07 AM
What's right is actually wrong. Those photos you have posted above are not in accordance with Martin and Peter's statements. The PJ seem to have got this very wrong imo.
Martin was in the middle of the road and not as shown. Peter was ahead of Martin and also towards the middle of the road which allowed mystery man to pass by on his right side. Aoife was not tucked in at the corner as shown in the PJ photo.
Another point I picked up from the statements was that Aoife couldn't see the girls face as mystery man was holding her against his shoulder. However, both Martin and Peter describe her eyelids as being closed. For this to have happened mystery man must have passed on both Peter's and then Martin's right but on Aoife's left which is what happened.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 02:16:12 AM
I'm surprised they haven't got the Smiths back there to do a reconstruction of the sighting. I can't see him going west then turning back to east again. It doesn't make sense >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 02:27:30 AM
I'm surprised they haven't got the Smiths back there to do a reconstruction of the sighting. I can't see him going west then turning back to east again. It doesn't make sense >@@(*&)
Maybe they have.
I can see him zigzagging all over, myself.
He was not wanting to be seen.
Those narrow streets - you could hear people coming especially a group that is talking.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 02:28:46 AM
I'm surprised they haven't got the Smiths back there to do a reconstruction of the sighting. I can't see him going west then turning back to east again. It doesn't make sense >@@(*&)
He did ever so slightly in order to avoid the stragglers. Unfortunately for him he didn't expect there to be nine of them and for Aoife to pop up just as he was about to make for the relative gloom of the steps.
The Smiths visit Praia da Luz several times a year, I would bet they have been interviewed again.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 02:33:55 AM
He did ever so slightly in order to avoid the stragglers. Unfortunately for him he didn't expect there to be nine of them and for Aoife to pop up just as he was about to make for the relative gloom of the steps.
The Smiths visit Praia da Luz several times a year, I would bet they have been interviewed again.
Of course they have. :)
They aren't digging there based on anything else...are they....?
>@@(*&)
There could even be other witnesses we've never heard about.
Anything is possible, but what's certain is, the digs are not being undertaken quietly.
They expect to find something, and they want the world's media there for the event.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 02:39:31 AM
The points "P" "M" and "A" in the photos mark where the man was when each of the 3 witnesses saw him. That is what the captions indicate. And it is simplest to confirm for point "A", it matches her statement, when she emerged from the steps she saw him to her left, 2 metres away from her, on the southside pavement of Rua 21, walking east towards her. BTW the 3 witnesses are there in the photos, this was a competent diligence conducted by taking the 3 witnesses to the actual location. All IMO
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 02:46:51 AM
The points "P" "M" and "A" in the photos mark where the man was when each of the 3 witnesses saw him. That is what the captions indicate. And it is simplest to confirm for point "A", it matches her statement, when she emerged from the steps she saw him to her left, 2 metres away from her, on the southside pavement of Rua 21, walking east towards her. BTW the 3 witnesses are there in the photos, this was a competent diligence conducted by taking the 3 witnesses to the actual location. All IMO
It doesn't match. If you read Peter's statement he says he was in the middle of the street when the man passed him to his right. From the location marker P he could only pass to his left.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 02:47:36 AM
The three positions P for Peter, M for Martin and A for Aoife all refer to different points in the timeline. For example, when mystery man passed Peter, Martin was just entering Rua da Escola Primaria and Aoife was at the bottom of the steps.
Let's face it, either Peter and Martin don't know their left from their right or the PJ messed up.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 02:57:17 AM
It doesn't match. If you read Peter's statement he says he was in the middle of the street when the man passed him to his right. From the location marker P he could only pass to his left.
There is pronoun ambiguity in the portuguese (the most original we have) and likewise in its unofficial translation back to english. IMO in P's statement, when P passes X, P is in the middle of the road, and X is on the east side of the road (to P's right). The labelled spot "P" in the photos marks where X was, when P passed him, IMO, and that is from reading the portuguese captions.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 03:05:19 AM
Have you noticed that the PJ who created those illustrations thinks that all tourists walk on the footpath at night. Now that's so funny.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 03:11:41 AM
There is pronoun ambiguity in the portuguese (the most original we have) and likewise in its unofficial translation back to english. IMO in P's statement, when P passes X, P is in the middle of the road, and X is on the east side of the road (to P's right). The labelled spot "P" in the photos marks where X was, when P passed him, IMO, and that is from reading the portuguese captions.
So you're trying to say he was on the right pavement when he passed Peter and then crossed to the opposite side of the street onto the other pavement to pass Martin 8-)(--) That would be very unusual and they didn't comment anything about him zig zagging from one side of the street to the other. That would stand out a mile to anybody as being very suspicious @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 03:18:40 AM
So you're trying to say he was on the right pavement when he passed Peter and then crossed to the opposite side of the street onto the other pavement to pass Martin...
Yes X was on east side of RdEP (when P passed him) and then X was on west side of RdEP (when M passed him). The PJ marked on the photos three positions of X. Label P is the position of X (when P passed him). Label M is the position of X (when M passed him). Label A is the position of X (when A passed him) and this is very easy to prove by reading her statement. Are you suggesting the PJ, on location with the 3 witnesses, chose to record the locations of the witnesses, and not bother to record the vastly more relevant 3 locations of X?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 03:38:49 AM
So you're trying to say he was on the right pavement when he passed Peter and then crossed to the opposite side of the street onto the other pavement to pass Martin 8-)(--) That would be very unusual and they didn't comment anything about him zig zagging from one side of the street to the other. That would stand out a mile to anybody as being very suspicious @)(++(*
I'm starting to get a picture in my head.
Like something out of Agatha Christie, silently zig zagging through the streets of PDL with a corpse...make that, something out of a horror movie... 8()(((@#
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 03:51:11 AM
IMO it is understandable that the man alters his course to avoid colliding with three groups of people.
Look at the exact location marked "A" in the last photo here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html I am claiming that is where X was (when A saw him) That fits exactly with her statement that as she emerges from the steps she looks left and sees the man walking towards her.
Are you claiming instead that the location marked "A" it is where A was (when she saw X)?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 04:27:30 AM
The points "P" "M" and "A" in the photos mark where the man was when each of the 3 witnesses saw him. That is what the captions indicate. And it is simplest to confirm for point "A", it matches her statement, when she emerged from the steps she saw him to her left, 2 metres away from her, on the southside pavement of Rua 21, walking east towards her. BTW the 3 witnesses are there in the photos, this was a competent diligence conducted by taking the 3 witnesses to the actual location. All IMO
Sorry Pegasus, I misread your post on the first pass. I think you have it right, Peter states the following...
States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
What he is in fact saying is that the mystery man walked around him and moved to the other side of the road where Martin then passed him.
I believe you are right about the photos with M, P and A on them. They relate to where mystery man was situated and not the witnesses. So there we have it, he walked a circuitous route to get to the steps possibly to avoid being seen under the street light. Unfortunately for him though Aoife walked right out and passed right in front of him.
Good work guys...not the actions of an innocent man though is it?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 04:33:46 AM
Sorry Pegasus, I misread your post on the first pass. I think you have it right, Peter states the following...
States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
What he is in fact saying is that the mystery man walked around him and moved to the other side of the road where Martin then passed him.
I believe you are right about the photos with M, P and A on them. They relate to where mystery man was situated and not the witnesses. So there we have it, he walked a circuitous route to get to the steps possibly to avoid being seen under the street light. Unfortunately for him though Aoife walked right out and passed right in front of him.
Good work guys...not the actions of an innocent tourist eh?
Nor an "abductor", who having got this far, would surely have carried on a straight line with or without the Smiths seeing him.
He'd risked enough as it is, with everyone milling about on their "checks" that night.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
He did a check so they are checking the wasteland area.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
The points "P" "M" and "A" in the photos mark where the man was when each of the 3 witnesses saw him. That is what the captions indicate. And it is simplest to confirm for point "A", it matches her statement, when she emerged from the steps she saw him to her left, 2 metres away from her, on the southside pavement of Rua 21, walking east towards her. BTW the 3 witnesses are there in the photos, this was a competent diligence conducted by taking the 3 witnesses to the actual location. All IMO
If the three witnesses have been taken back to the scene of the sighting, it may explain the discrepancies John noted in their statements and the PJ photographs. Perhaps it was easier for them to revise exactly where they were in locus rather than from memory in a statement.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 01:52:11 PM
Exactly right I can't see the Smiths refusing to do a reconstruction of his movements unlike others 8)--))
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 03:50:32 PM
Are we agreed then that Smithman was acting very oddly in the way he walked past the Smiths? If he had been an innocent he would gave walked straight down and across the road.
It also appears to me that only someone without a motor vehicle would have taken the risk of walking the whole way from block 5 at Ocean Club right down to where the Smiths saw him.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
If the three witnesses have been taken back to the scene of the sighting, it may explain the discrepancies John noted in their statements and the PJ photographs. Perhaps it was easier for them to revise exactly where they were in locus rather than from memory in a statement.
The statements in Portimao, and the visit by the PJ with the 3 witnesses and a camera to the sighting location, all happened on 26 May 2007.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on May 18, 2014, 05:26:53 PM
Are we agreed then that Smithman was acting very oddly in the way he walked past the Smiths? If he had been an innocent he would gave walked straight down and across the road.
It also appears to me that only someone without a motor vehicle would have taken the risk of walking the whole way from block 5 at Ocean Club right down to where the Smiths saw him.
No real abductor would do it but desperate times call for desperate measures. It all comes back to the same person. The supressed efits, the long check so they're going back to the wasteland. They are tracking Smithman and they know he is.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2014, 06:15:36 PM
The statements in Portimao, and the visit by the PJ with the 3 witnesses and a camera to the sighting location, all happened on 26 May 2007.
That puts a different complexion it.
I had assumed that the statements were given individually, first and the visit to the scene at a later date when the three could ‘bounce off’ each other’s location.
If both happened on the same day there should have been no discrepancy – one should have dovetailed into the other – particularly as all three witnesses were able to collaborate both on the sighting and therefore on their statement.
I do find that situation decidedly odd.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 07:03:32 PM
Definitely all on one day.
The imagined discrepancies are maybe due to readers misinterpreting ambiguous pronouns IMO.
I think it is natural that when an individual walks past 3 groups (each of several people) coming the other way, the individual will alter his course to walk around each group,
This common sense tactic is something one may observe every day in any town.
It does not indicate the man is a perp, it indicates only that he has the common sense to walk around each of the three groups of people coming the other way.
A challenge: can anyone here cite any other case anywhere ever which involved open carrying?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2014, 07:07:55 PM
No a normal person carrying a child would stick to one pavement and walk down it. Not zig zagging from one side to the other so he can't be easily recognised and then not even responding to Mrs Smith asking Oh is she asleep? They should do a reconstruction with the Smiths.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 18, 2014, 07:20:50 PM
No a normal person carrying a child would stick to one pavement and walk down it. Not zig zagging from one side to the other so he can't be easily recognised and then not even responding to Mrs Smith asking Oh is she asleep? They should do a reconstruction with the Smiths.
You think having Morrissey there would help?
IMO it wasn't Smithmans 'girlfriend in a coma', he carried only 'half a person', she wasn't 'asleep'.
There was 'Panic', but he didn't just head 'nowhere fast'.
I'd check the 'cemetry gates'.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 18, 2014, 07:22:54 PM
No a normal person carrying a child would stick to one pavement and walk down it...
A normal person alters their course to avoid colliding with people coming the other way. I never met anyone who just carries on regardless and ploughs into people, pregnant women, little kids, that would not be normal.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2014, 07:29:35 PM
No a normal person carrying a child would stick to one pavement and walk down it. Not zig zagging from one side to the other so he can't be easily recognised and then not even responding to Mrs Smith asking Oh is she asleep? They should do a reconstruction with the Smiths.
The Smiths already went back for one in May 2007, and took the PJ over their route. Whether or not the PJ thought to have someone stand in to represent how the man actually walked or not isn't known, but it would have been a good opportunity while their memories were still fresh.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
A normal person alters their course to avoid colliding with people coming the other way. I never met anyone who just carries on regardless and ploughs into people, pregnant women, little kids, that would not be normal.
Nothing Team McCann has ever done could be classed as "normal".
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 07:33:39 PM
... not even responding to Mrs Smith asking Oh is she asleep? ...
But she spoke to him in a foreign language called "english". If you were carrying your child home in your home town down a dark street and someone in a group of passing strangers shouted out something in some foreign language you didn't know, wouldn't you ignore them?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 07:37:41 PM
But she spoke to him in a foreign language called "english". If you were carrying your child home in your home town down a dark street and someone in a group of passing strangers shouted out something in some foreign language you didn't know, wouldn't you ignore them?
So we are still working on the Foreign Abductor theory?
Even though the entire population of PDL speaks good English?
A tourist town, where "locals" routinely ignore those who bring money to the coffers?
Right......
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 18, 2014, 07:38:46 PM
Maddie was short for her age (90 cm) and was described as having a slim build. Forty pound is a lot for a four year old, she couldn't have been that heavy. Check the chart grows if you don't believe.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 07:40:50 PM
Quote
A challenge: can anyone here cite any other case anywhere ever which involved open carrying?
Well the results are pouring in, peeps have listed dozens of cases which are known to have involved open carrying. Actually that's a lie. No-one has replied with a single case.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 07:42:01 PM
So we are still working on the Foreign Abductor theory?
Even though the entire population of PDL speaks good English?
A tourist town, where "locals" routinely ignore those who bring money to the coffers?
Right......
When did you see me working on any abduction theory? IMO the man the irish family saw is likely to be a local resident and totally innocent, just carrying his own daughter home. To state that the entire population of PDL speaks English is untrue. Not everyone there works in tourism BTW.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2014, 08:09:32 PM
The imagined discrepancies are maybe due to readers misinterpreting ambiguous pronouns IMO.
I think it is natural that when an individual walks past 3 groups (each of several people) coming the other way, the individual will alter his course to walk around each group,
This common sense tactic is something one may observe every day in any town.
It does not indicate the man is a perp, it indicates only that he has the common sense to walk around each of the three groups of people coming the other way.
A challenge: can anyone here cite any other case anywhere ever which involved open carrying?
Recently Chloe Campbell was captured on CCTV being taken by a kidnapper who was walking on the street with her.
There have been a couple of instances in India where kidnappers have been captured on CCTV stealing children ~ one from beside her sleeping parents in a train station ~ the other in the street. These children were carried away.
Toddler James Bulger was captured by CCTV being taken from the shopping mall.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 08:28:03 PM
Recently Chloe Campbell was captured on CCTV being taken by a kidnapper who was walking on the street with her.
There have been a couple of instances in India where kidnappers have been captured on CCTV stealing children ~ one from beside her sleeping parents in a train station ~ the other in the street. These children were carried away.
Toddler James Bulger was captured by CCTV being taken from the shopping mall.
Several police forces, Private Investigators, millions of donated pounds, 7 years and how many tax payer dollars have yet to find ONE INDICATION of an abductor.
Not one.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 08:38:53 PM
CC and JB were not carried IMO, footage shows them awake and walking.
I am looking for any solved case anywhere which involved a pedestrian carrying away openly in their arms (not in a bag or car or trolley) a non-awake child.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 18, 2014, 08:45:53 PM
Recently Chloe Campbell was captured on CCTV being taken by a kidnapper who was walking on the street with her.
There have been a couple of instances in India where kidnappers have been captured on CCTV stealing children ~ one from beside her sleeping parents in a train station ~ the other in the street. These children were carried away.
Toddler James Bulger was captured by CCTV being taken from the shopping mall.
The little darlings kicked & beat him, lobbed paint in his eye, chucked rocks at him an dropped a big metal bar on his head before placing his body across a railway line where later a train cut him in half.
They were duly sent to prison, before being released due to a breach of their human rights.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 09:04:06 PM
The little darlings kicked & beat him, lobbed paint in his eye, chucked rocks at him an dropped a big metal bar on his head before placing his body across a railway line where later a train cut him in half.
They were duly sent to prison, before being released due to a breach of their human rights.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
And NONE of it is significant to what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 09:09:51 PM
Following Brietta's suggestion I did find one proven instance of someone illegally moving a child by openly carrying. The child is 3 yrs old, awake IMO, and being openly carried, with head against the perp's shoulder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SALrm2KHzg Carrying starts at about 13 seconds.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 09:11:00 PM
CC and JB were not carried IMO, footage shows them awake and walking.
I am looking for any solved case anywhere which involved a pedestrian carrying away openly in their arms (not in a bag or car or trolley) a non-awake child.
Why?
Does it prove what happened on 3 May 2007?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 09:38:01 PM
Use of previous case statistics is a recognised technique. The almost exclusive focus by BOTH sides in discussion of this case, that the solution must involve a man openly carrying, seems odd.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 09:42:15 PM
Use of previous case statistics is a recognised technique. The almost exclusive focus by BOTH sides in discussion of this case, that the solution must involve a man openly carrying, seems odd.
There's so much that "seems odd" about this case, you hardly need go looking for more.
Statistics are useful, but they have NEVER been "evidence" or a guarantee that another crime happened the same way.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2014, 10:11:23 PM
Following Brietta's suggestion I did find one proven instance of someone illegally moving a child by openly carrying. The child is 3 yrs old, awake IMO, and being openly carried, with head against the perp's shoulder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SALrm2KHzg Carrying starts at about 13 seconds.
When I first saw that clip the thing which struck me was that the child did not awaken or protest enabling the man to carry out the kidnap unimpeded. Even if she had wakened, who would have taken notice of a 'father' and his crying 'daughter'.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 10:12:27 PM
There's so much that "seems odd" about this case, you hardly need go looking for more.
Statistics are useful, but they have NEVER been "evidence" or a guarantee that another crime happened the same way.
Well it is bizarre that of those who examine the scenario that a body was carried, nearly all seem to be claiming it was definitely open-carrying.
Statistics of real cases for that scenario however indicate that open-carrying is extremely unlikely, and concealed carrying (in anything so people even if they are watching can't see what's inside) is far more likely, IMO.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 10:16:44 PM
When I first saw that clip the thing which struck me was that the child did not awaken or protest enabling the man to carry out the kidnap unimpeded. Even if she had wakened, who would have taken notice of a 'father' and his crying 'daughter'.
Which makes the zigzagging path of Smithman, all the more curious.
Who would stride into an apartment, abduct a corpse, then zig zag all over PDL trying to avoid prying eyes, when he hadn't been seen by ANYONE when he was NOT zigzagging?
He apparently entered 5a completely unnoticed, then got noticed afterwards.
Was he zig zagging BEFORE he "abducted" Madeleine? No, apparently not, Team McCann claim he walzted straight through an unlocked door in full sight of where they sat at the Tapas bar.
Allegedly.
Ridiculous.
Abductor man walking with a child WOULD have blended into the background.
Abductor man zig zagging and ducking and weaving - someone saw him.
Why the change of tactic? Walk in boldly in full sight of the parents (so they claimed) then become a moonwalking quick stepper when he has his prize and is getting away successfully?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 18, 2014, 10:18:44 PM
Well it is bizarre that of those who examine the scenario that a body was carried, nearly all seem to be claiming it was definitely open-carrying.
Statistics of real cases for that scenario however indicate that open-carrying is extremely unlikely, and concealed carrying (in anything so people even if they are watching can't see what's inside) is far more likely.
I do agree with that but what if a person carrying was for some reasons not able to obtain on time anything that might be used to conceal Maddie's body?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 18, 2014, 10:20:23 PM
'A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously' >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2014, 10:28:26 PM
'A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously' >@@(*&)
I am relatively new to Madeleine's case. I have seen that statement before and can only find it mentioned on sites which could be said to be inimical to her parents.
I wonder if you could direct me to a proper cite?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 18, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
I am relatively new to Madeleine's case. I have seen that statement before and can only find it mentioned on sites which could be said to be inimical to her parents.
I wonder if you could direct me to a proper cite?
Madeleine P242
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 10:44:19 PM
It is not zigzagging or ducking and diving it is normal pedestrian behaviour.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 10:47:04 PM
I do agree with that but what if a person carrying was for some reasons not able to obtain on time anything that might be used to conceal Maddie's body?
A good point. There are many items that could have been used. Luggage bags, curtains, showercurtain, bedding, bathtowels. The puzzle is, that none of those items went missing, that night.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on May 18, 2014, 11:07:43 PM
A good point. There are many items that could have been used. Luggage bags, curtains, showercurtain, bedding, bathtowels. The puzzle is, that none of those items went missing, that night.
Did the PJ check all suitcases were present & correct?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 18, 2014, 11:08:55 PM
A good point. There are many items that could have been used. Luggage bags, curtains, showercurtain, bedding, bathtowels. The puzzle is, that none of those items went missing, that night.
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them?"
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag.... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 11:18:14 PM
... it is normal behaviour by pedestrians to alter their courses to avoid bumping into other pedestrians.
When one man walks past a straggling group of nine coming the other way, you will find the one man alters his course more than the group of nine do.
A "straggling group of nine" means they are walking in twos or threes or singly.
Do you honestly suggest Smithman had to swerve to avoid every single person? That implies he headed straight for them!
A straggling group usually follows the leader....such as sheep do.
Smithman would only need to cross ONCE. He would not need to zig zag. The Smiths were all headed in the same direction, as a group, and if he crossed to avoid one, he naturally avoided them all.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on May 18, 2014, 11:36:49 PM
A good point. There are many items that could have been used. Luggage bags, curtains, showercurtain, bedding, bathtowels. The puzzle is, that none of those items went missing, that night.
I don't think we do know for sure that no suitcases went missing that night, from 5a or any of the Tapas group. The McCanns & the Paynes stayed "on holiday" - the absence of one case would not have been obvious. I assume the cases were stored under the beds in 5a as I cannot recall seeing any in the crime scene photos. Someone wheeling a suitcase in a holiday complex would not have aroused any suspicion - much easier than carrying a child in your arms.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2014, 11:51:30 PM
No the 9 witnesses were not in single file following the leader. They were in several smaller groups, some side by side with others. Yes the man carrying his daughter only adjusted his course to his right once, after passing group P, to walk around group M, then adjusted his course to his left, after passing group A, to go down Travessa das Escadhinas.
Are you suggesting he should have rudely walked straight into group M? And then walked straight into the stone wall of the building opposite?
Zigzigging is an exagerration IMO. All the poor guy did was not collide with oncoming people, seems civil enough to me, and expecting him to speak the foreign english language is a bit unfair too as this happened in a portuguese speaking region of the world where not everyone is just there to serve tourists.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 19, 2014, 12:08:33 AM
No the 9 witnesses were not in single file following the leader. They were in several smaller groups, some side by side with others. Yes the man carrying his daughter only adjusted his course to his right once, after passing group P, to walk around group M, then adjusted his course to his left, after passing group A, to go down Travessa das Escadhinas.
Are you suggesting he should have rudely walked straight into group M? And then walked straight into the stone wall of the building opposite?
Zigzigging is an exagerration IMO. All the poor guy did was not collide with oncoming people, seems civil enough to me, and expecting him to speak the foreign english language is a bit unfair too as this happened in a portuguese speaking region of the world where not everyone is just there to serve tourists.
Yes all of this is incredibly relevant isn't it?
The actions of Smithman imply he was DODGING. Hiding, doing his best not to be seen - whatever.
Unfortunately it failed.
Thank God for the Smiths.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 19, 2014, 01:00:49 AM
Yes all of this is incredibly relevant isn't it? The actions of Smithman imply he was DODGING. Hiding, doing his best not to be seen - whatever. Unfortunately it failed. Thank God for the Smiths.
If the man was deliberately "dodging" and "zigzagging" as you claim, surely that would simply attract attention?
Even the book "How To Not Be Seen" missed that invisibility technique.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 19, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
You would give way to a man carrying a child. He was moving away from the group as he passed because he didn't want to be seen clearly by eye witnesses when committing a crime.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 19, 2014, 12:52:40 PM
You're making a reasonable assumption that someone commiting a crime would want to not be seen. But in that case why would he walk past a safe concealment place, which he cannot have failed to notice, because your route has him walk along many metres of its perimeter fence, and instead continue walking via a circuitous route to the church in the centre of town, with the obvious risk of being seen? It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 19, 2014, 07:14:10 PM
He had no choice but to walk and he knew the risks and his destination. The panic and chaos of the alarm gave him this one chance to get away from the rest. His destination made sense because Madeleine has never been found. He didn't want to be recognised by eye witnesses. "My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' "He just put his head down and averted his eyes."
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 19, 2014, 10:42:03 PM
... "My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' "He just put his head down and averted his eyes."
Examining the possibility this was an innocent father with his daughter, the following may be deduced: 1. From what M.Smith says (as quoted above from pathfinder's post) the man was not conversant in the foreign language (English) he was addressed in. 2. He therefore did not work in a job involving extensive talking with foreigners. 3. He most likely lived a short distance down T.d.E or in a very nearby road off that one. 4. There was no off-road parking and scarce on-street parking at residence. 5. He was likely to park vehicle on or next to R.d.E.P just N of the narrow bit. IMO if the PJ/UK police team had just after 26 May 2007 done a doortodoor survey of the relevant very small area they might have located this what was JIMO an innocent father and child.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 19, 2014, 11:01:22 PM
Examining the possibility this was an innocent father with his daughter, the following may be deduced: 1. From what M.Smith says (as quoted above from pathfinder's post) the man was not conversant in the foreign language (English) he was addressed in. 2. He therefore did not work in a job involving extensive talking with foreigners. 3. He most likely lived a short distance down T.d.E or in a very nearby road off that one. 4. There was no off-road parking and scarce on-street parking at residence. 5. He was likely to park vehicle on or next to R.d.E.P just N of the narrow bit. IMO if the PJ/UK police team had just after 26 May 2007 done a doortodoor survey of the relevant very small area they might have located this what was JIMO an innocent father and child.
8)--)) I don't think so.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 19, 2014, 11:23:39 PM
Awaiting any poster who can find a single case any country any year where the perp carried the body unconcealed (no bag/car/trolley/etc) through the streets? I will put the kettle on, might be a long wait.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 19, 2014, 11:50:32 PM
The body wasn't carried away from the crime scene. It was already moved and later picked up by Smithman. It would be sensible to use a bag to conceal the body in order to get it away from the crime scene. You wouldn't leave your bag with the body of course. Body in bag to hiding place. Bag brought away. Alarm raised chaos ensues. One runs to hiding place towards wasteland area retrieves body and passes the Smith family.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 12:02:27 AM
The body wasn't carried away from the crime scene. It was already moved and later picked up by Smithman. It would be sensible to use a bag to conceal the body in order to get it away from the crime scene. You wouldn't leave your bag with the body of course. Body in bag to hiding place. Bag brought away. Alarm raised chaos ensues. One runs to hiding place towards wasteland area retrieves body and passes the Smith family.
You have as part of your hypothesis a body being carried unconcealed (no bag/car/trolley/etc) through the streets. What I am suggesting is that this part of your hypothesis has no precedent anywhere. It doesn't make it absolutely impossible, but it is a challenge, can you find a precedent?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 20, 2014, 12:37:49 AM
You have as part of your hypothesis a body being carried unconcealed (no bag/car/trolley/etc) through the streets. What I am suggesting is that this part of your hypothesis has no precedent anywhere. It doesn't make it absolutely impossible, but it is a challenge, can you find a precedent?
No I can't but time constraint is an important factor that you have to consider. Do you risk moving and hiding the body in the daylight before you leave the apartment or do you wait until it's dark and less people about i.e. what was the alibi? All having dinner together at the tapas bar. On one check Madeleine was moved but due to time constraint she was moved only so far to a temporary hiding place. She had to be away from the crime scene when the alarm was raised. The wasteland area is the closest and most obvious hiding place especially when the prime suspect was seen coming from that direction.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 20, 2014, 12:39:38 AM
You have as part of your hypothesis a body being carried unconcealed (no bag/car/trolley/etc) through the streets. What I am suggesting is that this part of your hypothesis has no precedent anywhere. It doesn't make it absolutely impossible, but it is a challenge, can you find a precedent?
What do you mean pegasus ?
Are you saying that unless a crime was committed in the same way previously then it can't have happened this time ?
What if this case IS precedential
... that is possible, isn't it ?
How do you think ''precedents' happen ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 20, 2014, 04:47:45 AM
Some observations.
The Smiths make no mention of the child being covered in a blanket contrary to Tanner's observation.
The man the Smiths saw was walking down the left hand side of the road and moved to the right after encoutering Peter. For some reason he veered right and when he thought the coast was clear he resumed an eastward tack only to nearly bump into Aoife who had just come up the steps. This was much more than just avoiding other pedestrians, this was a concerted attempt to avoid being seen too closely under the street light which is located at the top of the steps.
Amaral put notices in the local papers asking residents who were out carrying a child at about 10 pm on the night of Thursday 3rd May to come forward...none did!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 20, 2014, 01:49:03 PM
The Smiths make no mention of the child being covered in a blanket contrary to Tanner's observation.
The man the Smiths saw was walking down the left hand side of the road and moved to the right after encoutering Peter. For some reason he veered right and when he thought the coast was clear he resumed an eastward tack only to nearly bump into Aoife who had just come up the steps. This was much more than just avoiding other pedestrians, this was a concerted attempt to avoid being seen too closely under the street light which is located at the top of the steps.
Amaral put notices in the local papers asking residents who were out carrying a child at about 10 pm on the night of Thursday 3rd May to come forward...none did!
Jane Tanner did not see a blanket, John, in her statement she is quite specific about it.
- Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 20, 2014, 06:46:14 PM
The body wasn't carried away from the crime scene. It was already moved and later picked up by Smithman. It would be sensible to use a bag to conceal the body in order to get it away from the crime scene. You wouldn't leave your bag with the body of course. Body in bag to hiding place. Bag brought away. Alarm raised chaos ensues. One runs to hiding place towards wasteland area retrieves body and passes the Smith family.
When you put it like that it all seems highly implausible doesn't it?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 08:21:37 PM
... Amaral put notices in the local papers asking residents who were out carrying a child at about 10 pm on the night of Thursday 3rd May to come forward...none did!
Interesting. A sensible thing to do. Is from his book, or from an interview?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 08:40:29 PM
If in dozens of past cases of a certain category the perp did a certain action, then when a new case needs to be solved, a criminal analyst may look at the earlier many cases and say: from the statistics we deduce there is a high probability the perp in this case will have done the same action.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 20, 2014, 08:46:36 PM
If in dozens of past cases of a certain category the perp did a certain action, then when a new case needs to be solved, a criminal analyst may look at the earlier many cases and say: from the statistics we deduce there is a high probability the perp in this case will have done the same action.
Not much use if one is not dealing with a serial offender. This case would appear to be a one off.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on May 20, 2014, 09:20:57 PM
Has it escaped everyone's attention that Jose Mourinho used his laundry cart trick only a matter of days before Madeleine went missing? Madeleine could have been whisked out of the apartment, up the stairs & into a cart in a matter of seconds. It's so simple, while everyone argues over the dodging & weaving of non-existene Smithman. How does that apartment join to the next block along- is the corridor continuous?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 09:22:37 PM
Not much use if one is not dealing with a serial offender. This case would appear to be a one off.
A one-off perp, finding himself suddenly with the same urgent dilemma as 100 other one-off perps in previous cases of the same type, will tend to make the same decisions as most or all of the previous perps.
Example: shoplifters of small-items, if all 100 previous perps decided on concealed transportation (in a bag or hidden in or under something) of their shoplifted items out the door and in the carpark or street outside, it is highly likely one-off perp #101 will also.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 20, 2014, 09:28:38 PM
Has it escaped everyone's attention that Jose Mourinho used his laundry cart trick only a matter of days before Madeleine went missing? Madeleine could have been whisked out of the apartment, up the stairs & into a cart in a matter of seconds. It's so simple, while everyone argues over the dodging & weaving of non-existene Smithman. How does that apartment join to the next block along- is the corridor continuous?
Are you saying that Smithman didn't exist?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 20, 2014, 09:39:29 PM
Has it escaped everyone's attention that Jose Mourinho used his laundry cart trick only a matter of days before Madeleine went missing? Madeleine could have been whisked out of the apartment, up the stairs & into a cart in a matter of seconds.
Unlike Mourinho Maddie was not a willing participant, so she would have to be drugged (to prevent her waking up and screaming), or dead. And the perpetrator would have to use the unlocked patio door, or to be in the possesion of the apartment key.
Quote
It's so simple, while everyone argues over the dodging & weaving of non-existene Smithman.
How do you know the Smithman does not exist?
Quote
How does that apartment join to the next block along- is the corridor continuous?
As far as I know there are two separate buildings. And what corridor are you talking about?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
Unlike Mourinho Maddie was not a willing participant, so she would have to be drugged (to prevent her waking up and screaming), or dead. And the perpetrator would have to use the unlocked patio door, or to be in the possesion of the apartment key.
How do you know the Smithman does not exist?
As far as I know there are two separate buildings. And what corridor are you talking about?
Madeleine was chloroformed, as were the twins. The perps had the key to the front door (the keys were available in the laundry store room). Smithman was fabricated to divert attention from the third arguido (Tannerman was an unfortunate blip in the plan). The CCTV at Estrela da Luz was wiped not because it showed Smithman, but because it didn't show Smithman. I'm asking about the landing/corridors on levels 2 & 3 as I can't tell from the photos - are they linked to the next block along so the cleaning staff can access more easily?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 10:18:04 PM
The Champions League semi-finals (second-legs) were 1 and 2 May 2007 IIRC? I thought the laundry trick was on an earlier date?The two blocks are not joined internally, but outside you can from the carpark of block 5 walk up a few steps to the carpark of block 4.
Sorry, my mistake, the story broke 24/4/2007 http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jose%20mourinho%20and%20the%20laundry%20basket&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2F508849%2Fbanned-jose-hid-in-dirty-laundry-basket&ei=tcV7U-CxHMWI7AaZwoHAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGZCtGCaiNOg0SiPet196m3b8rSnQ&bvm=bv.67229260,d.ZGU&cad=rja
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 20, 2014, 10:20:16 PM
Smithman was fabricated to divert attention from the third arguido (Tannerman was an unfortunate blip in the plan).
The fabrication of the Smithman assumes that the Smiths were somehow in the cahoots with the kidnapers. Why would do that? and who is this third arguido? Murat?
Quote
I'm asking about the landing/corridors on levels 2 & 3 as I can't tell from the photos - are they linked to the next block along so the cleaning staff can access more easily?
These blocks were not built for the Mark Warner, not even all of flats are rented by MW, there are some private apartments in there (i.e. Mrs. Fenn) so I don't think, that the landings are linked.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 20, 2014, 10:27:36 PM
Madeleine was chloroformed, as were the twins. The perps had the key to the front door (the keys were available in the laundry store room). Smithman was fabricated to divert attention from the third arguido (Tannerman was an unfortunate blip in the plan). The CCTV at Estrela da Luz was wiped not because it showed Smithman, but because it didn't show Smithman. I'm asking about the landing/corridors on levels 2 & 3 as I can't tell from the photos - are they linked to the next block along so the cleaning staff can access more easily?
I also believe that the perpetrator(s) possesed a key & had some experience in anaesthetics.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2014, 10:58:10 PM
Has it escaped everyone's attention that Jose Mourinho used his laundry cart trick only a matter of days before Madeleine went missing? Madeleine could have been whisked out of the apartment, up the stairs & into a cart in a matter of seconds. It's so simple, while everyone argues over the dodging & weaving of non-existene Smithman. How does that apartment join to the next block along- is the corridor continuous?
So do you think its possible something was removed concealed with the laundry?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on May 20, 2014, 11:39:39 PM
So do you think its possible something was removed concealed with the laundry?
There are many possibilities. I just link the laundry man, the keys, the possible use of 5J, the concealment of a drugged child in dirty laundry to mask her scent, and many anomalies with the statements of the 3rd arguido & his apparent familiarity with police officers in a country he had barely lived in for 16 years. The timing of Smithman identifying Gerry was uncanny- after all other means to gain a confession from the parents had failed. But that's just my opinion. Only one person jumped when the dig was announced.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 20, 2014, 11:48:00 PM
and many anomalies with the statements of the 3rd arguido & his apparent familiarity with police officers in a country he had barely lived in for 16 years.
What anomalies do you mean?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on May 20, 2014, 11:54:36 PM
There are too many to list & I would become downright libellous if I wrote every item that bothered me on here. But I am concerned about someone who washed a car the day before the PJ descended on his house with the sniffer dogs. I am concerned about a man who was drinking with a PJ inspector the night before he was going to make his statement as an arguido. I am concerned about a man whose g/f was worried he might "lose control" in that interview. But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2014, 12:02:15 AM
There are many possibilities. I just link the laundry man, the keys, the possible use of 5J, the concealment of a drugged child in dirty laundry to mask her scent, and many anomalies with the statements of the 3rd arguido & his apparent familiarity with police officers in a country he had barely lived in for 16 years. The timing of Smithman identifying Gerry was uncanny- after all other means to gain a confession from the parents had failed. But that's just my opinion. Only one person jumped when the dig was announced.
IMO the identifications by witnesses Smith and McClusky, both based on the same TV footage, and both 4 months after their sightings, are simply two cases of mistaken identification by the transference phenomenon, not deliberate plotting of any kind. But yes it makes sense that a perp would prefer to move something away from the crime scene in a concealed state, meaning inside some container along with something that it would be normal to remove. So even if there were onlookers they would not bat an eyelid.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on May 21, 2014, 12:39:39 AM
IMO the identifications by witnesses Smith and McClusky, both based on the same TV footage, and both 4 months after their sightings, are simply two cases of mistaken identification by the transference phenomenon, not deliberate plotting of any kind. But yes it makes sense that a perp would prefer to move something away from the crime scene in a concealed state, meaning inside some container along with something that it would be normal to remove. So even if there were onlookers they would not bat an eyelid.
I agree with the transference phenomenon given the coverage the Drs McCann and Madeleine were being given by the media. I think it encouraged a false memory syndrome which in conjunction with actual events became etched in the witnesses recall of events. Studies have shown that memory is very fragile and malleable.
I also agree the perpetrator would prefer to move the child surreptitiously rather than carrying her openly. I think concealment in a laundry basket is one option. I think it is possible that initial concealment might have been in apartment 5J until an opportunity presented itself to make the move.
That scenario would imply a planned abduction rather than something which just happened ~ if she were drugged.
On the other hand ~ when one thinks of the trail followed by the GNR dogs ~ could Madeleine have walked hand in hand with her abductor to 5J ~ and the dogs later followed the perpetrator's scent to the car park where it was lost?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 01:09:51 AM
Your hypothesis IIRC did not feature anything being hidden in that wasteland at all. The place you suggested was outside its perimeter, and why would someone would choose the risky place you suggest, and reject a less risky place feet away?
I don't think he chucked the body over the fence and climbed over. This was only a temporary hiding place. My first thought was in a bag to bin (see below) situated in a quiet spot north west of perimeter fence but why take the body back out unless you thought she was going to be found. Those bushes are another possibility in that same area.
I don't think he chucked the body over the fence and climbed over. This was only a temporary hiding place. My first thought was in bag to bin situated in a quiet spot north west of perimeter fence but why take it back out unless you thought she was going to be found. Bushes are another possibility in that same area.
Based on some 2009 photos of same panel fence climbing over would have been unnecessary as there were some big enough gaps under (here assuming no rebuild/lowering of pavements in the meantime).
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 01:49:49 AM
Please see my edited post that show the gaps.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2014, 02:03:46 AM
The only good tree/largebush cover to eliminate visibility from higher floors of WG4, P.Brancas, LuzTur, etc, is the little northmost bit (which seems to have maybe been omitted from a partial levelling of rest of site not long before 2007). Of course aerial photography (visible/near-IR/UV) whether by the Civil Defence helicopter with MH in 2007, or the air force helicopter in 2014, cannot see the ground shielded by tree/bush cover. BTW I posted photo of biggest undergap a few days ago, no-one noticed.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 02:42:18 AM
The only good tree/largebush cover to eliminate visibility from higher floors of WG4, P.Brancas, LuzTur, etc, is the little northmost bit (which seems to have maybe been omitted from a partial levelling of rest of site not long before 2007). Of course aerial photography (visible/near-IR/UV) whether by the Civil Defence helicopter with MH in 2007, or the air force helicopter in 2014, cannot see the ground shielded by tree/bush cover. BTW I posted photo of biggest undergap a few days ago, no-one noticed.
Remember it was dark at just after 9. I didn't know where the gaps were situated on the perimeter fence until I saw this GE screenshot again. Interesting it's in the area I suspected.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 08:35:15 AM
Madeleine was chloroformed, as were the twins. The perps had the key to the front door (the keys were available in the laundry store room). Smithman was fabricated to divert attention from the third arguido (Tannerman was an unfortunate blip in the plan). The CCTV at Estrela da Luz was wiped not because it showed Smithman, but because it didn't show Smithman. I'm asking about the landing/corridors on levels 2 & 3 as I can't tell from the photos - are they linked to the next block along so the cleaning staff can access more easily?
Whom do you think was responsible for this fabrication? Are you saying Smithman never existed, or that it was a deliberate diversion?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 08:44:51 AM
If a bag was used it wasn't left with the hidden body. Carrying a child is easier and less suspicious than lugging a big heavy bag through the streets towards the beach at night. The question is he could have dumped the body in a bin around the wasteland and wouldn't need to go past the Smiths but it looks like he had another destination >@@(*&) Now you know why they're checking around the church.
I beg to differ. On a night when a child has gone missing I would say that carrying her body uncovered through town looks a lot more conspicuous than carrying a bag or suitcase through what is, after all, a holiday resort.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 21, 2014, 08:50:10 AM
I beg to differ. On a night when a child has gone missing I would say that carrying her body uncovered through town looks a lot more conspicuous than carrying a bag or suitcase through what is, after all, a holiday resort.
So someone who was 'abducting' a child would broadcast it by carrying the child in his arms whilst people were around ?
Very logical.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 08:52:00 AM
I beg to differ. On a night when a child has gone missing I would say that carrying her body uncovered through town looks a lot more conspicuous than carrying a bag or suitcase through what is, after all, a holiday resort.
It would if at the time people were already alerted that a child was missing. It the case of Smithman, the Smiths were blissfully unaware of the night's drama.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 09:06:04 AM
It would if at the time people were already alerted that a child was missing. It the case of Smithman, the Smiths were blissfully unaware of the night's drama.
We would probably never have heard of the Smiths at all if they had passed a man carrying a bag.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 09:11:48 AM
How do you work that out from what I wrote? Let's see your logical though processes at work here then....
I was making a point about the notion that an 'abductor' would walk around the area and be visible to other people would be rather a stupid thing to do..
Didn't you comprehend that ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 09:34:14 AM
I was making a point about the notion that an 'abductor' would walk around the area and be visible to other people would be rather a stupid thing to do..
Didn't you comprehend that ?
Yes I comprehended that you were sneering at the notion of Smithman being an abductor on the basis that he wouldn't wish to be seen carrying away the child, whilst apparently blithely accepting as perfectly logical that the same man would be quite prepared to be seen carrying her corpse around instead. Very logical, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 10:15:58 AM
So someone who was 'abducting' a child would broadcast it by carrying the child in his arms whilst people were around ?
Very logical.
Here is your post Stephen in which you clearly assume that I am of the opinion that Smithman is the abductor - I would describe it as sneering. If you had read back a few pages on this thread however you would have read my post in which I said I wouldn't be at all surprised if Smithman turns out to be as unconnected to this case as Tannerman. So, perhaps you would like to apologise, or at the very least have a good old sneer at the notion that Smithman was carrying around a corpse that night, just to even things up a bit?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 21, 2014, 10:44:21 AM
Here is your post Stephen in which you clearly assume that I am of the opinion that Smithman is the abductor - I would describe it as sneering. If you had read back a few pages on this thread however you would have read my post in which I said I wouldn't be at all surprised if Smithman turns out to be as unconnected to this case as Tannerman. So, perhaps you would like to apologise, or at the very least have a good old sneer at the notion that Smithman was carrying around a corpse that night, just to even things up a bit?
Did I refer to you directly in the post ?
Or was I making a general statement ?
Do keep up.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on May 21, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
How would anyone know for sure that Smithman had not just got out of a car or come out of a nearby house - where he may have been dropped off by an accomplice, when he was spotted by the Smiths?
He could have been sitting in a car or house making sure Madeleine was sedated waiting for news that a pre-arranged boat was now in place before setting off to the beach and disappearing across the sea in it with Madeleine.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 11:43:44 AM
How would anyone know for sure that Smithman had not just got out of a car or come out of a nearby house - where he may have been dropped off by an accomplice, when he was spotted by the Smiths?
He could have been sitting in a car or house making sure Madeleine was sedated waiting for news that a pre-arranged boat was now in place before setting off to the beach and disappearing across the sea in it with Madeleine.
Wait until the alarm is raised and everybody is out looking for her then move her through the streets. No abductor would do it. Use a car to only travel 200 metres away from the crime scene. I'm not using the silly billy symbol this time 8)--))
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 12:09:32 PM
I don't think pathfinder is saying that the corpse-carrier was panicking - just that there was general panic in his wake as the frenzied search got underway.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 12:17:54 PM
I don't think pathfinder is saying that the corpse-carrier was panicking - just that there was general panic in his wake as the frenzied search got underway.
Whether or not he was in a panic I don't see why one scenario is plausible and the other not - do you?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 12:20:31 PM
It is amazing how that lynchpin of the abduction theory "Tannerman The Abductor" is no longer even today's fish and chip wrapper and Smithman is now "it" having replaced Tannerman, burglars, smelly man (oh shit I need a macro for all this)... Shall we do a full SP and run a book?
Have you ever considered putting all your words of wisdom together in the form of a blog? I'm sure it would be very popular with some.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 01:05:44 PM
I would have thought that carrying a live child that might have started screaming at any moment was potentially far more dangerous than carrying a dead one at speed through the streets.
To my mind, any abductor who felt in danger would just dump the child and rapidly make off in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 01:07:03 PM
You haven't addressed my original point. Why is it credible for the unsuspected insider (one who could easily be id'ed subsequently once their face is all over the news) to carry a corpse around town, but incredible for an anonymous abductor to carry away an abducted child?
An abductor doesn't explain the moving doors or open window. That is easily explained in my theory and connects with everything else. Maybe you can explain how an abductor moved a door that many times? before Gerry's check, before Matt's check and a third time before Kate raised the alarm. How didn't Matt notice an open window or whooshing curtains? Tannerman was not the abductor. Matt's unplanned/unforeseen check is vital to this case due to no open window and the door being found half-open yet again - a door goes back to the same position twice? Or did it move at all? 8)-))) SY are right to get rid of that man. Smithman is the one. Amaral was removed when he was after him in 2007.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on May 21, 2014, 01:55:18 PM
Several points come to mind with Smithman.
* Planned abductions usually involve some form of transport, for an abductor to walk the entire distance from OC Block5 to the bottom of the town is illogical considering there could have been an alerted GNR patrol after him at any moment.
* Abducting a child only to murder her has no logic. It is unnecesary risk for no gain unless of course the perp was some sort of sadist.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 02:03:43 PM
An abductor doesn't explain the moving doors or open window. That is easily explained in my theory and connects with everything else. Maybe you can explain how an abductor moved a door that many times? before Gerry's check, before Matt's check and a third time before Kate raised the alarm. How didn't Matt notice an open window or whooshing curtains? Tannerman was not the abductor. Matt's unplanned/unforeseen check is vital to this case due to no open window and the door being found half-open yet again - a door goes back to the same position twice? Or did it move at all? 8)-))) SY are right to get rid of that man. Smithman is the one. Amaral was removed when he was after him in 2007.
Once again, you fail to address this point - could you try for me please? Here it is again - why is it credible for the unsuspected insider (one who could easily be id'ed subsequently once their face is all over the news) to carry a corpse around town, but incredible for an anonymous abductor to carry away an abducted child?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 02:06:05 PM
* Planned abductions usually involve some form of transport, for an abductor to walk the entire distance from OC Block5 to the bottom of the town is illogical considering there could have been an alerted GNR patrol after him at any moment.
* Abducting a child only to murder her has no logic. It is unnecesary risk for no gain unless of course the perp was some sort of sadist.
1) We don't know if Smithman walked the entire distance from the OC to where he was spotted, we have no evidence that he did. 2) I agree - she was more likely abducted to be abused, then murdered, sad though it is to say.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 21, 2014, 02:23:22 PM
Once again, you fail to address this point - could you try for me please? Here it is again - why is it credible for the unsuspected insider (one who could easily be id'ed subsequently once their face is all over the news) to carry a corpse around town, but incredible for an anonymous abductor to carry away an abducted child?
I don't believe an abductor would carry a body that far. This is not the complete nonsense of Tannerman walking around town with a body for 45 minutes. An abductor would have dumped the body before meeting the Smiths in the wasteland/bushes and subsequently found or in a bin. Smithman took the quietest route that he knew to quickly get to his destination - dark and quiet spot - he had no choice but to walk. An abductor would have a vehicle. But I have a good idea who would carry a deceased child that far. You can now explain the abductor and the moving door.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 02:46:07 PM
I don't believe an abductor would carry a body that far. This is not the complete nonsense of Tannerman walking around town with a body for 45 minutes. An abductor would have dumped the body before meeting the Smiths in the wasteland/bushes and subsequently found or in a bin. Smithman took the quietest route that he knew to quickly get to his destination - dark and quiet spot - he had no choice but to walk. An abductor would have a vehicle. But I have a good idea who would carry a deceased child that far. You can now explain the abductor and the moving door.
You have made a number of gross assumptions - the abductor would have dumped the body? What body? Do you mean the child he has just stolen for reasons unknown? Who could very well have still been alive? Why would he have dumped her if he had not yet finished with her? An abductor would have had a car? Why, are all abductors made to have one by law? And you still haven't really answered my question at all.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 21, 2014, 03:08:22 PM
You have made a number of gross assumptions - the abductor would have dumped the body? What body? Do you mean the child he has just stolen for reasons unknown?
We don't know in what condition Maddie left the appartment. She might have been alive or she might have been dead. If she was alive she had to be heavily drugged, to lie calm in the arms of the perp, as described by Tanner.
Now, if Maddie was dead, it's a quite reasonable assumption that the perp wouldn't have been walking around Praia for 45 minutes, because that would have been too risky. What if he bumped into the cops, or someone noticed the child was dead? What if someone associated a man, carrying a lifeless girl with the news about Maddie being missing? Darrrrn too risky.
Quote
An abductor would have had a car? Why, are all abductors made to have one by law?
You know, a kidnapper needs to get away from the scene of the crime fast. Very fast. A car helps a lot with that. So it is another reasonable assumption, that if someone planned to kidnap Maddie, this person would secure a quick way out the town - in a car, waiting nearby the appartment 5A.
Now, we may theorise that she was kidnapped at the spur of the moment, by some mentally deranged person who found out the helpless chold in the unlocked flat. But, ah there is a BUT. We know nobody heard Maddie screaming or crying that night, and the child, carried by Tannerman, was just lying in his arms, not fighting, not resisting, not crying. Like it was asleep. So she had to be drugged, but nobody walks around with a shot of sleeping drugs in his pocket, SO whatever happened to Maddie had to be, at least to some extent, planned. So f the perp prepared the drugs, why wouldn't he prepare the car?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
We don't know in what condition Maddie left the appartment. She might have been alive or she might have been dead. If she was alive she had to be heavily drugged, to lie calm in the arms of the perp, as described by Tanner.
Why heavily drugged? She could have been asleep. She could have been rendered unconscious through a blow to the head. She could have been in a state of deep shock. She could have been threatened or coerced not to make a sound. Of course, she could have been chloroformed or similar. There are several possibilities. We just don't know which might be correct, or whether or not the girl was Madeleine in the first place. Maybe she was the sleeping daughter of the bloke carrying her.
Quote
Now, if Maddie was dead, it's a quite reasonable assumption that the perp wouldn't have been walking around Praia for 45 minutes, because that would have been too risky. What if he bumped into the cops, or someone noticed the child was dead? What if someone associated a man, carrying a lifeless girl with the news about Maddie being missing? Darrrrn too risky.
And yet, not considered at all risky for "someone else" to be walking through town with a corpse lying in his arms? This is where I have the problem with your logic. What if the abductor had taken the child to another location to do something wicked to her, to render her unconscious, or to await further instruction? Then he wouldn't have been wandering around town for 45 minutes.
Quote
You know, a kidnapper needs to get away from the scene of the crime fast. Very fast. A car helps a lot with that. So it is another reasonable assumption, that if someone planned to kidnap Maddie, this person would secure a quick way out the town - in a car, waiting nearby the appartment 5A.
Another quick way out of town is by boat. And where would you get a boat from? The harbour. And where was that in relation to Smithman and the direction he appeared to be going in?
Quote
Now, we may theorise that she was kidnapped at the spur of the moment, by some mentally deranged person who found out the helpless chold in the unlocked flat. But, ah there is a BUT. We know nobody heard Maddie screaming or crying that night, and the child, carried by Tannerman, was just lying in his arms, not fighting, not resisting, not crying. Like it was asleep. So she had to be drugged, but nobody walks around with a shot of sleeping drugs in his pocket, SO whatever happened to Maddie had to be, at least to some extent, planned. So f the perp prepared the drugs, why wouldn't he prepare the car?
We know the person seen by JT was an innocent passer-by carrying his child so that's why the child was not crying and resisting. If an abductor had planned to steal a child it does not immediately follow that he MUST have had a car, although I agree it would be a more sensible option than walking around town with the victim. Personally, it's why I think Smithman is as much a red herring as JT's sighting but then we don't know the circumstances of the abductor, what drove him to commit the act, who else may have been involved, for what purpose he took the child, his mental state etc.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 03:35:52 PM
Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 04:21:39 PM
Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.
Maybe, maybe not. She could have wakened on being removed from the apartment and told that she was being taken to her mum and dad, and then fell back to sleep again. Children who have been asleep for an hour or so after going to bed in the evening are usually in their most deeply asleep phase, in my experience, especially if they have had a busy day.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 21, 2014, 05:20:53 PM
Maybe, maybe not. She could have wakened on being removed from the apartment and told that she was being taken to her mum and dad, and then fell back to sleep again. Children who have been asleep for an hour or so after going to bed in the evening are usually in their most deeply asleep phase, in my experience, especially if they have had a busy day.
What kind of problem do you have with a possibility that Maddie might have been drugged? A possibility, I repeat. It's hard to believe that she did not wake up, while being carried through the strets of Praia, especially that you insist the perp did not have a car (your another pet peeve it seems). So she was either unconscious, drugged or dead. Explaining "I'm taking you to daddy" may not work with a sleepy child, so I don;t consider it a serious possibility, and it would be quite risky. So again, what is wrong with the possibility that Maddie was drugged?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 05:37:14 PM
What kind of problem do you have with a possibility that Maddie might have been drugged? A possibility, I repeat. It's hard to believe that she did not wake up, while being carried through the strets of Praia, especially that you insist the perp did not have a car (your another pet peeve it seems). So she was either unconscious, drugged or dead. Explaining "I'm taking you to daddy" may not work with a sleepy child, so I don;t consider it a serious possibility, and it would be quite risky. So again, what is wrong with the possibility that Maddie was drugged?
I suggest you re-read my post at #546 when I both acknowledge she may have been drugged and that having a car would be a realistic option for a potential abductor. What I object to is your insistence that if she was abducted she *must* have been drugged and that an abductor *must* have had a car, neither is a given.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 21, 2014, 05:41:29 PM
I suggest you re-read my post at #546 when I both acknowledge she may have been drugged and that having a car would be a realistic option for a potential abductor. What I object to is your insistence that if she was abducted she *must* have been drugged and that an abductor *must* have had a car, neither is a given.
I never wrote that she must have been drugged and that abductor must have had a car. I suggest you re-read my posts, now with understanding of what you actually read.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 21, 2014, 05:47:30 PM
I never wrote that she must have been drugged and that abductor must have had a car. I suggest you re-read my posts, now with understanding of what you actually read.
did you not write this then?
" If she was alive she had to be heavily drugged, to lie calm in the arms of the perp"?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Martina on May 21, 2014, 07:08:07 PM
I also considered other options later, i.e. Maddie being unconscious. Haven't you read it?
Yawn. You did not acknowledge that you were mistaken in your belief that I "insisted" the abductor didn't have a car and that I had a "problem" with the idea that she Madeleine had been drugged, however I will be magnanimous and acknowledge that you did consider other options (albeit you do seem rather convinced that any abductor worth his salt would both 'drug and drive').
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2014, 11:54:19 PM
IIRC the chronological order was 1st R 14/05/2007 , 2nd K 07/09/2007 AM , 3rd G 07/09/2007 PM.
I referred to RM as the 3rd arguido, as K&G seem to be prime arguidos 1 & 2. No-one ever seems to want to discuss his possible involvement in this whole affair.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Moderator on May 22, 2014, 06:40:40 PM
We know the person seen by JT was an innocent passer-by carrying his child so that's why the child was not crying and resisting.
That is not the case, we are told SY are almost certain which is not the same thing. Tannerman is very much still alive and kicking as far as the evidence is concerned. There are too many anomalies in the SY claim for it to be taken as gospel.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Mr Moderator on May 22, 2014, 06:48:05 PM
Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.
That is a good point Martina. Highly unlikely a nearly 4-year-old with a record for poor sleeping would tolerate being taken by strangers. If the person the Smiths saw was carrying Madeleine she was either dead, unconscious or heavily sedated.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on June 02, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
Since when did Martin Smith "change his mind about Gerry"?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on June 02, 2014, 10:08:58 AM
Since when did Martin Smith "change his mind about Gerry"?
It was contained in the same Times article about the Efits.
Quote There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects. Unquote
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2014, 10:10:23 AM
It was contained in the same Times article about the Efits.
Quote There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects. Unquote
Yes he doesn't want to believe it is.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Benice on June 02, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2014, 10:18:32 PM
No-one explains their inconsistency why they accept the Rua Escola carrier exact identification but don't the similar and stronger Alvor carrier exact identification based on the same TV footage? (Both those carrier identifications are mistaken IMO)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on June 02, 2014, 10:43:40 PM
No-one explains their inconsistency why they accept the Rua Escola carrier exact identification but don't the similar and stronger Alvor carrier exact identification based on the same TV footage? (Both those carrier identifications are mistaken IMO)
Huh?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2014, 11:48:19 PM
McClusky statement Sept 2007 "Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van"
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on June 06, 2014, 11:54:16 PM
Silence. Some peeps claim that identification, by how someone carries a child in TV airport footage, is reliable. But when asked to comment on the Alvor identification, which was from the same TV footage, with supposed "100%" certainty, it goes all quiet.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on June 06, 2014, 11:59:59 PM
Silence. Some peeps claim that identification, by how someone carries a child in TV airport footage, is reliable. But when asked to comment on the Alvor identification, which was from the same TV footage, with supposed "100%" certainty, it goes all quiet.
Perhaps if you linked the random bullshit, more people would know what you were going on about.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2014, 09:53:11 AM
Perhaps if you linked the random bullshit, more people would know what you were going on about.
This is the statement to which reference has been made … easy to find when using any search engine.
You will note the striking similarities between this amended statement and Mr Smith’s amended statement.
Two individuals ~ very anxious to help in the search for Madeleine ~ changing their statements for exactly the same reason ~ but both mistaken.
I too find it extraordinary that certain people accept one as gospel while ignoring the other entirely.
131 Additional statement of Richard McCluskey 2007.05.09 (English) 05-01-Apensos V, Vol 1, Pages 131 Table of Contents : APENSOS V, Volume I, Supposed Sightings and Locations (FILE 01)....(PDF Page 119)....Page 137?"Handwritten Richard McCluskey statement" Page 137 (Page 1 of 1) (Copied and pasted from the Page 131 reference) Statement made 12th September 2007
I am the above named person and I live at an address know to Police. In early May 2007 myself and my wife were on holiday in Portugal. I have already provided a witness statement in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I would like to add the following; The events of the past week or so, with the McCanns being very much in the news, have triggered my memory in relation to the incident.
In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.
Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight. (signed).......R McCluskey http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on June 07, 2014, 11:50:50 PM
Thanks Brietta. Common sense really, either the method is reliable, or it's not. Those who say the identification method is 100% reliable when an Irish witness does it, but 100% unreliable when two English witnesses do it with higher certainty, are wishing to have their cake and eat it too. IMO.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on June 08, 2014, 05:16:07 AM
Just to remind readers what the scene was like as Gerry and Kate descended the aircraft steps.
Analysis of the footage reveals that Gerry never once looked up...could this have been a factor in what was to become Mr Smith's eureka moment?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on July 28, 2014, 11:56:44 AM
It's obvious Smithman wasn't the abductor, surely, because his child was not wearing the short sleeved Eeyore Jammies which Madeleine, supposedly, went to bed in.
Strange then, that SY are wasting precious time on that sighting given it definitely wasn't her, if the McCanns are to be believed.
Now, does Mr Redwood believe the abductor changed her pyjamas prior to the abduction?
Or perhaps, during the re-interview of the McCanns ,which we must accept has most definitely happened or else we are complete fools, they have suddenly remembered that she wasn't wearing that pair when she went to bed.
Ahh but no wait, Kate (book) was thinking Maddie would be out there getting cold in those short sleeved pyjamas, and thinking it would have been better if she was wearing a long sleeve pair.
So, pyjama changing abductor it is then.
How extraordinary!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 30, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
That Smith family sighting had been known for ages. It wasn't a big secret. Amaral was after him and too close to the truth.
We all know the McCanns knew who it was! Catch Tannerman not Smithman @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on July 30, 2014, 06:24:59 PM
Smithman was obviously just an innocent Amish tourist (who happens to look a bit like Gerry) who was taking his Maddie lookalike daughter from the night creche & back to the rock they live under.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on July 30, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
Smithman was obviously just an innocent Amish tourist (who happens to look a bit like Gerry) who was taking his Maddie lookalike daughter from the night creche & back to the rock they live under.
Wasn't even slightly amusing the first time I read it in one of your posts ... you really must get a new script writer, the old one is rubbish.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on July 31, 2014, 02:52:59 PM
We know from his statement that Mr Smith did not have a clear view of the man’s face, so if this is efit is indeed from the Smith sighting I think the only possible candidate for its source must be Aoife - although uncertain, interviewed properly she could have remembered - or one of the others in the party whose statements we have not seen.
Do you think the depiction is of the same person, Sadie? Hairline, nose, shape of face and eyebrows etc: certainly do mirror each other. The L/H one does indeed resemble quite a few people (accusing no one) while the R/H one is much more polished and more specific to a particular individual. Easily recogniseable imo.
Maybe an updated version using top notch software?
Martin Smith 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. States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Aoife Smith Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child. — (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.
PETER DANIEL SMITH Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad. — States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on August 01, 2014, 11:58:05 PM
My own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality. The abduction was one issue. The cover-up was a separate matter and also facilitated a money-making scheme. I also believe Almeida's role in all this has been largely ignored. It's just a shame Guilhermino Encarnacao died before the Met opened Op. Grange.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on August 02, 2014, 01:17:37 AM
My own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality. The abduction was one issue. The cover-up was a separate matter and also facilitated a money-making scheme. I also believe Almeida's role in all this has been largely ignored. It's just a shame Guilhermino Encarnacao died before the Met opened Op. Grange.
I have watched the Crimewatch footage again and it seems clear the DCI refers to the man seen by the Smiths in the context of the efits.
I am not sure that such detailed images could have been produced by folk who did not see the man's face and who said in their statements that they would be unable to recognise him.
So I am still not convinced these efits are anything to do with the Smiths.
- snipped - Now, the Irish couple who were interviewed by police following the girl's disappearance are bracing themselves to be re-interviewed. Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect.
Mary Smith told the Herald today that the family still sees Madeleine story as a "terrible tragedy" and that they will co-operate fully with investigators.
"At this point we just don't know whether we will be called but of course we will cooperate fully. Madeleine's disappearance was just a terrible tragedy," she added.
"We have not been contacted by police yet and we will wait for their instructions," she added.
'However, my own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality.'
WTF?
The Smith family all trippin were they?
How dare we think otherwise. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 02, 2014, 03:48:19 PM
I know who was very pleased when Martin said 9:50. He didn't have a clue about the correct times as the Dolphin receipt proves. 9:50 was the time used in the McCanns reconstruction and that time has been discarded by the yard.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on August 02, 2014, 04:05:28 PM
SY traced the ‘innocent’ father who may have been Tannerman by the expediency of checking the evidence in the form of the crèche records.
If Smithman and 'Madeleine look alike daughter' could not be traced from the crèche records and has not yet come forward; it suggests either that he may well be the abductor or that he may not exist. It is a matter of record that none of the Smith family had a good enough look at this man’s face to say he looked like anyone: so categorically he did not “look a bit like Gerry” and your constant repetition of the lie tends only to highlight your agenda based on ignorance of the facts.
You add nothing to the discussion except to illustrate exactly the perfidy of the cause you endorse and the tactics used to promote it.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 02, 2014, 04:32:06 PM
The evidence is the time 10:03 connects to the sighting time. Aoife said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm and she was the only one correct on the Dolphin time. Somebody will have to explain 10:03 and then further questions will be asked about it. Why that exact time was said and why it was claimed Kate took 10 minutes before returning. That contradicts other witness statements. Why was 10:03 to 10:13 so important?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on August 02, 2014, 04:35:57 PM
There is no physical evidence to support the cadaver odour or existence of Smithman either. -
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 02, 2014, 04:38:09 PM
The evidence is the time 10:03 connects to the sighting time. Aoife said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm and she was the only one correct on the Dolphin time. Somebody will have to explain 10:03 and then further questions will be asked about it. Why that exact time was said and why it was claimed Kate took 10 minutes before returning. That contradicts other witness statements. Why was 10:03 to 10:13 so important?
How many witnesses have to be incorrect for Aoife to be correct? There is one witness who said searching was going on at around 2145 hrs - http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: faithlilly on August 02, 2014, 04:46:39 PM
Brietta I know you're not too keen on being asked questions but could you please explain this part of your post to me ?
'or that he ( Smithman ) may not exist.'
Have I got it wrong or have Bennett and yourself at last found something you both agree on ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on August 02, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
It is a matter of record that none of the Smith family had a good enough look at this man’s face to say he looked like anyone: so categorically he did not “look a bit like Gerry” and your constant repetition of the lie tends only to highlight your agenda based on ignorance of the facts.
Snip...
You have fallen into a logical fallacy, if members of the Smith family did not get a good enough look at the man's face it only means they do not know what he looked like and not that he didn't look like Gerry.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on August 02, 2014, 05:51:14 PM
You have fallen into a logical fallacy, if members of the Smith family did not get a good enough look at the man's face it only means they do not know what he looked like and not that he didn't look like Gerry.
If none of them got a good enough look at the man's face then why do so many sceptics insist that Smithman was Gerry?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on August 02, 2014, 05:54:31 PM
I think the salient point is that many think that Smithman is abductor man, who, by pure coincidence bears more than a passing resemblance to Gerry.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on August 02, 2014, 05:57:22 PM
If Smith man was Gerry, Gerry must have been furious with Kate for raising the alarm before he'd even got down to the beach ...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on August 02, 2014, 05:57:33 PM
There were children in the party who would not have been expected to corroborate a sighting to which the adults hardly paid attention.
There are three witness statements in the files.
Aoife paid attention and I have no doubt that the yard have talked to all of them including Mrs Smith "Oh is she asleep" Rude Man?
Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. — Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment. — Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night.
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres. — The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
Personal Description: — (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. — His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration. — She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top. — She did not see what shoes he was wearing. — The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child. — (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown. — She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size. — She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white. — There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back. — She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton. — She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on August 02, 2014, 05:59:55 PM
If Smith man was Gerry, Gerry must have been furious with Kate for raising the alarm before he'd even got down to the beach ...
It's what you'd do isn't it? Moments after you husband scurries off with the corpse of your dead child in his arms, uncovered and in full view of any passerby, you start screaming your head off and drawing attention to the fact that your child is missing. Perfectly understandable behaviour!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on August 02, 2014, 06:01:15 PM
Produced as in presented in Crimewatch. Try not to be so pedantic - it becomes tiresome.
Erm..ok sorry - I wasn't being pedantic though, I thought you meant that they had been responsible for the putting together the photofit, my mistake.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 02, 2014, 06:45:15 PM
Smithman knew his destination that's for certain. So if it's not a nearby bin or nearby wasteland then maybe she was kept somewhere safe where she could be later retrieved.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on August 02, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
Smithman knew his destination that's for certain. So if it's not a nearby bin or nearby wasteland then maybe she was kept somewhere safe where she could be later retrieved.
Possibly. What is clear is that it was imperative that she was not found in or near to 5A - for, as yet, unknown reason.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on August 02, 2014, 07:00:58 PM
quote"How do you know he bears more than a passing resemblance to Gerry if no one who actually saw him got a good look at his face"unquote
Someone must have seen him or else we would not have a photo-fit and NSY would not have placed it on crime watch.... the devil is in the detail! and it is also astonishing no one in PDL came forward to say they might know who he is.
However,
As I looked upon the stair I saw a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again to day I wish that man would go away Poet, Hughes Mearns (1899) (this is a different version but based on his poem).
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 02, 2014, 07:34:33 PM
Anything in the files about whether the beach CCTV camera was checked?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on August 02, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
A child was missing. It's a small parish. Surely CCTV would have been an absolute priority in the hours after the disappearance - especially in an area so close to the OC. How many exterior CCTV cameras were there?? There was a photo of Amaral under the camera - I can't find the link to it now - but I do recall it was an elevated camera you could clearly see. One wonders why the ever-willing residents of Luz didn't prompt the PJ to check it.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: misty on August 03, 2014, 10:52:20 PM
Anything in the files about whether the beach CCTV camera was checked?
Why would a local who carried out such a "perfect" crime go anywhere near a CCTV? There is very little in the files about the CCTV the PJ actually obtained for the period after Madeleine went missing and from the Paraiso beach restaurant only 3/5/2007 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Montclair on August 04, 2014, 08:17:32 AM
CCTVs are not allowed in Portugal as they are a violation of people's right to privacy. AFAIK, the camera under which Gonçalo Amaral was photographed belonged to a business and is not supposed to be pointing out on the street.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 04, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
CCTVs are not allowed in Portugal as they are a violation of people's right to privacy. AFAIK, the camera under which Gonçalo Amaral was photographed belonged to a business and is not supposed to be pointing out on the street.
You do talk some rubbish sometimes Montclair.
A 30 second serach throws up a lot of webcams such as this one
http://www.arrifana.eu/webcam/
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on August 04, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
CCTVs are not allowed in Portugal as they are a violation of people's right to privacy. AFAIK, the camera under which Gonçalo Amaral was photographed belonged to a business and is not supposed to be pointing out on the street.
Perhaps it's readers should use that paper for another purpose.
IMO of course. 8)-)))
We've all seen the movie, obviously you must have forgotten what Dr Amaral was saying - here it is again - from the Express newspaper but with the imprimatur of the mccannfiles.
- snipped -
Standing at an entrance to the waste ground, Mr Amaral said: "This area was thoroughly searched."
He walked a few steps and looked up at a CCTV camera and sighed loudly. The camera belongs to the Estrela da Luz resort hotel. "I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera," he said.
"I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over. It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id346.html
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: stephen25000 on August 04, 2014, 10:08:49 AM
We've all seen the movie, obviously you must have forgotten what Dr Amaral was saying - here it is again - from the Express newspaper but with the imprimatur of the mccannfiles.
- snipped -
Standing at an entrance to the waste ground, Mr Amaral said: "This area was thoroughly searched."
He walked a few steps and looked up at a CCTV camera and sighed loudly. The camera belongs to the Estrela da Luz resort hotel. "I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera," he said.
"I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over. It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id346.html
He was right about Madeleine being let down.....by her parents.
As to who took Madeleine's body out of the apartment remains another question.
IMO of course.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: ferryman on August 04, 2014, 10:38:00 AM
We've all seen the movie, obviously you must have forgotten what Dr Amaral was saying - here it is again - from the Express newspaper but with the imprimatur of the mccannfiles.
- snipped -
Standing at an entrance to the waste ground, Mr Amaral said: "This area was thoroughly searched."
He walked a few steps and looked up at a CCTV camera and sighed loudly. The camera belongs to the Estrela da Luz resort hotel. "I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera," he said.
"I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over. It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id346.html
Yes, a private CCTV from a hotel.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 10:58:06 AM
It might, if the purpose was ostensibly to monitor private property. What might be not permitted is deliberate monitoring of public areas.
Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property? This would have the same result. This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal. Unless it suits, of course.
Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 04, 2014, 11:34:25 AM
Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property? This would have the same result. This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal. Unless it suits, of course.
Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.
Every country has its fair share of those, dear Moderator. In the UK when our driving licences were little maroon books it was an offence not to sign them. That law rarely came into play unless of course one was abusive to the policeman or had committed a serious motoring offence and the offence was just thrown in on the "kitchen sink" basis. The more interesting point would be "if it is illegal to have surveillance of public places would the film from a private camera doing just that be admissible in court". This is slightly off topic so please feel free to delete when read!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: jassi on August 04, 2014, 11:34:38 AM
Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property? This would have the same result. This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal. Unless it suits, of course.
Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.
Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.
Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.
All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 11:46:12 AM
Every country has its fair share of those, dear Moderator. In the UK when our driving licences were little maroon books it was an offence not to sign them. That law rarely came into play unless of course one was abusive to the policeman or had committed a serious motoring offence and the offence was just thrown in on the "kitchen sink" basis. The more interesting point would be "if it is illegal to have surveillance of public places would the film from a private camera doing just that be admissible in court". This is slightly off topic so please feel free to delete when read!
That could be a good point about admissible in Court. But Amaral didn't seem to think it would have been a problem. Although we all know that it was Gerry he would have hoped to see.
But then Amaral opened a Criminal Investigation Agency as a Consultant.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 04, 2014, 11:50:26 AM
(http://i62.tinypic.com/xok36t.jpg)
Habana Beach Cam - was this checked for movements across the beach? It should have been. Anything in the files?
That could be a good point about admissible in Court. But Amaral didn't seem to think it would have been a problem. Although we all know that it was Gerry he would have hoped to see.
But then Amaral opened a Criminal Investigation Agency as a Consultant.
Even if not admissible in a court, positive identification would have helped towards reaching a solution, in that the police would have known what the crime actually was and who the perpetrator was.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 11:59:54 AM
Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.
Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.
All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?
Installing and monitoring these cameras would be an expensive exercise. Probably better to let private businesses do it. There is crime on The Algarve, and in Praia da Luz, and the Local Authorities didn't appear to want to know. Expense, you see. Hence the possible reason for suggesting it would interfere with privacy.
And another legal illegality is born.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 04, 2014, 12:04:12 PM
A quick search shows that there are webcams in Portugal - covering public areas, villages, raods and beaches. From a commercial point of view beach webcams make the most sense as a means of promoting particular beaches and enticing tourists
For example
http://meteoabrantes.no-ip.info/
But some will no doubt still claim they are illegal in Portugal - maybe someone needs to tell the Portuguese government.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
A quick search shows that there are webcams in Portugal - covering public areas, villages, raods and beaches. From a commercial point of view beach webcams make the most sense as a means of promoting particular beaches and enticing tourists
For example
http://meteoabrantes.no-ip.info/
But some will no doubt still claim they are illegal in Portugal - maybe someone needs to tell the Portuguese government.
I doubt that The Portuguese Government were into pointing out a possible problem with crime. Let's face it, these cameras aren't there to promote a crime free zone. They are there to spot criminals mostly.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
But, was Mr. Smith's claim pie in the sky? I very much doubt it. The whole family would hardly have made it up, especially since they didn't agree. You might have thought that they at least would have got their story straight. They had more than enough time.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: slartibartfast on August 04, 2014, 04:28:58 PM
But, was Mr. Smith's claim pie in the sky? I very much doubt it. The whole family would hardly have made it up, especially since they didn't agree. You might have thought that they at least would have got their story straight. They had more than enough time.
They probably didn't sit down and go through it as a group...
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Eleanor on August 04, 2014, 04:46:43 PM
They probably didn't sit down and go through it as a group...
Nope ... I bet it wasn't discussed at all in the intervening twenty two days between Madeleine being abducted on the 3rd and them making their depositions on the 26th ... no sirree ... lips sealed.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: sadie on August 04, 2014, 11:59:23 PM
Perhaps it's readers should use that paper for another purpose.
IMO of course. 8)-)))
In this instance, Stephen, you are absolutely correct. The route the Mirror shows is totally wrong. It is going in the wrong direction n at its southern end.
Smithman came south down Rua D'Escola. If he took the route shown here he would have had to go north up Rua D'escola
What a nonsense the Mirror made of that... but I guess it was early days when we were all floundering. We know better now
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: John on August 05, 2014, 03:20:23 AM
When one looks at the Smith's statements and in particular Aoife's statement I think the only possible conclusion one can reach is that the carrier went down the steps which the Smiths had just come up.
Had the carrier intended to turn left along Rua 25 de Abril, he would have taken a short cut at the corner (blue route}. As it was he went right before turning left and approaching Aoife from her left (red route), a wholly roundabout route for anyone wanting to go east along Rua 25 de Abril.
(http://i.imgur.com/vEb7owJ.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on August 21, 2014, 03:55:14 PM
All the recent publicity about Smithman and the two e-fits and not a single innocent tourist has been identified. Speaks volumes that does imo!!!
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on August 21, 2014, 04:07:27 PM
Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.
Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.
All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?
Between what is allowed in law, privacy concerns and the practical implementation may be different.
I had found this at some point.
Territorial privacy Video surveillance
Law 207/200517 sets the means of any electronic (including video) surveillance for road safety used by law enforcement agencies.18 The system is limited to specific and determined purposes: catching traffic infractions, traffic control, locating stolen or illegal vehicles, and use as evidence of a crime.19 The installation of the surveillance methods should be directed, as much as possible, to capture images of vehicles.20 Information from the system may be released for didactic and statistical purposes, as long as no individuals or vehicles are identifiable.21 The CNPD published a clarification in response to many inquiries concerning the surveillance.22 The clarification states that according to the law these systems do not need CNPD approval. The equipment should be registered with the CNPD, and the make, model, and serial number of the surveillance equipment used is published on the CNPD website.
In 2006, Law 51/2006 on the use of video surveillance to monitor traffic as well as other incidents entered into force.23 That law grants permission to "Estradas de Portugal" (Roads of Portugal) to install roadway video surveillance equipment in the interests of road safety. All such installation is subjected, however, to the terms of Act No. 67/98, particularly the requirement of prior notification to the CNPD.
In August 2007, Portugal published a new law punishing improper handling of visual data with fines up to EUR 10,000 and directed captured images to be deleted if the threat did not actually materialise.24
In October 2008, three Portuguese cities were authorised to be equipped with CCTV cameras.25
On 14 July 2008, the CNPD issued an opinion on the use of video surveillance and set down conditions, including: using the system at night if possible, not recording sound, and preventing private houses from being recorded.26
All the recent publicity about Smithman and the two e-fits and not a single innocent tourist has been identified. Speaks volumes that does imo!!!
Not necessarily. The Met is unlikely to divulge whether this person has been identified or not unless there is a need to appeal to the public with a new concrete request.
The constant dribble of half-baked tabloid leaks has unfortunately led the public to feel that they are entitled to be informed of every new detail. We're not.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Brietta on August 21, 2014, 04:29:31 PM
Not necessarily. The Met is unlikely to divulge whether this person has been identified or not unless there is a need to appeal to the public with a new concrete request.
The constant dribble of half-baked tabloid leaks has unfortunately led the public to feel that they are entitled to be informed of every new detail. We're not.
It is refreshing that this investigation now appears to be free from interference from ‘a source close to the PJ’ despite some leaks at the beginning. When there is anything to be said it is coming from a reliable attributed source; and it is right and proper that the general public are only being told what that source has deemed to be necessary.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on August 21, 2014, 05:23:39 PM
Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it. Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Carana on August 21, 2014, 05:44:04 PM
Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it. Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.
What "chickens"?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Angelo222 on August 21, 2014, 06:00:37 PM
He's retiring in December, jumping ship & leaving it to the next mug, innit.
Not necessarily ~ it is perfectly possible the case could be solved before DCI Redwood retires. If not the 'next mug' who is probably working the case at the moment, won't have any problem with Smithman ... and why should he/she?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on August 21, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
Not necessarily ~ it is perfectly possible the case could be solved before DCI Redwood retires. If not the 'next mug' who is probably working the case at the moment, won't have any problem with Smithman ... and why should he/she?
Not likely though is it.
You think the case will be solved without tracing Smithman?
He was just another innocent father, wandering the streets with his Maddie lookalike daughter, innit.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 21, 2014, 07:59:13 PM
Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it. Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.
He is I fear dead, in outer space or in a Trappist Monastery. Or possibly Wonderfulspam has a point.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: stephen25000 on August 21, 2014, 08:01:02 PM
Smithman certainly bears a strikng resemblance to Tannerman who was the first kid on the block.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pegasus on August 22, 2014, 12:14:29 AM
Some time ago Correio Da Manha reported that there is a new witness, a British woman, who reportedly saw a man that night talking on his mobile phone in English, while carrying a child. (It was never officially confirmed so may be incorrect). http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4430.msg158974#msg158974
I think there was no mobile voice activity by any of the group in the commonly assumed removal window of about 21:10 to 22:00, and so if this reported sighting was in that period it is impossible to be any of the group - one would have to hypothesize this supposed "carrying while talking on mobile" sighting was at sometime after 23.00 to force it to fit in that way.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 22, 2014, 10:22:43 AM
Exactly. But Gerry said he was wearing blue jeans & a light top at dinner that night. Is anyone able to put a date to this image of Gerry in those beige buttoned trousers?
4 May - they were wearing the same clothes as seen below - Kate's green shirt is seen. David Payne said he wearing beige trousers at the table and was seen wearing them the following morning. The yard may yet question others to what they were wearing at the table not when the police arrived.
4 May - they were wearing the same clothes as seen below - Kate's green shirt is seen. David Payne said he wearing beige trousers at the table and was seen wearing them the following morning. The yard may yet question others to what they were wearing at the table not when the police arrived.
What relevance would what they were wearing at the table that evening have to the present inquiry in which none of these people are persons of interest.
I would imagine that David Payne’s alleged very close resemblance to Robert Murat would also rule him out despite the beige trousers; Mr Smith was at pains to point out that the man he saw looked nothing like Mr Murat.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on August 22, 2014, 01:19:53 PM
How can anyone believe that these same trousers pictured above were used in a crime. From the statement of someone...... IIRC
1. couldn’t see the colour of the child’s skin 2. Couldn’t see the man's top 3. couldn’t see the man's shoes 4. couldn’t see the man's face clearly to describe him except for skin colour 5. couldn’t see the child’s face
But...... she saw that his trousers possibly had buttons and the child had a light top with long sleeves( how come no sight of the hands adjoined to the long sleeves)...... in poor light.
If the trousers worn by this man are the trousers pictured above, I wonder why he kept them and wore them in an interview................................................ Memento perhaps?~~~~~
If I have mistakenly entered incorrect details , I apologize and would appreciate being corrected
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on August 22, 2014, 01:34:11 PM
1. couldn’t see the colour of the child’s skin
cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
2. Couldn’t see the man's top
She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him completely from the top.
3. couldn’t see the man's shoes
She did not notice what shoes he was wearing.
4. couldn’t see the man's face clearly to describe him except for skin colour
• (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 175/180 metres in height. At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember any detail. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, cut in a short style, short from behind (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
5. couldn’t see the child’s face
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on August 22, 2014, 01:36:33 PM
Because SY really, really do believe that there really is an abductor out there,who happens to look a bit like Gerry, wore some trousers like he had & changed Madeleines pyjamas whilst abducting her.
The are clever like that, innit.
He is out there somewhere with a findable child, but probably in that lawless village in the hinterland.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on August 22, 2014, 01:50:46 PM
cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
2. Couldn’t see the man's top
She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him completely from the top.
3. couldn’t see the man's shoes
She did not notice what shoes he was wearing.
4. couldn’t see the man's face clearly to describe him except for skin colour
• (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 175/180 metres in height. At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember any detail. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, cut in a short style, short from behind (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
5. couldn’t see the child’s face
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
Sorry, I forgot that she mentioned an age between 20 to 30(how old was GM?) and his hair, light brown(GM looks dark haired to me, but probably wrong), but didn't see the childs feet (which must have been near the buttons) or her hands(which would have been attached to the long sleeves) A few believes and a possibly, which do not count
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on August 22, 2014, 02:03:50 PM
Sorry, I forgot that she mentioned an age between 20 to 30(how old was GM?) and his hair, light brown(GM looks dark haired to me, but probably wrong), but didn't see the childs feet (which must have been near the buttons) or her hands(which would have been attached to the long sleeves) A few believes and a possibly, which do not count
So she didn't think to scrutinise & couldn't quite recollect every inch of the man & his kid?
SY seem interested in him don't they, of course there is absolutely no way it was Gerry is there, because the McCanns are neither persons of interest or suspects.
So, which do you reckon then anna, is Smithman... the abductor, the innocent man or Scotch mist?
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 22, 2014, 02:08:09 PM
Sorry, I forgot that she mentioned an age between 20 to 30(how old was GM?) and his hair, light brown(GM looks dark haired to me, but probably wrong), but didn't see the childs feet (which must have been near the buttons) or her hands(which would have been attached to the long sleeves) A few believes and a possibly, which do not count
She was a child 12 at the time. 30 seems ancient for a child. Martin Smith said 40. Gerry was in his 39th year but still 38.
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: Anna on August 22, 2014, 02:09:16 PM
So she didn't think to scrutinise & couldn't quite recollect every inch of the man & his kid?
SY seem interested in him don't they, of course there is absolutely no way it was Gerry is there, because the McCanns are neither persons of interest or suspects.
So, which do you reckon then anna, is Smithman... the abductor, the innocent man or Scotch mist?
It could be anyone WS, who for some unknown reason is wary of coming forward, or the real abductor. I'm not sure that we will ever know the true identity of this man, but your theory doesn't figure up IMO
Title: Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
Post by: pathfinder73 on August 22, 2014, 02:11:19 PM
It could be anyone WS, who for some unknown reason is wary of coming forward, or the real abductor. I'm not sure that we will ever know the true identity of this man, but your theory doesn't figure up IMO
Well we can rule out blackman, fat smellyman, spottyman, photoman and eggman as being Smithman aka Rudeman @)(++(*