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: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:11:01 AM
Title: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:11:01 AM
1611 to 1614 Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26
*Snip* — On 30 April 2007 she travelled to Portugal on holiday, specifically to the Algarve. She came with her parents Martin and Mary Smith and her two nieces, AC and EC. — They stayed in the Estrela Da Luz complex in Praia da Luz where her parents have an apartment. — When they arrived at the apartment they met her brother, Peter Smith, her sister-in-law, S.McD.Smith, her nephew (six years old), CO** and the son of her sister-in-law, TA*** (13 years old). — They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day). — Her days on holiday were spent in the swimming pool of the complex where they were lodged, on the beach of Luz and in the shopping centre. Normally, they were spent in Praia da Luz - Vila da Luz. — Dinner was taken between 19h00 and 20h00, in the apartment or in the Restaurants "Dolphin", "Cavaleiro da Luz", "Chaplin" or the "Marujo", all situated in the Praia da Luz area. ' When they ate at home they would not normally go out. When they went to eat at the restaurants they stopped by Kelly's Bar, situated, she thinks, on Calheta Street in Praia da Luz
Bearing in mind how long it took the Smiths to come forward, I wonder what percentage of 100 they are sure it was the night of the 3rd they saw this man & child? I see no questioning regarding how many times the witnesses walked this route during the holiday. In fact, Aoife was not even sure which day they returned home.
_______________________________________
*Snip from Martin Smith's statement*
He was heading toward his apartment (Estrela da Luz complex) which is located a little above the street Travessa da Escola Primária (Primary school crossing). 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.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 17, 2014, 01:15:56 AM
I think the Smith group were sure of the date because some of them were flying from Faro the next morning.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 01:23:54 AM
Given the worldwide publicity surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance it is surprising that the significance of what they had seen did not suggest itself to someone in the party long before it did.
It is perplexing the first sighting alibied an arguido; it is equally perplexing that an amended statement fingered another arguido.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 01:28:15 AM
Given the worldwide publicity surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance it is surprising that the significance of what they had seen did not suggest itself to someone in the party long before it did.
It is perplexing the first sighting alibied an arguido; it is equally perplexing that an amended statement fingered another arguido.
I hadnt considered that Brietta, but true
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 17, 2014, 01:53:41 AM
Given the worldwide publicity surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance it is surprising that the significance of what they had seen did not suggest itself to someone in the party long before it did.
It is perplexing the first sighting alibied an arguido; it is equally perplexing that an amended statement fingered another arguido.
IIRC the Smiths came forward before the JT sighting was common knowledge. I think the notion that the disappearance featured the unlikely scenario of someone openly carrying the missing child in arms through the streets did not widely exist at that time.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 02:01:50 AM
IIRC the Smiths came forward before the JT sighting was common knowledge. I think the notion that the disappearance featured the unlikely scenario of someone openly carrying the missing child in arms through the streets did not widely exist at that time.
Yet the PJ continued to promote "Eggman/Tannerman" openly carrying a child as their main lead for....how many months/years? Joao Carlos took the Smiths' statements, they spent hours doing the reconstruction/taking photos/plotting street positions - then did precisely NOTHING further with any of that eidence until Plan A to trap the parents had failed. I make no bones about it - the PJ fed someone that description of Tannerman/Gerry's clothing..........
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 02:12:07 AM
I believe tannerman was released almost immediatly in the press and MS made a statement on 26th may, but I read somewhere that Amaral was planning for his return to give more info, but he left the PJ and it wasnt done by his replacement. We didnt hear about the sighting for a while IIRC
Processos Vol XIII Page 3995 (in English)
Email sent from Joao Carlos Silva Pereira to Bernard Gattney
8th November 2007 Subject: Martin Smith
Bernard ,
According to our phone contact, I hereby enclose the report on Martin Smith, son of P S and C S, born in Ireland on *****, and an Irish citizen, passport nº *****, home address*****.
Following the enclosed report you are now kindly requested to ask him the following questions:
- Does he confirm the statement he made in Portugal on May 26th 2007?
- Can he describe in detail the individual he saw carrying a child on May 3rd 2007, notwithstanding the fact that he has already made this description in his previous statements? Was this individual alone?
- When and in what mass medium has he seen the news of Gerald McCann going down the plane stairs, and carrying one of his children? (If possible he should be shown the above-mentioned pictures, as well as asked whether he confirms or disconfirms this man was the same individual he saw on May 3rd 2007).
- Was it really Gerry McCann? Is he sure of this fact?
- Does he recognise Gerald McCann from the facial features or from the way he was carrying the child?
- Are his family members, namely the ones who were with him on May 3rd 2007, able to recognise the individual? If yes, do they also identify the individual as being Gerald McCann? (If yes, such family members should also be interviewed with a view to equally answering the above questions).
- Any other possible significant question, whether arising from the answers of Martin Smith to the above questions or that is deemed as relevant, should be equally asked.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 02:14:38 AM
IIRC the Smiths came forward before the JT sighting was common knowledge. I think the notion that the disappearance featured the unlikely scenario of someone openly carrying the missing child in arms through the streets did not widely exist at that time.
That the Jane Tanner sighting was not in the public domain means nothing.
The amazing similarities of both sightings even to the description of the man not looking like a tourist led Dr Kate McCann to take hope that this was a clue to Madeleine's kidnap.
That the investigation unfortunately leaked like a sieve is evidenced by the myriad of newspaper stories gleaned directly and illegally from police sources.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 17, 2014, 02:16:57 AM
Aoife said in her statement they went to Kelly's Bar whenever they ate out. In the same way the disbelievers question the Tapas group alcohol intake, can the same questions not be asked of the adult Smiths? How sharp or hazy were their memories? Martin Smith also wasn't wearing his glasses. Technically, the evidence is dependent on a 12 year old girl. I wonder how accurate their holiday timeline would prove to be - as compared to the Tapas group????
Mary Smith was so close to Smithman that she asked him a question which he ignored. That said, I cannot believe that such a crucial witness wasn't compelled to travel back to Portugal to provide more information including an e-fit as to her recollections.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 02:21:44 AM
Mary Smith was so close to Smithman that she asked him a question which he ignored. That said, I cannot believe that such a crucial witness wasn't compelled to travel back to Portugal to provide more information including an e-fit as to her recollections.
Who said Mary Smith spoke to Smithman? It's not mentioned in any of the statements on file & it certainly wasn't mentioned on Crimewatch,
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 02:31:34 AM
Mary Smith was so close to Smithman that she asked him a question which he ignored. That said, I cannot believe that such a crucial witness wasn't compelled to travel back to Portugal to provide more information including an e-fit as to her recollections.
How could someone carrying a sleeping child with her head on his shoulder, answer someone without possibly waking the child. Of course smithman could have been foreign and didnt understand the language. He could also for some reason be shy of the law and that is why he hasnt come forward. I dont know why Mrs Smith didnt go to PT but maybe the media attention scared her, Martin had a rough time with them I believe.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 03:30:00 AM
Who said Mary Smith spoke to Smithman? It's not mentioned in any of the statements on file & it certainly wasn't mentioned on Crimewatch,
Actually I dont know where it came from...I thought it was a statement, but can find none. Too tired to search now, but here is a bit till then. Night Night
Daily mail "My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 17, 2014, 11:39:40 AM
Who said Mary Smith spoke to Smithman? It's not mentioned in any of the statements on file & it certainly wasn't mentioned on Crimewatch,
Martin Smith did in an interview with The Daily Mail!
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues Daily Mail (appeared in paper edition only)
EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished
By SANDRA MURPHY, VANESSA ALLEN January 3, 2008
AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.
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."
Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.
Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."
Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said detectives from the Spanish agency Metodo 3 now hoped to speak to the family. "Metodo 3 is being very methodical, working through a number of people they think might be able to help them, and this family will be on their list."
On the night of the disappearance, Mr Smith was dining with his wife in the Dolphin restaurant in Praia Da Luz, where they are frequent visitors.
The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile,as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.
"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.
"I dont know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."
The father of six yesterday said the Irish family would do anything they could to help the McCanns find their missing daughter.
"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.
"But anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will." Recalling the event she witnessed, Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses
"We were out the night it happened. My son and his family were leaving on the Friday and we were going for a family meal. We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day.
"I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless.
"We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them.
"They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday.
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police.
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone.Then they asked me to make a statement to gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance.
"Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grand children and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement.
"The police were fairly busy and the station was pretty typical. They didnt seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across but they are probably no different to police anywhere else. We were interviewed separately and told them what we saw, and showed them on the map where we met the man and child.
"We spent the whole day there from 10.30am to 7pm with an interpreter. That day, May 26 last year, was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.I remember clearly because it was my wedding anniversary.
"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.
"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.
"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.
"It was around 9.55pm and it was getting dark and he was looking downward so I couldnt tell you exactly what he looked like.
"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 didnt think he was Portuguese." Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him.
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 17, 2014, 11:53:16 AM
I've always found that a bit odd. A man is walking hurriedly towards you late in the evening, carrying what appears to be a sleeping child. He is completely unknown to you and does not meet your gaze but nonetheless you attempt to engage him in conversation by asking if the child is sleeping, as he hurries by? Does anyone else not think this a bit strange?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues Daily Mail (appeared in paper edition only)
EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished
By SANDRA MURPHY, VANESSA ALLEN January 3, 2008
AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.
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."
Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.
Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."
Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said detectives from the Spanish agency Metodo 3 now hoped to speak to the family. "Metodo 3 is being very methodical, working through a number of people they think might be able to help them, and this family will be on their list."
On the night of the disappearance, Mr Smith was dining with his wife in the Dolphin restaurant in Praia Da Luz, where they are frequent visitors.
The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile,as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.
"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.
"I dont know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."
The father of six yesterday said the Irish family would do anything they could to help the McCanns find their missing daughter.
"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.
"But anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will." Recalling the event she witnessed, Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses
"We were out the night it happened. My son and his family were leaving on the Friday and we were going for a family meal. We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day.
"I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless.
"We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them.
"They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday.
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police.
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone.Then they asked me to make a statement to gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance.
"Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grand children and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement.
"The police were fairly busy and the station was pretty typical. They didnt seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across but they are probably no different to police anywhere else. We were interviewed separately and told them what we saw, and showed them on the map where we met the man and child.
"We spent the whole day there from 10.30am to 7pm with an interpreter. That day, May 26 last year, was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.I remember clearly because it was my wedding anniversary.
"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.
"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.
"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.
"It was around 9.55pm and it was getting dark and he was looking downward so I couldnt tell you exactly what he looked like.
"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 didnt think he was Portuguese." Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him.
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."
I think Misty was referring to the fact that there is no official statement to that effect, only newspaper reports quoting a man notoriously averse to publicity via newspapers.
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues Daily Mail (appeared in paper edition only)
EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished
By SANDRA MURPHY, VANESSA ALLEN January 3, 2008
AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.
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."
Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.
Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."
Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said detectives from the Spanish agency Metodo 3 now hoped to speak to the family. "Metodo 3 is being very methodical, working through a number of people they think might be able to help them, and this family will be on their list."
On the night of the disappearance, Mr Smith was dining with his wife in the Dolphin restaurant in Praia Da Luz, where they are frequent visitors.
The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile,as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.
"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.
"I dont know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."
The father of six yesterday said the Irish family would do anything they could to help the McCanns find their missing daughter.
"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.
"But anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will." Recalling the event she witnessed, Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses
"We were out the night it happened. My son and his family were leaving on the Friday and we were going for a family meal. We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day.
"I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless.
"We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them.
"They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday.
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police.
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone.Then they asked me to make a statement to gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance.
"Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grand children and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement.
"The police were fairly busy and the station was pretty typical. They didnt seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across but they are probably no different to police anywhere else. We were interviewed separately and told them what we saw, and showed them on the map where we met the man and child.
"We spent the whole day there from 10.30am to 7pm with an interpreter. That day, May 26 last year, was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.I remember clearly because it was my wedding anniversary.
"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.
"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.
"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.
"It was around 9.55pm and it was getting dark and he was looking downward so I couldnt tell you exactly what he looked like.
"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 didnt think he was Portuguese." Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him.
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."
Martin Smith is also quoted in the Mail report as saying it was his son Peter who prompted his memory regarding the sighting some 2 weeks later! So, the memory really wasn't very vivid & clear at all, or even very important despite the distress of his grandchildren. 9.50pm & in his 40's - so definitely not Gerry, then.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 12:25:16 PM
Martin Smith is also quoted in the Mail report as saying it was his son Peter who prompted his memory regarding the sighting some 2 weeks later! So, the memory really wasn't very vivid & clear at all, or even very important despite the distress of his grandchildren. 9.50pm & in his 40's - so definitely not Gerry, then.
Martin Smith was incorrect on 9:50. The only person correct on times that night was Aoife and she said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm so the Smithman sighting would be 10:02/03.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 12:31:37 PM
Martin Smith was incorrect on 9:50. The only person correct on times that night was Aoife and she said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm so the Smithman sighting would be 10:02/03.
And Aoife was the only one correct because.............?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: jassi on September 17, 2014, 12:34:00 PM
And Aoife was the only one correct because.............?
Dolphin Restaurant receipt 21:27
Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street. (Martin Smith)
He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00. (Peter Smith)
— 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. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland. (Aoife Smith)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 12:37:11 PM
She said that in her statement, did she? Perhaps she was also looking at her phone when the group passed Smithman.
I've provided the evidence that she is correct on her Dolphin restaurant time. Receipt time 9:27. Got to Kelly's Bar at 9:30 and stayed for 30 minutes. Peter and Martin said they got to Kelly's Bar at 9pm. That's completely wrong.
p.s. it was Peter not Martin who said 9:50 to 10pm. So somebody took the earliest time i.e. 9:50 which was used in the McCanns reconstruction 8)--))
having left from there around 21H50/22H00. (Peter Smith)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 12:48:43 PM
I've provided the evidence that she is correct on her Dolphin restaurant time. Receipt time 9:27. Got to Kelly's Bar at 9:30 and stayed for 30 minutes. Peter and Martin said they got to Kelly's Bar at 9pm. That's completely wrong.
The word that immediately springs to mind is - INCONSISTENCY.
Amazing the tapas seven have been castigated for seven years for "inconsistencies".
Conversely the "inconsistencies" in the Smith statements seem to be fine. &%+((£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 17, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
I've always found that a bit odd. A man is walking hurriedly towards you late in the evening, carrying what appears to be a sleeping child. He is completely unknown to you and does not meet your gaze but nonetheless you attempt to engage him in conversation by asking if the child is sleeping, as he hurries by? Does anyone else not think this a bit strange?
You obviously don't understand the Irish culture.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 17, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
I've provided the evidence that she is correct on her Dolphin restaurant time. Receipt time 9:27. Got to Kelly's Bar at 9:30 and stayed for 30 minutes. Peter and Martin said they got to Kelly's Bar at 9pm. That's completely wrong.
p.s. it was Peter not Martin who said 9:50 to 10pm. So somebody took the earliest time i.e. 9:50 which was used in the McCanns reconstruction 8)--))
having left from there around 21H50/22H00. (Peter Smith)
So Martin Smith's timing was 1/2 hour out. They went to Kelly's Bar & had a few drinks - 2, 3? How many did they down in the mere 20 minutes they spent in the bar? What a pity you're not applying the disbelievers' Tapas statement dissecting skills to the Smiths.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 12:56:15 PM
But it definitely wasn't Mr Murat according to Martin Smith ... he was certain of that despite not knowing him personally, only by sight; no spectacles; poor lighting; one or two refreshments taken.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Luz on September 17, 2014, 12:59:38 PM
But it definitely wasn't Mr Murat according to Martin Smith ... he was certain of that despite not knowing him personally, only by sight; no spectacles; poor lighting; one or two refreshments taken.
I don't know my next door neighbor personally but I can identify him. What's so strange about that?!!!!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
So Martin Smith's timing was 1/2 hour out. They went to Kelly's Bar & had a few drinks - 2, 3? How many did they down in the mere 20 minutes they spent in the bar? What a pity you're not applying the disbelievers' Tapas statement dissecting skills to the Smiths.
30 minutes in the bar not 20. Dolphin receipt was 9:27. Get to Kelly's Bar around 9:30 leave at around 10pm.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
But it definitely wasn't Mr Murat according to Martin Smith ... he was certain of that despite not knowing him personally, only by sight; no spectacles; poor lighting; one or two refreshments taken.
There are rather a lot of witness statements in the file which state that "Mr Murat definitely wasn't there" that night - one wonders why the PJ felt the need to keep asking that question, especially as the parents were already numero uno suspects according to the lead detective.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 17, 2014, 01:09:13 PM
Not in the least. Irish people have a tendency to pass the time of day with strangers so nothing strange in Mrs Smith greeting the child-carrying stranger. Not everyone lives in an environment where nobody knows their neighbours or speak to people in the street.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 01:09:38 PM
I don't know my next door neighbor personally but I can identify him. What's so strange about that?!!!!
Perhaps you should read what Martin Smith has to say in the files ... he seemed to be quite keen to labour the point, so if you find it strange perhaps he is the one to whom you should direct your statement!!!!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:15:09 PM
Pay the bill at 9.29pm Leave restaurant, with family, walk to bar, say 3mins. Order drinks & receive them - another 2 mins 9.34. Drinking after a meal - takes a little longer to down a pint or whatever. 9.44 Order more drinks 9.46. Do you think they were out of that bar by 10pm, cos I don't.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 17, 2014, 01:15:16 PM
I don't know my next door neighbor personally but I can identify him. What's so strange about that?!!!!
Exactly, I recognise many people daily but have never spoken to them. Martin Smith's comment re Murat was just the same, he was aware of him but that's all.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 17, 2014, 01:22:50 PM
Not in the least. Irish people have a tendency to pass the time of day with strangers so nothing strange in Mrs Smith greeting the child-carrying stranger. Not everyone lives in an environment where nobody knows their neighbours or speak to people in the street.
Firstly, you assume you know me, my background, and that I have no experience of Irish culture. I have plenty of experience of Irish culture, so you are quite wrong on that score I assure you. Mrs Smith was not in a position to be passing the time of day with someone who had not met her gaze and was hurrying past. I could well imagine her saying "good evening" or some such (being Irish, maybe it would have been "Top of the Evening to you, to be sure!") but not "is your child asleep?" It strikes me as an odd thing to ask someone who is hurrying past you. If you don't agree, fine.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
Pay the bill at 9.29pm Leave restaurant, with family, walk to bar, say 3mins. Order drinks & receive them - another 2 mins 9.34. Drinking after a meal - takes a little longer to down a pint or whatever. 9.44 Order more drinks 9.46. Do you think they were out of that bar by 10pm, cos I don't.
You weren't there. Aoife was and she signed a statement saying she knew it was 10pm when they left. 9:27 Dolphin receipt time.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
You weren't there. Aoife was and she signed a statement saying she knew it was 10pm when they left. 9:27 Dolphin receipt time.
But was Aoife 100% sure this was the same night she saw Smithman? They ate at the Dolphin on several occasions (according to the Mail report) and in her own ststement Aoife said they always went to the bar afterwards. The young children were "so distressed" they had to sleep in the grandparents' room for the rest of the holiday - yet the sighting of that rude lonesome man carrying a child on the Thursday night failed to trigger the relevant memory of a single Smith at the time???? Smithman does NOT exist.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 01:41:39 PM
But was Aoife 100% sure this was the same night she saw Smithman? They ate at the Dolphin on several occasions (according to the Mail report) and in her own ststement Aoife said they always went to the bar afterwards. The young children were "so distressed" they had to sleep in the grandparents' room for the rest of the holiday - yet the sighting of that rude lonesome man carrying a child on the Thursday night failed to trigger the relevant memory of a single Smith at the time???? Smithman does NOT exist.
Yes Aoife was sure about the date because some were flying back home the next morning.
Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland. (AS)
Smithman does not exist? Oh yes he does! 9 eye witnesses saw him pass.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 01:52:40 PM
Yes Aoife was sure about the date because some were flying back home the next morning.
Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland. (AS)
Smithman does not exist? Oh yes he does! 9 eye witnesses saw him pass.
He hasn't come forward, though, has he? Maybe the Smiths got the wrong night....or the wrong time. Such a pity that pesky CCTV tape at Estrela da Luz was wiped.....that would have probably shown him if he had walked the route from OC that GA believed......
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 17, 2014, 01:57:56 PM
Firstly, you assume you know me, my background, and that I have no experience of Irish culture. I have plenty of experience of Irish culture, so you are quite wrong on that score I assure you. Mrs Smith was not in a position to be passing the time of day with someone who had not met her gaze and was hurrying past. I could well imagine her saying "good evening" or some such (being Irish, maybe it would have been "Top of the Evening to you, to be sure!") but not "is your child asleep?" It strikes me as an odd thing to ask someone who is hurrying past you. If you don't agree, fine.
She didn't say.. "is your child asleep?"
Did she, Alfred?
You are having to misquote, because it's obvious who Smithman was.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 17, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
He hasn't come forward, though, has he? Maybe the Smiths got the wrong night....or the wrong time. Such a pity that pesky CCTV tape at Estrela da Luz was wiped.....that would have probably shown him if he had walked the route from OC that GA believed......
CCTV wouldn't have recorded him anyway, because Smithman was just a figment of the Smith family's collective imagination, wasn't he.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
He hasn't come forward, though, has he? Maybe the Smiths got the wrong night....or the wrong time. Such a pity that pesky CCTV tape at Estrela da Luz was wiped.....that would have probably shown him if he had walked the route from OC that GA believed......
It would certainly have caught images of the Smith family returning.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 02:15:45 PM
30 minutes in the bar not 20. Dolphin receipt was 9:27. Get to Kelly's Bar around 9:30 leave at around 10pm.
Getting back to basics. Anyone know if the receipt machine at Dolphins was correct timewise? Cos without that knowledge, we dont have a sound base to work from.
Anyone know igf the group left one of the men to pay the bill at Dolphins whilst the rest of the group went across the road, 33 metres not 50 metres, to Kellys bar? Drinks could have been ordered and on their way before the person who paid at the Dolphinn even arrived
A 30+ metre metre walk would take a matter of seconds, well under a minute
From Kellys Bar to the junction of R.25 Abril with R. Escola, a distance of some 70 metres, but with a flight of steps, shall we make an educted guess of 1min30secs cos of the steps? Probably a good deal less.
Then everybody gives different times of leaving Kellys .... inconsistencies abound .... which is the norm .... and as any reasonable person would expect
Jeez ! This whole thing is too woolley and imprecise to have any real understanding of the exact time they met Smithman.
We are kidding ourselves if we think we can pin it down to five minutes. let alone one minute
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 17, 2014, 05:51:04 PM
10:03.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 06:14:49 PM
Have we ever seen an artist's impression portraying the exact position in which Smithman was carrying the child? I'm struggling from the statements as to whether she was lying sideways on or was more upright with her chest against his.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 06:20:44 PM
Getting back to basics. Anyone know if the receipt machine at Dolphins was correct timewise? Cos without that knowledge, we dont have a sound base to work from.
Anyone know igf the group left one of the men to pay the bill at Dolphins whilst the rest of the group went across the road, 33 metres not 50 metres, to Kellys bar? Drinks could have been ordered and on their way before the person who paid at the Dolphinn even arrived
A 30+ metre metre walk would take a matter of seconds, well under a minute
From Kellys Bar to the junction of R.25 Abril with R. Escola, a distance of some 70 metres, but with a flight of steps, shall we make an educted guess of 1min30secs cos of the steps? Probably a good deal less.
Then everybody gives different times of leaving Kellys .... inconsistencies abound .... which is the norm .... and as any reasonable person would expect
Jeez ! This whole thing is too woolley and imprecise to have any real understanding of the exact time they met Smithman.
We are kidding ourselves if we think we can pin it down to five minutes. let alone one minute
Aoife said 10pm so think what you like as it doesn't change her statement. Smithman foolishly gave the time away to completely rule him out of the sighting.
"On the same night, on the other side of Aldeia da Luz, the Smith family – four adults and five children – have just paid for their dinner at the Dolphins restaurant. The credit card receipt was clocked at 9.27 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007. The Smiths go out for a drink at Kelly’s bar." (TOTL)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 06:27:16 PM
Have we ever seen an artist's impression portraying the exact position in which Smithman was carrying the child? I'm struggling from the statements as to whether she was lying sideways on or was more upright with her chest against his.
"He (MS) 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 other male seen the night Maddy went missing."
"He (MS) 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 other male seen the night Maddy went missing."
Aoife said 10pm so think what you like as it doesn't change her statement. Smithman foolishly gave the time away to completely rule him out of the sighting.
"On the same night, on the other side of Aldeia da Luz, the Smith family – four adults and five children – have just paid for their dinner at the Dolphins restaurant. The credit card receipt was clocked at 9.27 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007. The Smiths go out for a drink at Kelly’s bar." (TOTL)
As I said before "You KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the bill printing clock was accurate?"
Also, "You know for certain that Aoifes statement which was out of line with Peters and Martins, is the only correct one?"
Of course you dont, unless ....... &%+((£ .......... [Nah, I dont think so]
You are just trying to adjust the actual facts to fit your theory. Disbelieve two witnesses in an attempt to make your theory work.
Sad really that you are so desperate 8(8-))
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on September 17, 2014, 06:36:04 PM
As I said before "You KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the bill printing clock was accurate?"
Also, "You know for certain that Aoifes statement which was out of line with Peters and Martins, is the only correct one?"
Of course you dont, unless ....... &%+((£ .......... [Nah, I dont think so]
You are just trying to adjust the actual facts to fit your theory. Disbelieve two witnesses in an attempt to make your theory work.
Sad really that you are so desperate 8(8-))
I'm not adjusting any facts. Aoife said they left at 10 so the sighting would be 10:02/03 and that connects to another time said. It's witness statements not mine!
"Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left." (AS)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 06:43:07 PM
"He (MS) 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 other male seen the night Maddy went missing."
But according to the Times article Mr. Smith has since changed his mind and no longer believes it was Gerry he saw. M. Smith has always been swift to threaten legal action against newspapers who misrepresent him.
For a newspaper to claim that he had changed his mind if that was not true, would hardly be 'small beer' -and I do not believe he would have ignored it if the opposite of what he believed had been printed.
However, the lack of a withdrawal or an apology from the Times strongly suggests that no complaint or request for a retraction was made by Martin Smith on that occasion - and IMO that can only be because the article was accurate and he no longer believes it was Gerry he saw on May 3rd.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on September 17, 2014, 06:52:38 PM
Don't talk nonsense. You can't see her nose/mouth which is below her closed eyes which could be seen.
The way Gerry is carrying Sean, you would only be able to see Sean's eyes (if visible) from the rear of Gerry. I don't see anything in the statements to say that any of the Smiths looked back - & in those circumstances they would also have seen what he was wearing on top. Does it not puzzle you that SY didn't release a complete efit showing Smithman complete with clothing, & carrying a child in the same position as described by the Smith family?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 17, 2014, 08:08:26 PM
The way Gerry is carrying Sean, you would only be able to see Sean's eyes (if visible) from the rear of Gerry. I don't see anything in the statements to say that any of the Smiths looked back - & in those circumstances they would also have seen what he was wearing on top. Does it not puzzle you that SY didn't release a complete efit showing Smithman complete with clothing, & carrying a child in the same position as described by the Smith family?
Your correct they would have to look back to see her eyes. It's up to the yard to question the family to see if anyone did.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on September 17, 2014, 08:13:05 PM
Aoife said 10pm so think what you like as it doesn't change her statement. Smithman foolishly gave the time away to completely rule him out of the sighting.
"On the same night, on the other side of Aldeia da Luz, the Smith family – four adults and five children – have just paid for their dinner at the Dolphins restaurant. The credit card receipt was clocked at 9.27 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007. The Smiths go out for a drink at Kelly’s bar." (TOTL)
Yep Aoife did say 10pm, but that goes against what the other two said.
Soooo, you believe one against two?
And it would not take 3 minutes to walk about 70 metres, even with the steps.
Really, PF, it does look as tho you are desperate to fit your theory, rather than the otherway around Let's be clear. I am not absolutely saying that your timings are wrong, but according to the evidence we have it seems very unlikely that you are right. It is all very woolley.
By the way, was it you that was saying that Smithman took Madeleine at 9pm and hid her somewhere half way? Why do you think that and where do you think he hid her.?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 08:37:04 PM
He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2014, 09:49:09 PM
He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing.
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
Notice anything familiar here? Just wondered ... because no-one seems to mention it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 17, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing.
The childs face in facing to the rear and his mouth and nose are clear of Gerry so that his face can be seen from behind only, or possibly his lower face seen from the side. I believe the child in the sightings we are discussing would not be facing this way if her eyes were seen by some witnesses also the arms are in a different position to what was described, so not exactly.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on September 17, 2014, 11:11:00 PM
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
Notice anything familiar here? Just wondered ... because no-one seems to mention it.
Is it the question mark, Brietta? Is that same phrase used by another witness exactly, including the question mark?
I am only guessing.. Too tired to check the other statements tonight.
Bet I am wrong.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on September 17, 2014, 11:14:41 PM
Yep Aoife did say 10pm, but that goes against what the other two said.
Soooo, you believe one against two?
And it would not take 3 minutes to walk about 70 metres, even with the steps.
Really, PF, it does look as tho you are desperate to fit your theory, rather than the otherway around Let's be clear. I am not absolutely saying that your timings are wrong, but according to the evidence we have it seems very unlikely that you are right. It is all very woolley.
By the way, was it you that was saying that Smithman took Madeleine at 9pm and hid her somewhere half way? Why do you think that and where do you think he hid her.?
They had young children (4 & 6) with them so they wouldn't be moving as quick as a group of adults and they were spaced out at a fair distance e.g. from Peter to Aoife. I would guess at a couple of minutes.
That's a job for the dogs to see if they can locate where it was. The wasteland obviously stands out.
Tapas 9 Timeline
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table.
4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that'' Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me. (MO)
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. As JT continued up the hill towards the junction with Rua A. da Silva, she sees a man carrying a child in his arms crossing left to right from the apartment side continuing east along Rua A. da Silva in the direction of the "Millennium Restaurant." He was on the same side of the road as JT 5-10 metres ahead of her.
2120: JT then returns to the restaurant, by which time GM had also returned. The entire party then begins eating their starters which have arrived.
Is it the question mark, Brietta? Is that same phrase used by another witness exactly, including the question mark?
I am only guessing.. Too tired to check the other statements tonight.
Bet I am wrong.
Well spotted, Sadie, I didn't notice the question mark. Just anothe little detail of typos scattered all over the amateur translations in the files from English -> to Portuguese -> then back to English. This one doesn't really matter too much ... but some that we know about change the meaning entirely.
I copied the statement from the files ... http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on September 18, 2014, 05:23:43 PM
Martin Smith
• He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a metre in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. • She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
Aofie Smith
• (2) 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. 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 light and could have been cotton. • She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see 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 but the trousers were light. • Questioned regarding her shoes, she responds that she did not remember seeing any but cannot remember if the child had any or not.
Peter Smith
• He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old. She appeared to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. It was a girl with a normal complexion. She had blond hair, of medium tone, without being very shiny. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not see her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
• He does not remember her clothing very well but believes it was light summer clothing light in colour. He does not remember if she was covered by any blanket or covering. He cannot say whether she was barefoot.
• Having now seen various photographs of MADELEINE and television images, he says that the child being carried by the individual might have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE. Indeed, this is the opinion shared by his family.
• When asked, he states that the individual did not say a word nor did the child as she was sleeping deeply. He adds that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his gaze. He did not notice anything strange.
Odd they didn't take a statement from the 13 year old lad! But make so much of Aofie's statement who didn't see the child's face. Both Martin and Peter say she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 23, 2014, 02:40:59 AM
What if SY do find that smithman was an innocent portuguese dad with his own daughter. It would instantly demolish all the smithman abductor theories and all the smithman occulter theories, and all carrying in arms through the streets theories, period.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 23, 2014, 02:44:24 AM
What if SY do find that smithman was an innocent portuguese dad with his own daughter. It would instantly demolish all the smithman abductor theories and all the smithman occulter theories, and all carrying in arms through the streets theories, period.
Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 23, 2014, 03:03:13 AM
What if SY do find that smithman was an innocent portuguese dad with his own daughter. It would instantly demolish all the smithman abductor theories and all the smithman occulter theories, and all carrying in arms through the streets theories, period.
Well they 'think' they have found Tannerman but even then they aren't positive so the outlook for anything positive coming from SY as far as Smithman is concerned is frankly not good. They have lost the momentum in PdL now which is a really bad sign that things aren't going too smoothly for them. The Portuguese are becoming weary of it all again so I fear nil progress from now on and another shelving.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 24, 2014, 08:26:28 PM
I prefer studying the actual moving methods used in prior (and later) cases.
Have you found any two moves of a dead body at different times to keep an alibi? Saw one on sky last week. Couldn't dispose the body until his flat mates got back and went to sleep. They gave him his alibi for being in the flat.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 08:46:05 PM
Well they 'think' they have found Tannerman but even then they aren't positive so the outlook for anything positive coming from SY as far as Smithman is concerned is frankly not good. They have lost the momentum in PdL now which is a really bad sign that things aren't going too smoothly for them. The Portuguese are becoming weary of it all again so I fear nil progress from now on and another shelving.
I think the way to progress the case is through joint working; I believe the Met would like to do just that but the Portuguese are resistant. I think the momentum was lost long ago and the continued chaos in the Portuguese legal system would seem to negate progress in the near future. If the Portuguese are trying to reinforce negativity regarding their policing they are certainly going the right way about it ... which is doing law enforcement in the country a disservice.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 24, 2014, 09:12:52 PM
I think the way to progress the case is through joint working; I believe the Met would like to do just that but the Portuguese are resistant. I think the momentum was lost long ago and the continued chaos in the Portuguese legal system would seem to negate progress in the near future. If the Portuguese are trying to reinforce negativity regarding their policing they are certainly going the right way about it ... which is doing law enforcement in the country a disservice.
I think there is a big divide in what the Portuguese believe compared to SY and that inevitably is causing a big problem. You can't have cooperation when both parties are on different pages, it simply won't work. The other difficulty is the differing legal systems and believing one size will fit all just won't cut it.
There is definitely something sinister in the Smith sighting and that is why Redwood has zeroed in on it in the way in which he has done. An innocent Smithman has failed to come forward even after all the publicity that has gone out and that in itself is indicative that something just isn't as it should be.
Strange though it is, Amaral too was convinced that Smithman was his man and spent time investigating derelict properties and gardens near to where the Smith family saw him that night.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 25, 2014, 07:04:14 PM
Just a couple of thoughts regarding the Smith family sighting of a man carrying a child on the night of the 3rd may 2007.
In Martin Smith’s first statement he definitely excluded Robert Murat as being the man he saw.
In his second statement he definitely identified Dr Gerry McCann as being the man he saw.
His description of the man he saw and the child is remarkably similar to Jane Tanner’s description of the man she witnessed carrying a child, down to the words used; in fact one would not have been surprised had Mr Smith had sight of Jane Tanner’s statement.
Richard McCluskey also gave a further statement to the Police when he thought that he recognised Dr Gerald McCann descending aeroplane steps carrying his son: remarkably the words in Martin Smith’s amended statement mirror almost exactly the words in Richard McCluskey's.
The dates when these four statements were made are interesting.
04th May 2007 Jane Tanner ~ 26th May 2007 Martin Smith
12th September Richard McCluskey ~ 20th September Martin Smith
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on September 25, 2014, 07:19:57 PM
Just a couple of thoughts regarding the Smith family sighting of a man carrying a child on the night of the 3rd may 2007.
In Martin Smith’s first statement he definitely excluded Robert Murat as being the man he saw.
In his second statement he definitely identified Dr Gerry McCann as being the man he saw.
His description of the man he saw and the child is remarkably similar to Jane Tanner’s description of the man she witnessed carrying a child, down to the words used; in fact one would not have been surprised had Mr Smith had sight of Jane Tanner’s statement.
Richard McCluskey also gave a further statement to the Police when he thought that he recognised Dr Gerald McCann descending aeroplane steps carrying his son: remarkably the words in Martin Smith’s amended statement mirror almost exactly the words in Richard McCluskey's.
The dates when these four statements were made are interesting.
04th May 2007 Jane Tanner ~ 26th May 2007 Martin Smith
12th September Richard McCluskey ~ 20th September Martin Smith
Are you wondering "phoney statements"? Cos I believe that I found a very phoney processos by Portimao PJ. In fact it had, IIRC, 5 inaccuracies ( and I am being polite calling them inaccuracies) in it .... and appeared to be directing the searchers eye away from what actually happened to Madeleine.
Unfortunately with my inability to post GE images, I dont think I will be able to explain it properly. I can email GEarth images to trusted peeps, but am unable to post them on forums sadly/.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 26, 2014, 06:19:15 PM
@Brietta, yes the words in the september statements of Smith and of McClusky are very similar, because they both had made the same (incorrect) identification based on the same TV news airport footage. The latter even claimed to recognise (despite the obvious clue that he had heard her speaking fluent portuguese with a ukranian accent) the woman he saw as KM, by facial recognition (cheekbone structure etc). IMO both witnesses were completely well-intentioned, but mistaken.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 26, 2014, 06:40:59 PM
@Brietta, yes the words in the september statements of Smith and of McClusky are very similar, because they both had made the same (incorrect) identification based on the same TV news airport footage. The latter even claimed to recognise (despite the obvious clue that he had heard her speaking fluent portuguese with a ukranian accent) the woman he saw as KM, by facial recognition (cheekbone structure etc). IMO both witnesses were completely well-intentioned, but mistaken.
It is the timing of the events that concerns me.
Why did Martin Smith wait so long before contacting the police to provide an alibi for Robert Murat?
Why did he wait so long before contacting the police to implicate Dr McCann with a report of exactly the same alleged 'sighting' as Mr McCluskey ... at a time when Mr McCluskey's sighting had been dismissed?
04th May 2007 Jane Tanner ~ 26th May 2007 Martin Smith
12th September Richard McCluskey ~ 20th September Martin Smith
The dates just do not bear scrutiny ... and 'inconsistency' is not the immediate word which springs into my mind.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 26, 2014, 07:04:51 PM
M.Smith contacted the police before May 26th.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 26, 2014, 07:18:19 PM
I don't have the page number here but IIRC the documents are in the files. He reported to the Garda in Ireland and it took some days to get the three of them over to Portimao for the May 26th interview
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 26, 2014, 08:08:25 PM
cant see it in the files, but a couple of other places say he reported it on the 16th
16 May 2007
Martin Smith reports his sighting to the Portuguese Police http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/martin-smith-timeline-from-3-may-2007.html
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 26, 2014, 09:14:39 PM
cant see it in the files, but a couple of other places say he reported it on the 16th
16 May 2007
Martin Smith reports his sighting to the Portuguese Police http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/martin-smith-timeline-from-3-may-2007.html
Still quite a delay when one considers that this was a case concerning a missing child - Jane Tanner's account was known on the 4th May ... I note from that particular blog that it is asserted that she had IDd Robert Murat, as we know that is untrue.
I think that my criticism of the delay in the first report and the ammended report still stand and that the first statement was made to alibi Robert Murat.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 26, 2014, 09:18:32 PM
cant see it in the files, but a couple of other places say he reported it on the 16th
16 May 2007
Martin Smith reports his sighting to the Portuguese Police http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/martin-smith-timeline-from-3-may-2007.html
Thanks Anna. BTW as the Smith sighting appears to be central to most abduction and non-abduction theories, it is a shame that Mr Amaral's plan to fly the these witnesses to Portugal again in the first week of Oct 2007 was not carried out.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on September 26, 2014, 09:22:09 PM
It's interesting that when Tony Bennett suggests there was something dubious about Martin Smith's sighting he was quite rightly ridiculed for such an idea but when certain supporters suggest the self same thing on this very forum the silence is deafening.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 26, 2014, 09:27:47 PM
Maybe TB is working undercover. That would explain why he thinks Smithman doesn't exist @)(++(* That is so funny! *&*%£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 26, 2014, 09:36:20 PM
Still quite a delay when one considers that this was a case concerning a missing child - Jane Tanner's account was known on the 4th May ... I note from that particular blog that it is asserted that she had IDd Robert Murat, as we know that is untrue.
I think that my criticism of the delay in the first report and the ammended report still stand and that the first statement was made to alibi Robert Murat.
There must have been a lot of police activity in the area that they were staying and it must have been the talk in all the diners and pubs, so I am very surprised that it took so long to remember seeing a child being carried on the 3rd and only reported on 16th
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 26, 2014, 09:41:11 PM
It's interesting that when Tony Bennett suggests there was something dubious about Martin Smith's sighting he was quite rightly ridiculed for such an idea but when certain supporters suggest the self same thing on this very forum the silence is deafening.
The irish witnesses are completely honest.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 26, 2014, 09:59:27 PM
There must have been a lot of police activity in the area that they were staying and it must have been the talk in all the diners and pubs, so I am very surprised that it took so long to remember seeing a child being carried on the 3rd and only reported on 16th
I am reading my way through the link you provided, Anna, I had not read it before and I find it very interesting indeed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 26, 2014, 10:23:22 PM
Of course they are Pegasus. Frankly only consiraloons would suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 27, 2014, 12:01:15 AM
Back on topic, before I blow a fuse. I dont believe that smithman is the one who carried Maddie, but I could be wrong considering the clothing and barefeet were reported to be similar to the JT sighting.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 27, 2014, 12:59:43 AM
Back on topic, before I blow a fuse. I dont believe that smithman is the one who carried Maddie, but I could be wrong considering the clothing and barefeet were reported to be similar to the JT sighting.
I am wondering if Smithman ever existed at all ...
Jane Tanner was called a liar for many years ... yet no-one except I now find out that dear old chap TB ever questioned the Smiths' sighting ... is that why he blotted his copy book as far as many people are concerned ??
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 27, 2014, 01:21:22 AM
I am wondering if Smithman ever existed at all ...
Jane Tanner was called a liar for many years ... yet no-one except I now find out that dear old chap TB ever questioned the Smiths' sighting ... is that why he blotted his copy book as far as many people are concerned ??
I see what you are saying, but I suppose the statements of 3 would overule the statement of 1 and therefore had to be taken more seriously. I believe JT saw someone other than the innocent crecheman and I dont think Smithman had anything to do with the case, but I very possibly could be wrong. It is a gut feeling I guess. The statements of some were very contradictory and the last statement was almost opposite to the first.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 27, 2014, 02:08:49 AM
Both sides are mostly addicted to the openly-carrying-in-arms theory. So much, that even if SY produced two innocentmen on TV with absolute proof that one is the innocent JTman and the other is the innocent smithman- it would make no difference.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 27, 2014, 10:33:51 AM
I see what you are saying, but I suppose the statements of 3 would overule the statement of 1 and therefore had to be taken more seriously. I believe JT saw someone other than the innocent crecheman and I dont think Smithman had anything to do with the case, but I very possibly could be wrong. It is a gut feeling I guess. The statements of some were very contradictory and the last statement was almost opposite to the first.
I agree that the statements of three would tend to carry more weight than the statement of one. That is until you give it a little more scrutiny.
I had a niggle about how it was possible for people who did not see a person for the various reasons stated were able to provide information for such detailed efits down to buttoned trousers.
Until pointed to it by a poster on this forum ... I hadn't gone beyond the first McCluskey statements to his very honest but mistaken identification of Dr McCann descending the plane steps ... then I really started thinking about it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 28, 2014, 10:49:20 PM
I agree that the statements of three would tend to carry more weight than the statement of one. That is until you give it a little more scrutiny.
I had a niggle about how it was possible for people who did not see a person for the various reasons stated were able to provide information for such detailed efits down to buttoned trousers.
Until pointed to it by a poster on this forum ... I hadn't gone beyond the first McCluskey statements to his very honest but mistaken identification of Dr McCann descending the plane steps ... then I really started thinking about it.
I have also done a lot of checking on this and must agree after x referencing the statements, that it doesn't add up. There is also a possibility that whoever was seen by the Smiths had thought ..it can't be me or could even remember if he saw them, considering the amount of time after the 3rd before it was made public.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 28, 2014, 11:00:35 PM
I agree that the statements of three would tend to carry more weight than the statement of one. That is until you give it a little more scrutiny.
I had a niggle about how it was possible for people who did not see a person for the various reasons stated were able to provide information for such detailed efits down to buttoned trousers.
Until pointed to it by a poster on this forum ... I hadn't gone beyond the first McCluskey statements to his very honest but mistaken identification of Dr McCann descending the plane steps ... then I really started thinking about it.
In her statement A.Smith said the trousers possibly had buttons. The 2 efits are a mystery. Do we know for definite exactly which private investigation company did these efits? Sometimes I wonder if the two efits were not by the Smiths but by some other witness who is not in the files. For example at least one newspaper report claimed the existence of another witness, a british female, who saw a man walking along and talking on his mobile phone while carrying a child
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 28, 2014, 11:08:02 PM
In her statement A.Smith said the trousers possibly had buttons. The 2 efits are a mystery. Do we know for definite exactly which private investigation company did these efits? Sometimes I wonder if the two efits were not by the Smiths but by some other witness who is not in the files. For example at least one newspaper report claimed the existence of another witness, a british female, who saw a man walking along and talking on his mobile phone while carrying a child
It was Halligen apparently, who persauded the smith family. Although AS saw buttons, MS, IIRC said the trousers were a classic style, so they wouldnt have buttons, I'd have thought. Buttons are normally on casual, holiday type trousers. I believe that other sighting according to press, was on the beach
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 28, 2014, 11:23:06 PM
It was Halligen apparently, who persauded the smith family. Although AS saw buttons, MS, IIRC said the trousers were a classic style, so they wouldnt have buttons, I'd have thought. Buttons are normally on casual, holiday type trousers. I believe that other sighting according to press, was on the beach
Thanks re Halligen. M.Smith and A.Smith both saw the same trousers. So combining their two descriptions, that means the trousers had the shape of a classic cut, and possibly had buttons. Re the sighting reported by a newspaper, IIRC the childcarrier talking on his mobile phone was walking "towards the wasteland" (meaning the wasteland south of Rua 25 Abril which SY extensively searched).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 28, 2014, 11:26:43 PM
Thanks re Halligen. M.Smith and A.Smith both saw the same trousers. So combining their two descriptions, that means the trousers had the shape of a classic cut, and possibly had buttons. Re the sighting reported by a newspaper, IIRC the childcarrier talking on his mobile phone was walking "towards the wasteland" (meaning the wasteland south of Rua 25 Abril which SY extensively searched).
I will have a look and see if I can find where that sighting came from.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 29, 2014, 12:00:23 AM
"... there is a British witness that saw one of the men carrying a child in his arms to the empty lot ... The woman saw him speaking English on the phone as he walked by with the child in his arms." CdM (paper edition) 6 June 2014
Maybe one of the SY e-fits is by this british woman, and the other is by one of the Smith group.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on September 29, 2014, 12:10:03 AM
"... there is a British witness that saw one of the men carrying a child in his arms to the empty lot ... The woman saw him speaking English on the phone as he walked by with the child in his arms." CdM (paper edition) 6 June 2014
Maybe one of the SY e-fits is by this british woman, and the other is by one of the Smith group.
May be Pegasus, but I think the 2 efits look alike, but at a different angle.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 29, 2014, 12:22:23 AM
Re Pereira statement, I think that was possibly up north between Lisboa and Sintra. Re the 2 efits, I think they look like 2 different men. Is it possible that one e-fit is by one of the Smith group (possibly by one of them other than the 3 who gave statements, for example maybe TS) and is of a non-english speaker (reportedly he made no reply to greeting). And that the other e-fit is by the british woman, of a completely different man, an english speaker.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on September 29, 2014, 12:29:02 AM
It has always concerned me that these e-fits were withheld from the public for all these years. Had it been my child who had disappeared I would have wanted them out there displayed on every lamppost at the first opportunity regardless of any police force.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 29, 2014, 10:35:50 AM
May be Pegasus, but I think the 2 efits look alike, but at a different angle.
I think they look like the same person but constructed from the description provided by two different individuals; maybe Sadie would have a more educated opinion as this is very much her field.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on September 29, 2014, 10:39:38 AM
It has always concerned me that these e-fits were withheld from the public for all these years. Had it been my child who had disappeared I would have wanted them out there displayed on every lamppost at the first opportunity regardless of any police force.
Which is exactly what they did with the other efits they had commissioned John. I wonder why not these ones ?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on September 29, 2014, 03:33:54 PM
The two efits are meant to be of the same man, therefore they both came from the Smith family. Probably the source for the darker skinned man is Peter Smith, as he saw a tanned man. The source for the lighter skinned one is probably Martin Smith, who came to think he might have seen Gerry.
Both men stated that the lighting was poor.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 29, 2014, 07:05:52 PM
At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres. (AS)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 30, 2014, 12:09:36 AM
The two efits are meant to be of the same man, therefore they both came from the Smith family. Probably the source for the darker skinned man is Peter Smith, as he saw a tanned man. The source for the lighter skinned one is probably Martin Smith, who came to think he might have seen Gerry.
Both men stated that the lighting was poor.
Yes, good point, witness PS says "slightly brown skin as a result of sun exposure".
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on September 30, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Witness MS says "He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side". This indicates that if MS did one of the efits, it is likely to be the efit with the thinner face.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on September 30, 2014, 11:26:17 AM
Witness MS says "He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side". This indicates that if MS did one of the efits, it is likely to be the efit with the thinner face.
On the basis of what Martin Smith has said in his first statement ... he would have been unable to provide a description to enable such a detailed ... and perhaps identifiable portrait to be constructed.
It should be remembered that in their earliest statements when it could be supposed memory might be clearest ... all three Smiths signed statements to the effect they could not describe the man's features ... nor would they be able to recognise him from photographs.
From that it seems apparent that the Smiths are not the source of detailed efits of a person they are on record as stating they would be unable to identify.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 01, 2014, 12:15:22 AM
1) THe LH mans face is a long, rather thin heart shaped face, the RH mans face appears to be rather "square" ... I think the second man had his face was inclined right down, and his chin tucked right into his neck fat (jowls). This caused his chin to visually vanish in the poor light and shadow from the upper face.
2. Because his face is inclined right down, certain parts of the face are foreshortened [fs] as well as the chin vanishing into his "jowls" (fatty neck)
Despite having only 3 statements, it is quite likely that everyone who saw Smithman had his/her own go at the Efit. The RH efit has loads of foreshortening and also appears very "woolley. Is it an amalgam of several efits? Has that caused the woolleyness ?
3. The LH man is slightly smiling, the RH man is not. Smiling increases the length of the mouth and thins the lips down. It also lifts the cheeks a little as in these photos.
I dont know, but I think the LH image was Aoifes image. I wonder if Aoife was a pretty 12 y.o. (going on 15 with make up) and he liked the look of her? Hence the direct look and the appreciative small smile? She would notice that and such is the natural reaction, would see an image that might be better looking than he really was?
4. Both men have small ears set flat against the head
5 However, the ears on the LH man appear to be stuck on in the wrong places, overlapping and cutting off a bit on each side oif the face, so making the LH face appear even slimmer.
6. Both men have a pronounced 10 o'clock shadow on their upper lips, but nowhere else.
7. The eyes and eyebrows have many similarities. Eye shapes are not dis-similar, and neither are the eyebrow shapes. Whilst one looks very groomed, the other looks a little unkept in comparison. They are both horizontal in alignment. Could the unkept look be because several efit images provided by several witnesses were superimposed and the minor variances caused the unkempt look?
With both images the brows widthwise, are are just covering the eyes and little more ... and lie in a horizontal plane There is a good gap between the brows on both and they are of similar o/all shape.
8. However, the vertical gap between the eyes and brows differs between the two images. Could that be because RH man was looking down and this feature was foreshortened?
9. Both have the unusual bulges over the eyes. However the LH man has larger and bright eyes, whilst the RH man has a duller older look and his eyes are set closer together. Seems that as the head was tilted forward AKA the RH image, the bulge almost slightly obscured the top of the eyes.
The eyes are similar is shape , but the bulge above the eyes tends to "squash" the eyes in the RH image
10. The noses are not disimilar but again the RH image seems to be foreshortened, giving what appears to be a shorter nose. Is the upper lip partially hidden by the nose and also foreshortened in the RH image?
11. The hairlines are not the same, but if the man in the second image had his head grossly tilted down then it would be difficult to assess the hairline.
I feel sure they are the same man.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 01, 2014, 12:17:53 AM
1) THe LH mans face is a long, rather thin heart shaped face, the RH mans face appears to be rather "square" ... I think the second man had his face was inclined right down, and his chin tucked right into his neck fat (jowls). This caused his chin to visually vanish in the poor light and shadow from the upper face.
2. Because his face is inclined right down, certain parts of the face are foreshortened [fs] as well as the chin vanishing into his "jowls" (fatty neck)
Despite having only 3 statements, it is quite likely that everyone who saw Smithman had his/her own go at the Efit. The RH efit has loads of foreshortening and also appears very "woolley. Is it an amalgam of several efits? Has that caused the woolleyness ?
3. The LH man is slightly smiling, the RH man is not. Smiling increases the length of the mouth and thins the lips down. It also lifts the cheeks a little as in these photos.
I dont know, but I think the LH image was Aoifes image. I wonder if Aoife was a pretty 12 y.o. (going on 15 with make up) and he liked the look of her? Hence the direct look and the appreciative small smile? She would notice that and such is the natural reaction, would see an image that might be better looking than he really was?
4. Both men have small ears set flat against the head
5 However, the ears on the LH man appear to be stuck on in the wrong places, overlapping and cutting off a bit on each side oif the face, so making the LH face appear even slimmer.
6. Both men have a pronounced 10 o'clock shadow on their upper lips, but nowhere else.
7. The eyes and eyebrows have many similarities. Eye shapes are not dis-similar, and neither are the eyebrow shapes. Whilst one looks very groomed, the other looks a little unkept in comparison. They are both horizontal in alignment. Could the unkept look be because several efit images provided by several witnesses were superimposed and the minor variances caused the unkempt look?
With both images the brows widthwise, are are just covering the eyes and little more ... and lie in a horizontal plane There is a good gap between the brows on both and they are of similar o/all shape.
8. However, the vertical gap between the eyes and brows differs between the two images. Could that be because RH man was looking down and this feature was foreshortened?
9. Both have the unusual bulges over the eyes. However the LH man has larger and bright eyes, whilst the RH man has a duller older look and his eyes are set closer together. Seems that as the head was tilted forward AKA the RH image, the bulge almost slightly obscured the top of the eyes.
The eyes are similar is shape , but the bulge above the eyes tends to "squash" the eyes in the RH image
10. The noses are not disimilar but again the RH image seems to be foreshortened, giving what appears to be a shorter nose. Is the upper lip partially hidden by the nose and also foreshortened in the RH image?
11. The hairlines are not the same, but if the man in the second image had his head grossly tilted down then it would be difficult to assess the hairline.
I feel sure they are the same man.
Because of the face tilt and the chin not being properly visible in the folds of neck fats, I decided to print the images off as large as I could and then in pencil, on the RH image, put marks guaging where the chin would have been . I then pencilled in a jaw outline to match the outline of the jaw in the LH image and cut along the line. It took about 5% off the length of the image doing this and meant that they were no longer to the same scale, so really I should have altered the sizing of each against the other, but I didn't have the technical nous.
The cheeks suddenly became alike, as well. when the new chin was given to the RH image
What truly amazed me was the way that the RH male image, forgetting the ten oclock shadow and with a smaller chin, lost its masculinity and became quite woman like ! But it still had so many features that tied it to the LH image.
There were differences, but with so many likenesses, I would be gobsmacked if these two images were of different people, unless they were brothers.
I find it incredible that such matching images could have been produced by at least two, and probably several people. Well done The Smiths and well done who ever produced them!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 01, 2014, 12:34:22 AM
Because of the face tilt and the chin not being properly visible in the folds of neck fats, I decided to print the images off as large as I could and then in pencil, on the RH image, put marks guaging where the chin would have been . I then pencilled in a jaw outline to match the outline of the jaw in the LH image. It took about 5% off the length of the image doing this and meant that they were no longer to the same scale, so really I should have altered the sizing of each against tyhe otherr, but I didn't have the technical nous.
The cheeks suddenly became alike, as well. when the new chin was given to the RH image
What truly amazed me was the way that the RH male image, forgetting the ten oclock shadow and with a smaller chin, lost its masculinity and became quite woman like ! But it still had so many features that tied it to the LH image.
There were differences , but with so many likenesses, I would be gobsmacked if these two images were of different people, unless they were brothers.
I find it incredible that such matching images could have been produced by at least two, and probably several people. Well done The Smiths and well done who ever produced them!
And very well done you, Sadie . What a lot of work you have done to get it right,,,As usual 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 01, 2014, 01:15:31 AM
Thanks re Halligen. M.Smith and A.Smith both saw the same trousers. So combining their two descriptions, that means the trousers had the shape of a classic cut, and possibly had buttons. Re the sighting reported by a newspaper, IIRC the childcarrier talking on his mobile phone was walking "towards the wasteland" (meaning the wasteland south of Rua 25 Abril which SY extensively searched).
I have searched every sighting and there is only one using a mobile phone and that is the one too far away.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2014, 03:29:07 AM
1) THe LH mans face is a long, rather thin heart shaped face, the RH mans face appears to be rather "square" ... I think the second man had his face was inclined right down, and his chin tucked right into his neck fat (jowls). This caused his chin to visually vanish in the poor light and shadow from the upper face.
2. Because his face is inclined right down, certain parts of the face are foreshortened [fs] as well as the chin vanishing into his "jowls" (fatty neck)
Despite having only 3 statements, it is quite likely that everyone who saw Smithman had his/her own go at the Efit. The RH efit has loads of foreshortening and also appears very "woolley. Is it an amalgam of several efits? Has that caused the woolleyness ?
3. The LH man is slightly smiling, the RH man is not. Smiling increases the length of the mouth and thins the lips down. It also lifts the cheeks a little as in these photos.
I dont know, but I think the LH image was Aoifes image. I wonder if Aoife was a pretty 12 y.o. (going on 15 with make up) and he liked the look of her? Hence the direct look and the appreciative small smile? She would notice that and such is the natural reaction, would see an image that might be better looking than he really was?
4. Both men have small ears set flat against the head
5 However, the ears on the LH man appear to be stuck on in the wrong places, overlapping and cutting off a bit on each side oif the face, so making the LH face appear even slimmer.
6. Both men have a pronounced 10 o'clock shadow on their upper lips, but nowhere else.
7. The eyes and eyebrows have many similarities. Eye shapes are not dis-similar, and neither are the eyebrow shapes. Whilst one looks very groomed, the other looks a little unkept in comparison. They are both horizontal in alignment. Could the unkept look be because several efit images provided by several witnesses were superimposed and the minor variances caused the unkempt look?
With both images the brows widthwise, are are just covering the eyes and little more ... and lie in a horizontal plane There is a good gap between the brows on both and they are of similar o/all shape.
8. However, the vertical gap between the eyes and brows differs between the two images. Could that be because RH man was looking down and this feature was foreshortened?
9. Both have the unusual bulges over the eyes. However the LH man has larger and bright eyes, whilst the RH man has a duller older look and his eyes are set closer together. Seems that as the head was tilted forward AKA the RH image, the bulge almost slightly obscured the top of the eyes.
The eyes are similar is shape , but the bulge above the eyes tends to "squash" the eyes in the RH image
10. The noses are not disimilar but again the RH image seems to be foreshortened, giving what appears to be a shorter nose. Is the upper lip partially hidden by the nose and also foreshortened in the RH image?
11. The hairlines are not the same, but if the man in the second image had his head grossly tilted down then it would be difficult to assess the hairline.
I feel sure they are the same man.
Thanks for your conclusions in this and the following post; you have explained your reasoning very concisely.
I thought the depictions might have been of the same person but you have confirmed it … the eyes (7) have it! and I hadn’t even noticed the five o’clock shadow only on the upper lip.
Thank you for going to so much trouble, Sadie … hope you are getting on with your clear-out, you have my sympathies because I am a terrible hoarder too but like you I am getting rid bit by bit.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 01, 2014, 08:50:53 PM
Well done, Sadie. And very well explained.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2014, 12:54:37 AM
The eyes of man on left are much larger and protruding than the eyes of man on right. The nose of man on left is larger and longer than nose of man on right.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 02, 2014, 06:43:26 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dm141013a.jpg The eyes of man on left are much larger and protruding than the eyes of man on right. The nose of man on left is larger and longer than nose of man on right.
Sorry to disagree Pegasus, but I believe it is the same man, but possible done by two witnesses, seperately. I have always thought it was the same man in the e-fits
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 08:01:35 PM
Sorry to disagree Pegasus, but I believe it is the same man, but possible done by two witnesses, seperately. I have always thought it was the same man in the e-fits
If the two efits were from two different sightings in two different locations and at two different times, would you still think the two efits are of the same man?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 02, 2014, 08:15:58 PM
If the two efits were from two different sightings in two different locations and at two different times, would you still think the two efits are of the same man?
I probably would. but not entirely sure that it would register as fast. I do believe that Several efits from other witnesses are the same man although they look a bit different. Tasmin's efit and description and the fact that he had a pen on a string hanging from his pocket and also shaving spots, puts me in mind of at least one of the charity collectors. PJ identified him and his details were withheld. They might have the wrong man. Sorry I have gone off topic
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 08:54:08 PM
I probably would. but not entirely sure that it would register as fast. I do believe that Several efits from other witnesses are the same man although they look a bit different. Tasmin's efit and description and the fact that he had a pen on a string hanging from his pocket and also shaving spots, puts me in mind of at least one of the charity collectors. PJ identified him and his details were withheld. They might have the wrong man. Sorry I have gone off topic
The man seen by TS had fair hair. Back to the pair of SY efits: If one works from the assumption that the pair of efits released by SY are by two members of the Smith group, that would automatically mean both efits must be of the same man, and so one would have to look for similarities between the 2 efits (where IMO apart from hair length there are no similarities),
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 02, 2014, 08:57:57 PM
The man seen by TS had fair hair. If one works from the assumption that the pair of efits released by SY are by two members of the Smith group, that would automatically mean both efits must be of the same man, and so one would have to look for similarities between the 2 efits (where IMO apart from hair length there are no similarities),
TS was unsure of the colour, because of sunlight glare IIRC
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 09:02:10 PM
TS was unsure of the colour, because of sunlight glare IIRC
Unsure only to the extent of unsure whether fair or blonde. Which (unless we add an instant hair-dying lady to the formula) would mean he can't be smithman.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 09:09:20 PM
Re the pair of efits. One efit has a big face with small features. The other efit has a thin face with big pronounced features. Couldn't look more different JIMO.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 02, 2014, 09:23:17 PM
Unsure only to the extent of unsure whether fair or blonde. Which (unless we add an instant hair-dying lady to the formula) would mean he can't be smithman.
I did not say that he was like smithman.
There is a collector described similar but with grey sides to his hair (Fair?) his ID photo showed him with a Goatie beard (shaved?)
Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m. Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS
Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn’t Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn’t sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn’t see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn’t see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even ‘disgusting’.
The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.
Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe ‘Nike’ in a colour that she can’t remember.
The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn’t notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.
She never saw him with any photo camera, or any mobile phone, although the second time, he might have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.
When asked, she says that she saw no vehicle near the man, only a few vehicles, but near the ‘Baptista’.
When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.
A map of the area is added, where A is the spot of the first sighting and B the spot for the second one. The ‘Baptista’ supermarket and Madeleine’s apartment.
She said that she can recognise the man both personally and photographically, and create a photofit.
Therefore I interrupt the present deposition and show the deponent photographs of individuals with similar characteristics.
I resume the deposition where it is consigned that the diligence resulted negatively, according to a report that is annexed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2014, 09:52:41 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dm141013a.jpg The eyes of man on left are much larger and protruding than the eyes of man on right. The nose of man on left is larger and longer than nose of man on right.
Yep, but the man in the RH image has his head held right down with his chin in his chest. THe whole image is foreshortened and I think the image is composed of several images overelapped, all from several members of the Smith family. There were several adults and near adults who altho they never gave a statement, saw this man .... and it is quite probable that they all had a go at the image. Hence its woolleyness, caused by the overlapping of these images.
I agree the nose on the left is a good deal longer than the nose on the right. That is partially because of foreshortening but mainly, it seems an anomoly. The images have much that makes them very similar but there undoubtedly are some anomolies. But that would be expected, I think.
Sit even 6 experienced artists down with a model and one gets 6 different images, but if the artists are good, each image will look like the model ... there will be differences tho.
I know that I could be wrong Pegasus, but I do have a very good erye for portraiture and figure drawing. Was about to have a studio built in the garden to do portraits etc to sell commercially when the Madeleine case broke. Instead I decided to spend my time trying to work out what happened to Madeleine. I never had my studio 8(8-)).
The eyes on the left appear more protuding. You are quite right. The bulge on the top of the eye gives that away, but the man on the right also has eyes that are somewhat protuding, the bulge is still there but seen more from above, so it cuts a little of the eye off and is less obvious.
But there are other things about the eyes and brows that connect them.
I agree about the image on the left having bolder, more definite ,larger features ... but you cant get away from the striking likenesses of the two images. Did you try cutting the botton of the RH image off to match the chin shape and size of the LH image?
If you did, you will see that once all the neck folds are gone, the images are drawn to a different scale, which will account a little for the proprtions between the two images being different.
If you read my assessment you will see why I think there is additionally such a difference. I think a bit of fancying the other happened between Smithman and Aoife and because of this, she saw a better image of Smithman than did the others. The light was much better where she was too, A giant lamp overhead at the road crossing, apart from normal street lights would illuminate Smithman better
That is an assumption that might not be correct. Maybe there was no fancying going on, but good lighting would certainly make a big difference.
Pegasus, I ask you to consider what I am saying about the RH face being foreshortened and Smithman lowering his face as much as he could. Personally, I think this is an indicator that he was up to no good, trying to hide his face and probably carrying Madeleine.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 10:13:57 PM
@Sadie Yes I did sharpen the one face with some scissors and he still looks absolutely nothing like the other one from any angle. Therefore it is likely one efit is of smithman and the other efit is of a different man, probably englishphonecallman.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2014, 10:37:37 PM
@Sadie Yes I did sharpen the one face with some scissors and he still looks absolutely nothing like the other one from any angle. Therefore it is likely one efit is of smithman and the other efit is of a different man, probably englishphonecallman.
It wasn't just "sharpening it, but also making the chgin the same length.
TBH, I am really surprised that you cant see so many likenesses, even to the ten oclock shadow only on the upper lip and to the quirky little lift at the corner of the mouth... on both of them
Too many things are alike imo for the two images to be of different men ..... brothers excepted maybe.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 02, 2014, 10:53:16 PM
It wasn't just "sharpening it, but also making the chgin the same length.
TBH, I am really surprised that you cant see so many likenesses, even to the ten oclock shadow only on the upper lip and to the quirky little lift at the corner of the mouth... on both of them
Too many things are alike imo for the two images to be of different men ..... brothers excepted maybe.
Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2014, 11:49:45 PM
Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.
I understand what you are saying, but it is not impossible that Smithman had stopped off somewhere [especially if JT's sighting is still on ther books 40 minutes earlier] and put another layer on a cold Madeleine..... and maybe drugged her some more.
Only suggestions.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 03, 2014, 09:37:38 PM
Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.
Apart from a press report, there is no details of this sighting anywhere, unless, of course it is one of the missing pages or it was binned.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 04, 2014, 12:53:47 AM
Apart from a press report, there is no details of this sighting anywhere, unless, of course it is one of the missing pages or it was binned.
IMO it was not probably not known to the original investigation, but was discovered by a PI company.
The pair of efits are so different IMO they are two different men. So one efit is by someone in Smith party and other efit is by a witness of a seperate sighting in same quarter of town but a bit later than smith sighting. The only candidate IMO is the chattingonphoneman sighting. Both efits were done by a PI company, therefore it was that PI company which discovered the witness who saw chattingonphoneman, SY eventually getting the info from them. JIMO
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 04, 2014, 01:06:25 AM
IMO it was not probably not known to the original investigation, but was discovered by a PI company.
The pair of efits are so different IMO they are two different men. So one efit is by someone in Smith party and other efit is by a witness of a seperate sighting in same quarter of town but a bit later than smith sighting. The only candidate IMO is the chattingonphoneman sighting. Both efits were done by a PI company, therefore it was that PI company which discovered the witness who saw chattingonphoneman, SY eventually getting the info from them. JIMO
I still believe it is the same man and the identikit was done by two of the smith family... only one saw his face properly though, he looked down when two approached him, and another only seen him from the back, so that leaves Mum Dad and daughter= Dad and daughter
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 04, 2014, 03:06:31 AM
Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them. IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy. (If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2014, 12:08:58 PM
Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them. IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy. (If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).
Perhaps one completed using software on a portable device ... the other as a result of a 'clean up' using more sophisticated imagary based on the same information back at base??
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 04, 2014, 12:24:27 PM
Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them. IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy. (If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).
There were several adults or older kids that saw this man. Just cos only three, Martin, Peter and Aoife gave statements, doesn't mean that several others didn't contribute to the images. I think that the LH image is by Aoife and the RH image an overlay of several images ....hence its woolleyness.
... and possibly its graininess?
There is no chin on the RH image; the face just vanishes into the neck. Probably because he had his head down as far as possible, with his chin in his neck + poor lighting.
The LH image however was constructed by someone in good light. Where Aoife stood was very well lit with a powerful tall streetlight to illuminate this main crossing across R 25 Abril. I think that the LH image was Aoifes .... or someone with her.
I think he was a good looking youngish bloke, who took a liking to the looks of Aoife, hence the slight smile stretching his mouth and bright eyes.
THe very fact tht the RH image shows that Smithman had his head really low, indicates to me that he did not want anyone seeing his face .. and that he was up to no good . I think that Smithman was carrying a living but drugged Madeleine ... and I think he was the abductor
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 04, 2014, 09:49:33 PM
The difference in graininess of the two efits indicates IMO they were done by two different efit experts, using different drawingmaterials/software.
If both efits are by smith group it's likely they would have been done both by the same efit expert/materials/software. Therefore IMO one of the efits is not by the smith group.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 04, 2014, 11:31:16 PM
The difference in graininess of the two efits indicates IMO they were done by two different efit experts, using different drawingmaterials/software.
If both efits are by smith group it's likely they would have been done both by the same efit expert/materials/software. Therefore IMO one of the efits is not by the smith group.
Evening all. I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to. How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group? But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 04, 2014, 11:52:42 PM
Evening all. I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to. How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group? But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?
Prhaps one was done in portugal, or by PIs and the others were done by police in Ireland. They haven't been done by the same identikit programme.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 04, 2014, 11:54:35 PM
Evening all. I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to. How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group? But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?
In crimewatch he clearly associates the pair of efits with the sighting by the irish group. So one of the efits at least must be by someone in irish group. The other efit IMO could be by another witness who saw a man carrying a girl in the same area of town. Does Mr R ever specifically say "both these efits are by members of the irish group" ?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 04, 2014, 11:58:55 PM
In crimewatch he clearly associates the pair of efits with the sighting by the irish group. So one of the efits at least must be by someone in irish group. The other efit IMO could be by another witness who saw a man carrying a girl in the same area of town. Does Mr R ever specifically say "both these efits are by members of the irish group" ?
I cant be sure without watching it again but wasn't there another sighting of a guy on the beach that night too?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 05, 2014, 12:04:06 AM
I cant be sure without watching it again but wasn't there another sighting of a guy on the beach that night too?
I believe it was a press article, rather than in the files. I spent a lot of time going through the sightings and I dont recall one in there, but I will check, when time allows.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 05, 2014, 12:28:31 AM
Redwood should explain these things when he introduces new e-fits rather than leaving everyone to second guess him all the time. That said though, I still believe Tanner saw something she wasn't intended to see that night and that is a big problem for some.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 05, 2014, 12:37:06 AM
Redwood should explain these things when he introduces new e-fits rather than leaving everyone to second guess him all the time. That said though, I still believe Tanner saw something she wasn't intended to see that night and that is a big problem for some.
I believe also that JT saw more than most realise. I think the news of the sighting early on, was the man that the smiths saw, going towards the beach.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: a.baker on October 05, 2014, 12:44:22 AM
Could you expand on your last paragraph John. What or who do you think Tanner might have seen? And who is it a problem for? Sounds interesting
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 05, 2014, 01:25:14 AM
1) THe LH mans face is a long, rather thin heart shaped face, the RH mans face appears to be rather "square" ... I think the second man had his face was inclined right down, and his chin tucked right into his neck fat (jowls). This caused his chin to visually vanish in the poor light and shadow from the upper face.
2. Because his face is inclined right down, certain parts of the face are foreshortened [fs] as well as the chin vanishing into his "jowls" (fatty neck)
Despite having only 3 statements, it is quite likely that everyone who saw Smithman had his/her own go at the Efit. The RH efit has loads of foreshortening and also appears very "woolley. Is it an amalgam of several efits? Has that caused the woolleyness ?
3. The LH man is slightly smiling, the RH man is not. Smiling increases the length of the mouth and thins the lips down. It also lifts the cheeks a little as in these photos.
I dont know, but I think the LH image was Aoifes image. I wonder if Aoife was a pretty 12 y.o. (going on 15 with make up) and he liked the look of her? Hence the direct look and the appreciative small smile? She would notice that and such is the natural reaction, would see an image that might be better looking than he really was?
4. Both men have small ears set flat against the head
5 However, the ears on the LH man appear to be stuck on in the wrong places, overlapping and cutting off a bit on each side oif the face, so making the LH face appear even slimmer.
6. Both men have a pronounced 10 o'clock shadow on their upper lips, but nowhere else.
7. The eyes and eyebrows have many similarities. Eye shapes are not dis-similar, and neither are the eyebrow shapes. Whilst one looks very groomed, the other looks a little unkept in comparison. They are both horizontal in alignment. Could the unkept look be because several efit images provided by several witnesses were superimposed and the minor variances caused the unkempt look?
With both images the brows widthwise, are are just covering the eyes and little more ... and lie in a horizontal plane There is a good gap between the brows on both and they are of similar o/all shape.
8. However, the vertical gap between the eyes and brows differs between the two images. Could that be because RH man was looking down and this feature was foreshortened?
9. Both have the unusual bulges over the eyes. However the LH man has larger and bright eyes, whilst the RH man has a duller older look and his eyes are set closer together. Seems that as the head was tilted forward AKA the RH image, the bulge almost slightly obscured the top of the eyes.
The eyes are similar is shape , but the bulge above the eyes tends to "squash" the eyes in the RH image
10. The noses are not disimilar but again the RH image seems to be foreshortened, giving what appears to be a shorter nose. Is the upper lip partially hidden by the nose and also foreshortened in the RH image?
11. The hairlines are not the same, but if the man in the second image had his head grossly tilted down then it would be difficult to assess the hairline.
I feel sure they are the same man.
See what you think of the attached photo, Sadie, it is seven years down the line but he seems to have the five o'clock shadow on the upper lip. Also there was a phone call to him from reception which he didn't answer ... which is fair enough because it was in the wee small hours .
>> snipped << . On the day of the disappearance of the child, that next morning (04/05/07) at around 01H23, he received a telephone call from the LOC reservations sector which he did not answer. He knows this because the number appeared on his mobile; . When the telephone rang, he was sleeping and when looked at the ?display? of the mobile it looked as though what was recorded as the name 'Relvas', instead of 'Reservations', and thought it was a friend of his who often call shim at odd hours, already inebriated; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIAGO-SILVA.htm
>>snipped<< Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case
The Sunday Express tracked down the maintenance worker who allegedly lost the keys, 29-year-old Tiago da Silva, who lives a few miles from Luz in Lagos, a pretty coastal town.
When we put it to him that keys were lost, he paused momentarily before saying: “That is not the case. I can’t remember any keys going missing. The keys in maintenance were kept in a safe and nobody could get to them.”
However, his former colleague insisted: “I know what he told me at the time. The keys for all the blocks were kept on a cable and clearly marked.
“He said he had lost the keys to block five. He told me in the same week when the little girl went missing. I am sure of this.
“From my memory I think they were replaced with duplicate keys for the apartments which were held at reception. I remember all this very clearly. He did not want us to tell people about it, so we didn’t say anything.” http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 06, 2014, 03:28:13 PM
One efit has grainy low-res graphics and the other efit has smooth hi-res graphics. My opinion is that two different softwares and operators were used for the two efits. So the two efits were likely drawn in different places on different days. Which means it's likely that only one efit is by the irish group.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 06, 2014, 03:50:43 PM
One efit has grainy low-res graphics and the other efit has smooth hi-res graphics. My opinion is that two different softwares and operators were used for the two efits. So the two efits were likely drawn in different places on different days. Which means it's likely that only one efit is by the irish group.
I’m very unsure about the Smith family sighting and I am certainly at a loss to see how they could give such an accurate description of a man they saw fleetingly in the dark. I can think of at least four well known faces connected to the case and I’m sure we could come up with others if we tried.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 06, 2014, 04:10:34 PM
I’m very unsure about the Smith family sighting and I am certainly at a loss to see how they could give such an accurate description of a man they saw fleetingly in the dark. I don’t know if admin will allow the attachment to stand … but I think the efit may be a generic representation which resembles a number of people … I can think of at least four well known faces connected to the case and I’m sure we could come up with others if we tried.
I've never been able to think past Jurgen Klinsmann as no.1. No.3 - I think he looks Portuguese & his build looks larger than the Smiths' description. Didn't Redwood say that there were a few/several people who had phoned in after Crimewatch & provided the same name? It's odd that he still hasn't been identified/eliminated.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 06, 2014, 04:38:30 PM
I've never been able to think past Jurgen Klinsmann as no.1. No.3 - I think he looks Portuguese & his build looks larger than the Smiths' description. Didn't Redwood say that there were a few/several people who had phoned in after Crimewatch & provided the same name? It's odd that he still hasn't been identified/eliminated.
I think some people may have phoned in re. two Scots paedophiles, Charles O'Neill and William Lauchlan, who are currently serving out a jail sentence for murder. I know the police would like to question them but I think they (or one of them) have refused.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 06, 2014, 09:21:36 PM
Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.
Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.
The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that fromour 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, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.
Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.
The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that fromour 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, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.
Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.
The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that fromour 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.”
If the sighting was deemed so unimportant in May 2007, why were the Smiths asked to return to Portugal to make their statements? As far as I'm aware, none of the other witnesses who returned to the UK were asked to return - they all dealt with the UK police
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 06, 2014, 10:47:53 PM
Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.
Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.
The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that fromour 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.”
Interesting ... particularly the date ... Oct 16, 2013 07:59
If this article is accurate ... it gets even more curious … and begs the question why there was such a furore over the Drs McCann and the release of these efits.
If the Smiths returned to Portugal to assist the PJ with efits which were not released … why was that anything to do with the Drs McCann.
Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on October 06, 2014, 11:07:37 PM
Interesting ... particularly the date ... Oct 16, 2013 07:59
If this article is accurate ... it gets even more curious … and begs the question why there was such a furore over the Drs McCann and the release of these efits.
If the Smiths returned to Portugal to assist the PJ with efits which were not released … why was that anything to do with the Drs McCann.
Am I missing something here?
I think you're misreading things Brietta. Mr Smith doesn't say he assisted the PJ. The article merely says he helped in the compiling of the efits a year later.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 06, 2014, 11:08:19 PM
Interesting ... particularly the date ... Oct 16, 2013 07:59
If this article is accurate ... it gets even more curious … and begs the question why there was such a furore over the Drs McCann and the release of these efits.
If the Smiths returned to Portugal to assist the PJ with efits which were not released … why was that anything to do with the Drs McCann.
Am I missing something here?
Only that the article leaves the reader to work out the e-fits were compiled in May or later 2008 and it does not say by whom they were commissioned. It would be interesting to know.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 06, 2014, 11:41:59 PM
Only that the article leaves the reader to work out the e-fits were compiled in May or later 2008 and it does not say by whom they were commissioned. It would be interesting to know.
There definitely is a muddying of the waters as far as these efits are concerned; the grounds for the settlement of the claim were never clarified; maybe one day all will be revealed. I, for one, am taking Halligan's word for nothing.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 06, 2014, 11:53:49 PM
There definitely is a muddying of the waters as far as these efits are concerned; the grounds for the settlement of the claim were never clarified; maybe one day all will be revealed. I, for one, am taking Halligan's word for nothing.
Well the dear old Romans had a nice expression cui bono. So who did bono (not the geezer in U2 you understand)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on October 06, 2014, 11:59:25 PM
One thing we do know, it certainly won't have been Madeleine !
As I recall there is rather interesting bit in Summer's and Swann's book about the hiring of Oakley. Here I paraphrase of course, mainly to head of the professional nitpickers at the pass, but fundamentally they [Oakley] are alleged to have said "well we employ all these ex spies and Feds but can't tell you what we really do cos it's all so secret and national security may be jeopardised if we tell you". My view is one doesn't need to have been around the block too many times to see what is coming around the corner at you there.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 07, 2014, 11:08:46 AM
I’m very unsure about the Smith family sighting and I am certainly at a loss to see how they could give such an accurate description of a man they saw fleetingly in the dark. I don’t know if admin will allow the attachment to stand … but I think the efit may be a generic representation which resembles a number of people … I can think of at least four well known faces connected to the case and I’m sure we could come up with others if we tried.
I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.
What I do believe is this.
Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse. Gerry does not need identification.
I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.
The second e-fit mystifies me slightly. I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not seen confirmation of that, though ...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 07, 2014, 11:31:55 AM
I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.
What I do believe is this.
Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse. Gerry does not need identification.
I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.
The second e-fit mystifies me slightly. I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not seen confirmation of that, though ...
Logic tells me you are correct regarding SY and I think Sadie concurs with you on Aoife.
Maybe I have been reading too many conspiracy theories and it is rubbing off.
This time last year my teething pack on Madeleine’s case included the “dogs don’t lie” mantra and the Smith sighting.
I have always wondered at the convenience for one and the inconvenience for another of that … and the similarities of Tanner and Smith.
It is only very recently that I reread the McKluskey mistaken identifications that I became aware of the same coincidence of similarity ... Tanner predated Smith … McCluskey predated Smith.
The efits may be a true representation, I don’t know but they do have a story to tell I am sure, just as I think SY know exactly what they are doing.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on October 07, 2014, 11:54:05 AM
I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.
What I do believe is this.
Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse. Gerry does not need identification.
I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.
The second e-fit mystifies me slightly. I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not seen confirmation of that, though ...
Firstly ferryman Martin Smith made his identification of Gerry after Gerry was made an arguido and not after the archiving of the case.
Secondly if, as we were told in the part of the Times article that wasn't disputed by the McCanns, that Exton had produced a report that was unfavourable to the tapas group perhaps it was on that basis that Martin Smith provided the efit.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 07, 2014, 12:44:35 PM
Interesting ... particularly the date ... Oct 16, 2013 07:59
If this article is accurate ... it gets even more curious … and begs the question why there was such a furore over the Drs McCann and the release of these efits.
If the Smiths returned to Portugal to assist the PJ with efits which were not released … why was that anything to do with the Drs McCann.
Am I missing something here?
I think it might have been slightly longer than a year later, some point after August 2008, when the investigation was shelved.
That would explain perfectly why the efits were not immediately released.
You simply cannot release an efit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted other than in the context of a live, on-going enquiry.
And yes, we know about all the other releases of sightings, but none of someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted ...
ETA: a further point worth noting is that police (British and Portuguese) were of exactly the same view.
At least at the time, the e-fits were not considered sufficiently significant to warrant continuation of the investigation, and neither the Portuguese nor British police released them.
Even if they were in a position to (which isn't clear to me) why should the McCanns have gainsaid the police?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 07, 2014, 12:52:13 PM
This is the thing. The McCanns were hardly hiding these E-Fits on purpose, or for their own protection.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 07, 2014, 12:56:06 PM
Firstly ferryman Martin Smith made his identification of Gerry after Gerry was made an arguido and not after the archiving of the case.
Secondly if, as we were told in the part of the Times article that wasn't disputed by the McCanns, that Exton had produced a report that was unfavourable to the tapas group perhaps it was on that basis that Martin Smith provided the efit.
Identification, yes, but not the e-fit.
And Elenor makes a vital point.
Kate devotes copious space in her book to discussion of the Smith e-fit.
She tended to the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but that was Kate's opinion.
Exton's report is neither here nor there ...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: lordpookles on October 07, 2014, 01:02:31 PM
That is strange indeed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 07, 2014, 01:23:09 PM
Clearly, Jane Tanner is sure she saw Innocent Man, or she would have said something by now, wouldn't she.
But then, Kate knows better than Jane, what Jane saw, doesn't she.
She knew the child Jane had seen had bare arms, even though Jane never mentioned seeing the childs arms.....
McCanns on Oprah (4th May 2009)
Gerry : "Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo.. she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.."
SC are also looking for Smithman, but if you know who he is, It is your duty to report it to them, not us.
You know who it was, that's why you're here.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 10, 2014, 02:55:10 PM
Irishman was already discarded - 24Horas 7 July 2008
When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don’t give him credibility
The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.
During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as “Smith” said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.
“He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory”, a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24Horas.
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analyzing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/irishman-was-already-discarded-24horas.html
My reading is that apart from Martin Smith's statement identifying Madeleine's father as the carrier the PJ had nothing which would bear the scrutiny of a court.
Nothing from the forensics; Nothing from the dogs; No 'confession'.
Interestingly, the PJ did not appear to find Mr Smith a credible witness. So basically they had nothing to go on or another line of investigation to follow since all the eggs had been put in one basket and the one theory pursued.
IMO this makes the proposed reconstruction nothing more than a trawling exercise but when it did not take place, a convenient face saving excuse to close the case for which they had no evidence to prosecute.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 10, 2014, 03:07:55 PM
Irishman was already discarded - 24Horas 7 July 2008
When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don’t give him credibility
The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.
During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as “Smith” said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.
“He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory”, a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24Horas.
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analyzing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/irishman-was-already-discarded-24horas.html
My reading is that apart from Martin Smith's statement identifying Madeleine's father as the carrier the PJ had nothing which would bear the scrutiny of a court.
Nothing from the forensics; Nothing from the dogs; No 'confession'.
Interestingly, the PJ did not appear to find Mr Smith a credible witness. So basically they had nothing to go on or another line of investigation to follow since all the eggs had been put in one basket and the one theory pursued.
IMO this makes the proposed reconstruction nothing more than a trawling exercise but when it did not take place, a convenient face saving excuse to close the case for which they had no evidence to prosecute.
Fascinating.
Add this to the equation:
Martin Smith said in his statement to the Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but refused.
It surely makes perfect sense that while he believed the man he saw was Gerry, he would refuse. Gerry, after all, does not need identification.
Surely the only reason Mr Smith changed his mind is because he was persuaded by release of the files in early August 2008 that he was (honestly) mistaken to suppose that the man was Gerry.
ETA:
This
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analyzing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences,
The prosecutors actually, initially, decided that Mr Smith should be further interviewed by rogatory.
But there was an error in sending the letter of request to Westminster rather than the parliament of the Irish Republic, just never rectified.
So they didn't bother ...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 10, 2014, 03:23:05 PM
Martin Smith said in his statement to the Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but refused.
It surely makes perfect sense that while he believed the man he saw was Gerry, he would refuse. Gerry, after all, does not need identification.
Surely the only reason Mr Smith changed his mind is because he was persuaded by release of the files in early August 2008 that he was (honestly) mistaken to suppose that the man was Gerry.
ETA:
This
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analyzing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences,
The prosecutors actually, initially, decided that Mr Smith should be further interviewed by rogatory.
But there was an error in sending the letter of request to Westminster rather than the parliament of the Irish Republic, just never rectified.
So they didn't bother ...
Seems that Meneses believed Gerry really was at the Tapas bar at the time of the Smiths sighting, & that he really did send Kate to check at 10:03.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 10, 2014, 03:25:17 PM
What did it matter where he was at 10pm since Madeleine was removed from the apartment by AN Other just after 9.10pm.
If all the emphasis is on the Smith sighting, then not so.
Around 2200, the time of Kate's alert.
At last, I believe, an answer to a question that has long puzzled me -- the assumption that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.
My puzzlement has long been simply that, if they were the same man, either the Smiths or Jane were somewhat out in their recollection of the man's hair. Jane's man has long, scraggily, untidy hair; Smith's man short-cut and quite tidy.
But I've just re-visted the site, which has this text, along side two e-fits (one Jane's, the other a rear-view):
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man [Jane's e-ft] may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 10, 2014, 04:52:17 PM
Irishman was already discarded - 24Horas 7 July 2008
When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don’t give him credibility
The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.
During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as “Smith” said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.
“He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory”, a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24Horas.
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being.This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analyzing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/irishman-was-already-discarded-24horas.html
My reading is that apart from Martin Smith's statement identifying Madeleine's father as the carrier the PJ had nothing which would bear the scrutiny of a court.
Nothing from the forensics; Nothing from the dogs; No 'confession'.
Interestingly, the PJ did not appear to find Mr Smith a credible witness. So basically they had nothing to go on or another line of investigation to follow since all the eggs had been put in one basket and the one theory pursued.
IMO this makes the proposed reconstruction nothing more than a trawling exercise but when it did not take place, a convenient face saving excuse to close the case for which they had no evidence to prosecute.
Interesting. What was "this" Smith doing outside the apartment? Do we know who the source of this information is?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 10, 2014, 05:20:49 PM
There is a picture of Amaral surrounded by reporters attached to the article. Perhaps that is a clue.
Not really it still doesn't explain why Smith is stated as being outside the apartment when he wasn't.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 10, 2014, 06:51:21 PM
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
It couldn't have been Gerry. He was watching football on his long check. Must be his doppelganger who sneaked in before him via the unlocked patio door. Fiona first heard it was unlocked that night at the table as Kate was very worried especially after the previous night crying. You'd thought they'd lock up after that episode and mysterious stains but Oh No she just talked about it instead at the table with her back to the apartment. How extraordinary!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 10, 2014, 06:54:56 PM
It's just Amaral telling fibs again.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 10, 2014, 07:00:59 PM
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
It couldn't have been Gerry. He was watching football on his long check. Must be his doppelganger who sneaked in before him via the unlocked patio door. Fiona first heard it was unlocked that night at the table as Kate was very worried especially after the previous night crying. You'd thought they'd lock up after that episode and mysterious stains but Oh No she just talked about it instead at the table with her back to the apartment. How extraordinary!
He crept in the back, closing the gate, childgate, door & curtains behind him.
Topic: Why did Kate & Gerry change their seating position at the tapas bar.
It explains that the source didn't have a clue what Mr Smith had told the police.
Yeah you are so right; so why do you think the source was Dr Amaral? Other than blind prejudice or someone told you say it? 8(>(( Or put it another way provide a cite that Dr Amaral was the source. Otherwise you are just p*****g in the wind. *&*%£ I just love this little roly poly geezer don't you?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 11, 2014, 12:17:18 AM
Yeah you are so right; so why do you think the source was Dr Amaral? Other than blind prejudice or someone told you say it? 8(>(( Or put it another way provide a cite that Dr Amaral was the source. Otherwise you are just p*****g in the wind. *&*%£ I just love this little roly poly geezer don't you?
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/little-girl-died-in-that-apartment.html Part of transcript from TVI interview with Goncalo
*snip* There is one piece of data in terms of accurate time that evening, it exists and it concerns the little girl, it’s the time at which she left the nursery.
JP: At 5.30 pm.
GA: At 5.30 pm, concerning the other witnesses that were at the beach there is the video registry, they were filmed by the camera that was there, at 6.36 pm they leave the beach, first the men and afterwards the women and children, in terms of times and then there is the time of the Irish witness who knows at what time his dinner ends, and he has the receipt of the payment with the time at which he paid, when he leaves the restaurant across the street –
JP: Across the street he sees a man walking down with a child…
GA: He sees a man walking down with a child.
JP: … who he only realizes to be Gerry McCann when he sees Gerry McCann descending with his children…
GA: Exactly.
JP: … when they return to England.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, can you deduce from the above exactly where & when Mr Smith saw "Gerry carrying Madeleine"?
*&*%£ He's like a Nadal/Djorkovic baseline rally in slowmo - but still quicker than the PJ are at dealing with pressing matters.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 11, 2014, 12:45:19 AM
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/little-girl-died-in-that-apartment.html Part of transcript from TVI interview with Goncalo
*snip* There is one piece of data in terms of accurate time that evening, it exists and it concerns the little girl, it’s the time at which she left the nursery.
JP: At 5.30 pm.
GA: At 5.30 pm, concerning the other witnesses that were at the beach there is the video registry, they were filmed by the camera that was there, at 6.36 pm they leave the beach, first the men and afterwards the women and children, in terms of times and then there is the time of the Irish witness who knows at what time his dinner ends, and he has the receipt of the payment with the time at which he paid, when he leaves the restaurant across the street –
JP: Across the street he sees a man walking down with a child…
GA: He sees a man walking down with a child.
JP: … who he only realizes to be Gerry McCann when he sees Gerry McCann descending with his children…
GA: Exactly.
JP: … when they return to England.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, can you deduce from the above exactly where & when Mr Smith saw "Gerry carrying Madeleine"?
*&*%£ He's like a Nadal/Djorkovic baseline rally in slowmo - but still quicker than the PJ are at dealing with pressing matters.
I still don't see where Dr Amaral says Smith says he saw Gerry coming out of the apartment. But then it's late.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 11, 2014, 12:59:57 AM
I still don't see where Dr Amaral says Smith says he saw Gerry coming out of the apartment. But then it's late.
You are not meant to see, you are merely meant to accept. In the same interview, Sr. Amaral also declares that Kate & Gerry were seen by witnesses entering an apartment block near the cemetery, where they stored the body in the deep-freezer which no longer exists - rather like the boot-mat in that car found in the scrapyard during a murder investigation in the Azores he was involved in. It seems to be a common theme - the man who wasn't there, the freezer which no longer exists, the boot-mat which wasn't there........and young girls who are are no longer there.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 11, 2014, 01:52:37 AM
You are not meant to see, you are merely meant to accept. In the same interview, Sr. Amaral also declares that Kate & Gerry were seen by witnesses entering an apartment block near the cemetery, where they stored the body in the deep-freezer which no longer exists - rather like the boot-mat in that car found in the scrapyard during a murder investigation in the Azores he was involved in. It seems to be a common theme - the man who wasn't there, the freezer which no longer exists, the boot-mat which wasn't there........and young girls who are are no longer there.
The sighting near the st james blocks is accurately detailed in the DCCB report where you will find that it was of one person singular (not two as Mr Amaral says).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 11, 2014, 02:28:09 AM
The sighting near the st james blocks is accurately detailed in the DCCB report where you will find that it was of one person singular (not two as Mr Amaral says).
It was in the DCCB report as a POSSIBLE sighting
5. With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called "St James Portuguesa Lda", lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129
From the TVI interview *snip* GA: … in an advanced state of decomposition, at least it’s a hypothesis. Therefore it’s a question of a deep freezer, or something similar, and there we had to search for it and that was what we were doing. This means, the contacts that they had, where they went, where they were seen… There are people who say that they were seen entering an apartment block near the cemetery in Praia da Luz. At that point in time we weren’t able to detect which apartment they entered, who lived there, because it’s also a bit complicated because you have to understand it’s a tourist area and often it’s not known who the apartment belongs to.
Referring to both parents, not just Gerry, & seen by people not one person.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 11, 2014, 09:40:40 AM
@misty well it was a sighting of someone but I agree with you that the identification may easily be mistaken and it may have been someone totally irrelevant and so is nothing more than "possible". It was the distinction between singular and plural I was pointing out.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 11, 2014, 12:51:18 PM
You are not meant to see, you are merely meant to accept. In the same interview, Sr. Amaral also declares that Kate & Gerry were seen by witnesses entering an apartment block near the cemetery, where they stored the body in the deep-freezer which no longer exists - rather like the boot-mat in that car found in the scrapyard during a murder investigation in the Azores he was involved in. It seems to be a common theme - the man who wasn't there, the freezer which no longer exists, the boot-mat which wasn't there........and young girls who are are no longer there.
So in neither of his depositions did Martin Smith say he saw someone coming out of the apartment. Yet in the 24Horas article, punted about above, "a source" said that Mr Smith said he did see someone coming out of the apartment. I am from this meant to conclude that Dr Amaral was the source giving a completely erroneous account of Mr Smiths depositions? That doesn't really hang together does it now?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 11, 2014, 01:30:38 PM
All the Smith's statements supposedly mention the child's eyes being closed. If she was being carried the way they say, and the way Gerry carried his son, there is no way they would see her eyes, at all.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 11, 2014, 02:27:21 PM
All the Smith's statements supposedly mention the child's eyes being closed. If she was being carried the way they say, and the way Gerry carried his son, there is no way they would see her eyes, at all.
Notice how Seany's eye level is above Gerry's shoulder, not buried into it.
They saw her, inert, dressed in the wrong pyjamas, no matter how much you'd prefer that they hadn't.
...They must really hate the Smith family.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 11, 2014, 04:30:09 PM
Notice how Seany's eye level is above Gerry's shoulder, not buried into it.
They saw her, inert, dressed in the wrong pyjamas, no matter how much you'd prefer that they hadn't.
...They must really hate the Smith family.
Yes and facing the wrong way for the Smiths to see her eyes. They all passed this chap with the child's head facing towards his neck. So unless they stopped him to look they wouldn't see her eyes. Simples!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 11, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
Her face wouldn't be completely buried in his neck, some of her face, the upper portion, would still be visible.
And it was.
Doesn't matter Aofie's wasn't tall enough to see her eyes. Her dad and brother wouldn't see them either without going right up to this chap. Enlarge your pic and see for yourself. You keep harping on about the pyjamas, but you fail to mention, only Aofie's recalls a long sleeve top.
Why do you keep saying I hate the Smiths? Because I do agree wit them, how ridiculous! How do you know their statements were translated correctly?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 11, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Doesn't matter Aofie's wasn't tall enough to see her eyes. Her dad and brother wouldn't see them either without going right up to this chap. Enlarge your pic and see for yourself. You keep harping on about the pyjamas, but you fail to mention, only Aofie's recalls a long sleeve top.
Why do you keep saying I hate the Smiths? Because I do agree wit them, how ridiculous! How do you know their statements were translated correctly?
You know better than them what they saw.
Just like Kate knew better than Jane did.
Yes, Aoife saw the long sleeves & clearly, that nice Mr Redwood doesn't doubt that.
Kate & Gerry would rather she hadn't though, as is evident in 'Madeleine Was Here'.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on October 11, 2014, 06:21:10 PM
Doesn't matter Aofie's wasn't tall enough to see her eyes. Her dad and brother wouldn't see them either without going right up to this chap. Enlarge your pic and see for yourself. You keep harping on about the pyjamas, but you fail to mention, only Aofie's recalls a long sleeve top.
Why do you keep saying I hate the Smiths? Because I do agree wit them, how ridiculous! How do you know their statements were translated correctly?
How do you know they weren't ?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 11, 2014, 06:38:56 PM
Doesn't matter Aofie's wasn't tall enough to see her eyes. Her dad and brother wouldn't see them either without going right up to this chap. Enlarge your pic and see for yourself. You keep harping on about the pyjamas, but you fail to mention, only Aofie's recalls a long sleeve top.
Why do you keep saying I hate the Smiths? Because I do agree wit them, how ridiculous! How do you know their statements were translated correctly?
And you don't have to see Sean's eyes in that pic to know he's fast asleep. The child was said to be in a deep sleep. You don't have to see her eyes to come to that conclusion. It's obvious!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 11, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
You're all missing the point about the eyes. If the supposed child's eyes were closed, there is no way the Smiths could notice anything unusual about them and thus almost positively ID Madeleine. It's all very clever - a man who may been Gerry, carrying a child who possibly was Madeleine - just not enough for people to be 100% sure but sufficient to plant doubt in minds & deflect attention away from the real perpetrator(s). Just about enough to prevent anyone being charged with perverting the course of justice, as no-one can prove that the man & child didn't exist.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 11, 2014, 07:48:37 PM
You're all missing the point about the eyes. If the supposed child's eyes were closed, there is no way the Smiths could notice anything unusual about them and thus almost positively ID Madeleine. It's all very clever - a man who may been Gerry, carrying a child who possibly was Madeleine - just not enough for people to be 100% sure but sufficient to plant doubt in minds & deflect attention away from the real perpetrator(s). Just about enough to prevent anyone being charged with perverting the course of justice, as no-one can prove that the man & child didn't exist.
Smithman hasn't come forward to clear himself or the child in 7 years. A child that matched the description of the missing child. The dogs alerted to the apartment that suggest a deceased person was inside at one point. Madeleine disappeared on the 3 May and so did Smithman &%+((£ Now why wouldn't they think it wasn't her? The truth of this case is far too simple for most to understand. It was a simple plan but Smithman took a risk to move the child further away from the crime scene (if she was found close to 5A straight after the alarm they could work out what time the child actually died! Doctors would certainly know it!) and he was lucky that he wasn't positively identified so he turned his head away and down from eye witnesses and didn't even say one word to possibly incriminate himself!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2014, 08:41:23 PM
Yet, according to you, the Tapas 9 & a multitude of nannies & OC staff were "in on it". Please don't pretend you're not concerned about a family whose kids were so terrified by the abduction that they wouldn't sleep on their own until they went home but failed to recall for 2 weeks about that dodgy geezer carrying a pyjama-clad child they passed in the dimly-lit street on the night of the abduction.
Or who need to work out whether they had dreamed the meeting or not.
If Murat had not been made an arguido ... would Smithman have remained in the land of nod?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 11, 2014, 08:41:50 PM
Smithman hasn't come forward to clear himself or the child in 7 years. A child that matched the description of the missing child. The dogs alerted to the apartment that suggest a deceased person was inside at one point. Madeleine disappeared on the 3 May and so did Smithman &%+((£ Now why wouldn't they think it wasn't her? The truth of this case is far too simple for most to understand. It was a simple plan but Smithman took a risk to move the child further away from the crime scene (if she was found close to 5A straight after the alarm they could work out what time the child actually died! Doctors would certainly know it!) and he was lucky that he wasn't positively identified so he turned his head away and down from eye witnesses and didn't even say one word to possibly incriminate himself!
Full circle again on this PF 8(0(* I will probably be accused of spamming for posting this again! (it was a month or so ago I think) but it is because:
He is dead. He is in deep space. He never existed. He wants to steer well clear having watched how this case "is like Typhoid Mary". He is guilty.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 11, 2014, 10:08:28 PM
It's ok misty, the mods are clearing it all up now.
You can just pretend it never happened, like you do the Smiths sighting.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 16, 2014, 11:30:53 PM
Kate devotes copious space in her book to discussion of the Smith e-fit.
She tended to the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but that was Kate's opinion.
Exton's report is neither here nor there ...
I find it remarkable that not once did Kate McCann mention the Smith family by name. Smith is referred to as the holiday maker from Ireland or the Irish family. The description relating to Smithman was only included in a table showing the Tanner and Smith sightings side by side.
What is even more remarkable is that although an artists impression of Tannerman was included, the e-fits relating to Smithman were withheld.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 16, 2014, 11:38:03 PM
I find it remarkable that not once did Kate McCann mention the Smith family by name. Smith is referred to as the holiday maker from Ireland or the Irish family. The description relating to Smithman was only included in a table showing the Tanner and Smith sightings side by side.
What is even more remarkable is that although an artists impression of Tannerman was included, the e-fits relating to Smithman were withheld.
There is an interesting section on Oakley in here:
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 16, 2014, 11:42:22 PM
In Madeleine the references to Smithman are surprisingly sparse given the significance which even Kate McCann placed on him...
Quote from: MADELEINE
We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it.
In addition to the man and child seen by Jane Tanner at about 9.15pm on the evening Madeleine was taken, and the similar sighting forty-five minutes later by the family from Ireland, there were six reports from four independent witnesses of a ‘suspicious’ male noticed around the Ocean Club. He was described either as watching our apartment or generally acting oddly, or both. Details of all eight sightings are given at the end of this book (corresponding artists’ sketches can be found in the illustrations). The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing. Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re stil coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’ Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normaly or logicaly? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might wel have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly.
KEY SIGHTINGS. Four years on, as we strive to piece together the puzzle of what happened to Madeleine, many questions remain unanswered and several people who may be able to help us have yet to be identified. The folowing sightings are stil of great interest to us. Explaining them is very important to our continuing investigation, if only to eliminate the individuals concerned from our inquiry. Artists’ impressions and sketches based on the descriptions given by witnesses can be found at the end of the Picture Section .
SIGHTINGS ONE AND TWO Witness One: Jane Tanner Witness Two: Holidaymaker from Ireland
These two crucial sightings of a man carrying a child in the street, made around the time of Madeleine’s abduction on the night of 3 May 2007, have been discussed in detail in this book. The description of the man seen by Jane Tanner was eventualy made public three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance and an artist’s impression commissioned by our own investigative team was released in October 2007. Yet to this day no man has come forward to identify himself as the father, relative or family friend of the child in either case. Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five-minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves. Artist’s impressions of the man seen by Jane Tanner are reproduced at the end of the Picture Section.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 17, 2014, 12:24:03 AM
What salient facts do you feel Kate omitted?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 12:32:15 AM
In Madeleine the references to Smithman are surprisingly sparse given the significance which even Kate McCann placed on it...
Connect the two sightings to totally rule somebody out of being Smithman. I know why that book was written. That is their version covering all discrepancies and angles years after the fact.
"I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to." &%+((£ Really?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 17, 2014, 12:36:47 AM
Connect the two sightings to totally rule somebody out of being Smithman. I know why that book was written. That is their version covering all discrepancies and angles years after the fact.
"I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to." &%+((£ Really?
Now there is a classic (and objectionable) example of quoting out of context.
Kate doesn't feel she needs to justify her feeling that Jane and the Smiths saw the same man.
Nor should she (have to feel that need).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 12:40:30 AM
Now there is a classic (and objectionable) example of quoting out of context.
Kate doesn't feel she needs to justify her feeling that Jane and the Smiths saw the same man.
Nor should she (have to feel that need).
It wasn't the same man - they were both going in opposite directions and 45 minutes apart but only 250 metres away. Was he walking in circles for 45 minutes with a missing child. Don't be daft!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 17, 2014, 12:42:43 AM
It wasn't the same man - they were both going in opposite directions and 45 minutes apart but only 250 metres away. Was he walking in circles for 45 minutes with a missing child. Don't be daft!
An assumption based on incomplete facts.
Only when all the facts are known will say for certain whether Kate is right or wrong.
In the interim, Kate is fully entitled to her view.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 12:43:40 AM
Lots actually. These were supposed to be the money sightings yet provenance was given to one sighting over the other 45 minutes later. Oakley produced e-fits in conjunction with the Smith family in late 2007 yet weren't included in the book published in May 2012.
Why produced them in the first place if they weren't going to be used? Surely the claim of leaving no stone unturned is rendered quite meaningless by not doing so?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 17, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
Lots actually. These were supposed to be the money sightings yet provenance was given to one sighting over the other 45 minutes later. Oakley produced e-fits in conjunction with the Smith family in late 2007 yet weren't included in the book published in May 2012.
Why produced them in the first place if they weren't going to be used?
How could Kate introduce e-fits, which never formed part of the shelved investigation, into the public domain via her book without compromising the Smiths?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 12:57:27 AM
How could Kate introduce e-fits, which never formed part of the shelved investigation, into the public domain via her book without compromising the Smiths?
Finding Madeleine should be the number one priority not the Smiths @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 17, 2014, 01:06:21 AM
Finding Madeleine should be the number one priority not the Smiths @)(++(*
The 3 members of the Smith family, through statements to the PJ & in various media interviews, all stated that they wouldn't be able to identify the man they saw. By then producing efits at a late stage for the McCanns PI's, they technically lied to the PJ. How do you think their witness testimony would stand up in court, should a man be tried based solely on their eye-witness accounts and efits contained in a book written by one of the arguidos?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 17, 2014, 01:08:43 AM
The 3 members of the Smith family, through statements to the PJ & in various media interviews, all stated that they wouldn't be able to identify the man they saw. By then producing efits at a late stage for the McCanns PI's, they technically lied to the PJ. How do you think their witness testimony would stand up in court, should a man be tried based solely on their eye-witness accounts and efits contained in a book written by one of the arguidos?
But Aoife said she saw his face. Maybe they tried to help her to remember.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 01:18:02 AM
Lots actually. These were supposed to be the money sightings yet provenance was given to one sighting over the other 45 minutes later. Oakley produced e-fits in conjunction with the Smith family in late 2007 yet weren't included in the book published in May 2012.
Why produced them in the first place if they weren't going to be used? Surely the claim of leaving no stone unturned is rendered quite meaningless by not doing so?
Why didn’t the official police investigation ask the Smiths to help with efits when they returned to Portugal to make their statements on 26th May?
Brian Kennedy did in September 2007 and was refused. I don’t think the efits were produced until late 2008 when the case had been archived.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2014, 01:18:21 AM
I find it remarkable that not once did Kate McCann mention the Smith family by name. Smith is referred to as the holiday maker from Ireland or the Irish family. The description relating to Smithman was only included in a table showing the Tanner and Smith sightings side by side.
What is even more remarkable is that although an artists impression of Tannerman was included, the e-fits relating to Smithman were withheld.
I think Kate not mentioning the Smith family by name may possibly have been at the behest of Martin Smith. IMO he seems keen to protect his family from getting dragged into the media circus. IIRC the same thing happened in the Crimewatch programme - where 'a family from Ireland' ( or words to that effect) were used - and no actual names given. Maybe that was at his request too?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 01:22:04 AM
If it was who JT saw and he was stuck for escape. He would have doubled around and taken some secluded paths unknown to us. such as
He was going in the wrong direction but because he was heading towards Murat's they thought it was him and Jane confirmed he had the same walk as the man she saw. An abductor would go away from where they were not towards them on the route they used to check.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 17, 2014, 01:22:30 AM
But Aoife said she saw his face. Maybe they tried to help her to remember.
But Aoife withheld that information from the PJ while the investigation was still live in Portugal, choosing instead to produce an e-fit for an agency working for one of the arguidos,
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 17, 2014, 01:24:27 AM
How could Kate introduce e-fits, which never formed part of the shelved investigation, into the public domain via her book without compromising the Smiths?
It goes without saying that the Smiths would have expected their e-fits to be put into the public domain but they were suppressed for nearly two years before being released to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police or so we are led to believe. It seems bizarre that it took another two years before SY were able to acquire them along with Oakley's suppressed Report which again we are led to believe was highly critical of the McCanns. A Report which by the way remains suppressed to the public because of the damage it could still do.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 01:29:57 AM
But Aoife withheld that information from the PJ while the investigation was still live in Portugal, choosing instead to produce an e-fit for an agency working for one of the arguidos,
I think the yard would be interested in finding out more from a witness who said she saw his face. I know I would.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 01:35:54 AM
He was going in the wrong direction but because he was heading towards Murat's they thought it was him and Jane confirmed he had the same walk as the man she saw. An abductor would go away from where they were not towards them on the route they used to check.
You seem to think they knew Robert Murat and where he lived. They didn’t.
Do you have a cite to what you say about Jane Tanner confirming Robert Murat's walk? Because as far as I know Jane Tanner did not confirm anything about Robert Murat.
Don’t know what you are trying to say in your last sentence, but I doubt if any of us knows what's in the mind of an abductor.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 01:47:59 AM
You seem to think they knew Robert Murat and where he lived. They didn’t.
Do you have a cite to what you say about Jane Tanner confirming Robert Murat's walk? Because as far as I know Jane Tanner did not confirm anything about Robert Murat.
Don’t know what you are trying to say in your last sentence, but I doubt if any of us knows what's in the mind of an abductor.
Common sense. Any fool would go away from danger not towards it.
Truth of the Lie is the source.
Olegário de Sousa Chief PJ Inspector
18.31 – A male individual, aged 33 and a resident in the area of the events has been made an arguido. He was questioned as such, and no evidence has been collected that could justify his detention and further judicial questioning.
19.11 – The journalist suspected him, but we didn’t follow what the journalist said. We followed the analysis of the facts. The facts were analysed, what actually had happened, and we followed a testimony, a testimony that had to be weakened in order to advance the abduction theory. Jane Tanner’s testimony. Because otherwise, the abduction theory died right there. The major foundation for the abduction was what that witness had seen: a man carrying a child, walking into the direction of Robert Murat’s house.
19.45 – Maybe people don’t know, but the search at Robert Murat’s house takes place on a Monday morning, and on Sunday evening, we’re in a meeting with the Public Ministry, with the prosecutor, with the judge, me and Dr Luís Neves, we’re at the court house while diligences are being carried out in Praia da Luz. Diligences to confirm the suspicion against Robert Murat. And Mrs Jane Tanner is placed inside a police surveillance vehicle, several people walk by, policemen, people that Mrs Jane Tanner had never seen before, and Mr Robert Murat among them, and she says that from the way he walks, he is the person that was carrying the child.
20.27 – In fact, Jane Tanner’s memory progressively improves as time goes by. The first e-fit that she helps to draw is a vague sketch. She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man that she saw that night. Several months later, she participates in a new e-fit, now miraculously remembering every facial trace of a man that is very different from the Murat that she recognised earlier on.
20.55 - Another document that weighed in at incriminating Robert Murat was a psychological profile by English experts, which in very general traces stated that his voluntary attitude during the days that followed the crime, helping the investigators and the family, could be the mask of a criminal.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 17, 2014, 01:51:52 AM
I think the yard would be interested in finding out more from a witness who said she saw his face. I know I would.
SY had no input unless requested by the PJ. The Smith family made e-fits to private UK investigators without the knowledge or permission of the PJ, so they broke the secrecy laws. The e-fits would be inadmissible in a Portuguese court. Somebody knew what they were doing when it became clear JT couldn't ID the man she saw.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 02:05:47 AM
Common sense. Any fool would go away from danger not towards it.
Truth of the Lie is the source.
Olegário de Sousa Chief PJ Inspector
18.31 – A male individual, aged 33 and a resident in the area of the events has been made an arguido. He was questioned as such, and no evidence has been collected that could justify his detention and further judicial questioning.
19.11 – The journalist suspected him, but we didn’t follow what the journalist said. We followed the analysis of the facts. The facts were analysed, what actually had happened, and we followed a testimony, a testimony that had to be weakened in order to advance the abduction theory. Jane Tanner’s testimony. Because otherwise, the abduction theory died right there. The major foundation for the abduction was what that witness had seen: a man carrying a child, walking into the direction of Robert Murat’s house.
19.45 – Maybe people don’t know, but the search at Robert Murat’s house takes place on a Monday morning, and on Sunday evening, we’re in a meeting with the Public Ministry, with the prosecutor, with the judge, me and Dr Luís Neves, we’re at the court house while diligences are being carried out in Praia da Luz. Diligences to confirm the suspicion against Robert Murat. And Mrs Jane Tanner is placed inside a police surveillance vehicle, several people walk by, policemen, people that Mrs Jane Tanner had never seen before, and Mr Robert Murat among them, and she says that from the way he walks, he is the person that was carrying the child.
20.27 – In fact, Jane Tanner’s memory progressively improves as time goes by. The first e-fit that she helps to draw is a vague sketch. She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man that she saw that night. Several months later, she participates in a new e-fit, now miraculously remembering every facial trace of a man that is very different from the Murat that she recognised earlier on.
20.55 - Another document that weighed in at incriminating Robert Murat was a psychological profile by English experts, which in very general traces stated that his voluntary attitude during the days that followed the crime, helping the investigators and the family, could be the mask of a criminal.
Surely if the danger is all around that is a moot point. IMO if tannerman was also smithman who thought he had been seen by Jane he might have expected the alarm to be raised almost immediately ... when it was not ... he maybe took his chance to double back and go in the opposite direction where he walked into the Smiths.
Yeah ... I've seen that used as a cite for JT before ... but that is definitely contrary to what she says in her statements.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 07:40:38 AM
Surely if the danger is all around that is a moot point. IMO if tannerman was also smithman who thought he had been seen by Jane he might have expected the alarm to be raised almost immediately ... when it was not ... he maybe took his chance to double back and go in the opposite direction where he walked into the Smiths.
Yeah ... I've seen that used as a cite for JT before ... but that is definitely contrary to what she says in her statements.
Tannerman definitely wasn't Smithman.
You know that.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2014, 08:19:46 AM
Common sense. Any fool would go away from danger not towards it.
Truth of the Lie is the source.
Olegário de Sousa Chief PJ Inspector
18.31 – A male individual, aged 33 and a resident in the area of the events has been made an arguido. He was questioned as such, and no evidence has been collected that could justify his detention and further judicial questioning.
19.11 – The journalist suspected him, but we didn’t follow what the journalist said. We followed the analysis of the facts. The facts were analysed, what actually had happened, and we followed a testimony, a testimony that had to be weakened in order to advance the abduction theory. Jane Tanner’s testimony. Because otherwise, the abduction theory died right there. The major foundation for the abduction was what that witness had seen: a man carrying a child, walking into the direction of Robert Murat’s house.
19.45 – Maybe people don’t know, but the search at Robert Murat’s house takes place on a Monday morning, and on Sunday evening, we’re in a meeting with the Public Ministry, with the prosecutor, with the judge, me and Dr Luís Neves, we’re at the court house while diligences are being carried out in Praia da Luz. Diligences to confirm the suspicion against Robert Murat. And Mrs Jane Tanner is placed inside a police surveillance vehicle, several people walk by, policemen, people that Mrs Jane Tanner had never seen before, and Mr Robert Murat among them, and she says that from the way he walks, he is the person that was carrying the child.
20.27 – In fact, Jane Tanner’s memory progressively improves as time goes by. The first e-fit that she helps to draw is a vague sketch. She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man that she saw that night. Several months later, she participates in a new e-fit, now miraculously remembering every facial trace of a man that is very different from the Murat that she recognised earlier on.
20.55 - Another document that weighed in at incriminating Robert Murat was a psychological profile by English experts, which in very general traces stated that his voluntary attitude during the days that followed the crime, helping the investigators and the family, could be the mask of a criminal.
Jane Tanner was not able to identify Murat as the man she had seen - because she never got a proper look at him during the 'Identity Parade'. She didn't even recognise him as the man she'd just met on her way to the IP.
This is borne out by the fact that after the IP she was not taken back to the police station to make a statement - but was told there was no need and she could go home. That would never have happened if she had made a positive identification. Also by the fact that the AG would definitely have mentioned it in his Final Report - in the section giving the reasons etc why Murat was made an Arguido. Obviously if he had been identified as the person seen carrying the child away then that would have been a mega piece of evidence against him - in fact probably the most important evidence and would have been given great prominence IMO. But no-where in the Final Report does the AG state that JT identified Murat as the person she saw.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 17, 2014, 08:52:47 AM
Do you base this entirely on the length of the sleeves of the kids pj's?
I base it on Jane Tanner having identified the man she saw as innocent creche dad.
That & common sense.
E.T.A, Yes, & the sleeve length & Kate seeing fit not to tell the truth in 'Madeleine Was Here' & on the Oprah Winfrey show, & it being quite obvious why she didn't. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5018.msg177075#msg177075
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 17, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
It goes without saying that the Smiths would have expected their e-fits to be put into the public domain but they were suppressed for nearly two years before being released to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police or so we are led to believe. It seems bizarre that it took another two years before SY were able to acquire them along with Oakley's suppressed Report which again we are led to believe was highly critical of the McCanns. A Report which by the way remains suppressed to the public because of the damage it could still do.
So in a nutshell the no stone unturned pledge is in reality no stone unturned if there is anything rotten under it?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 17, 2014, 09:02:16 AM
I base it on Jane Tanner having identified the man she saw as innocent creche dad.
That & common sense.
Tanner never identified him and the evidence taken as a whole does not support it. I still go with a 9.15 removal from the apartment and carried to a waiting vehicle parked just beyond where Tanner saw him.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 09:05:28 AM
You think that nice Mr Redwood didn't consult with Jane about a man she saw.
If she had any doubts.... she'd have told him, SY would make appeals on her sighting, they haven't, he's in the dustbin.
Jane saw nothing other than a pair of dangling legs and a faceless man so there was little she could add to her original statement.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 09:14:16 AM
....Also, it being totally unfeasible that Tannerman could have carried out an abduction between the time of Dr McCann leaving the apartment & Tannerman being seen by Jane.
He had to have entered the front door, locked it behind him, moved the childrens bedroom door then hid during Gerry's check, then after Gerry left, drug all 3 children, open the window & shutters then leave with Madie out the front door, closing & locking it behind him.
But Matt made no mention of gusty curtains or slamming doors....
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 09:15:13 AM
....Also, it being totally unfeasible that Tannerman could have carried out an abduction between the time of Dr McCann leaving the apartment & Tannerman being seen by Jane.
Just as it would have been between 9.30 and 9.55 with Tanner and her partner wandering around. In any event I never mentioned abduction. Oakley came to the same conclusion in their report seen by the Sunday Times that she wasn't abducted, a report which is still under that unturned stone.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 09:21:29 AM
Tanner never identified him and the evidence taken as a whole does not support it. I still go with a 9.15 removal from the apartment and carried to a waiting vehicle parked just beyond where Tanner saw him.
It was before 9:15 and the child Tanner saw was younger and smaller than Madeleine. That explains the different carrying style.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 09:37:21 AM
Surely if the danger is all around that is a moot point. IMO if tannerman was also smithman who thought he had been seen by Jane he might have expected the alarm to be raised almost immediately ... when it was not ... he maybe took his chance to double back and go in the opposite direction where he walked into the Smiths.
Yeah ... I've seen that used as a cite for JT before ... but that is definitely contrary to what she says in her statements.
Is it hell a moot point. You get away from danger. So an abductor would go out the front key door over the wall in a car and away. Not crossing a street in full view of anybody on it and that leads to the tapas bar. A getaway car didn't happen because Smithman didn't have one. This was not pre-planned for days operation. This was saving somebody's life. I've lost one I'm not going to lose two or possibly more.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2014, 10:07:30 AM
Is it hell a moot point. You get away from danger. So an abductor would go out the front key door over the wall in a car and away. Not crossing a street in full view of anybody on it and that leads to the tapas bar. A getaway car didn't happen because Smithman didn't have one. This was not pre-planned for days operation. This was saving somebody's life. I've lost one I'm not going to lose two or possibly more.
From memory (so apols if I'm wrong) - but wasn't there a video made by someone 'reconstructing' the abduction - which involved taking the same route as Tannerman - to a small car park nearby - getting in a car and driving off and out of PdL - proving it could all be done in a matter of minutes?
Would you leave a car parked in the immediate vicinity of 5A - where it might be seen by any number of people if it was going to be used as a 'getaway' car - or would you park it as close as possible, but in a place where people going to or leaving 5A apartment block would not see it.
IMO It is also a possibility that the man the Smiths saw had just got out of a car.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 17, 2014, 10:34:43 AM
From memory (so apols if I'm wrong) - but wasn't there a video made by someone 'reconstructing' the abduction - which involved taking the same route as Tannerman - to a small car park nearby - getting in a car and driving off and out of PdL - proving it could all be done in a matter of minutes?
Would you leave a car parked in the immediate vicinity of 5A - where it might be seen by any number of people if it was going to be used as a 'getaway' car - or would you park it as close as possible, but in a place where people going to or leaving 5A apartment block would not see it.
IMO It is also a possibility that the man the Smiths saw had just got out of a car.
If she was carried out of 5a rather than wandering out, the use of a get-away-car is an almost certainty. What worries me about the Smith sighting though is the long sleeve pyjamas since Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pj's when she went to bed. In my opinion, the Smiths sighting is a red herring.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
If she was carried out of 5a rather than wandering out, the use of a get-away-car is an almost certainty. What worries me about the Smith sighting though is the long sleeve pyjamas since Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pj's when she went to bed. In my opinion, the Smiths sighting is a red herring.
In view of what we know about the fallibility of memory - I don't think a couple of discrepancies would negate the large amount of 'similarities' in the descriptions given. It would be a miracle IMO if both descriptions had been identical in every detail. Short sleeves or mid length sleeves later recalled by one witness as being long sleeves - is a minor discrepancy IMO. The fact that both parties saw a child with bare feet, not covered by anything and possibly wearing pajamas being carried by a man who neither party thought looked like a tourist is far more significant IMO. If one party had said the man was wearing a hat or was short and fat etc etc then that would be cause for serious doubt IMO. But both descriptions in relation to age, height, build and clothing were remarkably close.
I used to think this man must be involved because he never came forward, and neither did anyone else i.e. the person he was taking the child to - or the person from whom he had collected the child. I would have expected say - for instance - someone ringing the police saying 'that was my son - he was taking his daughter home - I had been babysitting''. etc etc.
Since then I have changed my mind - as if the locals were really scared of the PJ (as Mrs Fenn mentioned)- then I can imagine the man's mother or wife saying 'Please don't get involved - you could end up being accused of this crime'. So he decided to keep out of it. Who knows.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 17, 2014, 12:30:11 PM
In view of what we know about the fallibility of memory - I don't think a couple of discrepancies would negate the large amount of 'similarities' in the descriptions given. It would be a miracle IMO if both descriptions had been identical in every detail. Short sleeves or mid length sleeves later recalled by one witness as being long sleeves - is a minor discrepancy IMO. The fact that both parties saw a child with bare feet, not covered by anything and possibly wearing pajamas being carried by a man who neither party thought looked like a tourist is far more significant IMO. If one party had said the man was wearing a hat or was short and fat etc etc then that would be cause for serious doubt IMO. But both descriptions in relation to age, height, build and clothing were remarkably close.
I used to think this man must be involved because he never came forward, and neither did anyone else i.e. the person he was taking the child to - or the person from whom he had collected the child. I would have expected say - for instance - someone ringing the police saying 'that was my son - he was taking his daughter home - I had been babysitting''. etc etc.
Since then I have changed my mind - as if the locals were really scared of the PJ (as Mrs Fenn mentioned)- then I can imagine the man's mother or wife saying 'Please don't get involved - you could end up being accused of this crime'. So he decided to keep out of it. Who knows.
Not all the locals were scared of the PJ - one was very keen to help. If a local man was Smithman, why would he be scared if he actually had a young daughter himself to prove it wasn't Madeleine he was carrying?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2014, 12:42:56 PM
Not all the locals were scared of the PJ - one was very keen to help. If a local man was Smithman, why would he be scared if he actually had a young daughter himself to prove it wasn't Madeleine he was carrying?
Exactly you would want to clear your name. Not coming forward = suspicion and when he connects with other evidence it's elementary my dear Watson. We have an efit and an exact time that possibly connects to a person and efits that weren't released to the public in the search for Maddy.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 17, 2014, 12:47:29 PM
Not all the locals were scared of the PJ - one was very keen to help. If a local man was Smithman, why would he be scared if he actually had a young daughter himself to prove it wasn't Madeleine he was carrying?
Because he didn't want to be ripped apart by Trolls?
However, I think that Tanner man was Smith man. And I think he was hiding somewhere in the interim to get directions. If there was a boat off shore then a rendezvous had to be arranged.
Call me daft if you like, but I always hope for the best.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Carana on October 17, 2014, 12:59:55 PM
Exactly you would want to clear your name. Not coming forward = suspicion and when he connects with other evidence it's elementary my dear Watson. We have an efit and an exact time that possibly connects to a person and efits that weren't released to the public in the search for Maddy.
Erm... who says that innocent people hadn't come forward at some point during the general chaos, and whose communications hadn't been correctly recorded or lost?
Tannerman may indeed be an innocent dad carrying his child, as might Smithman.
Shouldn't people in the area carrying a child have been thoroughly checked and eliminated as part of a logical process right at the beginning?
The PJ leaks to a frenzied media may have put some people off, and the general chaos may mean that some attempts to communicate with the police / hotline weren't noticed at the time.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 01:26:38 PM
If she was carried out of 5a rather than wandering out, the use of a get-away-car is an almost certainty. What worries me about the Smith sighting though is the long sleeve pyjamas since Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pj's when she went to bed. In my opinion, the Smiths sighting is a red herring.
If it was a red herring then the McCanns would have no reason to fear the sighting.
But they do, hence Kate not telling the truth & them efits being stuffed under a rock.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 17, 2014, 01:44:38 PM
How could Kate introduce e-fits, which never formed part of the shelved investigation, into the public domain via her book without compromising the Smiths?
Compromising the Smiths, certainly, but still more important, (potentially) compromising an innocent man carrying his own child.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 01:45:56 PM
Because he didn't want to be ripped apart by Trolls?
However, I think that Tanner man was Smith man. And I think he was hiding somewhere in the interim to get directions. If there was a boat off shore then a rendezvous had to be arranged.
Call me daft if you like, but I always hope for the best.
I also believe that JT saw someone other than the one that came forward....Not comvinced of Smithman. I believe she was taken on a boat as well, otherwise where is she..No body, nothing. How do you dispose of a child, so completely?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 17, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
Erm... who says that innocent people hadn't come forward at some point during the general chaos, and whose communications hadn't been correctly recorded or lost?
Tannerman may indeed be an innocent dad carrying his child, as might Smithman.
Shouldn't people in the area carrying a child have been thoroughly checked and eliminated as part of a logical process right at the beginning?
The PJ leaks to a frenzied media may have put some people off, and the general chaos may mean that some attempts to communicate with the police / hotline weren't noticed at the time.
DCI Redwood did say during the Crimewatch appeal that even if people had given information to the police at the time not to assume that the present investigation knew about it and asked them to come forward again.
Given the amount of information flooding in it would be surprising if there hadn’t been instances of some of it getting lost or misfiled.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 04:56:53 PM
I also believe that JT saw someone other than the one that came forward....Not comvinced of Smithman. I believe she was taken on a boat as well, otherwise where is she..No body, nothing. How do you dispose of a child, so completely?
I think Jane Tanner saw Madeleine and her abductor ... there probably was an innocentman ... but there has always been something a bit 'non specific' about the SY approach to the sightings and the efits.
I have no doubt they know a great deal more about this sequence of events than has been released.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
I think Jane Tanner saw Madeleine and her abductor ... there probably was an innocentman ... but there has always been something a bit 'non specific' about the SY approach to the sightings and the efits.
I have no doubt they know a great deal more about this sequence of events than has been released.
She didn't.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 17, 2014, 05:32:24 PM
I think Jane Tanner saw Madeleine and her abductor ... there probably was an innocentman ... but there has always been something a bit 'non specific' about the SY approach to the sightings and the efits.
I have no doubt they know a great deal more about this sequence of events than has been released.
So do SY know stuff or not, you seem to be selective in your acceptance of their skills.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 05:58:09 PM
Sorry ... you have lost me there ... you will have to give me examples of where I have been selective.
Good grief, in the same post you disagree with SY who say Tanner's sighting was an innocent tourist at same time they know a great deal more than has been released... &%+((£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
Good grief, in the same post you disagree with SY who say Tanner's sighting was an innocent tourist at same time they know a great deal more than has been released... &%+((£
You may have failed to notice ... it doesn't really matter what I think ... I'm not tasked with solving the case ... I am quite content to leave that sort of work to the professionals of the Met.
So my opinion means zich ... although I am certain ... totally and absolutely certain ... that in an active investigation ... they will decide what it is helpful to have in the public domain ... and what it is not.
I fail to see the contradiction in that ... but if it pleases you to see one ... who am I to argue?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 17, 2014, 06:26:57 PM
You may have failed to notice ... it doesn't really matter what I think ... I'm not tasked with solving the case ... I am quite content to leave that sort of work to the professionals of the Met.
So my opinion means zich ... although I am certain ... totally and absolutely certain ... that in an active investigation ... they will decide what it is helpful to have in the public domain ... and what it is not.
I fail to see the contradiction in that ... but if it pleases you to see one ... who am I to argue?
Deflecting...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 06:33:46 PM
Actually it seems to be you doing the deflecting ... the thread isn't entitled what I think of the Met ... it is actually about the Smith sighting which is closely allied to Jane Tanner's sighting. So if you have an opinion on either ... it could be helpful in keeping us on topic.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 17, 2014, 07:14:30 PM
Actually it seems to be you doing the deflecting ... the thread isn't entitled what I think of the Met ... it is actually about the Smith sighting which is closely allied to Jane Tanner's sighting. So if you have an opinion on either ... it could be helpful in keeping us on topic.
This is an interesting proposition. Would you be so kind as to share you reasoning wrt how they are closely allied?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 17, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
if Gerry is smithman...why ahs he not been arrested?
Good question. there are some "sceptics" who KNOW that Gerry was Smithman, presumably because of thr overwhelming evidence, so why haven't the police at the very least made him an arguido again?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2014, 08:29:24 PM
This is an interesting proposition. Would you be so kind as to share you reasoning wrt how they are closely allied?
You haven't been reading my posts ... I'm hurt.
If you scroll back I'm sure all will be revealed ... I remember going into the Smith and Tanner sightings in some depth ... so you shouldn't be disappointed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 17, 2014, 10:17:30 PM
If you scroll back I'm sure all will be revealed ... I remember going into the Smith and Tanner sightings in some depth ... so you shouldn't be disappointed.
I can follow (less or more) what you are driving at but do not agree with your reasoning. Remember 96% of people involved in fatal road accidents have been eating potatoes in the previous 24 hours 8(>(( I'll respond properly tomorrow maybe if rain stops play elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
So the experts say abduction is perfectly possible and would have taken minutes and someone on a forum says they are wrong...so?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 17, 2014, 10:46:44 PM
loads of reasons why the shutters would be open..to let in some light for one
Exactly.
It is unlikely the victims of crime would be able to account for the reason the perpetrator\s had opened the window and raised the shutter.
On the other hand had they actually been “staging” a crime scene … wouldn’t they have made a better job of it … perhaps physically ‘jemmying’ the window? Or maybe just report that the patio door was slightly open on the return to the apartment and the heavy front door was also open … entry via the glass door … exit via the wooden door … simples ... and no problem about accounting for windows and shutters.
Dr Kate McCann reported the scene as she found it … it was up to the police to take it from there.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 18, 2014, 10:43:12 AM
From Dr Amaral’s documentary film … it is interesting to note just how dark it is at the corner where the encounter took place. Jane Tanner saw the man and child three quarters of an hour earlier at an open junction not in the shadow of buildings … yet she was unable to describe his features.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 18, 2014, 10:52:26 AM
It is unlikely the victims of crime would be able to account for the reason the perpetrator\s had opened the window and raised the shutter.
On the other hand had they actually been “staging” a crime scene … wouldn’t they have made a better job of it … perhaps physically ‘jemmying’ the window? Or maybe just report that the patio door was slightly open on the return to the apartment and the heavy front door was also open … entry via the glass door … exit via the wooden door … simples ... and no problem about accounting for windows and shutters.
Dr Kate McCann reported the scene as she found it … it was up to the police to take it from there.
It's a wonder they never jemmied the shutters with all the tampering going on. It makes sense to have an unlocked door at 8:30 with no evidence of a break in. After the crying episode it was left unlocked at 8:30 which is abnormal because Gerry used his key to enter on his first check and later changed it &%+((£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 18, 2014, 12:21:43 PM
Topic: The locked door versus the unlocked rear patio door issue.
The link you give to a statement says GM entered the apartment through the front door using a key blah de bloody dah "then left the apartment" no detail of the manner of egress ? Front door? patio door? when did it become know it was the patio door? Just saying like and seeking clarification
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2014, 04:42:53 PM
If you scroll back I'm sure all will be revealed ... I remember going into the Smith and Tanner sightings in some depth ... so you shouldn't be disappointed.
We have Jane Tanner walking up the road anytime between 2045 and 2115 (the only independent timing I am aware of). She sees a bloke carrying a child across his forearms which, as has been debated at length on this forum ,would not be an easy task with a 3-4 year old. The guy has longish (down to his collar) dark hair and is walking approximately east of north east. Then we have a family seeing another guy with shorter dark carrying a child up against his body the child’s head over his left shoulder at about 2205-2215 (based on the credit card transaction) walking roughly south of south east some 250 to 300 metres to the south of the Jane Tanner sighting. The Metropolitan Police Service says that the man Jane Tanner saw has been accounted for (Crimewatch).
The postulation is that the Metropolitan Police Service has failed to account for the man Jane Tanner really saw because the guy who they state they have accounted for was not he. The “real” guy crossing the road with Madeleine over his arms sees Jane, and possibly Gerald & Jeremy, thinks he will be rumbled and hides/walks about for anything between 50 minutes and 90 minutes before bumping into the Smith family and disappearing into the ether. That seems to be a fair summary of your position from your posts would you not agree?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 18, 2014, 04:53:13 PM
We have Jane Tanner walking up the road anytime between 2045 and 2115 (the only independent timing I am aware of). She sees a bloke carrying a child across his forearms which, as has been debated at length on this forum ,would not be an easy task with a 3-4 year old. The guy has longish (down to his collar) dark hair and is walking approximately east of north east. Then we have a family seeing another guy with shorter dark carrying a child up against his body the child’s head over his left shoulder at about 2205-2215 (based on the credit card transaction) walking roughly south of south east some 250 to 300 metres to the south of the Jane Tanner sighting. The Metropolitan Police Service says that the man Jane Tanner saw has been accounted for (Crimewatch).
The postulation is that the Metropolitan Police Service has failed to account for the man Jane Tanner really saw because the guy who they state they have accounted for was not he. The “real” guy crossing the road with Madeleine over his arms sees Jane, and possibly Gerald & Jeremy, thinks he will be rumbled and hides/walks about for anything between 50 minutes and 90 minutes before bumping into the Smith family and disappearing into the ether. That seems to be a fair summary of your position from your posts would you not agree?
The answer should have been "No" ... it got lost in that huge space between paras, apologies
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2014, 06:15:47 PM
Actually, I wasn't shouting in reply. Initially I had invaded your post by posting "No" within the quotation marks, I edited my post by removing it and added that outside the quote ... expecting it still to be within your quote, hence the font size. Do you follow?? I was quite surprised when I saw it ... but wasn't going to edit again.
Thank you for taking what looked like a tantrum with such sang froid.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 12:22:30 AM
We have Jane Tanner walking up the road anytime between 2045 and 2115 (the only independent timing I am aware of). She sees a bloke carrying a child across his forearms which, as has been debated at length on this forum ,would not be an easy task with a 3-4 year old. The guy has longish (down to his collar) dark hair and is walking approximately east of north east. Then we have a family seeing another guy with shorter dark carrying a child up against his body the child’s head over his left shoulder at about 2205-2215 (based on the credit card transaction) walking roughly south of south east some 250 to 300 metres to the south of the Jane Tanner sighting. The Metropolitan Police Service says that the man Jane Tanner saw has been accounted for (Crimewatch).
The postulation is that the Metropolitan Police Service has failed to account for the man Jane Tanner really saw because the guy who they state they have accounted for was not he. The “real” guy crossing the road with Madeleine over his arms sees Jane, and possibly Gerald & Jeremy, thinks he will be rumbled and hides/walks about for anything between 50 minutes and 90 minutes before bumping into the Smith family and disappearing into the ether. That seems to be a fair summary of your position from your posts would you not agree?
An excellent analysis Alice. Good that you have used the restaurant credit card transaction to estimate the time of the Smith sighting. But I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation). Never. The bizarre thing is that all versions of both types of theory are fixated upon a transportation method which never, never happens. Do the last time of known visual sighting (approx 21.05), combined with scientific considerations, indicate that the time of exit was at minimum 22.30, or later?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 01:11:33 AM
An excellent analysis Alice. Good that you have used the restaurant credit card transaction to estimate the time of the Smith sighting. But I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation). Never. The bizarre thing is that all versions of both types of theory are fixated upon a transportation method which never, never happens. Do the last time of known visual sighting (approx 21.05), combined with scientific considerations, indicate that the time of exit was at minimum 22.30, or later?
You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."
If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint and getting back to the table a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.
Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 01:18:45 AM
You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."
If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.
Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.
Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 01:21:48 AM
You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."
If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.
Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.
What I posted was "... open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation)."
Look at the Huelva occultation - the perp was very low IQ - but even he was not stupid enough to use open carrying in arms. Are you claiming the perp in this case was lower IQ than delValle? I doubt it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 01:27:11 AM
Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?
Kelly's Bar was the last bar before calling it a night. Some were flying back early the next morning. They arrived at around 9:30 (Dolphin restaurant receipt 9:27) and stayed for 30 minutes and left at around 10pm. So that connects to a 10:02/03 sighting time.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 02:02:12 AM
Kelly's Bar was the last bar before calling it a night. Some were flying back early the next morning. They arrived at around 9:30 (Dolphin restaurant receipt 9:27) and stayed for 30 minutes and left at around 10pm. So that connects to a 10:02/03 sighting time.
If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint. Smithman does not exist.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 02:52:33 AM
If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint. Smithman does not exist.
Good points. The logical conclusion from your post would be that Smithman does exist, and was seen at about 10.15pm?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: colombosstogey on October 19, 2014, 06:07:33 AM
If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint. Smithman does not exist.
I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.
Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.
Right i think its about 5.30.
Oh oops it 05.40 lol.
That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.
We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?
The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?
The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them. They could have easily have said they were there to check on her. Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............
If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.
This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.
If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.
a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used. b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.
So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?
a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......
Non of it makes sense.
And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.
Pretend all is well.
All go back to apartments.
During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.
Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.
The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.
To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.
The only other scenario for me is bizarre.
Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.
Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.
Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.
Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?
So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.
IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.
So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?
My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£
No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 19, 2014, 07:48:07 AM
I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.
Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.
Right i think its about 5.30.
Oh oops it 05.40 lol.
That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.
We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?
The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?
The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them. They could have easily have said they were there to check on her. Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............
If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.
This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.
If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.
a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used. b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.
So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?
a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......
Non of it makes sense.
And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.
Pretend all is well.
All go back to apartments.
During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.
Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.
The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.
To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.
The only other scenario for me is bizarre.
Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.
Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.
Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.
Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?
So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.
IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.
So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?
My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£
No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.
Good post. Nothing wrong with your brain. You have managed to make some sense out of what is a confusing situation.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint. Smithman does not exist.
Good points. The logical conclusion from your post would be that Smithman does exist, and was seen at about 10.15pm?
Aoife's statement clearly says what happened. She was there not you!
— 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.
Dolphin restaurant is next to Kelly's Bar (see pic) - Dolphin receipt 9:27
Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?
Oh dear! stereotypical racism I see I thought the forum had rules about that? 8(>(( You think a person as you stereotype is incapable of downing two pints of Smithwicks in 20 minutes? Your having a larf @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 19, 2014, 12:46:11 PM
Aoife's statement clearly says what happened. She was there not you!
— 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.
Dolphin restaurant is next to Kelly's Bar (see pic) - Dolphin receipt 9:27
Seems Peter and Martin again contradict Aofie's statement.
Peter Smith
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Martin Smith
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
Is a 12 year old a reliable witness? Why wasn't the 13 year old asked to give a statement? Would be interesting to know where the other 6 were walking in comparison to the above.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 19, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.
around 21H50/22H00.
around 21H55
Not much of a contradiction really, is it.
You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 19, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.
Aofie's says around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. The other 2 say 2100. Obviously you didn't want to read that bit as its a contradiction. You seem to like Aofie's cos it fits what you want to. On the contrary I do like the Smith sighting
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 19, 2014, 01:19:52 PM
Aofie's says around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. The other 2 say 2100. Obviously you didn't want to read that bit as its a contradiction. You seem to like Aofie's cos it fits what you want to. On the contrary I do like the Smith sighting
Only the time that they left is important.
They're all agreed on around what time that was.
And no, you're a bundleman fan.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 19, 2014, 02:14:26 PM
An excellent analysis Alice. Good that you have used the restaurant credit card transaction to estimate the time of the Smith sighting. But I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation). Never. The bizarre thing is that all versions of both types of theory are fixated upon a transportation method which never, never happens. Do the last time of known visual sighting (approx 21.05), combined with scientific considerations, indicate that the time of exit was at minimum 22.30, or later?
It is an offence which is covered by law ... so I am not sure your analogy is the correct one.
So called stranger abduction is remarkably rare ... in those cases where the abduction of a child from bed and the child and abductor vanish without trace ... who is to say what the method of escape was.
Unless the very young child groggy with sleep and not drugged walks hand in hand with the perp ... it stands to reason he\she will be carried particularly if drugged; a baby will be carried.
Before transfer to a vehicle it is highly likely a child will be walked or carried.
Just because this is not witnessed ... it does not mean it doesn't happen ... and that applies to children who vanish without trace from areas where they have been playing.
In Scotland, Sandy Davidson was walked away. In England James Bulger was walked away.
I do not think it is possible to state categorically that an abductor would not be seen carrying a child, particularly if that was in close proximity to where the child had been abducted from.
>>quote<< Kidnapping is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
In R v D,[1] Lord Brandon said:
First, the nature of the offence is an attack on, and infringement of, the personal liberty of an individual. Secondly, the offence contains four ingredients as follows: (1) the taking or carrying away of one person by another; (2) by force or fraud; (3) without the consent of the person so taken or carried away; and (4) without lawful excuse.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 03:11:56 PM
Seems Peter and Martin again contradict Aofie's statement.
Peter Smith
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Martin Smith
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
Is a 12 year old a reliable witness? Why wasn't the 13 year old asked to give a statement? Would be interesting to know where the other 6 were walking in comparison to the above.
Well they are completely wrong aren't they? How can you leave dolphin restaurant at 9 when the receipt was 9:27? Sober Aoife was the only one correct on times.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: DCI on October 19, 2014, 03:17:04 PM
Well they are completely wrong aren't they? How can you leave dolphin restaurant at 9 when the receipt was 9:27? Aoife was the only one correct on times.
Maybe, but Itis still a contradiction, or is it a mistranslation? Do you have a link to the Dolphin receipt?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 03:23:41 PM
Persactly; however it is now imperative to grease Smithman or make out he is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring (by trashing the Smith family) such that then we can say that the Tanner sighting is still kosher and the guy who SY accounted for is someone else. Original story still intact. Simples! (which is precisely what one would need to be to swallow that idea)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Carana on October 19, 2014, 06:23:59 PM
Aofie's says around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. The other 2 say 2100. Obviously you didn't want to read that bit as its a contradiction. You seem to like Aofie's cos it fits what you want to. On the contrary I do like the Smith sighting
If what I posted just further up is correct, the Dolphin's receipt says 21.27 (assuming that this was the party of 9).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 19, 2014, 06:32:11 PM
Please check for yourself that whether I got these records right. It can be deduced that the 9.39 record must be the Smith party. Possibly one or more of the following records are theirs also? Also it is obvious that drinks are paid for when ordering (not when leaving). So we have the group being served drinks at exactly 9.39.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 09:08:08 PM
Please check for yourself that whether I got these records right. It can be deduced that the 9.39 record must be the Smith party. Possibly one or more of the following records are theirs also? Also it is obvious that drinks are paid for when ordering (not when leaving). So we have the group being served drinks at exactly 9.39.
Yes agreed. 9:39 paying for one round of drinks. 5 children colas cost around 6 Euros + 4 adult beverages = total 13.75
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 09:33:55 PM
Yes agreed. 9:39 paying for one round of drinks. 5 children colas cost around 6 Euros + 4 adult beverages = total 13.75
Both Martin & Peter said they had a couple/some drinks in the bar in their statement so is it reasonable to assume that the 9.50pm sale may have been theirs also? Otherwise, it is well past 10pm when a second round is bought.
Peter Smith
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Martin Smith
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 09:43:08 PM
Both Martin & Peter said they had a couple/some drinks in the bar in their statement so is it reasonable to assume that the 9.50pm sale may have been theirs also? Otherwise, it is well past 10pm when a second round is bought.
Peter Smith
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Martin Smith
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
Yes and probably had a few too many going from the 9pm arriving at Kelly Bar time 8(0(* Lucky Aoife was the sober one.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 09:45:41 PM
There weren't many drinks on that receipt from the Dolphin.
To be honest you would have to talk to Martin & Peter to see how many drinks they had at Kelly's Bar. I personally think one round of drinks in 20 minutes is reasonable. It's not like they're out on a lads pub crawl!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 09:54:18 PM
So we agree that they were served drinks at exactly 9.39. Then they commence to drink the drinks. At what time do you think they left Kellys?
20 minutes to have drinks so around 10pm.
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.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 10:15:20 PM
BTW the restaurant visit lasted 1 hour and 57 minutes. There was certainly no queue to be served when they arrived at Kellys. So they probably arrived at Kellys at 21.37, this allows 2 minutes for the drinks to be poured, giving the till record at exactly 21.39. Add AS's 30 minutes onto 21:37 and you get them leaving Kellys at about 10.07. Sighting was at about 10.15 I think. Which would actually fit your theory much better.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 10:18:15 PM
BTW the restaurant visit lasted 1 hour and 57 minutes. There was certainly no queue to be served when they arrived at Kellys. So they probably arrived at Kellys at 21.37, this allows 2 minutes for the drinks to be poured, giving the till record at exactly 21.39. Add AS's 30 minutes onto 21:37 and you get them leaving Kellys at about 10.07. Sighting was at about 10.15 I think. Which would actually fit your theory much better.
10:03 connects with my theory.
"By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50." (MO 10 May)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
To be honest you would have to talk to Martin & Peter to see how many drinks they had at Kelly's Bar. I personally think one round of drinks in 20 minutes is reasonable. It's not like they're out on a lads pub crawl!
Being pedantic - both of the men said they had drink in the plural rather than "a drink" or "one drink". So there must have been another round purchased at 9.46pm or after.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 19, 2014, 10:48:29 PM
Being pedantic - both of the men said they had drink in the plural rather than "a drink" or "one drink". So there must have been another round purchased at 9.46pm or after.
Makes sense. BTW does everyone agree with this? No-one bought anything in the 47 minutes before the group being served at 9.39. Therefore, when the group arrived at Kellys, there were no other customers there.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 19, 2014, 10:57:31 PM
Being pedantic - both of the men said they had drink in the plural rather than "a drink" or "one drink". So there must have been another round purchased at 9.46pm or after.
Not necessarily when they thought they were there for an hour. You would have more than one drink if they were there that long.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 19, 2014, 11:01:47 PM
Being pedantic - both of the men said they had drink in the plural rather than "a drink" or "one drink". So there must have been another round purchased at 9.46pm or after.
Martin & Peter downed a pint each in roughly 7 minutes....
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 11:04:43 PM
Not necessarily when they thought they were there for an hour. You would have more than one drink if they were there that long.
Exactly. The men thought they had been there a lot longer than the 20 minutes Aoife's statement suggests. Remember, Aoife couldn't even remember which day she returned home so I would question the reliability of her memory. Such a pity that CCTV got wiped.......the PJ could have seen the man who wasn't there.....case solved.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 11:07:10 PM
Exactly. The men thought they had been there a lot longer than the 20 minutes Aoife's statement suggests. Remember, Aoife couldn't even remember which day she returned home so I would question the reliability of her memory. Such a pity that CCTV got wiped.......the PJ could have seen the man who wasn't there.....case solved.
Are you kidding me? The evidence is in the files. Thursday 3 May. What day do you think it was? The credit card receipt at 9:27 proves Aoife was correct with her 9:30 time. Martin & Peter's 9pm was incorrect and would easily explain why they thought they had more than one drink.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 11:17:10 PM
Are you kidding me? The evidence is in the files. Thursday 3 May. What day do you think it was? The credit card receipt at 9:27 proves Aoife was correct with her 9:30 time. Martin & Peter's 9pm was incorrect and would easily explain why they thought they had more than one drink.
If they can't remember how many drinks they had, then maybe Peter really did have a dream about the man who wasn't there.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 11:37:20 PM
Nothing misty about you, you're completely transparent like the rest.
Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable. The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt. It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 19, 2014, 11:41:16 PM
Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable. The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt. It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.
No, it's definitely you.
Your 'Smithman doesn't exist' nonsense is some seriously desperate BS.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 19, 2014, 11:46:16 PM
Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable. The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt. It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.
I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 19, 2014, 11:55:05 PM
Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable. The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt. It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.
Right on! and about the only time in this whole business that can be verified independently with a reasonable degree of accuracy. So do you believe the Smiths imagined seeing a man carrying a child? or that they did see a man carrying a child but it was after 22:05 ish or you believe they saw someone but you don't believe it was Gerry? Or is there a nagging doubt it may have been Gerry ergo the Smiths must be trashed?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 19, 2014, 11:56:46 PM
I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.
No PF, SY will wise up soon & realise they had all just imagined it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 12:05:12 AM
No PF, SY will wise up soon & realise they had all just imagined it.
That must be it. Getting rid of Tannerman and revealing to the public for the first time the Smithman efits on CW was a shot in the dark. SY detectives haven't got a clue @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 12:07:33 AM
IIRC witness AS says the man had thick hair, short but slightly longer on top. That hair description matches the broader faced of the two efits.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 20, 2014, 12:09:45 AM
That must be it. Getting rid of Tannerman and revealing to the public for the first time the Smithman efits on CW was a shot in the dark. SY detectives haven't got a clue @)(++(*
@)(++(*
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 12:10:48 AM
I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.
No, you haven't. From a family of 9, you have 3 statements, all of which came as a result of one saying "was I dreaming or did we see.......". Of those 3, you have dismissed the timing content of 2 as inaccurate - in the same fashion as the Tapas 9 timeline is dismissed. The one you have fixated on was provided by a 12 year old who, after discussion with the rest of her family, provided a description which was strikingly similar clothing-wise to Tannerman & carrying a child dressed strikingly similar to Tannerman's child (blanket excluded as no-one knew about the blanket then). The PJ flew this family back in secret to make their statement, then dismissed them as unimportant until the McCanns left the country. Why do you suppose that was? Prove he existed. It wasn't Gerry if you use Aoife's times and 7 years later not one other person appears to have come forward & identified him. Strange that.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 12:21:37 AM
No, you haven't. From a family of 9, you have 3 statements, all of which came as a result of one saying "was I dreaming or did we see.......". Of those 3, you have dismissed the timing content of 2 as inaccurate - in the same fashion as the Tapas 9 timeline is dismissed. The one you have fixated on was provided by a 12 year old who, after discussion with the rest of her family, provided a description which was strikingly similar clothing-wise to Tannerman & carrying a child dressed strikingly similar to Tannerman (blanket excluded as no-one knew about the blanket then). The PJ flew this family back in secret to make their statement, then dismissed them as unimportant until the McCanns left the country. Why do you suppose that was? Prove he existed. It wasn't Gerry if you use Aoife's times and 7 years later not one other person appears to have come forward & identified him. Strange that.
My theory is backed up by evidence in statements, time receipts etc. - in the files, long checks. When one witness says Kate left to check at 9:50 and another said it was exactly 10:03 then you know something ain't right! But when others reveal it's closer to 9:50 then the 10:03 anomaly needs to be looked at in closer detail. When that happens you get to the heart of the matter and what really happened that night. And why the timeline had to change 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 12:29:28 AM
Thinner chinned efit is totally different, large features relative to face size, large eyes, therefore IMO is of a different man, different sighting (maybe the talkingonmobileman mentioned in a press report?)
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 12:36:25 AM
My theory is backed up by evidence in statements, time receipts etc. - in the files, long checks. When one witness says Kate left to check at 9:50 and another said it was exactly 10:03 then you know something ain't right! But when others reveal it's closer to 9:50 then the 10:03 anomaly needs to be looked at in closer detail. When that happens you get to the heart of the matter and what really happened that night. And why the timeline had to change 8((()*/
Sr Amaral didn't agree with Aoife's 10.03 time for the Smithman sighting. He said he felt it was later to fit with his thesis.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 20, 2014, 01:19:24 AM
Sr Amaral didn't agree with Aoife's 10.03 time for the Smithman sighting. He said he felt it was later to fit with his thesis.
There are a few differing opinions regarding the timings of events for that evening, here’s just one …
>>snip<< When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates.
>>snip<< A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
>>snip<< Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples; . When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
So between the sober (I should jolly well think so) twelve year old who was very firm on times but sometimes not what day of the week it was ... and everyone else … I’m going to place my faith in whatever HOLMES came up with to convince the Met it would be a good idea to reopen Madeleine’s case.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 01:36:44 AM
There are a few differing opinions regarding the timings of events for that evening, here’s just one …
>>snip<< When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates.
>>snip<< A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
>>snip<< Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples; . When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
So between the sober (I should jolly well think so) twelve year old who was very firm on times but sometimes not what day of the week it was ... and everyone else … I’m going to place my faith in whatever HOLMES came up with to convince the Met it would be a good idea to reopen Madeleine’s case.
Yes - and here's another one:- http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm Witness Statement
Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom
Date: 2007/05/16
Occupation: Property Manager
Place of Work: P da L
He comes to the process as a witness and of his own will.
He has lived in P da L since 1996.
He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P**** B******, a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present.
When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.
When asked he says that he has known Robert Murat for about 3 or 4 years, making clear that his relation with him is limited to 'good morning' and 'good evening'.
When questioned he says that he did not see Murat on the night of the events and he makes it clear that if Murat had been at the scene he would have remembered.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 02:00:56 AM
And an example from another staff statement "between 09.30 and 22.00 ... he immediately contacted the GNR" The Portugal Telecom records however show that the GNR were contacted, not between 21.30 and 22.00, but at 22.42 IIRC So the remembering of times can easily be 45 minutes out.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 20, 2014, 02:27:35 AM
And an example from another staff statement "between 09.30 and 22.00 ... he immediately contacted the GNR" The Portugal Telecom records however show that the GNR were contacted, not between 21.30 and 22.00, but at 22.42 IIRC So the remembering of times can easily be 45 minutes out.
But isn't it amazing that so many seem to have made much the same error.
Helder did also say ... "He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given (sic) that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared."
Now I can understand tourists having no sense of time. I can understand people in an absolute panic having no sense of times. But I struggle a bit when I think about workers on shift and particularly workers nearing the end of their shift who don't have a fair idea about approx. times to be 45mins out in their reckoning.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 02:34:43 AM
And an example from another staff statement "between 09.30 and 22.00 ... he immediately contacted the GNR" The Portugal Telecom records however show that the GNR were contacted, not between 21.30 and 22.00, but at 22.42 IIRC So the remembering of times can easily be 45 minutes out.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm 7th May 2007. Housing dept. head. *snip* With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Given the circumstances, the witness thought it best to go to the resort to find out more about the situation.
When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father. ================================================================================
Doesn't the phone record look doctored to you? 52 seconds to report a missing child but 225 seconds to report a burglary?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 02:37:58 AM
But isn't it amazing that so many seem to have made much the same error.
Helder did also say ... "He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared."
Now I can understand tourists having no sense of time. I can understand people in an absolute panic having no sense of times. But I struggle a bit when I think about workers on shift and particularly workers nearing the end of their shift who don't have a fair idea about approx. times to be 45mins out in their reckoning.
Yes it is strange how the times are so different. The only way to make the early times (given by several staff) work is to propose that the landline phone company Portugal Telecom had its computer software clock set about 45 minutes fast.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: colombosstogey on October 20, 2014, 06:35:59 AM
I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.
Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.
Right i think its about 5.30.
Oh oops it 05.40 lol.
That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.
We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?
The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?
The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them. They could have easily have said they were there to check on her. Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............
If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.
This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.
If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.
a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used. b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.
So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?
a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......
Non of it makes sense.
And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.
Pretend all is well.
All go back to apartments.
During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.
Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.
The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.
To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.
The only other scenario for me is bizarre.
Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.
Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.
Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.
Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?
So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.
IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.
So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?
My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£
No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.
So without me going through all the receipts i worked out about 10.20 would be a good time for them to see this guy.
Now looking at receipts 9.39 drinks bought (cokes). There is no way kids drink coca cola in 20 minutes after being stuffed with food and men would not drink beer fast either.
OK so they say they wanted to go home early because of a morning flight.
Well it depends on what is a normal time for them to go to bed when they are on holiday.
Leaving a pub after 10pm to get home early would be late for me lol. I would have gone home from the restaurant, made sure the kids stuff was all packed and ready for the morning etc.
I dont think this family were particularly the sort who would bother too much about going to bed early lol.
I think if anything if its your LAST DAY OF HOLIDAY you tend to dawdle and drag your feet, as you want to stay especially as they are staying in their own holiday apartment.
So I think they would have dawdled. I think after several weeks of thinking about timing perception is lost. I honestly think between 10.20 and 10.30 would make more sense.
My grand kids love coco cola but even they never drink it fast it gives them stomach ache.
No i think he existed but around 10.20/10.30.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 20, 2014, 07:15:19 AM
So without me going through all the receipts i worked out about 10.20 would be a good time for them to see this guy.
Now looking at receipts 9.39 drinks bought (cokes). There is no way kids drink coca cola in 20 minutes after being stuffed with food and men would not drink beer fast either.
OK so they say they wanted to go home early because of a morning flight.
Well it depends on what is a normal time for them to go to bed when they are on holiday.
Leaving a pub after 10pm to get home early would be late for me lol. I would have gone home from the restaurant, made sure the kids stuff was all packed and ready for the morning etc.
I dont think this family were particularly the sort who would bother too much about going to bed early lol.
I think if anything if its your LAST DAY OF HOLIDAY you tend to dawdle and drag your feet, as you want to stay especially as they are staying in their own holiday apartment.
So I think they would have dawdled. I think after several weeks of thinking about timing perception is lost. I honestly think between 10.20 and 10.30 would make more sense.
My grand kids love coco cola but even they never drink it fast it gives them stomach ache.
No i think he existed but around 10.20/10.30.
That's some deperate BS right there.
All 3 witnesess give their time of departure as being around 10pm.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 20, 2014, 10:17:11 AM
The idea that ...... went dashing off to move the body at around the time the alarm was raised is just too daft for words IMO.
How could he know beforehand what time the police were going to arrive? It could have been 5 minutes after the alarm was raised for all he knew. How did he know that some unrelated person would not ring the police on their mobiles as soon as Kate raised the alarm.
No sane person would devise a plan which invoved (a) having no idea where they would be when the police arrived, (b) having no idea how long they would be gone - and (c) having no idea how many people would be around to see them - on the way there or on the way back.
This 'theory' is just another example of the misuse of hindsight IMO. Facts which are now known but which could not possibly have been known by GM at the time are being used.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 20, 2014, 11:07:24 AM
The idea that ...... went dashing off to move the body at around the time the alarm was raised is just too daft for words IMO.
How could he know beforehand what time the police were going to arrive? It could have been 5 minutes after the alarm was raised for all he knew. How did he know that some unrelated person would not ring the police on their mobiles as soon as Kate raised the alarm.
No sane person would devise a plan which invoved (a) having no idea where they would be when the police arrived, (b) having no idea how long they would be gone - and (c) having no idea how many people would be around to see them - on the way there or on the way back.
This 'theory' is just another example of the misuse of hindsight IMO. Facts which are now known but which could not possibly have been known by GM at the time are being used.
They didn't even bother trying to phone the police, funnily enough.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 09:21:54 PM
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm ... at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception ...
The call from reception landline to the mobile of VS is at 22:59 in the reception phone records.
HL and VS statements both match on the sequence: 1. reception calls GNR twice, 2. reception calls VS. But both witnesses place this sequence much earlier than is recorded in the landline records provided by landline company "Portugal telecom". I have even considered whether the landline company computer's clock was inaccurate.
BTW the call from a staff member (located at tapas restaurant when he made the call) to receptionist (telling receptionist to phone GNR) was at 22:38 in reception phone records, and was IMO probably from JH mobile.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 10:03:46 PM
The call from reception landline to the mobile of VS is at 22:59 in the reception phone records.
HL and VS statements both match on the sequence: 1. reception calls GNR twice, 2. reception calls VS. But both witnesses place this sequence much earlier than is recorded in the landline records provided by landline company "Portugal telecom". I have even considered whether the landline company computer's clock was inaccurate.
BTW the call from a staff member (located at tapas restaurant when he made the call) to receptionist (telling receptionist to phone GNR) was at 22:38 in reception phone records, and was IMO probably from JH mobile.
This all proves that human memory cannot be relied upon 100%, so to believe that only Aoife had a totally accurate recollection is improbable. I am puzzled, though, that so many OC staff put their timelines much earlier than the computerised data confirms. You don't think it has been doctored?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 10:18:30 PM
This all proves that human memory cannot be relied upon 100%, so to believe that only Aoife had a totally accurate recollection is improbable. I am puzzled, though, that so many OC staff put their timelines much earlier than the computerised data confirms. You don't think it has been doctored?
No way have the landline phone records of OC reception, and GNR Lagos station. been doctored. But lets imagine that the network clock of the landline phone company was say 30 minutes fast. That would mean that in the records for OC reception landline, and in the seperate records for GNR Lagos station, (both reliant on the same network clock) the calls listed as 2241 and 2252 would have really been at 2211 and 2222 (hypothetical example).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 10:30:40 PM
No way have the landline phone records of OC reception, and GNR Lagos station. been doctored. But lets imagine that the network clock of the landline phone company was say 30 minutes fast. That would mean that in the records for OC reception landline, and in the seperate records for GNR Lagos station, (both reliant on the same network clock) the calls listed as 2241 and 2252 would have really been at 2211 and 2222 (hypothetical example).
I'd have a lot of trouble believing that. The receptionist certainly required further grilling for his role in the delayed phone call - and what else he was doing between 9 & 10.30pm.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 10:42:04 PM
This all proves that human memory cannot be relied upon 100%, so to believe that only Aoife had a totally accurate recollection is improbable. I am puzzled, though, that so many OC staff put their timelines much earlier than the computerised data confirms. You don't think it has been doctored?
Not everyone was paying close attention to their watch that night like Gerry. We have a good idea Aoife was right on times due to her statement and receipt times to back it up.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 10:44:30 PM
I'd have a lot of trouble believing that. The receptionist certainly required further grilling for his role in the delayed phone call - and what else he was doing between 9 & 10.30pm.
It would have made sense to ask him - "when a staffmember called you and you called the GNR, was that the very first time you heard of the missing child, or did someone walk in before that and report it to you?".
I think the last check and the alarm are likely to be earlier than commonly assumed.,And the Smith sighting is likely to be later than commonly assumed. It requires a very rushed Kelly visit to make the sighting so early as 10pm. They had just spent almost 2 hours at Dolphin, so I expect they would have stayed about half an hour at Kelly after getting their drinks at 21:39 , which would make the sighting about 22:15.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 11:05:03 PM
It would have made sense to ask him - "when a staffmember called you and you called the GNR, was that the very first time you heard of the missing child, or did someone walk in before that and report it to you?".
I think the last check and the alarm are likely to be earlier than commonly assumed.,And the Smith sighting is likely to be later than commonly assumed. It requires a very rushed Kelly visit to make the sighting so early as 10pm. They had just spent almost 2 hours at Dolphin, so I expect they would have stayed about half an hour at Kelly after getting their drinks at 21:39 , which would make the sighting about 22:15.
Dolphin is next to Kelly's Bar so it would only take a minute to get there. There's 12 minutes between receipt times 9:27 & 9:39. I think they would be at Kelly's about 9:30 as Aoife said in her statement.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 11:09:51 PM
It would have made sense to ask him - "when a staffmember called you and you called the GNR, was that the very first time you heard of the missing child, or did someone walk in before that and report it to you?".
I think the last check and the alarm are likely to be earlier than commonly assumed.,And the Smith sighting is likely to be later than commonly assumed. It requires a very rushed Kelly visit to make the sighting so early as 10pm. They had just spent almost 2 hours at Dolphin, so I expect they would have stayed about half an hour at Kelly after getting their drinks at 21:39 , which would make the sighting about 22:15.
Bearing in mind the mobilisation of all the OC staff/nannies, is it reasonable to assume that it was nearly half an hour before anyone at all went to reception? You know my views on Smithman so the time of the sighting is irrelevant to me.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 20, 2014, 11:12:40 PM
Dolphin is next to Kelly's Bar so it would only take a minute to get there. There's 12 minutes between receipt times 9:27 & 9:39. I think they would be at Kelly's about 9:30 as Aoife said in her statement.
The Irish do like to talk! You're not taking into consideration that some of them probably needed to visit the restroom before adjourning to the pub.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 11:29:20 PM
Bearing in mind the mobilisation of all the OC staff/nannies, is it reasonable to assume that it was nearly half an hour before anyone at all went to reception? You know my views on Smithman so the time of the sighting is irrelevant to me.
The first staff to hear that a child was missing were nannies CP and JW and AT. They were working at the evening creche when a mum came in to collect her child and said she had just passed a man searching for a missing child. They started the chains of phonecalls which notified other the numerous staff. Now it is interesting to note that evening creche is very close to 24 hour reception. Possibly even directly one floor above it. (I am not sure whether to get to/from evening creche you walk past reception desk, or whether they have seperate doors).
And back to the Smith sighting, I too think the Sept identification by M Smith is incorrect.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 20, 2014, 11:30:48 PM
The Irish do like to talk! You're not taking into consideration that some of them probably needed to visit the restroom before adjourning to the pub.
Yes with small children it would take longer - pick a table, choose drinks for everyone then order so that could take 5-10 minutes. But they would still be arriving at Kelly's around 9:30.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2014, 11:40:31 PM
Dolphin is next to Kelly's Bar so it would only take a minute to get there. There's 12 minutes between receipt times 9:27 & 9:39. I think they would be at Kelly's about 9:30 as Aoife said in her statement.
I have seen large groups leaving restaurants. One of them pays the bill, either at the table or at the desk, and then they all start getting up and then one or more decide to visit the loo, it can be easily be ten minutes before they are actually all out the door. People who have spent 1 hour 57minutes over a meal are not going to rush to evacuate the restuarant, they do so slowly. The timing you propose has that whole process, plus the walk to Kellys, taking under 3 minutes, but then you have the lady in Kellys, where there was absolutely no queue and no other customers present, taking 9 minutes to serve them drinks?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 21, 2014, 02:13:44 AM
The first staff to hear that a child was missing were nannies CP and JW and AT. They were working at the evening creche when a mum came in to collect her child and said she had just passed a man searching for a missing child. They started the chains of phonecalls which notified other the numerous staff. Now it is interesting to note that evening creche is very close to 24 hour reception. Possibly even directly one floor above it. (I am not sure whether to get to/from evening creche you walk past reception desk, or whether they have seperate doors).
And back to the Smith sighting, I too think the Sept identification by M Smith is incorrect.
The 3 nannies all state that they became aware of the disappearance between 10 & 10.15. The waiter Ricardo Oliveira states that the diners were all missing, bar Dianne, from the dining table, between 2145 & 2200hrs http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
I'm having a little trouble finding out who Joe is, as mentioned in Ricardo's statement, who seemed to be under the impression that Ricardo had phoned reception about the disappearance. Is it really possible that absolutely none of the OC staff took responsibility for ensuring the police were called? Maybe the receptionist was just too busy booking in new arrivals.........but then, he wasn't asked what he was doing or who else was hanging around reception that night.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: colombosstogey on October 21, 2014, 06:38:01 AM
....get real pathfinder, I am not a pro or a con of the case. I am in it to find the truth. Why does it have to be 10pm? What are you trying to PROVE? You are convinced a 12 year old girl is ACCURATE in timings. Jeez now that is BS. I have had grandchildren at 12 years old who have no clue as to what time it is, and quite a few cant even read the time lol....unless its on their latest gadgets. No I certainly would not expect a 12 year old to be so accurate.
Your just trying to match it to a possibility it being ...... ........ is that it?
I actually think the smith man does exist but around 10.20.
We can all sit here on our computers working out times, but no one is accurate on times when you are on holiday and this statement wasnt even made straight away, so time can change in your mind PERCEPTION.
I am not quite sure why you are so hung ho on it being IMPOSSIBLE to be around 10.15/20.
I dont for one minute think it was ...... anyway. From the McCann files.......
'Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated.
Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.'
So he never actually saw this guys face, they all stated that: As they walk, they pass a man carrying a child in his arms. The man averts his eyes from them to signal that he does not wish to speak.
Its dark they cannot determine his face.....
The only reason why it looked like Gerry McCann was because of the way he was walking down the airplane carrying his son.....
I am not going to pad things out to suit the fact it might be Mr McCann. It needs to be truth and logical.
Why would he be moving his daughter at 10pm through lit streets, no one else saw him.....
I think there was someone carrying a child, and most people do carry children that way when they are alseep.
As no one came forward who could it be?
Mr Innocent but later and that is why he never came forward because the timing was wrong. Or Mr Sinister, BUT if he had abducted the child as late as say 9.45, then why walk through Prai Da Lus.
I am leaning more towards Mr Smithman maybe being Mr Innocent....
No I cant see the point of taking the child towards the beach....when a. The McCanns could have simply not cried foul so early and left it later.....or
She was taken at 9.45 say and the perv moved her through the car park and out towards the lagos road and a car waiting.
Either way we know the child is missing.
BUT you cant stick with timings we all know that witness statements can be so wrong, and this was not immediate was it. Wasnt it two weeks later and then four months later?
ALSO ITS ODD ISNT IT. Mr Smiths witness statement.
After leaving the bar, he travelled in the opposite direction and reached a set of stairs which gave access to Rua 25 de Abril (25th of April Street). On this artery they followed a second street, parallel to Rua 1 de Maio (1st of May Street) whose name he does not remember. He was heading toward his apartment (Estrela da Luz complex) which is located a little above the street that crosses the primary school.
As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter and thought nothing more of it.So he hardly took any notice of him in fact almost ignored the fact as it was usual to see people wandering that particular street with sleeping kids.......
• Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
.......................
So from taking no notice to a man carrying a child, the perception now is to fit it with this scenario.
AT THIS POINT HE THOUGHT THAT MADELEINE COULD HAVE BEEN THE CHILD HE SAW WITH THE INDIVIDUAL....
HE THOUGHT.
So he had no interest in the sighting so his brain would not have even bothered to take notes of clothing etc, then after finding a child missing etc, his brain is now active and matching it to the childs disappearance....
...................................
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: colombosstogey on October 21, 2014, 06:41:59 AM
The idea that ...... went dashing off to move the body at around the time the alarm was raised is just too daft for words IMO.
How could he know beforehand what time the police were going to arrive? It could have been 5 minutes after the alarm was raised for all he knew. How did he know that some unrelated person would not ring the police on their mobiles as soon as Kate raised the alarm.
No sane person would devise a plan which invoved (a) having no idea where they would be when the police arrived, (b) having no idea how long they would be gone - and (c) having no idea how many people would be around to see them - on the way there or on the way back.
This 'theory' is just another example of the misuse of hindsight IMO. Facts which are now known but which could not possibly have been known by GM at the time are being used.
BENICE, please do not collapse or faint, but I actually agree with you on this issue lol....Yeh i know a bit shocking .........
BUT it doesnt make sense.
They could even have left the discovery until morning. Shout abduction foul play etc, window open child gone. During the night then take the childs body away that would make more sense to me and it would work too.
Its all toooooooooo rushed IMHO, trying to fit this sighting.
I knew the tanner sighting was BOGUS, and this Smith man doesnt sit well with me either, not at 10pm. Later yes it could be, but not at 10pm....really doesnt make sense.....
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2014, 06:48:52 AM
BENICE, please do not collapse or faint, but I actually agree with you on this issue lol....Yeh i know a bit shocking .........
BUT it doesnt make sense.
They could even have left the discovery until morning. Shout abduction foul play etc, window open child gone. During the night then take the childs body away that would make more sense to me and it would work too.
Its all toooooooooo rushed IMHO, trying to fit this sighting.
I knew the tanner sighting was BOGUS, and this Smith man doesnt sit well with me either, not at 10pm. Later yes it could be, but not at 10pm....really doesnt make sense.....
the fact that they could have waited till morning is one of the reasons that I don't believe in the accident cover up. Wake up in the morning...Maddie gone window open...no criticism for neglect...would have made far more sense .
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 21, 2014, 07:54:10 AM
BENICE, please do not collapse or faint, but I actually agree with you on this issue lol....Yeh i know a bit shocking .........
BUT it doesnt make sense.
They could even have left the discovery until morning. Shout abduction foul play etc, window open child gone. During the night then take the childs body away that would make more sense to me and it would work too.
Its all toooooooooo rushed IMHO, trying to fit this sighting.
I knew the tanner sighting was BOGUS, and this Smith man doesnt sit well with me either, not at 10pm. Later yes it could be, but not at 10pm....really doesnt make sense.....
Gosh - pass me the Smelling Salts! LOL.
I also believe that if it was 'staged' - then no way would they have chosen 10 o'clock at night to begin 'proceedings' - when it's so glaringly obvious that a much simpler and far more 'beneficial' plan would be to wait until the following morning. They would have to be simpletons not to have realised that IMO.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 21, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
Would Madeleine have 'disappeared' if one or more other parents had been there, a babysitter had been present, etc. ?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2014, 10:26:55 AM
The Irish do like to talk! You're not taking into consideration that some of them probably needed to visit the restroom before adjourning to the pub.
If there was a pregnant lady in their company … they most definitely had to visit the restroom on more than one occasion. A place women almost never visit on their own.
As for talking … they were a large family group including young children … imo they were strolling rather than walking smartly from A to B … and having conversation on the way … and their three year old wasn’t being carried, she was walking at her pace.
After the time recorded on the receipt I do not think there is any way whatsoever to determine the exact time the Smith’s encountered the man and child … I think it may be a lot, lot later than estimated.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 21, 2014, 12:19:19 PM
Would Madeleine have 'disappeared' if one or more other parents had been there, a babysitter had been present, etc. ?
Without doubt an emphatic 'no' but I believe most right thinking people already know this. Had they dined in the garden beside the patio they might have got away with it but dining inside a tent over 60 metres away in a public place was just asking for trouble.
What possessed the McCanns to leave those babies alone, were they lured into a false sense of security by the others? Did the Payne's having a baby monitor not alert them to potential dangers?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 21, 2014, 12:49:09 PM
Without doubt an emphatic 'no' but I believe most right thinking people already know this. Had they dined in the garden beside the patio they might have got away with it but dining inside a tent over 60 metres away in a public place was just asking for trouble.
What possessed the McCanns to leave those babies alone, were they lured into a false sense of security by the others? Did the Payne's having a baby monitor not alert them to potential dangers?
Largely I would say Angelo, this comes down to the mccanns arrogance, in thinking they know better than anyone else.
Now if the rest of the group took sensible precautions, why the hell didn't they.
It was common sense after all.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: colombosstogey on October 21, 2014, 02:01:03 PM
Well I could have moved that child EASY without anyone noticing.....and without bumping into smithman lol.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 21, 2014, 02:09:08 PM
Well I could have moved that child EASY without anyone noticing.....and without bumping into smithman lol.
It's that easy that you can't explain it.
There's only one theory that accounts for everything, pathfinder's.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2014, 03:12:26 PM
What a pity it took the Smiths a couple of weeks to realise their sighting might have had some relevance to the disappearance of a little girl from a property just a short distance away.
Perhaps the police could have factored that into the investigation or eliminated it at an earlier stage if they had known about it at the time.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 21, 2014, 05:22:56 PM
The 3 nannies all state that they became aware of the disappearance between 10 & 10.15. The waiter Ricardo Oliveira states that the diners were all missing, bar Dianne, from the dining table, between 2145 & 2200hrs http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
I'm having a little trouble finding out who Joe is, as mentioned in Ricardo's statement, who seemed to be under the impression that Ricardo had phoned reception about the disappearance. Is it really possible that absolutely none of the OC staff took responsibility for ensuring the police were called? Maybe the receptionist was just too busy booking in new arrivals.........but then, he wasn't asked what he was doing or who else was hanging around reception that night.
Joe = jeronimo
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 22, 2014, 08:28:27 AM
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 22, 2014, 02:31:07 PM
Why did the Smith's wait nearly a fortnight before deciding to contact the police to report seeing a man carrying a child near to where the abduction of a child had been reported?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 22, 2014, 11:45:14 PM
Witness A.S. saw long sleeves. The missing child was wearing short sleeves. Therefore the child A.S. saw was not the missing child. INRS.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 23, 2014, 12:28:21 PM
Or, the McCanns lied about what she was wearing. ...
The simplest solution for the long sleeves is: the child the irish family saw has nothing to do with this case. In hundreds of cases of abduction and hundreds of cases of occultation in Europe and in North America there is not a single example of open carrying in arms. Unless anyone can post an example?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 23, 2014, 02:38:38 PM
There appears to be a significant disagreement over the possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same. Aside from the length of the pyjama sleeves worn by the carried child one characteristic stands out for me and that is the length of the carriers hair.
From memory didn't Jane Tanner see him from the side at a distance of 20 odd metres and only caught a fleeting glimpse of him from behind as he passed in front of her but, and this is a big but, she did say he had longish shoulder length hair. Smithman it seems had short hair which rules him out as being Smithman.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 02:46:01 PM
The simplest solution for the long sleeves is: the child the irish family saw has nothing to do with this case. In hundreds of cases of abduction and hundreds of cases of occultation in Europe and in North America there is not a single example of open carrying in arms. Unless anyone can post an example?
Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree. It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:28 PM
Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree. It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??
Witnesses tend to repeat observations which stood out for them. A 12-year-old witness would notice things at eye level more than an adult would so Aoife's reference to long sleeves is very credible imo.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 02:54:33 PM
Witnesses tend to repeat observations which stood out for them. A 12-year-old witness would notice things at eye level more than an adult would so Aoife's reference to long sleeves is very credible imo.
If she saw the bottom(length) of the sleeve, how could she not see her hands, or have I read the statement wrongly?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 23, 2014, 03:06:26 PM
Speaking of the greater accuracy of younger witnesses' observation, here are three examples. 1. The detailed description given by young witness A.S (in the irish group) of the man and child she saw, including the important detail that the child's sleeves were long, and the possibilty of buttons on the man's trousers. 2. The highly detailed description given by young witness T.S. (not in the irish group) of a man she saw on two earlier days, including the fine detail in one of those sightings of a pencil on a chain hanging from the man's jacket. 3. The description by the even younger witness T (in the irish group), that the child he saw had bare feet, and that the man he saw was wearing a black jacket or coat with long sleeves.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2014, 03:09:35 PM
Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree. It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??
Aoifee's statement was not recorded verbatim..
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 03:12:35 PM
Speaking of the greater accuracy of younger witnesses' observation, here are three examples. 1. The detailed description given by young witness A.S (in the irish group) of the man and child she saw, including the important detail that the child's sleeves were long, and the possibilty of buttons on the man's trousers. 2. The highly detailed description given by young witness T.S. (not in the irish group) of a man she saw twice near the apartment before the 3rd, including the fine detail in one of those sightings of a pencil on a chain hanging from the man's jacket. 3. The description by the even younger witness T (in the irish group), that the child he saw had bare feet, and that the man he saw was wearing a black jacket or coat with long sleeves.
Yes peg....I had already tied them up and thought the pen on a string indicated a strong possibility that he was one of the charity collectors who gave a receipt.According to PJ he was identified.............details witheld
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Moderator on October 23, 2014, 03:13:48 PM
I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.
Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.
Right i think its about 5.30.
Oh oops it 05.40 lol.
That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.
We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?
The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?
The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them. They could have easily have said they were there to check on her. Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............
If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.
This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.
If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.
a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used. b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.
So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?
a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......
Non of it makes sense.
And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.
Pretend all is well.
All go back to apartments.
During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.
Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.
The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.
To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.
The only other scenario for me is bizarre.
Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.
Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.
Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.
Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?
So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.
IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.
So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?
My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£
No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.
Been catching up on posts from the last few days and this one caught my interest.
I agree colombosstogey, none of it seems to add up.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 03:14:33 PM
Another irish group member's statement is not recorded at all in the files, verbatim or non-verbatim, except indirectly, but it enables me to conclude with confidence that the man seen by the irish group was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 03:19:31 PM
You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.
One of your better posts WS. I agree, the three witnesses put the sighting of Smithman shortly after 10 pm regardless of when they arrived at Restaurante Dolphin.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 03:36:39 PM
Another irish group member's statement is not recorded at all in the files, verbatim or non-verbatim, except indirectly, but it enables me to conclude with confidence that the man seen by the irish group was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.
This is from 1 witness who doesnt seem to have made a statement.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 23, 2014, 03:39:06 PM
Why do some posters think Smithman never existed when nine people saw him? Is his existence still a problem for some??
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: jassi on October 23, 2014, 03:40:53 PM
You just bet it is @)(++(*
Nothing but a distraction
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 03:42:38 PM
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 23, 2014, 04:22:41 PM
Martin Smith said it definitely wasn't Murat he saw (even though he didn't have his glasses on) Why would Smith have been asked about Murat by the PJ without being also shown photos of the male members of the Tapas group?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
Martin Smith said it definitely wasn't Murat he saw (even though he didn't have his glasses on) Why would Smith have been asked about Murat by the PJ without being also shown photos of the male members of the Tapas group?
Good question.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 06:39:36 PM
Oh my goodness. Someone beat me to the gun, and removed posts that I might well have left standing.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 23, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
Martin Smith said it definitely wasn't Murat he saw (even though he didn't have his glasses on) Why would Smith have been asked about Murat by the PJ without being also shown photos of the male members of the Tapas group?
I don't think that's quite right, Misty.
I think Martin Smith said about the man he saw that he wasn't wearing glasses, to emphasise that he wasn't Robert Murat who, of course, does ...
He [Martin Smith] 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.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 07:59:06 PM
If we have totally balanced moderating, there will be no posts left... 8(0(*
Well, thank you for that. I presume it was a compliment.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2014, 08:13:12 PM
I would think that the vast majority of the uk public are unaware of the search for smithman...and on the continent even fewer are aware of the sighting
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 23, 2014, 08:24:48 PM
I think Martin Smith said about the man he saw that he wasn't wearing glasses, to emphasise that he wasn't Robert Murat who, of course, does ...
He [Martin Smith] 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.
10th August 2008
Irish Mail on Sunday
Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared
*snip* In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather -who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: TitoMuzzy on October 23, 2014, 08:26:04 PM
I would think that the vast majority of the uk public are unaware of the search for smithman...and on the continent even fewer are aware of the sighting
Why so were the e-fits not shown to the wider world on receipt, rather than Scotland Yard publicising their presence on Crimewatch many years later ?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2014, 08:27:59 PM
do you mean why didn't the PJ publicise them?....plus...how many people watch crimewatch
You could also ask why the Smiths went blabbing to the press when all other witnesses were governed by the Judicial Secrecy laws in Portugal. After all, they were considered so important that the PJ flew them over secretly.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2014, 08:41:12 PM
The point is that despite the publication of the efit it is perfectly possible...in fact likely if smithman is European....that smithman is totally unaware of the interest in him
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 23, 2014, 08:43:25 PM
Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared
*snip* In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather -who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw.
Well, that's interesting.
There's no question Martin Smith produced one of the e-fits, both of which are incredibly detailed.
I think I am more inclined to trust the police statement on this one, simply because the e-fit is so detailed.
(In fact, both are) ...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 23, 2014, 08:47:45 PM
*snip*
Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.
- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.
- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.
- The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed.
- Their testimony is credible, but given the lack of light in the area, they can't identify the man who was carrying the child.
- The described the way he walked and carried her; this image is strongly fixed in their memory.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 10:51:57 PM
I don't know if The Smiths were brought back secretly. I only know that no one knew about it, or even should have done. But with all that leaking going on then it is a bit surprising. However Goncalo Amaral then wanted them back again in September. Or was it October?
But it was a dead duck anyway. The Smith's Testimony would never have stood up in Court for many reasons. So no surprise that this idea was dropped after Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 23, 2014, 10:56:08 PM
Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral 24 July 2008
How important is the Irish witness within the case?
He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child.
That was back in May.
When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family.
What did you do?
On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 23, 2014, 11:00:45 PM
How important is the Irish witness within the case?
He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child.
That was back in May.
When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family.
What did you do?
On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html
Mr Smith was the ONLY member of the family who stated he was 60% (not 70% as you wrote) to 80% certain, and everyone who knows anything about anything knows that 60-80% certain = uncertain.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 11:03:51 PM
Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral 24 July 2008
How important is the Irish witness within the case?
He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child.
That was back in May.
When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family.
What did you do?
On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html
What? That doesn't make sense. Who said that? What Irish Police in Madrid?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 23, 2014, 11:04:40 PM
Mr Smith was the ONLY member of the family who stated he was 60% (not 70% as you wrote) to 80% certain, and everyone who knows anything about anything knows that 60-80% certain = uncertain.
It's not my words. Copy and paste Amaral interview (2008). Here's another copy and paste:
GA: When I left Portimão, on the 1st of October, I left on the 2nd but on the 1st we were arranging for those witnesses to come to Portugal. We already had permission from the national director, all that was left to do was to choose a hotel for them to stay and to schedule a date. After I left I know it took several months until the witness was heard, which happened around January or February this year, I don't know, through a rogatory letter or a request for assistance under international cooperation.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 23, 2014, 11:06:00 PM
It's not my words. Copy and paste Amaral interview. Here's another copy and paste:
GA: When I left Portimão, on the 1st of October, I left on the 2nd but on the 1st we were arranging for those witnesses to come to Portugal. We already had permission from the national director, all that was left to do was to choose a hotel for them to stay and to schedule a date. After I left I know it took several months until the witness was heard, which happened around January or February this year, I don't know, through a rogatory letter or a request for assistance under international cooperation.
Well we all know what a stickler for accuracy "Dr" Amaral is. Not.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 23, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Says he and say the other members of the family.
Wrong (in essential detail)
Martin Smith's wife thought the man might have been Gerry.
But all Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father, and Mr Smith candidly said so in his statement.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 11:07:30 PM
Oh, sorry. Goncalo Amaral. Not very lucid. Or perhaps it was a bad translation. Whatever.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 11:10:08 PM
It's not my words. Copy and paste Amaral interview (2008). Here's another copy and paste:
GA: When I left Portimão, on the 1st of October, I left on the 2nd but on the 1st we were arranging for those witnesses to come to Portugal. We already had permission from the national director, all that was left to do was to choose a hotel for them to stay and to schedule a date. After I left I know it took several months until the witness was heard, which happened around January or February this year, I don't know, through a rogatory letter or a request for assistance under international cooperation.
There never was a correct Rogatory Letter. The PJ decided not to pursue it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 23, 2014, 11:12:52 PM
Another copy and paste:
What remained to be done?
Too much. The first version of the rogatory letter, which was changed after my expulsion on 2 October, had several steps that were simply struck out. It was requested that the British dogs be used to search the house of the McCanns in Leicester and also those of their friends and that they smelled their clothes. It also asked to verify the existence of a chart on the refrigerator of the girl's parents, which showed that she had problems with sleep and used to rise several times at night. The chart is referred to by an English police officer. New interviews with the arguidos were proposed but were never done. The charter was amended by the prosecutors.
"Decisive diligence was never carried out"
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.
"The man that the Smith were talking about was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.
"When the situation was presented to the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely] the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."
McCanns erased all the telephone calls
The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception, in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known. But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 23, 2014, 11:16:47 PM
I don't know if The Smiths were brought back secretly. I only know that no one knew about it, or even should have done. But with all that leaking going on then it is a bit surprising. However Goncalo Amaral then wanted them back again in September. Or was it October?
But it was a dead duck anyway. The Smith's Testimony would never have stood up in Court for many reasons. So no surprise that this idea was dropped after Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case.
Local family may have seen missing Maddy, 06 June 2007
Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent
By Angela McCormick Wednesday June 06 2007
A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal.
The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz.
They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police.
The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.
The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent.
Portuguese police are convinced that the child, who vanished during a family holiday in the Algarve on May 3, was abducted.
A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments.
'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise,' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor. ================================================================================ Drogheda family hit out over Madeleine case clue coverage, 08 August 2007
Drogheda family hit out over Madeleine case clue coverage Drogheda Independent
Wednesday August 08 2007
A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police.
Maple Drive man Martin Smith, his wife and his children had just left the Kelly bar, which is located approximately 400 metres from the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club between 9.50-10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.
They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.
As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory.
They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.
Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is,' said the family member.
The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.
However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.
The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.
So, same newspaper, within 3 months of the disappearance has spoken to the family twice. Curiously someone decided the family could be named - a few days after the cadaver dogs had done their thing. Was the investigation compromised at that very point?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 11:21:52 PM
Too much. The first version of the rogatory letter, which was changed after my expulsion on 2 October, had several steps that were simply struck out. It was requested that the British dogs be used to search the house of the McCanns in Leicester and also those of their friends and that they smelled their clothes. It also asked to verify the existence of a chart on the refrigerator of the girl's parents, which showed that she had problems with sleep and used to rise several times at night. The chart is referred to by an English police officer. New interviews with the arguidos were proposed but were never done. The charter was amended by the prosecutors.
"Decisive diligence was never carried out"
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.
"The man that the Smith were talking about was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.
"When the situation was presented to the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely] the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."
McCanns erased all the telephone calls
The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception, in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known. But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.
Mad. Stark, raving bonkers, acherly. But there you go. And so he did.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on October 23, 2014, 11:24:56 PM
The rogatory letter of request was sent to Westminster rather than the Parliament of the Irish republic.
Hence none of the Smiths were called for rogatory interviews.
That could easily have been rectified, but Paulo Rebelo evidently felt that doing that wasn't worth the effort ...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 23, 2014, 11:33:10 PM
I conclude that Paulo Rebelo taking over from Amaral is the reason Martin Smith criticized the Portuguese investigation discarding their sighting for the Tanner sighting which SY buried on CW and resurrected Smithman.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 12:23:39 AM
... a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night ...
Actually there were two calls, one at 2314 and one at 2317. To put them in context: 1. About 2300? the GNR arrive at 24hr reception. 2. About 2310? the GNR arrive at 5A (so now both the caller and the callee are at 5A). 3. The two phonecalls at 23.14 and 23.17 (at these times the callee is at 5A). Your theory on this pathfinder?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 12:44:26 AM
Too much. The first version of the rogatory letter, which was changed after my expulsion on 2 October, had several steps that were simply struck out. It was requested that the British dogs be used to search the house of the McCanns in Leicester and also those of their friends and that they smelled their clothes. It also asked to verify the existence of a chart on the refrigerator of the girl's parents, which showed that she had problems with sleep and used to rise several times at night. The chart is referred to by an English police officer. New interviews with the arguidos were proposed but were never done. The charter was amended by the prosecutors.
"Decisive diligence was never carried out"
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.
"The man that the Smith were talking about was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.
"When the situation was presented to the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely] the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."
McCanns erased all the telephone calls
The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception, in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known. But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.
Is there a word missing there? ........ family?
I bet his nose was a lot longer at the end of that interview than at the beginning. Not a single mention of the fact that apart from his wife none of the rest of the Smith family agreed with their father, and even he wasn't certain.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 12:45:15 AM
... Drogheda Independent ... Wednesday June 06 2007 ...
That 6 June article was the first ever time the smith sighting became known outside of the Garda/LP/PJ. To put it in calender context this day was Berlin then that evening a flight to Amsterdam.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 12:50:06 AM
I bet his nose was a lot longer at the end of that interview than at the beginning. Not a single mention of the fact that apart from his wife none of the rest of the Smith family agreed with their father, and even he wasn't certain.
Can't you read?
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition"
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 24, 2014, 12:51:57 AM
Always remembering that the Smiths have an apartment in Praia da Luz so returning for them was never going to be a problem.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
Always remembering that the Smiths have an apartment in Praia da Luz so returning for them was never going to be a problem.
He 50% owned the apartment so would have to plan ahead when to use it to fit in around the other owner and possibly rental bookings too. Also better for PJ to have them near Portimao.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2014, 01:01:20 AM
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition"
Who said that? How can 60 to 80% be formal recognition? Every body carries a child like that.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 01:03:05 AM
"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition"
The implication being that all the Smith family thought it was Gerry- even though Martin Smith said that apart from his wife none of the rest of the family agreed with him and he wasn't 100% sure himself. But then IIRC this is the man who said in an interview that Jane Tanner was present at the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat. That wasn't true either.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 01:08:37 AM
... Amaral interview ... GA: When I left Portimão, on the 1st of October, I left on the 2nd but on the 1st we were arranging for those witnesses to come to Portugal. We already had permission from the national director, all that was left to do was to choose a hotel for them to stay and to schedule a date. After I left I know it took several months until the witness was heard, which happened around January or February this year, I don't know, through a rogatory letter or a request for assistance under international cooperation.
So Monday 1st October: Mr Amaral is completing the arrangements for the Irish witnesses to fly to portugal again. Tuesday 2nd October morning: Mr Amaral is removed from the case.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 01:19:59 AM
We know from one of the younger members of the group of witnesses, that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.
If this man was carrying a child illicitly (which is what most abduction theories AND most occultation theories are united in claiming), why did he not undo or take off his black jacket/coat and partly conceal the child with it?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2014, 01:24:24 AM
We know from one of the younger members of the group of witnesses, that the man was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.
If this man was carrying a child illicitly (which is what most abduction theories AND most occultation theories are united in claiming), why did he not undo or take off his black jacket/coat and partly conceal the child with it?
Perleaze, don't distract me any further. I don't think anyone has said anything about a jacket.
Okay, suppose they did. Was Gerry wearing a jacket?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 01:26:01 AM
How credible are the efits if they were produced by the Smiths?
Dr Amaral’s investigation didn’t require them in May 2007.
Probably because Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith all said they would be unable to identify the man whose face they had not seen when he passed them in the darkness.
Yet over one year later they were able to produce almost photographic images of the man whose face they had not seen.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 24, 2014, 01:27:16 AM
Does anyone know if there was another night-creche between 5a & where Smithman was seen?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 01:31:52 AM
How credible are the efits if they were produced by the Smiths?
Dr Amaral’s investigation didn’t require them in May 2007.
Probably because Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith all said they would be unable to identify the man whose face they had not seen when he passed them in the darkness.
Yet over one year later they were able to produce almost photographic images of the man whose face they had not seen.
Martin Smith said SY have talked to the family on two separate occasions in an 18 month period before reopening the case with the Portuguese. And he was prime suspect on the CW special and Tannerman buried. Go figure.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 01:46:26 AM
No - according to the files he was wearing a light brown 'polar' top.
(I presume that is a translation error or typo and should be 'polo')
— Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (Peter Smith)
Martin Smith said SY have talked to the family on two separate occasions in an 18 month period before reopening the case with the Portuguese. And he was prime suspect on the CW special and Tannerman buried. Go figure.
Did he happen to say why he could not describe the man's features a fortnight after seeing him ... but apparently had perfect recall more than a month later?
Why did Dr Amaral's investigation fail to get such excellent images?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 01:49:31 AM
Did he happen to say why he could not describe the man's features a fortnight after seeing him ... but apparently had perfect recall more than a mont later?
Why did Dr Amaral's investigation fail to get such excellent images?
Ask SY.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2014, 01:50:00 AM
I think I am losing the will to live. Got to go to bed.
Please try to stay on topic. It will make my life so much more easy tomorrow.
Thank you all. It has been a good night tonight, and worth engaging in.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 01:55:09 AM
Martin Smith said SY have talked to the family on two separate occasions in an 18 month period before reopening the case with the Portuguese. And he was prime suspect on the CW special and Tannerman buried. Go figure.
Not necessarily the prime suspect IMO - didn't DCI Redwood say they needed to identify that person in order to to rule him in or out?
It could be the case that the man was a local who decided not to get involved because of fear of the PJ and if so then perhaps SY were hoping he might be persuaded to come forward as a result of the appeal.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 01:59:22 AM
I don't think SY post here ... but you do and you have an opinion on everything.
Please explain why people who are on record as being unable to identify a man who passed them in darkness, with his features concealed because he was looking downwards, were capable of giving information to enable efits to be made ... over a year after the event?
I hadn't realised how dark that area was until I saw it in Dr Amaral's documentary.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 02:03:02 AM
— Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (Peter Smith)
We've discussed that. If that was the item of clothing worn by Gerry as he carried Madeleine's dead body through Pdl - it would have reeked with cadaverscent. That means the settee would also be cross-contaminated . Eddie showed no interest in that settee.
Also you still haven't explained when, where and how Gerry was able to change his clothing (twice)
Please clarify.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2014, 02:35:50 AM
Yes it would require changing out of a light brown fleece into a black jacket then afterwards back into the light brown fleece. Also changing out of blue denim jeans into beige/white trousers then back into blue jeans. Also changing or adding a pyjama top. Five wardrobe changes. A cunning plan indeed.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 24, 2014, 03:54:35 AM
The day before Dr Amaral was removed as coordinator he was involved in making final arrangements for Martin Smith to return to Luz to do a recognition. Does that mean Amaral was also intending that Gerry McCann be there as part of another confrontation?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 24, 2014, 08:22:44 AM
The day before Dr Amaral was removed as coordinator he was involved in making final arrangements for Martin Smith to return to Luz to do a recognition. Does that mean Amaral was also intending that Gerry McCann be there as part of another confrontation?
As Smith said it was dark, he didn't see the mans face and he wasn't wearing his glasses I think this just about sums up amarals skills as an investigator
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 09:05:59 AM
Yes it would require changing out of a light brown fleece into a black jacket then afterwards back into the light brown fleece. Also changing out of blue denim jeans into beige/white trousers then back into blue jeans. Also changing or adding a pyjama top. Five wardrobe changes. A cunning plan indeed.
Don't forget his footwear too. Gerry was wearing trainers. Smithman was wearing shoes.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 10:58:05 AM
I don't think SY post here ... but you do and you have an opinion on everything.
Please explain why people who are on record as being unable to identify a man who passed them in darkness, with his features concealed because he was looking downwards, were capable of giving information to enable efits to be made ... over a year after the event?
I hadn't realised how dark that area was until I saw it in Dr Amaral's documentary.
Aoife saw his face.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.
But if she saw his face again......... &%+((£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 11:34:14 AM
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.
But if she saw his face again......... &%+((£
So she was able to supply details for an efit in 2008 but not in 2007 ... Hmmm.
I think it highly likely she would have seen in that period of over a year ... for sake of argument, let's say ... Dr McCann on numerous news bulletins, appeals and MSM photographs ... but she did not at any time identify him as the man she had seen.
Neither did Martin Smith 'identify' by feature ... only by the manner in which Dr McCann looked down when carrying his son off a plane ... and Aoife did not back her father up even on that.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 11:59:54 AM
So she was able to supply details for an efit in 2008 but not in 2007 ... Hmmm.
I think it highly likely she would have seen in that period of over a year ... for sake of argument, let's say ... Dr McCann on numerous news bulletins, appeals and MSM photographs ... but she did not at any time identify him as the man she had seen.
Neither did Martin Smith 'identify' by feature ... only by the manner in which Dr McCann looked down when carrying his son off a plane ... and Aoife did not back her father up even on that.
The case was shelved in summer 2008. After Amaral left in Oct 07 his successor was not interested in the Smiths sighting. But SY are and we don't know what additional information they now have from the Smith family.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: John on October 24, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
As some members have already touched on, it would be interesting to know who actually contributed to the two e-fits currently being touted by SY as being Smithman and the prime suspect.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 24, 2014, 12:33:42 PM
As some members have already touched on, it would be interesting to know who actually contributed to the two e-fits currently being touted by SY as being Smithman and the prime suspect.
There were a number of people in the Smith party, 8 or 9 in all.
My bet is that the Efita were composed using information from all of them, rather than just from Martin, Peter and Aoife.
At one time, I ran a big training office. It took the whole of upstairs and was part of a training establishment. The lower door to the street was always left open. At lunch time when no-one was there, I always left my handbag at the far end of this large room. One lunch time, I was downstairs and decided to go back upstairs. To my horror I was met by a guy coming down from the empty office. The shock on his face at seeing me registered and I knew he was up to no good. Instinctively, I touched his middle chest where there was a bulge under his jumper/fleece. He pushed me out of the way and ran
My wallet with cards, money etc was gone.
The police, upon finding that I thought I could identify him, rushed me with blue light flashing, to Central Birmingham police Station.
There I was shown a big book of mug shots. I am pretty certain I indentified my man, but because I couldn't be 100% sure I refused to confirm the identification.
What this all leads to, is : Were The Smiths presented with mug shots galore and tasked to find similar faces to their now faded memories? Then the Efit experts proceeded to alter little bits to produce an image that better corresponded to their memories?
Maybe John would know.
Because what strikes me is the virtual impossibility of producing such explicit images from faded memories unless there was a starting pioint. To produce a good likeness from fresh memories alone, would be nigh impossible, let alone from old memories.
I think that they must have been shown photos first and built on them ... and quite possibly the images produced by each witness superimposed and an average image produced.
There are a good few differences but a lot of similarities between the two Efit images, imo
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 26, 2014, 10:20:16 PM
20:30 Gary Lig believes the beach could've been used to hide
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2014, 10:29:28 PM
Pathfinder your smithman walk has him going straight past a place where multiple staff lived and were going in and out of as per statements.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2014, 10:45:40 PM
In the video posted above: That group of detectives is illogically measuring the view from the table to the air above a balcony on which absolutely no children were sleeping. A view of air about 1 metre or more above a balcony gives no information whatsoever about people sleeping in a location further distant and behind three walls which are non-transparent.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 26, 2014, 11:19:46 PM
Pathfinder your smithman walk has him going straight past a place where multiple staff lived and were going in and out of as per statements.
Getting to the beach is an obvious spot being in the pitch black and nobody there. There are many rocks where you could hide a body under. But you would have to move it again before first light or it would be found.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2014, 11:25:45 PM
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. (AS)
He would be moving quicker if there's nobody around.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2014, 11:38:18 PM
Its impossible to walk past that building in only 10 seconds. And the route from the sighting to the closest coastal rocks is down the steps. Closer and more isolated.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 26, 2014, 11:44:34 PM
Why did he go past the church to rocks, when going down the steps leads to rocks which are closer (see map) and more isolated?
Because he didn't know the place or short cuts. He knew where the church was that leads to the sea.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2014, 11:54:09 PM
Ok. But you are saying he did know R Escola Primeira? How would he know that road? And why didn't he go straight down Rua 1 Maio to church? Much quicker.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 12:05:36 AM
Ok. But you are saying he did know R Escola Primeira? How would he know that road? And why didn't he go straight down Rua 1 Maio to church? Much quicker.
Road around wasteland leads that way to Rua 25 de Abril that leads to church - a quieter route away from OC. Child was hidden on long check.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 12:52:59 AM
Possibly unreleased statements will reveal more about clothes but maybe not. I will tell you the two adults when Smithman is uncovered.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 27, 2014, 01:03:38 AM
Possibly unreleased statements will reveal more about clothes but maybe not. I will tell you the two adults when Smithman is uncovered.
I applaud you Pathfinder for at least coming up with an alternative theory to abduction - unlike other sceptics.
However, IMO your theory falls at so many fences it simply doesn't cut the mustard. IMO you have used our knowledge of times etc which the McCanns could not possibly have known at the time. IOW you have misused 'hindsight' to create a theory.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on October 27, 2014, 01:18:51 AM
Possibly unreleased statements will reveal more about clothes but maybe not. I will tell you the two adults when Smithman is uncovered.
I find it really odd that you overlook the clothes displayed as evidence in the PJ files which were so very similar to those worn by Smithman (& Tannerman).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 01:46:16 AM
I find it really odd that you overlook the clothes displayed as evidence in the PJ files which were so very similar to those worn by Smithman (& Tannerman).
I have to go with the eye witnesses, the Smith family for clothes description of my prime suspect. Tannerman was walking in the opposite direction and there's other details like different carrying style (younger child), longer hair, blanket etc. that don't match. The McCanns didn't report a blanket missing.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 01:47:56 AM
I applaud you Pathfinder for at least coming up with an alternative theory to abduction - unlike other sceptics.
However, IMO your theory falls at so many fences it simply doesn't cut the mustard. IMO you have used our knowledge of times etc which the McCanns could not possibly have known at the time. IOW you have misused 'hindsight' to create a theory.
Thank you Benice. We will all have different theories. I try to connect everything with the evidence/timeline and picture how it was done i.e. walk in Smithman's shoes.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Benice on October 27, 2014, 01:53:50 AM
I have to go with the eye witnesses, the Smith family for clothes description of my prime suspect. Tannerman was walking in the opposite direction and there's other details like different carrying style (younger child), longer hair, blanket etc. that don't match. The McCanns didn't report a blanket missing.
Neither party claimed to have seen a blanket. If they had I think they would have mentioned it. The pink 'blob' on the Tannerman sighting is to denote that JT could not describe that part of the child's body because she didn't see it and so the artist could not draw anything in that particuilar spot.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 27, 2014, 02:01:46 AM
Neither party claimed to have seen a blanket. If they had I think they would have mentioned it. The pink 'blob' on the Tannerman sighting is to denote that JT could not describe that part of the child's body because she didn't see it and so the artist could not draw anything in that particuilar spot.
The real man and child who JT saw did, we now know, have a light pink blanket on the child's upper body. Mr R did not stick that pink blanket in his SY photo for no reason - it is in the SY photo because it was on the child's upper body. JT understandably did not realise it was a blanket and assumed it was the pyjama top.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on October 27, 2014, 02:08:22 AM
Thank you Benice. We will all have different theories. I try to connect everything with the evidence/timeline and picture how it was done i.e. walk in Smithman's shoes.
And what kind of shoes are they? And do you agree smithman was wearing a black jacket or coat?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 27, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I applaud you Pathfinder for at least coming up with an alternative theory to abduction - unlike other sceptics.
However, IMO your theory falls at so many fences it simply doesn't cut the mustard. IMO you have used our knowledge of times etc which the McCanns could not possibly have known at the time. IOW you have misused 'hindsight' to create a theory.
To be fair the abduction theory also uses hindsight to determine the window of opportunity for abduction. It was a bit like Piccadilly Circus in 5a according to the timeline.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 27, 2014, 10:20:16 AM
I have to go with the eye witnesses, the Smith family for clothes description of my prime suspect. Tannerman was walking in the opposite direction and there's other details like different carrying style (younger child), longer hair, blanket etc. that don't match. The McCanns didn't report a blanket missing.
Where do you get anything about a blanket from ?
Do you mean the longer hair of Tannerman relative to Smithman ? Has it ever crossed your mind that there could have been a swop over between the initial carrier and the second carrier?
As for carrying style. Anyone starting off carrying a child Tannerman style would soon befcome arm weary and change to Smithman style. Even if Tannerman were to be the Crecheman with a younger child, his arms would be dropping off carrying that way by the time Jane saw him.
The very fact that he was carrying that way tells me two things:
1) He was an inexperienced carrier of young children ... so unlikely to be a father. 2) He hadn't walked far. Imo, the crech was way too far for him to have carried like that.
Juat a couple of suggestions. In the alleyways, on the wasteland, or within the Staff quarters from whence came a scream according to The 3A,s
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2014, 10:24:05 AM
Do you mean the longer hair of Tannerman relative to Smithman ? Has it ever crossed your mind that there could have been a swop over between the initial carrier and the second carrier?
As for carrying style. Anyone starting off carrying a child Tannerman style would soon befcome arm weary and change to Smithman style. Even if Tannerman were to be the Crecheman with a younger child, his arms would be dropping off carrying that way by the time Jane saw him.
The very fact that he was carrying that way tells me two things:
1) He was an inexperienced carrier of young children ... so unlikely to be a father. 2) He hadn't walked far. Imo, the crech was way too far for him to have carried like that.
Juat a couple of suggestions. In the alleyways, on the wasteland, or within the Staff quarters from whence came a scream according to The 3A,s
I believe the scream you mention happened on the 4th and not the 3rd.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 27, 2014, 10:33:03 AM
Do you mean the longer hair of Tannerman relative to Smithman ? Has it ever crossed your mind that there could have been a swop over between the initial carrier and the second carrier?
As for carrying style. Anyone starting off carrying a child Tannerman style would soon befcome arm weary and change to Smithman style. Even if Tannerman were to be the Crecheman with a younger child, his arms would be dropping off carrying that way by the time Jane saw him.
The very fact that he was carrying that way tells me two things:
1) He was an inexperienced carrier of young children ... so unlikely to be a father. 2) He hadn't walked far. Imo, the crech was way too far for him to have carried like that.
Juat a couple of suggestions. In the alleyways, on the wasteland, or within the Staff quarters from whence came a scream according to The 3A,s
The blanket has been revealed by SY. Longer/Thicker hair Tannerman/Bundleman is not Smithman. To remove a child you do it simply and quickly. You definitely don't start moving doors and opening windows not being used. This isn't a normal disappearance case due to the fact that Smithman was open carrying. This indicates desperate measures where something terrible happened inside 5A that was unforeseen. In this case it either represents an inside cover up job or an intruder entering and something going horribly wrong. It is not a professional abduction job. The child couldn't be found so Smithman took a risk by moving her a good distance away. Why? Find Madeleine and we will know the answer. Find Smithman and he won't talk.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on October 27, 2014, 02:03:49 PM
The blanket has been revealed by SY. Longer/Thicker hair Tannerman/Bundleman is not Smithman. To remove a child you do it simply and quickly. You definitely don't start moving doors and opening windows not being used. This isn't a normal disappearance case due to the fact that Smithman was open carrying. This indicates desperate measures where something terrible happened inside 5A that was unforeseen. In this case it either represents an inside cover up job or an intruder entering and something going horribly wrong. It is not a professional abduction job. The child couldn't be found so Smithman took a risk by moving her a good distance away. Why? Find Madeleine and we will know the answer. Find Smithman and he won't talk.
When did SY say anything about a blanket? I think it is just a myth that you have picked up on tbh. i am happy to be proved wrong tho PF.
[ off topic deleted ]
It is my belief and the belief of a good few others that it was a slick operation carefully planned then executed meticulously
It is good to see you trying Pathfinder, but imo you are building castles on sand .... and we all know what happens to them.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 04:21:58 PM
When did SY say anything about a blanket? I think it is just a myth that you have picked up on tbh. i am happy to be proved wrong tho PF.
[ off topic deleted ]
It is my belief and the belief of a good few others that it was a slick operation carefully planned then executed meticulously
It is good to see you trying Pathfinder, but imo you are building castles on sand .... and we all know what happens to them.
It's no myth. The blanket is here. Jane couldn't see it properly from her position. She could see the pyjama bottoms (legs dangling) e.g. floral pattern.
"pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain." (JT 4 May) The blanket is white/light pink.
It's no myth. The blanket is here. Jane couldn't see it properly from her position. She could see the pyjama bottoms (legs dangling) e.g. floral pattern.
"pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain." (JT 4 May) The blanket is white/light pink.
You will know why when it's solved. Open carrying = desperate measures to hide/dispose of the evidence e.g. a body found = time since death and the cause of it. Smithman had no choice!
The point is that desperate measures have been taken also in hundreds of other cases, but never is the perp so stupid to carry in arms openly without some kind of bag or similar. Even when the outdoor carrying is for just a few metres, always the perp places in or wraps in something. There was a case in UK recently where the outdoor pedestrian carrying involved totalled just a few metres - but did the perp carry unconcealed for those few metres? Nope. The known solution tells us a (not actually a) bag (but something similar) was used. .
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 03, 2014, 12:17:42 AM
The point is that desperate measures have been taken also in hundreds of other cases, but never is the perp so stupid to carry in arms openly without some kind of bag or similar. Even when the outdoor carrying is for just a few metres, always the perp places in or wraps in something. There was a case in UK recently where the outdoor pedestrian carrying involved totalled just a few metres - but did the perp carry unconcealed for those few metres? Nope. The known solution tells us a (not actually a) bag (but something similar) was used. .
Yes concealed in bag to bin would be first thought for a stranger. Maybe she wasn't thrown in the rubbish because the crime wasn't committed by a stranger &%+((£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on November 03, 2014, 12:20:04 AM
The point is that desperate measures have been taken also in hundreds of other cases, but never is the perp so stupid to carry in arms openly without some kind of bag or similar. Even when the outdoor carrying is for just a few metres, always the perp places in or wraps in something. There was a case in UK recently where the outdoor pedestrian carrying involved totalled just a few metres - but did the perp carry unconcealed for those few metres? Nope. The known solution tells us a (not actually a) bag (but something similar) was used. .
By its very nature the nefarious abduction of a child is a highly secretive action where great pains are taken to ensure it happens unobserved.
For this reason there are seldom witnesses to the act of a child being openly carried.
So whether a child is taken en route and bundled into a vehicle, taken from the yard or taken from bed … there are seldom witnesses to the fact – the only indication being a missing child.
It stands to reason that there must be occasions when a child is actually carried by an abductor.
Because it is not witnessed does not mean it has not happened. Although it only takes minutes it is a high risk strategy … the following is one instance where witnesses were able to intervene and save the child before more harm was done …
ABDUCTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A 23 MONTH OLD FEMALE INFANT $250,000 REWARD
Checker Heading
Last Updated: 15/09/2008
REWARD: The Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport has approved a reward of $250,000 be offered for information which leads to the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the abduction and sexual assault of a 23 month old female infant at Yarrabah on 17 August 2002.
INDEMNITY FROM PROSECUTION: In addition, an appropriate indemnity from prosecution will be recommended for any accomplice, not being the person who actually committed the crime, who first gives such information.
The allocation of the $250,000 reward will be at the sole discretion of the Commissioner of the Police Service.
CIRCUMSTANCES: At about 3:00am on Saturday 17 August 2002 a 23 month old female infant was abducted from a residence at Stanley Street, Yarrabah where she was sleeping. The child was taken by foot approximately 300 metres along a dirt track at the rear of Stanley Street. Witnesses observed an unidentified man with the child in his hands. When challenged by the witnesses, the man placed the child on the ground and ran from the scene. Witnesses located the child suffering from serious injuries and she was transported to Cairns Base Hospital for treatment.
Any member of the public with information which could assist Police is asked to contact: •the Child Protection Investigation Unit, Cairns, Phone (07) 4030 7089; •any Police Station; or •Crime Stoppers, Phone 1800 333 000. http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/Abductions.htm
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on November 05, 2014, 01:23:55 AM
At last a case to look at and compare thankyou Brietta
Look at a satellite picture, the man was not carrying the child along a street, he was carrying the child along a heavily wooded dirt track which runs through the woods behind the back gardens do you see the track?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:15 AM
I'm a retired metropolitan police crime scene investigator, crime lab operator, expert witness, and retired university faculty where I taught forensic science.The questions here are very basic, but so many of them.I'll try to bounce a few quickly. The time of death is important as evidence.It can establish or discredit statements of witnesses, victims and suspects. You cannot enter full rigor in three hours.Opinions vary, but the Three Twelve's rule is a good guide; 12-hours to enter full rigor, 12-hours in full rigor, and 12-hours to exit full rigor.Small muscles are affected first, stay in rigor the shortest time, and relax fastest.Large muscles take longer to enter rigor, stay in rigor longer, and take the longest time to relax.Rigor establishes time of death; I always used jaw muscles v. buttocks or thigh muscles.A decedent with a stiff jaw but soft thigh muscles is in the first 12-hours.Both jaw and thigh in full rigor means the second 12-hour time frame, and soft jaw muscles and stiff thigh muscles means third 12-hour time frame. You check the jaw muscles by wiggling the chin from side-to-side, and the larger muscles by simply pressing hard into the muscle with a straightened finger. The first sign of death is livor mortis --- post-mortem lividity; a "bruising"on the underside of any body part that is facing down.It looks identical to trauma, and a person who died face down will look as if they were beaten to death.I've known cases where parents were wrongly arrested for a SIDS death because it appeared that the baby had been beaten to death.Lividity becomes pronounced in 2-4 hours. Body temperature is of value only in deaths that have recently occurred.
I'm a retired metropolitan police crime scene investigator, crime lab operator, expert witness, and retired university faculty where I taught forensic science.The questions here are very basic, but so many of them.I'll try to bounce a few quickly. The time of death is important as evidence.It can establish or discredit statements of witnesses, victims and suspects. You cannot enter full rigor in three hours.Opinions vary, but the Three Twelve's rule is a good guide; 12-hours to enter full rigor, 12-hours in full rigor, and 12-hours to exit full rigor.Small muscles are affected first, stay in rigor the shortest time, and relax fastest.Large muscles take longer to enter rigor, stay in rigor longer, and take the longest time to relax.Rigor establishes time of death; I always used jaw muscles v. buttocks or thigh muscles.A decedent with a stiff jaw but soft thigh muscles is in the first 12-hours.Both jaw and thigh in full rigor means the second 12-hour time frame, and soft jaw muscles and stiff thigh muscles means third 12-hour time frame. You check the jaw muscles by wiggling the chin from side-to-side, and the larger muscles by simply pressing hard into the muscle with a straightened finger. The first sign of death is livor mortis --- post-mortem lividity; a "bruising"on the underside of any body part that is facing down.It looks identical to trauma, and a person who died face down will look as if they were beaten to death.I've known cases where parents were wrongly arrested for a SIDS death because it appeared that the baby had been beaten to death.Lividity becomes pronounced in 2-4 hours. Body temperature is of value only in deaths that have recently occurred.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 11:37:12 AM
It best explains the reason for open carrying a good distance away from the crime scene i.e. desperate measures. The evidence can't be found. This meant passing through streets to get to his safe destination. They need to start investigating from that sighting and track mobiles that were in that area at 10 - 10:10 on the night. From this they can investigate further and track their movements in the early morning hours of 4 May. If the body was hidden outside there's a possibility that it was moved again or safer hidden before first light. Mobiles that return to the same spot any time in that later 8 hour period before first light are of interest.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: jassi on November 05, 2014, 11:43:16 AM
A good idea, unless the perp had the mobile switched off, or left at home.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 11:54:00 AM
Any mobiles that are switched off and turned back on in that 8 hour period are of high interest.
That would be a large percentage of mobiles I would imagine - being switched off at night and turned back on in the morning. Do you think the police should check all of them?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: lordpookles on November 05, 2014, 12:03:43 PM
do people switch their mobiles off? Mine is constantly on..
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
That would be a large percentage of mobiles I would imagine - being switched off at night and turned back on in the morning. Do you think the police should check all of them?
Don't be ridiculous. Mobiles turned off and turned back on 7/8 hours later are of no interest.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 05, 2014, 12:15:51 PM
do people switch their mobiles off? Mine is constantly on..
Really? Why?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: lordpookles on November 05, 2014, 01:20:06 PM
They are designed to be kept on. If I'm wrong that has always been my assumption.
Also, someone may call call me in the night. Friend or family member in an emergency. Also easy to just leave it charging overnight with phone switched on, so having it off has no benefits...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: jassi on November 05, 2014, 01:39:16 PM
I'm quite the opposite. Mine is never switched on, unless I want to use it.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: lordpookles on November 05, 2014, 01:45:17 PM
Yeah people have different habits...
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2014, 01:52:02 PM
It best explains the reason for open carrying a good distance away from the crime scene i.e. desperate measures. The evidence can't be found. This meant passing through streets to get to his safe destination. They need to start investigating from that sighting and track mobiles that were in that area at 10 - 10:10 on the night. From this they can investigate further and track their movements in the early morning hours of 4 May. If the body was hidden outside there's a possibility that it was moved again or safer hidden before first light. Mobiles that return to the same spot any time in that later 8 hour period before first light are of interest.
Did they have the technology to track phones and pin point location to that extent?
I thought it was only the general area in which the signal activated the mast that could be determined and not the specific location.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on November 05, 2014, 02:12:21 PM
If the body was hidden outside ...
What body?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 02:14:55 PM
Did they have the technology to track phones and pin point location to that extent?
I thought it was only the general area in which the signal activated the mast that could be determined and not the specific location.
Possibly not an exact location but it can provide clues to where people were at certain times and help in the search to find potential evidence. You can't search everywhere in PDL so you've got to narrow it down starting with the last known sighting and the area towards the beach at 10 - 10.10. From there you've got to track the relevant mobiles in the area at that time and move the timeline on. Did anybody return later to the same area. If so this is a location worth investigating further. Were any mobiles turned off in that time period and switched back on later? Any mobiles switched on that night and then off for a short period and then back on again are discrepancies.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 02:17:38 PM
The body the yard are trying to find with the cadaver dogs.
the body SY think might exist
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: misty on November 05, 2014, 08:07:30 PM
A man carrying a holdall through the street would attract very little attention, day or night. A man carrying a bare-foot pyjama clad child, on the other hand....................... If Smithman could make a child disappear then he could certainly do the same with a bag. But, of course....Smithman does not exist
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 08:25:43 PM
He was one step ahead of the searchers. Remember that important fact - all others were searching close to 5A. Smithman has quick feet and went further away but he can't come back with a bag in his hand where he will be spotted.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 05, 2014, 08:27:54 PM
He was one step ahead of the searchers. Remember that important fact - all others were searching close to 5A. Smithman has quick feet and went further away but he can't come back with a bag in his hand where he will be spotted.
Who spotted Smithman coming back then?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:43 PM
If he came back the same route possibly nobody. Amaral will be cursing that cctv security camera not found @)(++(* If he came back a different route then he would probably be spotted from a balcony maybe 8)--))
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 05, 2014, 08:51:26 PM
If he came back the same route possibly nobody. Amaral will be cursing that cctv security camera not found @)(++(* If he came back a different route then he would probably be spotted from a balcony maybe 8)--))
So you think Smithman foolhardy enough to be seen carrying a child's body moments after the alarm is raised but too cautious to be seen carrying a bag *&*%£
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 09:04:35 PM
So you think Smithman foolhardy enough to be seen carrying a child's body moments after the alarm is raised but too cautious to be seen carrying a bag *&*%£
Bag connects to the crime unless you get rid of it. There were rumours of the PJ looking for a missing bag and Amaral said Mark Harrison suggested a bag could be used to conceal away from the crime scene. This could be an hour earlier than the Smithman sighting. An hour earlier is my theory.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 05, 2014, 09:09:48 PM
Bag connects to the crime unless you get rid of it. There were rumours of the PJ looking for a missing bag and Amaral said Mark Harrison suggested a bag could be used to conceal away from the crime scene. This could be an hour earlier than the Smithman sighting. An hour earlier is my theory.
So your theory is Smithman takes the body out of Apartment 5a in a bag, then later takes child out of bag to carry though the street uncovered? So what happened to the bag then?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 05, 2014, 09:18:19 PM
So your theory is Smithman takes the body out of Apartment 5a in a bag, then later takes child out of bag to carry though the street uncovered? So what happened to the bag then?
Mark Harrison suggested it to conceal away from the crime scene so it's a possibility. If used, bag could be dumped in bin (not my opinion), long sleeves could be in bin. Why they never took the cadaver dogs to the landflll or check the bins is strange. It's risky unless the bag was brought back and not missing (my opinion) because if they found evidence of a bag being missing and not reported then you know who would be in deep shiii....
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on November 06, 2014, 12:14:40 AM
It would have been foolhardy to move the body in a bag because the body, especially if it was bleeding, would deposit forensic traces which, if found later, could tie the perpetrators to the crime.
Carrying the body in a bag was never an option imo.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Mr Moderator on November 08, 2014, 01:06:53 AM
It would have been foolhardy to move the body in a bag because the body, especially if it was bleeding, would deposit forensic traces which, if found later, could tie the perpetrators to the crime.
Carrying the body in a bag was never an option imo.
Regardless of who suggested a bag might have been used there is no evidence to support it so can we please avoid speculations and get back to the Smith sightings.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2014, 10:35:03 AM
It would have been foolhardy to move the body in a bag because the body, especially if it was bleeding, would deposit forensic traces which, if found later, could tie the perpetrators to the crime.
Carrying the body in a bag was never an option imo.
Whether in a bag or not, forensic traces would be left, especially if bleeding and could tie the perpetrators to the crime.
But we are thinking about The Smiths sighting here. No bag here.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on November 08, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
Forensic traces or blood could have also been deposited innocently in the apartment ( I believe Gerry claimed Madeleine suffered from nosebleeds ).
Blood in a bag would be a little more difficult to explain.
As would Madeleines cadavar blood on a shirt or a pair of trousers.
Forget the bag, Faith. We are talking about The Smiths sighting here. To remind you, they saw a man carrying a little ?sleeping girl. No bag.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2014, 11:33:42 AM
Nothing seems to have been ‘urgent’ where the Smith sighting of the man carrying a child was concerned.
Neither is there any certainty about the time of the sighting or even the night it may have occurred. One only has to refer to Carol Tranmer’s statement for an illustration of how far a person’s recollection of the timing of a particular event can be out.
If the CCTV hadn’t been wiped at the hotel Estrela da Luz, it would have been possible to ascertain the time at which the family returned home on the 3rd May.
Perhaps they would have been remembered in Kelly’s bar if the staff had been asked about it on the 4th May as opposed to the 10th October, or even if they had a copy of the receipt which tallied with the printouts given to the PJ on that date (10th Oct), which would have enabled it to be established which payment might have been theirs.
On October 10th Kelly’s bar was visited
12 Processos Vol XII Pages 3276 to 3280
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3276
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3277
External Inquiry
Date 10 ' 10 ' 2007
Place: Kelly's Bar, P da L
Inquiry carried out by Inspectors Rui Fernandes and Ricardo Paiva
Description and results of Inquiry
On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.
When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities.
All the available documentation was requested concerning the expenses in the bar on the night of 3rd May 2007 as we were given the cash register from which photocopies were made referring to the period between 20.00 and 24.00, which is annexed to this report.
Signed
Ricardo Paiva
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: faithlilly on November 08, 2014, 11:54:26 AM
As would Madeleines cadavar blood on a shirt or a pair of trousers.
Forget the bag, Faith. We are talking about The Smiths sighting here. To remind you, they saw a man carrying a little ?sleeping girl. No bag.
We were discussing why Smithman carried the child openly when the body could have been secreted in a bag. I am suggesting if Smithman was Gerry there were reasons why it would have been unwise for him to use a bag.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 08, 2014, 12:17:08 PM
Not being scientifically minded, being more sort of hammers and spanners and legal I wonder about the effects of rigor mortis? Isn't there some kind of process going from primary flaccidity to rigor mortis back to a state of laxity which should be factored into any theories?
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on November 09, 2014, 04:32:29 AM
As would Madeleines cadavar blood on a shirt or a pair of trousers.
Forget the bag, Faith. We are talking about The Smiths sighting here. To remind you, they saw a man carrying a little ?sleeping girl. No bag.
Certainly not awake - one of the witnesses saw closed eyelids.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 12, 2014, 11:25:01 AM
4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith2008.01.30 (English)
16-Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139
Detective Branch Drogheda County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
Liam Hogan
I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. 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. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2014, 12:35:07 PM
Not being scientifically minded, being more sort of hammers and spanners and legal I wonder about the effects of rigor mortis? Isn't there some kind of process going from primary flaccidity to rigor mortis back to a state of laxity which should be factored into any theories?
Why have all the posts informing about the way the face changes colour and the blood goes doiwn to the feet, when someone dies, gone? IIRC within half an hour? And turning the feet red as they fill with blood.
Also the relaxation of muscles caused bowel evacuation and the person to wet themselves
Please can they be reposted;
They were very interesting and it seems proved that the little girl was alive when the Smiths saw her
Where have they gone ?
ETA
Thank you Anna [Anna, the magic finder of all things lost !]
"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. States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent." (MS)
He didn't need a bag/bundle Peggy when he wouldn't stand out open carrying. Truth is not set in stone!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: ferryman on November 12, 2014, 06:37:05 PM
We were discussing why Smithman carried the child openly when the body could have been secreted in a bag. I am suggesting if Smithman was Gerry there were reasons why it would have been unwise for him to use a bag.
There is no evidence of Smith-man being Gerry.
Martin Smith long ago recanted of that view.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 12, 2014, 06:41:18 PM
"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. States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent." (MS)
He didn't need a bag/bundle Peggy when he wouldn't stand out open carrying. Truth is not set in stone!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pegasus on November 12, 2014, 06:53:35 PM
Yes that film gets the carrying style wrong And wrongly has the witnesses all together. So it misses the most important location - when AS saw the man, the man was on the south pavement of R25 as plainly marked on the PJ photo as shown to them by AS at a diligence at the actual location. A location consistent only with intention to go down the Travessa. And here is another thing the film gets wrong. The colour of the man's jacket (see 4th witness's description).
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2014, 07:05:09 PM
Why have all the posts informing about the way the face changes colour and the blood goes doiwn to the feet, when someone dies, gone? IIRC within half an hour? And turning the feet red as they fill with blood.
Also the lrelaxation of muscles caused bowel evacuation and the person to wet themselves
Please can they be reposted; They were very interesting and it seems proved that the little girl was alive when the Smiths saw her
Where have they gone and why?
I think they are on this thread Sadie but should be here too http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5535.msg198894#msg198894
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2014, 07:08:05 PM
This is what happens when Threads go Off Topic. It's difficult to remember where some things have been posted. Or even what Thread one might be on.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 12, 2014, 07:17:35 PM
This is what happens when Threads go Off Topic. It's difficult to remember where some things have been posted. Or even what Thread one might be on.
Yes I know and I'm sorry Eleanor. I didn't want to go into detail, but I was being pushed. It was a discussion that couldn't be halted though. maybe we should say "OK lets meet up at such and such a thread" and copy the relevant bits over. What are we like!
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2014, 07:36:59 PM
Yes I know and I'm sorry Eleanor. I didn't want to go into detail, but I was being pushed. It was a discussion that couldn't be halted though. maybe we should say "OK lets meet up at such and such a thread" and copy the relevant bits over. What are we like!
It's okay, Anna, you were just trying to help. And I was just pointing out that Mods don't delete stuff for fun.
Title: Re: The Smith sighting revisited.
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2014, 09:18:53 PM
There is a mistake in changing wind gust speeds from Km/hr to miles/hour
It should read 18.7 [19] mph ... NOT 20.1 mph. My apologies, I guess it is my mistake.
www.wunderground.com/history/Faroairport
Coincidentally, Misty has posted a cite on another thread which gives an indication of local weather conditions at the requisite time.
>>snip<< . Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58?she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge; . They left the building and the deponent and her boyfriend took the Opel Frontera, previously indicated, which was parked out front of the apartment, in the private parking area of Block 6 where her friend's apartment was located; . She declares that the night was good with a breeze, and that it was dark; http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5535.msg199121#msg199121