Is Tannerman and Smithman the same guy?

[Alice Purjorick]

You really are desperate to deflect attention for Smithman, aren't you B ? ( and don't worry I don't expect an answer )

Considering he remains a person of interest to be identified by Wall of the Yard (shame her name wasn't Corner).
It doesn't seem to be working too well does it?

[faithlilly]

Considering he remains a person of interest to be identified by Wall of the Yard (shame her name wasn't Corner).
It doesn't seem to be working too well does it?

Which makes her motives all the more suspicious. Surely the faithful, just like the McCanns or so we are told,  are fully supportive of SY and their efforts to find the abductor ? Pardon my presumption but surely posting again and again that the bloke OG are looking for doesn't really exist would exclude dear old B from even trying out for the SY cheerleader team ?

[Alice Purjorick]

Which makes her motives all the more suspicious. Surely the faithful, just like the McCanns or so we are told,  are fully supportive of SY and their efforts to find the abductor ? Pardon my presumption but surely posting again and again that the bloke OG are looking for doesn't really exist would exclude dear old B from even trying out for the SY cheerleader team ?

Credit where credit is due he/she is but one of a few.
"Smithman" exists; no he doesn't The Yard have it wrong.
"The T9 are not in any way shape or form persons of interest"; yeah right! The Yard are correct (I will not bother with all the implications there).
I wonder on what basis the "rights" and "wrongs" are determined in this instance?
Careful and scrupulous analysis, by the posters, in as far as is practicable? or bias?
 &%+((£

[ShiningInLuz]

Ref:-E-fits

In 2008 private detectives with Oakley International, a company hired by Madeleine's Fund, questioned the consistency of the Tanner report and became more interested in the Smith sighting. Oakley prepared e-fit images (right), one based on Martin's description, the other on Mary's.[38] Madeleine's Fund decided not to release them, because Martin Smith believed at the time that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann – the e-fits bear some resemblance to him – though multiple witnesses placed Gerry in the tapas restaurant at 22:00. Releasing the e-fits would therefore have fed the conspiracy theories about the McCanns, which were at their height in 2008. When Scotland Yard became involved in 2011, they concluded that the Smith sighting might offer the approximate time of Madeleine's kidnap, and in October 2013 they released the e-fits to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction.[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

Sorry for bumping an old thread. My excuses are that I was curious as to why I got a link to my blog from this thread today, and hopefully more interesting, that some clarification (?) has emerged with the passage of time.

I checked Anna's link, and this has now been watered down to "Another sighting of a man carrying a child that night was reported by Martin and Mary Smith, on holiday from Ireland."  Wiki then is vague about when the efits were made, and how they were made.  Something along the lines - they were made on the Smith descriptions.

Mary does not get a second mention in the article.  She gets an implied 'Smith descriptions'.  There is no clarification of whether Oakley sat down with one or more Smiths or whether they simply mocked up what was in the statements (how?) or in the media.  Peter Smith does not get a mention in Wiki.  Aoife Smith does not get a mention in Wiki.

So here's what we actually know about these efits.  They are somehow or other based on the Smith descriptions, and they appear to have been made months after the event.  Therefore their accuracy and usefulness is questionable.

[ShiningInLuz]

(a) I wasn't in the group, but it was 5a.

(b) According to Crimewatch, towards the beach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y#t=1412

A number of sources have put it as "towards the beach".  The earliest I can find is Aug 2007, so I'm guessing this came from the 'frenzied speculation' phase.

At the moment on ShiningInLuz I am slowly working through a map of which establishments in Luz were open when the Smithman sighting occurred.  The idea is to see where 'perpetrator' Smithman might have avoided, or passed, and does it stack up with reality.

If anyone fancies a challenge, all you have to do is come up with a half-reasonable route for 'perpetrator' Smithman that night.

Please give me a bit of time though.  I'm up to about 30 points of commerce relevant to Smithman to date.  I reckon I have at least another 30 to go.  And that is going to take me 10 days to a fortnight.

Let's see - what's on the Luz map already?.  All of the establishments known to be open that night (though I think I'm missing Boozy Susy's).  Plus the status of the ones in 25 de Abril, Rua Calheta, those in and around the church, and with today's post, those near Rua Direita.

What's missing? Rua Primeiro, Rua Praia Da Luz, all along the front, and half a dozen more joints scattered hither and thither.

[ShiningInLuz]

....and there was another guy, he was seen with a Maddie going into a shop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680858/Madeleine-McCann-investigators-sniffer-dogs-shop-suspect-seen-child.html

The article says "Detectives hunting for Madeleine McCann are preparing to send sniffer dogs into a shop where a suspect was spotted with a little girl on the day the three-year-old disappeared."

Sniffer dogs imply Madeleine was dead.  So where are the shops that someone could have taken a dead Madeleine to on 3rd May?

At this point in time I am aware of two shops that would have been open late at night.  I am ruling out several shops that were open earlier that day.  I am still struggling with the idea of taking a dead child into a shop.

The first of the two shops is the Ali Super convenience store opposite the church.  (I've covered that already on my Was Luz Quiet That Night venture).

The other of the two shops is the Ali Super convenience store on Luz Beach Road.  I've still to put that one on the graphic, but look at the Duke of Holland pub and you're there.

So, what is the Ali Super story in a nutshell?  Went bust around 2011, owing around 70m.  Shop 1, opposite church, was extensively gutted and is now a chemist.  Shop 2, in beach road, was sold on an is now a small Portuguese supermarket.

Will there be a search of either of these premises with the dogs of death?  Don't hold your breath.

[Eleanor]

Back On Topic with this one.  If you please.

[sadie]

Sorry for bumping an old thread. My excuses are that I was curious as to why I got a link to my blog from this thread today, and hopefully more interesting, that some clarification (?) has emerged with the passage of time.

I checked Anna's link, and this has now been watered down to "Another sighting of a man carrying a child that night was reported by Martin and Mary Smith, on holiday from Ireland."  Wiki then is vague about when the efits were made, and how they were made.  Something along the lines - they were made on the Smith descriptions.

Mary does not get a second mention in the article.  She gets an implied 'Smith descriptions'.  There is no clarification of whether Oakley sat down with one or more Smiths or whether they simply mocked up what was in the statements (how?) or in the media.  Peter Smith does not get a mention in Wiki.  Aoife Smith does not get a mention in Wiki.

So here's what we actually know about these efits.  They are somehow or other based on the Smith descriptions, and they appear to have been made months after the event.  Therefore their accuracy and usefulness is questionable.

Wikis are infamous for being alterable and are often altered by people with an agenda

I well remember one on Dionysis that was altered beyond recognition.  It was of great interest to me and fortunately I got hard copies before it changed. 

The way that it was changed was by making hundreds of tiny changes, with ficticiuios reasons for the change given ~ then back again but slightly different ~  Then back in the other direction again etc etc, always with ficticious reasons for the change.  This went on until it would have taken a computer to work it all out.



Somebody really badly wanted the info changed
The webpage has now been wiped but it was too late, I already had it captured.