The Smith sighting revisited.

[pathfinder73]

Maybe TB is working undercover. That would explain why he thinks Smithman doesn't exist    That is so funny! *&*%£

[Anna]

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

[pegasus]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Anna]

I am reading my way through the link you provided, Anna, I had not read it before and I find it very interesting indeed.

I thought you would

[faithlilly]

The irish witnesses are completely honest.

Of course they are Pegasus. Frankly only consiraloons would suggest otherwise.

[Anna]

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.

[Brietta]

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 ??

[Anna]

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.

[pegasus]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Anna]

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.

[pegasus]

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

[Anna]

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

[pegasus]

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).