Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

If someone walked past me I would be able to tell you that it wasn?t my husband however I may not be able to remember his face.

Are you sure that it was Martin Smith who provided the parent?s detectives with the efits?.genuine question?

If the Smith?s description was ?truly miraculous? the same could be said of Tanner?s. In fact Tanner was further away and she saw the man for less time under less than optimal lighting conditions yet she could still see the pattern on the child?s pajamas.

Martin Smith came forward 3 weeks later not four months.

Smith was able to ascertain that the man he saw didn't have glasses on. And seeing as though glasses are worn on the face, he therefore saw his face. He just couldn't remember it, saying he wouldn't recognise the person again. Until he saw Gerry lower his head, like the way the man lowered his head to signal that he did not wish to speak. And you're right. From quite a distance away Jane Tanner was able to ascertain that the man she saw had long bits of hair, like each individual bit, she said.

[Wonderfulspam]

 ?But, I mean, I think, so the things that I?m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don?t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it?s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head.  And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy?ish sort of ill fitting more than.  And they?re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of?.

Jane Tanner Rogatory


From a distance of several metres away, Jane was able to observe each individual bit of hair on Tannermans head. And you think Aoife couldn't see buttons from about 3 metres away?

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't know how the interviewing detectives didn't wet themselves laughing really. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Anyway, sorry I shouldn't laugh. There's a dead child involved. But, I'm afraid it is kind of funny how this case has perplexed some people for so many years, when the whole time the answer to the mystery is staring everyone in the Smithman face. There's no way to avoid the obvious conclusion, save for just completely dismissing the sighting while riding off on flights of fantasy about abductors hiding in the apartment, extra abductors to pass Maddie through the window too when you realise escaping through the window with a 4 year old might be a tad awkward really, getaway vehicles, abductors drugging Maddie & so on. It's all bat shit crazy. There's no evidence for any of it. All there is, is a sighting of Gerry. But no, we're supposed to believe Brueckner did it!

[Vertigo Swirl]

If someone walked past me I would be able to tell you that it wasn?t my husband however I may not be able to remember his face.

Are you sure that it was Martin Smith who provided the parent?s detectives with the efits?.genuine question?

If the Smith?s description was ?truly miraculous? the same could be said of Tanner?s. In fact Tanner was further away and she saw the man for less time under less than optimal lighting conditions yet she could still see the pattern on the child?s pajamas.

Martin Smith came forward 3 weeks later not four months.

If it wasn?t Martin Smith (the man with the most to say about Smithman) who provided the efit description then who else do you think it might have been?  Whoever it was, around a year had passed since the signting of a man whose face was never clearly seen for a few seconds in the dark.  How much store would you put in such an e-fit in any other case apart from this one?
Tanner?s signting was vindicated, and I don?t think she waited nearly a year before giving details of the man?s appearance, so nothing more needs to be said about that.
Martin Smith came forward initially (and unforgiveably belatedly) at 3 weeks as I have stated numerous times but then after a sudden memory enhancement at 4 months came forward again.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sorry, I tell a lie. The Smithman e-fits were created on 4th September 2008.  That is 16 months after the sighting of a man seen for a few fleeting seconds in the dark.  Now, on a scale of 1 to 10, just how accurately do you think you would be able to recreate the facial features of a man you saw late one evening in the street 16 months ago.  A man you were paying very little attention to at the time? 

[Wonderfulspam]

Sorry, I tell a lie. The Smithman e-fits were created on 4th September 2008.  That is 16 months after the sighting of a man seen for a few fleeting seconds in the dark.  Now, on a scale of 1 to 10, just how accurately do you think you would be able to recreate the facial features of a man you saw late one evening in the street 16 months ago.  A man you were paying very little attention to at the time?

Ok, lets say for argument sake that he didn't see Gerry's face. That still leaves those coincidental buttoned trousers & an inert Maddie dressed in the wrong pyjamas. So, did the coincidental trousers abductor guy change Madeleine's pyjama top? Do you think? Or, is it perhaps more likely that I've already explained everything today?

[Joe Blogs]

Ameral was in the middle of the investigation into the smith sighting when he got took of the case.

you would think SY would have investigated Smith as the only remaining witness to an abduction.

He, after all identified gmc....also created the lookalike efit

I think after reading Smith statement its how credible as a a witness you think he is...

He still sticks by his statement today....I think he is 100% credible - after much sole searching told the truth



Yet seems SY wasn't interested ....no one has ever come forward as being the man either.

Yet there again it was kept quiet for years.

Thanks Kizzy, is SY Scotland Yard?

[Wonderfulspam]

Thanks Kizzy, is SY Scotland Yard?

Yes, Joe. SY have completely ruled out the McCanns, so they have, because Gerry was at the tapas. Really, he was. But sadly his doppelganger, in coincidental trousers, was also in town that fateful night & he drugged & snatched Maddie & changed her pyjama top. That is what SY must have concluded since they were able to completely rule out the McCanns so they were. Which kind of explains why they can't solve the case really.

[faithlilly]

If it wasn?t Martin Smith (the man with the most to say about Smithman) who provided the efit description then who else do you think it might have been?  Whoever it was, around a year had passed since the signting of a man whose face was never clearly seen for a few seconds in the dark.  How much store would you put in such an e-fit in any other case apart from this one?
Tanner?s signting was vindicated, and I don?t think she waited nearly a year before giving details of the man?s appearance, so nothing more needs to be said about that.
Martin Smith came forward initially (and unforgiveably belatedly) at 3 weeks as I have stated numerous times but then after a sudden memory enhancement at 4 months came forward again.

I have no idea who it might have been but it seems neither do you. Further I put no store in the efits. Am I supposed to?

Tanner was not vindicated. Why else would her efit still be on the parent?s website?

The identification could only have happened as Gerry stepped from the plane. It was not an enhancement of his memory but a jolting of it.

[Wonderfulspam]

I have no idea who it might have been but it seems neither do you. Further I put no store in the efits. Am I supposed to?

Tanner was not vindicated. Why else would her efit still be on the parent?s website?

The identification could only have happened as Gerry stepped from the plane. It was not an enhancement of his memory but a jolting of it.

I checked in on the Find Madeleine website today as it happens. The Tanner sighting is still there & it continues to state that 'there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.' Even though there's a wealth of evidence she was murdered by Christian Brueckner. Gerry once stated, in 'Madeleine Was Here', he stated that... "She's either out there or she's not, & there's nothing to say she's not out there alive. So it's simple, she's out there until proven otherwise"
I must admit I'm firmly in the 'She's not out there' camp. An explanation for the entire case that Mr McCann deems plausible apparently.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no idea who it might have been but it seems neither do you. Further I put no store in the efits. Am I supposed to?

Tanner was not vindicated. Why else would her efit still be on the parent?s website?

The identification could only have happened as Gerry stepped from the plane. It was not an enhancement of his memory but a jolting of it.

You have no idea who might have provided the McCanns? detectives with the descriptions for the e-fits?  What no idea at all?  Amazing.  Good to know however that you set no store in them, me neither as they were done 16 months after the event.   If SY chose to feature them in Crimewatch I would suggest it?s because they existed and felt putting them up was better than nothing, use every scrap of information available but one can understand why the M Canns set no store in them either.
Tanner was 100% vindicated.  She described Julian Totman incredibly accurately, so how do you account for that then?
As for your ongoing fixation with the Madeleine website, apart from the odd message from the McCanns appearing on Birthdays and Christmas it obviously hasn?t been updated for many, many years.
There was nothing unusual or remarkable about the way Gerry was carrying his child so it is fair to say that any male of average build with short dark hair carrying a small child in the same way would have looked very similar.  I would suggest that Smith was heavily influenced by the fact that at the time Gerry was an arguido and the media was full of the most egregious nonsense about the McCanns, hence his sudden moment of semi-clarity (60-80% is still far from certain). Remember, this is one of the exact same reasons you cite for Luke Mitchell not getting a fair trial, because of media influence on so-called witnesses.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes Yes, Smith was only 60 to 80% sure. But that's still more sure than not, & 100% more sightings of Gerry abducting Maddie compared to the none of Christian Brueckner. Which is remarkable when you think about it. Considering we are asked to believe that Brueckner dunnit. I suppose, if someone could come up with a feasible, logical & plausible explanation of how Brueckner dunnit, whilst accounting for the Smith family evidence. If someone could do that then the idea that Brueckner was guilty might be slightly more believable. But it isn't happening. The Brueckner theory is nowhere to be seen. Only the Gerry theory works really. If we're honest about things here.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And let us not forget to all the 100% certain sightings of Madeleine over the years since her disappearance, which obviously proves she climbed out of the bin and went travelling after Gerry dumped her.

[Vertigo Swirl]

PS: just in case you're wondering who provided the e-fits 16 months after the event:

FOI request:  Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604 19 September 2014  to Metropolitan Police - answered 18 October 2014:
 
At Question 4 you asked:
Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.
The MPS response is:  The programme was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.
At Question 5 you asked:
Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?
The MPS reponse is: Yes, they are the same man.

Now I wonder which two members of the Smith family could have been involved in this process?  The young children?  Peter who was tending to his pregnant wife?  Or perhaps the two members of the Smith family who claim they thought he might possibly have been Gerry?  It's a difficult one to work out that's for sure!