The Smith Family Sighting

I'm posting a link to Cristobell's latest blog here as it raises interesting points about the sighting.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/

Could I just make it clear though that we are talking only about the blog and not Cristobell personally.

P.S. Link for previous posts on the Smith sighting.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t2032-that-smithman-sighting

Well, I'm not part of any camp, even though my names has been linked again, I have my own strong opinions and reasons to believe that Mr Smith is a genuine witness.  He imo has told the truth as he saw it, as did the rest of his family.  The reason his statement is similar to others is not because of any collusion or working with anyone or knowing anyone, it is simply because it is the way the PJ asked the same list of questions to all witnesses, it is how they operate.  I do not believe any witnesses are liars, why would they lie, and there are far too many of them to all be telling untruths, again for what reason and why would they not help in an investigation to find a child, let alone drop themselves in quite a bit of trouble for untrue statements.  I do believe Madeleine was around until the 3rd, and again my own opinion, why can't some just accept that.  Why is there some sort of conspiracy against them.  Doh, find it all very childish.

As for Mr Smith working with the McCanns for the past few years I see NO evidence whatsoever of this.,  I found this the other day whilst looking for something, it quite categorically states that, and comes from THEIR lawyer.  I think it is a post by Dee Coy, thank you.





"He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns. "


Snip from the description of the speech of Ricardo, lawyer for the McCann children.


In black and white, folks. The McCanns' lawyer attacked the Smiths' credibility and bemoaned the passing of Tannerman.

Perhaps this will finally put to bed the assertions from some quarters that the McCanns promoted the Smith sighting. Their lawyer tells us they didn't like it one little bit.

Which confirms the majority view on Smithman  - he's very important indeed.

Don't think much to the efforts of Ricardo. Fell into GM's habit of commenting on the evidence and the rights and wrongs of the investigation.  And, like the stuttering Gerry, was interrupted and cut short by the judge. What don't they get?

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t393-mccann-v-amaral-damages-trial-verdict-february

candyfloss wrote:Well, I'm not part of any camp, even though my names has been linked again, I have my own strong opinions and reasons to believe that Mr Smith is a genuine witness.  He imo has told the truth as he saw it, as did the rest of his family.  The reason his statement is similar to others is not because of any collusion or working with anyone or knowing anyone, it is simply because it is the way the PJ asked the same list of questions to all witnesses, it is how they operate.  I do not believe any witnesses are liars, why would they lie, and there are far too many of them to all be telling untruths, again for what reason and why would they not help in an investigation to find a child, let alone drop themselves in quite a bit of trouble for untrue statements.  I do believe Madeleine was around until the 3rd, and again my own opinion, why can't some just accept that.  Why is there some sort of conspiracy against them.  Doh, find it all very childish.

I totally agree with you Candyfloss.

In addition, the McCanns and their friends' necks are on the line. They wrote out a time-line, rehearsing their statements, e so each of them would know what to say yet their accounts are full of discrepancies. While the Smith family have nothing to gain or lose personally from making statements and the details of their accounts of Smithman all tally.

I keep an open mind about what exactly happened and when but I absolutely believe the Smiths.

Freedom wrote:I'm posting a link to Cristobell's latest blog here as it raises interesting points about the sighting.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/

Could I just make it clear though that we are talking only about the blog and not Cristobell personally.

While Cristobell may have nailed it with Smithman as the reason for the split in the camps I hope she she does not assume that everything else is as cut and dried in everyone's mind, I have no reason to think that she does.

There are so many permutations that may be possible from what we have learned over the years and we must not let ourselves be railroaded on to only one of two tracks.

Much work has been done by many people over the years that points to a lot of pre-planning for a staged abduction, the wayback machine, the substitute, the creche and phone records, they all point to fore-knowledge of a planned event. The immediate support from the Government suggests that they were sitting waiting for the call.

When the "abductee" died or became ill, I believe it all started to fall apart when the courier who was to take the "abductee" away from the OC refused to play his part. Smithman then had to do that task himself. There would have been a second courier to take the "abductee" out of town to the means of travel, maybe a yacht or ship. It's unlikely that we will ever know if this courier helped Smithman, or left him to his own devices.

Much work has been done by many people over the years that points to a lot of pre-planning for a staged abduction, the wayback machine, the substitute, the creche and phone records, they all point to fore-knowledge of a planned event. The immediate support from the Government suggests that they were sitting waiting for the call.

I am one of those that totally does not go with this, this was a case of a missing child, it got put out into the press very quickly by the friends of K & G, Government was forced to act quickly otherwise there would have been an outcry, they did it basically to look good.

I certainly am not one of those that thinks pre-planning was a part of this at all. No substitute, for me, impossible to achieve too many people to fool and involve.

The government and media response was almost unprecedented though.

I was going to say completely unprecedented but there was certainly a lot of publicity for the Soham girls and for James Bulger.

The disappearance of Ben Needham was very different in the way of coverage and I think that was partly due to the perceived lower standing of his family as well as to the Internet not being in existence then.

The case of Katrice Lee went unnoticed at the time.

Freedom wrote:The government and media response was almost unprecedented though.

I think it was normal for a missing child in a quiet holiday resort abroad.  It was a BIG story, nothing of this nature had happened before, everyone wanted in on the action.  They the media were called in pretty quick by friends of the McCanns, it was within minutes of the alarm being raised.  Government had to be seen to be acting quickly, and sent many to help.  I see nothing unprecedented at all, only in that news was reported as it happened, which was new due to the increasing popularity of the internet at that time, and the media 24/7 news reporting.  People had to be seen to be doing something, with the McCanns and friends pushing and getting their stories out.

I was going to say completely unprecedented but there was certainly a lot of publicity for the Soham girls and for James Bulger.

The disappearance of Ben Needham was very different in the way of coverage and I think that was partly due to the perceived lower standing of his family as well as to the Internet not being in existence then.

The case of Katrice Lee went unnoticed at the time.

It was way before the internet age, totally different and I don't think you can compare.

Anyway this is a bit off topic as this is the Smithman thread and Mr Smith's statements.

Unfortunately this thread which was named 'That Smithman sighting' got merged with another in discussion.  Freedom has split the last few posts away again  but impossible to split the rest back so here is the link for the other thread where the posts are...

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t2032p900-that-smithman-sighting#94486

We can carry on here again and put Cristobell's mind at rest it wasn't abusive at all, jumping to conclusions again Cristobell, and you guessed wrong again......... it was just that it got merged as there was another Smithman thread.

It's sackcloth and ashes for me plus bread and water for a week for upsetting the apple cart!

Perish the thought that any of Cristobell's posters are ever abusive.

Freedom wrote:It's sackcloth and ashes for me plus bread and water for a week for upsetting the apple cart!

Perish the thought that any of Cristobell's posters are ever abusive.

You do a grand job, just that your filing system is too good sometimes and people think we moved it to hide something

Posts about Amy Tierney are now here.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t405-amy-tierney-and-the-photos#top

I read in a (closed) Smith thread here the possibility of the sighting being earlier, around 21:15 and a new timeline being created. Forgive me if I misunderstood (I have seen the myriad of statements claiming alarm went up earlier and perhaps been muddled with interpretations), but, and I stand to be corrected, wasn't this the Smith's Receipt from Kelly's, showing 21:49/50?

The only earlier receipt fails to accomodate 21:15...

And if their sighting was really at/around the time they left Kelly's, 21:50ish, it presents a problem (nevermind being 30+ mins removed from, and 5 mins walk away from Tannerman's location).

OG's 'people talking in English with accents' talking about 'having to hide a body' just up the road have apparently been 'ruled out' at this point, so what are we left with? I find it more plausible that a vehicle would've taken Maddie from one of the car parks (5A or opposite Tapas Reception). Remember the first search dogs went straight to the latter after the 5J distraction. And did so via the private alleyway, not the main road. Nice and quiet, especially with a lookout standing roadside. Though granted we don't know if the item the dogs were given was really hers.

Butm assuming the Smiths to be truthful (as I have no reason not to), who might they have actually seen?

Ferrino wrote:

Butm assuming the Smiths to be truthful (as I have no reason not to), who might they have actually seen?

It's a good question. I've always thought that the sight of a bloke hurrying along with a sleeping child would look odd anyway. I don't buy this "throw a rock in the air and you'd be bound to hit one" impression that is given even by the Smiths themselves.

Holiday resort with a crèche nearby, plus, what innocent father wouldn't come forward in 10 years?

A bit OT but this below is from JTs statement to police, if she says she can identify tannerman by his walking mannerisms, then why can't Martin?


When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

Thank u candyfloss, need to learn how to do that

Excellent point ddl, you can of course pick people out from great distances not by looks but their mannerisms.

dogs don't lie wrote:A bit OT but this below is from JTs statement to police, if she says she can identify tannerman by his walking mannerisms, then why can't Martin?


When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

Thank u candyfloss, need to learn how to do that

Bingo!

That's pooh-poohed 30% of the "Smiths are lying" arguments.

I wonder did JT see him walking from the side? After all, she was the only one who saw him and could identify him, non of the rest even tried to find him or look for him.
IMO

I have a friend who has always recognised all her friends and acquaintances by their walks, and how they move, and their voices.

If you meet her in the street you can "hide" by standing totally still.

I think we all do that, to some extent, as we can recognise people from behind. I guess it is like the way we all lip read to some extent, we are just not aware (that is why a badly dubbed film is so uncomfortable to watch, of course).

This has just been posted on twitter by 'tigger' for those who want to have a read...…..




tigger‏ @gcnjones · 20m20 minutes ago  



 

#McCann.

https://fytton.blogspot.com/search/label/Smiths ….  This may be helpful.

TB is on the Smithman roll again......


Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos · 7m7 minutes ago  

 

Replying to @5haronl @TheBunnyReturns

There's more questions.  Why did #MartinSmith agree to TWO efits? Why was he silent as the #McCann's milked his sighting on #C4, their website & in Kate's book? Why didn't he go the police & say: "Look. I saw Gerry McCann. Why don't you arrest him?  #TheEfitsAreAVeryGreatMystery


---------------

Firstly we don't know anything, we are not privy to what Mr Smith has or hasn't done since.  We do know he confirmed his original statement when he spoke to GO'D.  
I can't remember the McCann's milking his sighting...….. can anyone else?  Not fact at all.

As for going to the police, we are not privy to what has happened, and that is how it should be!

Kate's desperation to morph the Smith-man sighting into the Tanner-man sighting is strong evidence, as far as I am concerned, that Smith-man is not only important but sensitive. Kate will not allow him to be a separate sighting but is insistent that they must be one and the same person. Although she does go as far to say, in her book, that she cannot account for the difference in timings. Indeed - who can?

I think there was supposed to be an abduction at 9.15pm - around the time that Gerry bumped into Jez with his pram. Something went wrong, imo, or someone/several people pulled out of the plan for whatever reason. I think there would then have been total chaos. There are some indications from slip-ups in Tanner's rogatories that Jane may have been carrying a chlld - was Jane forced to carry Madeleine away from the apartment to some kind of 'safe house' perhaps? Later, was Gerry obliged to carry Madeleine down towards the church/beach area?

Purely theoretically, if Dr Amaral is right and Madeleine died in the apartment that week, there is the very real difficulty of hiding and then removing a body from the apartment and from the resort before the arrival of police. Was there supposed to have been a (staged/faked) abduction at around 9.15pm? I think there was but the plan went awry which would account for the bodged timelines.

In the chaos that followed I think decisions were made in a panic without being able to be thought through properly. Tanner-man was hatched, perhaps partly as a cover if Jane really had had to carry Madeleine away from apartment 5A at around 9.15pm. I think Tanner-man was also hatched to draw attention away from the Smith-man sighting at around 10pm. It was imperative that there was another sighting at a different time and heading in a different direction, imo. Not only that, but the manner in which the child was being held was also markedly different. Yes, Tanner-man was amateurish and ridiculous but needs must.

We know that Gerry and the Tapas males were 'searching' in the area near the beach and also on the roads leading up to the cemetery. In her book Kate tells us that on her insistence Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some signs of Madeleine (page 80). This is another of those strange sentences that are, imo, richly revealing in their own way. Why did Kate have to 'insist' on Gerry and Dave going out to look for 'some signs' of Madeleine? Surely they would have done this on their own initiative, if their story is true (ahem!) And surely they wouldn't be looking for 'signs' of Madeleine, they would be looking for Madeleine herself?

I would therefore take the sentence at face value, Kate insisted that Gerry and Dave went out to make sure that there were no signs of Madeleine. No tell-tale giveaways - items of clothing etc. We do not know what time this was but Kate writes: "They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting, desperate to find something; please God, to find Madeleine herself."

This is helpful as it places the beach as an important location, imo, and would strongly indicate that both Gerry and Dave were on the beach in the dark that night.

Given that as far as I am aware there are no sightings of Gerry McCann at around 10pm, apart from the Smith-man sighting, then I would say that at 10pm Gerry McCann was indeed on his way towards the beach/church area carrying a child (probably Madeleine, imo) when he passed the Smith family. At least one member of the Smith family appears to note that the child is very still ("is she asleep?") or perhaps being held awkwardly or something. If the child had been asleep, then it would have been obvious so why the need to ask?

candyfloss wrote:Much work has been done by many people over the years that points to a lot of pre-planning for a staged abduction, the wayback machine, the substitute, the creche and phone records, they all point to fore-knowledge of a planned event. The immediate support from the Government suggests that they were sitting waiting for the call.

I am one of those that totally does not go with this, this was a case of a missing child, it got put out into the press very quickly by the friends of K & G, Government was forced to act quickly otherwise there would have been an outcry, they did it basically to look good.  

I certainly am not one of those that thinks pre-planning was  a part of this at all.  No substitute, for me, impossible to achieve too many people to fool and involve.

I agree. It appears to have been very ramshackle, evidential perhaps of a rushed job. Hence why the 9:15 Tannerman and Jez Wilkins, the 10pm Smithman and jemmied/not jemmied shutters were so poorly executed.
I keep reading how it was already known, at least as early as 9:30pm by some of the Tapas waiters that "a child had gone missing" yet Kate says she found MBM missing at 10pm and then gave the alert.
So to me the hastily jury rigged "abduction" was scheduled for 9:15 but all of the players could not be informed quickly enough to factor in the Jez/pram/Gerry unfortunate coming together.
That probably left insufficient time to bust up the shutters but shifted occulation forward to 10pm, with Gerry and Tanner doing the bundle toting - Tanner at some point - but Gerry at 10pm as purportedly seen by the Smiths.
If this had been the plan from days before I feel it would have gone a lot more smoother and maybe would have been a much simpler scam, like saying MBM wandered off at the beach (although that wouldn't explain cadaverine and blood in 5A). In all it smacks of a plan B contingency, but only thrown together that night of the 3rd May.

I agree too that it was a ramshackle put-together plan that ran into some unfortunate problems - the main one being Jez Wilkins.

Here's what I think was supposed to happen: Gerry was supposed to be outside 3A, either acting as a lookout for whoever was inside 3A jemmying the shutters, or actually jemmying the shutters himself. Either way, I think there was another person inside 3A, and I know it's been mentioned before, but I believe it was Jane Tanner. I think Jane's job was also to pass Madeleine out to Gerry. I think Jez Wilkins came along unexpectedly and Gerry had to talk to him.

That meant JT had to stop whatever she was doing and merely lurk, at the window, out of sight. But she saw the conversation between Gerry and Jez, and because of that, she instantly had an alibi for her absence from the table. She could claim she was on the road and saw them talking. It didn't matter that neither of them could state that they saw her. She could accurately describe what each of them was wearing and what they were talking about and that Jez had his child with him in the pram or buggy, if she was ever asked to come into the police station and answer questions about where she was. She also could instantly therefore become Gerry's alibi as well, because she could state that she saw him chatting on the road with Jez, which was true at that particular time.

Later on, when the Smiths saw Gerry (and I believe it was Gerry) carrying a child (and I believe it was Madeleine), it became necessary to invent Tannerman, to try and prove that the "abduction" happened at the original time it was planned, if Jez Wilkins hadn't come along to disrupt things.

The fact that the early reports claimed that the shutters were "jemmied" when there was absolutely no proof of it at all just tells me that was the plan, and the plan somehow got interrupted before it could be executed. As mentioned above, with JT's purpose of being inside the flat, perhaps the plan was to do exactly what they claimed happened - perhaps the plan was to jemmy the shutters and take Madeleine's body out through the window and leave clues behind that they hoped would convince investigators that was what had happened.

But it didn't happen that way, and so we were left with the shambles and the confusion that ensued.

All my personal opinion.