Martin Smith

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote: the ways they were similar don't mean much - the ways they differed is more important. I.E. dark top and light trousers? could be any of a number of men wearing that combination. Being a small town doesn't mean everyone dresses completely uniquely.

Carrying small child? Not an unusual thing in PDL at night. Differences were man's hair length - short means short and reasonably long means that. I don't know about the delay they came forward, I haven't read the dates on this.

Absolutely, if it was just a couple of dads carrying sleeping children from or to home then fine but why would they not come forward to rule themselves of the enquiry, what would they have to hide?

Nothing - it is possible they didn't want to get involved, who knows, they may have been accused of lying! Either that or one of the sightings was the abductor, I don't buy both sightings as the abductor. JMO.

How unlucky that a father is carrying his sleeping pyjama'd blonde daughter through a small town at virtually the same time as a lone male abductor was also carrying a sleeping pyjama'd blone girl of around the same age. Spooky.

Not sure what you mean.
Does that mean you believe the Smiths witnessed the abductor and not Tanner? Because Tanner did not see any blonde child. I don't see why any father would be unlucky - unless you mean he would be a suspect just by being there?

I was continuing your theory that a father carrying his child did not come forward and he was one of the men witnessed carrying a sleeping child that night. I was just pointing out that this was unlucky, the individual must live in perpetual anxiety that he will be exposed as someone who could have ruled himself out of the investigation and for all he knows, helping the investigation, can't be easy.

i just said it could have been not definitely was

Tyra, nothing happened to the individual who came forward. The press never identified him, no one knows who he is.. I'm sure if someone who was in Praia da Luz that night had some vital information they would be forgiven if it developed into new leads. The only people who suffered were the 53 yr old Austrailian lady who was mis-identified and the yacht owner. Plus the McCann detectives who never followed up the story properly.

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote: the ways they were similar don't mean much - the ways they differed is more important. I.E. dark top and light trousers? could be any of a number of men wearing that combination. Being a small town doesn't mean everyone dresses completely uniquely.

Carrying small child? Not an unusual thing in PDL at night. Differences were man's hair length - short means short and reasonably long means that. I don't know about the delay they came forward, I haven't read the dates on this.

Absolutely, if it was just a couple of dads carrying sleeping children from or to home then fine but why would they not come forward to rule themselves of the enquiry, what would they have to hide?

Nothing - it is possible they didn't want to get involved, who knows, they may have been accused of lying! Either that or one of the sightings was the abductor, I don't buy both sightings as the abductor. JMO.

How unlucky that a father is carrying his sleeping pyjama'd blonde daughter through a small town at virtually the same time as a lone male abductor was also carrying a sleeping pyjama'd blone girl of around the same age. Spooky.

Not sure what you mean.
Does that mean you believe the Smiths witnessed the abductor and not Tanner? Because Tanner did not see any blonde child. I don't see why any father would be unlucky - unless you mean he would be a suspect just by being there?

I was continuing your theory that a father carrying his child did not come forward and he was one of the men witnessed carrying a sleeping child that night. I was just pointing out that this was unlucky, the individual must live in perpetual anxiety that he will be exposed as someone who could have ruled himself out of the investigation and for all he knows, helping the investigation, can't be easy.

i just said it could have been not definitely was

I'm not holding you to it in a court of law, I was just just continuing the thought to it's conclusion!

if it was an unrelated man then why not come forward and how does he deal with that knowledge.

if he was unrelated, i said, maybe he was scared, didn't you see murat being accused of all and sundry when he wasn't even there going by all the people there at the night that knew him! not 3 people who had never met him! anyway, perhaps there was no unrelated man, perhaps it was just someone removing madeleine from one place to another - a stranger abductor or someone connected to that group - as i said before i don't buy the 2 sightings together and certainly not of the same man - p.s. someone said it could have been o'brien - he is about 6 foot 5 so i think that rules him out

tyra wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Tyra, I'm sure that just like 'Barcelona Man' who came forward after two years that any individual would feel confident in coming forward with new evidence if it would help the investigation.

i wish I could share your confidence but if an innocent person didn't tell the police within those first few days I very much doubt they would feel comfortable coming forward now, particularly after witnessing what happened to the individual who came forward regarding the sighting in barcelona.

For me its just a case of too many co-incidences.

You have a quiet little town, still low season remember, with few people out and about - the Tapas 7 confirmed that in their statements when they said they rarely saw anyone else when they did their checks. And yet on this night, in the space of 45 mins, there were 2 men, carrying children in pyjamas, around the resort?

One spotted by JT and a different one spotted by the Smiths.

And Mr Smith, again by co-incidence, thought the man he saw bore a resemblence to Gerry.

It just doesnt make sense does it?

Oh tyra, I think if they could have identified him they'd have done it last week. What with the Mail slating the efforts of the family's detectives it would have dove-tailed quite nicely with all that.

Alfiefinn wrote:Tyra, nothing happened to the individual who came forward. The press never identified him, no one knows who he is.. I'm sure if someone who was in Praia da Luz that night had some vital information they would be forgiven if it developed into new leads. The only people who suffered were the 53 yr old Austrailian lady who was mis-identified and the yacht owner. Plus the McCann detectives who never followed up the story properly.

But if the Mc's were leaving no stone unturned , thats the first place they would start .the first indi sighting .
the fact that they gloss over it , speaks volumes .
Imo the reason Jane Tanner said She never Told The Mc's of Her Alleged Abductor sighting , is She wanted it to appear that there had been no communication ,between them .
Remember the Guy carrying the Child , seen by the Smiths knew he had been seen .and where he had been seen .and what he had been seen with

tyra wrote:

As I said in the post you quoted, he must live in perpetual anxiety.

IF he exists, then maybe. There is no point in labouring it.

Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

tyra wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Oh tyra, I think if they could have identified him they'd have done it last week. What with the Mail slating the efforts of the family's detectives it would have dove-tailed quite nicely with all that.

For his sake I hope you are right.

I Would not like to meet his Wife , the Guy is Sh*t Scared of Her , or rather Her Dovorce Lawyers

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

tyra wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Tyra, I'm sure that just like 'Barcelona Man' who came forward after two years that any individual would feel confident in coming forward with new evidence if it would help the investigation.

i wish I could share your confidence but if an innocent person didn't tell the police within those first few days I very much doubt they would feel comfortable coming forward now, particularly after witnessing what happened to the individual who came forward regarding the sighting in barcelona.

For me its just a case of too many co-incidences.

You have a quiet little town, still low season remember, with few people out and about - the Tapas 7 confirmed that in their statements when they said they rarely saw anyone else when they did their checks. And yet on this night, in the space of 45 mins, there were 2 men, carrying children in pyjamas, around the resort?

One spotted by JT and a different one spotted by the Smiths.

And Mr Smith, again by co-incidence, thought the man he saw bore a resemblence to Gerry.

It just doesnt make sense does it?

Exactly, i think that's what plays on most of our minds, what are the chances of two unrelated men carrying sleeping children of about the same age at the same time neither of them connected to the simultaneous abduction of a young girl? it just doesn't seem likely. i don't know what to make of Smith deciding months down the line, after Gerry was named arguido that it might have been him he saw, I hope it wasn't simply the power of suggestion but either way, it seems Gerry had an alibi for that time period and so it wasn't him.

Tanners account was not corroborated therefore is much weaker than a group stating something, no?

Unlike Jane Tanner's 'abductor' who had more incarnations than Dr Who.

Alfiefinn wrote:Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

What I cant reconcile is the fact that the McCanns ignored this sighting for almost 2 years. No mention of it until their documentary. And even then they skewed the facts to fit in with JT's sighting.

Given that Team McCann have publicised every single suspicious character who was in PDL during that week, from Cooperman to Pimpleman (how many now? I cant remember) it does seem strange they have ommited the man the Smiths saw when he appears to be the most credible sighting of all.

Unless of course its due to the fact that Mr Smith was 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry?

Sprite, they only want people to concentrate on their 'abductor'. It's a distraction.

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

tyra wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Tyra, I'm sure that just like 'Barcelona Man' who came forward after two years that any individual would feel confident in coming forward with new evidence if it would help the investigation.

i wish I could share your confidence but if an innocent person didn't tell the police within those first few days I very much doubt they would feel comfortable coming forward now, particularly after witnessing what happened to the individual who came forward regarding the sighting in barcelona.

For me its just a case of too many co-incidences.

You have a quiet little town, still low season remember, with few people out and about - the Tapas 7 confirmed that in their statements when they said they rarely saw anyone else when they did their checks. And yet on this night, in the space of 45 mins, there were 2 men, carrying children in pyjamas, around the resort?

One spotted by JT and a different one spotted by the Smiths.

And Mr Smith, again by co-incidence, thought the man he saw bore a resemblence to Gerry.

It just doesnt make sense does it?

Exactly, i think that's what plays on most of our minds, what are the chances of two unrelated men carrying sleeping children of about the same age at the same time neither of them connected to the simultaneous abduction of a young girl? it just doesn't seem likely. i don't know what to make of Smith deciding months down the line, after Gerry was named arguido that it might have been him he saw, I hope it wasn't simply the power of suggestion but either way, it seems Gerry had an alibi for that time period and so it wasn't him.

Tanners account was not corroborated therefore is much weaker than a group stating something, no?

It wasn't the entire group who felt the same though, which is what you'd expect of fleeting eye witness account, Martin apparently felt it might have been Gerry, his wife was less sure and the other members of the group did not think it looked like Gerry at all.

it doesnt matter anyway, witness recollections of people are proven to be 50/50 right/wrong. the investigation does not rest on these alone.

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

What I cant reconcile is the fact that the McCanns ignored this sighting for almost 2 years. No mention of it until their documentary. And even then they skewed the facts to fit in with JT's sighting.

Given that Team McCann have publicised every single suspicious character who was in PDL during that week, from Cooperman to Pimpleman (how many now? I cant remember) it does seem strange they have ommited the man the Smiths saw when he appears to be the most credible sighting of all.

Unless of course its due to the fact that Mr Smith was 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry?

It is very strange indeed .

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

What I cant reconcile is the fact that the McCanns ignored this sighting for almost 2 years. No mention of it until their documentary. And even then they skewed the facts to fit in with JT's sighting.

Given that Team McCann have publicised every single suspicious character who was in PDL during that week, from Cooperman to Pimpleman (how many now? I cant remember) it does seem strange they have ommited the man the Smiths saw when he appears to be the most credible sighting of all.

Unless of course its due to the fact that Mr Smith was 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry?

this is indeed odd! i've read an argument somewhere, can't remember where, that they didn't follow the smith's sighting because they wanted to respect his privacy and that he didn't want to media on his doorstep. you what?

Alfiefinn wrote:Sprite, they only want people to concentrate on their 'abductor'. It's a distraction.

But the Smith sighting should be a gift to them. Several completely independant witnesses, none of the inconsistancies surrounding JT's with Gerry and Jez not seeing her.

And yet they chose to ignore it.

Why?

Sprite, possibly because they didn't want to draw attention to Mr Smith's fairly emphatic identification. That could have done them a lot of damage.

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

What I cant reconcile is the fact that the McCanns ignored this sighting for almost 2 years. No mention of it until their documentary. And even then they skewed the facts to fit in with JT's sighting.

Given that Team McCann have publicised every single suspicious character who was in PDL during that week, from Cooperman to Pimpleman (how many now? I cant remember) it does seem strange they have ommited the man the Smiths saw when he appears to be the most credible sighting of all.

Unless of course its due to the fact that Mr Smith was 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry?

There were other sightings they did not know about at all or in detail until they had access to the files, clearly they didn't have information on all the sightings, perhaps they didn't know anything more than we knew from reading the press, I'm not sure how people expect them to force people who are unwilling to give sketches and agree to media intrusion. once they had the files then they could use it because all the information was there, before that they didn't.

Sorry Tara youre not on ignore ! Just trying to keep up here !

They knew about the Smith sighting Tyra - we all did. To Team McCann it should have held far more relavance and import than JT's sighting. But for some reason it didnt and they prefered to publicise Cooperman - someone seen in the vicinity a week before !

tyra, I don't suppose they decided to reveal it in their documentary because Mr Amaral had mentioned it in his first. Because then they really had to address the issue, hadn't they?

Alfiefinn wrote:tyra, I don't suppose they decided to reveal it in their documentary because Mr Amaral had mentioned it in his first. Because then they really had to address the issue, hadn't they?

They did Alfie.

And in doing so changed the facts - the way the man was carrying the child for one.

Mr Smith said the child was carried on the shoulder and yet the McCann documentary showed the child being carried across the arms in the way JT described it.

I wonder what Mr Smith thought of it?

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Sprite, they only want people to concentrate on their 'abductor'. It's a distraction.

But the Smith sighting should be a gift to them. Several completely independant witnesses, none of the inconsistancies surrounding JT's with Gerry and Jez not seeing her.

And yet they chose to ignore it.

Why?

Am I on ignore, when did they have it, how much detail did they have, surely you must know this in order to accuse them of ignoring it, it seems to me they publicised it as soon as they practically could, during the documentary after they had translated a vast chunk of the investigative files that contained the details.

are you suggesting the mccanns first learnt of the smiths testimonies was after they received the files?

that is not true - they would have known about it instantly from the papers - their media monitoring would have seen to that or clarence m

Nellie wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:tyra, I don't suppose they decided to reveal it in their documentary because Mr Amaral had mentioned it in his first. Because then they really had to address the issue, hadn't they?

What were they supposed to mention about it? None of The Smiths saw his face properly, and Mr Smith wasn't wearing his glasses. There was nothing to follow up on. Except the possibility of Madeleine being taken off on a boat. They are still looking for one boat that disappeared that night. It could be anywhere.

"What are they supposed to mention about it" ??

How about the fact that a group of people, independant to their holiday friends, saw a man carrying a blonde child around PDL at approx. the time Madeleine was supposed to be abducted?

You would expect them to be shouting from the roof tops about this sighting - it at least has some credibilty.

And yet we have press conferences about Cooperman and Pimpleman and Posh lookalikes instead.

There is some reason Team McCann wish to smother the Smith sighting.

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Sprite, they only want people to concentrate on their 'abductor'. It's a distraction.

But the Smith sighting should be a gift to them. Several completely independant witnesses, none of the inconsistancies surrounding JT's with Gerry and Jez not seeing her.

And yet they chose to ignore it.

Why?

Am I on ignore, when did they have it, how much detail did they have, surely you must know this in order to accuse them of ignoring it, it seems to me they publicised it as soon as they practically could, during the documentary after they had translated a vast chunk of the investigative files that contained the details.

are you suggesting the mccanns first learnt of the smiths testimonies was after they received the files?

that is not true - they would have known about it instantly from the papers - their media monitoring would have seen to that or clarence m

Exactly my point until they got the files they presumeably only had the same information that we did through the newspapers and that combined with the unwillingness of the Smith family to be any more involved means they could not have made a big thing of the sighting even if they wanted to. They didn't have the means.

so basically you are saying they couldn't have promoted any sighting/suspect until they had the files. are you having a laugh?

goodnight anyway, nice chatting

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Perhaps it's Mr Smith who's afraid to come forward now with a description of the person he saw that night? Although in the past he had some thoughts about resemblence.

What I cant reconcile is the fact that the McCanns ignored this sighting for almost 2 years. No mention of it until their documentary. And even then they skewed the facts to fit in with JT's sighting.

Given that Team McCann have publicised every single suspicious character who was in PDL during that week, from Cooperman to Pimpleman (how many now? I cant remember) it does seem strange they have ommited the man the Smiths saw when he appears to be the most credible sighting of all.

Unless of course its due to the fact that Mr Smith was 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry?

There were other sightings they did not know about at all or in detail until they had access to the files, clearly they didn't have information on all the sightings, perhaps they didn't know anything more than we knew from reading the press, I'm not sure how people expect them to force people who are unwilling to give sketches and agree to media intrusion. once they had the files then they could use it because all the information was there, before that they didn't.

Sorry Tara youre not on ignore ! Just trying to keep up here !

They knew about the Smith sighting Tyra - we all did. To Team McCann it should have held far more relavance and import than JT's sighting. But for some reason it didnt and they prefered to publicise Cooperman - someone seen in the vicinity a week before !

How do you know that they knew more about the sighting than was already in the press and how do you know that the Smiths were happy to cooperate, from all i have read the opposite would seem to be true.

This thread is fast moving isn't it!

It doesnt matter how much the McCanns knew about the sighting - just the fact they knew about it is enough. Whether the Smiths co-operated or not wouldnt have stopped Team McCann from publicising it - we know that much.

The only reason I can think for the Smiths not co-operating with the McCanns is that Mr Smith did, and still does, think the man he saw was Gerry.

The Smiths certainly co-operated with the PJ - it was Mr Smith who contacted them after seeing Gerry carrying Sean on their return to the UK.

Very fast thread - but interesting isnt it?