Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

by woodforthetrees 15.01.15 11:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

Hi Tony,

No, I have no news items for that date that the Smiths could have seen, however, Murat was being suspected very early on by media in Luz, the Tapas group and I believe a profiler on scene.

REPLY: I agree with all of that

With all that hype around the event and Murat, regardless of any up-and-coming news story days later, it wouldn't take very long for word to get around the village (a matter of hours I suspect) that 'local guy Murat is in the frame'. Therefore I'm sure the remaining Smiths would have got wind of this before their return on the 9th.

REPLY: Let's face it, Martin Smith and some of his family members were right in the thick of it, right there in Praia da Luz as you say, amid hundreds if not thousands of local villagers and police officers combing PdL and the surrounding countryside, looking for Madeleine, dozens if not hundreds of journalists and their news film crews etc. - yet day after day after day no-one in the Smith family even thought of telling the police about their 'sighting'?? Not one person on this forum has ever given anything remotely like an adequate explanation for why they all failed to do so - and why they waited until the day after Murat was arrested to do so

Reply: You have answered it with your last reply Tony...they spoke out when he was arresteed, i.e to try and help get their friend out of trouble. If Murat hadn't been arrested, i dare say they would never have mentioned smithman and him definitely not being Murat.

However the Smiths only decided to speak out that it's not Murat after it had been formally announced, IMO in a bid to help him out from being stitched up.

REPLY: They had potentially vital information about a man late at night carrying a young blonde infant girl clad only in pjamas, yet they refused, day after day, to share this information with the police

Reply: Some people just don't want to get involved in these things Tony. If the sighting was credible and they knowingly/deliberately withheld it from the police, then the Smiths would be up to their necks in it. The police obviously know that the sighting is a red herring as they have not been punished for withholding evidence.

Murat's actions and activities, although strange IMO, do not make him part of the crime. IMO he was well and truly stitched up by a snowball effect of people who each jumped on him in desperation...only to then backtrack when they'd actually thought about it/him.

REPLY: I have never ever said that Murat was 'part of the crime', I wasn't stating you had Tony, apologies, i was more talking out loud in other words I have never in any way alleged that he has any responsibility for Madeleine having 'disappeared'. However, I insist that people should probe who summoned him to Portugal on Monday 30 April (clearly at least one person did), and why they did so, and should also probe why he lied in at least 17 different respects about his movements on 1, 2, and 3 May when he was first questioned by the PJ on 15 May 2007. I may be wrong on this but i was under the impression he was summoned back on the 30th by his ex to sort out their split through their lawyers. Agreed, his changes in statements/lack of memory/clarity are shocking, but IMO it is because of these that he has continued to have a question mark over him. In reality, the inconsistencies could be for another reason. My personal opinion is that he was having an affair/fling hence tried to initially cover his tracks. I also believe that there is a connection between Murat and Tanner, but that's for another thread.

You speak of 'a snowball effect of people who each jumped on him in desperation...'

I'll tell you what my take is.

That some very powerful people systematically plotted on how to put Robert Murat in the frame and make him a suspect. Agreed, there was a lot of pressure to get results and frame someone quickly and Murat fitted the bill nicely, for the police, for the media and even for politicians who 'offered their support to catch this horrible man'. Problem is, it backfired as there turned out to be no body and no evidence to nail Murat provided he had a good lawyer.

The people who coached Jane Tanner on Sunday 13 May before she (mis-)identified Robert Murat as the mystery person carrying a child on the evening of 3 May are very much part of that plot... Tanner was loving the limelight and the media were all over her like a rash. With everyone hinting that 'Murat looks suss', i don't believe she would have actually been 'coached', i simply believe she thought she'd be the hero in the whole worldwide saga by pinning the tail on the donkey. It backfired and she looked an idiot.

...to which I add that this is all in my own humble opinion, but based on the known facts Mine too as always Tony, all healthy discussion :-)
.

by j.rob 15.01.15 17:06

The forum member who drew this to my attention said:

"Can you tell me how Martin Smith - when he contacted the Irish Gardai on 16 May - learnt that Jane Tanner had identified Robert Murat as the man encountered in the night of the abduction, when 9 days later (25 May) was the first time we were given a description of the presumed abductor - and even then, Jane Tanner's name wasn't given out?"

I think it's a very good question.

And I can't answer it.

Can anyone else help with an answer please?
----------

Kate writes in her book that on May 14th, early in the evening, they heard that Robert Murat had been taken in for police questioning. She writes:

"We had no prior warning of this from the police. The first we knew of it was when we happened to catch the 'breaking news' on television the same as everybody else." At first I assumed this was a lie and that they did have prior warning, as you often have to reverse what TM say in order to get a semblance of the truth. However, given that two camps do, indeed, appear to have been formed that week (and this is not entirely unconnected with Jez Wilkins, imo) it is possible that, for once, this is the truth.

Whatever the case, given Robert Murat's contacts both in the UK (where he worked as a police translator) and in Portugal, it is far more than a coincidence, imo, that he flew out to Luz at the last minute early on in that fateful week. I think he was brought in specifically to trouble-shoot, to act as a police translator and therefore be privy to vital eye-witness information (and possibly also to be made a patsy - for which he would be handsomely rewarded).

If, as has been postulated, Murat also knows/has connections with at least some of TM, and at least some of TM seem to have connections with the media (especially the Murdoch press and Sky) then it is quite likely that Murat, too, has media connections. And it is on record that he knows a Sky journalist (maiden surname: de Jesus?) who was on the scene in Luz (can't remember whole name) who worked as a Sky anchor as well as a Sky translator. She gave a few interviews early on and said she knew Robert Murat well as they had been at school together. She also said she knew the police. As did Robert Murat.

So it is all incredibly incestuous. Three degrees of separation certainly springs to mind.

What is very curious is Kate's account of her and Gerry's alleged reaction to watching coverage of breaking news of Murat being taken in for questioning: "We stood there, paralysed, watching live pictures of the police going in and out of Murat's home, removing computer equipment and box-loads of other stuff. We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag."

Given that, at this stage, Madeleine is supposed to have been abducted by a mystery person or persons, and that Madeleine is assumed to be still alive (otherwise why set up a Fund to find her?) then this is a most extraordinary thing for Kate to say.

However, while you often have to use reverse psychology with Kate, there are occasions when, imo, you can take what she says at face value. And this is one of them. Both Kate and Gerry were terrified that police would find Madeleine~~'s body~~.

("Find the body and prove we killed her": Gerry)

This is hard evidence, as far as I am concerned, that at this stage Madeleine~~'s body~~ was still findable. Poor little Madeleine was, at this stage, a findable little girl - albeit, imo, either seriously ill/abused/injured or (most probably) dead (as Kate has pretty much told us from that chilling description above).

I think it is possible that, at this stage, Kate was still not sure exactly what had happened to Madeleine~~'s body~~ and who had taken her where. But I think in her description above she leaks all kinds of clues. Vital pieces of information, imo. Murat's home; computer equipment; box loads of other stuff; a little body bag - all vital clues here, imo.

I think Gerry and probably David Payne (and other male tapas too I suspect) were more in the picture of precisely what happened to Madeleine and who took her away when, where and how. (Matt gives a police statement where he flags up having searched in 'Cemetary Road' with Russell on Thursday evening which appears to be fairly compelling brain-leak, imo, given that at this stage they were supposed to be searching for an alive abducted child, not a dead one.)

So to answer the question posed by Tony above (at last!) I would say that the Smith family are likely to have heard through the grapevine (if not directly from Robert Murat himself - as it appears they knew each other) that Robert Murat was to be taken in for questioning. Even if they didn't hear directly from Murat, they could have heard from his mother, Jennifer, or other family members/friends. A large family like the Smiths who co-owned an apartment in Luz (who were the co-owners with the Smiths, I wonder?) is likely to be a part of the local ex-pat community. And news travels fast in such places where gossip can be rampant and everybody knows everybody.

So the Smiths have several days to mull over the fact that Murat has been taken in for questioning. And given that Murat acted as police translator, Murat would have known about Jane Tanner's 'sighting' of Tanner-man. And would have known about this from the very outset, presumably, as Tanner-man appeared in the time-line drawn up by TM late on the evening of Thursday 4th May. Several days in which to decide on a course of action. Perhaps several days in which to speak to Murat or members of his family and/or friends (possibly even certain members of the press). Several days in which to make a decision to speak to the Irish police - the Gardai. Which the Smiths apparently did on 16th May.

And of course there is that mighty peculiar taped phone-call between Sky News journalist Martin Brunt and Jennifer Murat and Robert Murat which takes place shortly after Murat has been made 'arguido'. I find the conversation unconvincing to the point of absurdity. With Martin Brunt asking Jennifer Murat what 'arguido' means. Who is he kidding? The chief crime reporter at Sky is so clueless about one of the biggest crime stories of the decade that he hasn't even worked out what an 'arguido' is? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

All part of the script, imo. And Murat got paid handsomely for being a patsy - £600,000 lump sum (tax-free?) You have to work a long time in a turkey-processing factory to earn that sort of money.

But, to return to the question. It is true, as Tony has said in a post up-thread, that a description of Tanner-man was not released publicly until 25th May. Which just so happened to be one day after the McCann's were allowed to have their first informal meeting with police at the British Consulate as it had, by this stage, been agreed (by the 'powers that be') that the McCanns would be given 'special treatment' (page 154, Madeleine).

Precisely one day after this (26th May) members of the Smith family travel to Portugal to speak to Portuguese police. So, by this stage the Smith family would know what TM allege Madeleine's abductor looked like.

And it seems highly unlikely, to me, that the Smith family would not already have known through the local grapevine (or even Murat himself or members of his family) that it was Jane Tanner who is supposed to have spotted Madeleine's abductor at 9.15pm scurrying up the road away from the apartment carrying Madeleine in the most awkward manner imaginable.

But I can't see anything odd if Murat and the Smiths are all part of cast of "players".

Indeed.

I think two distinct camps emerged during that fateful week. And that this turn of events is not unconnected with the Nuno de Jesus' (there's that name again!) alleged Sagres sighting of the suspicious Polish couple photographing his daughter who just happened to look like Madeleine. On or near a day (Monday 30th April?) when the McCanns - it was claimed by the media in later reports - had visited Sagres with Madeleine.

Except they hadn't gone to Sagres at all that week, according to the McCanns. Kate does not mention visiting Sagres in her book. So how come the media reported that the McCann's visited Sagres early that week, when the McCann's never mention it? Either they were there or they weren't. Or were they meant to be there?

Curiouser and curiouser, as they say.

And not entirely unconnected, imo, with Jez Wilkins' alleged encounter with Gerry McCann right outside apartment 5A shortly after 9pm on that fateful Thursday evening. Which just so happens to be (according to Jane Tanner!) exactly when Jane Tanner spots Tanner-man spiriting Madeleine away! What a truly remarkable coincidence! Yet, even more remarkable, Jez does not see Jane Tanner, even though Jane claims she walked straight past Gerry and Jez! And Jez does not see Tanner-man either.

I guess you see what you want to see. Or not.

And then again, all this is not entirely unconnected, imo, with the Smith family 'sighting' of Smith-man scurrying down the road towards the sea with a child who looked a bit like Madeleine at 10pm that fateful Thursday night. By yet another extraordinary coincidence pretty much precisely the time that Kate alleges she found Madeleine missing!

Well, well, well. So many coincidences.

The only other thing I want to add is that I do not agree that the early sketch of Tanner-man (with the long, lank, very dark hair and no face - is this known as Egg-man as well as Tanner-man?) looks like the efits of Smith-man. I really don't think they resemble each other at all. Smith-man has shortly-cut hair much tidier hair which is distinctly lighter. And he looks much less unkempt, imo, than the early sketch of Tanner-man who I think looks a bit scruffy.

But I do think there is some resemblance between the early Tanner-man sketch and a couple of other potential 'players' in the drama. For instance, Murat's girlfriend Michaela (the hair, physique maybe). Or the Polish man on the beach at Sagres with his girlfriend, spotted taking suspicious photographs by Nuno de Jesus and captured on cctv camera by a beach-bar owner who just happens to be a relative of Murat's. A couple who are later found to have been staying at an apartment in Burghau where DNA matching Tanner and Murat is found by police. (Do this couple have anything at all to do with the woman captured on cctv at a petrol-station shop, holding the hand of a blond child? Kate gives a vivid description in her book of how terrified she and Gerry were when they were driven back to the police station after questioning on Friday 4th May. Terrified that Madeleine had been found, it would appear, whether alive or dead. Or at least that's how it reads to me (see page 92, Madeleine.) So terrified, in fact, that she and Gerry clung onto each other for dear life. "I was crying hysterically." As you would do, wouldn't you, if you were trying to find your child. Oh Kate, you are such a twerp.)

Edited to add: re the paragraph above, Kate and Gerry are driven back to the police station on Friday 4th May at high speed on the way back from questioning. Neither or them are told, so Kate says, the reason for this. She describes the wait before discovering the reason for their needing to return to the police station as: "Ten minutes of torture." Given that Madeleine has supposedly been abducted alive (hence the Fund being set up to look for her) then you would think that they would have mixed emotions. Perhaps someone had spotted Madeleine? They are shown a photograph, taken from the cctv in the petrol station shop mentioned above, of a blonde child with a woman. Kate's only comment on this is that they were just asked if the little girl was Madeleine. "She wasn't and that was that," writes Kate. This is so extraordinarily dead-pan, given that they are both supposedly desperate to find Madeleine. It is compelling evidence, to me, that they were absolutely desperate that Madeleine would not be found. Either alive or dead, imo.

From the horse's mouth, as always.

A complicated drama I do believe.

.

by joyce1938 15.01.15 17:31

People do say that murrat and tanners DNA was at the flat ,that I think is not correct ,the dna was some one back amongst family s of both so ha a bit that could be tracked to others in family . Sorry I don't have the experience to quote exactly ,but I do recall its not correct to say murrat and tanner dna present . joyce1938

by ultimaThule 15.01.15 17:43

"We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag." suggests that Kate has no experience of corpses being removed from accidents/scenes of crime as these pouches measure approx 36" x 90" and there are no 'child' sizes, jrob

Eta as far as I recall DNA from both Tanner and Murat was found at an apartment in Burgau? from which it appeared they shared a common maternal ancestor, joyce. I'll see if I can find the relevant thread.

Edited again to add https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10156-dna-connects-tanner-and-murat-with-apartment-in-burgau?highlight=tanner+dna
"The samples found in the Solimar Apartments were identical haplotype matches to Tanner and Murat. This means that the samples were either from them or two people having the same maternal bloodline"

"

by j.rob 15.01.15 17:45

Point taken about the DNA. I seem to remember some very complicated threads about this very issue. Does it have to be that complicated, though? It seems that the forensics in this case have been made (intentionally, imo) wildly complicated, messy and inconclusive. And didn't the UK lab that carried out some of the forensics close down? The whole DNA thing seems like a mine-field. Why did Gerry have to return to the UK to get Madeleine's DNA, allegedly? How can that make any sense if Madeleine had been staying in that apartment until Thursday evening when she was allegedly abducted? What about DNA from the kids' club that she allegedly attended every day including Thursday??

by j.rob 15.01.15 17:52

ultimaThule wrote:"We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag." suggests that Kate has no experience of corpses being removed from accidents/scenes of crime as these pouches measure approx 36" x 90" and there are no 'child' sizes.

Interesting. I suspect GM, DP and other male tapas perhaps (and maybe even other players) know something about a body being transported in a bag. But not, perhaps, Kate.

And we know that none of the Tapas 9 had a (sports) bag that was large enough to carry ~~hide~~ a tennis racket ~~a child.~~

Just bags or a bag that contained a water bottle, if I remember correctly from the police statements.

by secrets and lies 15.01.15 18:41

There is something decidedly odd the delay in The Smith family reporting the sighting. There was a large group of them and as other posters have pointed out in this thread, Prai De Luz was a hive of activity, all centred around Madeleine, in the days following their sighting. They would surely have had to be deaf, dumb and blind not to make a connection sooner?

It would certainly appear that they stepped into purely to aid Murat.

But how could they be sure he wasn't actually involved? The fact that Mr.Smith identified the man as Gerry McCann suggests, to me, he may have been told to do so. That somebody wanted revenge for Murat being put in the frame by Tanner/TM. For a witness who only caught a glimpse of a man carrying a child in a dark street, and thought nothing of it after all hell broke loose in PDL, to then point a finger at GM seems risky.

I'm aware that it was supposedly after Smith had seen GM on TV carrying one of the twins in a distinctive manner, but to actually name GM seems unusual.

Which brings us back to why, if they were merely acquaintances, The Smiths would do this favour for Murat? Lie to police for a fellow ex-pat who was not a close friend. Get involved in the whole sticky mess without something in it for them?

None of that makes sense.

by j.rob 15.01.15 20:39

secrets and lies wrote:There is something decidedly odd the delay in The Smith family reporting the sighting.

I agree. Even if they did not want to 'get involved' they could have given a statement along the lines of: "It's probably nothing but we did notice what we assumed was a fellow holiday-maker carrying a child at around 10pm. Just want to mention this so he can be ruled out of the investigation....." or something. Why not? If you were keen to help, and why wouldn't you be given the seriousness of the alleged crime, why not put anything remotely relevant to the police? Especially, as is stated in at least one Smith statement, because it was low season there weren't that many guests around. And also, as stated in one Smith statement, the man, allegedly, kept his head down and did not respond to their question as to whether the child was asleep. Which they thought was a bit odd.

There was a large group of them and as other posters have pointed out in this thread, Prai De Luz was a hive of activity, all centred around Madeleine, in the days following their sighting. They would surely have had to be deaf, dumb and blind not to make a connection sooner?

Yes. If they were completely independent eye-witnesses with no agenda whatsoever, what have they got to lose by going to the police on Friday and reporting what they saw. Why not try to help as soon as possible?

It would certainly appear that they stepped into purely to aid Murat.

I think in the excerpt from Detective Amaral's book upthread, Amaral states that the Smith family knew Murat. Although it would appear from Smith family statements that they claim they only knew him by sight, and had not seen him for a year I think Mr Smith says in one statement. In which case, how could Mr Smith be 60% sure (or was it 60% to 80% sure) that the person he saw that fateful night was Gerry McCann (in the statement made after he watched Gerry McCann walking down the steps of the plane on the family's flight from Portugal after the parents were made 'arguidos'. Apparently heavily influenced by the way that Gerry was carrying Sean - which was very similar to how Smithman - according to Smith testimony - carried the child that looked like Madeleine. As Tony, I think, has often pointed out, this is the typical way that a parent would carrying a sleeping child. Unlike Tanner-man's manner of carrying Madeleine as alleged by Jane Tanner. Which would be a very awkward way to carry a sleeping child but might be consistent with the way a parent might carry a dead child - as you sometimes see grieving parents carrying dead children after terrorist attacks, for instance.)

But how could they be sure he wasn't actually involved? The fact that Mr.Smith identified the man as Gerry McCann suggests, to me, he may have been told to do so. That somebody wanted revenge for Murat being put in the frame by Tanner/TM. For a witness who only caught a glimpse of a man carrying a child in a dark street, and thought nothing of it after all hell broke loose in PDL, to then point a finger at GM seems risky.

Well, the Smiths will have networks in Luz and, according to Detective Amaral, they know Robert Murat. Which opens up the possibility that their testimony is biased. But to answer the question as to whether they could be sure he wasn't involved, given the timings and the nature of the testimony, I would suggest that they may well be aware that he was involved on some level. I don't mean directly involved. But he played a role in the drama on one level or another. Even if it was partly unwittingly. Or he was being 'used' in one way or another. And of course being a police translator on the scene in the earliest days meant that he was privy to vital information.

I'm aware that it was supposedly after Smith had seen GM on TV carrying one of the twins in a distinctive manner, but to actually name GM seems unusual.

I agree. I think it is suspicious to have stated with such a high percentage of certainty that the man he saw on that fateful evening was GM. And also suspicious that previously he was sure that the man he saw was not Robert Murat. Given that he hadn't seen Murat for a year (so Murat's appearance could have changed radically) and that he only knew him by sight. IMO a truly independent, unbiased eye-witness would not state these things with such certainty.

Which brings us back to why, if they were merely acquaintances, The Smiths would do this favour for Murat? Lie to police for a fellow ex-pat who was not a close friend. Get involved in the whole sticky mess without something in it for them?

Money seems to have been a feature of this case so one cannot rule out financial incentives for people behaving in certain ways or making certain statements. Given how chummy Leics police were with the McCanns in the early days with calls from the public going straight through to TM! Extraordinary! Murat would have police contacts not just in Portugal but also in the UK. There is no evidence, imo, that the British police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has been handled appropriately.

None of that makes sense.

It only makes any sense if you look at the 'wider agenda' so beloved of Gerry and Kate. Their agenda was fame and fortune and becoming ambassadors for missing children. And then a 'wider agenda' of a media scam to sell papers (horribly, probably influenced by how much public interest there was in the Milly Dowler/Holly and Jessica tragic cases) which has been protected by the Establishment. And, imo, probably a long-covered up scandal of paedophile rings which, it would appear, have been on the brink of being exposed for decades. But has been prevented from being exposed by Government D notices and a few untimely deaths and murders (Jill Dando? Detective Amaral's young relative living in London - both shot on their doors-steps at point-blank range......yet another coincidence...?)

Dirty, all very dirty. I can't believe this country became so corrupt. BLIAR has a lot to answer for, imo, but subsequent politicians have not exactly inspired confidence either. And Murdoch has been a disaster for the state of the UK media. Complete disaster.

by missbeetle 15.01.15 20:58

Bloody brilliant, J.Rob - hats off to you.

by secrets and lies 15.01.15 21:41

Thank you, J.Rob. And let me concur with missbeetle.

You're posts are a delight to read and, for me, rarely fail to hit the nail squarely on the head.

by j.rob 15.01.15 22:02

Well, thank you! I have really only plundered other people's extensive research and tried to join up a few dots.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.15 22:22

secrets and lies wrote:Thank you, J.Rob. And let me concur with missbeetle.

You're posts are a delight to read and, for me, rarely fail to hit the nail squarely on the head.

@ j.rob   @ secrets and lies   @ missbeetle

Well, there seems to be general agreement between you all that ‘secrets and lies’ and ‘j.rob’ have made some excellent points in their two posts. And I’m not going to disagree in any way.

Those posts were on Thursday. Now it’s Saturday.

Because Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard and the BBC made the ‘Smithman’ sighting their ‘central focus’, we should continue to examine whether they were ever justified in doing so.

For that reason, I want to bring another issue concerning ‘Smithman’ into the discussion: namely the audio message from ‘an Irish family’ which the McCanns placed on their ‘Find Madeleine’ website back in 2009.

This summarised Martin Smith’s witness statement made on 26 May 2007 - but the audio message did not mention him by name.

Before we go any further, here is a transcript of that audio message – I have bolded the words that were emphasised in the message:

THE IRISH FAMILY SIGHTING - ON THE MCCANNS’ FIND MADELEINE WEBSITE

QUOTE

I was with my family.

We’d been out for the night.

After leaving a bar, we took the back way up some steps.

We turned off this street, and up another street – er, I’m not sure of its name.

We are – we were walking up this street when I saw a man – and he was carrying a child.

I thought they were father and daughter, so I – I wasn’t so suspicious. He was walking down the street in the opposite direction to us.

The girl was about 4. She looked like my grand-daughter – blonde hair, pale white skin, typically British.

The man didn’t look like a tourist - I can’t explain why - it was probably from his clothes.

I only really saw the man when we passed each other. He was white, about 1 – 75, or 1 – 8 metres tall, perhaps 34, or 35 years old. He was slim to normal build with short brown hair. He didn’t wear glasses, moustache or a beard.

I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers.

The girl was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. She was uncovered, no blanket or throw. Some of my family remember her having bare feet.

He was carrying the girl over his arms with her head against his left shoulder.

He looked – a bit – uncomfortable in the way he carried her.

UNQUOTE

+++++++++++++++++++

I do not think that the voice on the audio message is that of Martin Smith. It is of a man with a gentle Irish accent.

The McCanns placed this message on their ‘Find Madeleine’ website on or about 7 May 2009. That was the date of the Channel 4/Mentorn Media ‘Cutting Edge’ documentary, ‘Madeleine Was Here’. Many people since then have dubbed it a ‘Mockumentary’ because it appeared to have been scripted by the McCanns - and because its reconstruction of events on the evening of 3 May did not appear to be at all accurate.

The audio message is still there on the McCanns’ website today, and can be heard on the ‘Find Madeleine’ website via this link:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mockumentary.html

When the McCanns updated their website in May 2009, they placed on it a 30-second video of an actor dressed in a yellow T-shirt and jeans, wearing sunglasses. This was supposed to represent three sightings by two witnesses of a suspicious man who had allegedly been hanging around the McCanns’ apartment and staring towards it.

But also uploaded to the ‘Find Madeleine’ website were five audio messages, numbered ‘Audio 1’ to ‘Audio 5’. The first three were reported sightings of suspicious men said to have been hanging around the Ocean Club and the McCanns’ apartment. ‘Audio 4’ was a message which conveyed a summary of Jane Tanner’s witness evidence. ‘Audio 5’ is the one we are interested in - the ‘Smithman’ sighting.

I suggest that the reason that the McCanns uploaded an audio of the ‘Smithman’ sighting onto the ‘Find Madeleine’ website was because they had already planned to subtly promote and use ‘Smithman’.

And today, 17 January 2015, the audio message from the Irish family remains on the McCanns’ website. I make that 2,082 days in a row that the Smithman sighting has been on the ‘Find Madeleine’ site. Moreover, as we know, the McCanns made further use of the ‘Smithman’ sighting by referring to him on SIX separate pages of Kate McCann’s book, ‘madeleine’.

Tens of thousands who read that book would have been aware of the possibility that Smithman might be the abductor. That figure grew to millions after the BBC and Scotland Yard – with the help of the McCann Team and Martin Smith – told Britain that ‘Smithman’ was the man who probably abducted Madeleine.

And of course the McCanns promoted Smithman in the Cutting Edge ‘Mockumentary’. Twice within that documentary they specifically floated the idea that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same individual. This was despite the obvious absurdity of suggesting that a man would have walked out of the McCanns’ apartment at 9.15pm (Jane Tanner’s statement) and yet was still walking around with the child 45 minutes later (Martin Smith’s statement).

I suggest that it follows from the above that it is clear that Martin Smith was a full and willing participant in the preparation for the Mockumentary.

He must have been consulted about the use of his family’s sighting in the Mockumentary.

And it is extremely probable that he also gave his formal consent to his audio message being used on the McCanns’ website.

Which brings us to an interesting point about that audio message.

In it, the Irish speaker says that he man was ’34, perhaps 35 years old’.

But this is not what he said in his witness statement, two years earlier. There, he had said that man was ‘35 to 40 years old’.

QUESTIONS

So – why the difference?

What made Martin Smith say ‘aged 35 to 40’ in May 2007 when the sighting was fresh in his mind – but change it to ‘age 34 or 35’ two years later?

Why did he change it?

Who exactly did he speak to before changing it?

In fact, what was his degree of participation in the preparation of the programme?

We know already that McCann Team member Brian Kennedy had contacted Smith. He was expecting to see someone from Metodo 3. Later in 2008, ex-MI5 senior officer Henri Exton came to see him. So we are told by both Exton and DCI Andy Redwood. Smith and members of his family apparently produced two e-fits for Exton that were promptly handed to the McCann Team.

So we can suggest that by the time 2008 was out, Martin Smith was fully on board as a member of the McCann Team, singing the same hymns from the same hymn sheet.

That then begs another question. Why, if Smithman was mentioned twice in the Mockumentary, and why – if the e-fits had been available for months - were they not used in the Mockumetary?

I will answer my own question.

Because Smithman could not be brought from the back burner to the front burner until the powers-that-be had got rid of the problem of the Tannerman sighting.

ONE OTHER MATTER

One other issue we need to consider is why the description of ‘Smithman’ by Martin Smith, given in his witness statement and on the audio message, was so strikingly similar to those by Nuno Lourenco of Sagres Man (since identified as Wojcek Krokowski) and Jane Tanner of Tannerman. Here is a comparison of some of things each say about the man they say they saw:

Nuno Lourenco on Sagres Man:

Caucasian

aged between 35 - 40

around 170 to 175 cm in height

wore cloth trousers…which were cream coloured

the man didn’t look like a tourist

Jane Tanner on Tannerman:

white, but ‘swarthy’ or tanned skin

aged between 35 – 40,

about 1.70m tall

wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour

by the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very ‘warmly dressed’

Martin Smith on Smithman:

white

aged 35 – 40 (changes this to ‘aged 34-35’ for the Mockumentary)

about 1 – 75, or 1 – 8 metres tall

‘I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers’

‘The man didn’t look like a tourist - I can’t explain why - it was probably from his clothes’.

There are a few some differences between the sightings. But all three men are about 1.75m tall, aged precisely 35-40, and most curiously of all, they are all wearing cream or beige trousers and seem to use that as a ‘peg’ to claim that the man ‘didn’t look like a tourist’.

The descriptions by Jane Tanner and Martin Smith of the child are also strikingly similar:

Tanner: “About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs…The child appeared to be older than a baby…She was barefoot…And was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink)…She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain”.

Martin Smith: “He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a metre in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes ,as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet”.

This leads us back to this one nagging question:

Why were all these three descriptions so strikingly similar?

by Angelique 17.01.15 23:33

Tony

Sorry late coming back to comment.

Yes I agree other members, guests etc find it difficult, as I did, to comprehend the "Smithman" sighting and also Murat's part in all that happened prior to and after Madeleine went missing. But I think it's a natural thing. We accept what people say as we would, say, our friends, someone in authority, even so-called Private Detectives. Then suddendly, one day, you realise that things are not as people say they are.

It's only then it becomes more clear.

As regards the "beige trousers" as one of the descriptions in Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman. I have always considered this was the most odd coincidence that was being pulled. If they had left out the "beige trousers" I don't think I would have realised that TM can make sick jokes.

This is only my opinion. Of course, I may be wrong, but what else could it be?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.15 23:42

Angelique wrote:Tony

Sorry late coming back to comment.

Yes I agree other members, guests etc find it difficult, as I did, to comprehend the "Smithman" sighting and also Murat's part in all that happened prior to and after Madeleine went missing. But I think it's a natural thing. We accept what people say as we would, say, our friends, someone in authority, even so-called Private Detectives. Then suddendly, one day, you realise that things are not as people say they are.

It's only then it becomes more clear.

As regards the "beige trousers" as one of the descriptions in Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman. I have always considered this was the most odd coincidence that was being pulled. If they had left out the "beige trousers" I don't think I would have realised that TM can make sick jokes.

This is only my opinion. Of course, I may be wrong, but what else could it be?

Since Sagres Man, Tannerman and Smithman all had beige/cream-coloured trousers, it followed that if Scotland Yard were ever to find a 'Crecheman' - or similar - he would have to have light-coloured trousers as well.

And...

...lo and behold!...

...when we all sat down to watch Crimewatch on Monday 14 October 2013...

HE DID!

by Angelique 18.01.15 0:43

Tony

:)

by **Tony Bennett** 24.02.15 14:30

Martin Smith made the very dubious claim that he thought that it was Gerry McCann that he had seen on 3 May 2007 carrying a child - based, he said, on 'the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Now, I've realised, the very same claim was made by a Sunderland couple, Richard and Susan McCluskey. I am indebted to HideHo's 'aimoo' blog for the information, where she has already raised the strange coincidence between the claims of Martin Smith and the McCluskeys. HideHo has been a long-time sceptic of the Smith sightings and the 'Smithman' and 'Crehceman' claims made by former D.C.I. Andy Redwood.

Here are the brief details:

1. The McCluskeys say they saw a couple in Alvor, Portugal, acting suspiciously with a young blonde girl. This 'sighting' was reported by the Daily Telegraph on 8 August 2008, in a comprehensive list of bizarre sightings:

Daily Telegraph 8 August 2008

Dorset – May 4, 2007 - Malcolm Smith saw a "very upset" little girl wearing a pink top with a tall man at the Moonfleet Manor Hotel in Fleet, near Weymouth, Dorset.
Alvor, Portugal – May 5, 2007 - Two British holidaymakers saw a drunken-looking man emerge from a white van cradling a child of about three at Alvor in the Algarve. Retirees Richard and Susan McCluskey, from Sunderland, also witnessed a "worried-looking" blonde woman running towards the van.

====

2. They reported their suspicions to the police who took statements from each of them:

FAX from Northumbria Police
Block 9/10
Force HQ
Ponteland
Newcastle upon Tyne
Telephone 01912889356
Fax : 62388

From : DC Colin McLean
To : DC Andy GIERC, OP TASK
New Parks Police Station
Leicester
Telephone No : 011624844452 Fax No 01162312190
Date/Time : 9th May 2007 14.33 Number of Pages (including this one) : 9

MESSAGE

Andy,

Please find enclosed the attached statements of Mr and Mrs McCluskey and hand drawn map of the locale. If there is anything else you need please let me know.

Cheers

'Don' McLean

====

3. Unbeknown to the McCluskeys, the Portuguese Police checked out their story and established that the couple were Ukrainians, and were not regardeded as persons of interest

====

4. On 12 September 2007, around the time that Martin Smith was thinking of contacting the police after seeing the McCanns walk down the aeroplane steps at East Midlands airport, Richard McCluskey made this further statement:

Statement made 12th September 2007

I am the above named person and I live at an address known to Police. In early May 2007 myself and my wife were on holiday in Portugal. I have already provided a witness statement in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I would like to add the following;

The events of the past week or so, with the McCanns being very much in the news, have triggered my memory in relation to the incident.

In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.

Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.

I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child's parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so.

Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child's weight.

(signed).......R McCluskey

++++++

COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

by noseyparker 24.02.15 15:50

Tony Bennett wrote:

COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

Mrs.Mcscamm...one coincidence,two coincidences-maybe they,re still coincidences.Any more than that and it stops being coincidence

by Guest 24.02.15 16:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

by noseyparker 24.02.15 16:34

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

Maybe because it reinforces their abduction fairy tale

by **Tony Bennett** 24.02.15 19:23

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

You've made a major assumption there, @ Clay R

Yes, I think if you put Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey together, both saying: 'Gosh, it must have been Gerry McCann I saw in May - it was just the way the man that I saw was carrying his child on his left shoulder', looks like much more than co-incidence and suggests some planning by someone.

I would say also that either story is suspect on its own; it is IMO nonsense to suggest that it's in the slightest bit unusual for a parent to carry a sleeping or tired infant on their left shoulder. Most British people are right-handed and that's the normal side for a right-handed parent to carry a child. I speak as one who has done this many times.

But your assumption @ Clay R is that Team McCann may have primed Smith and McCluskey.

There are at least two other possibilities:

1. That there is a 'Team Murat' as well as a 'Team McCann' (I have suggested this before) and that Team Murat put Smith & McCluskey up to this

2. That the security services, Special Branch, MI5 and/or MI6 are involved in priming Smith & McClusley - for whatever reason.

In support of the latter hypothesis, who was it who drew up those two e-fits which could not have been produced by the Smiths and are of two different men in any event?

Why, it was Henri Exton, formerly the Head of Covert Intelligence, MI5 - who was employed by the con-man and criminal Kevin Halligen, whose career involved extensive work with the security forces.

.

by j.rob 24.02.15 19:32

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

It cannot make any sense if Team McCann want Smithman to be Gerry McCann. That is just ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

So these two people are from another camp. The Murat camp maybe?

They are people who believe Gerry is implicated in the disappearance of his daughter.And when they saw the family fleeing from Portugal and Gerry landing in the UK, they decided to take action. Because they didn't see why he should 'get away with it', perhaps? Even if the sightings were fabricated. Team McCann fabricated their own 'sighting' - Tanner-man. Or at least I think they did. It may not be that straightforward. Perhaps TM's Tanner-man was their way of implicating someone else who was, or should have been, in on the McScam.

Each 'camp' comes up with a sighting or sightings that suit their own agendas and fire warning shots. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

And I do think it is relevant that the Smiths co-own an apartment in Luz. They will have local networks. They will have heard things. People will have had suspicions. The Smiths may know Robert Murat or at least know people who know Robert Murat.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.02.15 21:29

j.rob wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

It cannot make any sense if Team McCann want Smithman to be Gerry McCann. That is just ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

So these two people are from another camp. The Murat camp maybe?

They are people who believe Gerry is implicated in the disappearance of his daughter.And when they saw the family fleeing from Portugal and Gerry landing in the UK, they decided to take action. Because they didn't see why he should 'get away with it', perhaps? Even if the sightings were fabricated. Team McCann fabricated their own 'sighting' - Tanner-man. Or at least I think they did. It may not be that straightforward. Perhaps TM's Tanner-man was their way of implicating someone else who was, or should have been, in on the McScam.

Each 'camp' comes up with a sighting or sightings that suit their own agendas and fire warning shots. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

And I do think it is relevant that the Smiths co-own an apartment in Luz. They will have local networks. They will have heard things. People will have had suspicions. The Smiths may know Robert Murat or at least know people who know Robert Murat.

Very good points @ j.rob

A few points to note:

McCluskey is the name of a well-known Irish clan from County Derry: was Richard McCluskey, like Martin Smith, an Irishman? -

https://www.houseofnames.com/mccluskey-coat-of-arms

Reference to previous threads on this subject on CMOMM here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8452-similarities-in-the-statements-of-martin-smith-and-richard-mccluskey

Sunderland Echo report on the McCluskey sighting here:

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/wear-couple-told-police-we-saw-maddie-1-1152843

And another Sunderland Echo report about a Richard McCluskey here - the same family? -

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fury-at-smash-driver-s-sentence-1-1128095

by **Tony Bennett** 25.02.15 22:39

A forum member e-mailed me today with this point:

I've just read the McCluskey [sp.] statement. As you point out - what are the chances that two people would say "the way he carried the child off the plane made me think it was Gerry". I might believe that IF both these people saw the same incident initially. But these are two separate alleged incidents that the "carrying down the plane steps" is reminding them of".
As HideHo noted many moons ago, the co-incidence of the two exactly similar statements seems...well...beyond coi-incidence.
This is what Richard McCluskey said in his initial statement (9 May) about the couple he had seen:
"Upon entering the apartment we put on Sky News and became aware of a news report about a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of the British child. I therefore went to the complex and informed them of what I had seen and gave him the registration on the paper".

The complex was the 'Club Alvorferias' in Alvor, Portugal, which is just 10 miles or less east of Praia da Luz.
One important point of interest is that in his initial statement, McCluskey referred to the male he had seen as 'a dark skinned male'. Thayt's very difficult to reconcile with his later claim that the man he saw might have been Gerry McCann".

In their statements, Richard & Susan McCluskey say that when they saw the couple, they [the McCluskeys] were 'walking back fom the town to our hotel complex..."
In his second statement (13 September), Mr McCluskey first of all explains why he thought that the woman he'd seen back on 5th May 2007 was Dr Kate McCann:
"Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, Mr McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann (the missing child's mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact the police. He is acutely aware of the possible implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:

Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has casued him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he is 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would, in his words, " hate to incriminate an innocent person".

This is interesting not least because it is yet another person who is strangely reluctant to give police information as soon as it occurs to them.
We have, for example:
1. Martin Smith - an unaccountable delay of 13 days in reporting the claimed 'Smithman' sighting
2. Martin Smith again - a further unaccountable delay of 11 days [9 to 20 September] before he talks to the police about his belief that it was Gerry McCann that he'd seen 4 months earlier
3. The British banker who was said to have 'agonised' for 2 years before telling police that an Aussie-speaking Victoria Beckham-lookalike had asked him on Barcelona dockside, after a night's drinking spree, for her 'new daughter'
4. 'Crecheman', who - if Redwood is to be believed - waited 6 years before waking up one morning and suddenly thinking: 'Gosh, perhaps I'm that bloke that Jane Tanner saw 6 years ago".

IMO none of the above delays has any credibility, and IMO neither does McCluskey's claim to have identified, 4 months later, the 'dark-skinned' bloke he'd seen on 5th May as Gerry McCann. Furthermore, he delayed contacting the police for 4 days in September, and then says he's 100% certain - from the way Gerry McCann was carrying Sean on his left shoulder - that he was the man he'd seen...but only wants to admit to being 'almost certain' is because he 'doesn't want to incriminate Gerry McCann'.
In any event McCluskey has made a fool of himself because the bloke he said he was 100% certain was Gerry McCann was...well, a Ukrainian bloke.

by Liz Eagles 26.02.15 9:57

I agree with you Tony.

by pennylane 26.02.15 10:17

Witnesses to a crime often procrastinate going to the police for a number of reasons, and some don't come forward at all because they don't want to get involved. Others say nothing for years. That's a fact!

SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

Having looked at the various contradictions set out in the article...