Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?'

Has Martin Smith actually said that he was involved in the production of the E-fits?

For me, the main point at issue is not whether the Smith family actually did see Gerry McCann, but whether they did meet a man carrying a child and whether Martin and Mary Smith did later conclude that it was Gerry they had seen.
It has been alleged that the whole Smith family is lying and invented the sighting. I find that most unlikely. I believe they are telling the truth about meeting with a man who was carrying a child.
 I also find their account of coming to the conclusion that it was Gerry credible. Martin Smith is honest enough to admit that only he and his wife were convinced of this. 
What I do not understand is how anyone could believe that the Smiths are in cahoots with the McCanns. Their claim to have seen Gerry down town at a time when he claims to have been sitting at a Tapas Bar table makes a liar of him. Their claim that they saw him carrying an unresponsive, blonde girl of Madeleine's age at the time her disappearance was allegedly being announced is even more damning.
 I believe that the McCanns were desperate to downplay this sighting, partly because there was no one, other than the Tapas 9, who could support Gerry's claim to have been at the Tapas Bar at the time the Smiths saw their man. No wonder they did not push for this sighting to be investigated. 
The only facts we DO know is that Martin and Mary Smith became convinced, rightly or wrongly, that it was Gerry they saw that night and that they have never since wavered in this belief.

It is my considered opinion, having "wandered" around a number of the Madeleine McCann blogs and forums in the last 6 months or so, is that each blog/forum has reached its own conclusion (as best it can) about what happened to MBM and who the key players are. 

It would appear that contributors are roundly shouted down and/or ridiculed should they dare raise an alternative theory or have a differing opinion. One of the favourite retorts is "show us the evidence/facts"

If it were that easy, the case would have been solved by now. Instead, there being nothing new for a good few years, the carcass is being picked over with little or no forward movement. Just as the McCanns like it.

Rob Royston wrote:Has Martin Smith actually said that he was involved in the production of the E-fits?

This is a very good point.

As far as I know, NO, he never has.

Back in 2013 and 2014 when I researched the Smithman sighting, I pointed out endlessly that on the Crimewatch programme, the joint BBC-Met Police Team made a huge song and dance about the sighting by 'The Irish family'.

Timings, descriptions, quotes, routes taken etc. etc.

But when it came to the actual showing of the two efits of two different-looking men, Matthew Amroliwala, the narrator, referred to the efits having been drawn up by "TWO OF THE WITNESSES".

IMO this was a very deliberate deception by the BBC and the Met Police. It was said IMO to make us THINK that the Smiths had drawn up the efits when in fact they had NOT.

A number of explanations are possible.

I think the most likely is that neither Martin Smith nor any of the Smiths would agree to being identified as having created the efits. And in that limited sense, quite right too, as I feel sure they did NOT produce those efits.

Why after all would they, between them, produce two very different images?

And how could they have possibly done so 16 months after the occasion when they just saw him for 2 or 3 seconds in the dark? (we now have an FOIAct answer that tells us that the efits were not drawn up until September 2008).

Undoubtedly the Smiths have 'played ball' with the McCann Team and Operation Grange.

Martin Smith met with DCI Andy Redwood (or one of his colleagues) twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013 as they prepared the Crimewatch Show.

An explanation which fits the facts is that Martin Smith may have said to Operation Grange: "Look, I will go along with you giving the viewers the false impression that we drew up these efits. But I do not want you to say that we did do them, because actually we didn't".

If someone has a better explanation of the known facts relating to this incident, I should be glad to hear it. I've thought about this issue for years so I would positively welcome any other credible idea

@Tony Bennett - Sorry Tony but I don't follow your logic here. You state that-

 "I think the most likely is that neither Martin Smith nor any of the Smiths would agree to being identified as having created the efits. And in that limited sense, quite right too, as I feel sure they did NOT produce those efits".


But also state that the narrator of the program claimed that the e-fits -  "were drawn up by two of the witnesses". 

Given that it was public knowledge that the ONLY witnesses who saw Smithman were the members of the Smith family, this makes no logical sense. Who else could have described him for the purpose of an e-fit! It is automatically understood that the witnesses must be the Smiths which would, surely, defeat the purpose of Martin Smith hiding his identity!


If we do not know anything about how the e-fits were drawn up how can we know how many of the Smiths might have been involved. It could have been that, depending on the angle at which they viewed him, Smithman appeared slightly different to individual viewers.
 My personal belief is that the Smithman 2 picture (using a different, more lifelike format) was produced later, based on and  supposedly "bringing to life" the image of Smithman 1. I expect those ordered to protect the McCanns were aghast that the first image was the spitting image of Gerry and that the "improvement" (with the jaw and neck missing) was an attempt to make it look less like Gerry. In case this tactic didn't work the BBC also threw in the utterly false claim that Martin Smith had changed his claim that the man he saw, was, to his mind, Gerry McCann.

We cannot be sure of exactly what went on but to anyone who has researched the case as we at CMOMM have, it would be obvious that the two witnesses referred to were the Smiths.  However, the general public who would make up the majority of the viewers, may not  make that connection.

I think that what Tony is suggesting here, is that the Smiths may not have wanted to be named as these witnesses who drew up the e-fits, on national television and therefore they were referred to as witnesses and not by name. 

I would suggest that the Smiths had nothing to do with these e-fits and that the claim that e-fits were drawn up by two witnesses was a deliberate lie.  It would have been very risky for the producers of the programme to name these witnesses.  In other words, lying to the public about un-named witnesses is risky, but to name them without their consent as well, would cause all sorts of problems.

One question about the Smiths.  If they really thought that the man the had seen was Gerry, why on earth would they:

1. Meet with Brian Kennedy
2. Assist with the drawing up of two different e-fits that look nothing like Gerry (don't forget, Gerry had been in the news almost every day from the time of Madeleines' disappearance to the date these e-fits were drawn up - so Smiths knew exactly what he looked like - so why are e-fits so different?)
3. Assist Operation Grange (if they did)
4. Fail to return to Portugal to give evidence when they were needed

IMO - This was all done to get the PJ excited and keep them focussed on Madeleine having disappeared on May 3rd and stop them looking back at the earlier days.  It worked well, but then the Smiths failed to show when needed.  McCanns must be so grateful to them, after all they never really said they were 100% certain it was Gerry did they?

When did the Smiths fail to return to Portugal to give evidence? Dr Amaral says he was working on calling them to come over but he was moved off the case before he got the task done. I am not aware that it was followed up by his successor.

Rob Royston wrote:When did the Smiths fail to return to Portugal to give evidence? Dr Amaral says he was working on calling them to come over but he was moved off the case before he got the task done. I am not aware that it was followed up by his successor.

    Good point, but I am sure Amaral said that the Irish witnesses failed to show.  If this is correct, it would be just before he was removed from the case and probably needed his testimony for the prosecution.  I will check.


Edited

Extract from Truth of the lie (but not the exact quote that I am looking for) 

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later.

Dr. Amaral clearly states that the Smiths were perfectly willing to return to Portugal to give evidence. Indeed the following, snipped from the P.J. files confirms this -


" On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva"



So it is incorrect to state that the Smiths were unwilling to return to Portugal if requested. Dr. Amaral also states that after his removal from the case the plans to bring Martin Smith back to Portugal were dropped.




The question is often asked why are the e-fits not the same and it is presumed that the Smiths are responsible for both images, but why should we believe that this is the case!
Just because two e-fits have been produced, and it has been claimed that two people were involved the e-fit process, it does not automatically follow that one Smith witness was responsible for one particular likeness while the other image was produced based on the description given by another Smith witness. In other words why should we think or believe that Martin Smith for example, is responsible for image 1, while his wife or son perhaps is responsible for image 2. Both may have contributed to just ONE e-fit. 


I suggest the first, somewhat grainy, "drawn" image was the result of the combined efforts of BOTH Smiths involved in the process. If the police later decided to use more advanced technology to "improve" (cough cough) this grainy image, it does not necessarily follow that any of the Smiths was present for nor, consulted about this process. If anyone questioned the fact that image 2 was somewhat different, it could easily be blamed on technology -" This is what the computer- generated image of the "drawn" e-fit looks like". I believe the second image was deliberately created to attempt to distract from the astonishing resemblance between Gerry and the first image.


I don't think anyone could have been in any doubt that it was the Smith family from Drogheda who were the witnesses in question. In October 2013 there were banner headlines in several newspapers, naming them as the potential "key to unlocking the mystery"  and clearly stating where they were from! Asking for their name to be withheld re. the e-fits would have been pointless!

I don't really understand the need for any e-fits at all if they are claiming that their man is Gerry McCann.  Gerry has been in the papers, on the television etc. almost daily, we all know what he looks like.  Why didn't they just say that Gerry fitted the description of the man they had seen?  What was the purpose of the e-fits?  And why didn't they create one that looked like Gerry?

This is interesting

Irishman was already discarded, 07 July 2008

Irishman was already discarded 24horas   Gonçalo Amaral placed a strong bet on this witness   Text: Carlos Tomas July 07, 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation   When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie Case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don't give him credibility   The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.   During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.   "He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory", a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24horas.   The same source specified: "First he said that he saw Maddie's father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility".   It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analysing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns.

Phoebe wrote:Dr. Amaral clearly states that the Smiths were perfectly willing to return to Portugal to give evidence.

However they didn't did they?  

The McCanns were in full agreement about returning to Praia da Luz to participate in an official re-enactment of the night of 3rd May 2007, depending on their group of friends.  They didn't did they?

The McCanns group of friends were perfectly willing to fully cooperate with the PJ by participating in an official re-enactment of the night of 3rd May 2007.  They didn't did they?

Just how many bogus witnesses were there that claimed they reported this that and the other but the PJ failed to follow it up?

Actions speak louder than words.

It's all an elaborate con - it works everytime.  The McCann campaign spent millions to fabricate all this false news and it payed off.

Meanwhile Madeleine McCann is but a name with little or no chance of peace.

@sharonl  I imagine that the e-fits were deemed necessary so that the public could be asked to be asked  "did anyone else see this man - can you identify him". There wouldn't be much point in the police asking the public if they saw anyone who looked rather like Gerry McCann carrying a child that night! In any case, I doubt that would be legal!

Re. the above piece from 24 horas. I would have no faith in something which couldn't even get the story right  -



"During the two depositions, BOTH INFORMAL, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, LEAVING THE APARTMENT in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. "


Smith's depositions were FORMAL statements
Martin Smith's full name and address and other details were given to the P.J. (known only as Smith my foot!)
Martin Smith never claimed to have seen Gerry leaving the apartment.


@Verdi The letter from the files (as posted above) clearly states that the Smiths were willing to return and cooperate with the P.J. in the investigation.What would you have them do when they were told they weren't needed - insist on flying over to another country's police force like demented Miss Marples and demand to be heard!!!   What normal sane person would do that - I certainly wouldn't!

@Phoebe wrote:@Verdi The letter from the files (as posted above) clearly states that the Smiths were willing to return and cooperate with the P.J. in the investigation.What would you have them do when they were told they weren't needed - insist on flying over to another country's police force like demented Miss Marples and demand to be heard!!! What normal sane person would do that - I certainly wouldn't!

No, I wouldn't expect such an eccentric performance - and neither did Martin Smith.

As I've said in the past, irrespective of anything Dr Amaral said, what could possibly be achieved by Martin Smith returning to Portugal under the circumstances. He thought, 60/80%, that Gerry McCann was the stranger he saw carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz having seen video footage of the McCann family descending the aircraft stairs on their return to the UK. How can you elaborate on that - what would be the purpose of Martin Smith returning to Portugal just to repeat a statement he'd already made in the UK? Too much emphasis on Dr Amaral's musings to be meaningful.

I venture to suggest that Martin Smith knew full well that he wouldn't be required to return to Portugal when he volunteered his services. The only advantage would have been if a re-enactment was on the cards - that was never to be.

@ Verdi You say -

" I venture to suggest that Martin Smith knew full well that he wouldn't be required to return to Portugal when he volunteered his services. The only advantage would have been if a re-enactment was on the cards - that was never to be."


Well lets see - the first time Martin Smith "volunteered his services" was when he  approached the Irish police after returning home from Portugal to recount what he and his family had seen on the night of May 3rd. And what ensued - Well, he was asked to return to Portugal to speak to police and make a formal statement.
 Why on earth should he "know full well"  that when he approached the Gardai the second time ( and this was reported to the P.J.) that he wouldn't be asked to do the same on this occasion. He didn't know that Dr. Amaral was about to be removed, in fact Dr. Amaral himself may not have known  that this was imminent. How was Smith to know with certainty that there would not be a reconstruction.
What we do know is that preparations were in place for the Smiths to return, with just the hotel to be finalised when the plug was pulled. If Martin Smith's aim was to avoid any further trips to Portugal and further involvement in the case why would he bother to come forward after deciding it was Gerry he had seen. He could just have kept his mouth shut if he was so keen to avoid further involvement.
It seems the Smiths cannot win.  First,they are blamed for not reporting their sighting immediately, then they are accused, when they do make a report to the police, of only doing so for appearances sake. IMO there's an irrationality when it comes to the Smiths that beggars belief

@Phoebe

I have to admit, I've no idea what prompted Dr Amaral to invite the Smith family back to Portugal in the first instance. There is international policing protocol in place that negates the necessity for such measures.

Aside from that, Dr Amaral's removal from the case irrelevant.

Martin Smith made a statement to his local force after seeing the McCann family's return to the UK. I repeat - why the need to return to Portugal only to reiterate a flimsy statement he'd made to his local force, it doesn't make any sense. When Martin Smith reported his suspicions, not immediately but after some period of time, to the Irish police why would he agree to return to Portugal only to repeat his suspicions?

There was no question of returning for a re-enactment.

It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

polyenne wrote:@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

While the Smith family have been accused of many things, now blaming them for how the P.J. etc. decided to proceed with the investigation is nonsensical. It seems that the theory that the Smiths invented their sighting must not be challenged, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

 We are asked to believe this ordinary family, including children, were working for shadowy U.K. government forces and that their sighting was based on a prepared script shared by Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner. This, despite the fact that description of the man given by the Smiths clearly does NOT match either of the other two.

We have been confidently assured for years that Martin Smith recanted his identification of Gerry and was happily working with the McCanns. When a journalist actually interviews the Smiths and publishes the fact that A) this is not true and B) they had complained to the BBC about misrepresenting them (which results in the latter admitting their "error" to said journalist) then the journalist's veracity and character are criticised.

When a theory becomes "untouchable" despite showing flaws, then continuing to defend that theory at all costs does Madeleine no service.

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

My observations are always based on evidence, intelligence and informed commentary unless I state otherwise.

Just for the record, I don't necessarily agree with every point raised as regards Martin Smith and his family, whether that be for or against.  Please don't presume to include me, or any other forum member, in a communal mindset.

The Smith family featured prominently in this sorry saga, their witness statements are on public record and therefore open to scrutiny the same as any other witness.

Phoebe wrote:" On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva"



This Smiths were willing to go back

If the Smiths were willing to go back, why didn't they?

Is this because the investigation discarded them as 24 Horas claimed or was there another reason?

@ Sharonl . I believe Dr. Amaral when he said that there was too much politics in the case. IMO the Portuguese were put under pressure to desist in their pursuit of evidence which implicated the McCanns in hiding a corpse and simulating a kidnapping. To this end they would be loathe to invite Martin Smith back to Portugal given that he was claiming to have seen Gerry McCann carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the time she was allegedly being abducted. Rather than the Smiths evidence being useless I believe it was too dangerous since it might lead to an investigation of exactly which independent witnesses could place Gerry at the Tapas table between 9.15 and 10 p.m.

@Phoebe

All the documented evidence contained in the PJ files has been presented for information yet still you refuse to accept what's there in black and white.

Included in that documented evidence is Martin Smith's 60/80% testimony that the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007, after they left a bar at around 10:00pm, could have been Gerry McCann - his testimony based on the way Gerry McCann held his head and the way he was carrying a child seen on television footage of the McCanns return to England in September 2007, four months after the event.

The sighting was stated to have been at around 10:00pm, it makes no difference where Gerry McCann might or might not have been between 9:15 and 10:00pm.  The Tapas restaurant staff and clients witness statements are all on file, re-interviews and/or a re-enactment would have no impact on development of the investigation.  Martin Smith and his family were not  at the Tapas restaurant, they allegedly briefly witnessed a stranger walking the streets of Praia da Luz carrying a child after leaving an Irish bar - again re-interview and/or a re-enactment of that phase would have no impact on the investigation.

Besides, even if Gerry McCann, or any of the other group members, were not seated at the Tapas restaurant at 10:00pm or thereabouts, he or they are hardly likely to be walking the streets carrying a comatose child.

Too much emphasis is placed on Dr Amaral's musings, his thoughts as the mind of a detective.  The content of the book 'The Truth of the Lie', doesn't entirely accord with the PJ files, nor do his subsequent interviews have any bearing on the content of PJ files.  It is documented within the files that the PJ didn't give much credence to the Smith family sighting apart from the fact it coincided with that of Jane Tanner - they didn't give that much credence either.  What could possibly be achieved?  Whatever, Martin Smith didn't return to Portugal after his September 2007 revelation.  Given his association with the locality, he could have returned independently anytime he wished.

Four months down the line, Martin Smith decided with 60/80% certainty, that the sighting was possibly Gerry McCann - it's all on file.

This is not leading anywhere but yet another Smithman thread.

@ Verdi. Yes, the Smiths saw their man at around ten p.m. and later decided that it was Gerry they had seen. If that were to have been the case (and note, I am not stating that it was) then unless Gerry was gifted with bilocation ability he would have to have been absent from the table long enough to have gone to the apartment, picked up the child and made his way to where he met with the Smiths. Therefore, Gerry's location at the time of the Smith sighting is important. I do not believe the McCanns' tale of what happened that evening and night in the least. The only claims that they all sat and dined as usual come from their group. I believe they had much more to be getting on with than a cosy dining experience.


Robert Murat was made the first Arguido because his account of his movements that day and night were contradictory, he made a journalist suspicious, he had no alibi other than his mother who could place him elsewhere when the child disappeared and because Jane Tanner, having caught a fleeting glimpse of a man at a distance and in poor lighting, crossing the top of the road, later identified Robert Murat as that man.

Gerry McCann's situation mirrored this - his account of his movements was contradictory, he had no independent alibi for his whereabouts and, while only Jane Tanner caught a glimpse of Tannerman in the distance on a dark night, several witnesses met Smithman face-on in close proximity. 

How could Tannerman have been such an important lead for the P.J. and warranted such thorough investigation (all based on a flimsy, distant, uncorroborated sighting by one witness) while Smithman, witnessed by a large group of people at close range, was "of no importance"!
Add to the Smith sighting the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver odour in 5A, the Renault Scenic and on McCann clothing and it is immediately obvious that the case against the McCanns must be far stronger than that against Murat. The Smith sighting would not have been viewed in isolation, but as part of a picture, which is what Dr. Amaral was investigating when that line of enquiry was brought to an abrupt halt and the McCanns were neither prevented form fleeing to the U.K. nor charged with the child neglect to which they admitted.

All the evidence IS in the files I agree, but in my opinion, I am not one who is ignoring it and looking instead to the Media for "evidence".

Before proceeding anywhere, it's very important to remember that Martin Smith, or any of his family,  did not give a statement to the police about this sighting until 26th May 2007 - in excess of three weeks after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was reported.  Inspite of admitting he knew of the disappearance the following morning - Friday 4th May 2007.

It's also important to remember that only three of the Smith family gave formal witness statements to the police, although there were said to be nine in the family group.  Explanations for this, like ages, health concerns, pregnancy or whatever - fact remains only three of the group gave a witness statement.

Key points taken from the three witness statements..

Martin Smith

Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar

In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day

As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season

He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion

when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual. 

He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good

He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age.

He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.

He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph

He adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other so they would have seen the individual in different positions.
__________

Aoife Smith

When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.

Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.

The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.

Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.

The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.

Peter Smith

He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.

It appeared normal to him, like father and daughter.

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 21H55/22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared.

He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day

At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

He cannot affirm if she was barefoot.

Questioned, states that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was sleeping deeply. He adds also that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange.

States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
__________

These witness statements were not taken verbatim.  It's clear, at least ot me, that the questions posed by the PJ were built on Jane Tanner's sighting - nothing more, nothing less.  The PJ were only interested in the Smith testimonies because of the proximity, time frame and similarities with that of Jane Tanner's alleged sighting.  The situation remained in limbo until, according to the Crimewatch 2013 production, DCI Andy Redwood had his revelation moment and realised the sighting that was at the core of the Portuguese and UK (quasi-legal) investigation was a false lead - wrong way up a one way street so to speak.  Unsurprisingly the PJ didn't put much faith in this sighting, particularly as Jane Tanner's own versions were less than convincing.

Until ....

 
Enter Smithman e-fits drawn up with the help of two of the Irish witnesses who saw the stranger on the night of 3rd May.

In September 2007, it dawned on Martin Smith that it could have been Gerry McCann his family saw on the night of 3rd May - for a split second - in passing - because of his demeanour.  He and he alone had sleepless nights after seeing the television footage of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft on his return to the UK on 9th September 2007 before he, Martin Smith, decided to contact the police eleven day later on 20th September 2007.

For all this to have any credence, you have to believe that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' on the night of 3rd May 2007 - I for one don't believe that.

As stated by Kate McCann herself .... "‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence."  Too many coincidences for my liking.  All because Martin Smith thought with 60/80% certainty that it might have been Gerry McCann!