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

I noticed the use of phrases such as 'said they put their daughter to bed'....'Mathew Oldfield told police he went to check'

.....Kate McCann...claiming Madeleine had been taken' 

   
   Honestly I'm not convinced that the Smithman account was some kind of deception.  At least this brings it up for discussion amongst the wider public and there is some in the  media not automatically printing the parent's account like it's infallible.

I can barely see the buttons from here, let alone in the dark.

Think good upstanding citizen Martin Smith and his close knit family of Irish origin.  Think ex-DCI Andy Redwood.  Think Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.  Think the late Kevin Halligen and his dubious Oakley International sub-contractor.  Think Henri Exton with an axe to grind.  Think the mass cover-up of Madeleine McCann's mysterious disappearance.

Martin Smith, a man of integrity who has never spoken to the press about the night of Thursday 3rd May, when he and family members were leaving an Irish bar in Praia da Luz, a Gerry McCann look-alike just happened to be passing by carrying a child that appeared to be asleep - at least lifeless, with or without nightwear, apparently not an unusual sight to see in the area at that time of year - so say Martin Smith.  Martin Smith, who failed to report the sighting to the PJ when he heard that a young child was missing, whose son had a revelation moment at Faro airport,  whose wife declined to give a statement.  Martin Smith, who has remained silent about the case of Madeleine McCann for almost 11 years.

Confronted by an investigative journalist, is it really likely he is going to kiss and tell?  If he wished to defend his honour and that of his family, wouldn't he have done that years ago to halt unfounded rumour and speculation about his position?  Wouldn't he have made it public knowledge that his name had been dragged through the dirt of a very murky case of a missing child?

Would you reveal all to an investigative journalist knocking at your door after ten years of supposed tranquility?

If Martin Smith is totally innocent and his interview with Gemma O'Doherty is to be believed then you have to wonder why he waits nearly ten years to speak to a journalist.  

If Martin Smith is guilty of fabricating the claimed sighting, or later being persuaded to alter/embellish his story - would he admit it to an investigative journalist nearly eleven years later?

Surely, if as claimed, he contacted the BBC and/or authorities he wouldn't have allowed his name to be used and/or vilified in connection with a missing three year old child, without some redress in the public domain - would he?  He must know.

Admittedly, I haven't read the full article, I hope there's more.

A quote taken from Martin Smith's PJ statement:

He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

Now, according to the latest article, the man M Smith saw was wearing a "DARK BLAZER".

What changed?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

I can barely see the buttons from here, let alone in the dark.

He's wearing those trews in quite a few photographs, perhaps they are his favourites - like his wife and her attachment to her harlequin pants, delicately perfumed with eau de cadavar.



Woof! Woof!

@Verdi   "Martin Smith, a man of integrity who has never spoken to the press about the night of Thursday 3rd May, when he and family members were leaving an Irish bar in Praia da Luz, a Gerry McCann look-alike just happened to be passing by carrying a child that appeared to be asleep - at least lifeless, with or without nightwear, apparently not an unusual sight to see in the area at that time of year - so say Martin Smith.  Martin Smith, who failed to report the sighting to the PJ when he heard that a young child was missing, whose son had a revelation moment at Faro airport,  whose wife declined to give a statement.  Martin Smith, who has remained silent about the case of Madeleine McCann for almost 11 years.

Confronted by an investigative journalist, is it really likely he is going to kiss and tell?  If he wished to defend his honour and that of his family, wouldn't he have done that years ago to halt unfounded rumour and speculation about his position?  Wouldn't he have made it public knowledge that his name had been dragged through the dirt of a very murky case of a missing child?

Would you reveal all to an investigative journalist knocking at your door after ten years of supposed tranquility?

If Martin Smith is totally innocent and his interview with Gemma O'Doherty is to be believed then you have to wonder why he waits nearly ten years to speak to a journalist.  "



Maybe he felt the pressure from the media for a while and wanted to remain off the radar.  Maybe he was treated badly and had some dodgy experience from the McCann's team of P.I.s

Maybe Gemma Doherty spent time building up a relationship with him and demonstrated she wasn't going to twist his words like the rest of the media and seemingly the BBC have done?

This is another quote from the PJ files. This time it's Aoife Smith's statement, where she's stating what the man was wearing that night:

..."the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top....

sallypelt wrote:A quote taken from Martin Smith's PJ statement:

He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

Now, according to the latest article, the man M Smith saw was wearing a "DARK BLAZER".

What changed?

I just re-read this bit of the article and transcribed it. I wonder if a bit of 'artistic license' and interpretation is going on, Gemma O Doherty writes;  

“She was blonde aged around four and wearing pyjamas. Despite the chill in the air her feet were bare. Martin and his daughter Aoife noticed that her skin was very white. The man carrying the girl was middle aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, in beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top”


The Smith statements however say, 


 Aoife Smith - "She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.'


Martin Smith -  "The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit.''


Paul Smith - "Her skin was white, typically British"


So it would seem the child was described as having white skin, 'typical of a Brit'. Possibly because they were asked whether this might have been a local child.   This is a little bit different to the 'very white' that Gemma has written which makes it looks like she is using those words to infer that the child was whiter than normal, ie. not a living child.   


Actually it is Martin Smith that uses those words , not Aoife. So there is a mistake/interpretation there and maybe the 'dark blazer-like top' is also a bit of journalistic interpretation or a mistake?

Martin Smith have not told his story to any journalists during all this years?
Could it be because no one from the MSM have had the courage to this because they knew that he could tell them that it was Gerry he saw that night?
But why should Gerry carry a dead child on the streets in Pdl?
If this was a pre planned staged abduction could it be RoB or someone else that carried a living child on the streets to make a alibi for GM and for confusion but they didn't realized at the time that someone would point finger at Gerry when it was supposed to be the "abductor"?
I'am also confused.

NickE wrote:Martin Smith have not told his story to any journalists during all this years?
Could it be because no one from the MSM have had the courage to this because they knew that he could tell them that it was Gerry he saw that night?
But why should Gerry carry a dead child on the streets in Pdl?
If this was a pre planned staged abduction could it be RoB or someone else that carried a living child on the streets to make a alibi for GM and for confusion but they didn't realized at the time that someone would point finger at Gerry when it was supposed to be the "abductor"?
I'am also confused.

I really don't know what to make of it either, it is confusing. Maybe it was Gerry, either carrying another child or Madeleine.  If it was Madeleine, yes that seems unlikely and certainly not something a cool, calm, doctor used to making decisions under pressure would want to do - unless something went really wrong in the plan and she had to be moved very quickly.

And I'm confused aswell...

The BBC lied about Martin Smith's quote - that's Tony's fault according to those on twitter.

The BBC retracted his quote - but it's still Tony's fault according to those on twitter.

On twitter they're saying Tony started this rumour.

Maybe I just need more

Or, maybe it doesn't matter who said or did what, it's still Tony's fault.

Yeah, I'll go with that.

Maddie: did the BBC bend the truth?

Gemma O’Doherty

On the night Madeleine McCann disappeared, an Irish tourist saw a man with a child matching her description near the McCann apartment. His testimony could prove vital to the world's most famous missing person case, especially since  the man he saw that night has never come forward.

On a cold May night in 2007. Martin Smith and  his family were walking home after an evening out in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz. A retired businessman from Drogheda, Co Louth, he co-owned an apartment there  and was a regular visitor to the Algarve town.

The crowds of summer had yet to arrive and the nor• malty bustling streets of the old quarter lay quiet. It was approaching 10pm when some members of the family of nine were suddenly struck by the sight of a man walking quickly towards them holding a small child uncomfortably in his arms.

As he passed close by them on the narrow street, the child appeared to be in a deep sleep. her head placed  over his shoulder and arms suspended down her body.

She was blonde. aged around four and wearing pyjamas. Despite the chill in the air, her feet were bare. Martin and his daughter Aoife noted that her skin was very white. The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top.

A member of Martin's family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.

At the time, Martin did not realise the sighting had the potential to change the course of the world’s most high-profile missing-person case.

The following morning, he got a text from his daughter in Ireland to tell him that a three-year-old girl had gone missing in the resort. The approximate time frame and location he had witnessed the man and the child appeared to match.

By now, the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann was beginning to grip the world. Martin brought his mind back to the evening before and wondered if the child he saw could have been her. The girl certainly matched Madeleine’s description and the sighting had taken place at Rua da Escola Primaria, just 500 yards from the McCann apartment. In time, Martin would become convinced he was correct.

Over a decade has passed since Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3. 2007 yet the case of the British three-year-old remains mired more questions than answers. The mainstream media, who have by and large backed Gerry and Kate McCann's version of events with the support of several A-list celebrities and politicians, appear to have lost interest in a story they once could not get enough of.

The very opposite is true on social media. The internet swirls with allegations and theories that the McCann story is littered with holes and does not stack up. Countless videos have been posted YouTube by armchair detectives challenging the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them.

Some are compelling to watch and have highlighted what appear to be discrepancies and confusion in certain accounts given by the McCanns and some of their friends about what happened in the period before and after Madeleine disappeared.

Getty McCann. a consultant cardiologist from Scotland and his Liverpool wife Kate, a GP and anaesthetist. said they had put their daughter and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie to bed at around 7pm, had drinks together for almost an hour and then left the children alone to go to a tapas bat 50 yards from their apartment. There they met seven friends with whom they were on holiday. They told police that they and their friends checked on the children every half hour.

Gerry said he went to the apartment at 9.05pm and all the children were sleeping soundly. He said Madeleine was lying on her left-hand side in exactly the same position she was in when they had left her.

At 9.25pm, his friend. Dr Matthew Oldfield told police he went to check on the McCann children. He said afterwards he could not be certain that he saw Madeleine on that check.
Kate McCann said she went back to the apartment at around t10pm, entering through the patio doors that they had left unlocked. She said she noticed that the door of the children's bed. room was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised. She said she scoured the apartment. then left the twins asleep in their beds before running back to her friends in the tapas bar and claiming Madeleine had been taken. At 10.41pm. her disappearance from Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort was reported to police by hotel staff.

Overnight the story made headlines around the world. Several days after Madeleine disappeared. the Smith family flew back home, but the sighting remained at the back of Martin's mind. He discussed it with his wife Mary. son Peter and daughter Aoife who were with him that night.

When they tallied the time and location, and the fact that the man they had seen had come from the direction of the Ocean Club complex where the McCanns were staying. they were convinced that it could have been Madeleine they had seen.

They decided to inform investigating police. and at the end of May 2007. Martin. Aoife and Peter flew back out to Portugal to make statements. They gave similar accounts of the man they had witnessed: average build, short brown hair, beige trousers: and the child: blonde, around four. and wearing pyjamas.

As the summer passed. the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann continued to perplex the world but life returned to normal for the Smiths. Then one Sunday evening in September. it came back to haunt Martin again. He was sitting at home watching TV when a report came on the BBC 'News at Ten' about the McCanns. return to Britain. As he watched Gerry coming down the steps pf the plane carrying his two-year old son in his arms, Martin was gripped by what he had seen and described the experience as “an action replay” in his mind.

He was instantly brought back to the night of May 3 in Praia da Luz. Something about the way Gerry was holding the child in his arms and the way he put his head down seemed shockingly similar to the man he had seen in Portugal the night Madeleine went missing. He said it hit him like a “bolt from the blue”. He watched the clip again on different news channels reinforcing his belief that he was not mistaken.

During this period. Martin had difficulty sleeping and felt sick with anxiety. He contacted the Garda and informed them of what had happened.

He told them he was 60-80% sure the man he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. His wife Mary felt the same way.

Irish officers found him credible. A local garda who interviewed him on behalf of the Portuguese authorities described him as a genuine. decent man who did not want to court the press orseek publicity.
But while Martin's evidence seemed compelling, independent and without motivation. much to his frustration. it was not given the attention it seemed to deserve.

Almost a year after he made his initial statement to police, he was approached by private detectives working for the McCanns and asked to make e-fits (electronic facial identification images). of the man he had seen the night Madeleine disappeared.

The McCanns say they gave these pictures to the police at the time but chose not to publicise them. Instead they remained focused on another sighting by their friend Jane Tanner, one of the so called Tapas Seven group of friends who had on holiday with the couple and who dined with them the evening Madeleine disappeared. She claimed to have seen a man carrying a child away from their apartment complex at around 9.20pm. but in the opposite direction to the man allegedlv seen by the Smiths.

However, more than six years later. in 2013, the Metropolitan police announced that a British  tourist had come forward to say he could have been the man she had seen as he carried his daughter home from the Ocean Club late night creche.
The Tanner sighting was about to be dismissed. The Met would switch their attention to the man seen by the Smiths. The e-fit images were finally released and the then chief investigating officer Andy Redwood said the timeline leading up to Madeleine's disappearance was being rewritten, especially the 90 minutes between 8.30pm, when the McCanns left their children to go to the restaurant and 10pm, when they discovered their daughter missing.

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.

According to media reports. Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.

Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.

“Looking at the background to the whole case again. inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”. he says:

“When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn't just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smith's memory was triggered by seeing Gerry McCann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.

I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so”.

Operation Grange

To date, Operation Grange, which now consists of four detectives from a peak of 31, has cost the British public more than £11m making it one of the most expensive police investigations in history. It was launched in 2011 after the Portuguese closed their enquiry in 2008. Funds are expected to run out at the end of March. Grange has been heavily criticised for refusing to reinterview Gerry and Kate McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven. The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first.

In Britain. as matters currently stand. if the authorities are any closer to finding the chief suspect in the world's most famous missing child case, they are certainly not saying.

As for the man the Smiths saw that night. he has yet to come forward to eliminate himself from the inquiry and remains unidentified.

Is this thread locked? I asked because it told me a few mins ago that it was? I suspect Smithman's full description is a composite of individually noted details. I also believe that the Smiths are fully aware of the speculation that they might have payed a role in the cover up and are horrified by the suggestion. This, combined with the knowledge that the investigating authorities are fully aware that Martin Smith stands over his claims may have made them decide to that there is no need to propel themselves into the limelight once again.

Phoebe wrote:Is this thread locked?

No! Why do you ask?

Phoebe wrote:Is this thread locked? I asked because it told me a few mins ago that it was? I suspect Smithman's full description is a composite of individually noted details. I also believe that the Smiths are fully aware of the speculation that they might have payed a role in the cover up and are horrified by the suggestion. This, combined with the knowledge that the investigating authorities are fully aware that Martin Smith stands over his claims may have made them decide to that there is no need to propel themselves into the limelight once again.

No, Phoebe, this thread isn't locked - but the other one is https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14822p75-gemma-o-doherty-investigative-journalist-will-soon-publish-details-of-her-investigation-into-the-madeleine-mccann-case#380898

I thought I would split it from where Mark Willis uploaded the screenshots, so that it's easier for us to search/find Gemma's article in the future. It can always be merged again if everyone thinks it was a pants idea.

Ah That's it! Thanks GEG 

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still don't believe Gerry was walking around PdL with his decomposing daughter though, especially as we now believe she died days before 3rd May.

Agreed 100% this is complete and utter nonsense. This story has probably be created to keep the focus on May 3rd 2007 and is probably a bungled attempt to discredit our findings of Madeleine having died 4 days earlier.

They use the idea that it may have been Gerry that Smith saw just to get the public excited and add credibility to the 3rd May tales. Once 3rd of May theory is publicly accepted, they will probably say that it wasn't Gerry after all, it was Madeleines and her abductor.

A very cunning move imo.

I wonder if Tracey Kandohla will come up with something tomorrow?

Where's Verdi's 'Olive Oyl and her typewriter' thingy when you need it?

If the "abduction " scenario has been planned, then I can accept Gerry as Smithman carrying another not so dissimilar child looks wise to Madeleine ....keeping options open... Tannerman and Smithman...Doors locked , unlocked..
Shutters jemmied , not jemmied... 

Confusion is good eh? 

Oh and mines a Strawberry Daquiri 

There you go! I love it! 

Verdi wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I wonder if Tracey Kandohla will come up with something tomorrow?

Where's Verdi's 'Olive Oyl and her typewriter' thingy when you need it?

Tracey Kandohla  [ circa February 2018]

Ouch!!!!  I can REMEMBER watching Popeye and seeing Olive Oyl typing away on that typewriter. :frown:

sallypelt wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I wonder if Tracey Kandohla will come up with something tomorrow?

Where's Verdi's 'Olive Oyl and her typewriter' thingy when you need it?

Tracey Kandohla  [ circa February 2018]

Ouch!!!!  I can REMEMBER watching Popeye and seeing Olive Oyl typing away on that typewriter. :frown:

and she's still at it to this very day. Only now she writes under a pseudonym .

Get'emGonçalo wrote:There you go! I love it! 

Ergonomically correct!

FIRST REACTIONS TO GEMMA O'DOHERTY'S ARTICLE

After reading Ms O'Doherty's article three times, I tried to evaluate what the average Irish reader of this magazine would make of the Madeleine McCann mystery after reading it.

I would invite fellow members and guests here to do the same. Let us assume that the average reader knew little about the case apart from what they had seen in Irish newspapers or on Irish TV.

This I think is what the average reader might think:

1 That Madeleine was abducted, as per the McCanns' and the mainstream media narrative over the past 11 years. After all, O'Doherty's article begins: "On the night Madeleine McCann disappeared..."

2. That Martin Smith is a scrupulously honest witness who has no agenda whatsoever and can be trusted and believed (this is said in a number of ways in the article)

3. That Martin Smith really did see an abductor

4. That the abductor must be Gerry McCann (after all, our honest Irish witness is 60% to 80% sure it was him, which is near enough).

At that point, the average reader might scratch his/her thread and say something like: "Wait a minute...Madeleine was abducted between 9.20pm and 10pm...Martin Smith and his family saw the abductor...but Martin Smith says it is Gerry McCann...so why is Gerry McCann carrying his own child through the streets of Praia da Luz.

Remember also that in her article O'Doherty has said nothing whatsoever about the cadaver dogs' evidence and not mentioned any evidence that Madeleine is dead.

If everyone is still with me, would not the average Irish reader think to themselves: "What the heck is O'Doherty going on about? What exactly is she trying to say? I am confused". Any reader with limited knowledge of the case would almost be bound to be confused. 

The main burden of O'Doherty's piece is to claim that Martin Smith never retracted his view that he was 60% to 80% certain that 'Smithman' was Madeleine. Most people might ask: "So where exactly does that get us?"

To that I would answer: "It makes things (if that were possible) even more confusing than ever.

------



Looking at the comments on the thread so far, these IMO are the most telling:

1 Verdi  "If Martin Smith is totally innocent and his interview with Gemma O'Doherty is to be believed, then you have to wonder why he waits nearly ten years to speak to a journalist. If Martin Smith is guilty of fabricating the claimed sighting, or later being persuaded to alter/embellish his story - would he admit it to an investigative journalist nearly eleven years later?

Surely, if as claimed, he contacted the BBC and/or authorities he wouldn't have allowed his name to be used and/or vilified in connection with a missing three year old child, without some redress in the public domain - would he?  He must know.

2 NickE on Twitter   "Martin Smith [has] not told his story to any journalists during all this years?"
COMMENT: Precisely. The BBC programme went out on 14 October 2013 - four years and four months ago. Work it out, and it was precisely 1,573 days between the BBC allegedly misrepresenting him and Gemma O'Doherty telling the world he had been misrepresented. I say that that is not remotely credible.

In my articles SMITHMAN 8 and SMITHMAN 11, I have given extensive details of the obvious collaboration between Martin Smith, the McCann Team, the BBC and Operation Grange. Remember Smith twice had interviews with DCI Andy Redwood, or one of his senior staff, in 2012 and again in 2013.

Did he tell them during those interviews: "I am sure the man I saw was Martin Smith"? Of course he didn't! If he had done, he would be absolutely jumping up and down after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special and ringing up every journalist he could find.

Why on earth does anyone believe that Martin Smith is now telling the truth about what he told the BBC?  I would respectfully refer members and guests to my SMITHMAN 4 and SMITHMAN 5 threads where I fully analyse the multiple discrepancies, contradictions, changes of story and other major problems with the Smith family's accounts. 

I offer one possible solution to what Smith told O'Doherty. 

I have never actually said that Martin Smith made a formal, written, signed retraction of his 'Gerry McCann is the man I saw' claims. What I did think I prove was that Smith had actively collaborated with the McCanns ever since December 2007 (SMITHMAN 8 and SMITHMAN 11). Maybe all that Smith means by saying that he hasn't retracted his evidence is just that "I never signed any formal retraction". 

------



I come now to a few comments on what O'Doherty has said in her article:


O'DOHERTY: On the night Madeleine McCann disappeared

REPLY: She confirms the time Madeleine was reported missing and expects readers to believe that this was the time she actually went missing 

O'DOHERTY:  In time, Martin would become convinced he was correct.

REPLY: She is referring to Smith's 13-day delay (3 to 16 May 2007) in reporting his sighting. She does not tell her readers that Smith only reported his sighting because his son Peter 'phoned up on 16 May and said: "Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child late at night when we were in Praia da Luz?" [this is the Smiths' own account of why he did nothing to report the sighting for 13 days

O'DOHERTY: Countless videos have been posted YouTube by armchair detectives

REPLY: A snide comment subtly denigrating all McCann-doubters

O'DOHERTY: ...the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour,

REPLY: Only 'seemingly'?

O'DOHERTY: what appear to be discrepancies and confusion in certain accounts given by the McCanns and some of their friends...

REPLY: Again, only 'appear to be'

O'DOHERTY: During this period. Martin had difficulty sleeping and felt sick with anxiety. He contacted the Garda and informed them of what had happened.

REPLY: She is referring to the mysterious 11-day delay between when Smith saw the news item of Gerry McCann carrying Sean (9 September) and his reporting it to the Irish Gardaí 11 days later (20 September)

O'DOHERTY: Almost a year after he made his initial statement to police, he was approached by private detectives working for the McCanns and asked to make e-fits

REPLY: A whole year - and the Smiths not only claim to be able to draw up an efit image of a man they saw for a second or two in the near darkness a year ago (whom all three said they would never be able to remember again) - but also produce two quite different images

O'DOHERTY: The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

REPLY: Actually, this was one of the few parts of that BBC programme where the BBC told the truth! Martin Smith had indeed collaborated with the McCanns and Operation Grange and had indeed changed his mind. Remember he allowed his sighting to be used on the McCanns' website from May 2009 to look for an abductor - without a squeak of protest from him. If people still don't get that Martin Smith is a fraud and has fabricated his evidence, there is little more I can do to make them think again 

O'DOHERTY: After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.

REPLY: And he didn't tell the public this until February 2018?? He didn't want to remind the world that the entire BBC programme was false and that Operation Grange should be arresting Gerry McCann?


O'Doherty's article is worse than awful. 


LOTS MORE TO FOLLOW ON ANOTHER DAY   

               







.