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

Is that it - seriously? I was given to understand this was to be a journalistic investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, clearly I was misled - it is but a Smithology.

To think I was ridiculed mercilessly for questioning the source of Ms O'Doherty's information. Now I'm seriously wondering where she got her information - funny how it just happens to support the Smith sighting isn't it? A bone of contention indeed.

Sorry but this is not investigative journalism. It is a random selection of information and misinformation emanating from the PJ investigation, mainstream media, Martin Smith and social media. It doesn't reflect nor address the questionable detail of the Martin Smith's involvement and/or the detail of the alleged sighting.

I ask again - if Martin Smith was so aggrieved by misleading information presented by Bilton on Panorama which was shown on national television, why didn't he demand a public apology? As asked of the allegations against David Payne when the Gaspar statements hit the headlines - why didn't he demand a public apology?

What's next on the agenda..

Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1

My investigation on the #McCann case will be published later this month in @VillageMagIRE. Until then, I will publish information which I consider to be of general public interest about the case here
3:51 AM - 10 Jan 2018

Verdi wrote:Is that it - seriously?  I was given to understand this was to be a journalistic investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, clearly I was misled - it is but a Smithology.

To think I was ridiculed mercilessly for questioning the source of Ms O'Doherty's information.  Now I'm seriously wondering where she got her information - funny how it just happens to support the Smith sighting isn't it?  A bone of contention indeed.

Sorry but this is not investigative journalism.  It is a random selection of information and misinformation emanating from the PJ investigation, mainstream media, Martin Smith and social media.  It doesn't reflect nor address the questionable detail of the Martin Smith's involvement and/or the detail of the alleged sighting.  

I ask again - if Martin Smith was so aggrieved by misleading information presented by Bilton on Panorama which was shown on national television, why didn't he demand a public apology?  As asked of the allegations against David Payne when the Gaspar statements hit the headlines - why didn't he demand a public apology?

What's next on the agenda..  

..that Netflix pro-McCann thing..

Verdi wrote:Is that it - seriously?  I was given to understand this was to be a journalistic investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, clearly I was misled - it is but a Smithology.

To think I was ridiculed mercilessly for questioning the source of Ms O'Doherty's information.  Now I'm seriously wondering where she got her information - funny how it just happens to support the Smith sighting isn't it?  A bone of contention indeed.

Sorry but this is not investigative journalism.  It is a random selection of information and misinformation emanating from the PJ investigation, mainstream media, Martin Smith and social media.  It doesn't reflect nor address the questionable detail of the Martin Smith's involvement and/or the detail of the alleged sighting.  

I ask again - if Martin Smith was so aggrieved by misleading information presented by Bilton on Panorama which was shown on national television, why didn't he demand a public apology?  As asked of the allegations against David Payne when the Gaspar statements hit the headlines - why didn't he demand a public apology?

What's next on the agenda..  

we have all striven to  understand the conspiracy that covered up the lie; the MBM abduction on the 3rd May 2007. In this phoney conspiracy war; we have seen the British state collusion, coupled with a manipulated mainstream media who are continually on message and spout the agreed abduction message. There is no UK media dissension
The o’Doherty article is the first recent break from the blanket of media manipulation in the English speaking world, where even Amazon USA will not sell the translated detective Amaral’s book, the truth of the lie. We also should understand that the British D notice (no coverage under state security grounds), UK legal super injunction and general suppression of any form of critical assessment holds no sway over the Irish media. We must welcome this Irish article, we must circulate its message. We must not get bogged down in rabbit holes or over-analysis at this juncture (did Gerry really carry a dead Maddie, or was it a surrogate Blonde girl to support the fake abduction?)
The BBC suppressed evidence and lied in their Mcann ‘abduction’ mockumentary. The Smithman witness statement, the gerry Mcann beige button trousers and his e fit picture were manipulated and eventually suppressed, indicating they are important jigsaw pieces. This in itself is a great story from an ‘outside the UK perspective’.  What this thin edge of the wedge story can lead to is the greater global journalistic investigation and the eventual expose of this grand lie.

Cammerigal wrote:

Verdi wrote:Is that it - seriously?  I was given to understand this was to be a journalistic investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, clearly I was misled - it is but a Smithology.

To think I was ridiculed mercilessly for questioning the source of Ms O'Doherty's information.  Now I'm seriously wondering where she got her information - funny how it just happens to support the Smith sighting isn't it?  A bone of contention indeed.

Sorry but this is not investigative journalism.  It is a random selection of information and misinformation emanating from the PJ investigation, mainstream media, Martin Smith and social media.  It doesn't reflect nor address the questionable detail of the Martin Smith's involvement and/or the detail of the alleged sighting.  

I ask again - if Martin Smith was so aggrieved by misleading information presented by Bilton on Panorama which was shown on national television, why didn't he demand a public apology?  As asked of the allegations against David Payne when the Gaspar statements hit the headlines - why didn't he demand a public apology?

What's next on the agenda..  

we have all striven to  understand the conspiracy that covered up the lie; the MBM abduction on the 3rd May 2007. In this phoney conspiracy war; we have seen the British state collusion, coupled with a manipulated mainstream media who are continually on message and spout the agreed abduction message. There is no UK media dissension
The o’Doherty article is the first recent break from the blanket of media manipulation in the English speaking world, where even Amazon USA will not sell the translated detective Amaral’s book, the truth of the lie. We also should understand that the British D notice (no coverage under state security grounds), UK legal super injunction and general suppression of any form of critical assessment holds no sway over the Irish media. We must welcome this Irish article, we must circulate its message. We must not get bogged down in rabbit holes or over-analysis at this juncture (did Gerry really carry a dead Maddie, or was it a surrogate Blonde girl to support the fake abduction?)
The BBC suppressed evidence and lied in their Mcann ‘abduction’ mockumentary. The Smithman witness statement, the gerry Mcann beige button trousers and his e fit picture were manipulated and eventually suppressed, indicating they are important jigsaw pieces. This in itself is a great story from an ‘outside the UK perspective’.  What this thin edge of the wedge story can lead to is the greater global journalistic investigation and the eventual expose of this grand lie.

Amen Cammerigal. Ace post! 

Smithman is key, and (imo) it was Gerry McCann the Smiths saw carrying Maddie on that ill fated night.
Excellent piece of journalism, and hopefully there's much more to come from O'Doherty.

Maybe it will bring the focus onto Crecheman.

My opinion that was a massive lie.

There has never been the slightest detail about who he was.

Surely he was a witness to be interviewed at least?

BlueBag wrote:Maybe it will bring the focus onto Crecheman.

My opinion that was a massive lie.

There has never been the slightest detail about who he was.

Surely he was a witness to be interviewed at least?

Oh yes BlueBag, if the focus also returned to Crecheman it would lay bare how the Mc's and Tanner were given a free pass, and how the collusion of efforts to dupe the public have been in full swing. 

I hope Gemma O'Doherty digs long and hard into this travesty of justice.

Phoebe wrote:Gemma O'Doherty
February 2 at 5:34pm · 

As part of my investigation into the Madeleine McCann case, the BBC have admitted to me they made a mistake in their 
coverage of a potentially critical sighting of a man and child on the night she disappeared. Police say this sighting could hold the key to the entire mystery. My first report will be published tomorrow in Village Magazine.






The above post makes it clear that this is but the FIRST report on the Madeleine McCann case by Gemma O'Doherty. This clearly implies there will be more. I can fully understand why Martin Smith refrained from making a public hue and cry about being misrepresented. He must be aware that his and his family's integrity has been the subject of negative speculation. If I were in his shoes I too would be loathe to attract any more negative comments onto my family. He complained to the BBC., now his complaint has been made public and acted on. The police can no longer be in doubt (if they ever were) that he stands over his statement.
 I see no reason to doubt Martin Smith. Had he gone to the P.J. immediately after the disappearance and reported his suspicions about seeing a man with a child what would it have achieved? At that stage he had not pointed the finger of suspicion at Gerry. Nuno Lourenco reported his version of events and is widely suspected of creating a distraction to mislead investigators. Would those who are convinced of Smith's guilt not now be claiming the same about Smith?  He could stand accused of deliberately giving traction to the idea of a kidnapping. I cannot see the Smith family being any part of a conspiracy.  They saw what they saw. He later became convinced that it was quite likely Gerry. Understandable, as the press had been reporting the dogs' findings of blood and cadaver odour in 5A and the car. and the McCanns' arguido status. I have shown the article today to several people here in Ireland who know little about and are not particularly interested in the case. Every one of them inferred that Gerry McCann had faked the kidnapping of his daughter by carrying her off himself and that the U.K. authorities and the BBC are covering up for the McCanns and manipulating information to mislead the public.

Totally agree Phoebe! 

Really pleased to see Smithman brought back into focus by Gemma O'Doherty, and also her expose of the BBC's significant collusion in altering the facts of this case. Looking forward for more to come. 

So,If, Mr Martin Smith was 60-80% sure  of a person he glanced at on 3 May 2007 and confirmed in his belief that this person,resembled a Parent carrying his Son of a plane from Portugal, September 2007,to be the same person?
Mr Smith and his Son,stated the person carrying the child,had his face covered by the child he was carrying.
What needs to be asked is,who drew the E-fits,Henri Exton,Kevin Haligen with faces imposed in position and suppressed from the public 2008-2013?
Did Brian Kennedy,Private Investigators have any involvement in constructing the E-fit images,as Mr Kennedy was supposed to be interested in what Mr Smith had actually seen in Portugal 2007?

The UK public have been told by numerous Police Commanders,that the parents of Madeleine McCann and the Tapas 7/9 are Not suspects and have Not been interviewed under caution.
In regard to the D-Notices and National security issue,why is the Nation,UK affected by the disappearance of a little child, Madeleine McCann that Interpol wished to trace,but the UK wish to suppress from their people on a 100 Year D Notice?
Wasn't Richard Biltons,BBC Ten Years later documentary Not shown in Portugal,was this one reason why it wasn't shown,due to the inaccuracy,Smith Man sighting?'

Peter Smith, who was probably involved in the drawing up of e-fits,  appears to have seen the man's face clearly-

"He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder," .. 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."


 Therefore the face man's would not have been obscured. He also describes him as being -


 "Somewhat tanned as the result of sun exposure".


 Given that Smithman wore long trousers and a jacket, the only skin exposed from which to make such an observation would have been his face and hands. He also -


 "adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other, therefore they would have seen the individual in different positions."


Notably, his P.J. statement adds that his son T- 


 "WAS QUESTIONED IN IRELAND"
  
And provided other details  — "Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot."


I imagine several members of the family were involved in providing the descriptions for the e-fits.

Whether Smith saw a real person or not. 

 However much he saw, he saw enough to say it wasn't Murat. Therefore he can't backtrack too much because you get to a point where you can question how certain it wasn't Murat. If you see what I mean.

Hi Mr Noodles,Mr Smith did rule out that it wasn't Mr Murat,which is sort of confirmed by the e-Fits,due to both pictures state No spectacles,ah i hear you say,No glasses worn,doesn't state it wasn't him.
No it doesn't,but it sure wouldn't help a person see where they were going,being blind in the right eye,then not wearing glasses,means that individual would really struggle carrying a child a certain distance!
The GNR Dogs signalled to a close by parking lot/bay,then the scent was Gone,so unless the Abductors used a car,back to a on Foot absconder?

Mark Willis wrote:...that Netflix pro-McCann thing.. snooze

Drats, I'd clean forgotten about that - now you've got me all fidgety again.

Cammerigal wrote:The BBC suppressed evidence and lied in their Mcann ‘abduction’ mockumentary. The Smithman witness statement, the gerry Mcann beige button trousers and his e fit picture were manipulated and eventually suppressed, indicating they are important jigsaw pieces. This in itself is a great story from an ‘outside the UK perspective’.  What this thin edge of the wedge story can lead to is the greater global journalistic investigation and the eventual expose of this grand lie.

The Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special was certainly engineered to further cover-up the truth behind Madeleine McCann's disappearance but   the Smith's witness statement, beige button trousers and e-fit pictures suppressed?  I don't think so!

This subject appears to have gone full circle - all the research, analysis and plain speaking alternatives, using the Smith family witness statements as core evidence, has been thrown to the winds because an Irish investigative journalist has reported a meeting with the man himself and woven it into various reports long since on public record?

a)  Gerry McCann wandering around the streets of Praia da Luz with the corpse of his darling daughter v. b) Gerry McCann wandering around the streets of Praia da Luz with a substitute Madeleine - possibly her sister Amelie?

Please, come down to earth.

Outside the UK perspective stands for nothing, the Portuguese investigation was outside the UK perspective and look where that led - wheels within wheels.

'A thin edge of the wedge story leading to greater global journalistic investigation and eventual expose of this grand lie'?  Like the Australian grand exposé?  Nah, been this way too often!

As predicted - another non event.

Is it right then that the 'dark blazer' inclusion in this recent article is not supported by the statements? Just waiting for SY to say that smithman with his dark blazer was actually Redwoods crecheman, albeit with severe arm ache and extremely lost but didn't ask for directions out of sheer embarrassment.  (Not said without a lot of sarcasm).

Philo Beddoe wrote:Is it right then that the 'dark blazer' inclusion in this recent article is not supported by the statements? Just waiting for SY to say that smithman with his dark blazer was actually Redwoods crecheman, albeit with severe arm ache and extremely lost but didn't ask for

@ Phil Beddoe

No, it isn't right, actually.

On 30 January 2008, Martin Smith made a statement to the Irish Gardaí.

In this statement, he said:  “I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10” in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut..."

So that is where the 'dark blazer' comes in.

Though it has to be said that Martin Smith in his original statement couldn't remember anything about what the man was wearing above the waist...one of the countless discrepancies, contradictions and changes of story in the Smiths' various tales.   

----

This report in the Irish Mail on Sunday is also of interest:  

10 August 2008: Irish Mail on Sunday

 ‘Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared’ (article in their paper edition only)

Points of interest from this report are as follows:

“Father-of-six gave Gardai a signed statement saying he and his wife were ''60 to 80% sure'' that the man they saw holding the child was Maddie's father...Since then the McCanns have been totally exonerated of any involvement.

“Mr. Smith had initially told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses. The following September, however, the businessman saw clips of the McCanns returning from their holidays and said the footage of Mr McCann carrying his younger child had instantly reminded him of the mystery man.

“Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may. One said: ‘'Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland. The McCanns return to England…it  was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry. By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what?’

''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese, who were clearly desperate to get something against them."

“As they made their way back, the [Smiths] crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.

“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

“This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward. ‘He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it. The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw…our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours. 'I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own. The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

--------

Now, for anyone who still believes that the Smiths are pure, honest-to-God witnesses of integrity, explain:

A. Why Martin Smith refuses to talk and lets his wife speak to the press, and

B. Why, when her husband is '60% to 80% sure' that the man the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann, his wife Mary Smith says: "...our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours. 'I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own. The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

-------

For that matter, for anyone still believing that Martin Smith is an honest witness - who has never for a moment changed his mind about his being '60% to 80% certain' that the man he said he saw at 10pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 was Gerry McCann - explain why:

1 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by talking to Brian Kennedy and his men (Dec 2007)? 

2 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by agreeing to help ex-MI5 Head of Covert intelligence Henri Exton (employed by Brian Kennedy) draw up efits of the man he said he saw? 

3 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing them to put up an audio recording of a summary of his statement on their website (May 2009)?

4 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing the McCanns to change the age of the man he said he saw to 34-35 (when he  said it was '35-40', and afterwards had said it was '40') (May 2009)? 

5 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by not challenging Kate McCann's account of how his description of an abductor matched that of Jane Tanner's description? 

6 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by being interviewed twice by Operation Grange, once in 2012 and once in 2013, in preparation for the joint BBC-Met Police production, the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special of 14 October 2013 - a programme which elevated his description to that of the 'No. 1 Suspect'?

7 He at no time until 3 February 2018, despite countless opportunities, ever reminded any journalist that he still believed that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?   

8. He failed for four years and four months to complain publicly that he had been thoroughly misrepresented on a BBC porgramme seen by 7 million people? 


Finally, can anyone tell me how, given all that we know about Martin Smith, he could possibly ever be a credible witness, if Gerry McCann were ever to be charged with hiding Madeleine's body? 



.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents

Is this what this the Smith saw Gerry story is all about, The McCanns trying to discredit the PJ with a feeble attempt to prove that they were trying to frame them?

Additional statement from Martin Smith 30th January 2008

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

Liam Hogan

I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.


I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

Martin Smith's story has always been a bit confusing to me. I don't see how you can be 'convinced' (firm conviction) that a person 'could have' (mere possibility) been Madeleine. Either you are convinced it was, or it wasn't. I also find the 60-80% sure statement a bit odd. 80% I'd say is almost certain, and 60% is not really that sure.
I can't reconcile what he saw with the evidence of the dogs, or the clear plan to involve the world's media. Why would Gerry carry Madeleine anywhere and risk being seen, when he planned to ring up Sky news hours later and have his face plastered everywhere?

I think it's possible Martin Smith is genuine, just mistaken. Perhaps he was like many other people who when they heard about the case initially, knew instinctively something wasn't right. Then when he saw Gerry on tv he mistook that feeling for one of recognition of that man he saw?

Eta: unless Gerry McCann was already so assured of the protection he would have higher up the ranks that it didn't matter whether he was seen? What's one witness on a pretty much deserted out of season resort? It's his word against Gerry's. He probably knew there was no cctv in the area. If he already knew there was no way he was going to be prosecuted, why not hurriedly transport Madeleine to wherever she was to be disposed of?

Sorry to air my unformulated theories!

Verdi wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:...that Netflix pro-McCann thing.. snooze

Drats, I'd clean forgotten about that - now you've got me all fidgety again.

Then it's your lucky day! You have won any one item off the bottom shelf:
1) Piriton
2) Calpol
3) Terfenadine
or
4) One meal of watercress and egg salad followed by a chicken and mushroom risotto washed down with strawberry vodka followed by Chunky Meat flambéed by Henry the incredibly unreliable Bloodhound..

The BBC did NOT make a "mistake", it was a deliberate LIE. Dis-information, the BBC are gatekeepers and we should not expect the truth from them . . . . and that is that.

JimbobJones wrote:The BBC did NOT make a "mistake", it was a deliberate LIE. Dis-information, the BBC are gatekeepers and we should not expect the truth from them . . . . and that is that.

NO.

The BBC actually told the truth about Martin Smith. He had 'changed his mind'. He had already done so in December 2007/January 2008 when he talked to Brian Kennedy and his men and agreed to work for the McCanns. He has worked for the McCanns ever since, and has worked for and with the corrupt Operation Grange investigation since 2012, as the Met Police have admitted.

Martin Smith's claim that he has 'never changed his mind' doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a millisecond. No word of a protest from him after he...
agreed to work for the McCanns,
agreed to draw up efits of an abductor, 
co-operated with the making of the C4 'Mockumentary in 2009 in which his sighting was mentioned at length,
agreed to change the age of the man he said he saw down to 34-35,
consented to a summary of his statement appearing on the McCanns' website in May 2009, where it has been ever since,  
agreed to the McCanns using his sighting in their book ('madeleine') which claimed Madeleine had been abducted
agreed to help Operation Grange prepare for a programme on the BBC which would confirm to the world that Madeleine had been abducted, 
twice was interviewed by Operation Grange detectives, and finally
watched a BBC programme in October 2013 that told the world that he HAD changed his mind.

In all those instances, there was NOT ONE whimper of protest from him, yet now we believe what he tells Gemma O'Doherty?

Yes, the BBC and the Met Police lied all right.

Their reconstruction on the Crimewatch McCann Show was a lie.

So was Crecheman.


So was much of the rest of that programme.

But the one very helpful nugget of truth that enabled the BBC and the Met Police to promote the Smithman sighting was the phrase:

"Martin Smith changed his mind".

Actions speak much louder than words.

Martin Smith has demonstrated his change of mind regarding his identification over and over again during the past 10 years.

And Gemma O'Doherty failed massively in her duty as a journalist by failing to ask Smith:

"Why, if you're so sure you saw Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007, did you...
agree to work for the McCanns,
agree to draw up efits of an abductor, 
approve two different efits,
co-operate with the making of the C4 'Mockumentary in 2009 in which your sighting was mentioned at length,
agree to change the age of the man you said you saw down to 34-35, having previously said '35-40' and '40',
consent to a summary of your statement appearing on the McCanns' website in May 2009, where it has been ever since,  
agree to the McCanns using your sighting on 7 pages of their book ('madeleine'), which claimed Madeleine had been abducted, 
co-operate with the BBC and Operation Grange to make an hour-long programme promoting an abduction scenario and urging the public to look for the man you said you saw, and finally
watch that very BBC programme in October 2013 that told the world that you HAD changed his mind...

and yet said nothing??"