SMITHMAN 12: Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

SMITHMAN sighting

For anyone who still believes that the Smith family, at around 10pm on Thursday 3 May, saw Gerry McCann carrying the body of his daughter down towards the beach from his holiday apartment

(or that he was carrying a ‘decoy’, as some suggest, or that it was another member of the ‘Tapas 7’, as others suggest)

Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of these questions:

1 Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort

2 Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?

3 Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?

4  How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?

5  Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’

6  Why did not one of them – bearing in mind that the news of Madeleine’s disappearance was headline news in Portugal, Ireland and around the world - suggest contacting the police at any time before the day Robert Murat was made an ‘arguido’ (15 May)?

7 Is it credible (as claimed by the Smiths) that Martin Smith only acted to contact the police after his son Peter ’phoned him on 16 May (the day after Murat was declared a suspect) and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on the day Madeleine was reported missing?”

8 Why was Martin Smith so adamant that a man he saw in the dark for barely a second or two could not possibly be Robert Murat?  

9  How well did Martin Smith know Robert Murat?

Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat:

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

Which one of these versions, if any, is the truth?

10.  What is the explanation for all three Smiths giving the Portuguese Police on 26 May 2016, in Portimao, a description of the man they said they had seen, which exactly matched in almost every detail those given by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by Nuno Lourenco of ‘Sagresman’/Wojcek Krokowski? (including cloth clothes, ‘classic shoes’ and ‘did not look like a tourist’)

11 According to Martin Smith, his wife Mary Smith actually spoke to the man. So why did she not accompany her husband and her children to Portugal to give the police her evidence?

12  In Martin Smith’s statement to the PJ, 26 May, he told them: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”. So why did he not report the sighting for a further 12 days? He and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

13  Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?

14  Why could none of the staff at Kelly’s Bar remember this party of nine coming in?

15 Which of the four bar bills between 9.30pm and 10.00pm Thursday 3 May, if any, was theirs? 

16 In what precise way was the man supposed to be carrying the child? – the Smiths’ accounts differ

17  Aoife Smith said she thought she saw buttons on the man’s trousers. Can it be ruled out that Aoife Smith had, before 26 May, seen a photograph of Gerry McCann wearing trousers with buttons? 

18  Did the man lower his head?  Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”. But Martin Smith said:  “He put his head down”.

19  How much did each of them see of the child? Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”  But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”.

20 Martin Smith said: “The child was in a deep sleep”. How did he know she was in a ‘deep’ sleep?

21  Was the child wrapped in a blanket? The Daily Mail (3 Jan 2008) told us: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”. Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

22  What was the effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child?

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”

But in 2008 Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should     have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual…  (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children].  They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.

Which one of the statements (if any) is the truth?

23  Different reasons were given by the Smiths for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting:

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)

Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

24  Again, which of those four versions, if any, is the truth?

25  How can we explain these contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist?

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”.

26  Why did Martin Smith delay by 11 days (9 to 20 September) reporting his belief that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen carrying a child?

27  Exactly how credible is it that Martin Smith, four months after allegedly seeing a man carrying a child - when it was dark, there was weak street lighting and he only saw him for a few seconds at most - could be 60% to 80% certain that the man was Gerry McCann, based only on the way he was carrying the child out of an aeroplane  (and bearing in mind that most parents having to carry a child would also carry sleeping or very tired child on their shoulder as Gerry was doing)?

28 Why on earth, if Martin Smith was now so sure it was Gerry McCann who had been carrying that blonde child dressed only in pyjamas, would he even think of speaking to Metodo 3 and Brian Kennedy (as reported in the British press on 3 & 4 January 2008?)

29  Still more strange, why would he agree to start working for the McCann Team by agreeing to work with Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton? 

30  Did Martin Smith tell the McCann Team at any stage that he still thought the man he saw was Gerry McCann?

31  Why did Martin Smith feel it necessary to ask a solicitor to demand that an Irish newspaper must remove from an article any reference to his association with Robert Murat?

32  Martin Smith and his family, so we are told, helped Henri Exton to draw up some efits of the man they said they saw. How could they possibly be able to do so given that (a) they last saw the man a year or more previously (b) they only saw him for a few seconds at the most (c) it was dark (d) the street lighting was ‘weak (e) some of them did not even see his face properly and (f) each of the three of them who gave statements to the Portuguese police agreed that there would be no chance at all of them ever recognising the man if they ever saw him again?

33  Why did they draw up two efits of different-looking men? One of them…

looks older

has a ‘fatter’ face

has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)

has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)

has a much shorter nose

has a much bigger chin, and

has smaller ears.

The other one has none of those features.

34  Why could they not agree what he looked like?

35   Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he agree to take part at all in drawing up any efits?

36  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he not authorise an efit that looked exactly like him?

37  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he and his wife make statements urging the police to ‘find the abductor’?

38  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he offer his sympathy to the McCanns?

39  The Smith family sighting was featured prominently, twice, in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media ‘Mockumentary’ of May 2009. Did the Smiths know about – and then consent – to their sighting featuring in the documentary, despite Martin Smith (allegedly) still believing that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?    

40  Did he approve the contents of what was said about his family’s sighting in the film?

41  If not, did he ever protest publicly about it?

42  Immediately after the C4/Mentorn Media documentary was shown, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second summary of Martin Smith’s alleged sighting, read out in an Irish accent (not by Martin Smith). Was Martin Smith told about this, or did he become aware?

43  If and when he did become aware, did he consent to his sighting being used on the McCanns’ website?

44  If he did become aware, was he also aware that after he had changed his initial story about the age of the man he said he saw from ‘35 to 40’ to ‘40’, was Martin Smith aware that in this audio recording the age had been changed again to ’34-35’? Did Martin Smith agree to that second change of the man’s age?

45  If yes, why did he do so? If not, why did he never protest publicly?

46  When Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, on 11 May 2011, seven pages of her book mentioned Smithman. Three of these seven pages consisted of an itemised list of the ‘striking similarities’ between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’. Was Martin Smith consulted about this before the proofs went to the printers?

47  Again, given that in September 2007 Martin Smith was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007, did Martin Smith approve of his sighting being quoted on 7 pages of Kate McCann’s book? – in support of a ‘stranger’ abductor?

48  Did Martin Smith object in any way to his sighting being used in a book which effectively denied that he had seen Gerry McCann - and which was pointing the finger at the ‘Tannerman’ sighting?

49  Why did Martin Smith meet with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2012?

50  What did he discuss with him?

51  Was he told that his sighting would be the ‘top’ feature of a BBC programme?

52  And did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

53  Martin Smith again met with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2013. Again, did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

54  On either, or each, of those occasions, did Martin Smith say something like: “Look Mr Redwood, I saw Gerry McCann carrying that child at 10pm on 3 May. I object to you using my sighting to suggest it was someone else”?

55  If not, why not?

56  Did Martin Smith agree with the BBC for his sighting and his/his family’s two efits to be used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show?

57  If he did agree, why did he agree, if he was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007?

58  There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show, transmitted to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. Did Martin Smith consent to these two efits, allegedly having been drawn up by him and members of his family, being shown?  

59  How credible is that after nine years of working closely with the McCanns and then Operation Grange (2008-2017), that the Smiths would suddenly tell Irish reporter Gemma O’Doherty: “I have never retracted my view that I saw Gerry McCann that night”?

60  How credible a witness would Martin Smith be if put on a witness stand to testify that in his judgment he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007? How well would that evidence stand up under cross-examination?    




.       

Tony Bennett wrote:SMITHMAN sighting

For anyone who still believes that the Smith family, at around 10pm on Thursday 3 May, saw Gerry McCann carrying the body of his daughter down towards the beach from his holiday apartment

(or that he was carrying a ‘decoy’, as some suggest, or that it was another member of the ‘Tapas 7’, as others suggest)

Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of these questions:

1 Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort

2 Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?

3 Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?

4  How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?

5  Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’

6  Why did not one of them – bearing in mind that the news of Madeleine’s disappearance was headline news in Portugal, Ireland and around the world - suggest contacting the police at any time before the day Robert Murat was made an ‘arguido’ (15 May)?

7 Is it credible (as claimed by the Smiths) that Martin Smith only acted to contact the police after his son Peter ’phoned him on 16 May (the day after Murat was declared a suspect) and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on the day Madeleine was reported missing?”

8 Why was Martin Smith so adamant that a man he saw in the dark for barely a second or two could not possibly be Robert Murat?  

9  How well did Martin Smith know Robert Murat?

Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat:

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

Which one of these versions, if any, is the truth?

10.  What is the explanation for all three Smiths giving the Portuguese Police on 26 May 2016, in Portimao, a description of the man they said they had seen, which exactly matched in almost every detail those given by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by Nuno Lourenco of ‘Sagresman’/Wojcek Krokowski? (including cloth clothes, ‘classic shoes’ and ‘did not look like a tourist’)

11 According to Martin Smith, his wife Mary Smith actually spoke to the man. So why did she not accompany her husband and her children to Portugal to give the police her evidence?

12  In Martin Smith’s statement to the PJ, 26 May, he told them: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”. So why did he not report the sighting for a further 12 days? He and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

13  Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?

14  Why could none of the staff at Kelly’s Bar remember this party of nine coming in?

15 Which of the four bar bills between 9.30pm and 10.00pm Thursday 3 May, if any, was theirs? 

16 In what precise way was the man supposed to be carrying the child? – the Smiths’ accounts differ

17  Aoife Smith said she thought she saw buttons on the man’s trousers. Can it be ruled out that Aoife Smith had, before 26 May, seen a photograph of Gerry McCann wearing trousers with buttons? 

18  Did the man lower his head?  Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”. But Martin Smith said:  “He put his head down”.

19  How much did each of them see of the child? Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”  But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”.

20 Martin Smith said: “The child was in a deep sleep”. How did he know she was in a ‘deep’ sleep?

21  Was the child wrapped in a blanket? The Daily Mail (3 Jan 2008) told us: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”. Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

22  What was the effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child?

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”

But in 2008 Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should     have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual…  (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children].  They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.

Which one of the statements (if any) is the truth?

23  Different reasons were given by the Smiths for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting:

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)

Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

24  Again, which of those four versions, if any, is the truth?

25  How can we explain these contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist?

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”.

26  Why did Martin Smith delay by 11 days (9 to 20 September) reporting his belief that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen carrying a child?

27  Exactly how credible is it that Martin Smith, four months after allegedly seeing a man carrying a child - when it was dark, there was weak street lighting and he only saw him for a few seconds at most - could be 60% to 80% certain that the man was Gerry McCann, based only on the way he was carrying the child out of an aeroplane  (and bearing in mind that most parents having to carry a child would also carry sleeping or very tired child on their shoulder as Gerry was doing)?

28 Why on earth, if Martin Smith was now so sure it was Gerry McCann who had been carrying that blonde child dressed only in pyjamas, would he even think of speaking to Metodo 3 and Brian Kennedy (as reported in the British press on 3 & 4 January 2008?)

29  Still more strange, why would he agree to start working for the McCann Team by agreeing to work with Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton? 

30  Did Martin Smith tell the McCann Team at any stage that he still thought the man he saw was Gerry McCann?

31  Why did Martin Smith feel it necessary to ask a solicitor to demand that an Irish newspaper must remove from an article any reference to his association with Robert Murat?

32  Martin Smith and his family, so we are told, helped Henri Exton to draw up some efits of the man they said they saw. How could they possibly be able to do so given that (a) they last saw the man a year or more previously (b) they only saw him for a few seconds at the most (c) it was dark (d) the street lighting was ‘weak (e) some of them did not even see his face properly and (f) each of the three of them who gave statements to the Portuguese police agreed that there would be no chance at all of them ever recognising the man if they ever saw him again?

33  Why did they draw up two efits of different-looking men? One of them…

looks older

has a ‘fatter’ face

has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)

has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)

has a much shorter nose

has a much bigger chin, and

has smaller ears.

The other one has none of those features.

34  Why could they not agree what he looked like?

35   Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he agree to take part at all in drawing up any efits?

36  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he not authorise an efit that looked exactly like him?

37  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he and his wife make statements urging the police to ‘find the abductor’?

38  Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he offer his sympathy to the McCanns?

39  The Smith family sighting was featured prominently, twice, in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media ‘Mockumentary’ of May 2009. Did the Smiths know about – and then consent – to their sighting featuring in the documentary, despite Martin Smith (allegedly) still believing that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?    

40  Did he approve the contents of what was said about his family’s sighting in the film?

41  If not, did he ever protest publicly about it?

42  Immediately after the C4/Mentorn Media documentary was shown, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second summary of Martin Smith’s alleged sighting, read out in an Irish accent (not by Martin Smith). Was Martin Smith told about this, or did he become aware?

43  If and when he did become aware, did he consent to his sighting being used on the McCanns’ website?

44  If he did become aware, was he also aware that after he had changed his initial story about the age of the man he said he saw from ‘35 to 40’ to ‘40’, was Martin Smith aware that in this audio recording the age had been changed again to ’34-35’? Did Martin Smith agree to that second change of the man’s age?

45  If yes, why did he do so? If not, why did he never protest publicly?

46  When Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, on 11 May 2011, seven pages of her book mentioned Smithman. Three of these seven pages consisted of an itemised list of the ‘striking similarities’ between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’. Was Martin Smith consulted about this before the proofs went to the printers?

47  Again, given that in September 2007 Martin Smith was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007, did Martin Smith approve of his sighting being quoted on 7 pages of Kate McCann’s book? – in support of a ‘stranger’ abductor?

48  Did Martin Smith object in any way to his sighting being used in a book which effectively denied that he had seen Gerry McCann - and which was pointing the finger at the ‘Tannerman’ sighting?

49  Why did Martin Smith meet with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2012?

50  What did he discuss with him?

51  Was he told that his sighting would be the ‘top’ feature of a BBC programme?

52  And did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

53  Martin Smith again met with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2013. Again, did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

54  On either, or each, of those occasions, did Martin Smith say something like: “Look Mr Redwood, I saw Gerry McCann carrying that child at 10pm on 3 May. I object to you using my sighting to suggest it was someone else”?

55  If not, why not?

56  Did Martin Smith agree with the BBC for his sighting and his/his family’s two efits to be used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show?

57  If he did agree, why did he agree, if he was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007?

58  There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show, transmitted to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. Did Martin Smith consent to these two efits, allegedly having been drawn up by him and members of his family, being shown?  

59  How credible is that after nine years of working closely with the McCanns and then Operation Grange (2008-2017), that the Smiths would suddenly tell Irish reporter Gemma O’Doherty: “I have never retracted my view that I saw Gerry McCann that night”?

60  How credible a witness would Martin Smith be if put on a witness stand to testify that in his judgment he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007? How well would that evidence stand up under cross-examination?    




.       

1. Carrying a sleep induced child would give more credibility to the abduction theory.(it was not a busy place in May)
2.The timelines of the Tapas group on Thursday are very sketchy,apart from raise the alarm around 10pm
3.Could have possibley passed it on to a 3rd/external party/parties.
4 Answers 2 and 3.

If the Tapas group had returned to PDL,and Goncalo did a reconstruction then I am sure this case would have been solved a long time ago.I don't wonder why they did not want to return.
All IMO

Outside of the Smiths' official statements, everything that has been reported by newspapers re. what the Smiths allegedly "said" about their sighting should be taken with the same pinch of salt as was required when the press were claiming that the P.J. had found body fluid, which definitely came from a corpse and was drug-laced, in the back of the hire car! Newspapers regularly lie and exaggerate to sell their wares.
I assume Martin Smith was annoyed at the untrue suggestion that he was well acquainted with Murat since this was untrue. Murat was a notorious prime suspect at the time and no-one would want to be falsely labelled his "buddy".
The Smiths were spread out when they saw this man and child, therefore, they all saw them from different perspectives, angles and heights - hence the variation in their descriptions and the e-fits.
I see nothing sinister in holiday-makers not rushing in to bother a foreign, non English speaking police force by recounting that they saw a man down town carrying a child at 10 p.m. when the world and its mother was aware that Jane had actually seen the kidnapper walking away from the apartment carrying a child wearing Madeleine's pyjamas 45-50 mins earlier. Logically, this kidnapper would hardly wander around the town with the child for 45- 50 mins. No surprise that the Smiths did not immediately think they had witnessed something connected to the "abduction"
Why didn't Mary Smith go to Portugal - perhaps she felt that sending three family members was enough and had nothing to add that could help further. Perhaps she was wary of becoming part of the media circus which surrounded the case any more than she already had. Can't say I blame her seeing as the Smiths have been accused of all sorts ever since.
Martin Smith has allowed it to be put, crystal-clear, on public record that he has never changed his opinion re seeing Gerry that night. It is also a matter of public record that he complained to the B.B.C. over their misrepresentation of his opinion.
Once the Smiths gave their statements re what they witnessed that was the end of their control of them. I cannot imagine they have the right to prevent anyone mentioning it - whether on T.V. or anywhere else for that matter.
Imagine an ordinary family, would they question the motives of ex- police and refuse to help draw up an e-fit that might help a missing 3 year old. What might people now be saying if they had. I'm sure some would see it as pro-McCann, hiding information, got-to, paid off or whatever.  It seems some are determined to continue to see the Smiths as part of a sinister conspiracy and nothing they say or do will ever alter this mindset. I imagine they rue the day they ever got involved!

60 questions which could have been condensed into 10 (ish).

Phoebe wrote: I imagine they rue the day they ever got involved

You bet!

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood provided the perfect escape for Jane Tanner and her sighting as a man "who has come forward to say he might have been the man Jane Tanner saw on the night of 3rd May 2007" - six years later and never confirmed by way of evidence.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood didn't however do the same for Martin Smith's sighting, instead he embraced it and used it as the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.  

Martin Smith continues to claim, via Gemma O'Doherty, that he's 60-80% sure the man he saw on the night of 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann, having seen the TV video footage of the McCanns return to the UK.  Operation Grange, nor their senior officers, think the McCanns guilty of any crime.

Go figure!

Given that the only "evidence" to support abduction was Tannerman, now that he has gone by the wayside its unsurprising that those determined to claim that Madeleine WAS abducted have belatedly embraced Smithman and tried to use hiim to fill the same role. It's just darned unfortunate for them that the Smiths e-fits look so much like Gerry and that Martin Smith is publicly reiterating his unchanged opinion that it was Gerry he saw that night. Its also darned unfortunate that Smith has, via G O'D, accused the BBC of misleading the public. If the Smiths were part of team McCann and their sighting  was a ploy, then surely they would have described Smithman as looking nothing like Gerry. They could have made him small, fat, bald and bearded! Better still, they could have come up with a dark-haired, heavyset woman and had "Smithwoman". That would lend more support to the "abduction" story. Instead, they continue to insist the man they saw was, with 60-80% certainty, Gerry. How anyone can imagine that the Smiths' claim to have seen Gerry making off with a blonde little girl at the crucial time is an asset to team McCann is IMO mind-boggling.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood, head of Operation Grange,  through the medium of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, took on board the e-fit drawn up by Martin Smith as the focal point of the infamous 'revelation moment' .  The e-fit drawn up by Martin Smith in collaboration with Brian Kennedy, the McCanns long term allie and  financier .

The e-fit, two seperate individuals said to be one man, that look nothing like Gerry McCann, at least no more alike than any other man on the street.  The e-fit nothing but a sketchy head, nothing to identify the description from the neck down previously described by Martin Smith. What's the easiest way to deceive the public - the very public you are asking to identify  a 'person of interest' than to publicise a head rather than a head with a body and clothing.  You know, a general idea of stature and composure - why not a sketchy image of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft?

Above all else, if Martin Smith thought the man he and his family saw on the night of 3rd May 2007, in collaboration with Brian Kennedy, was Gerry McCann with any degree of certainty, the blueprint of the e-fit drawn up in collaboration with richman Brian Kennedy of double glazing fame - why are Operation Grange fannying about with an e-fit?  Why not go get the man and drag him in for questioning?

Now let me guess ......  because it's a contrived plan to yet again deceive?  Yes, I rather think it is.

You know if that were me, which it ain't, I would liaise directly with the police, not the McCanns benefactor.

Martin Smith 30th January 2008

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm



At some point Mr Smith changed his mind and helped with photo-fits. Are you suggesting Kennedy managed to persuade him?

Verdi wrote:why not a sketchy image of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft?

Good point Verdi.

If the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann then why aren't images of Gerry McCann being used as best references?

Martin Smith's opinion that he saw Gerry McCann had nothing to do with his face;

 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm



I have no idea whether it's possible to identify someone from the way they move, but that's what he said he did;


He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm



There are different ways of producing photo-fits. Some are produced by choosing different features until a face is produced. Others begin with a similar face being chosen and then fine-tuned until the witness is satisfied with it. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_composite




The ones shown on Crimewatch look quite sophisticated to me when compared with some of the others. They are in colour and look like photographs. Someone had access to what looks to me like a top of the range system. 


The favoured method of Kennedy/the McCanns previously appeared to be using a sketch artist. Did they invest in a (probably) expensive system for this one sighting or did it belong to someone else? 

In his 26 May statement Martin Smith says that he only found out about Madeleine's disappearance the following morning (4 May) and that:

'At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual'.


He compared the child he saw being carried to his own granddaughter (size).


The PJ did not release any information about Tannerman/Eggman (description; reported location/direction of siting) until later - they did state (5 May) that they had interviewed witnesse(s) who had seen someone carrying a child, but gave no more details. Eggman did not appear in the media until 10 May (not official release) and again no mention of location. All early reports stated the 'abduction' time as being between 9pm and 10pm.



Martin Smith was not a one-off holiday maker; he part-owned an apartment in Luz and visited about 3 times/year. Why would he be reluctant to have contact with the Portuguese Police?



I can not conceive that Martin Smith would not have been keeping abreast of what was going on/being reported both in Luz and in the UK tabloids.



I can not comprehend why anyone in Martin Smith's position would not have reported what he and his family had seen, after his daughter had informed him on the 4 May of the disappearance, and at the time he immediately thought, 'MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.' Why didn't he drop everything and go straight to the PJ to help find a 3 year old innocent who was obviously in grave danger? He would have known nothing about any other reported sitings (Tannerman) at this stage (4 May), and for all he knew, his family could have been the only witnesses. He was in Luz until the 9 May. Doesn't make any sense.

Not so long ago people on social media were convinced the e-fits were the Podesta brothers.

Neither of the Podesta's look like Gerry McCann.

Some said one of the e-fits looked like Martin Brunt.

Gerry McCann also doesn't look like Martin Brunt.

skyrocket wrote:In his 26 May statement Martin Smith says that he only found out about Madeleine's disappearance the following morning (4 May) and that:

'At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual'.


He compared the child he saw being carried to his own granddaughter (size).


The PJ did not release any information about Tannerman/Eggman (description; reported location/direction of siting) until later - they did state (5 May) that they had interviewed witnesse(s) who had seen someone carrying a child, but gave no more details. Eggman did not appear in the media until 10 May (not official release) and again no mention of location. All early reports stated the 'abduction' time as being between 9pm and 10pm.



Martin Smith was not a one-off holiday maker; he part-owned an apartment in Luz and visited about 3 times/year. Why would he be reluctant to have contact with the Portuguese Police?



I can not conceive that Martin Smith would not have been keeping abreast of what was going on/being reported both in Luz and in the UK tabloids.



I can not comprehend why anyone in Martin Smith's position would not have reported what he and his family had seen, after his daughter had informed him on the 4 May of the disappearance, and at the time he immediately thought, 'MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.' Why didn't he drop everything and go straight to the PJ to help find a 3 year old innocent who was obviously in grave danger? He would have known nothing about any other reported sitings (Tannerman) at this stage (4 May), and for all he knew, his family could have been the only witnesses. He was in Luz until the 9 May. Doesn't make any sense.

I thought I read that the Smith family flew out the following day after their alleged sighting ?

@jazega - Martin Smith, his wife Mary, daughter Aoife, and 2 of Martin's grandchildren remained until the 9 May. Martin Smith's son Peter and family (wife and 2 children) returned to Ireland on the 4 May. Martin had 5 full days to report the siting before he flew back to Ireland.

skyrocket wrote:@jazega - Martin Smith, his wife Mary, daughter Aoife, and 2 of Martin's grandchildren remained until the 9 May. Martin Smith's son Peter and family (wife and 2 children) returned to Ireland on the 4 May. Martin had 5 full days to report the siting before he flew back to Ireland.

Thanks for that,once again the plot thickens.

One part of the group, Peter Smith's did leave the next morning. Many witnesses do not come forward in the immediate aftermath of a crime. If they did there would be no need for programs like Crimewatch making appeals for those who might have seen something they dismissed as probably not connected to come forward. The Smiths could not dictate what body parts were included in the e-fits. That was a police decision and they, I suspect, were trying to play down the obvious resemblance to Gerry. I don't find it unusual that only a facial e-fit was made, most "Have you seen" posters and newspaper pictures, even those of missing people today, are of the face. As for the notion of using an image of Gerry himself or sketchy image of Gerry descending from the aircraft as an e-fit - I'm sure the police know  how the public would view such a crude attempt to prejudice any future trial. It was public news almost immediately that Jane had seen an abductor near the apartment around 9.10-9-15. Funny that neither the McCanns nor Mitchell attempted to contact the Smiths directly as soon as their sighting became public in May 07. Instead, they were desperate to contact an Ocean Club worker who lived near the church and who had not come forward with information re seeing a possible abductor while avoiding like the plague the Smiths who had seen a man with a matching child at the crucial time. The McCanns could not stay far enough away from what the Smiths saw. That speaks volumes!

Persons of interest..



Evolution gone viral.

BlueBag wrote:

Verdi wrote:why not a sketchy image of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft?

Good point Verdi.

If the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann then why aren't images of Gerry McCann being used as best references?

I really don't know the truth of the Smithman sighting but what I do know is this:
If I had been Mr Smith  and saw what I  thought was Gerry McCann carrying a child that night in PDL ..............over 50% sure in fact.................................as a father and grandfather I would be very suspicious and downright infuriated that the McCanns had not been officially interviewed by OG. In fact I would be shouting from the rooftops and asking , 'WHY?' If I had been misquoted by the MSM , I would be suing them or at the very least demanding a front page apology. Not wanting to become further involved no excuse when a child has disappeared under such dubious circumstances.

Verdi wrote:Persons of interest..



Evolution gone viral.

Certainly a few Neanderthal looking characters there .

Either that or the cast of a badly written budget horror film !

At least the Smiths DID return to Portugal when asked !! Would you really do that when it is a sham ??

We only have the T9's statements as a "record" of the supposed checks on the night of 3 May. They could be wrong or simply plain made-up. What if the planned time to raise the abduction alarm was much earlier than 10pm, say at 9.30 ?

By Thursday, Madeleine's body has already been removed to a "safe house"
 
At 21.05, Gerry AND Russell leave the table which is strange as Russell has only been there for 5 minutes !
At 21.10 Jane leaves the table and, as per the plan, "sees" Tannerman at 9.15pm. She only SAYS this BUT SHE REALLY DOESN'T MAKE THAT TRIP UP THE ROAD AT ALL !! 
Russell (at night, he may be mistaken for Murat, they are not dissimilar ?) then collects Ella, leaves by the front door and out onto the street to reinforce Jane's sighting.
Russell returns with Ella.
Gerry bumps into Jez at the same time as Jane is supposed to be "seeing" Tannerman and it throws everything out as Jez quite clearly states that he didn't see Jane (as she really didn't make that trip !!)  
Kate is due to do her "check" at 9.30 (when I believe the alarm is supposed to have been raised) but by this time Gerry is back and is flustered because of bumping into Jez 
They need to buy some time to re-jig the plan and so that is why Matthew says that he will do Kate's check.
Matthew AND Russell (him again !) then leave the table around 9.30 and Russell once again collects Ella and walks her through the streets (remember Russell returns late to the table and is last to finish his meal) and is seen by the Smiths.
Once he returns to the table, all elements are back in place, Kate is able to belatedly do her "check" and shout abduction.

Thus the Smith sighting is real (it's Russell & Ella)

From Jez Wilkins statement :

The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry's friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, and tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I learnt him to be a diabetics specialist. We met him o the way to the destination. Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed.

So Gerry sends Matthew over to speak to Jez at 1am as he "wanted to know if (he'd) seen anything". Understanding what he might say when question by the "proper" authorities ?   

sandancer wrote:

Verdi wrote:Persons of interest..



Evolution gone viral.

Certainly a few Neanderthal looking characters there .

Either that or the cast of a badly written budget horror film !

Got it in one !

polyenne wrote:At least the Smiths DID return to Portugal when asked !! Would you really do that when it is a sham ??

We only have the T9's statements as a "record" of the supposed checks on the night of 3 May. They could be wrong or simply plain made-up. What if the planned time to raise the abduction alarm was much earlier than 10pm, say at 9.30 ?

By Thursday, Madeleine's body has already been removed to a "safe house"
 
At 21.05, Gerry AND Russell leave the table which is strange as Russell has only been there for 5 minutes !
At 21.10 Jane leaves the table and, as per the plan, "sees" Tannerman at 9.15pm. She only SAYS this BUT SHE REALLY DOESN'T MAKE THAT TRIP UP THE ROAD AT ALL !! 
Russell (at night, he may be mistaken for Murat, they are not dissimilar ?) then collects Ella, leaves by the front door and out onto the street to reinforce Jane's sighting.
Russell returns with Ella.
Gerry bumps into Jez at the same time as Jane is supposed to be "seeing" Tannerman and it throws everything out as Jez quite clearly states that he didn't see Jane (as she really didn't make that trip !!)  
Kate is due to do her "check" at 9.30 (when I believe the alarm is supposed to have been raised) but by this time Gerry is back and is flustered because of bumping into Jez 
They need to buy some time to re-jig the plan and so that is why Matthew says that he will do Kate's check.
Matthew AND Russell (him again !) then leave the table around 9.30 and Russell once again collects Ella and walks her through the streets (remember Russell returns late to the table and is last to finish his meal) and is seen by the Smiths.
Once he returns to the table, all elements are back in place, Kate is able to belatedly do her "check" and shout abduction.

Thus the Smith sighting is real (it's Russell & Ella)

My only problem with that is RO'B is about 27 feet tall.
If it was him then surely the Smiths would have noted how tall he was for his height?