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

by polyenne 20.03.18 15:57

27’ ? Come on Mr Willis, let’s keep it factual perlease !!

by Verdi 20.03.18 16:06

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

Yes Martin Smith did return to Portugal along with his son Peter Daniel and daughter Aoife, that would be 11 days after Robert Murat was given arguido status and a whopping 23 days after the alleged disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

From Gonçalo Amaral's book', The Truth of the Lie'..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him. With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they went back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.

thinking

It is quite clear from the above that Martin Smith returned to Portugal to speak on behalf of Robert Muart - not Madeleine McCann !!! He had over 3 weeks to contact the police in Portugal (before his departure on 9th May) and/or the local police in Ireland but he didn't did he - instead he waits until Robert Murat is given arguido status ???

Speaks volumes.

by polyenne 20.03.18 16:13

It is your opinion that Murat’s arguido status and Smiths call are somehow intertwined. It could also be yet another strange coincidence

by Mark Willis 20.03.18 18:59

polyenne wrote:27’ ? Come on Mr Willis, let’s keep it factual perlease !!

Ok. 26 feet and a brick high, then.
Be fair though, him and Matt O are at least 6 foot 4 above sea-level.
Sort of, stand out in a crowded, dimly lit Luzian walkway...

by Mark Willis 20.03.18 19:02

I would reckon that the Smiths, Murat and Gerry were all well acquainted before May 3rd 2007.

by polyenne 20.03.18 19:44

I would reckon that the Smiths, Murat and Gerry were all well acquainted before May 3rd 2007.

Really ??

by Mark Willis 20.03.18 20:14

I am sure Gerry knew Murat. And I am sure Murat knew the Smiths.
How the Venn diagram intersect with all parties is still not clear.

by Phoebe 20.03.18 21:05

If Murat knew the Smiths I imagine that would have been common knowledge in a small town like P d L yet not a single person has ever contradicted Martin Smith's claim to only have known Murat by sight. I'm sure the P.J. checked this basic fact out when Smith came forward and stated that the man he saw was not Murat. Murat was their prime suspect at the time so anything pertaining to him would have been carefully checked. If Murat and Smith were friendly the local plod would have discovered this in no time at all.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.03.18 21:05

There have been some very good posts on the thread so far, especially those by Verdi, Mark Willis and skyrocket.

The main reason for posting is to address the comments and questions raised by G-Unit and polyenne.

I note that Phoebe in particular tried to answer some of these difficult 60 questions. I did not find her answers persuasive though, for example, the claim that 'witnesses don't always come forward immediately'. True in general, Phoebe, I grant you, but surely not in this case?

The Smiths claimed that NINE adults and children had seen, at 10pm in the dark, a single man carrying a young blonde child. That would be something that would stand out to me as extremely abnormal wherever I saw something like that. It is so out-of-the ordinary. The claim that seeing single blokes carrying around young children clad in pyjamas at 10pm in the dark in Praia da Luz is all perfectly normal, was laughable (though some people fell for this idea).

But coupled with that is the fact that despite the next day seeing wall-to-wall coverage of Madeleine's disappearance on the TV, hundreds of police combing the village, police cars everywhere etc., not one of the nine even gave a thought to reporting what they had seen until, so we are told, the day after Murat was declared a suspect, Peter Smith is said to have 'phoned his father with his now-famous question: "Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child...?"

Martin Smith's behavior is so erratic, bizarre, unpredictable and impossible to explain that we must surely look at a much bigger picture behind the scenes.

To my mind CMOMM members Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory have recently made excellent attempts to explain Martin Smith's conduct and I think they bear repeating:

=================================

Copodenieve wrote (1^st post):   My theory: I think that Murat was involved with the cover-up and there was a fall out between his “clan” and the McCann “clan”. I think Martin Smith is on Murat’s side and that the sighting was set up by them without the knowledge of the McCanns.

Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn.

Things were getting messy so it was decided that it would be in the interest of all involved to bury the hatchet and work together, hence the meeting between Brian Kennedy and Martin Smith. At this meeting they then came to an agreement to work together and the sighting was then used to the advantage of the McCanns. I say “to the advantage of the McCanns” because they maintain that Gerry was at the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it should be obvious to all that it was the “phantom abductor” who the Smith’s saw.

I imagine that most people are more willing to believe this was an authentic sighting for two reasons:

1. Goncalo Amaral thought the Smith family were credible and he wanted to investigate further. However, one must remember that he never got the opportunity to do so.
2. Most people want to believe the sighting was real and the man seen was actually Gerry McCann.

I don’t understand why people think that an entire family wouldn’t commit perjury if they were seemingly respectful. My ex-husband was a lawyer (seemingly respectful) and he committed perjury a few times during our never-ending court cases for separation and divorce. A friend of mine has a huge family, bigger than the Smith family, and their reputation has to be protected at all costs, even if that means getting the kids to lie for the family.

They have a few skeletons in the cupboard and the family feel an overwhelming need to defend other family members against any kind of criticism no matter how much they have to lie. I have no doubt whatsoever that, if need be, the children would be told what to say even if this meant committing perjury and the children would do it well because of their family rules or code of honour.

Therefore, I don’t think about whether the Smith family, who are seemingly respectful, would be capable or not of committing any sort of crime. To me, that’s like saying the McCanns couldn’t have had anything to do with their daughter’s disappearance because they are doctors and therefore respectable citizens.

----

Copodenieve wrote (2^nd post, slightly abridged): I agree that none of them could have seen enough details in the dark to help draw e-fits and I can’t, for the life in me, think how an entire family could have seen a man carrying a small child on that particular night and not one of them mention it the next morning when they find out that a little girl has gone missing.

Not one family member thinks to say “Eh, remember that guy carrying the child last night? Shouldn’t we say something to someone?” I do find that very strange. After all, it’s not as if they saw dozens of people in the street that night.

I think Mr. Smith knew Murat for the same reason Verdi has stated; they lived in the same small community where there were few English residents and they would most likely stick together.

I lived in a small tourist village in Mallorca and all English residents knew each other despite there being lots of us. We all went in the same bars, restaurants, shops, gyms, hairdressers, doctors, nursery schools...and in the low season there were very few places open, so we congregated even more. We weren’t all on friendly terms with each other but we all knew each other and spent a lot of time in each other’s company, especially in low season.

----

Rogue-a-Tory wrote (slightly abridged):    I concur with [Copodenieve’s] theory - but think it should be expanded a little. My theory is this.

Murat had been framed by Tanner together with the British Police profilers, CEOP and MI5. He’d agreed to be a patsy to deflect the heat away from the McCanns after the Krokowski lead had been unwound - but Murat was in the deep stuff. Was MI5 about to cut him free, let him take the rap because he was expendable? Possibly, so he needed an alibi.

I believe Smith knew Murat and agreed to help. Smith created that important diversion away from Murat. Murat blames the McCanns for getting him in right in the doggy doo and wants payback, in more ways than one.

When the McCanns return to England, Smith is encouraged to stiffen up his evidence by making the ‘Easyjet Steps’ pronouncement. The McCanns were fleeing their arguido status in Portugal and with the Smith evidence, they’re firmly in the picture. Fortunately Gordon Brown steps in – and Amaral never gets the chance to disprove the Smiths’ evidence and expose them.

But the Smithman efits are really interesting. I believe they’re fake. But why make them look so much like Gerry? A good friend of mine knew little of the case in 2013. He saw the efits on Crimewatch and blurted to me, ‘It’s Gerry McCann’. Well confusion is good, isn’t it? By 2013 and the McCanns had their watertight alibi, or so they thought. Anyone in MSM that blurted out the same as my friend would be sued. There’d be more money for the Fund and there was no chance of a case from Grange coming along nor the PJ opening its case. Job done, now Martin Smith needs to keep his head down, until someone in TM clicks their fingers. Presumably that’s now happened.

====

ETA: In answer to Phoebe's last post, where she said: "Not a single person has ever contradicted Martin Smith's claim to only have known Murat by sight..."

REPLY: In one of the SMITHMAN threads I have demonstrated that Martin Smith and his family made several contradictory statements about how well he knew Murat, one of which was: "He has known Murat for years and met him several times". Just for a start, Phoebe, how can we possibly make a judgment on which one of these contradictory statements is the true one (indeed, if any of them are true)?

These are the relevant facts:
1. The Smiths claimed to have seen a single man carrying a toddler in pyjamas at 10pm on a cold early May night
2. That was the very night Madeleine was reported missing and there was an international media blitz the very next day
3. The Smiths did nothing, day after day after day
4. Murat, who Martin Smith knew, was arrested on 15 May
5. On the very next day (16 May), Martin Smith contacted the police for the first time, telling them he was adamant the man was not Robert Murat
6. On 20 September 2007 he told the police he was 60-80% sure that the man was Gerry McCann, and
7. Three months later he changed his mind and for the past 10 years and three months has been working alongside the McCanns and their advisers.

This needs a heck of a lot of explanation and IMO Copodeneive and Rogue-a-Tory have come up with credible scenarios

by Verdi 20.03.18 21:10

polyenne wrote:It is your opinion that Murat’s arguido status and Smiths call are somehow intertwined. It could also be yet another strange coincidence

If this is in reply to my post, it is not my opinion, the information is referenced in the PJ files and Dr Gonçalo Amaral's summation of the investigation before he was removed as case coordinator.

I provided the information, I can't understand why you are disputing it.

by Verdi 20.03.18 21:13

Mark Willis wrote:I would reckon that the Smiths, Murat and Gerry were all well acquainted before May 3rd 2007.

by Phoebe 20.03.18 21:45

@ Tony Bennett. This week the police here suspended a 9 day search of woodland in Cork for a woman who went missing exactly a year ago today. The catalyst for that search was a tip off from a member of the public who finally came forward just before Christmas to say they he had seen suspicious activity in those woods around March 20th almost 9 months previously. Apparently, this witness reported seeing a woman (who resembled the missing woman's description) enter the woods with a man (who resembled someone known to the missing woman) but only the man emerged from the woods later. What are we to make of the delay in reporting this. Does it mean this eye-witness is somehow involved with the foul play suspected or is trying to thwart the police. Of course it doesn't. People are strange sometimes! From personal experience I can recount that I once had the dreadful task of revealing something to the family of double murder victims. I expected them to be aghast at what I recounted re the premeditation behind the act (something that was being covered up by both the killer and the police) They did not want to get involved or rock the boat and this was their OWN family who had been murdered!! Many people are, for whatever reason, reluctant to involve themselves in notorious events. It does not make them complicit, just rather self-serving and eager to protect themselves from any negative repercussions. I suspect the Smiths fall into this category and that it was only through being urged by others after they returned home that they decided to get involved. As it turns out, their sighting, no matter when it was reported, would not and has not resulted in the apprehension of anyone. The "abductor" (if that's who they thought they had seen) was long gone by the following morning. Would their reporting of the sighting on the 4th have changed anything - unlikely. What could they tell police - a man carrying a child went thataway last night. The police were already combing PdL as it was and with a fine tooth-comb. As for a man carrying a sleeping child being unusual, I spend quite a lot of time in a seaside village in Spain where family have a property It's a run of the mill occurrance there, especially during tourist season.

edited to add - Martin Smith has been REPORTED BY THE MEDIA to have made "contradictory statements" that is not the same as Martin Smith MADE any contradictory statements. Since when has anything written in the press re the Madeleine case been taken as truth!

by Julie R 20.03.18 22:12

For what it's worth I don't believe the Smiths are complicit in the cover up. I believe they saw someone. Who? I haven't a clue but my gut feeling is that they were heading from the Ocean club area (imo Murat's) to the residence of Sergey Malinka (not his parents the one on R. 25 de Abril), given the route they had taken. As I said, just my opinion.

by Basil with a brush 21.03.18 3:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn.

....something? That's a little vague, to say the least.

For what?

For not interpreting enough/helpful or both, information from the local investigation?

For fouling up with the disposal of a cadaver? Thus causing it to have to be moved again later on.

For being a little overweight?

For having a lazy eye?

Come on....for what exactly, am I to believe, he may be being taught a lesson?

To put someone in the frame for something like that, can only lead me to think that he had more than a fair hand in a little person's demise. You've got to be on some level of evil otherwise.

Help me out here please eek

by **Tony Bennett** 21.03.18 7:06

Basil with a brush wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Murat being framed for the "abduction" was to teach him a lesson for something and Martin Smith helped Murat out by framing Gerry in turn.

....something? That's a little vague, to say the least.

For what?

For not interpreting enough/helpful or both, information from the local investigation?

For fouling up with the disposal of a cadaver? Thus causing it to have to be moved again later on.

For being a little overweight?

For having a lazy eye?

Come on....for what exactly, am I to believe, he may be being taught a lesson?

To put someone in the frame for something like that, can only lead me to think that he had more than a fair hand in a little person's demise. You've got to be on some level of evil otherwise.

Help me out here please

REPLY:

You will have to address your questions to Copodenieve. The words you quoted are not mine, but hers.

Here's a reminder of what I wrote:

"Martin Smith's behavior is so erratic, bizarre, unpredictable and impossible to explain that we must surely look at a much bigger picture behind the scenes.

To my mind CMOMM members Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory have recently made excellent attempts to explain Martin Smith's conduct and I think they bear repeating".

I believe that both Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory have made intelligent guesses as to what can explain Martin Smith's bizarre conduct, that is all I have said.

In addition I would note these relevant facts:

1. When Gerry McCann was asked if he already knew Robert Murat, he avoided eye contact with the interviewer, turned away from her, looked distinctly uncomfortable, coughed nervously, and blurted out; "I am not going to comment on that"

2. There is evidence that the 'Last Photo' was taken on Sunday, not Thursday

3. There is evidence that on early Monday someone called Robert Murat and summoned him over urgently to Portugal

4. There is proof that Murat lied comprehensively to the police about what he was really doing on Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday, 1-3 May

5. There is strong evidence that the British police and security services engaged in a (successful) campaign to 'frame' Robert Murat for Madeleine's abduction, causing him to be arrested on 15 May

6. There is also clear evidence that Jana Tanner framed Murat on 13 May and that Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield also did so on 16 & 17 May

7. There is significant evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat much better then he is admitting.

Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory in my opinion have made much better attempts than most to explain these and other bizarre aspects of this case, That is all I am saying

.

by polyenne 21.03.18 7:27

Tony, I’m interested in two of your points above.

What is the “evidence that someone called Robert Murat and summoned him to Portugal” ? A ticket was bought and within hours he was on a plane to Portugal. What evidence is there that someone called him ?

What is the SIGNIFICANT evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat. Numerous MSM articles giving different versions does not constitute significant evidence.

by Mark Willis 21.03.18 8:02

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:I would reckon that the Smiths, Murat and Gerry were all well acquainted before May 3rd 2007.

Thanks for that, Mr Verdi. The very fellow.
Gerry's answer, given his demeanour, annoyance and inability to think on his feet on that occasion, actually transparently translates as, "Yes, I did know Murat before all this".
He did not want to be hostage to fortune by saying "No!" should at some later date it was revealed that, yes, Gerry did indeed know Murat beforehand. And he could hardly say, "Yes" could he?
Again, a McCann version of "no comment" - except it spoke volumes to me and almost every other observer.

by Mark Willis 21.03.18 8:19

Those Exton eFits. Who provided the sketch artist with the details?
Was that the Smiths? If it was I thought they didn't get to see his face "that night"...?!
Also, when those eFits appeared on Crimewatch I saw two disparate faces, belonging to two disparate people.
To be perfectly honest, the one that "looks like Gerry" doesn't look like Gerry to me. Many have subsequently made numerous overlay efforts to fit the two together but to me the results have been very far from convincing.

by Basil with a brush 21.03.18 9:25

REPLY:

You will have to address your questions to Copodenieve. The words you quoted are not mine, but hers.

Here's a reminder of what I wrote:

I believe that both Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory have made intelligent guesses as to what can explain Martin Smith's bizarre conduct, that is all I have said.

Copodenieve and Rogue-a-Tory in my opinion have made much better attempts than most to explain these and other bizarre aspects of this case, That is all I am saying.

Mr Bennett, I was aware that you were quoting two others. My question wasn't aimed at yourself specifically.

I was hoping anybody may shed some light on my question.

While I wouldn't argue with many of the points you raise regarding the Smiths and their alleged sighting. I was extremely curious as to the loose 'Something'.

I just find that a little disconcerting.

If nobody here can enlighten me further as to what that 'Something' may be, is there a link where those said users you mention, might elaborate more?

Thanks Mr B smilie

by jazega 21.03.18 9:31

polyenne wrote:Tony, I’m interested in two of your points above.

What is the “evidence that someone called Robert Murat and summoned him to Portugal” ? A ticket was bought and within hours he was on a plane to Portugal. What evidence is there that someone called him ?

What is the SIGNIFICANT evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat. Numerous MSM articles giving different versions does not constitute significant evidence.

Did Murat not book his flight Friday night/Saturday morning.I am sure someone posted the itinerary last year

by polyenne 21.03.18 9:53

Jazega : I was led to understand Murat’s Flybe flight from Exeter was booked very late on 30 April and was one of the first flights out on 1 May.

by sallypelt 21.03.18 11:08

461 to 462 Letter detailing anonymous denouncement of Robert Murat

02-Processos Volume II PJ Record 8th May 2007-

At about 20.00 the police received a phone call from a number that could not be identified, from a person with a female voice speaking in correct Portuguese, who did not want to be identified for reasons of safety. She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police. When asked who she was referring to she said it was an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, who has an English mother, who speaks this language very well, who was near the area since the disappearance of the little girl, supposedly with the intention of helping the investigation. She said this man was called Robert and that he used to consult Internet chats of a pretty heavy sexual nature. He would also use Internet for contacts with different acquaintances he had in other countries, especially in the UK. She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed. This is why she wanted to alert the authorities about the characteristics of this man, who, in her opinion, could have sexual motives and opportunity, knowing the area perfectly for committing or collaborating in this type of crime.

The above is take from Robert Murat’s PJ files. The question is, who made this phone call, and what was the reason for the call? According to the snipped piece, it was “from a person with a female voice speaking correct Portuguese”. Was the call made to frame him, because it was part of a “bigger plan”?

“The biggest f***-up on the planet" – Robert Murat.

by Verdi 21.03.18 12:06

polyenne wrote:
What is the SIGNIFICANT evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat.

Martin Smith - 26th May 2007

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

Gonçalo Amaral - The Truth of the Lie

He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.

----------

Stands to reason anyway. A small community housing a large percentage of resident and regular visitors from other parts of Europe, everybody knows everybody - they make it their business, with naff all else to do with their idle days. Anybody who holidays abroad must have overheard those frequently used words .... 'thank god to find someone who speak English' or .... 'can you direct me to the nearest egg and baconry' or .... 'where is the boozer'.

Birds of a feather flock together.

by Verdi 21.03.18 21:55

Phoebe wrote: Funny that neither the McCanns nor Mitchell attempted to contact the Smiths directly as soon as their sighting became public in May 07.

The Smith sighting was public knowledge in May 2007? That's news to me - where does this information come from?

As an aside..

Peter Daniel Smith witness statement - 26th May 2007

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

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

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

So that's three witnesses who gave official statements and the rest of the Smith family together on the night of 3rd May 2007 but not one of them thinks the stranger seen on the streets might have been connected with the missing child?

by Phoebe 22.03.18 0:29

News leaks out about the Smiths’ sighting in the Drogheda Independent. It is just 11 days after their interviews in Portugal. The article, by Angela McCormick, tells us:

Local family may have seen missing Maddy

“A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal. The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz. They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police. The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations. The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent… A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise’, said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor”.

It is not known who leaked this information to the Drogheda Independent.

@ Verdi. My mistake, it was June 7th 2007, eleven days after their P.J. statement that the news first became public in Ireland (where the McCanns have oodles of relatives who, I presume, passed on this new information (that is, if their friends in the Leic. police had not already done so)

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