"Maddie Was Here" - A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence

jd wrote:THE SIGHTING BY THE IRISH SMITH FAMILY

Although there is no mention of it on Mr Edgar’s whiteboard, the Channel 4 program referred to a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a small child on the night of 3rd May 2007. The CD issued by the PJ shows that at around 21.50 on the night Madeleine was reported missing, a large family from Drogheda, Ireland -including the father Martin Smith – was walking back to their apartment when they passed a man carrying a child
Location of the Smith Sighting

On 26th May 2007 the Smiths gave the following descriptions:
The man was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes and cannot describe the colour or form of the same.

The child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a meter in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet. The individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual’s shoulders to the right of the deponent (ie over the man’s left shoulder). He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

Mrs Smith confirmed the above and stated:
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.

Members of the family returned to Portimao on 26th May 2007 and clarified their evidence – which Dr Gonçalo Amaral, who was then leading the PJ’s investigation, considered very important.

On 9th September 2007, the McCanns returned to the UK and BBC News showed them getting off an Easyjet flight. The Smith family saw the program and, from the way Gerald McCann carried his son with the child’s head over his left shoulder with hands hanging down, recognised him as the person they had seen on the night of 3rd May 2007. On 30th January 2008, Mr Smith made a further statement confirming -with 60-80% certainty – that the man he had seen carrying a child on 3rd May 2007 was Gerald McCann. Mr Smith’s wife corroborated his evidence.

How Mr McCann carried Sean Jane Tanner’s “Bundle Man”

The McCanns seem to have totally ignored the Smith family’s evidence for the past 18 months, and have never issued a photo fit of the man the Smiths saw. However, Metodo 3, the discredited investigation firm previously retained by the McCanns, spoke to the Smiths and did little but worry them.

When making the supposed “reconstruction”, Channel 4, if it was to maintain even the slightest veil of credibility, had no option but to refer to the Smith sighting. But the way they spun the evidence by suggesting it supported Miss Tanner and cleared Gerald McCann was disgraceful.
The Smith’s Evidence as Portrayed on Channel 4

It is thus no wonder that the two sightings appear to corroborate each other when Channel 4 used the same child and actor for both, dimmed the Smith scene into almost total darkness with strong back lighting -while improving that for Jane Tanner - and failed to accurately represent the way the family stated the child had been carried or what the man had been wearing. Another example of twisted evidence?

At the time Dr Amaral was dismissed, he was planning to return the Smith family to Portugal to obtain further evidence from them. His successor, Mr Rebelo, failed to do this and to this day the sighting is unresolved. There is nothing in the CD to indicate that Gerald McCann was eliminated as the man the Smith family had seen.

The Smith sighting, which was some 35 minutes later than Jane Tanner’s, was around a mile away from the Ocean Club, to the South and West. It is difficult to imagine that Miss Tanner’s abductor would have turned back, passing the Ocean Club, to be in a position where he was seen by the Smiths. At best, the two sightings, if either took place, are unrelated but the fact that the McCanns now link them, to support Jane Tanner’s evidence is disingenuous.

Now the the Smith sighting is the new "Official" story, it is worth reminding of the Team McCanns documentary "Maddie was Here" on Channel 4 in 2009........Baring in mind, that when this documentary was aired, the mccanns knew for a year about Oakley Intl efits and Smith sighting....and not only had they threatened them into silence, they also in this documentary changed the facts to support jane tanners 'sighting'

Certainly not the actions of parents looking for their daughter...quite the opposite

To those new on the facts of the mccanns, there is a detailed analyse of this whole documentary from page 1 of this topic

I am adding to this post rather late but I'm new to blogging (and the MBM case actually).

I watched the full film on youtube a few days ago - in 5 equal parts.

Apart from the points of interest discussed by other posters, there are several I'd like to add.

Most are included in part 1/5 of the film.

Firstly, at 48 seconds KM states 'I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot' (singular).

Secondly, throughout parts 1 and 5 in particular, there are various shots of the twins, with their faces obscured. Amelie clearly has quite long blond hair. At one point in part 1 she is complaining about, what look like, small plaits and she asks KM to take them out. At this point I wondered whether she might have hair extensions but it is quite obvious from all the other shots that she didn't, during filming anyway. Her hair colour, style and length is important and it's worth clicking through parts 1 and 5 to take a quick look.

Then, start watching part 1 at 5.50 mins as GM arrives home on his bicycle. Note what Amelie is wearing (top half). Now listen to what GM says at 6.12 and then freeze the image at 6.19 just as he says 'potentially she could come back'. What is that all about?! The shot at 6.19 is clearly meant to be continuous with the arrival of GM home - see clothing. Even if it was filmed on a different occasion with a child actress, what would possess the Mc's or the producer/director to use a MBM lookalike (with a short bob hairstyle) when the child is supposed to be Amelie? GM's voice over comment at the instant before the 6.22 shot may or may not be intentional with the image portrayed. Whatever the decision making behind this, the result is in bad taste and it's almost some sort of taunt at the viewer.
Very strange.

Thirdly, at 6.22/6.23 GM then goes on to say: 'that you don't know, and that she's, she's is out there and separated from you.' As he says 'that you don't know', he involuntarily nods his head; as he says 'and separated from you', he shakes his head. Also, just a point about his ear touching (feeling uncomfortable) - when he's back in 5A later in the programme, and he's discussing what he thought when he saw his daughter for the last time, the ear touch happens.

Fourthly, go back to between 6.15 and 6.19 mins in part 1. Sean is playing in a playroom. It is bright daylight and the blind is up (or similar). Now jump forward to 6.28 mins. GM, Amelie and a second unknown child are now in the darkend playroom. I think again it is intended to be a continuation (see clothing). As Sean enters the playroom, Amelie stands infront of him to the right (it looks like she was kneeling down playing with the other child). Sean skirts round the figure to his front left who then appears also to stand. They all then leave the room but you only see GM, Amelie and Sean although there is possibly a glimpse of the other childs head. Now again, if there is a friend visiting, why not just take them out of shot altogether for a minute, or film them and blur their face. Why darken the room and produce a strange sequence with an almost emphemeral child in it - I find it unnerving.

The above has little or no value in terms of working out what might or might not have happened to MBM but I feel it gives a bit of a psychological insight.

Thanks for reading.