Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

roy rovers wrote:There was on item about the case on the tv news last night. Sorry can't remember the channel. The interviewer phoned Martin Smith who said words to the effect hat he was of the opinion that it was Maddie he saw that night. Yet when he first came forward it was because he saw Gerry getting off the plane with one of the twins not Maddie. Seems his confidence in identification has switched from Gerry to Maddie because in the tv phone call he made no mention of identifying Gerry.

Thank you Roy R.   That makes no sense to me, how many more changes in statements is it going to take before SY re-interview everyone?

Cerinthe wrote:The Smith sighting being Gerry is likely because of two things: firstly Mr Smith identified Gerry, and secondly it would explain what happened to the body, which if there wasn't an abduction is still a mystery to be solved.  

A tourist in a small resort he didn't know well would have very limited options at that point, especially if he didn't have any transport.   To prove an abduction the body would have had to have been taken from the apartment.  If Smithman isn't Gerry then the question remains where did Madeleine go, and how?

 McCanns hired a buggy during the holiday, don't know if used for one day, makes more sense to retain it until home time and they certainly used one for the twins after MAY 3rd, doubt family brought over their own ,maybe they did.

 Either way, there is a probability that after the family beach trip which was not a success due to the weather, there was a buggy available to the McCanns, a   handy way of transporting a child in darkness and in plain sight.

 Not used on 3rd though because there would have been no way to hide a face...why a head against shoulder was needed imo...

 to be seen but not by a big group and for sure not to be recognised.

 imo Gerry McCann is way too clever and cunning to take the risk of carrying a dead child through the streets of PdL.

Having read the above debate with interest, I'll now throw my views in, (for what they're worth!)
This is how I see it thus far.

Martin Smith co-owns an apt, not far away, in Estrela da Luz.
He says he uses it around 3 times each year.

Re How well Smith and Murat know each other.

Smith has said in statements that he has met Murat on a few occasions, which is interesting to note. It could well be that they have come across each other during some of the Smiths' thrice yearly holidays there. Their relationship could be very casual, with him just being a local guy they have come to recognise and have occasionally chatted with in a bar. There is also, of course, the possibility that they know each other better than has been admitted. However, I have yet to see anything to substantiate this. So for me, it just remains a possibility in the back of my mind. Not to be ruled out, but I'd like to see more evidence of further links between them before being convinced of this.


Re Whether or not the smiths did see a man carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description.

I think it is highly probable that they did, as [unless they were involved in trying to sway the investigation for illegitimate reasons, yet unknown and yet to be substantiated,] I can see no reason why the family members would all lie about doing so. 

Re Visit from Kennedy

BK apparently chose to involve himself in this one case. No other case before or since, that I know of. Did he attempt to help the parents' of April Jones in their desperate search for her? Has he offered his assistance to the Needham family?

Witnesses in this case have described his "heavy-handed" tactics. I believe that BK was part of the "mcTeam" - a group of people who were determined that K&G would never face charges on any level, and that the collective stories of the T9 be believed. Other objectives of the McTeam clearly involve marketing, collecting money, legal defence, public image salvation and commencing legal proceedings against those who are sceptical of the "official" story. I believe this team were actively trying to direct the course of the investigation to a fixed agenda. BK's motives are unclear and have been the subject of much speculation. I believe he saw Smith, questioned him about what he saw and, very probably, ultimately influenced several additions to Smith's statement. I believe part of his mission was to make the man the Smiths had seen look more like JT's bundleman and less like Gerry and to ensure that he did not repeat publicly his belief that there was a 60-80% likelihood that it was Gerry.
I believe the Smiths did the equivalent of photo-fits. Perhaps these efits looked too much like Gerry and were therefore held back. Or perhaps the "private investigators" altered them to create some confusion, but then decided not to use them as they only wanted to use the Smith-man as though he was the same person as Tanner-man, this bolstering the abduction scenario.


Re Whether the man could have been Gerry.


That depends on whether we can pin down anything more specific about the timings of these events.
In particular:
1. How certain is Smiths' timing? 

I think that the till receipt from Kelly's was guess-work. I believe the PJ took the till roll receipt for something like 20.00-00.00 and then made an assumption about which receipt was the Smiths'. [n.b. I need to re-read the files to confirm this, as it's from memory. I hope to get chance later. Also: Need to check dates as to when this till receipt was produced and whether Smith had his original receipt. ] 

2. We also need to re-read all available statements about when the "alarm" was given by Kate - what time and who was there at the time. Who had been missing from the table that evening, at what times and for exactly how long.

My feeling is that it was certainly possible, but if so, then it was earlier than 10 o'clock.

Whether the child could have been Madeleine
 
It is possible. She wasn't in her room and we have yet to establish what heppened to her.
I think it equally possible, however that it was not her. Which leaves 2 alternatives: a "decoy", or a child who should have been where she was at that time: being carried home by a parent.


Whether the man with child was a completely innocent person going about his business

It appears (from quickly googling) that babysitting or childcare is widely offered to guests staying in single apartments, villas and hotels/complexes in the area. It is perfectly plausible, then, that this was a man carrying his sleeping daughter home.


My current belief:
Most likely: The Smiths saw someone. But the man was an innocent father carrying his child home.
Less likely, but possible: They saw GM with Madeleine, but at a slightly earlier time than has been stated.
Even less likely, but still possible: GM (or another insider) was carrying Amelie (or other blonde girl) as a "fake abductor", wanting to be seen but not recognised.
Least likely of all possible scenarios: This was a random stranger who had just abducted a child he doesn't know from her bed, then took her for a longer than necessary walk through PDL, without her waking up at all. Highly improbable.

imo Gerry McCann is way too clever and cunning to take the risk of carrying a dead child through the streets of PdL.



yes he is ....but if time was essential ....some times you have to take risks IMO

Tony Bennett wrote:

Estelle wrote:IMO there are only three possibilities if you consider motive and have now read all the posts and objections on this thread. 

1. That Martin Smith did not see any such man but made the statements on behalf of Robert Murat who could have even begged him to do so and given him the extra information to make it sound more credible. Perhaps in the beginning, Robert Murat could have even asked Smith to make the statement to give more credibility to the abduction scenario. But as he took some time to do it, team McCann decided to go along with Jane Tanner's sighting.  

But why would 9 people lie?  If Robert Murat was a willing patsy, I can only accept that he would suggest to Martin Smith to say it was Gerry 60-80% if they had not paid Murat already.  

His motive?  Covering up for Robert Murat then putting Gerry in because Murat had not been paid hence the later visits of Kennedy. 

2.  Gerry McCann carrying a dead Maddie - IMO he would not have had time to put the body somewhere safe and be back at the OC by 10pm. ideally it should have been put in a freezer and I do not think he would have had time to find one.

I cannot explain the motive of this one as it sounds too far-fetched. 

3. Gerry McCann carrying a sedated blonde girl - either Amelie or Jane Tanner's daughter - to fake the abduction hoping to be seen but not recognised then hurrying back to the OC and putting her back into bed again. But better still, one of the tapas men could have been waiting in the next street to Kelly's Bar waiting for Gerry to give him the child so that Gerry could run back there as fast as he could. A car could even have been waiting there for him. This third one relies on an earlier death scenario.   

Motive?  To give credence to the abduction scenario but Martin Smith took too long to report it so they went along with Jane's sighting.

 Well, there is at least a fourth option, Estelle, namely that this 'Smith sighting' was of someone else - a man carrying a child on his own - no partner or frriend or family with him, with no pushchair, in her pyjamas, on a coldish (as all agree except perhaps Gerry McCann) early May night. I reject that as manifestly unlikely - and I'm supported in that by the fact the person (f there ever was one) has not come forward to eliminate himself and no-one else has seen him in the past 6.5 years either.

You reject Option 2 on the grounds that the timings are wrong and the motive is 'far-fetched'. I fully agree with you for those and other reasons.

Option 3 is equally far-fetched IMO. You say he might have been 'hoping to be seen but not recognised'. Your possible scenario for Option 3 is extremely convoluted and there is zero evidence for it.

So we must return to look at Option 1 - a fabrication by Martin Smith and some members of his family.

Points:

1. Do we know if he actually contacted the Portuguese police (by 'phone from Ireland) before or after Robert Murat was pulled in for questioning on Monday 14 May? I am not sure that we do.  If it was after, this would back up the suggestion that he made these statements, and got two other members of his family to do so, because of some sense of obligation to Murat. Or, as you suggest, was asked by Murat to help him out.

2. You say: "But as he took some time to [make his statement, Team McCann decided to go along with Jane Tanner's sighting". REPLY: The Tapas 9 had already irrevocably committed themselves to the 9.15pm 'sighting' of 'Tannerman' by writing down two timelines with this 'information' on it on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Sainsbury's Activity Sticker Book.

3. You ask: "Why would 9 people lie?" I think it was only 3 or 4 of the family who made formal statements, am I right?  As to why people lie, we discussed this up the thread. They lie for 101 different reasons - and more.

4. Why did Smith say he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry? I suggest this line of thinking: He was still helping Murat. He wanted to help Murat further. He was fully aware of course that the McCanns had both been pulled in for questioning and made suspects. He therefore capitalised on this to put Gerry in the frame - knowing perhaps that Goncalo Amaral and his team had already taken a keen interest in his earlier claims, and got him over from Ireland to make a statement. Perhaps he thought he would pressurise the McCanns into taking the heat off Murat - which four of them (JT, RO, FP and RO'B) had already spectacularly done on 13, 14 and 15 May. Just two months after Smith's claims made on 9 September came the very important KENNEDY-MURAT SUMMIT MEETING in Portugal. After that, many things changed.

5. There are at least half a dozen reasons given on this thread so far for severe doubt as to whether Martin Smith and his family members can be depended on as reliable and accurate witnesses.


P.S., I hope you are well, Estelle

The more I look into the Smith sighting the more I am questioning it. For example, MS said they left the bar early because "his son was leaving early the next morning". Has the question been asked why the son had to leave "early" the next day, and what time was early. Also, the Smiths had children with them. I don't think that 10:00 PM is considered early to be returning home. Also, the employee at Kelly's Bar doesn't remember seeing the Smith's there. Surely, a family of nine wouldn't be something you'd forget? Also, did any other employee at Kelly's Bar, if there  was more than one on that night, see them. Moreover, if there WAS only one employee working that night, that tells me that Kelly's can't be that big, and nine people descending on the place all at one would be noticed, surely?

[quote="sallypelt"][quote="Tony Bennett"][quote="Estelle"]IMO there are only three possibilities if you consider motive and have now read all the posts and objections on this thread. 

REMOVED.

My pc is going crazy for some reason

quote LdeB  :    Less likely, but possible: They saw GM with Madeleine, but at a slightly earlier time than has been stated.
Even less likely, but still possible: GM (or another insider) was carrying Amelie (or other blonde girl) as a "fake abductor", wanting to be seen but not recognised.

 Could you say why you think the second scenario even less likely than the first? Interested to hear your views.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Estelle wrote:IMO there are only three possibilities if you consider motive and have now read all the posts and objections on this thread. 

1. That Martin Smith did not see any such man but made the statements on behalf of Robert Murat who could have even begged him to do so and given him the extra information to make it sound more credible. Perhaps in the beginning, Robert Murat could have even asked Smith to make the statement to give more credibility to the abduction scenario. But as he took some time to do it, team McCann decided to go along with Jane Tanner's sighting.  

But why would 9 people lie?  If Robert Murat was a willing patsy, I can only accept that he would suggest to Martin Smith to say it was Gerry 60-80% if they had not paid Murat already.  

His motive?  Covering up for Robert Murat then putting Gerry in because Murat had not been paid hence the later visits of Kennedy. 

2.  Gerry McCann carrying a dead Maddie - IMO he would not have had time to put the body somewhere safe and be back at the OC by 10pm. ideally it should have been put in a freezer and I do not think he would have had time to find one.

I cannot explain the motive of this one as it sounds too far-fetched. 

3. Gerry McCann carrying a sedated blonde girl - either Amelie or Jane Tanner's daughter - to fake the abduction hoping to be seen but not recognised then hurrying back to the OC and putting her back into bed again. But better still, one of the tapas men could have been waiting in the next street to Kelly's Bar waiting for Gerry to give him the child so that Gerry could run back there as fast as he could. A car could even have been waiting there for him. This third one relies on an earlier death scenario.   

Motive?  To give credence to the abduction scenario but Martin Smith took too long to report it so they went along with Jane's sighting.

 Well, there is at least a fourth option, Estelle, namely that this 'Smith sighting' was of someone else - a man carrying a child on his own - no partner or frriend or family with him, with no pushchair, in her pyjamas, on a coldish (as all agree except perhaps Gerry McCann) early May night. I reject that as manifestly unlikely - and I'm supported in that by the fact the person (f there ever was one) has not come forward to eliminate himself and no-one else has seen him in the past 6.5 years either.

You reject Option 2 on the grounds that the timings are wrong and the motive is 'far-fetched'. I fully agree with you for those and other reasons.

Option 3 is equally far-fetched IMO. You say he might have been 'hoping to be seen but not recognised'. Your possible scenario for Option 3 is extremely convoluted and there is zero evidence for it.

So we must return to look at Option 1 - a fabrication by Martin Smith and some members of his family.

Points:

1. Do we know if he actually contacted the Portuguese police (by 'phone from Ireland) before or after Robert Murat was pulled in for questioning on Monday 14 May? I am not sure that we do.  If it was after, this would back up the suggestion that he made these statements, and got two other members of his family to do so, because of some sense of obligation to Murat. Or, as you suggest, was asked by Murat to help him out.

2. You say: "But as he took some time to [make his statement, Team McCann decided to go along with Jane Tanner's sighting". REPLY: The Tapas 9 had already irrevocably committed themselves to the 9.15pm 'sighting' of 'Tannerman' by writing down two timelines with this 'information' on it on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Sainsbury's Activity Sticker Book.

3. You ask: "Why would 9 people lie?" I think it was only 3 or 4 of the family who made formal statements, am I right?  As to why people lie, we discussed this up the thread. They lie for 101 different reasons - and more.

4. Why did Smith say he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry? I suggest this line of thinking: He was still helping Murat. He wanted to help Murat further. He was fully aware of course that the McCanns had both been pulled in for questioning and made suspects. He therefore capitalised on this to put Gerry in the frame - knowing perhaps that Goncalo Amaral and his team had already taken a keen interest in his earlier claims, and got him over from Ireland to make a statement. Perhaps he thought he would pressurise the McCanns into taking the heat off Murat - which four of them (JT, RO, FP and RO'B) had already spectacularly done on 13, 14 and 15 May. Just two months after Smith's claims made on 9 September came the very important KENNEDY-MURAT SUMMIT MEETING in Portugal. After that, many things changed.

5. There are at least half a dozen reasons given on this thread so far for severe doubt as to whether Martin Smith and his family members can be depended on as reliable and accurate witnesses.


P.S., I hope you are well, Estelle

Hi Tony, thanks for your best wishes. I hope you are well too. 

I must say that you are starting to convince me to change my previous beliefs about this sighting.  

IMO now I think that there was a stronger motive for Martin Smith to do what he has done than for Gerry to carry a dead body (or alive girl) down those steps, hide the body and rush back again to the OC. 

In summary, on May 3, 2007, there was a faked abduction and two faked sightings of the so-called abductor. 

This still fits in with what I believe will be uncovered when they research the phone and creche records as I am convinced about the probability of the earlier premeditated death theory.

But for those who still think that Maddie died on May 3, 2007, the question arises about what did they do with the body before the GNR arrived if it was an accidental death?  

They had to have had time to clean up and this would have taken some time. Then make decisions as to what to do, whom to tell, what to tell, plan the faked abduction and so on and then calm down. How could they just sit there at the tapas bar dining and wining when their daughter had just died? Who would even feel like eating!

If Maddie and the twins had been in the creche all day, the twins must have witnessed her death if it occurred in the apartment and it must have happened after about 6pm. Then they are all sitting there over two hours later as if nothing is wrong. How could they do that?  

From what I have read, at least one of the waiters said that only Russell O'Brien left the table. If this is true, then Maddie must have died before 8.30pm when they went to dinner and only he could have hidden the body before 9.30 to 10pm because he was supposedly looking after his sick child. In this scenario, they would have to have either had a car ready, taken the body to the freezer in 5J or Russell or an outside person attended to it. I just can't get my head around a death occurring on May 3 within that timeframe. I have not believed in this scenario for so long now, that it appears impossible to me when I look at it again. Normal parents would have been in total shock.   

BTW this is not to discredit Amaral's theory or book but I think there is a lot more to it. He needed more time and has had to stick with the PJ files.

garfy wrote:imo Gerry McCann is way too clever and cunning to take the risk of carrying a dead child through the streets of PdL.



yes he is ....but if time was essential ....some times you have to take risks IMO

Why not put the body in the sports bag or at least wrap it in a blanket?

Some snippets from Martin Smith's first statement, 26th May 2007

Irish nationality, he does not understand Portuguese

Visits Portugal three times a year (I would think if someone was in Portugal 3 times a year, one would be able to speak a little Portuguese, IMO)

In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day
(Has anyone said why he left early the next morning, and what time is "early"?)
Saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children
He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.

Passed this individual it would have been around 22H00

He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him

. He had an average build, 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 did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

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

The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit.
(the “not a tourist” has now become a typical Brit) The lighting doesn’t appear to be a problem for MS now.  Despite it being 10:00PM on 3 May, he can tell that the child is a “typical Brit”

—“Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further”. (Of course he can’t explain this further. He’s already said the child was a “typical Brit”)


More to follow

galena wrote:

garfy wrote:imo Gerry McCann is way too clever and cunning to take the risk of carrying a dead child through the streets of PdL.



yes he is ....but if time was essential ....some times you have to take risks IMO

Why not put the body in the sports bag or at least wrap it in a blanket?

Yes, that's it. There would have been so many better ways to carry a body. But if he did, the only motive IMO would have been to fake the abduction to give it some credence and waste many years of people's money and time in the meantime.  IMO Maddie was to be the McCann's cash cow due to the sympathy factor!

sallypelt wrote:Some snippets from Martin Smith's first statement, 26th May 2007

Irish nationality, he does not understand Portuguese

Visits Portugal three times a year (I would think if someone was in Portugal 3 times a year, one would be able to speak a little Portuguese, IMO)

In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day
(Has anyone said why he left early the next morning, and what time is "early"?)
Saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children
He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.

Passed this individual it would have been around 22H00

He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him

. He had an average build, 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 did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

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

The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit.
(the “not a tourist” has now become a typical Brit) The lighting doesn’t appear to be a problem for MS now.  Despite it being 10:00PM on 3 May, he can tell that the child is a “typical Brit”

—“Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further”. (Of course he can’t explain this further. He’s already said the child was a “typical Brit”)


More to follow

This is worth analysing VERY carefully




— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.

— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
—(No asking "Is she asleep" and "the man didn't answer")

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. (but it could have been Madeleine, after seeing HER photograph)
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars (he was often drunk and chatted to everyone)

Now, this is the piece that I find had to accept, when the Kelly's Bar employee doesn't remember them being in the bar. Take particular notice of the ages of the children.

At being asked, states that when he saw the individual he was accompanied by his wife, MARY SMITH, his son, PETER SMITH, his daughter-in-law, S***, his grandchildren of 13 and 6 years of age (children of PETER) TA*** and CO**, his daughter AOIFE 12 years of age), and his other two grandchildren (AI****** (10 years old) and EI**** (four years old). These are children of his daughter B***** who was in Ireland.

More to follow

from today's CORREO DA MANHA :


Key witness identified the father of Maddie


Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance


   The testimony of one of the Smith family who  identified Gerry McCann as the man seen on the night of the disappearance of Maddie, carrying a child in the direction of the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e -fits  released now by the British police are based on the testimony of the Smith family. "

 So says  Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the PJ investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, speaking to  the Morning Post. And following the release of e -fit pictures by Scotland Yard, drawings made of  the principal suspect in the alleged child abduction, May 3, 2007 - who claim to have been made ​​based on the testimony of an Irish family who vacationed in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared

russiandoll wrote:from today's CORREO DA MANHA :


Key witness identified the father of Maddie


Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance


   The testimony of one of the Smith family who  identified Gerry McCann as the man seen on the night of the disappearance of Maddie, carrying a child in the direction of the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e -fits  released now by the British police are based on the testimony of the Smith family. "

 So says  Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the PJ investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, speaking to  the Morning Post. And following the release of e -fit pictures by Scotland Yard, drawings made of  the principal suspect in the alleged child abduction, May 3, 2007 - who claim to have been made ​​based on the testimony of an Irish family who vacationed in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared

So, Dr Amaral is saying that the e-fits are not from the Smiths? I have great faith in GA's findings. If the e-fits aren't from the Smiths, then where do they come from? The plot thickens

roy rovers wrote:There was on item about the case on the tv news last night. Sorry can't remember the channel. The interviewer phoned Martin Smith who said words to the effect hat he was of the opinion that it was Maddie he saw that night.

Yet when he first came forward it was because he saw Gerry getting off the plane with one of the twins not Maddie. 

Seems his confidence in identification has switched from Gerry to Maddie because in the tv phone call he made no mention of identifying Gerry.

When Smith first came forward, he identified Gerry because of the way he was carrying Sean and his gait apparently. 

So now he comes forward and claims he saw Maddie that night and failed to mention Gerry. I wish the interviewer had asked him if he still thought it could have been Gerry carrying Maddie!

I guess for Smith. Job was done. Murat off the hook. Maybe now he has been bribed to not identify Gerry as the abductor.  So will we now be waiting for the SY to say it was another father carrying his child home?  

Or have SY, the McCanns and/or Kennedy told Smith that they want him to say this to give more credence to the abduction theory. 

For me, this also gives more credence to the idea that the Smith's sighting did not happen.

Estelle wrote:

galena wrote:

garfy wrote:imo Gerry McCann is way too clever and cunning to take the risk of carrying a dead child through the streets of PdL.



yes he is ....but if time was essential ....some times you have to take risks IMO

Why not put the body in the sports bag or at least wrap it in a blanket?

Yes, that's it. There would have been so many better ways to carry a body. But if he did, the only motive IMO would have been to fake the abduction to give it some credence and waste many years of people's money and time in the meantime.  IMO Maddie was to be the McCann's cash cow due to the sympathy factor!

The idea of a faked abduction is interesting but I find it hard to credit that anyone would put themselves in the highly compromising situation of carrying a blonde child through the streets on the night you knew a story would break about a blonde child being abducted?  If you were caught on CCTV or someone recognised you what on earth story could you give to exonerate yourself?  Why take the risk when it's much easier to get one of your party to say they witnessed the abduction?

And I still think it would be a natural thing to wrap the child in a blanket in case people notice she's not alive - I also think an abductor would also be likely to take a blanket though I suppose you could argue you that a highly deranged individual might not think about that.

I think myself that it's possible that the Smiths had a few drinks, left the bar early (I'm Irish and I think 10 is early to leave a bar as well  )  and saw something - maybe a man carrying a child, maybe something else and thought something more of it.  Later on they heard about Madeleine disappearing and Murat being accused and went over the sighting and decided it must be the missing child carried by a man who wasn't Murat.  It's quite possible that details of the actual case got mixed up with their (probably dim) memory and Smithman was the result.  It would be ironic if someone came forward who was actually carrying a bundle of washing.  Memory is deceiving and the mind can play strange tricks!

Estelle wrote:

roy rovers wrote:There was on item about the case on the tv news last night. Sorry can't remember the channel. The interviewer phoned Martin Smith who said words to the effect hat he was of the opinion that it was Maddie he saw that night.

Yet when he first came forward it was because he saw Gerry getting off the plane with one of the twins not Maddie. 

Seems his confidence in identification has switched from Gerry to Maddie because in the tv phone call he made no mention of identifying Gerry.

When Smith first came forward, he identified Gerry because of the way he was carrying Sean and his gait apparently. 

So now he comes forward and claims he saw Maddie that night and failed to mention Gerry. I wish the interviewer had asked him if he still thought it could have been Gerry carrying Maddie!

I guess for Smith. Job was done. Murat off the hook. Maybe now he has been bribed to not identify Gerry as the abductor.  So will we now be waiting for the SY to say it was another father carrying his child home?  

Or have SY, the McCanns and/or Kennedy told Smith that they want him to say this to give more credence to the abduction theory. 

For me, this also gives more credence to the idea that the Smith's sighting did not happen.

No, not quite. The McCann's didn't return to the UK until September. Martin Smith give his first statement on 26th May 2007, 4 months before Gerry was seen with his son coming down the steps of the plane

Key witness identified Maddie's father
Key witness identified Maddie's father
21 October 2013 | Posted by astro Leave a Comment

Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key deposition was devalued at the time of disappearance

by Sara G. Carrilho

"The testimony of one of the members of the Smith family that identified Gerry McCann as being the man he saw on the night that Maddie disappeared, carrying a child in his arms as he walked towards the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e-fit that the British police now made public is based on the Smith family's witness statement."

The statements are from Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, to Correio da Manhã. They appear following the publication of e-fits by the Scotland Yard that point one of the drawings out as being that of the main suspect over the presumed abduction of the English child, on the 3rd of May of 2007 - which they say was based on the testimony of an Irish family that was on holiday in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms", Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night", the former coordinator explained.

For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside". "The McCann hired detectives who made a portrait, a man that resembled Gerry, in order to devalue the deposition", he concluded.

To-date, we have to remind ourselves that there's no evidence to say that Gerry McCann WASN'T in the OC complex at 10:00PM on the night of the 3rd. On the contrary, everything, so far, points to him being there. So, if it can be shown for certain, that Gerry McCann WAS at the OC complex, then the man Martin Smith claims to have seen CANNOT have been GM, no matter how much people want it to have been him.

StraightThinking wrote:But the alarm was raised and the Tapas meal ended just before 21.40 (not 22.00), and the Smith sighting was at 21.55, so the jigsaw pieces are different from the ones we were originally given

Where did this information come from and is it more reliable than the original 22.00 time? 

But if the alarm was raised at 21.40 this further strengthens Gerry's alibi.  Who got the body out of the apartment, and how did Gerry manage to be carrying it some 15 minutes after the alarm was raised?

FWIW - I am still considering the possibility that Smithman could have been RO carrying his daughter either as a decoy, or more likely because he had induced sickness in her, could have been heading to Luzdoc for assistance, and 'trying to bring her round in the fresh air'.... because he knew what the 'sleep aid' had done to Madeleine....

IF GM can be placed elsewhere at the time of the Smith sighting, it would suit the 'team's' agenda for the photofits to look like him as they know very well it can be proved not to be him....

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms",

The above piece flies in the face of MS's statement of the 26th May 2007. Something stinks here, and it's not sea bass

Edited to add, that if Dr Amaral believes that Smith DID see GM, then Dr Amaral doesn't believe that GM was in the OC complex at 10:00PM as everything we know, so far, points to the fact that he was.

BRING ON THE PHONE CALLS ANALYSIS

sallypelt wrote:To-date, we have to remind ourselves that there's no evidence to say that Gerry McCann WASN'T in the OC complex at 10:00PM on the night of the 3rd. On the contrary, everything, so far, points to him being there. So, if it can be shown for certain, that Gerry McCann WAS at the OC complex, then the man Martin Smith claims to have seen CANNOT have been GM, no matter how much people want it to have been him.

You have hit the nail on the head here.  This is why there never has been much speculation about this sighting though it has been known for years.  The concept that Gerry would be carrying that body of a dead child about the resort, 10 minutes before Kate raised the alarm (or 15 minutes later) by the 21.40 timeline is something I find quite impossible to believe.

(I wonder why all the sightings seem to be male and not a female or a couple? That would be far less suspicious and it's certainly not unknown ... )

sallypelt wrote:

Estelle wrote:

roy rovers wrote:There was on item about the case on the tv news last night. Sorry can't remember the channel. The interviewer phoned Martin Smith who said words to the effect hat he was of the opinion that it was Maddie he saw that night.

Yet when he first came forward it was because he saw Gerry getting off the plane with one of the twins not Maddie. 

Seems his confidence in identification has switched from Gerry to Maddie because in the tv phone call he made no mention of identifying Gerry.

When Smith first came forward, he identified Gerry because of the way he was carrying Sean and his gait apparently. 

So now he comes forward and claims he saw Maddie that night and failed to mention Gerry. I wish the interviewer had asked him if he still thought it could have been Gerry carrying Maddie!

I guess for Smith. Job was done. Murat off the hook. Maybe now he has been bribed to not identify Gerry as the abductor.  So will we now be waiting for the SY to say it was another father carrying his child home?  

Or have SY, the McCanns and/or Kennedy told Smith that they want him to say this to give more credence to the abduction theory. 

For me, this also gives more credence to the idea that the Smith's sighting did not happen.

No, not quite. The McCann's didn't return to the UK until September. Martin Smith give his first statement on 26th May 2007, 4 months before Gerry was seen with his son coming down the steps of the plane

I realised that but I was using the poster's words 

 "Yet when he first came forward it was because he saw Gerry getting off the plane with one of the twins not Maddie. "


because I did not understand why he said "not Maddie" as she was dead and was sort of subtly correcting him.

galena wrote:

sallypelt wrote:To-date, we have to remind ourselves that there's no evidence to say that Gerry McCann WASN'T in the OC complex at 10:00PM on the night of the 3rd. On the contrary, everything, so far, points to him being there. So, if it can be shown for certain, that Gerry McCann WAS at the OC complex, then the man Martin Smith claims to have seen CANNOT have been GM, no matter how much people want it to have been him.

You have hit the nail on the head here.  This is why there never has been much speculation about this sighting though it has been known for years.  The concept that Gerry would be carrying that body of a dead child about the resort, 10 minutes before Kate raised the alarm (or 15 minutes later) by the 21.40 timeline is something I find quite impossible to believe.

(I wonder why all the sightings seem to be male and not a female or a couple? That would be far less suspicious and it's certainly not unknown ... )

So, SY has eliminated bundleman. and if it can be shown that the man with the child, that MS saw (or didn't see), then we are back to the missing blue bag and the pink blanket.