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

by **Tony Bennett** 21.10.13 18:21

dantezebu wrote:Who is the resident who heard someone calling "madeleine......madeleine" at 21.20- 21.30?
Is there a statement?

The Carpenters.

Yes there is a long statement by Stephen Carpenter.

I think it's Mrs Carpenter who says she thought she heard someone shouting 'madeleine' - and she cam't really remember exactly when it was - so not that helpful really in telling us anyting definite.

Stephen Carpenter's account of how he just happened to walk past Murat's house the following morning (4 May) and Murat just happened to ask him as he paased by what happened last night (as if he didn't know!) and Murat told him he just happened to have a daughter the same age as Madeleine and just happened to be able to translate from English to Portuguese is - well, interesting.

Especially as it conflicts with other accounts...

by **Tony Bennett** 21.10.13 18:23

Truthandjustice wrote:Ah yes, as I thought; GA says the Smith sighting was a positive ID of GM, that it has been later made into an e fit to devalue it http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html

But actually, that's not correct.

The highest Smith put it was '60% to 80% sure'.

And he claimed to believe that, not on the basis facial recognition - but on the basis of 'the way GM was carrying his child'.

Can you imagine a defence barrister cross-examining Martin Smith?

"Mr Smith, on 26 May you said you wouldn't be able to recognise the man if you saw him again?"

SMITH: "Agreed".

"And yet four months later, you said you were sure it was him?"

SMITH: "Well 60% to 80% anyway".

"And this was on the basis of what exactly?"

SMITH: "On the basis of the way he was carrying his two-year-old child".

"Oh I see. And this is the first time in your life you've ever seen a child being carried that way...?

SMITH: "Well..."

To put it bluntly...

Smith's testimony is worthless

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 18:25

dantezebu wrote:Who is the resident who heard someone calling "madeleine......madeleine at 21.20- 21.30?
Is there a statement?

This was in the witness statement of an OC guest, whose wife mentioned someone calling "M,M" between 21.15 and 21.30

see here: Guest statement

It is very significant, because if their timing is correct, it means something happened to her before 21.30

It backs up another witness statement, by a local chef, which said he was told she was missing at 21.20

Read further down the guest statement for details

But an abduction at 21.20 wouldn't tally with Smithman because it doesn't take 35 mins to get to where the Smiths saw him

by SixMillionQuid 21.10.13 18:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:Ah yes, as I thought; GA says the Smith sighting was a positive ID of GM, that it has been later made into an e fit to devalue it http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html
But actually, that's not correct.

The highest Smith put it was '60% to 80% sure'.

And he claimed to believe that, not on the basis facial recognition - but on the basis of 'the way GM was carrying his child'.

Can you imagine a defence barrister cross-examining Martin Smith?

"Mr Smith, on 26 May you said you wouldn't be able to recognise the man if you saw him again?"

SMITH: "Agreed".

"And yet four months later, you said you were sure it was him?"

SMITH: "Well 60% to 80% anyway".

"And this was on the basis of what exactly?"

SMITH: "On the basis of the way he was carrying his two-year-old child".

"Oh I see. And this is the first time in your life you've ever seen a child being carried that way...?

SMITH: "Well..."

To put it bluntly...

Smith's testimony is worthless

Tony's right, you can't ID someone based only the way they walk, talk, or how they carry a child.

However, Mr Smith must have stuck his neck on the block for a reason so I'm wondering if there was something else about Smithman that caused him to make the 60% - 80% claim.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.10.13 18:40

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:To put it bluntly...

Smith's testimony is worthless
Tony's right, you can't ID someone based only the way they walk, talk, or how they carry a child.

However, Mr Smith must have stuck his neck on the block for a reason so I'm wondering if there was something else about Smithman that caused him to make the 60% - 80% claim.

Ah!

by sallypelt 21.10.13 18:52

Mary Smith has surfaced.

Is this the moment of Madeleine McCann's kidnapping?

THE man who has emerged as key to the Madeleine McCann inquiry assumed a man he saw carrying a blonde girl the night she disappeared was a father with his child.

oday, for the first time, the Sunday Express publishes extracts from the witness statement retired Irish businessman Martin Smith gave to detectives in Portugal.

As the hunt for the kidnappers moves shortly to Ireland for a new Scotland Yard appeal, we reveal how this crucial piece of the jigsaw was nearly lost because Mr Smith thought it was not important.

He owns an apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve coast, and was staying there with a large family group on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine was taken from an apartment at the Ocean Club.

First they went to the Dolphin restaurant and then to Kelly’s bar, near the beach.

Mr Smith’s statement, written out by a Portuguese detective, says: “After leaving the bar he (Mr Smith) travelled in the opposite direction and reached a set of stairs which gave access to Rua 25 de Abril (25th of April Street), parallel to Rua 1 de Maio (1st of May street).

“As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He is not aware where this person was headed. He assumed it was a father and daughter and thought nothing more of it.

“When he passed this individual, it must have been around 22.00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance...the next morning.

“Regarding the individual, he states that he was Caucasian, 175-180cm in height. He appeared to be 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side.

His hair was short, brown in colour. He states that the child was female, about four years of age. The child has blonde...without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. She was asleep.

“She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. The individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception.

“He states that the individual carried the child in his arms. Having already seen various photographs of Madeleine...he states that she may have been the child he saw. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been Madeleine.”

Mr Smith’s wife Mary said: “We saw a man carrying a blonde child. It was just such a normal thing to see in a holiday resort – we didn’t think anything of it at the time.”

In 2008 Mr Smith worked on e-fit images, which were released on the BBC’s Crimewatch programme last week. Detectives from Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange have had over 2,400 calls and emails since the programme last Monday.

Last week German television station ZDF staged a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3, 2007, when Maddie disappeared from her room.

A special edition of the crime programme Aktenzeichen XY - Ungeloest which is translated as "File XY - Unsolved", aired on Wednesday.

The footage - shown above - received hundreds of phone calls from members of the public.

Opps, forgot link: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

by endgame 21.10.13 18:57

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:Ah yes, as I thought; GA says the Smith sighting was a positive ID of GM, that it has been later made into an e fit to devalue it http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html
But actually, that's not correct.

The highest Smith put it was '60% to 80% sure'.

And he claimed to believe that, not on the basis facial recognition - but on the basis of 'the way GM was carrying his child'.

Can you imagine a defence barrister cross-examining Martin Smith?

"Mr Smith, on 26 May you said you wouldn't be able to recognise the man if you saw him again?"

SMITH: "Agreed".

"And yet four months later, you said you were sure it was him?"

SMITH: "Well 60% to 80% anyway".

"And this was on the basis of what exactly?"

SMITH: "On the basis of the way he was carrying his two-year-old child".

"Oh I see. And this is the first time in your life you've ever seen a child being carried that way...?

SMITH: "Well..."

To put it bluntly...

Smith's testimony is worthless
Tony's right, you can't ID someone based only the way they walk, talk, or how they carry a child.

However, Mr Smith must have stuck his neck on the block for a reason so I'm wondering if there was something else about Smithman that caused him to make the 60% - 80% claim.

I think it's perfectly possible that something in his sub conscious clicked and he genuinely thought there was something about GM that reminded him of the man he had seen. As a responsible citizen he felt he had to inform the police. I don't think there always has to be a sinister reason behind everything but, as Tony says, it is not worth very much as a piece of prosecution evidence.

I actually find it far odder that he starts to emphatically deny that it is Robert Murat but all we see is a statement. What we don't see is whether the police themselves originated that idea in interview and his response is recorded but not the question.

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 18:59

sallypelt wrote:In 2008 Mr Smith worked on e-fit images, which were released on the BBC’s Crimewatch programme last week.

So he couldn't remember his face the next day but it all came back the following year (albeit as efits of two different people)?
Yeh, right

by plebgate 21.10.13 19:03

It has been said many times before, as soon as he said he was only 60-80 percent sure, he was no good as a witness.

As Mrs. Smith has reportedly said - at the time they thought nothing of it at the time as it was such a normal thing to see. I can understand why she would not want to give a formal statement that being the case.

So still no evidence of an abduction?

by Cheshire Cat 21.10.13 19:04

endgame wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:Ah yes, as I thought; GA says the Smith sighting was a positive ID of GM, that it has been later made into an e fit to devalue it http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html
But actually, that's not correct.

The highest Smith put it was '60% to 80% sure'.

And he claimed to believe that, not on the basis facial recognition - but on the basis of 'the way GM was carrying his child'.

Can you imagine a defence barrister cross-examining Martin Smith?

"Mr Smith, on 26 May you said you wouldn't be able to recognise the man if you saw him again?"

SMITH: "Agreed".

"And yet four months later, you said you were sure it was him?"

SMITH: "Well 60% to 80% anyway".

"And this was on the basis of what exactly?"

SMITH: "On the basis of the way he was carrying his two-year-old child".

"Oh I see. And this is the first time in your life you've ever seen a child being carried that way...?

SMITH: "Well..."

To put it bluntly...

Smith's testimony is worthless
Tony's right, you can't ID someone based only the way they walk, talk, or how they carry a child.

However, Mr Smith must have stuck his neck on the block for a reason so I'm wondering if there was something else about Smithman that caused him to make the 60% - 80% claim.
I think it's perfectly possible that something in his sub conscious clicked and he genuinely thought there was something about GM that reminded him of the man he had seen. As a responsible citizen he felt he had to inform the police. I don't think there always has to be a sinister reason behind everything but, as Tony says, it is not worth very much as a piece of prosecution evidence.

I actually find it far odder that he starts to emphatically deny that it is Robert Murat but all we see is a statement. What we don't see is whether the police themselves originated that idea in interview and his response is recorded but not the question.

That is still my interpretation of Mr Smiths statements. I have also been thinking about what was said to Smith by the police. For example, from the first statement of Mr Smith:
"— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing."
Perhaps the police asked Mr Smith if the individual appeared to be a tourist (as Jane Tanner had suggested he did not look like a tourist).

by Guest 21.10.13 19:11

plebgate wrote:It has been said many times before, as soon as he said he was only 60-80 percent sure, he was no good as a witness.

As Mrs. Smith has reportedly said - at the time they thought nothing of it at the time as it was such a normal thing to see. I can understand why she would not want to give a formal statement that being the case.

So still no evidence of an abduction?

Yes, it would narrow things down. That is why SY probably want witnesses who saw this man.

The only thing I am thinking of is, if this was a father carrying a child from the crèche, then how come SY haven't already found him. They seem to have found the other fella, and how did they do that...........by looking at the attendances of that night crèche I would imagine. The names would be registered, with telephone numbers so that the nanny could get in touch with the parents if something was wrong ie child crying as in BOD and JW child the night before. Therefore SY would have all the phone numbers of people who were taking the children there that night. Yet they do not know who this man was.

This leads me to believe it was not a father carrying his child from the crèche.

by statsman 21.10.13 19:22

Am I right in reading between the lines that some posters think it's possible that Martin Smith was doing Robert Murat a favour by reporting a fictitious sighting?

Murat had just been made an arguido and the finger had been falsely pointed at him by at least 4 of the Tapas 7.

What better way of muddying the waters than by making up another sighting and then later suggesting that the person was Mr himself?

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 19:28

statsman wrote:Am I right in reading between the lines that some posters think it's possible that Martin Smith was doing Robert Murat a favour by reporting a fictitious sighting?

Yes, but I can't understand why someone would want to pervert the course of justice in these particular circumstances - RM wasn't guilty of anything so didn't need a false sighting to help him. And if MS thought he was guilty, why would he help him out anyway?

There are two things that we can conclude:
1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there
2) He wasn't an innocent local or holidaymaker because they would have come forward

And the other possibilities are...?

by endgame 21.10.13 19:28

statsman wrote:Am I right in reading between the lines that some posters think it's possible that Martin Smith was doing Robert Murat a favour by reporting a fictitious sighting?

Murat had just been made an arguido and the finger had been falsely pointed at him by at least 4 of the Tapas 7.

What better way of muddying the waters than by making up another sighting and then later suggesting that the person was Mr himself?

As I have said above I don't think you can draw that inference because you don't know whether Martin Smith volunteeerd the denial that it was RM without being asked or if it was in fact the police who asked him presumably because RM was under suspicion at the time and it would be fairly obvious for the question to be raised. If the police asked him without knowing that he knew Murat [why would they know that?] it would be perfectly normal [and therefore not suspicious!] for him to fill in some detail about how he knew him as he does in his statement.

by galena 21.10.13 19:49

StraightThinking wrote:
statsman wrote:Am I right in reading between the lines that some posters think it's possible that Martin Smith was doing Robert Murat a favour by reporting a fictitious sighting?
Yes, but I can't understand why someone would want to pervert the course of justice in these particular circumstances - RM wasn't guilty of anything so didn't need a false sighting to help him. And if MS thought he was guilty, why would he help him out anyway?

There are two things that we can conclude:
1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there
2) He wasn't an innocent local or holidaymaker because they would have come forward

And the other possibilities are...?

Just not being guilty of anything doesn't mean that you necessarily won't end up being found guilty -just ask Barry George! Knowing that MS might well agree because he was worried that the PJ were going to frame Murat for the crime. (As I've said before I read a lot of true crime and it's surprising how many people offer alibis for friends who they believe are being framed by the police)

1) Sorry I don't think you can conclude that. It might take an abductor longer because they were constantly having to hide from passerby whatever. If Smithman existed, it could well have been Madeleine he was carrying.

Re point 2) I think it's worth pointing out that the Smith sighting was never widely publicised, and probably until really known amongst the 'evil troll' internet community big grin

I would hazard a guess that for many folks the first thing they heard about was on Crimewatch the other week. So I would say there is still time for someone to come forward.

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 20:06

Thanks for replying, galena

Re point 1, turning a 5 min walk into 35 is a lot of dodging, especially as PdL was pretty quiet

And where would an abductor be going anyway, heading into town rather than out of it? It would have opened him up to being spotted and, once the search began, he would have been trapped

I'm pretty certain Smithman is not an abductor

Re point 2, the Smith sighting wasn't publicised in the UK but what about in Portugal?

by Guest 21.10.13 20:16

StraightThinking wrote:Thanks for replying, galena

Re point 1, turning a 5 min walk into 35 is a lot of dodging, especially as PdL was pretty quiet

And where would an abductor be going anyway, heading into town rather than out of it? It would have opened him up to being spotted and, once the search began, he would have been trapped

I'm pretty certain Smithman is not an abductor

Re point 2, the Smith sighting wasn't publicised in the UK but what about in Portugal?

If you look at mccannfiles 'The Smith sighting' there are a few articles that appeared here in 2207/8. Giving descriptions and what Mr Smith said. The media did publicise it, although I don't really remember the McCanns really talking about it in interviews etc. or doing a press conference about him.

by Lance De Boils 21.10.13 20:21

russiandoll wrote: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.

Hi, russiandoll. Crumbs. I'll try to put my thoughts down in coherently, but fear I may fail! So please (anybody) feel free to pick me up on things, help me out with any points, debate or just plain disagree with me on any of the following.

Less likely, but possible: They saw GM with Madeleine, but at a slightly earlier time than has been stated.

At this stage, I'm hesitant about this scenario because of a number of points:

1. Timings. I need to study the timings more closely to have more confidence in this being a real possibility.

IF ALL of the following can be known for sure, then of course it can't have been Gerry:

a) the Smith timing is correct,
b) it can be shown (by independent witnesses) that Gerry WAS present at the Tapas bar at the time the alarm was raised,
c)the alarm was raised at the exact time of the Smith sighting

BUT I am not convinced that all three are definites. I need to look more closely at statements as there are discrepencies in at least one of these points, possibly more than one. If I could find a chink there, I'd increase its likelihood in my mind. That is quite possible.

2. IF the child was Madeleine, I don't believe she was with a complete stranger, having been abducted. IF it was her, she had to be with someone within the group, or one of their associates. I find it hard (but certainly not impossible) to imagine anyone would have the gall to brazenly walk around with a child knowing that within minutes, her (admittedly outdated) photo would be distributed. There are restaurants and bars nearby and there was a very real risk of being seen. But, desperation could account for that, I guess. Which of course then leaves the question, where was he taking her? And why? Why that route?

3. I'm finding it rather troublesome trying to account for the dogs' findings in this scenario. A couple of suggestions have been made. I need to mull this over.

4. I'm also having issues accounting for the various strange occurrences earlier in the week. IF something had happened previously, of which there are indicators, then this would mean that Madeleine had been deceased for some time before being carried through the streets. I find that very hard to comprehend or believe. But then, truth is often stanger than fiction, as they say.

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.

For this scenario to be true, with the man being Gerry, the points above about timings apply.

Additionally, if this was Amelie, then of course he (or someone else) would need to carry her back again. It'd completely backfire if someone had seen him walking towards or even into the apartment block with the child. Even the most stupid abductors don't take a child back to their bed when they've finished walking the streets with them.

However, we know that there were at least 10 blonde, 3 yr old girls in the complex that week. So somebody else's child could have been used.
But if using a different child, whose parents were presumably happy for her to be used in this way, then surely it would be a safer bet to use the child's real Father? If nothing else, at least the 'abductor' couldn't later be identified as Gerry.
With that in mind, if you were Gerry, given a choice, wouldn't you choose someone who didn't look very similar to yourself? (Although maybe they didn't have any other willing volunteers.)

I also wonder why this would have been necessary. It's a huge gamble and the only purpose I can think of is just to give a little weight to the 'abduction' scenario? Wouldn't the time have been better spent setting the scene right and getting stories straight? How could they be sure they wouldn't end up on camera? Had they done a reccie of CCTV cameras? Not unless they managaged to broker a deal with the camera owners to ensure there was no recording to be seen, eg the one pointed out by Paul Luckman in that clip.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hope that more or less answers your question, russiandoll?
I rule nothing out. big grin

--------

Disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of the posts on this thread - only got up to this one by russiandoll. Sorry if the conversation has changed direction by the time I post this!

by galena 21.10.13 20:34

candyfloss wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Thanks for replying, galena

Re point 1, turning a 5 min walk into 35 is a lot of dodging, especially as PdL was pretty quiet

And where would an abductor be going anyway, heading into town rather than out of it? It would have opened him up to being spotted and, once the search began, he would have been trapped

I'm pretty certain Smithman is not an abductor

Re point 2, the Smith sighting wasn't publicised in the UK but what about in Portugal?
If you look at mccannfiles 'The Smith sighting' there are a few articles that appeared here in 2207/8. Giving descriptions and what Mr Smith said. The media did publicise it, although I don't really remember the McCanns really talking about it in interviews etc. or doing a press conference about him.

Thanks, I must go there and do a lot of reading soon as I'm losing track. I don't think they ever did an appeal on TV the way they did on Crimewatch though?

by noddy100 21.10.13 20:41

I thought the smith sighting was earlier 9.40ish?

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 20:43

noddy100 wrote:I thought the smith sighting was earlier 9.40ish?

No agreed by all to be 21.55-22.00

by noddy100 21.10.13 20:46

StraightThinking wrote:
noddy100 wrote:I thought the smith sighting was earlier 9.40ish?
No agreed by all to be 21.55-22.00

Thanks AM new to all this and still ploughing through it all.

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 20:48

It's the only bit of the timeline that is beyond dispute (assuming it actually happened!)

by aniandr 21.10.13 21:05

It cant be the same guy that jane tanner saw?

by Hongkong Phooey 21.10.13 21:39

it can't be the same guy as he's come forward (supposedly) and would no doubt have expanded on his whereabouts.

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

Who is 'Smith-man'? (MULTIPLE CHOICE - You can vote for more than one answer)