SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

joyce1938 wrote:I just want to make it clear how my thought are right now ,re smith siting . I have always thought it truth . cant be %100 as no one else can be . The problem I have is ,those identity kits ,how they suddenly appeared ,who was it supposed to resemble ? I don't think it was done by smith family ,they have said definatly couldn't recognise faces for the angle the child was carried .  Cant see them making another statement and making photofits to boot. Was it one of the private companies that was engaged and payed for doing nNOT ALOT. wAS THAT THEIR JOB IN THIS ?  yES THE WALK COULD HAVE SIGNALED A FAMILIER WALK ,BUT OFCOURSE CANT BE PROVEN . SO IN THIS CASE IT MUST TAKE A LOT MORE STUFF TO TAKE INTO A COURT ,AND WHY IS IT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTENT THING HERE .? JOYCE1938

sami wrote:It is being questioned 7 years later because it was never answered 7 years ago.  Amarals opinion was up to a given point, he never got the chance to investigate the sighting further.  Who knows, he may have decided it was all a load of bull, had he progressed the case.  On the other hand, Smith could have been the star witness for the prosecution and none of us here now.  We do not know.

A family said they saw a man with child, one thinks some time later he could be McCann because of posture etc., and in the meantime is positively able to state it was definitely not the number one suspect, Robert Murat (fancy that). It could well be true, but unless its questioned we will never know.

Every person in those files has been discussed at length and questioned in many ways.  Why not Smith ?  He is no different to any other person named in the PJ files, except for many of us desperately want to believe him because he is the one person who has partly identified McCann with child at that place and time.  Wanting him to be right is not the same as him being right.  This does not make him unreliable or a liar, he may possibly be mistaken, or he may be right, or he may be helping somebody out.  

Unless the questions are asked, we will never know.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

palm tree wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?

Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo

Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.

It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

Hongkong Phooey wrote:...... Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view.

sami wrote:It is being questioned 7 years later because it was never answered 7 years ago.  Amarals opinion was up to a given point, he never got the chance to investigate the sighting further.  Who knows, he may have decided it was all a load of bull, had he progressed the case.  On the other hand, Smith could have been the star witness for the prosecution and none of us here now.  We do not know.

A family said they saw a man with child, one thinks some time later he could be McCann because of posture etc., and in the meantime is positively able to state it was definitely not the number one suspect, Robert Murat (fancy that). It could well be true, but unless its questioned we will never know.

Every person in those files has been discussed at length and questioned in many ways.  Why not Smith ?  He is no different to any other person named in the PJ files, except for many of us desperately want to believe him because he is the one person who has partly identified McCann with child at that place and time.  Wanting him to be right is not the same as him being right.  This does not make him unreliable or a liar, he may possibly be mistaken, or he may be right, or he may be helping somebody out.  

Unless the questions are asked, we will never know.

aiyoyo wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:...... Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view.

What if Dr Amaral's view is outdated? He's not infallible you know, no one is.
If Maddie died day earlier than May 3rd, what would you make of Amaral's view?

aiyoyo wrote:

Gollum wrote:[
  You also are not taking into account the force and weight of power, influence and affluence behind this case. /quote]

What has force, power and whatnot got to with Smiths sighting?  Can you elaborate?

Gollum wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Gollum wrote:[
  You also are not taking into account the force and weight of power, influence and affluence behind this case. /quote]

What has force, power and whatnot got to with Smiths sighting?  Can you elaborate?

Might have had his arm twisted.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

aiyoyo wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:...... Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view.

What if Dr Amaral's view is outdated? He's not infallible you know, no one is.
If Maddie died day earlier than May 3rd, what would you make of Amaral's view?

eta: just to add - not saying Smiths didn't see anyone, just saying it could not have been Gerry, the latter is what Amaral believes and I'm saying he might be wrong in this aspect if Maddie died before the 3rd.

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

Gollum wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

palm tree wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

palm tree wrote:Why is the smiths sighting being questioned 7yrs later?

Because one or two people keep opening up new threads to further dispute the sighting itself or the folks that did the seeing. Imo

Mix up, what I mean is the files were released 6yrs ago, so why is there doubt now and not then?
IMO

The doubts always been there, especially when you identify a person by the way they carry a child rather than a facial description. For me that raises a red flag and suggests that person knows more then they've admitted so far.

It may be a red flag to some but imo it was a flashback/mental picture triggered by the news video. He diliberated on whether to speak up and basically accuse GM finally calling the Irish police. If this is all a fabrication, lies etc. MS has taken an enormous risk getting himself and his family involved in a case which  was getting mentioned on news bulletins and the press several times a day. The consequences of making false statenents and accusations if proven could be huge for him and his family. By all accounts those who know MS (only from press accounts granted) say he is a genuine guy, Goncalo Amaral also puts a fair amount of credence on this sighting, he knows more than any of us here so I'll stick with his view. All imo

Amaral wasn't given the opportunity to follow it through, who knows what his opinion might have been if he had.  You also are not taking into account the force and weight of power, influence and affluence behind this case.  IMO, anyone who doubts the truth of the Smith sighting has produced genuine reasons for that doubt, not some flimsy half baked belief based on hot air.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

I agree with you however some on here are claiming the Smiths are lying and even to the extent that they fabricated the whole thing. I am pointing out that there is a major flaw in this theory as the risks are too high. Sticking your neck on the line for what reason? nobody can answer why the Smiths would do this so it's all guesswork and supposition. All imo.

palm tree wrote:IMO, MS was not helping RM, the reason I believe this is because he was with his family, if it was RM, they would've spoken or even a nod when passing by. Also remember Mrs Smith had asked this person if she was sleeping, to which he did not answer. If it was to help RM then more of the Smiths could've said the same, to give more credibility to it not being RM. If he was helping RM, then why the need to report to the police after watching the news in September to tell them he was 60-80% sure he seen GM?
IMO

sami wrote:

palm tree wrote:IMO, MS was not helping RM, the reason I believe this is because he was with his family, if it was RM, they would've spoken or even a nod when passing by. Also remember Mrs Smith had asked this person if she was sleeping, to which he did not answer. If it was to help RM then more of the Smiths could've said the same, to give more credibility to it not being RM. If he was helping RM, then why the need to report to the police after watching the news in September to tell them he was 60-80% sure he seen GM?
IMO

Have you a link to Mrs Smith speaking to the man.  The reason I ask is because I have always thought this was the case.  More recently I could not find an actual statement, just a newspaper article, so I have been wondering if that is where I got it from originally.

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

aiyoyo wrote:

Amaral's view may well have changed if he was allowed to carry on nobody knows, we are discussing the Smith sighting not another theory (when maddie died as you put it). From interviews done this year he is still saying the Smith sighting is a credible lead and I wouldn't be so sure that he's not been kept up to date to a fashion by some former colleagues imo.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— 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.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— 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.

None of the previous questions relates to Murat. "Adds" suggest he added the response of his own free will.
But lets say he was asked the question "Did you know Robert Murat before 3rd May 2007?". Why would the police ask Martin Smith and only Martin Smith this question on 26th May 2007? Why not ask any of the other witnesses this question? Where back to the MS / RM association again.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Amaral's view may well have changed if he was allowed to carry on nobody knows, we are discussing the Smith sighting not another theory (when maddie died as you put it). From interviews done this year he is still saying the Smith sighting is a credible lead and I wouldn't be so sure that he's not been kept up to date to a fashion by some former colleagues imo.

Credible lead as in what? As in there was an abduction ? We know that's not his belief.
Credible lead as in the man was Gerry? Is that what you mean?

If we are not discussing moving along with evolving development/evidence then what is the whole point of discussing anything, even Smith sighting?

Might as well accept that Smith did not report the terribly important sighting until well past useful time, to Madeleine detriment if the person was the abductor.
Might as well accept that Gerry was Smithman and Amaral's successor did nothing about it, neither did Redwood did anything about this crucial piece of evidence that Amaral believes is the key to solve the case if we are to blind believe Amaral's belief.
Might as well accept that Amaral's successor and colleagues and Redwood team are a bunch of incompetent maroons incapable of assessing / evaluating / valuing statements and evidence; then why are we wasting time discussing Smithman?

If we are to blind accept Amaral's this belief, then might as well accept all his beliefs wholesale - that MI5 was involved, that there was a conspiracy, that the Mcs were protected from the highest and most powerful in the land, that no one and nothing can touch them, that OG is a white wash, that Maddie's ashes is in the urn in Rothley (yes, that is Amaral's latest belief according to Pat Brown's blog). Can't be selective, choosing to believe certain of his beliefs and deeming it not open to be questioned, yet paradoxical deciding that some other things he also said are open to be questioned. Or, where do you draw the line which bit to give credence to and which bit not to give credence to?

If we blind belief Amaral wholesale we might as well pack it in and go home, period. Because OG is a whitewash and Redwood is never going to solve the case. Not in a million years, not when Amaral believes her ashes is in Rothley, the deed truly done and well dusted, the perfect crime, yet Redwood and his team are stupidly searching and diggings for funfare.

PJ are bound by secrecy code not to discuss case with people not involved in the case. Amaral may well still have friends who fill him in now and then, but it would be foolish (imv anyway) to believe he is kept well up to date on everything, or he would have known why his successors and Redwood did not give credence to Smithman being Gerry. Well they mustn't have must they because they did absolutely nothing about it. In fact, Redwood announced McCanns and their friends were not persons of interest.

So how is Smith Sighting relevant? If he was not Gerry (Redwood didn't believe so) and there was no abduction (we believe so) - how is Smithman, probably could be Gerry, going to fit in the context of any theory?
How can one great detective differs from another great detective so drastically? Do we believe one and don't believe the other one or do we discern for ourselves going by the evolving developments?

Did we know, before release of the files, that the Canon Camera was not handed in?
Did Amaral know back at the time that the last photo was produced under very suspicious circumstances
Did we get to see the photos on police files?
Did we have Kate's bewk?
Did we know the detectives were bogus if not for researchers?
The list goes on.......

What are we allowed to use as basis for discerning and discussing, or do we stick strictly to Amaral's beliefs wholesale or do we select which mustn't be challenged?

Amaral is a good guy hard done by the Mcs but he's not infallible. It's normal for good and abled detective to make a few small mistakes in every investigation at the initial stage until more evidence comes to hand. His basic theory that K & G were involved in Maddie disappearance and that Maddie died in the holiday apt - those I believe because I believe the dogs. Apart from that, the rest of his beliefs are maybes and open to be questioned, far as I am concerned, or I wont be here wasting my time.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)

palm tree wrote:

sami wrote:

palm tree wrote:IMO, MS was not helping RM, the reason I believe this is because he was with his family, if it was RM, they would've spoken or even a nod when passing by. Also remember Mrs Smith had asked this person if she was sleeping, to which he did not answer. If it was to help RM then more of the Smiths could've said the same, to give more credibility to it not being RM. If he was helping RM, then why the need to report to the police after watching the news in September to tell them he was 60-80% sure he seen GM?
IMO

Have you a link to Mrs Smith speaking to the man.  The reason I ask is because I have always thought this was the case.  More recently I could not find an actual statement, just a newspaper article, so I have been wondering if that is where I got it from originally.

Hi sami, it's in the mccann files.com under smith sighting. It was MS who said his wife spoke to him and he didn't answer, but your right with it being from a newspaper artical, and we all know about MSM!
IMO

SixMillionQuid wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— 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.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— 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.

None of the previous questions relates to Murat. "Adds" suggest he added the response of his own free will.
But lets say he was asked the question "Did you know Robert Murat before 3rd May 2007?". Why would the police ask Martin Smith and only Martin Smith this question on 26th May 2007? Why not ask any of the other witnesses this question? Where back to the MS / RM association again.

aiyoyo wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Credible lead as in the Smiths saw somebody carrying a child at around about the right time in round about the right place. The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic of this thread and goes on about belief feel free to believe what you want it's a free country (maybe)

Ya, and so ?.........................

He places significance on it wishing to follow up with Smiths to find out what?

If man was the supersonic abductor ?

If the man was Gerry?

What is the significance for him giving credence to Smithman ?

That's the whole point here of this Smith sighting discussion isn't it because some people believe Smithman was Gerry.  They believe it because they believe Amaral believes it.  It's no longer about whether Smiths did see a man or not, it's about who they thought they saw.

aquila wrote:You see a complete stranger passing by carrying a child in pyjamas, you can't see the stranger's face and neither of you make eye contact (that 40,000 volt moment) indeed the stranger has made no attempt to engage with you - what would spur you to strike up a conversation/make a remark to the stranger 'is the child in his arms sleeping'?

Just a lil' observation.

Gollum wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
A lot of good points although the Murat one can be explained as he knows him by sight. If you were an honourable person and you were sure the person being accused was not the person you saw then of course you would make this known to the police, why wouldn't you?

Yes, I would.  Although we only know Smith knew Murat because he says so.  Also, we are guessing the circumstances under which he identified Murat.  The translation I have read (quite a while ago now so this is from memory), was one in a narrative form.  So we do not know if a particular question was asked to prompt the statement.  It is a hugely important sentence, not just for Murat personally, but actually for the investigation as a whole at that time, and it just sits there amongst the rest of the words, seemingly un-prompted.  

 Perhaps Smith knows every ex-pat by sight in PDL, perhaps he is a very sociable person and he could have identified any number of people in the same way, but perhaps not.

Maybe it is a translation error, or maybe it is poor statement taking skills, but maybe it is not.  

I am not saying Mr Smith is lying, but neither can I say he knew Murat and is telling the truth.  I do not know him, so I cannot say either way.  

What I would like to know is, was there a question asked to prompt Mr Smith to say he knew Murat and he was not the man with child, and if so what was that question.  There may well be a very simple answer, or maybe not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— 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.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— 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.

None of the previous questions relates to Murat. "Adds" suggest he added the response of his own free will.
But lets say he was asked the question "Did you know Robert Murat before 3rd May 2007?". Why would the police ask Martin Smith and only Martin Smith this question on 26th May 2007? Why not ask any of the other witnesses this question? Where back to the MS / RM association again.

'He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT.'

Maybe something or maybe nothing but if I was talking of someone I don't know personally, I wouldn't refer to whoever by their forename.