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

by j.rob 27.02.15 11:00

Hi j.rob,

I'm afraid peoples theories and opinions are quite cemented at this juncture. You may be right re what happened being far worse than sedation, I doubt we shall ever know. Personally I believe that the criminal act of drugging three toddlers and leaving them to go out, and maybe one vomits and asphyxiates, or wakes and wanders in a drugged state and falls to her death, would bring some very serious charges indeed. The reputations of these two doctors would have been annihilated, and the twins would have been removed immediately, and goodness knows what else might come to the fore. They would have needed astronomical finances to cover legal costs, and their careers and assets would be history by the time the trial was over. Let's not forget they were in a foreign country and that is where they would have been arrested and jailed. The implications are mind boggling.

As I have said many times, I believe everything happened fast, hence the risks that were taken. I'm not saying the Mc's and co weren't up to something else on that ill-fated holiday, who knows, but a pre-planned hoax gone wrong, I simply don't buy that. Sorry.

jmho

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

Agreed, especially bolded part. But why would the Mcs gross negligence - if the scenario above happened or similar - be a matter of such huge national security? Intelligence services there early on. Personal assurances from politicians for help? Clarence Mitchell is assigned to them.

No way would that just be to cover the backsides of a couple of mediocre (imo!) NHS doctors and their weasly friends.

Has to be far more to it than that.

The media was all over the story like a rash from the very beginning. Reckon Rupert has been funding the McScam in one way or another. And it is undeniable that Madeleine's 'disappearance' was a 'good story' to bury 'bad news' - Iraq stuff, for instance.

The whole thing was a swindle from word go. IMO it's possible that the Mcs threw a curved ball that week themselves. GM, imo, is like The Joker in the Batman movie. He likes to play games, double-cross and hoodwink people. So it's not impossible that GM, DP (and other male tapasniks perhaps) pulled a fast one that week.

I think in the early days they would have been on tenterhooks, wondering if they would receive protection and 'get away with it'.

And can somebody please tell me why journalist Bridget O'Donnell, partner of TV director Jez Wilkins who allegedly bumped into GM at 9.15pm on Thursday 4th May 2007 outside apartment 5A, wrote a sycophantic article for the Guardian later in 2007 in which she claimed she was sure the Mcs were entirely innocent, the Portugal police failed to contact Jez (a blatant lie, easily proven) and that their daughter played with Madeleine McCann in the kids' club.

In the article she is disparaging about the Portuguese police. Who notice a photocopied picture of Madeleine on their table. And ask if this was their own daughter. How interesting. I wonder if the police did ask this question? Did their daughter look like Madeleine McCann? Although, according to Bridget, all the girls at the kids' club that week looked similar. What kids' club did their daughter attend that week and when, I wonder?

Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns.

Shame the McCanns, their friends and Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell couldn't be bothered to search that night, isn't it? After all, they actually knew Madeleine and knew what she looked like, didn't they? But no, on being awoken (yeah right!) at 1am on Friday morning and told that Madeleine 'had been abducted', Jez and Bridget promptly go back to bed. As you do, when your daughter's friend has just 'been abducted' and when you work in TM drama and journalism and one of the biggest news stories of the decade breaks right around you.

daft1

What a load of rubbish.

Bridget, in her article, claims that Madeleine McCann played with their daughter at the kids' club. She also claims they remember her (Madeleine McCann). So that makes them really important witnesses, then, doesn't it?

"So my heart goes out to them, Gerry and Kate, the couple we remember from our Portuguese holiday. They had a beautiful daughter, Madeleine, who played and danced with ours at the kiddie club. That's who we remember."

Bridget's blatant lie that the Portuguese police never 'bothered' to contact Jez for a statement. On the contrary, Detective Amaral contacted Jez immediately upon his return to the UK with a list of questions that he wanted answering urgently. Why does Bridget lie about this? No way would she not have known that her partner was obliged to respond at length to the Portuguese police's urgent request.

"The British police came round shortly after our return. Jes was pleased to give them a statement. The Portuguese police had never asked."

Questions Portuguese police wanted Jez Wilkins to answer urgently within days of the alleged 'abduction:'

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

Bridget O'Donnell's article in the Guardian, very curiously entitled:

My months with Madeleine.

Bridget and Jez are supposed to have met the McCanns and Tapas on that holiday during that week. Madeleine was allegedly stolen by an abductor on 4th May so how on earth could Bridget O'Donnell have had 'months' with Madeleine. It was one week at most. Why on earth would the article have such an odd title?

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

A thread with more on the Jez Wilkins and his possible role in this peculiar affair:

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

by j.rob 27.02.15 11:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:Witnesses to a crime often procrastinate going to the police for a number of reasons, and some don't come forward at all because they don't want to get involved. Others say nothing for years. That's a fact!
Agreed.

However, in the specific case of Martin Smith and his family, we have to weigh up the massive potential significance of his evidence (if true) against the background of wall-to-wall international media coverage of a claimed abduction, and his 13-day delay in doing anything about it.

On top of that, we must put under scrutiny the fact that he only reacted after someone he knew (Robert Murat) was made a suspect, and that about the only thing he was clear about in his police interview was that the stranger he saw, face obscured, for a second or two in the dark, was definitely not Robert Murat.

And @ pennylane, did Martin Smith say to the police that he didn't come forward because he 'didn't want to get involved'?

Absolutely not! Quite the contrary!

He only awoke out of his slothfulness in this regard when his son Peter (allegedly) 'phoned him up on Wednesday 16 May and asked his father: "Am I dreaming or something, or did we see a bloke carrying a child on the evening of 3rd May?"

Furthermore, he and members of his family later contradicted that unlikely version of events by giving oher reasons why they 'phoned at that moment.

But let's not stray too far from the current point under discussion - namely how Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey both 'phoned the police in mid-September to say: "Goodness, now that I've seen Gerry McCann on the telly carrying his son on his left shoulder down the aircraft steps, I'm sure that was the bloke I saw back in May".

Not only IMO does each story wholly lack credibility, but two of them saying the same thing at the very same time sounds more than a tad suspicious

Just to comment on the paragraph I have bolded above. I agree that the timings of this look mighty interesting. It is as if they saw Gerry and family fleeing from Portugal, arriving on UK soil, and immediately decide that he was not going to get away with that. It's just too much of a coincidence that both of them contacted the police naming Gerry as the man they saw at this particular point in time.

So who exactly are these eye-witnesses? What is their role? Who do they know? And so on.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 11:18

j.rob wrote:
So who exactly are these eye-witnesses? What is their role? Who do they know? And so on.

Exactly right.

If someone says, 4 months after seeing someone: 'I'm sure that was the bloke I saw - just look how he's carrying his son on his left shoulder', I would point out that every other father does the same with a tired or sleeping infant.

But two people...

... who both say they saw someone in May...

...then both saw photos of Gerry on TV and the papers day after day for 4 months...

...then both say they saw Gerry walking down on aircraft steps carrying a child...

...a totally different scenario from seeing a bloke in the dark 4 months ago (10.00pm - Martin Smith, 1.50am, Richard McCluskey)...

...then both chose the same week in September to 'phone police

...and both say emphatically 'It was Gerry Mcann that I saw 4 months ago...

...invites the very three questions you have asked - and a whole lot more

by sallypelt 27.02.15 11:26

Where I have difficulty with M Smith's statement is, where he said in his first statement, that he couldn't see what Smithman was wearing on his upper body as it was covered by the child Smithman was carrying. Now, if M Smith has said "I can't recall what he [Smithman] was wearing on his upper body" I could understand him having a memory recall a little later. However, M Smith said HE COULDN'T SEE what Smithman was wearing, so how could he then go on to say that he was wearing a "dark jacket" or words to that effect? If you DON'T see something, you don't see it. It's a simple as that.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 12:35

sallypelt wrote:Where I have difficulty with M Smith's statement is, where he said in his first statement, that he couldn't see what Smithman was wearing on his upper body as it was covered by the child Smithman was carrying. Now, if M Smith has said "I can't recall what he [Smithman] was wearing on his upper body" I could understand him having a memory recall a little later. However, M Smith said HE COULDN'T SEE what Smithman was wearing, so how could he then go on to say that he was wearing a "dark jacket" or words to that effect? If you DON'T see something, you don't see it. It's a simple as that.

Indeed...

Martin Smith 26 May 2007:

He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

Martin Smith 20 September 2007:

Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer.

by joyce1938 27.02.15 16:02

It is possible that after talking to his kids about the event that night ,they all saw someone I believe,so just maybe one did notice more of clothing .Who was the one that remarked that the trousers had buttons on trousers at side s? It wouldn't be odd to say what others had seen ,even if he did not take as much notice at the time of dress. joyce1938

by G-Unit 27.02.15 17:06

Maybe he was repeating what his grandson saw? His son, Peter Smith said;

He came accompanied by his wife, S***, and his two children TA*** and CO**, 13 and 6 years old respectively.....Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot.....

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 17:27

joyce1938 wrote:It is possible that after talking to his kids about the event that night, they all saw someone I believe ,so just maybe one did notice more of clothing.

REPLY: But, according to the statements of both Martin Smith and his son Peter Smith, they all clean forgot about this sighting - for a whole 13 days, when Madeleine's McCann' abduction was top of the TV news and on the front pages, day after day after day.

Until, that is, Peter had his ''Am I dreaming or something, or did we see someone?" moment!

Who was the one that remarked that the trousers had buttons on trousers at sides?

REPLY: Aoife. She actually said she thought that he might have had buttons on his trousers, not that he did. And it is very likely that by the time she made her statement, she may have seen a photo of Gerry McCann in the papers or on TV.

It wouldn't be odd to say what others had seen, even if he did not take as much notice at the time of dress.

REPLY: He is supposed to be a witness of truth. He mustn't use the hearsay evidence of his family and then say: 'He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer' if, when first questioned, he didn't actually see it or notice it. His evidence would be ripped to shreds under cross-examination

joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 17:30

G-Unit wrote:Maybe he was repeating what his grandson saw? His son, Peter Smith said;

He came accompanied by his wife, S***, and his two children TA*** and CO**, 13 and 6 years old respectively...Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot...

See my reply to joyce 1938, which was:

REPLY: He is supposed to be a witness of truth. He mustn't use the hearsay evidence of his family and then say: 'He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer' if, when first questioned, he told police that he didn't actually see it or notice what he was wearing above the waist. His evidence would be ripped to shreds under cross-examination

by Guest 27.02.15 20:06

j.rob wrote:
So who exactly are these eye-witnesses? What is their role? Who do they know? And so on.

If there is a connection then I would say logically it can only be Kennedy. But the implications of that are mind boggling. In many respects the initial McCluskey sighting is "better" than the Smiths as it was checked out at the time by the PJ and found to have an "innocent" explanation. But the follow up back in England? I can't find any way to explain that without raising many, many more questions than answers.

Unless Gerry and Kate did actually spend the hours and days immediately following the abduction running around with random children?

by j.rob 27.02.15 20:57

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
j.rob wrote:
So who exactly are these eye-witnesses? What is their role? Who do they know? And so on.

If there is a connection then I would say logically it can only be Kennedy. But the implications of that are mind boggling. In many respects the initial McCluskey sighting is "better" than the Smiths as it was checked out at the time by the PJ and found to have an "innocent" explanation. But the follow up back in England? I can't find any way to explain that without raising many, many more questions than answers.

Unless Gerry and Kate did actually spend the hours and days immediately following the abduction running around with random children?

Well, Mr Smith appears to have approached police very soon after Robert Murat was made arguido. I think TM had also persuaded the Portuguese police to release the 'Tanner-man' sketch at around the same time. So I think the timings of all this are relevant. Mr Smith was adamant in his earliest police statements that the man he saw was NOT Robert Murat. Which, in the light of Robert Murat just having been made a suspect, does seem quite a coincidence. Especially as when the Smith family walked past 'Smith-man' - so they say - it was dark. And Mr Smith claims he had not seen Robert Murat for some time and did not know him that well. So how on earth could he be so sure that the man he passed in the dark wasn't Robert Murat?

Too much of a coincidence!

And then, when Gerry lands on UK soil, Mr Smith becomes convinced that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. Again, the timings are just too suspect. Far too much of a coincidence.

*Somebody*, imo, may have been walking around Luz at a key time that fateful evening with a child in their arms. Whether it was someone fleeing away from 'the disaster' or whether it was someone desperate to simulate 'the abduction' which I suspect had gone pear-shaped, who knows?

Still - cannot ignore the 'key players ' -whatever their role - those people who were around on that fateful evening. Or other people say they were around.

So that would be the McCanns and Tapas.

Jez Wilkins.

Robert Murat.

Plus possibly of interest Jez Wilkins early witness statement flagging up a suspicious looking 'rasta-man'.

All of them are implicated in this McScam in one way or another, imo.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 21:53

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
j.rob wrote:
So who exactly are these eye-witnesses? What is their role? Who do they know? And so on.
If there is a connection then I would say logically it can only be Kennedy.

I would suggest that this is a very astute observation.

Let us look at the facts.

1 - Who was it who jumped in 3 days after the McCanns returned to England, offering to help? - Brian Kennedy

2 - For whom was the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer, senior Freemason Edward Smethurst, working at the time as his in-house lawyer? - Brian Kennedy

3 - Who was it who appointed, from the outset, money-laundering expert Gary Hagland to assist him and liaise with Metodo 3? - Brian Kennedy

4 - Who was it, in fact, who appointed Metodo 3? - Brian Kennedy

5 - Who was it who was made the co-ordinator of the McCann Team's private investigation? - Brian Kennedy

6 - Who bought a house in Knutsford to house his investigation? - presumably on the basis that Madeleine wasn't likely to be found any time soon? - Brian Kennedy

7 - Who arranged and paid for those two all-important Melissa Litle sketches? - Brian Kennedy

8 - Who was it who, according to Mark Hollingsworth's 2009 article in the Evening Standard, had his men 'intimidate material witnesses into silence? - Brian Kennedy

9 - Who was it who went, all lawyered up, to the house of Robert Murat's uncle and aunt, the Eveleighs, on 13 November 2007, to discuss urgent business with Murat and his lawyer? - Brian Kennedy

10 - Who was it Martin Smith said, in January 2008, had already contacted him about his 'Smithman' sighting? - Brian Kennedy

11 - Who appointed the rogue, con-man and criminal, Kevin Halligen, to work on his investigation for £500 grand? - Brian Kennedy

12 - Who appointed the ex-MI5 chief of covert intelligence, Henri Exton, to draw up the two e-fits? - Brian Kennedy

13 - Who masterminded the creation of the bogus company ALPHAIG fronted by Arthur Cowley, the man from the cottage on Halkyn Mountain? - Brian Kennedy

14 - Who appointed Marcos Aragao Corriea, the mad, lying lawyer from Madeira who prosecuted Goncalo Amaral and carried out those two bogus searches for Madeleine's bones in the Arade dam? - Brian Kennedy

Kennedy seems to be the man with the power, with the strings, with the money, with the contacts.

What was his real role?

What did he want from Martin Smith?

What did he get from Martin Smith?

by j.rob 27.02.15 22:03

Even the Smith family, I suppose! Not suggesting they are playing a sinister role, per se, but simply that they are part of the cast, in one way or another.

by noseyparker 27.02.15 22:11

Tony Bennett wrote:

Kennedy seems to be the man with the power, with the strings, with the money, with the contacts.

What was his real role?
I don,t know do you know something no one else does?
What did he want from Martin Smith?
information of what he witnessed that night
What did he get from Martin Smith? Not a lot.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 22:54

noseyparker wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TB: Kennedy seems to be the man with the power, with the strings, with the money, with the contacts.

What was his real role?

NP: I don't know - do you know something no one else does?

Reply: I want to know why he appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency, chose Kevin Halligen, appointed Henri Exton, got a money-laundering expert on his team straightaway, intimidated witnesses. I feel sure you want answers to those questions as well

TB: What did he want from Martin Smith?

NP: Information of what he witnessed that night

Reply: Why would Kennedy be interested? He would know from the papers that Smith and some of his family had seen a bloke carrying a child at about 10pm on 3 May. Kennedy would have read this in the Drogheda Independent, 6 June 2007: "The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz. They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police. The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations. The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent". Why would Kennedy seek to interfere in the police investigation?

TB: What did he get from Martin Smith?

Not a lot.

Reply: What makes you say that? After Kennedy got involved...
1. The Smiths co-operated in the production of the e-fits
2. Martin Smith co-operated in the making of the 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary', changing his statement yet again
3. Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns by adding a summary of his statement on their website
4. Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCanns and Operation Grange for the benefit of the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013

by noseyparker 27.02.15 23:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
noseyparker wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TB: Kennedy seems to be the man with the power, with the strings, with the money, with the contacts.

What was his real role?

NP: I don't know - do you know something no one else does?

Reply: I want to know why he appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency, chose Kevin Halligen, appointed Henri Exton, got a money-laundering expert on his team straightaway, intimidated witnesses. I feel sure you want answers to those questions as well

TB: What did he want from Martin Smith?

NP: Information of what he witnessed that night

Reply: Why would Kennedy be interested? He would know from the papers that Smith and some of his family had seen a bloke carrying a child at about 10pm on 3 May. Kennedy would have read this in the Drogheda Independent, 6 June 2007: "The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz. They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police. The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations. The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent". Why would Kennedy seek to interfere in the police investigation?

TB: What did he get from Martin Smith?

Not a lot.

Reply: What makes you say that? After Kennedy got involved...
1. The Smiths co-operated in the production of the e-fits
2. Martin Smith co-operated in the making of the 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary', changing his statement yet again
3. Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns by adding a summary of his statement on their website
4. Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCanns and Operation Grange for the benefit of the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013

Correct me if I,m wrong please.You believeMr.Smith and his family did not see some one carrying a child he believed was GM that night

by plebgate 28.02.15 13:25

Play fair Nosey, you asked Tony a question first, he replied now you should really reply to his questions before asking him a further one.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.02.15 13:56

plebgate wrote:Play fair Nosey, you asked Tony a question first, he replied now you should really reply to his questions before asking him a further one.

You beat me to it.

Except that I asked NP two questions, not one

by noseyparker 28.02.15 15:24

noseyparker wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
noseyparker wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TB: Kennedy seems to be the man with the power, with the strings, with the money, with the contacts.

What was his real role?

NP: I don't know - do you know something no one else does?

Reply: I want to know why he appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency, chose Kevin Halligen, appointed Henri Exton, got a money-laundering expert on his team straightaway, intimidated witnesses. I feel sure you want answers to those questions as well
The Smith family cannot be responsible for Kennedy,s actions.
TB: What did he want from Martin Smith?

NP: Information of what he witnessed that night

Reply: Why would Kennedy be interested? He would know from the papers that Smith and some of his family had seen a bloke carrying a child at about 10pm on 3 May. Kennedy would have read this in the Drogheda Independent, 6 June 2007: "The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz. They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police. The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations. The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent". Why would Kennedy seek to interfere in the police investigation?
Thats a question for Kennedy to answer not the Smiths
TB: What did he get from Martin Smith?

Not a lot.

Reply: What makes you say that? After Kennedy got involved...
1. The Smiths co-operated in the production of the e-fits
2. Martin Smith co-operated in the making of the 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary', changing his statement yet again
3. Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns by adding a summary of his statement on their website
4. Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCanns and Operation Grange for the benefit of the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] You make it sound like he had personal contact with the Mcscamms.He said he was 60% to 80% sure it was GM he saw, his daughter described the trousers the man wore similar to a pair owned by GM.No two people see the same thing exactly the same they will describe things differntly.Are you saying the Smiths where wrong to co-operate with OG? IMO the Smiths did see someone that night whether it was GM or not I don,t know .By the way Iwas born in Drogheda but I don,t know the Smiths
Correct me if I,m wrong please.You believeMr.Smith and his family did not see some one carrying a child he believed was GM that night

by **Tony Bennett** 01.03.15 8:52

noseyparker wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Reply: What makes you say that? After Kennedy got involved...
1. The Smiths co-operated in the production of the e-fits
2. Martin Smith co-operated in the making of the 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary', changing his statement yet again
3. Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns by adding a summary of his statement on their website
4. Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCanns and Operation Grange for the benefit of the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013

REPLY BY noseyparker:

"You make it sound like he had personal contact with the McCanns. He said he was 60% to 80% sure it was GM he saw, his daughter described the trousers the man wore similar to a pair owned by GM. No two people see the same thing exactly the same they will describe things differently. Are you saying the Smiths where wrong to co-operate with OG? IMO the Smiths did see someone that night whether it was GM or not I don’t know. By the way I was born in Drogheda but I don’t know the Smiths".

Let's first of all look at exactly what Martin Smith told Detective Sergeant Liam Hogan when he visited Drogheda Police Station on (or just before) 30 January 2008:

QUOTE

I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10" in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard [sic] McCann going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10.00pm. I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise; a clip I have seen before on the internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard [sic] McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10.00pm on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard [sic] McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either [sic]. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard [sic] McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

UNQUOTE

So, on 30 January 2008, he was '60% to 80%' sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007, based on the quite frankly dubious basis he outlines above.

You asked me one question: "Are you saying the Smiths where wrong to co-operate with OG?" And you made this statement: "You make it sound like he had personal contact with the McCanns".

Let me answer both points.

As early as 3 January 2008, Martin Smith was telling the British mainstream media that 'Brian Kennedy has contacted me' and that he was expecting to see 'representatives from Metodo 3.

Now, at this point, did he - or did he not - know that Kennedy and Metodo 3 were acting for the McCanns?

I can answer my own question: of course he did.

Yet 27 days later, in the privacy of an interview room at Drogheda Police Station, he tells Det Sgt Liam Hogan that he is '60% - 80% sure' that he saw Gerry McCann.

Now let's look in a bit more detail at his subsequent actions

1. We know that at some point in the next few months, he (and possibly other members of his family) met Kevin Halligen's side-kick, ex-MI5 man, Henri Exton. That is about all we know. Did Martin Smith know that Henri Exton was working for the McCanns? Again, I answer my own question: of course he did. We are told - by Herni Exton, by the McCanns, by Operation Grange and by the BBC that he (and possibly another member of his family) helped Exton sketch two e-fits, first shown over 5 years later on the BBC Crimewatch programme. I have wriitten elsewhere about the improbability of any member of the Smith family being able to generate any credible e-fits, no need to repeat that again here.

2. In July 2008, the PJ files are released on DVDs - and Goncalo Amaral's book is published. In both, there are extensive references to the Smith sighting. We all now know what Smith has said and done in relation to the family's claims of seeing a man and child at around 10pm on 3 May. Active police investigations cease at this point

3. Now look again at what I said about how Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns:

1. The Smiths co-operated in the production of the e-fits
2. Martin Smith co-operated in the making of the 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary', changing his statement yet again
3. Martin Smith co-operated with the McCanns by adding a summary of his statement on their website
4. Martin Smith has co-operated with the McCanns and Operation Grange for the benefit of the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013

It is clear, I suggest, that Martin Smith co-operated in the Mockumentary - twice in the Channel 4 film a deliberate attempt is made - by Kate McCann personally and by the production team - to suggest that Tannerman and Smithman could be one and the same.

Clearly, I suggest, Martin Smith co-operated with Channel 4/Mentorn Media in producing this documentary.

And the proof of his co-operation with the McCanns is that the moment the documentary was shown, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second audio clip of a man with an Irish accent summarising Martin Smith's original witness statement.

Let's now reproduce a transcript of what the voice said in this audio clip:

QUOTE

I was with my family. We’d been out for the night. After leaving a bar, we took the back way up some steps.

We turned off this street, and up another street - er, I’m not sure of its name. We are - we were walking up this street when I saw a man – and he was carrying a child.

I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious. He was walking down the street in the opposite direction to us.

The girl was about 4. She looked like my grand-daughter – blonde hair, pale white skin, typically British. The man didn’t look like a tourist - I can’t explain why - it was probably from his clothes.

I only really saw the man when we passed each other. He was white, about 1 - 75, or 1 - 8 metres tall, perhaps 34, or 35 years old. He was slim to normal build with short brown hair. He didn’t wear glasses, moustache or a beard.

I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers.

The girl was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. She was uncovered, no blanket or throw. Some of my family remember her having bare feet. He was carrying the girl over his arms with her head against his left shoulder.

He looked - a bit - uncomfortable in the way he carried her.

UNQUOTE

I suggest that Martin Smith actively co-operated with the McCanns in agreeing to this text. And by 'co-operated with the McCanns', I don't mean that he actually met him; no doubt at al times it was a representative of the McCann Team - probably Brian Kennedy or one of his men - who was handling Smith.

Look at this statement: the man was 'perhaps 34, or 35 years old', Then look back at his original statement: the man was '35 to 40'. When he sees Det Sgt Liam Hogan in January 2008, he tells Hogan 'aged 40 years approximately'. Yet now, for the McCanns' website, he brings this down to '34-35'. Why all the changes? Who has he been talking to? By what process does Martin Smith change his evidence from '35 to 40' down to '34 or 35'?

Then look at another extract from the audio clip: "I can't recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers". Now look back at what he told Det Sgt Liam Hogan in January: "Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer".

Martin Smith had 'flip-flopped' all over the place:

1. I didn't see what he was wearing...actually I did, it was a dark jacket or blazer...I can't recall what he was wearing

2. Aged 35 to 40...aged 40 years approximately...aged 34-35

3. I saw Gerry McCann...I didn't see Gerry McCann.

In relation to my last point, some reading this might say: "He has never said that he doesn't think it was Gerry McCann".

To which I would reply: Has he ever, since he was seen by Brian Kennedy's men, taken the many opportunities he has had to say: "I still think it was Gerry McCann that I saw".

NO.

In other words, his evidence is utterly worthless and would be torn to shreds by any half-decent barrister.

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

Having looked at the various contradictions set out in the article...