the smith sighting

Phoebe wrote:Rob Royston, I don't follow what you mean by "there was definitely a planned abduction that week.....the Smithman sighting was probably following the original script but without the correct "abductee"... some disaster had necessitated her substitution". ?? Apologies, can't work out how to get this to come up under your post - techno dinosaur here.

Well, we all have our theories. Our minds are all different. Mine leads me to believe that all the reported happenings earlier in the week were not just a massive break-out of coincidences. The fingering of the Polish couple in which Murat's relatives played a part, the photographs taken of their car in Sagres by Lourenco, the list goes on and on.

I believe that in the planned "fake" abduction many actors played their individual roles, some completed their parts but some where unable to complete theirs as whatever happened to Madeleine made it impossible or they were time constrained with more pressing tasks related with the covering up of the accident.
I'm pretty sure that the abduction sighting was meant to happen in the scripted plan and that the part was then played out, probably with a live decoy, to bolster the "post accident abduction".

It may be that many in Government, who were in on the planned "abduction", continued to believe in it for some time thereafter. It may be that the dogs were sent in to silence the rumours that pointed away from abduction. After the shocks of the dogs' findings, the Prime Ministers had to get involved to shelve the case.

kaz wrote:I have always wondered if the comment, ‘ Did not look like a tourist’ was freely given by each of the witnesses or was it elicited by the question,’  Did he look like tourist?’ To me it DOES make a profound difference . 

Hi kaz, I have pointed this out in the past when this issue has been used to disparage the Smiths.

If you read the police statements you will clearly read  the word "URGED" prior to the tourist reference. 

"Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist." 

Agreed Pennylane. Gut instinct leads me to believe that the initial Smith sighting reporting is genuine, but that afterward they were led in their statements and, later again, cowed by Kennedy. I think their motivation might have sprung from the desire to clear Murat. For me, being Irish, their claim about Smith "knowing" Murat makes sense. My non- Irish friends have been bemused when visiting us to hear phrases like "Do you know so an so?" which gets the answer "Yes", later needing the further explanation "I know him to see" when it emerges that we've never really spoken. I believe the Smiths knew Murat "to see" and maybe even " to talk to" (another Irishism meaning well enough to say "Hi, Lovely weather") Would that have been enough to spur them to his defense? I doubt it. However, I believe someone they were in contact with in Praia de Luz, (perhaps even the co-owner of the Smith apartment) might have known Murat better, or knew other ex-pats who pitied his plight. I can imagine the chat to Smith back in Ireland-  "poor Murat's being blamed now, and him totally innocent and such a decent fellow." This, the fact that the man (I believe unconnected to events) whom Smiths saw was not Murat, combined with the thrill of being peripherally involved in such a famous crime, spurred them into making the initial police contact. Much is made of how they could tell it wasn't Murat, but if I passed someone I "knew to see" on the street, even a fleeting glance would allow me to recognize him. Later statements of theirs I believe were led and coached from them and once Kennedy took it upon himself to visit them their value as impartial witnesses was forever lost.

FROM THE PJ FILES:



 



‘’…………….On May 04, 2007, at around 07H00 she (  Yvonne Warren Martin ) heard about the disappearance of an English girl from Praia da Luz, Lagos, from Sky News or BBC.
- Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.

- At around 09H00, she met the McCann couple next to the apartment from where the child had disappeared, accompanied by a third person, a male, who seemed quite familiar to her.


- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter



However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
 This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help - an action that appeared quite strange to her……………………..’’



Nuno Lourenco made his phone call re the Polish couple on Saturday 5^th May .



Kate McCann jumping the gun??

Phoebe wrote:Agreed Pennylane. Gut instinct leads me to believe that the initial Smith sighting reporting is genuine, but that afterward they were led in their statements and, later again, cowed by Kennedy. I think their motivation might have sprung from the desire to clear Murat. For me, being Irish, their claim about Smith "knowing" Murat makes sense. My non- Irish friends have been bemused when visiting us to hear phrases like "Do you know so an so?" which gets the answer "Yes", later needing the further explanation "I know him to see" when it emerges that we've never really spoken. I believe the Smiths knew Murat "to see" and maybe even " to talk to" (another Irishism meaning well enough to say "Hi, Lovely weather") Would that have been enough to spur them to his defense? I doubt it. However, I believe someone they were in contact with in Praia de Luz, (perhaps even the co-owner of the Smith apartment) might have known Murat better, or knew other ex-pats who pitied his plight. I can imagine the chat to Smith back in Ireland-  "poor Murat's being blamed now, and him totally innocent and such a decent fellow." This, the fact that the man (I believe unconnected to events) whom Smiths saw was not Murat, combined with the thrill of being peripherally involved in such a famous crime, spurred them into making the initial police contact. Much is made of how they could tell it wasn't Murat, but if I passed someone I "knew to see" on the street, even a fleeting glance would allow me to recognize him. Later statements of theirs I believe were led and coached from them and once Kennedy took it upon himself to visit them their value as impartial witnesses was forever lost.

Sorry Phoebe we will have to agree to disagree.  Firstly "the thrill of being peripherally involved" does not work for me as a motive. Secondly, the Smith sighting would not get Murat off the hook (only an alibi would do that), particularly since Maddie was thought to have been 'abducted' considerably earlier, courtesy of Tanner's uncorroborated absurd alibi for Gerry McCann, whilst (cough) simultaneously seeing the abductor in action at the top of the road.  
 
(imo)

Perhaps "thrill" is the wrong word but I'd lay a very heavy bet that during those 2 weeks back in Ireland, before they first reported their sighting to the Gardai, every relative, neighbour and friend who knew they'd been in Praia de Luz on abduction night and the following days would have been agog to get the low-down on what was going on and whether the Smiths had witnessed anything. If I'd been in their shoes and had passed someone carrying a young, blondish haired girl around the time, I suspect the event would have gotten a bit "blown up" in my mind. As for Yvonne Martin, I am suspicious about her motives. She's a social worker on holiday, about 14km away and she gets involved because on the morning of May 4th "She saw an appeal on BBC or Sky News asking British citizens on holiday in the Algarve to offer all possible support to a British couple whose child had disappeared." If such an appeal occurred and I don't recall it, I imagine it meant anyone who had seen or might know anything to come forward. Why would she imagine a social worker was needed? Their role is child protection and this was obviously a case for the police as the "abduction " story was already in the headlines. Did she think the P.J. couldn't organize a family liaison officer for the McCanns themselves? She seemed most eager to inset herself into proceedings in which she had no authority to act.

Child protection is a completely different issue from the crime of child "abduction". The latter was clearly a matter for the police and their ancillary services. Outside of their assigned caseload, social workers have no authority, so what role did she think she would be permitted to play? I am sure there were counselors and retired ex-pat police in the Algarve at the time, but none of them felt the urgent need to rush to the scene of the crime to offer their services. Her initial approach to the case is also odd. It would have been more convincing to me if she had approached the police that morning and asked if she could be of any assistance. I have never heard of a social worker just turning up the door of a crime scene. I also find her anonymous letter to police very unprofessional. If she had doubts about the situation she should have used the normal, professional channels to report them. I have "no embedded theory" to protect, other than my belief that Madeleine died on that holiday that  the McCanns and friends covered it up with a fake "abduction".

Phoebe wrote:Child protection is a completely different issue from the crime of child "abduction". The latter was clearly a matter for the police and their ancillary services. Outside of their assigned caseload, social workers have no authority, so what role did she think she would be permitted to play? I am sure there were counselors and retired ex-pat police in the Algarve at the time, but none of them felt the urgent need to rush to the scene of the crime to offer their services. Her initial approach to the case is also odd. It would have been more convincing to me if she had approached the police that morning and asked if she could be of any assistance. I have never heard of a social worker just turning up the door of a crime scene. I also find her anonymous letter to police very unprofessional. If she had doubts about the situation she should have used the normal, professional channels to report them. I have "no embedded theory" to protect, other than my belief that Madeleine died on that holiday that  the McCanns and friends covered it up with a fake "abduction".

No, I'm sure you don't.
Maybe she was genuinely concerned. A genuine carer who thought she could be of assistance. Few and far between but they do exist. Her sheer tenacity in the face of  McCann feigned superiority impresses me enormously. You're right of course , the anonymous letter wasn't professional at all................... which impresses me even more.

I think she felt she would be welcomed by the McCann parents (by her own admission it was them she was rushing to help). Perhaps she felt sorry for fellow-countrymen and is one of those well-intentioned but sometimes misguided people who love to be in the thick of the action. She must have known she had no authority whatsoever to act as a social worker in Portugal, in any case this was a crime, so her only possible role could have been that of some kind of counselor. However, she rushed in without contacting the relevant authorities which shows a terrible lack of professional courtesy. She then seemed to take on the role of some kind of Ms Marple, without authority, questioning the witnesses and putting them on their guard. I think she was understandably annoyed when she was summarily dismissed and this caused her lapse of professionalism with the anonymous letter later. Her actions seem to have damaged her credibility with the police with Insp. Paolo Ferreira later writing " The statements given to the P.J. today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which "IN MY OPINION DO NOT POINT TO ANY CONCRETE ELEMENT THAT COULD IN ANY WAY, MAKE OTHER INQUIRIES, DIRECTLY RELATED TO HER STATEMENTS, VIABLE." As for Kate's "taken by a couple" statement, perhaps she was acting the role of tormented mother of an abducted child seeking refuge in the notion that a childless couple had stolen her daughter.

Crikey, I've been sucked up into a Catherine Cookson novel.

If Kate's "taken by a couple" to Yvonne Martin was a deliberate attempt to reinforce Lorenco's sighting would Jane not also have been prepped to see a woman with Bundleman?

If this is indeed true then it is so bizarre as to be discounted from factual evidence. Kate and Gerry McCann lied to the Police about jemmied open shutters, no evidence of abduction end of story. Parents liars, no proof of either or, somebody has to come forward with the truth about what happened.

The more I read of the Smith's statements the more I doubt them. The first statements given are always the most important as they are freshest in the mind. In none of the statements given by them to the P.J. on 26th May do they mention a barefoot child. Martin Smith -"He does not remember her clothing very well, but thinks it was lightweight, summer clothing...he cannot affirm if she was barefoot". Peter Smith - "Thinks it was lightweight, summer clothing.... he cannot affirm if she was barefoot".  Aoife Smith- "She was wearing light trousers that MAY have been pyjamas...she also had a light top with long sleeves. She did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not". So, they see a child in lightweight CLOTHING, with long sleeves and NONE of them say she was barefoot. How the hell did this turn into what we have since been told? There has obviously been discussion between them, before they made this statement, about the man's clothing. Peter Smith - "Adds further that his son T (who did not make a P.J. statement) 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". Strange that T who was older than Aoife and "saw" so much more important detail, - detail that mirrored Tannerman, never came forward to the P.J to make an official statement! I think the P.J suspected that the Smith sighting was of an ordinary man, carrying a kid in clothes and shoes and that the Smiths were struggling to link it to Madeleine. Why else would Aoife's statement read -" ASKED TO TELL THE TRUTH she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge".

Phoebe wrote:The more I read of the Smith's statements the more I doubt them. The first statements given are always the most important as they are freshest in the mind. In none of the statements given by them to the P.J. on 26th May do they mention a barefoot child. Martin Smith -"He does not remember her clothing very well, but thinks it was lightweight, summer clothing...he cannot affirm if she was barefoot". Peter Smith - "Thinks it was lightweight, summer clothing.... he cannot affirm if she was barefoot".  Aoife Smith- "She was wearing light trousers that MAY have been pyjamas...she also had a light top with long sleeves. She did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not". So, they see a child in lightweight CLOTHING, with long sleeves and NONE of them say she was barefoot. How the hell did this turn into what we have since been told? There has obviously been discussion between them, before they made this statement, about the man's clothing. Peter Smith - "Adds further that his son T (who did not make a P.J. statement) 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". Strange that T who was older than Aoife and "saw" so much more important detail - detail that mirrored Tannerman - never came forward to the P.J to make an official statement! I think the P.J suspected that the Smith sighting was of an ordinary man, carrying a kid in clothes and shoes and that the Smiths were struggling to link it to Madeleine. Why else would Aoife's statement read -" ASKED TO TELL THE TRUTH she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge".

Some very good points made above.

Picking up some of them:

* Martin Smith said initially he couldn't remember what the man wore above the waist, but in a later statement 'remembered' (!) that he was wearing a dark jacket

* Martin Smith gave three statements about the man's age, all different. The third occasion was when Martin Smith's account of his sighting was used by the McCanns and put on to their website, in the form of a 30-second recording, in May 2009 - I believe it is still there after 8 years. In it, he describes the man he says he saw as 'aged 34-35' - suspiciously precise, and different from his two previous statements. Incidentally, this recording (made by a man with an Irish accent but NOT Martin Smith) is further proof (if it were needed) that Martin Smith has been working for the McCanns since January 2008. He clearly must have given his approval to that recording - or to put it another way, we have never heard him say: 'The McCanns put out this recording without my consent'

* Martin Smith's statements about his relationship with Murat appear to have been evasive. Remember he said he knew Murat so well that he could say, on 16 May 2007, with 100% certainty - and after seeing the bloke for a second or two in the dark - 'That bloke was NOT Robert Murat'. Yet his son Peter was later to tell the press: "He met Murat 'several times' over period of 'two years'."

* As you say, Aoife Smith's statement is incredibly detailed for someone who saw a bloke in the dark for only a second or two. She said she first saw him when he was '2 metres' [6 feet] ahead. On that basis, she would have had barely one or two seconds to commit to memory all that she saw of him, and the girl he was supposed to be carrying.     

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  However, I think you have fallen into error where you wrote: "I think the P.J. suspected that the Smith sighting was of an ordinary man, carrying a kid in clothes and shoes..."

That is not the case. Goncalo Amaral, in 'The Truth of the Lie', felt that the Smiths might be telling the truth - and said in his book that he wanted to re-question the Smiths, after Martin Smith made his strange 'phone call on 20 September 2007. But Amaral was removed from his post just 12 days later.

Amaral also by the way thought that Wojchiech Krokowski might well have useful information and said he wished that the Polish police would have seized his camera and examined the photos on it. Also, it is very probable that neither Amaral nor the PJ realised that the witness Nuno Lourenco had comprehensively fabricated his story of how his daughter had been nearly 'kidnapped' by Krokowski. Neither, of course, did Amaral or the PJ suspect that Catriona Baker may not have been telling the truth about having had 'high tea' with Madeleine at 5pm-6pm on Thursday 3 May. Moreover, Amaral and the PJ accepted as true the McCanns' account that the 'Last Photo' was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May.

Amaral and the PJ appear to have got quite a few things wrong  

Goncalo Amaral was obligated to investigate such a sighting. He may well have come to the conclusion that it was a fabrication but was unable to pursue his investigation as he was removed from the case.

aquila wrote:Goncalo Amaral was obligated to investigate such a sighting. He may well have come to the conclusion that it was a fabrication but was unable to pursue his investigation as he was removed from the case.

Well you could say the opposite also, in that GA may well have confirmed it was indeed Gerry McCann the Smiths saw, which (imo) it was, and he was getting too close to the truth so was removed.

The Smiths first reported their "sighting" of the man, (whom they initially described as walking "normally" and fitting in "perfectly".ie. nothing to be suspicious about) to Gardai around 2 weeks after they returned home and after Peter S had phoned his father. By this stage Murat had been made an arguido (15th May). Their original statements do not tally with a barefoot child in short-sleeved pyjamas. I feel the description of the child is as important as that of the man carrying her. After all, if they had seen a little boy no weight would be given to their statements, irrespective of what the man was wearing. I firmly believe their motive in making such statement was to clear Murat. Martin claims to have known Murat "to see", how well did Peter know him? Was it Peter who knew him better? Was Peter the "He" who "met Murat several times over a period of years"? What of the co-owner of the apartment? Perhaps he knew Murat and, convinced he could not be involved, relayed this opinion to Smith? One way or another I feel the Smiths set out to clear him by reporting another individual they had seen carrying a child. I'm not sure the P.J. believed them, hence the order to "tell the truth" to Aoife. After they fingered Gerry in Sept. Dr. Amarel was keen to speak to them again, but was removed from the case before this could happen. After they were visited by Kennedy they had a volte face. It was now definitely not Gerry they saw and the child is barefoot and in pyjamas like Madeleine's, while the "perfectly normal" carrier turned into a suspicious character, scurrying along, avoiding contact to the point of rudeness and wearing Tannerman's clothes. Their initial statement has been hi-jacked and altered by Kennedy, Redwood et.al. with the Smiths in compliance.

Oh Lord, I've just looked at another Madeleine website, (found them by accident this week) to see if they had noticed those strange posts re passports that have taken over here, and I swear to God, they think I'm an alias of Tony Bennett. How nutty can people be?? 

Still can't work out how to post onto existing post! I mentioned in post above that I felt the Smiths might have been influenced to make a statement by others who knew them and also knew Murat. Just found this - Drogheda Independent article by Angela McCormick, Wed. June 6th 2007. 'Local family may have seen missing Maddy' "A number of Drogheda based families holiday in the nearby Estrela da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagin of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela de Luz is just around the corner from Praia de Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor". The Smith apartment was co-owned by Liam O'Neill. Maybe not a relative. However, there were "loads" of Drogheda people around Praia de Luz who possibly knew Murat and influenced the Smiths.

Phoebe wrote:Still can't work out how to post onto existing post! I mentioned in post above that I felt the Smiths might have been influenced to make a statement by others who knew them and also knew Murat. Just found this - Drogheda Independent article by Angela McCormick, Wed. June 6th 2007. 'Local family may have seen missing Maddy' "A number of Drogheda based families holiday in the nearby Estrela da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagin of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela de Luz is just around the corner from Praia de Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor". The Smith apartment was co-owned by Liam O'Neill. Maybe not a relative. However, there were "loads" of Drogheda people around Praia de Luz who possibly knew Murat and influenced the Smiths.

If you mean like this just click on the Quote tab above the post you're referring to.

JulieC wrote:

Phoebe wrote:Still can't work out how to post onto existing post! I mentioned in post above that I felt the Smiths might have been influenced to make a statement by others who knew them and also knew Murat. Just found this - Drogheda Independent article by Angela McCormick, Wed. June 6th 2007. 'Local family may have seen missing Maddy' "A number of Drogheda based families holiday in the nearby Estrela da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagin of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela de Luz is just around the corner from Praia de Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor". The Smith apartment was co-owned by Liam O'Neill. Maybe not a relative. However, there were "loads" of Drogheda people around Praia de Luz who possibly knew Murat and influenced the Smiths.

If you mean like this just click on the Quote tab above the post you're referring to.

Thanks. giving it a go 

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:Oh Lord, I've just looked at another Madeleine website, (found them by accident this week) to see if they had noticed those strange posts re passports that have taken over here, and I swear to God, they think I'm an alias of Tony Bennett. How nutty can people be?? 

 Anyone who agrees with Tony, in any shape or forum, is Tony talking to himself according to them.

Verdi is Tony, PeterMac is Tony, HiDeHo is Tony, Richard is Tony and I'm Tony even though, according to them, I'm having an affair with Tony - Tony having an affair with Tony, a bit awkward, but they believe it.

Tony, Tony, Tony. But then Andrew does admit to being obsessed with Tony.
He sounds like a bunny boiler to me.

Oh, and another one is that they think PeterMac is dead and I've cloned him.
Plus we all work for the McCanns.

I know which website you're referring to.

My beloved football team are playing some southerners called Bournemouth tomorrow night. The last time we (Liverpool) played Bournemouth, we lost. Tomorrow, will be sweeeeeet revenge!!!!
However, I will not be able to attend the match, as Richard D Hall is at the Adelphi Hotel, and so will I.

Now, I think Tony supports Bournemouth, but if Richard is Tony, Tony might be at the match disguised as Richard, and I'll be on my own. I think there is something in this theory.

JRP wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:Oh Lord, I've just looked at another Madeleine website, (found them by accident this week) to see if they had noticed those strange posts re passports that have taken over here, and I swear to God, they think I'm an alias of Tony Bennett. How nutty can people be?? 

Anyone who agrees with Tony, in any shape or forum, is Tony talking to himself according to them.

My beloved football team are playing some southerners called Bournemouth tomorrow night. The last time we (Liverpool) played Bournemouth, we lost. Tomorrow, will be sweeeeeet revenge!!!! However, I will not be able to attend the match...

I expect Liverpool to win. Their defence, especially their goalkeeper, were in a generous mood earlier in the season when they met Bournemouth. And revenge for that defeat will be a spur.

Nice to see a couple of positive managers whose teams play fair shaking hands after a game - doesn't always apply these days:

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

      Jurgen Klopp (LIVERPOOL FC)    >>>>>>   Eddie Howe (AFC BOURNEMOUTH)

Phoebe wrote:Still can't work out how to post onto existing post! I mentioned in post above that I felt the Smiths might have been influenced to make a statement by others who knew them and also knew Murat. Just found this - Drogheda Independent article by Angela McCormick, Wed. June 6th 2007. 'Local family may have seen missing Maddy' "A number of Drogheda based families holiday in the nearby Estrela da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagin of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela de Luz is just around the corner from Praia de Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor". The Smith apartment was co-owned by Liam O'Neill. Maybe not a relative. However, there were "loads" of Drogheda people around Praia de Luz who possibly knew Murat and influenced the Smiths.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  if you mean what ive just done here to reply to you, you just click on the "quote" button at the top right hand side of the post you want to copy or reply to.
If you want to paste something of interest into your post then the way to do it on a smart phone or tablet with touchscreen tech. is to hold whatever it is down, i.e. just push your finger on to it fr a couple of  seconds and you should be given a wee pop up menu that will give u the options to copy. Click copy, this then puts it onto an imaginary clipboard (i.e. you cannot actually see a clipboard but just imagine its there ok) then come back to wherever you want to put your copied info and hold down your finger again fr a few seconds, this will give u a wee pop up word saying "paste" click that and hey presto it should appear. If you arent using smart tech then clicking the right mouse button usually gives you the same options, as far as i can remember, sorry but its a long time since ive had a pc or even a laptop.
Good luck!

Roxyroo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:Still can't work out how to post onto existing post! I mentioned in post above that I felt the Smiths might have been influenced to make a statement by others who knew them and also knew Murat. Just found this - Drogheda Independent article by Angela McCormick, Wed. June 6th 2007. 'Local family may have seen missing Maddy' "A number of Drogheda based families holiday in the nearby Estrela da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagin of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela de Luz is just around the corner from Praia de Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor". The Smith apartment was co-owned by Liam O'Neill. Maybe not a relative. However, there were "loads" of Drogheda people around Praia de Luz who possibly knew Murat and influenced the Smiths.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  if you mean what ive just done here to reply to you, you just click on the "quote" button at the top right hand side of the post you want to copy or reply to.
If you want to paste something of interest into your post then the way to do it on a smart phone or tablet with touchscreen tech. is to hold whatever it is down, i.e. just push your finger on to it fr a couple of  seconds and you should be given a wee pop up menu that will give u the options to copy. Click copy, this then puts it onto an imaginary clipboard (i.e. you cannot actually see a clipboard but just imagine its there ok) then come back to wherever you want to put your copied info and hold down your finger again fr a few seconds, this will give u a wee pop up word saying "paste" click that and hey presto it should appear. If you arent using smart tech then clicking the right mouse button usually gives you the same options, as far as i can remember, sorry but its a long time since ive had a pc or even a laptop.
Good luck!

Thanks Julie and Roxyroo. Still using laptop I fear. Only tablets I have are in medicine cupboard 

pennylane wrote:

aquila wrote:Goncalo Amaral was obligated to investigate such a sighting. He may well have come to the conclusion that it was a fabrication but was unable to pursue his investigation as he was removed from the case.

Well you could say the opposite also, in that GA may well have confirmed it was indeed Gerry McCann the Smiths saw, which (imo) it was, and he was getting too close to the truth so was removed.

@ pennylane    Central to your thinking on the case has always been this: that Martin Smith really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine McCann (dead) on Thursday 3 May at about 9.55pm to 10.00pm. You also support her death after 6pm that very night.

To sustain those theories, you would need to carefully account for all the following, and much more:

1. Why did the Smiths not report their sighting until the day after Murat, whom Martin Smith knew well, was made a formal suspect - and then only after Peter Smith 'phoned his father and said: "Am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?"

2. Why each one of the Smiths, in their statements, said that because they'd only seen the man for a second or two in the dark, they would never be able to recognise him again if they saw him

3. Why the three Smiths who gave statements described Wojchiech Krokowski - in no fewer than 17 specific instances using almost exactly the same descriptions as those of Tannerman by Jane Tanner, and by Nuno Lourenco of Wojchiech Krokowski 

4. How Martin Smith could possibly claim to have identified Gerry McCann only from 'the way he was carrying Sean' down an aeroplane steps on 9 September, having regard to (a) having said 4 months previoulsy that he'd never be able to recognise the man again if he saw him and (b) the fact that any right-handed man will normally carry an infant on his left shoulder

4. Why Martin Smith waited 11 days (until 20 September) before reporting his claim to be, quote, '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry McCann he had seen 4 months before

5. Why he agreed to talk to Brian Kennedy in December 2007 and why thereafter he and his family have consistently co-operated with the McCann Team and Operation Grange and urged people to 'look for Madeleine and find the abductor'

6. How, a whole year later, any of the Smiths could possibly draw up any facial efit, never mind of two quite different looking faces

7. Why Gerry McCann would decide to walk through the streets of Praia da Liz with his uncovered dead child at the very moment his wife and their friends were raising the alarm about Madeleine being missing, and

8. Why you reject the many separate lines of evidence that suggest that something very serious may have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday or Monday.

It is remarkable how those who say: 'Martin Smith saw Gerry McCann' seem totally unable to answer these (and so many other) questions. 


.

Indeed! the veracity of the Smith's statements need a large pinch of salt IMO! Aoife, allegedly, later described buttons on Smithman's trousers. Where were these "buttons"- on the flies? the side pockets? Given that she couldn't initially remember whether the child was barefoot and given that its feet would have been positioned near this part of the the carrier's trousers such a contradiction smacks of invention! I also find it strange that the others in the Smith group never made statements to the P.J. and that the P.J. felt the need to to ask Aoife to tell the truth.