the smith sighting

by one day we will find you 10.02.17 22:18

what do we make of the smith,s sighting.did he really see jerry at 9.50pm.because if he did we can say maddie died a few hours before this.hence the reasons their statements dont match .they didnt have time.sorry i forgot to ad iam new to the site.like thousands of others iam sick of the mccans avoiding justice .

by **sharonl** 10.02.17 23:00

Hi Welcome to the forum

Like many others who have researched this case, I have come to the conclusion that Madeleine died on 29th of April, and the McCanns fooled the police into believing that she disappeared on May 3rd. In order to do this, I also believe that a number of false witnesses were planted. The Smith sighting was not reported for some time but was very conveniently reported when Murat was arrested. The sighting may have been a plant but it seems more likely that it was a story cobbled up to get Murat off the hook.

The Smiths met with McCann benefactor Brian Kennedy and failed to attend an interview in PDL.

by one day we will find you 10.02.17 23:12

thanks for that info and the welcome sharoni .the only reason i say that is because they penned a timeline of the nights events.if they had more time and maddie died before the 3rd than they would have had plenty of time to concoct a story and would have no need to write it down .

by Phoebe 28.03.17 0:50

Maybe this has already been discussed to death - if so apologies. I have been re-browsing through the P.J. files and read the 12th Sept 07 statement of Richard Mc Cluskey. I was kinda gobsmacked to read that he had contacted the police on this date to state that he "Had been watching T.V coverage of Mr.McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. It was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think" (earlier statement given to P.J.) Then on 20th Sept 07 (eight days later) Martin Smith says almost word for word the same thing about the man whom he claimed he saw carrying a child through the streets. Bizarre coincidence or what!!!

by Guest 28.03.17 1:03

Phoebe wrote:Maybe this has already been discussed to death - if so apologies. I have been re-browsing through the P.J. files and read the 12th Sept 07 statement of Richard Mc Cluskey. I was kinda gobsmacked to read that he had contacted the police on this date to state that he "Had been watching T.V coverage of Mr.McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. It was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think" (earlier statement given to P.J.) Then on 20th Sept 07 (eight days later) Martin Smith says almost word for word the same thing about the man whom he claimed he saw carrying a child through the streets. Bizarre coincidence or what!!!

? ? ? - It's pandemic!

Stupidity is of course, it's quite normal to carry a child in that manner - unlike Jane Tanner's version, later confirmed b ex-DCI Redwood..

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

by Phoebe 28.03.17 1:41

It's given me food for thought though. Mc Cluskeyman was traced as the number of his van was taken and checked thoroughly by the P.J. If this hadn't happened I doubt he would have answered any appeal to come forward. In any event, he was out of the country shortly afterward. Had he not been eliminated Andy R. would probably be having another Eureka moment about him. If the Smiths saw anyone at all it was probably no more sinister than this, but of course, it helped the abduction narrative no end.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 9:48

Phoebe wrote:Maybe this has already been discussed to death - if so apologies. I have been re-browsing through the P.J. files and read the 12th Sept 07 statement of Richard McCluskey. I was kinda gobsmacked to read that he had contacted the police on this date to state that he...

"Had been watching T.V coverage of Mr.McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. It was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think" (earlier statement given to P.J.) Then on 20th Sept 07 (eight days later) Martin Smith says almost word for word the same thing about the man whom he claimed he saw carrying a child through the streets. Bizarre coincidence or what!!!

Well spotted @ Phoebe and well done also for taking the time and trouble to research the original statements...if only a few more people invested time and effort in doing so!

I made extensive notes on this, sorry they are not properly written up, but I hope they are useful. The couple referred to by Mr & Mrs McCluskey were traced and are a Ukrainian couple.

I think the McCluskey story and Martin Smith's identical claim about 'Gerry carrying Sean on his left shoulder' are an obvious giveaway that these two stories were invented and inspired by the same source. We know that Martin Smith had 'met Murat several times over at least two years', so my working assumption would be that Murat or those in his circle inspired both the Martin Smith and McCluskey stories.

The Murat and the McCann 'camps' met for a summit meeting at the home of Murat's aunt and uncle on 13 November 2007. A lot changed in the weeks immediately following:

Here are my notes:

=======================================

SUSAN MCCLUSKEY
9th May 2007

I could describe the woman as 5 ft 5 inches - 5ft 6 inches blonde ponytail with a very worried / white face. I only noticed she was casually dressed.

Quote:

Mr Richard McCluskey
Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police

Statement made 12th September 2007

Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.

I've agonised for days

Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child’s weight.

13th September 2007

Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, M, McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann( the missing child’s mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would, in his words, " hate to incriminate an innocent person."

Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person…

STATEMENT
Richard McCluskey

Age 61

Retired

Statement Date 9/5/2007

On Saturday 05 May 2007 at approximately 01.50hrs I was with my wife Susan in the holiday resort of ALVOR, PORTUGAL. We were walking up the bank from the town of Alvor in order to return to our hotel, known as the Clube Alvorferias, after a night out. As we approached the junction I observed a white ford transit vehicle drive up the bank and stop well away from the kerb in the junction turning right, blocking traffic turning right. I would describe the vehicle as a flatbed 'transit' vat with a white cab area with white metal fold down side flaps/boards. I recognise the type of vehicle as I used to drive one. I did not notice whether it had any identifying marks of advertising on it.

As it had caught our attention I stopped and watched. I then observed a dark skinned male, well built, dark hair (page 1) get out of the vehicle and begin to stagger up the bank in a drunken manner. I could not see much detail because it was dark but I could see that he had cradled a child of about 3-4years over his left shoulder. Again I could not give anything else due to the darkness but it was clear that the child was not making any noise, or crying, or appear in distress. There was no movement at all.

I was aware that a child was missing in the area and therefore went and took the registration of the vehicle, which my wife wrote initially on her hand and later on a piece of paper.

I watched him stagger approx 200m up the bank and then turn right on a road into a complex area. It was at this point that the situation appeared very strange and so we decided to take the vehicle number.

As we were taking the number a woman appeared half running towards the van from the road on which the van was parked. She was clearly in distress and upon seeing us began to talk in Portuguese. We could not understand her and at this point we were the only other people on the street; but as we were talking a young Portuguese couple appeared from (page 2) the same direction as the woman in a small red vehicle and stopped. The male came over and was able to speak good English he translated what the woman was saying. In the conversation it became apparent that the couple had observed the male with the child in a situation further up the road and had seen the man hit the woman and had driven around the block and found the woman with us. He said he had phoned the police. Thinking everything was alright we left the couple, woman and van in situ and entered our apartment.

Statement continues with a description of what happened when they reported the incident.

Upon entering the apartment we put on Sky news and became aware of a news report about a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of the British child. I therefore went to complex and informed them of what I had seen and gave him the registration on the paper. We then returned to the area and saw the woman and the vehicle still in place. I returned to the apartment and after an hour hadn’t heard anything so I contacted the police. Eventually I got through to an English speaker and explained what had happened. The police stated they were sending someone to reception. I decided to go down and wait for them. As I got downstairs I could see two police in a patrol vehicle outside reception. The officers spoke English and I explained the situation and gave them another copy of the registration which we had written down. They told me they were dealing or had dealt with the situation. Then at about 03.15 we checked the area again and the van and woman had gone.

I can confirm that the registration was 3893 VL for the transit vehicle. I have also produced a hand-drawn map of the local area which I now produce as RMC/1.
Signed
R. McCluskey

There is a handwritten note in Portuguese on the statement :

It has already been checked! They are Ukrainians from Alvor with a blonde daughter who attends the “A Flor” crèche in Portimao.

Table of Contents : APENSOS V, Volume I, Supposed Sightings and Locations (FILE 01)....(PDF Page 119)....Page 137?

"Handwritten Richard McCluskey statement"

Page 137 (Page 1 of 1) (Copied and pasted from the Page 131 reference)

Statement made 12th September 2007

I am the above named person and I live at an address know to Police. In early May 2007 myself and my wife were on holiday in Portugal. I have already provided a witness statement in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I would like to add the following;

The events of the past week or so, with the McCanns being very much in the news, have triggered my memory in relation to the incident.

In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.

Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.

I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.

(signed).......R McCluskey

Table of Contents : APENSOS V, Volume I, Supposed Sightings and Locations (FILE 01)....(PDF Pages 116-118)....Pages 133 to 135?"Fax from Northumbria Police re McCluskey statements"

Apensos V, Vol 1, Pages 133-135

Page 133 (Page 1 of 3, with one page (Page 134) Missing )

FAX from Northumbria Police
Block 9/10
Force HQ
Ponteland
Newcastle upon Tyne
Telephone 01912889356
Fax : 62388

From : DC Colin McLean
To : DC Andy GIERC, OP TASK
New Parks Police Station
Leicester
Telephone No : 011624844452 Fax No 01162312190
Date/Time : 9th May 2007 14.33 Number of Pages (including this one) : 9

MESSAGE

Andy,
Please find enclosed the attached statements of Mr and Mrs McCluskey and hand drawn map of the

locale. If there is anything else you need please let me know.

Cheers

'Don' McLean

Page 134 Missing Page. (Page 2 of 3)

Page 135 (Page 3 of 3)

Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police

13th September 2007

Please find attached a witness statement provided by Richard McCluskey. Firstly may I apologise for the delay in forwarding but the system crashed at this end and the problem has taken some time to resolve.

Mr. McCluskey states he has already provided a witness statement in relation the enquiry having been on holiday in Portugal at the relevant time. He provided a statement in relation to suspicious activity he observed in the early hours of Saturday 5 May 2007.In the original statement Mr. McClusky states he described a male alighting a white coloured van and walking along a road carrying what appeared to be a motionless child. He then states he observed a distressed female run down a road and approach the same white coloured van.

Mr McCluskey did go into detail regarding the incident but then stated that all details were covered in his first statement, provided in May 2007. Not having had sight of the original statement it is obviously difficult to comment on the context and accuracy of the account given.

Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, M, McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann( the missing child?s mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police. He is acutely aware of the possibly implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would , in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."

Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.

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

Table of Contents : APENSOS V, Volume I, Supposed Sightings and Locations (FILE 01)....(PDF Pages 113-114)....Pages 129 to 130?"Statement of Susan McCluskey sighting 2007.05.09 (English)"

Apensos V, Vol 1 Pages 129-130

Page 129 (Page 1 of 2)

CONFIDENTIAL
STATEMENT
Number : S18
Surname : MCCLUSKEY
Forename(s) : SUSAN
Age : OVER 18 Date of Birth : 14th May 1957
Address : x, LIxx AVxxxx, SUNDERLAND, TYNE AND WEAR
Postcode : SRx xxx
Telephone No : 019153xxxxx
Statement Date : 9th May 2007 Number of pages : 3

I am the above named person living at an address known to the Police.

At approximately 10 to 2 in the morning of Saturday 5th May 2007, I was on holiday in the town of ALVOR, PORTUGAL, with my husband Richard. We were walking up the bank from the town returning to our hotel complex known as, CLUBE ALVORFERIAS, after a night out. We were the only people on the street. We were on the main road which was dark but lit by street lighting.

As we approached the hotel Raymond(sic) - (Richard surely ??) - drew my attention to a vehicle which had stopped on the junction across the road. It was parked in the middle of the junction and initially I had thought it had broken down because of the way it was stopped. I did not have any glasses on but I was able to distinguish a male with a child get up and stagger up the hill. I can say the vehicle was about 20-30f when it stopped (PAGE ONE) but we had a clear and unobstructed view of the junction. There was no traffic and the junction was well lit with street lighting. Raymond(sic) then decided to go across and check out the vehicle. We both went over and wrote the vehicle registration of the white
'pick-up' vehicle down on my hand. We had been at the vehicle only a very short time, possibly a couple of minutes when a woman and a couple in a dark vehicle appeared from the road in front of the van almost simultaneously. I could describe the woman as 5 ft 5 inches - 5ft 6 inches blonde ponytail with a very worried / white face. I only noticed she was casually dressed. I could see that the male who got out of the car was on his mobile phone. We got into conversation as he could speak English and I asked him whether he was looking for a man with a child to which he said yes. He said he had seen the man hit the girl who was her(sic) (possibly should be 'him') and had turned around to see if he could catch him which was how he had ended up here. I also asked him if he knew about the missing child to which he said yes. I said can we leave it with you and he said 'yes'. He was still on the (page 2) phone at this time.

Page 130 (Page 2 of 2)

We left and returned to the hotel. We went to security to report the matter but the doors were locked. We therefore went to our room and had a coffee watching Sky News. We saw the news that the girl still had not been found and a report of a couple acting suspiciously. We could not settle and returned to security and woke him up and explained the situation, after which we returned to the pick -up and saw it and the woman still there. At this point the security guard said leave it with me and initially we did. However after a while we had not had anybody call so we went back down and spoke to the security man who stated he had spoke to the woman who said she had a family argument over not being able to find a child minder, and he had to leave the van there for the boss to pick it up. We were incensed by this in light of what was on the news and Richard asked for the Police and contacted them himself.

(signed) S MCCLUSKEY

Date 2007/05/25

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

From: Inspector F. Antonio

Subject: Communication of facts about the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

We inform you that today this police station received a phone call followed by the sending of this handwritten document by fax at about 11.15 by a person who identified herself

Handwritten:

- Same situation
- Two different number plates
- One (JG) already discounted => NEG
- The other (CG) Toyota Maize => NEG
28th May

Typed text continues:

as MK with residence at Rua R. A. D, Leca do Balio.

At this address at about 13.00 KZ, a Ukrainian citizen with temporary residence permit no. +++, mobile n+++ the wife of the aforementioned accompanied by her baby son DK was contacted by myself and my colleague Milton Trigo. She identified her husband as being the owner of vehicle with NIF nº 234700025, her husband, together with a colleague from work, on Monday 21-05-2007 at about 15.00 left for the Ukraine for some time, also taking with them her daughter aged 4, IK, who like her son was born in Portugal where they have lived for the past 6 years. Her husband and daughter are staying at the following address *******, Ukriane, telephone number *****.

Personal identification documents for the husband and daughter wee not presented as they had them with them but other proof of their names was presented. Recent photos were shown, of April this year and from before with their daughter in Leca where they live. Physical similarities were noted with the missing girl Madeleine McCann, although (the Ukrainian girl) was bigger and with a rounder face.

Having previously spoken to the neighbours it was established that the girl had left with the father and a colleague on Monday for the Ukraine. It was observed that having taking this girl on such a long journey was justified that she did not stay with the small boy (which would have been) a burden for the mother.

The description of the facts denounced was explained in this way. There was no doubt that the girl was the daughter of both, known by the neighbours and having lived at the address for a long time.

By the woman's admission, without mentioning the case of Madeleine McCann further, as she was now being heard by the police and regarding any doubts concerning the motive, she says that she had already observed - as had her husband - that her daughter could be confused with Madeleine because of the physical similarities and age.

For your information.

Signed

by Phoebe 28.03.17 10:36

Thanks Tony and for the trouble you've taken in your detailed reply. At first, because of the identical wording, I actually thought I'd mistakenly clicked on Smith's interview and had to scroll back up to double check. From what I gather McCluskey made his statement to his local police who forwarded it to Leicestershire police. Did n't Smith's "aeroplane" revelation statement also come later through them? The use of almost verbatim claims by two distinct unconnected witnesses is highly suspicious.

by Phoebe 28.03.17 15:18

There is something decidedly "off" about the Smith sighting. According to a Sky News report by John Kelly (4 Jan 08) quoting Martin Smith, the Portuguese Police "took a statement form me on the phone". Rubbish!! No police force takes statements over the phone and who would have translated such a call? How did Smith get their number? This contact with police only occurred because 2 weeks after returning to Ireland Smith's son allegedly rang his father to ask if he was "dreaming" or if they had seen a man carrying a child on May 3rd. Obviously then, it was such an innocuous event they hadn't thought of it again. The Smiths then made a statement to the Irish police and "Two days later the Leicestershire police got on to us". Why? surely the Gardai were themselves capable of contacting their Portuguese counterparts to fax a copy of Smith's statement given in Drogheda. How much influence did that contact with Leicestershire P. have on the Smiths' subsequent statements of May 26th, especially as Jane Tanner's statement re "Bundleman's" description was already known? I believe the Smith's were lead in their May 26th Statements. They went from barely noticing the man they met in poor light to being able to describe his "non-tourist" clothing, down to his trouser buttons!

by pennylane 28.03.17 16:18

I very much believe the Smith family sighting is legitimate, and (imho) it was Gerry McCann that the family saw. It has not been proven in any way that Martin Smith was 'friends' with Murat. It appears he knew him as well as I know the people that live near my holiday home, which is enough for polite banter, having never been inside their houses, or they in mine. I've had my holiday home for several years, and am still only 'friends' with the people that live next door.

I believe the reason Tanner gave McCann such a desperately absurd alibi, that was revised within an inch of its life, was precisely because he'd ran into this family and feared he would be identified and hence it was cobbled up rapidly. This crime has last minute fiasco written all over it.

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 16:27

I think the Smith sighting was at best a fleeting glance at someone outside of a bar, someone who wasn't visible enough to gather anything of substance but transformed itself into major two images on Crime Watch. It's about time people take Tony Bennett seriously.

by Phoebe 28.03.17 16:48

I believe the Smiths did see exactly what they first described, a fleeting glance of an unidentifiable man carrying a child in a long-sleeved top. Probably totally innocent explanation. The international bruhaha about Madeleine, the fact that they had been in loco on the night and the inevitable interest of family/ friends when they got back to Ireland understandably led to them eventually remember the event as more important than it was and caused Smith's son to ring him two weeks later to this effect. Their claim was most welcome as it supported the abduction theory. All that had to be done was to find similarities with Tannerman. I don't believe either Gerry or anyone else was parading about with a corpse on the night of May 3rd.

by Cmaryholmes 28.03.17 16:54

pennylane wrote:I very much believe the Smith family sighting is legitimate, and (imho) it was Gerry McCann that the family saw. It has not been proven in any way that Martin Smith was 'friends' with Murat. It appears he knew him as well as I know the people that live near my holiday home, which is enough for polite banter, having never been inside their houses, or they in mine. I've had my holiday home for several years, and am still only 'friends' with the people that live next door.

I believe the reason Tanner gave McCann such a desperately absurd alibi, that was revised within an inch of its life, was precisely because he'd ran into this family and feared he would be identified and hence it was cobbled up rapidly. This crime has last minute fiasco written all over it.

Why did the description of 'Smithman' change? Why would Gerry be walking around PdL with Madeleine, and was it just a coincidence that the sighting was only remembered and reported after Robert Murat was declared aguido? Red herring, anyone?

by pennylane 28.03.17 17:09

Cmaryholmes wrote:
pennylane wrote:I very much believe the Smith family sighting is legitimate, and (imho) it was Gerry McCann that the family saw. It has not been proven in any way that Martin Smith was 'friends' with Murat. It appears he knew him as well as I know the people that live near my holiday home, which is enough for polite banter, having never been inside their houses, or they in mine. I've had my holiday home for several years, and am still only 'friends' with the people that live next door.

I believe the reason Tanner gave McCann such a desperately absurd alibi, that was revised within an inch of its life, was precisely because he'd ran into this family and feared he would be identified and hence it was cobbled up rapidly. This crime has last minute fiasco written all over it.
Why did the description of 'Smithman' change? Why would Gerry be walking around PdL with Madeleine, and was it just a coincidence that the sighting was only remembered and reported after Robert Murat was declared aguido? Red herring, anyone?

Where's the proof Martin Smith and Robert Murat are close friends? Wouldn't others know if the friendship was so strong that he was willing to get his entire family to lie. It's a very flimsy connection that has been used for which to throw a family of witnesses under a bus. (imo)

by Mirage 28.03.17 17:18

The very fact that Kate McCann thinks there are too many similarities to ignore tells me there is something distinctly off before going any further.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 17:26

Phoebe wrote:I believe the Smiths did see exactly what they first described, a fleeting glance of an unidentifiable man carrying a child in a long-sleeved top. Probably totally innocent explanation. The international bruhaha about Madeleine, the fact that they had been in loco on the night and the inevitable interest of family/ friends when they got back to Ireland understandably led to them eventually remember the event as more important than it was and caused Smith's son to ring him two weeks later to this effect. Their claim was most welcome as it supported the abduction theory. All that had to be done was to find similarities with Tannerman. I don't believe either Gerry or anyone else was parading about with a corpse on the night of May 3rd.

But the extraordinary number (17) of nearly exact similarities between the Smithman and Tannerman descriptions is impossible to explain as a coincidence, especially when you add in that meaningless phrase 'didn't look like a tourist', used by both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith.

But when you add in the remarkable fact that Nuno Lourenco's description of Wojchiech Krokowski also had most of those similar descriptions...including words like 'cloth clothes', 'classic shoes' and, once again, 'didn't look like a tourist', the odds against this being just a 'coincidence' are tens of thousands to one against.

Remember also that Nuno Lourenco completely fooled Goncalo Amaral to go on a wild goose chase all over Germany and Poland, chasing Krokowski, because he thought Lourenco and Tanner were describing the same man.

Well, they were, actually. But not Madeleine's abductor.

Three description, almost identical to each other? This was no coincidence. It was surely a deliberate and criminal collusion and conspiracy to deceive the police and the public...

...who organised it?

.

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 18:50

Tony, did you suspect Martin Smith to be in on the collusion from the moment he first got involved or did you change your mind about him at some stage?

If you are right and he is involved why do you think he first said he was 75% ( looking for an average) sure it was Gerry McCann walking past him? Would that not incriminate McCann who he is in collusion with?

I am not questioning you, just want a grasp of your mindset.

I am coming from the angle that maybe Team McCann got a grip of a decent and honest man who might have been persuaded that he was mistaken about his recollection of the man he saw and cajoled into believing his help was greatly needed in finding Madeleine's abductor ( on their terms of course as it was one man against a machine run by that awful Mitchell)

Please be gentle with your reply, I have not studied the case as much as you.

-------

A Moderator writes for clarification: You wrote "...Martin Smith to be in on the collusion from the moment he first got involved..."

This seems a bit strange. Do you mean the moment Martin Smith 'first got involved'? If so, which moment is this, i.e. when did Martin Smith 'first get involved'? Can you elaborate?

Or did you really mean to write 'from the moment you got involved', meaning Tony? - Mod

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 20:01

I believe the Smith sighting to be totally erroneous, misleading and manufactured.

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 20:17

I thought it was clear I was saying from the time Martin Smith came forward, was it 2-3 weeks after the claim Madeleine was abducted. Please correct me if this wasn't the first time Martin Smith became involved.

You are making me doubt myself.

by NickE 28.03.17 20:25

The reason why the Smith sighting is not reliable is simple.

--"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".

He "adds" this urgent without any previous questions regarding Murat from the Police and he reported this sighting the day after PJ did a crackdown on Murats property.

Both, english spoken businessmen in a small resort like Pdl, Smith with a holiday apt and Murat as a resident.
Iám pretty sure they knew each other very well.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 21:29

Justice will prevail wrote:Tony, did you suspect Martin Smith to be in on the collusion from the moment he first got involved or did you change your mind about him at some stage?

That's a rather strange 'either/or' question which doesn't really make full sense.

To answer your second question first, it is well-known on here that my serious interest in the 'Smithman' sighting began with watching, with sheer stupefaction, the nonsense spouted by DCI Andy Redwood of the Met and Matthew Amroliwala of the BBC on the Crimewatch McCann Special transmitted on 14 October 2013.

Having called Operation Grange an expensive charade from Day One, I was expecting rubbish, but not anything as woeful as this:

A. Looking for a bloke with two quite different e-fits presented, and
B. Claiming that after 6 years that had dredged up a bloke walking home from the night crèche in exactly the same clothes as Jane Tanner's Tannerman.

That made FOUR blokes looking identical!

- Jane Tanner's Tannerman - description given 4 May 2007
- Nuno Lourenco's Sagresman - description given 5 May 2007
- Martin Smith's Smithman - description given verbally on 16 May and then in statement form on 26 May 2007...and finally...
- DCI Redwood's Crecheman - description given 14 October 2013.

If you've read the OPs to SMITHMAN to SMITHMAN, you'll know the following ,and my reasons for them:

1. Martin Smith contacted the Irish Police on 16 May 2007 because of his connection, whether acquaintance, or friend, or something in between, with Robert Murat
2. He was given privately , by someone, either the description of Tannerman or of Sagresman, or both, and 'told' to give a similar description, which of course he did
3. The most likely source for Martin Smith to have obtained this description was Robert Murat himself (Murat would know about it because of his translation work in the early days), or by someone connected to him

If you are right and he is involved why do you think he first said he was 75% (looking for an average) sure it was Gerry McCann walking past him? Would that not incriminate McCann who he is in collusion with?

Martin Smith did not make his '60% to 80% sure' identification of Gerry McCann until he contacted the Irish Police on 20 September. He told the police it was because he was carrying his son Sean on his left shoulder when descending from an aeroplane on 9 September. As reasons go for positively identifying someone, it's complete rubbish, isn't it? As the SMITHMAN threads make very clear, Brian Kennedy on behalf of the McCanns contacted Martin Smith three months later (December 2007) and from then on it's very obvious (though some people refuse to accept the obvious) that he has been working hand-on-glove with the McCanns and Operation Grange ever since.

I am not questioning you, just want a grasp of your mindset.

You're not the only one.

I am coming from the angle that maybe Team McCann got a grip of a decent and honest man who might have been persuaded that he was mistaken about his recollection of the man he saw and cajoled into believing his help was greatly needed in finding Madeleine's abductor (on their terms of course as it was one man against a machine run by that awful Mitchell)

Please be gentle with your reply, I have not studied the case as much as you.

Undoubtedly, Team McCann 'got hold' of Martin Smith in December 2007 and he's been in the McCann 'camp' since then.

Try thinking along these lines. Was there a 'McCann camp' and a 'Murat camp'?

Is that why, for example...

1. Jane Tanner identified Murat as the abductor (she changed her mind after 13 November 2007)
2. Rachael Oldfield said on 17 May: 'I saw Murat near the McCanns' apartment on the evening of 3rd May' (she changed her mind after 13 November 2007)
3. Fiona Payne said on 17 May: 'I saw Murat near the McCanns' apartment on the evening of 3rd May' (she changed her mind after 13 November 2007)
4. Russell O'Brien said on 17 May: 'I saw Murat near the McCanns' apartment on the evening of 3rd May' (he changed his mind after 13 November 2007).

Your next question might be: 'What happened on 13 November 2007'.

The answer is that the McCann camp met with the Murat camp that day at the house of Murat's aunt and uncle, Sally and Ralph Eveleigh.

The McCann camp were 'tooled up' with heavy artillery, namely one of Britain's richest men, Brain Kennedy, and one of the country's most prominent Freemasons, Edward Smethurst, who was also Head of Legal Services for Kennedy's Latium Group.

The Murats had respectable legal firepower too, in the shape of top Algarve lawyer Francisco Pagarete.

I think a deal was done at this meeting

by Phoebe 28.03.17 21:37

Hi Tony, No I don't for a second believe these similarities are random coincidence. I think the Smiths were initially fed their lines almost without realizing it. I was a key witness in a double-murder investigation some years ago and well remember the process of giving statements. I had to be very assertive at times and insist that certain parts were re worded, as the end result reflected more the interviewer's interpretation and bias than the actual evidence I was trying to convey! It's easy to lead a witness and plant ideas they think they came up with themselves. I can picture the scene (interviewer) - "What was he wearing, T shirt and shorts?"
(Smith) "No, I think it was ordinary trousers"
(interviewer) "Not dressed like a typical tourist then?"
(Smith) "No"
( Interviewer) "So full length trousers, probably light- weight"
(and as we know these are almost always beige, cream or light blue)
I can imagine how it went on til the police got him to "remember" what they were looking for. Then the statement is read back to you and you confirm that's what you agreed, unless you're prepared to put your foot down. Job done! Later on I believe the influence of Kennedy and T McC came into play with the Smiths.

by Phoebe 28.03.17 21:52

Let me clarify that I don't believe it was the P.J. who "led" the Smiths. I think this happened when Leicestershire P "got on to them" BEFORE they made any statement to the P.J. I also think a large part of their motive for contacting the police was to exonerate Murat.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 22:11

Phoebe wrote:Hi Tony, No I don't for a second believe these similarities are random coincidence. I think the Smiths were initially fed their lines almost without realizing it. I was a key witness in a double-murder investigation some years ago and well remember the process of giving statements. I had to be very assertive at times and insist that certain parts were re worded, as the end result reflected more the interviewer's interpretation and bias than the actual evidence I was trying to convey! It's easy to lead a witness and plant ideas they think they came up with themselves. I can picture the scene (interviewer) - "What was he wearing, T shirt and shorts?"
(Smith) "No, I think it was ordinary trousers"
(interviewer) "Not dressed like a typical tourist then?"
(Smith) "No"
( Interviewer) "So full length trousers, probably light- weight"
(and as we know these are almost always beige, cream or light blue)
I can imagine how it went on til the police got him to "remember" what they were looking for. Then the statement is read back to you and you confirm that's what you agreed, unless you're prepared to put your foot down. Job done! Later on I believe the influence of Kennedy and T McC came into play with the Smiths.

Yes, most certainly police can lead a witness in the way you suggest, BUT in this case, I've explained in my post just now upthread, that all the indications here are that Martin Smith got his 'lines' from Murat or someone close to Murat

by Justice will prevail 28.03.17 22:16

Gonna read and digest that tomorrow Tony.

Read your thoughts before the edit which I thought were brief. So looking forward to your longer response and hope they can turn a light on.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 22:23

Justice will prevail wrote:Gonna read and digest that tomorrow Tony.

Read your thoughts before the edit which I thought were brief. So looking forward to your longer response and hope they can turn a light on.

Yes, in your post timed at 10.09, you described my response as 'weak and evasive'.

That's not very nice, is it, as a new member who is asking questions and getting informative answers?

Mind you, I'm not sure that my answers will 'turn your light on'.

You need to be connected and wired up properly, otherwise the light bulb will never work

by Phoebe 28.03.17 23:14

I agree that the statements of Lourenco and Tanner clearly point to collusion between them. Smith however, came forward much later, mainly to clear Murat. I believe he did this because the importance of seeing "his" man had grown out of all proportion in the family's minds and they were keen to say this man wasn't Murat. That might be for no more complicated reason than the fact that it was the truth. My gut feeling is that he was then "led" so that his description matched Bundleman's. If I'm correct Krokowski had been ruled out by May 6th (waste of P.J. time) therefore, before Smith was interviewed, someone in the Leicestershire P. who believed "abduction" was down to only Jane's sighting and Smith was needed to give weight to the abduction theory. His later statement about it looking like Gerry, after the aeroplane episode. also came through Leicestershire P. and was a re hash of McCluskey's statement. Seeing as it seems unlikely Murat was in contact with McCluskey, to me it looks like someone from Leicestershire P. doing the initial prompting of Smith.

by Rob Royston 29.03.17 21:25

Phoebe wrote:I agree that the statements of Lourenco and Tanner clearly point to collusion between them. Smith however, came forward much later, mainly to clear Murat. I believe he did this because the importance of seeing "his" man had grown out of all proportion in the family's minds and they were keen to say this man wasn't Murat. That might be for no more complicated reason than the fact that it was the truth. My gut feeling is that he was then "led" so that his description matched Bundleman's. If I'm correct Krokowski had been ruled out by May 6th (waste of P.J. time) therefore, before Smith was interviewed, someone in the Leicestershire P. who believed "abduction" was down to only Jane's sighting and Smith was needed to give weight to the abduction theory. His later statement about it looking like Gerry, after the aeroplane episode. also came through Leicestershire P. and was a re hash of McCluskey's statement. Seeing as it seems unlikely Murat was in contact with McCluskey, to me it looks like someone from Leicestershire P. doing the initial prompting of Smith.

I think you are correct when you say that there was collusion between the Lourenco and Tanner statements. There was definitely a planned abduction that week and many played their parts as directed. The Smithman sighting was probably following the original script but without the correct "abductee" as it looks like some disaster had necessitated her substitution.
This post from Textusa seems to be a possible explanation,

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

She also did a post about an imagined scenario where Mr Smith was identified (from Gerry describing the family) by a PDL property magnate, who with many others had a vested financial interest in keeping the lid on what had happened. I can't find it at the moment but I read it maybe in the last year, although it could have been a lot older than that. It made sense of how the Smiths could have been prompted into coming forward.

by Phoebe 30.03.17 0:01

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.

by Guest 30.03.17 0:19

Textusa, another one who declared a while ago the sisterhood were going to stop commenting on the Madeleine McCann case - but didn't stop, might occasionally hit the spot but for the most part makes a big something out of a nothing.

Cut to the chase (if that's possible), the blog seldom makes any sense, let alone adding anything worthwhile to uncovering the truth. Every fantasists dream!