Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?'

@ Tony Bennett. 

Tony the following claims are snipped from your article above -


"(4) He then proceeded to help the McCann Team in the following ways:


C  (Mrs Smith told the Irish press that he and her supported the McCanns) 
D  His sighting being included in the May 2009 Mockumentary
E  His sighting being included on the McCanns' website from May 2009
F  He AMENDED his description of the age of the man for the SECOND time down to '34-35'
G  He consented to his description being compared to Tannerman in 7 pages of Kate McCann's book 'madeleine'
H He co-operated with the BBC & Operation Grange in the making of the farcical BBC Crimewatch Special of 14 October 2013 and met DCI Andy Redwood or another twice."



For the life of me I cannot imagine how you can make these claims! 

There is absolutely no proof that Mr. Smith "helped" the McCanns in ANY way. In fact, the actual evidence is directly to the contrary.

Firstly, Martin Smith categorically stated to the Gardai (who relayed this information to the P.J.) that he had NEVER spoken to the press. The notion of Mrs Smith expressing support or sympathy for the McCanns and then supporting her husband's claim that it was actually Gerry they saw that night carrying a child is completely ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as suggesting that people involved in aiding the McCanns in their cover-up would directly point the finger of blame at them. Paper does not refuse ink and journalists can and do write what they like! What we DO know for a fact is that Mr Smith threatened legal action against no less than six newspapers for misquoting him!
You state that Mr Smith CONSENTED to his sighting being used in various programs etc. Where is the proof of this consent! All we do know is that Martin Smith publicly states that he contacted the BBC to protest about their false claim that he had changed his mind on the man being Gerry. He has gone on public record to state that he has never changed his mind about this. In doing so he embarrassed the BBC into acknowledging that this was false!
You claim that he altered Smithman's age in a later statement, yet the P.J.files (attached to the statement of Sgt. Liam Hogan- Jan 30th 2008) shows Martin Smith said the following - 

"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."  

It would be ludicrous for Martin Smith to claim (and to persist in this claim) that he saw Gerry that night while simultaneously putting the aforementioned man's age at 34- 35 yrs!

Yes, it is frustrating that Gemma O'Doherty has not yet written another piece about Madeleine's disappearance. However, she has a track record of tackling matters in her own way and in her own time. Nor, alas, is she concentrating on the Madeleine case exclusively. There are other matters which occupy her time.
However, she has achieved one pivotal thing with that single article - she has clearly shown that Martin Smith has never deviated from his claim that he believes he saw Gerry, carrying a child very like his "abducted" daughter, at the actual time her disappearance was being made public. For many years people have speculated that Martin Smith withdrew his claim, was working with the McCanns etc. Her article blows that claim clean out of the water and if she achieves nothing else that one piece of confirmation re. the Smiths' position on the matter is invaluable IMO!

Tony Bennett wrote:I will try to find out more, but in the meantime I join with @ Verdi and @ MarkWillis in suggesting that Gemma O'Doherty's word cannot be relied on

I don't doubt there was a time when Mark Williams-Thomas was hailed as the second coming, his words of wisdom taken as gospel. There appears to be any number of imposters out there capitalizing on their position or past position.

As they say, too many cooks spoil the broth - or in this case, all that glitters is not gold. Part-timers with scant knowledge of the case cause more problems than they're worth, they send out the wrong messages which can be very damaging to the cause - in this case justice for little Madeleine McCann. The name Madeleilne is not a campaign slogan, or at least it shouldn't be; the parents tried that and LOQK where that took them! Madeleine deserves better, she's not a commoditity!

I wish Ms O'Doherty well with her campaign for presidency.

A little information for what it's worth.

 The late Veronica Guerin wrote for the Irish Independent group of newspapers, part of the media machine (INM) of Denis O'Brien. After her death her brother Jimmy was then given a role as a columnist with the same paper. This was the very same newspaper which Gemma O'Doherty wrote for, before being sacked for refusing to toe the editorial line. She subsequently successfully sued her former employer for unfair dismissal and received a published apology from them over the affair.
 Since then O'Doherty has very publicly exposed alleged shady behaviour by Denis O'Brien, both in terms of his media empire and other business interests. In the past few weeks the Irish High Court has granted an application by the Irish State's corporate watchdog to appoint inspectors to investigate the conduct of the affairs of the media group INM.
 While I have no doubt that Gemma O' Doherty may have her faults, I turn a very jaundiced eye on any criticism of her which emanates from any INM (O'Brien) source. I expect to see much more of it now that she has thrown her hat into the presidential race ring!

If Martin Smith was so 60/80% sure the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann (because of the way he was carrying his son down the aircraft stairs - the customary way to carry a child), why then didn't the e-fit Martin Smith helped to prepare for the Crimewatch October 2013 production, bear some resemblance to Gerry McCann?



OK, folk have tried in the past to find an image of Gerry McCann that could vaguely resemble one of the e-fit images (said to be of the same man) but realistically you can manipulate any one image any way you like - at the end of the day it still looks nothing like the e-fit produced with the help of Martin Smith who apparently remains adamant that the mystery man witnessed was 60/80% Gerry McCann.

Why/what is this - an unhealthy distraction?

I don't wish to turn this into yet another Smithman thread but the subject is about Ms Gemma O'Doherty's brief coverage of Martin Smith's unwavering identification of Gerry McCann.

I have read the posts of @Phoebe and @Verdi and duly reply to them.

Gemma O'Doherty's report on the Madeleine McCann case was strange, indeed bizarre.

There was one 'nugget' in her report which was the peg on which the whole story hung - namely that Martin Smith had claimed to her that he was still 'sticking' to his belief that the man he said he saw on 3 May 2007 was Gerry McCann, presumably carrying Madeleine.

Apart from the obvious credibility problems with this belief (he only saw the man for a second or two in the dark, said he would never recognise him if he saw him again, and claimed to 'recognise' Gerry McCann merely by 'the way he was carrying his child'), how on earth are we to account for Martin Smith remaining silent for 10 years until Gemma O'Doherty comes a-knocking at his door.

Let's consider that Martin Smith may really believe he is up to 80% sure that he really saw Gerry McCann at 10pm on 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz and ask ourselves:

How come we have zero evidence that not one of the other NINE members of his party that night agree with his claim?

How come he agrees to work for Brian Kennedy, Metodo 3, Kevin Halligen & Henri Exton, who are employed by the McCanns? 

How come he agrees (if he does) to draw up efits for Henri Exton who works for the McCanns?

How come he says nothing when an hour-long Channel 4 documentary in May 2009 uses his sighting twice in support of the McCanns' and the programme's theory that Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same abductor?

How come he says nothing when the McCanns, also in May 2009, use his sighting as one of five possible abductors described on their website?

How come he says nothing when he notices that the age of the man he says he saw is changed a second time on the McCanns' website so as now to read '34-35'? (or did he in fact consent to this second change?

How come that on three occasions he gave three different ages for the man?  

How come that when Kate McCann wrote her book 'madeleine' in 2011 he raised no protest when once again his sighting was used by the McCanns to suggest that Tannerman and his sighting were one and the same abductor?

Why did he not choose that moment to say: "Hang on Kate McCann, my evidence is that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine down towards the beach on 3 May 2007!"

How come that he co-operated with Operation Grange by twice having meetings with DCI Andy Redwood or one of his team, one in 2012, one in 2013? 

Did he not know that the Crimewatch programme would feature his sighting as 'the new chief suspect for the abduction'?

Even if he didn't know, why did he not positively yell to the media after the programme: "Look, I say that Gerry McCann was the man I saw".

And then he whispers to Gemma O'Doherty: "I've never changed my mind, you know".

Give me a break, Phoebe


ETA: More about Gemma O'Doherty below

POTTED NOTES ABOUT GEMMA O'DOHERTY


Veronica Guerin's brother criticizes Gemma O'Doherty

Jimmy Guerin has said that he will confront Gemma O’Doherty over her “conspiracy theory” alleging that there was state collusion in his sister’s death if she seeks a nomination from Fingal county council today.

 

Ms O’Doherty, a freelance journalist, has claimed during her campaign that Veronica Guerin, the crime reporter, was murdered by the state. “I think Veronica, you know, she was heavily involved with criminals and very dangerous individuals. I believe Veronica was murdered by the state because she was getting far too close to some of the state’s very dirtiest secrets,” she said at an event in Waterford last month.

 

Ms Guerin was shot dead in her car on the outskirts of Dublin in 1996.

 

No conspiracy or State involvement in Veronica Guerin murder, brother says


 

Gemma O'Doherty's previous good record for investigative journalism

 

List of Awards


2007 ESB National Media Awards (Print Campaigning and Social Issues)

2011 GSK Irish Medical Media Awards (Consumer Print Media)

Shortlisted for 2012 NNI Journalism Awards (Crime & Security Reporter of the Year and Feature Writer of the Year)

2012 International Journalism Festival

2016 Award of Recognition in the Women Filmmaker section at the Hollywood Independent Documentary Awards

2016 Award of Excellence in the Feature Documentary section at the Hollywood Independent Documentary Awards

2016 Award of Merit at IndieFEST Film Awards


 

Lack of Irish media interest in her stories about Mary Boyle and Madeleine McCann

Investigative journalist faces apathy as she seeks to reveal the truth about the disappearance of ‘Ireland’s Madeleine McCann’

 

Mary Boyle is Ireland’s Madeleine McCann. Her case is the country’s longest-running missing child investigation. Not that there has been much investigation. There has been no inquest, no commission of inquiry and no debate in the Irish parliament despite mounting evidence, supported by the testimony of two former police officers, of a cover-up.

 

On 19 August 2018, O'Doherty announced that she was seeking a nomination to stand for the presidency in the 2018 election. During her campaign to seek a nomination, she alleged that there was state collusion in the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin, and threatened councillors with libel after the claims were raised at a meeting of Clare County Council called to hear from potential candidates.

 



IRISH TIMES Article 

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/presidential-hopeful-gemma-o-doherty-excoriated-by-veronica-guerin-s-brother-1.3624591

 

Presidential hopeful Gemma O’Doherty excoriated by Veronica Guerin’s brother


‘Only John Gilligan and Gemma O’Doherty say he is not responsible for Veronica’s death - Jimmy Guerin

Fingal councillor Jimmy Guerin, the brother of Veronica Guerin, excoriated independent presidential candidate Gemma O’Doherty over her allegations the State was involved in the murder of the investigative journalist.

 

Describing her allegations as hurtful, offensive and “disgusting”, Cllr Guerin told a meeting of Fingal County Council, held to decide presidential nominations, that  he wanted Ms O’Doherty to allow his late sister rest in peace.

 

He dismissed her allegations about State involvement in his sister’s death out of hand.

 

“In 22 years only two people I have come across say John Gilligan is not responsible for Veronica’s murder: one is John Gilligan. The other is Gemma O’Doherty,” he said.

 

Ms O’Doherty, also a journalist, claimed at an anti-corruption meeting in Waterford last month she believed Ms Guerin “was murdered by the State because she was getting far too close to some of the State’s very dirtiest secrets”.

 

In a Twitter post on Sunday, Ms O’Doherty listed Fingal as one of six councils to which her team would be making presentations on Monday. Mr Guerin then announced he would be confronting Ms O’Doherty over her remarks at the meeting. In the end she did not appear before the council, travelling to councils in Monaghan, Offaly and Kilkenny instead.

 

In her absence, Mr Guerin made pointed criticisms of Ms O’Doherty in a personal and emotional statement at the start of the meeting. Other councillors applauded the speech at its conclusion.

 

“It is 22 years since Veronica was brutally murdered and time doesn’t make it easier but it hurts when a presidential candidate who in my view is going nowhere, for cheap publicity tries to speak ill of my sister and make unfounded allegations against her and this state.

 

“A great sense of comfort at the time of Veronica’s death was how the State and various State agencies reacted.”

 

Mr Guerin said: “These hurtful, poisonous, unfounded allegations that Ms O’Doherty makes insult not only Veronica’s memory but the many gardaí who literally put their lives on the line and challenge the gangs that were responsible for her killing.

 

“It insults the prosecutors who fearlessly brought the evidence before the courts. It insults the judiciary, who heard the evidence, without fear or favour. It insults the thousands of ordinary people who contacted our family and were a great sense of support for us in a most difficult time.”

 

He said there was no conspiracy or State involvement.

 

“She was murdered because she wasn’t prepared to be bullied by John Gilligan into dropping charges against him for a most vicious assault which would have ended in his drug empire collapsing.

 

“They’re the facts, I know that and I’m satisfied with that. And in 22 years, there are only two people that I have come across that say John Gilligan was not responsible for arranging Veronica’s murder.

 

“One is John Gilligan, the second is Gemma O’Doherty.

 

Mr Guerin told the meeting he would rather if Ms O’Doherty found something else to use to get publicity.

 

"There’s no conspiracy, no State involvement. And I would ask her to allow my sister rest in peace.”

 

Ms O’Doherty could not be reached for comment on Monday.

 

Ms O’Doherty responded by saying she rejected Mr Guerin’s claims and she would not be silenced by anybody including him. 

 

“A member of An Garda Siochana informed me it was his belief that a State official colluded with individuals who wanted Veronica Guerin silenced. I have no reason to doubt him because he is an honest and diligent officer.

 

“Veronica Guerin has nothing to do with my Presidential campaign but I believe she is being used as a desperate attempt to smear my good name and my chances of getting a nomination.”

 

[This article includes a 3-minute video of Jimmy Guerin expressing his disgust at Gemma O'Doherty's campaign 


 

TIMES ARTICLE
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/veronica-guerin-s-brother-to-press-gemma-o-doherty-on-conspiracy-theory-6fdqvcd68

 

Monday, September 10, 2018 - 02:40 PM

 

By Daniel McConnell

Political Editor

 

There was no conspiracy or State involvement in the killing of murdered journalist Veronica Guerin, her councillor brother Jimmy Guerin has said.

 

Speaking at a special meeting of Fingal County Council, Mr Guerin was afforded an opportunity to speak in response to recent controversial comments by aspirant Presidential candidate, Gemma O'Doherty.

 

Ms O'Doherty was scheduled to address the meeting alongside other candidates, but withdrew with less than an hour's notice, council officials confirmed.

 

Ms O'Doherty recently claimed that Ms Guerin was murdered by the State but her comments were on Monday afternoon strongly rejected by Mr Guerin.

 

He said in the 22 years since her death, only two people have said John Gilligan did not kill her. “They are John Gilligan and Gemma O'Doherty,” he said.

 

In a five minute speech, Mr Guerin, an independent councillor, referred to numerous statements in the media in recent weeks by Ms O'Doherty saying he found them to be “hurtful, offensive and disgusting.”

 

He said he and his family have found her comments about his sister to be very distasteful, especially one which suggested the Guerin family did not wish to find out the truth about Veronica's murder.

 

At a meeting with members of Clare County Council in early September, Ms O'Doherty said: “Anyone who is interested in finding out the truth about a murdered relative would surely welcome anybody who is shining a light on that, so I cannot understand the reaction of Mr Guerin, but I will not be bullied by anybody.”

 

Councillor Guerin rejected criticisms made by Ms O'Doherty about his business dealings.

 

Concluding his remarks, Mr Guerin restated his belief that there was no state involvement in his sister's killing and he called on Ms O'Doherty to stop making such remarks.

 

"There was no conspiracy and I would ask she would let my sister rest in peace," Mr Guerin said to warm applause from his fellow councillors and from the public gallery.

 

Last week, Ms O’Doherty clashed with members of Clare County Council over her claims that there was State collusion in the murder of Veronica Guerin.

 

At a specially convened meeting of Clare County Council in Ennis to hear from presidential hopefuls, Ms O’Doherty said that “a very dangerous tweet” from Mr Guerin, had defamed her.

 

Asking Ms O’Doherty to account for her “State collusion” claims, Cllr Mary Howard (FG) read out Mr Guerin’s tweet in full, where he stated Ms O’Doherty’s “State collusion” comments concerning the murder of his sister were “offensive, disgusting and extremely hurtful”.

 

The Fingal meeting also has heard from other aspirant candidates Joan Freeman and Kevin Sharkey.

 

Update - 8.32pm: In response to Mr Guerin's comments, Ms O'Doherty said no one - including Mr Guerin - was going to silence her.

 

“Mr Guerin is not going to silence me. I made a stated belief at a public meeting a number of weeks ago. This has nothing to do with my presidential campaign,” she told the Irish Examiner.

 

“I cannot see how it could be offensive,” she added.

 

“I am focusing on my campaign which is about corruption, transparency and accountability and nobody will silence me, including Mr Guerin,” she said.


LINKS

 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/no-conspiracy-or-state-involvement-in-veronica-guerin-murder-brother-says-868004.html

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/presidential-hopeful-gemma-o-doherty-excoriated-by-veronica-guerin-s-brother-1.3624591

@ Tony Bennett  re. Martin Smith comments above - You ask -

"How come we have zero evidence that not one of the other NINE members of his party that night agree with his claim?


 Martin Smith, P.J. Files -


" During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me WAS MY WIFE. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day."


Thus we can see that Mrs. Smith also supports the claim that the man they saw was Gerry!


You also state that the Smiths belief was based solely on the way Gerry McCann carried his son, yet, the files show that Smith actually said -


 "It was the way Gerard 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."


I think it was member Penny Lane who previously pointed out that watching Gerry carrying his son was, for Smith, a pretty good live reconstruction of what he had seen on that night! I think that's a valid point. Unless Smith felt that there was a strong similarity in height, build, hairstyle, movement etc. he could not have been able to conclude that it was the same person.


You repeatedly claim that Mr. Smith happily worked with Team McCann but the fact is there is no proof of this whatsoever! You ask why Smith did not register his disapproval. Actually, we have no way of knowing that he did not, indeed, if it were not for O'Doherty's article we would never have seen the BBC admit their "error". Given what the Smiths have had to endure since they testified I completely understand their reluctance for further public involvement! They have been accused of being liars and co conspirators time and time again by those who refuse to believe them since it doesn't tally with a particular theory.


Finally, re. Gemma O'Doherty.  I again make the point that the Presidential race in Ireland tends to be a dirty, gloves off, smear campaign. The last one involved all manner of skullduggery. I expect to see plenty more character assassination attempts before polling day, and not just of O'Doherty!!


I genuinely wonder what the reaction from certain quarters would be if O'Doherty had written a piece highly critical of Martin Smith's sighting  
and evidence. Would there still be claims that she was an untrustworthy journalist or would she have her praises sung!

There is no doubt in my mind that Martin Smith did watch a virtual reconstruction of the night of May 3rd 2007 when he saw Gerry McCann carrying Sean off the plane upon their arrival back in the UK.

I have mentioned before that I thought Sean looked like he was almost dangling from Gerry's arms, his left arm straight by his side and his right arm almost straight as well. I note that Mrs Smith used the term "vertical" to describe the way that the little girl was carried by the man they passed at approximately 10.00pm on 3rd May.

I know that Verdi has said numerous times that this is the usual way to carry a sleeping child. I have looked at lots of images on google of people carrying a sleeping toddler and almost every image depicts a child with arms slightly around the neck of the adult. 

An instant flashback for Martin Smith - the most genuine witness in this whole sorry saga.

All my own opinion.

Martin Smith, describing what triggered his recognition of Gerry began his statement with "It was the way he looked down...." In other words he alerted to how the man avoided eye contact. He was also aware of how he carried the child in the same manner on both occasions.
Why do people ignore what he said and only mention the carrying position?

Rob Royston wrote:Martin Smith, describing what triggered his recognition of Gerry began his statement with "It was the way he looked down...." In other words he alerted to how the man avoided eye contact.

Yet he was still able to describe the stranger with this degree of accuracy..

Rob Royston wrote:Martin Smith, describing what triggered his recognition of Gerry began his statement with "It was the way he looked down...." In other words he alerted to how the man avoided eye contact. He was also aware of how he carried the child in the same manner on both occasions.
Why do people ignore what he said and only mention the carrying position?

@ Rob Royston

Welcome back.

In my message to @ Phoebe I was merely summarising, not 'ignoring' anything at all.

Believe me I am more than happy to reproduce in full all that Martin Smith is reported to have said - and below for you and everyone else are the two statements straight from the PJ Files (courtesy of 'pamalam' on this occasion) about what he said about 'recognising' Gerry McCann from a TV news clip:

========


From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family

Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland

Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.


---- 


Sergeant  Liam Hogan


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 McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, 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 McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard 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. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard 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. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

========

One thing to notice straightaway is how Martin Smith embellishes what he said when first questioned on 26 May. Then, IIRC, he said that he couldn't see what the man was wearing above the waist because the child was obscuring his vision. Four months later, he is able confidently to tell his Irish Police interviewer that the man was "wearing...a darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer". Funny how he never mentioned this when first questioned.

Now that we have exactly what Martin Smith told Irish Police, I can't see that this helps any case that Martin Smith genuinely 'recognised' Martin Smith.

The basis for this alleged 'recognition' is so tenuous hardly anyone would believe him - and any idea that this evidence would survive testing in a court of law is utterly laughable.

Especially, as I have documented, as he went on to co-operate with and meet with members of the McCann Team to produce two dodgy efits of different-looking men which have in the past five years been liberally used by the BBC, Scotland Yard, the mass media and the McCann Team themselves to continue the abduction narrative   

lemonbutter wrote:An instant flashback for Martin Smith - the most genuine witness in this whole sorry saga.

Unbelievable - surely one of the daftest statements ever made in the near 9-year life of CMOMM

lemonbutter wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that Martin Smith did watch a virtual reconstruction of the night of May 3rd 2007 when he saw Gerry McCann carrying Sean off the plane upon their arrival back in the UK.

I have mentioned before that I thought Sean looked like he was almost dangling from Gerry's arms, his left arm straight by his side and his right arm almost straight as well. I note that Mrs Smith used the term "vertical" to describe the way that the little girl was carried by the man they passed at approximately 10.00pm on 3rd May.

I know that Verdi has said numerous times that this is the usual way to carry a sleeping child. I have looked at lots of images on google of people carrying a sleeping toddler and almost every image depicts a child with arms slightly around the neck of the adult. 

An instant flashback for Martin Smith - the most genuine witness in this whole sorry saga.

All my own opinion.

So where are we going now - Sean McCann was drugged or lifeless on the flight back to the UK?

Described as 'vertical' because that is how the child was said to be carried - vertical meaning upright.

Vertical >>>   v.  Horizontal >>>

  Slight breakdown in communications!  Or was it just another ruse to confuse?

I have looked at lots of people in real life carrying children - I rest my case .

Tony Bennett wrote:

lemonbutter wrote:An instant flashback for Martin Smith - the most genuine witness in this whole sorry saga.

Unbelievable - surely one of the daftest statements ever made in the near 9-year life of CMOMM

What a childish attitude. Time may yet tell but I fail to see why you can make such a claim just to ridicule a poster who has made some very valid points. You cannot possibly know whether the sighting is true or not in relation to GM and yet you continue to attack people who support it. And not just their stated opinions but personal attacks too.

Has Martin Smith actually said that he was involved in the production of the E-fits?

For me, the main point at issue is not whether the Smith family actually did see Gerry McCann, but whether they did meet a man carrying a child and whether Martin and Mary Smith did later conclude that it was Gerry they had seen.
It has been alleged that the whole Smith family is lying and invented the sighting. I find that most unlikely. I believe they are telling the truth about meeting with a man who was carrying a child.
 I also find their account of coming to the conclusion that it was Gerry credible. Martin Smith is honest enough to admit that only he and his wife were convinced of this. 
What I do not understand is how anyone could believe that the Smiths are in cahoots with the McCanns. Their claim to have seen Gerry down town at a time when he claims to have been sitting at a Tapas Bar table makes a liar of him. Their claim that they saw him carrying an unresponsive, blonde girl of Madeleine's age at the time her disappearance was allegedly being announced is even more damning.
 I believe that the McCanns were desperate to downplay this sighting, partly because there was no one, other than the Tapas 9, who could support Gerry's claim to have been at the Tapas Bar at the time the Smiths saw their man. No wonder they did not push for this sighting to be investigated. 
The only facts we DO know is that Martin and Mary Smith became convinced, rightly or wrongly, that it was Gerry they saw that night and that they have never since wavered in this belief.

It is my considered opinion, having "wandered" around a number of the Madeleine McCann blogs and forums in the last 6 months or so, is that each blog/forum has reached its own conclusion (as best it can) about what happened to MBM and who the key players are. 

It would appear that contributors are roundly shouted down and/or ridiculed should they dare raise an alternative theory or have a differing opinion. One of the favourite retorts is "show us the evidence/facts"

If it were that easy, the case would have been solved by now. Instead, there being nothing new for a good few years, the carcass is being picked over with little or no forward movement. Just as the McCanns like it.

Rob Royston wrote:Has Martin Smith actually said that he was involved in the production of the E-fits?

This is a very good point.

As far as I know, NO, he never has.

Back in 2013 and 2014 when I researched the Smithman sighting, I pointed out endlessly that on the Crimewatch programme, the joint BBC-Met Police Team made a huge song and dance about the sighting by 'The Irish family'.

Timings, descriptions, quotes, routes taken etc. etc.

But when it came to the actual showing of the two efits of two different-looking men, Matthew Amroliwala, the narrator, referred to the efits having been drawn up by "TWO OF THE WITNESSES".

IMO this was a very deliberate deception by the BBC and the Met Police. It was said IMO to make us THINK that the Smiths had drawn up the efits when in fact they had NOT.

A number of explanations are possible.

I think the most likely is that neither Martin Smith nor any of the Smiths would agree to being identified as having created the efits. And in that limited sense, quite right too, as I feel sure they did NOT produce those efits.

Why after all would they, between them, produce two very different images?

And how could they have possibly done so 16 months after the occasion when they just saw him for 2 or 3 seconds in the dark? (we now have an FOIAct answer that tells us that the efits were not drawn up until September 2008).

Undoubtedly the Smiths have 'played ball' with the McCann Team and Operation Grange.

Martin Smith met with DCI Andy Redwood (or one of his colleagues) twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013 as they prepared the Crimewatch Show.

An explanation which fits the facts is that Martin Smith may have said to Operation Grange: "Look, I will go along with you giving the viewers the false impression that we drew up these efits. But I do not want you to say that we did do them, because actually we didn't".

If someone has a better explanation of the known facts relating to this incident, I should be glad to hear it. I've thought about this issue for years so I would positively welcome any other credible idea

@Tony Bennett - Sorry Tony but I don't follow your logic here. You state that-

 "I think the most likely is that neither Martin Smith nor any of the Smiths would agree to being identified as having created the efits. And in that limited sense, quite right too, as I feel sure they did NOT produce those efits".


But also state that the narrator of the program claimed that the e-fits -  "were drawn up by two of the witnesses". 

Given that it was public knowledge that the ONLY witnesses who saw Smithman were the members of the Smith family, this makes no logical sense. Who else could have described him for the purpose of an e-fit! It is automatically understood that the witnesses must be the Smiths which would, surely, defeat the purpose of Martin Smith hiding his identity!


If we do not know anything about how the e-fits were drawn up how can we know how many of the Smiths might have been involved. It could have been that, depending on the angle at which they viewed him, Smithman appeared slightly different to individual viewers.
 My personal belief is that the Smithman 2 picture (using a different, more lifelike format) was produced later, based on and  supposedly "bringing to life" the image of Smithman 1. I expect those ordered to protect the McCanns were aghast that the first image was the spitting image of Gerry and that the "improvement" (with the jaw and neck missing) was an attempt to make it look less like Gerry. In case this tactic didn't work the BBC also threw in the utterly false claim that Martin Smith had changed his claim that the man he saw, was, to his mind, Gerry McCann.

We cannot be sure of exactly what went on but to anyone who has researched the case as we at CMOMM have, it would be obvious that the two witnesses referred to were the Smiths.  However, the general public who would make up the majority of the viewers, may not  make that connection.

I think that what Tony is suggesting here, is that the Smiths may not have wanted to be named as these witnesses who drew up the e-fits, on national television and therefore they were referred to as witnesses and not by name. 

I would suggest that the Smiths had nothing to do with these e-fits and that the claim that e-fits were drawn up by two witnesses was a deliberate lie.  It would have been very risky for the producers of the programme to name these witnesses.  In other words, lying to the public about un-named witnesses is risky, but to name them without their consent as well, would cause all sorts of problems.

One question about the Smiths.  If they really thought that the man the had seen was Gerry, why on earth would they:

1. Meet with Brian Kennedy
2. Assist with the drawing up of two different e-fits that look nothing like Gerry (don't forget, Gerry had been in the news almost every day from the time of Madeleines' disappearance to the date these e-fits were drawn up - so Smiths knew exactly what he looked like - so why are e-fits so different?)
3. Assist Operation Grange (if they did)
4. Fail to return to Portugal to give evidence when they were needed

IMO - This was all done to get the PJ excited and keep them focussed on Madeleine having disappeared on May 3rd and stop them looking back at the earlier days.  It worked well, but then the Smiths failed to show when needed.  McCanns must be so grateful to them, after all they never really said they were 100% certain it was Gerry did they?

When did the Smiths fail to return to Portugal to give evidence? Dr Amaral says he was working on calling them to come over but he was moved off the case before he got the task done. I am not aware that it was followed up by his successor.

Rob Royston wrote:When did the Smiths fail to return to Portugal to give evidence? Dr Amaral says he was working on calling them to come over but he was moved off the case before he got the task done. I am not aware that it was followed up by his successor.

    Good point, but I am sure Amaral said that the Irish witnesses failed to show.  If this is correct, it would be just before he was removed from the case and probably needed his testimony for the prosecution.  I will check.


Edited

Extract from Truth of the lie (but not the exact quote that I am looking for) 

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later.

Dr. Amaral clearly states that the Smiths were perfectly willing to return to Portugal to give evidence. Indeed the following, snipped from the P.J. files confirms this -


" On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva"



So it is incorrect to state that the Smiths were unwilling to return to Portugal if requested. Dr. Amaral also states that after his removal from the case the plans to bring Martin Smith back to Portugal were dropped.




The question is often asked why are the e-fits not the same and it is presumed that the Smiths are responsible for both images, but why should we believe that this is the case!
Just because two e-fits have been produced, and it has been claimed that two people were involved the e-fit process, it does not automatically follow that one Smith witness was responsible for one particular likeness while the other image was produced based on the description given by another Smith witness. In other words why should we think or believe that Martin Smith for example, is responsible for image 1, while his wife or son perhaps is responsible for image 2. Both may have contributed to just ONE e-fit. 


I suggest the first, somewhat grainy, "drawn" image was the result of the combined efforts of BOTH Smiths involved in the process. If the police later decided to use more advanced technology to "improve" (cough cough) this grainy image, it does not necessarily follow that any of the Smiths was present for nor, consulted about this process. If anyone questioned the fact that image 2 was somewhat different, it could easily be blamed on technology -" This is what the computer- generated image of the "drawn" e-fit looks like". I believe the second image was deliberately created to attempt to distract from the astonishing resemblance between Gerry and the first image.


I don't think anyone could have been in any doubt that it was the Smith family from Drogheda who were the witnesses in question. In October 2013 there were banner headlines in several newspapers, naming them as the potential "key to unlocking the mystery"  and clearly stating where they were from! Asking for their name to be withheld re. the e-fits would have been pointless!

I don't really understand the need for any e-fits at all if they are claiming that their man is Gerry McCann.  Gerry has been in the papers, on the television etc. almost daily, we all know what he looks like.  Why didn't they just say that Gerry fitted the description of the man they had seen?  What was the purpose of the e-fits?  And why didn't they create one that looked like Gerry?

This is interesting

Irishman was already discarded, 07 July 2008

Irishman was already discarded 24horas   Gonçalo Amaral placed a strong bet on this witness   Text: Carlos Tomas July 07, 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation   When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie Case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don't give him credibility   The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.   During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.   "He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory", a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24horas.   The same source specified: "First he said that he saw Maddie's father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility".   It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analysing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns.

Phoebe wrote:Dr. Amaral clearly states that the Smiths were perfectly willing to return to Portugal to give evidence.

However they didn't did they?  

The McCanns were in full agreement about returning to Praia da Luz to participate in an official re-enactment of the night of 3rd May 2007, depending on their group of friends.  They didn't did they?

The McCanns group of friends were perfectly willing to fully cooperate with the PJ by participating in an official re-enactment of the night of 3rd May 2007.  They didn't did they?

Just how many bogus witnesses were there that claimed they reported this that and the other but the PJ failed to follow it up?

Actions speak louder than words.

It's all an elaborate con - it works everytime.  The McCann campaign spent millions to fabricate all this false news and it payed off.

Meanwhile Madeleine McCann is but a name with little or no chance of peace.

@sharonl  I imagine that the e-fits were deemed necessary so that the public could be asked to be asked  "did anyone else see this man - can you identify him". There wouldn't be much point in the police asking the public if they saw anyone who looked rather like Gerry McCann carrying a child that night! In any case, I doubt that would be legal!

Re. the above piece from 24 horas. I would have no faith in something which couldn't even get the story right  -



"During the two depositions, BOTH INFORMAL, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, LEAVING THE APARTMENT in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. "


Smith's depositions were FORMAL statements
Martin Smith's full name and address and other details were given to the P.J. (known only as Smith my foot!)
Martin Smith never claimed to have seen Gerry leaving the apartment.


@Verdi The letter from the files (as posted above) clearly states that the Smiths were willing to return and cooperate with the P.J. in the investigation.What would you have them do when they were told they weren't needed - insist on flying over to another country's police force like demented Miss Marples and demand to be heard!!!   What normal sane person would do that - I certainly wouldn't!

@Phoebe wrote:@Verdi The letter from the files (as posted above) clearly states that the Smiths were willing to return and cooperate with the P.J. in the investigation.What would you have them do when they were told they weren't needed - insist on flying over to another country's police force like demented Miss Marples and demand to be heard!!! What normal sane person would do that - I certainly wouldn't!

No, I wouldn't expect such an eccentric performance - and neither did Martin Smith.

As I've said in the past, irrespective of anything Dr Amaral said, what could possibly be achieved by Martin Smith returning to Portugal under the circumstances. He thought, 60/80%, that Gerry McCann was the stranger he saw carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz having seen video footage of the McCann family descending the aircraft stairs on their return to the UK. How can you elaborate on that - what would be the purpose of Martin Smith returning to Portugal just to repeat a statement he'd already made in the UK? Too much emphasis on Dr Amaral's musings to be meaningful.

I venture to suggest that Martin Smith knew full well that he wouldn't be required to return to Portugal when he volunteered his services. The only advantage would have been if a re-enactment was on the cards - that was never to be.