POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

It seems to come down to two possible scenarios -
1)
The Smiths went on holiday to an apartment they co-owned in a development built by a fellow Drogheda man. One night, on their way home they passed a man carrying a sleeping little girl. They didn't think anything of it. It was a common enough sight in Luz. The next day they learned a little girl had been abducted. Soon the news came out that the abductor had been spotted in the act by one of the Tapas group. He was seen actually fleeing with the child from the 5A apartment 45-50 minutes before the Smiths encountered their man on the other side of town, going in the opposite direction. The police are concentrating on this lead. Martin Smith remembers his man and decides, on balance, that it means nothing. Is he really going to interrupt the police to tell them he say a man carrying a sleeping child over on the other side of town nearly an hour later? Common sense dictates that the abductor Jane has seen did not walk all around Luz for over three quarters of an hour. He concludes his sighting is unconnected and certainly not worth disturbing a foreign police force who don't speak his language and are up to their eyes seeking to find the child.
He returns to Ireland where, like elsewhere, everyone is closely following the story. Friends, neighbours and family back home know he was actually in Luz while all this happened and are agog to hear anything he might know about the case. That sets him thinking again about what he saw and whether he should have reported it. Then Murat is named by Jane as the abductor. Smith knows it was not Murat he saw and his conscience makes him decide to report what he saw. He goes to the Gardai and starts the ball rolling. later he and some of his family fly out to tell the P.J. their story at first hand.

2) The shadowy forces of the British secret service need someone to get Murat off the hook. Unable to find anyone in Luz willing, they contact a retired Irishman who used to work for a local food distribution company in Drogheda. He agrees to act undercover for them by recounting a false sighting. He further agrees to get his son and his 12 year old daughter to also lie to the police in their official statements in order to lend weight to the story. Then for some inexplicable reason, he points the finger at Gerry McCann being the man he saw making off with the child and continues to this day to reiterate this belief.

Edited to add the man the Smiths saw is described as having a short back and sides haircut. Jane's man has long hair at the back. Smith's man wears a blazer-style jacket and beige trousers. Jane's man wears a puffy anorak-style jacket and mustard/gold trousers.

Sorry Phoebe, but to me it comes down to any one of umpteen possible scenarios.

“The other side of town” is somewhat misleading too IMO

@ polyenne. In a small town like Luz I would regard a casual walking distance of ten minutes as being the other side of town but maybe that's just lazy me! I wouldn't want that to in any detract from the main point of my post.
 Much has been made of the "similarities" between the descriptions of Smithman and Tannerman. This seems to be the main basis for allegations that the Smith sighting is a lie and that they were given a description to match Tanner's. Meanwhile the very obvious differences are ignored or glossed over. IMO this is most misleading. The hair, jacket-styles and trouser colours in both sightings are all different. Jane describes Tannerman's shoes. The Smiths all say they did NOT notice his shoes. Let's think about it. If I were to say to someone - "X" says -
 "I saw a man, he had SHORT hair in typical, male, short-back- and-sides style. He wore CREAM or BEIGE trousers and a dark, BLAZER-STYLE jacket. I don't know what kind of shoes he wore. He was carrying a little girl" (ignore the carrying position to lessen 
distraction)
While "Y" says
"I saw a man. His hair was LONG at the back.  He wore GOLD/MUSTARD trousers and a PUFFA STYLE (padded anorak) jacket. He wore DARK SHOES, black or brown. He was carrying a child."

are X's and Y's descriptions a "word perfect" match? The answer is clearly "no". Did Peter Smith miss the memo since he didn't notice what the man was wearing at all? 
Goncalo Amaral remains convinced of two things. That the Smith sighting is genuine and that Jane invented her man and sent him off in the direct opposite direction to lessen its impact.

Phoebe, I appreciate your desire to robustly defend your compatriots, although I don't pretend to understand why - good and bad in all walks of life in my experience. I'm English but I'm not blind to the fact that some fellow country-folk are rotten to the core.

Forgive my asking - do you personally know Martin Smith or any of his family? No problem if you decline to respond but it would help to explain your relentless defence in his honour, whilst flying in the face of all the evidence stacked-up against his veracity. Who knows, you might even be able to vouch for his testimony and thus halt any further doubt.

Just a thought.

Verdi wrote:Phoebe, I appreciate your desire to robustly defend your compatriots, although I don't pretend to understand why -  good and bad in all walks of life in my experience.  I'm English but I'm not blind to the fact that some fellow country-folk are rotten to the core.

Forgive my asking - do you personally know Martin Smith or any of his family?  No problem if you decline to respond but it would help to explain your relentless defence in his honour, whilst flying in the face of all the evidence stacked-up against his veracity.  Who knows, you might even be able to vouch for his testimony and thus halt any further doubt.

Just a thought.

I was not aware I was "defending my "compatriots"". Why on earth would you infer/imply that? Am I now also part of some conspiracy theory, a plant to defend the McCanns?
 Gerry McCann is the only one of his Irish emigrant family not born in Donegal, yet I doubt I'll ever be accused of defending him nor Kate, Halligan, Gamble, Cat Baker etc. despite their links to Ireland.
 
 I think Madeleine McCann deserves the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - not to have her disappearance  shoe-horned to fit any particular theory.

 In answer to your question no, I do not know Martin Smith nor any of his family, nor indeed anyone who hails from Drogheda (a town I have never had the pleasure of visiting)

Goncalo Amaral is Portuguese, yet he believes the Smiths are truthful. Perhaps Goncalo has Irish connections - that must be it!

You accuse me of "Flying in the face of all the "evidence" stacked up against the Smith's veracity". I see no EVIDENCE, just guesswork and supposition. In fact, what I have done is to point out how unlikely it is that MI5 or any other government agency would be so stuck for an alibi to get Murat off the hook that they had to resort to getting an Irish tourist and his children to do the job for them. These agencies were allegedly covering up for the McCanns lest the P.J. suspect them of causing their daughter's disappearance - yet they select a man who tells the P.J. that he believes he saw Gerry making off with the child at the time she disappeared. How likely is that?
I have also pointed out that there are significant differences in the men as described by the Smiths and Tanner. How does it serve Madeleine to ignore or deny that? This is about her, not anyone's desire for "their"
theory to be correct.
I don't care if the Smiths come from Ireland, Timbuktu or Mars. I do care that what might prove vital evidence is not misrepresented.
Finally, Verdi, for what it's worth, I am British! Born and schooled until my teen years in England where all my cousins and extended family still live. I also have  British passport. I just happen to live in lovely (if rainy) Ireland. So, nice try but you barked up the wrong tree there. It just  goes to prove that theories can be wrong!

I'm sorry I offended you Pheobe, it wasn't intentional.

I asked a simple question that only warranted a simple reply, which you have answered amidst. Thank you!

Verdi wrote:I'm sorry I offended you Pheobe, it wasn't intentional.

I asked a simple question that only warranted a simple reply, which you have answered amidst.  Thank you!

No offence taken, although I don't accept that a "simple" reply was warranted.  To suggest that someone would defend the Smiths blindly is a serious allegation. You also referred to all the "evidence" that they are lying. I feel that in the interests of strict truth and objectivity it must equally be pointed out that the "evidence"  based around the notion that Smith and Tanner gave matching descriptions of the men they saw is not soundly based.

Jane Tanner and Martin Smith do not provide exact matches in their respective descriptions of the man they saw carrying a child. Phoebe has put forward robust arguments to suggest these differences should be thoroughly considered - not glossed over or ignored.

The sworn statements of the three members of the Smith family can be presented hundreds of times in posts, but I am still of the opinion that Martin Smith and his son and daughter have NOT fabricated their sighting of "the short-haired man carrying a child clad in pygamas" on 3rd May at 10.00pm.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering .... I am Australian, have never been to Ireland and I do not know the Smith family.

Phoebe wrote:

Verdi wrote:Phoebe, I appreciate your desire to robustly defend your compatriots, although I don't pretend to understand why -  good and bad in all walks of life in my experience.  I'm English but I'm not blind to the fact that some fellow country-folk are rotten to the core.

Forgive my asking - do you personally know Martin Smith or any of his family?  No problem if you decline to respond but it would help to explain your relentless defence in his honour, whilst flying in the face of all the evidence stacked-up against his veracity.  Who knows, you might even be able to vouch for his testimony and thus halt any further doubt.

Just a thought.

I was not aware I was "defending my "compatriots"". Why on earth would you infer/imply that? Am I now also part of some conspiracy theory, a plant to defend the McCanns?
 Gerry McCann is the only one of his Irish emigrant family not born in Donegal, yet I doubt I'll ever be accused of defending him nor Kate, Halligan, Gamble, Cat Baker etc. despite their links to Ireland.
 
 I think Madeleine McCann deserves the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - not to have her disappearance  shoe-horned to fit any particular theory.

 In answer to your question no, I do not know Martin Smith nor any of his family, nor indeed anyone who hails from Drogheda (a town I have never had the pleasure of visiting)

Goncalo Amaral is Portuguese, yet he believes the Smiths are truthful. Perhaps Goncalo has Irish connections - that must be it!

You accuse me of "Flying in the face of all the "evidence" stacked up against the Smith's veracity". I see no EVIDENCE, just guesswork and supposition. In fact, what I have done is to point out how unlikely it is that MI5 or any other government agency would be so stuck for an alibi to get Murat off the hook that they had to resort to getting an Irish tourist and his children to do the job for them. These agencies were allegedly covering up for the McCanns lest the P.J. suspect them of causing their daughter's disappearance - yet they select a man who tells the P.J. that he believes he saw Gerry making off with the child at the time she disappeared. How likely is that?
I have also pointed out that there are significant differences in the men as described by the Smiths and Tanner. How does it serve Madeleine to ignore or deny that? This is about her, not anyone's desire for "their"
theory to be correct.
I don't care if the Smiths come from Ireland, Timbuktu or Mars. I do care that what might prove vital evidence is not misrepresented.
Finally, Verdi, for what it's worth, I am British! Born and schooled until my teen years in England where all my cousins and extended family still live. I also have  British passport. I just happen to live in lovely (if rainy) Ireland. So, nice try but you barked up the wrong tree there. It just  goes to prove that theories can be wrong!

Well said Phoebe

Getting back to the actual title of this thread it is fascinating to note the metamorphosis in Jane's account of Tannerman. The report in which Martin Smith expressed his belief that the man he saw was Gerry McCann was forwarded to  the P.J. on Sept. 20th. Two months later, Tannerman underwent an amazing evolution.

 He had shrunk - from 5ft 10 in May to 5ft 6 by Nov. 16th before magically gaining another couple of inches - 5ft 8 by Nov 19th.

He had become rather hirsute - "Hair.. the one thing I remember is 
a lot of hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, (it was black by Oct. 28th) reasonably long to the neck hair."( 19th Nov.)

He had changed skin colour from white in May to "More local or Mediterranean looking/swarthy skin" (Nov 19th)

By October 28th he was wearing a maroon shirt, and a heavy dark coat by Nov 19th.

His trousers were still golden-hued however. By Nov. 19th they were "Camel coloured".

Assuming that Jane was batting for team McCann it would be fair to deduce that they agreed to/instigated this evolution of Tannerman's appearance. It may have left Jane looking ridiculous but it did emphasize that the abductor looked nothing like the man the Smiths claim to have seen!

With regard to the poll,I opted for the third choice,however I agree with the first part of the fourth choice that she died earlier in the week.
Gerry carrying a sedated decoy around seems very possible,it strengthens the abduction theory and takes the light of foul play or accidental death.
Strange that when Martin Smith asked "is she sleeping ",he did not receive a reply

Jane Tanner made herself look ridiculous within minutes/hours/days of Madeleine's disappearance with tales of her alleged sighting. Perhaps Gerry McCann's insistence proved too much for her,  intimidated and/or confused her, I believe she said in one of her statements that she found him a bit over-bearing, or words to that effect.

Jane Tanner's sighting certainly evolved over a period of time, from eggman to Muratman to Tannerman and eventually crecheman, courtesy of ex-DCI Andy Redwood - with any number of descriptions in between.  

No problem, the experts eventually refined Tannerman in order to remove any doubt and/or apparent disparity, only to be replaced by Smithman released during the infamous Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special - which  incidentally looks absolutely nothing like the head of the stranger described by the Smith family or even Gerry McCann - despite Martin Smith's reconnaissance of the McCanns arrival back at Blighty and said to have been based on his original sighting.  What happened to the body is all a matter of conjecture.

As you say Pheobe, reverting to the thread title, no - the McCanns haven't really avoided all mention of the Smith sighting.  Kate McCann emphasizes it in her novelette 'madeleine', it features prominently on the official Find Madeleine website and it was promoted by the Metropolitan Police through the auspices of the BBC's Crimewatch television production, who have actively been supporting the McCann faction since the early days.

In addition, the Madeleine 'Leave No Stone Unturned' Fund Limited Company, received a healthy pay-out from the Sunday Times, a subsidiary of the murky Murdoch empire, for a negative report about Oakley International (founder now deceased Kevin Halligen).  One could almost be persuaded to believe that this was a cunning plan to swell the fund coffers - but that's just speculation.  Personally, I don't believe the story - it could have been an act of revenge by a disgruntled Henri Exton or it could have been downright fabrication, as I suggest to screw the Times for a few bob.

I doubt we will ever know.  What we do know however, is the content of the various witness statements and the many discrepancies and contradictions they reveal - the Smiths included.

No wonder it took them so long to come up with Crechedad. Where's a chameleon when you need one! I wonder was he 5 ft 6 or 5ft 10 for that picture? Pity he didn't keep the maroon shirt as well as the pyjamas. It might be my old eyes but he is the palest "swarthy" man I've ever seen. Maybe Jane will feature on a "Shoulda gone to Specsavers" advertisement. She could even donate her fee to the "Leaving No Lie Untold" fund.

Or she could just tell the truth and put us all out of our misery.

Oh no, that's but a pipe dream away .

Can anyone state categorically where The Smith's holiday apartment/home is located ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wasn't it the Estrela da Luz?

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

If Smithman came from Ocean Club and was going to either the beach or church as has been suggested, he was definitely going the long way about it!

Hi Julie R
Where does that information come from ?

Thank you Julie

skyrocket wrote:Please bear with me, this is a long one.
 
Firstly, if you aware that you are lying when you make a police statement, and the police discover this, you are liable for prosecution quite independently of the case you gave the statement for.  So yes, it is a serious matter.
 
I agree with @TB that there are clear contradictions in Martin Smith’s statements. Also, the family sat back and did not report the sighting despite the fact that, as far as they were aware in the immediate aftermath of 3 May, a probable paedophile had carried off a young girl. They were quick to compare the child to Martin Smith’s granddaughter, which one would have thought would have triggered an emotional reaction encouraging them to speak to the PJ sooner rather than later. It’s not the sort of situation that normal people under normal circumstances would not want to get involved in immediately, IMO.
 
But then there is the problem of the family seeming genuine. Not knowing Martin Smith the man, or the possible motivation that he might have to involve himself and his family in some hoax sighting, it is difficult to judge whether it is likely or not. I’m sure there must be circumstances when a man would do it.
 
Martin Smith, his adult son and his 12 year-old daughter returned to Portimao to give statements. But prior to that we are told that Martin Smith’s wife Mary and Peter Smith’s 13 year-old son, Tadgh, had already given statements in Ireland. So we have 2 young teenagers involved – Martin Smith’s daughter and his grandson. Apart from the obvious moral aspect of involving the children in a hoax (as several others have posted)  - I agree, how on earth could they be relied on not to slip up in any interviews?
 
Mary Smith seems to have been a reluctant participant – she didn’t return to Portugal to give a statement. Would she be reluctant if she believed she might be helping to find a snatched child? Her comments regarding her feelings for the McCanns and their loss suggest that she does not believe they are involved but she doesn’t contradict her husband’s apparent later comments about Smithman/Gerry McCann. In fact, we are told by Martin Smith that his wife agrees that the man they saw carrying a child in Luz looked like the man they saw on the news carrying a child off a plane (GM).
 
There is also the strange correlation with the McCluskey statement, which I believe is somehow relevant. I started a thread on McCluskey but I have looked at it again since then and there is more, and I think it should be included on this thread.
 
Timeline:
 
I’ll try to précis the details (jump down to the bottom of the list if it's too much!):
 
-       Early hours of 5 May McCluskey and wife, returning to their hotel on foot, report a sighting in Alvor (several miles east of PdL);
-       They see a white flatbed van stop at a junction; a dark skinned/haired male, alight from the vehicle and then stagger up the main road away from them, carrying a young child;
-       A blonde woman then appears from the side road and approaches the van;
-       The McCluskeys cross over, note the number plate and try to speak to the apparently distraught woman who only seems to speak Portuguese;
-       A car stops and a Portuguese male gets out. He speaks to the woman and the McCluskeys and agrees to phone the police;
-       The McCluskeys return to their hotel across the road;
-       Later McCluskey (still concerned), asks the night porter to phone the police and 2 English speaking officers turn up. He tells them what has happened and they deal with the situation; the event is therefore logged on the night by the Portuguese;
-       The McCluskeys return home to the North East of England and both give statements to the Northumbria police, on the 9 May. In his statement McCluskey clearly states the above details re: the man/woman he saw and spoke to i.e. dark skinned male; Portuguese speaking female;
-       On the 9 September, the McCanns return to the UK and there is wide TV coverage;
-       On the 12 September McCluskey contacts the Northumbria Police and returns to give a second hand written statement (different officer who apparently is unable to access a copy of the first statement);
-       On the 13 September, said officer, Stephen Robinson 423 sends a copy of McCluskey’s second statement to Op Task in Leicester by recorded delivery;
-       At the same time, the interviewing officer sends an email outlining in detail the salient points of McCluskey’s second statement. He sends this to Op Task and a copy directly to dic.portimao – the British Police officers in Portugal;
-       In this email, the officer states that McCluskey now believes that the woman he met on the side of the road was in fact Kate McCann. No mention is made of the fact that in his initial statement McCluskey says that the woman didn’t speak English - the officer is probably unaware of this;
-       In the email, the officer clearly repeats McCluskey’s description of the male getting out of the van and staggering up the road, he then only goes on to say that McCluskey is now stating that the woman was Kate McCann BUT makes no mention of McCluskey also believing the male to be Gerry McCann;
-       In the PJfiles there is only copy of page 1 of McCluskey’s 2 page, 12 September, hand written statement – this ends before there is any mention of Gerry McCann or the walk down the plane steps carrying a child being a memory trigger;
-       However, in the files there is an apparent transcript of the entire 12 September statement, in which McCluskey firstly states that he now believes that the blonde woman was Kate McCann AND secondly, that that the dark skinned, staggering male was Gerry McCann. His reasoning for the latter being based on the news coverage of the McCanns returning to the UK, and the way in which GM carried Sean off the plane. Seem familiar?
-       This transcript of the 12 September statement is not reproduced on a statement form (MG11), however that might be standard procedure. We have no way of knowing for sure whether this was the statement sent from the Northumbria Police Officer, Stephen Robinson, on the 13 September, or whether the statement has been added to with the extra comments about McCluskey now recognizing the man he saw as Gerry McCann (other than the obvious discrepancy between the statement and the officer’s accompanying email);
-       On the 19 September, DC John Hughes 433 of Op Task sends a copy of PC? Stephen Robinson’s 13 September email (with an accompanying 2 line comment which is unreadable) through to dic.portimao (despite the fact that they had already been sent a copy on 13 September by Robinson). At the bottom left of the email page it reads 20-09-2007;
-       On 20 September Martin Smith contacts the Leicestershire Police by phone. He tells them (Lindsay Long, Holmes Indexer) that he has been watching coverage of the McCanns return to the UK and he is now 60% to 80% sure that the man he saw carrying a child at around 10pm on 3 May was Gerry McCann. He asks for a call back from Op Task;
-       On 20 September, Lindsay Long contacts DC John Hughes of Op Task by email and informs him about Martin Smith’s phone call and his request for a call back;
-       A few hours later on the 20 September (we are not told whether a return call is made), DC John Hughes copies the information regarding Smith to Stuart Prior in Portimao. At the bottom left of the email page it reads 20-09-2007;
-       On 27 September, Inspector Ricardo Paiva of the PJ phones Martin Smith about his contact with the British Police on 20 September. Smith tells Paiva that he would be happy to return to Portugal to collaborate with the police there;
-       On the 28 September, a Laura Bailey-Brown (no further details included) sends an email to Op Task in Leicester. This is the only dated copy of the 12 September transcribed McCluskey statement, containing the comments about Gerry McCann. The only other detail shown in this email is the ‘subject’ on the email bar, which states ‘please forward to Portugal as requested by DS 548’;
-       On the 1 October, DC John Hughes 443, forwards the McCluskey email on to dic.portimao (the English Police in Portimao);
-       On the 8 November, the PJ ask the Irish Police (via the Irish Police liaison in Madrid) to re-interview Martin Smith in Ireland. They send questions they would like asked;
-       On 23 January 2008, Martin Smith is re-interviewed by Sergeant Liam Hogan of the Detective Branch in Drogheda, County Lough;
-       On 30 January, Hogan writes a covering letter for the Smith interview. In it he states that Smith has been approached by Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, to work on a fotofit, but that Smith has refused to take part;
-       The above letter from Hogan carries 2 send dates of 2 Februeary/19 February on the bottom right
-       The Hogan letter and second Smith statement were sent to the PJ on the 19 February via the Irish Force liaison officer, Bernard Gaffney in Madrid, although dic.portimao also seems to have had copy at this time/date.
 
So, on the 5 May we have McCluskey (in Alvor) seeing a dark-skinned male, staggering, carrying a child, and a blonde, Portuguese speaking woman. On the 12 September after, he says, seeing ‘media coverage’ of the investigation (no mention of GM descending the plane but does come 3 days after the Mcs return on the 9 Sept), McCluskey makes a second statement in Ireland, which is hand written.
 
The detailed email sent on to OP Task and the British Officers in Portimao by the interviewing officer on the 13 September, only says that McCluskey now believes the blonde woman he saw was Kate McCann. No mention is made at all of McCluskey believing the dark-skinned man was Gerry McCann. No mention of seeing GM coming off the plane. However, the statement then later passed on to the PJ contains this second claim, apparently from McCluskey. The first dated copy of this full transcript is 28 September.
 
It is significant, IMO, that the last shown communication between Op Task in the UK and dic.portimao (British Police in Portugal) regarding the second McCluskey statement made on 12 September and the (extended) transcript including discussion of Gerry McCann descending the plane carrying Sean, comes the day before the Irish Police receive a phone call from Martin Smith saying that he had seen the media coverage of the McCanns return to the UK and of Gerry descending the plane carrying Sean.
 
Note the heavy involvement of one DC John Hughes 433 of Op Task in the handling of both the McCluskey and Smith second statements – he was dealing with the information from both men within 1 day of each other, 19/20 September.
 
Where did the claim that the man seen carrying a child by McCluskey looked like Gerry McCann come from? Why didn’t Sergeant Hogan make a point of this in his email when surely it was highly significant, more so than the strange claim about the Portuguese speaking woman being KM? Why is the second page of his hand written statement omitted from the files?
 
Is it just co-incidence that Smith second statement and the (doctored?) McCluskey second statement both contain almost identical worded claims about Gerry McCann?
 
Refs:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have bumped my own post above with a couple of date corrections (in the original I wrote 12 May a couple of times where I meant 12 September).

I am convinced that there is a connection between the 2 (alleged) statements from McCluskey and Martin Smith. I am not convinced that McCluskey did report that he thought the man he had seen was Gerry McCann - in which case his 12 September 2007 statement has been partially (or wholly) fabricated.

I think, bearing in mind the current discussion re: the Smithman efits, the letter from Sargeant Liam Hogan of the detective branch in Drogheda (Irish Police) dated 30 January 2008 is critically important. On this date, Sargeant Hogan makes it 100% clear that Martin Smith did not want to get involved in producing efits with the McCanns via Kennedy. So what happened after this date?

skyrocket's post about the Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey sightings is a mine of solid information and thorough research.

It surely commands the attention of every sincere Madeleine McCann researcher.

It builds on work done by HideHo on the aimoo site many years ago.

I suggest two questions stand out.

One is whether Richard McCluskey's original sighting was genuine.

The second is how to explain the absolutely extraordinary coincidence of two Irishmen, within days of each other, claiming to police that they had see Gerry McCann with a young blonde child.

In the case of Irishman Martin Smith, he said he had seen a man carrying a young child at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May.

In the case of Irishman Richard McCluskey, he (and his wife Susan) said they had seen a couple with a young blonde child at about 1am - 2am on the early morning of Saturday 5 May.

As for the truth of Martin Smith's statement, clearly there are many reasons to doubt its truth.

As for the truth of Richard McCluskey's  statement, to the contrary there are many reasons to accept it as entirely truthful. The incident was witnessed by a Portuguese man and reported to a night porter and to the police who investigated immediately. Moreover we now know that this was a Ukrainian couple, as the PJ checked it out.

What we have to explain, as skyrocket has helpfully made very clear in his reposted, amended post, is how both men could be so sure that both the man seen on Thursday 10pm (Smith sighting), and the Ukrainian man seen after 1am on Saturday, were Gerry McCann.

Martin Smith's identification is not credible because he had no clear sight of the man in the dark.

Richard McCluskey's identification is not credible because he changed his story.

The statements of both men are highly suspect because they are based solely on TV footage of Gerry McCann carrying Sean, as if that could in anyway identify him as the man seen on Thursday 10pm or Saturday 1am.

One question to ask in all such cases is: Cui bono - Who benefits?

I would contend that the clear beneficiary of these two men's ridiculous attempts to identify Gerry McCann from the way he was carrying Sean was Robert Murat.

On 7 September 2007, the McCanns were made arguidos. On 9 September they returned to England. Murat had been a suspect since 15 May.

How handy it would be for Robert Murat if not one, but two people could both try and convince the PJ that they should be looking for Gerry McCann as responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, not him!

We know that Martin Smith and Robert Murat knew each other - how well is of course disputed.

Did Richard McCluskey know either Martin Smith or Robert Murat? Richard McCluskey is Irish. He was drinking late in an Irish bar just before he saw the Ukrainian couple. So there is a possible Irish connection.

We appear to know very little about Richard and Susan McCluskey. Their son Richard was involved in a bad car crash in 2006. He was featured in a big article in the Sunderland Echo on 7 August 2008, just after the PJ files were released. He was aged 62 in 2007, now he will be 73.

 It is news to me that Richard McCluskey resided in Ireland or that he was ever interviewed in Ireland by the Irish Garda Siochana. Susan McCluskey's statement gives the couples home address in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear -




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



The files also show that they were interviewed by Northumbria Police and their statements forwarded to the P.J. by Northumbria Police.


Postcode : SRx xxx
Telephone No : 019153xxxxx
Statement Date : 9th May 2007 Number of pages :  






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)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - thanks for taking the time to read through my above post.

IMO:

We know very little about the honesty and/or possible motivation of the McCluskeys/Smiths .

The McCluskeys saw something which may or may not be relevant to the disappearance (may have merely been used as a useful distraction or misdirect); their statements have been doctored and partially fabricated; the hand drawn map from McCluskey's first statement has been doctored and the location may have been changed.

The Smiths saw someone either innocently or by design; I have seen no proof that Martin Smith helped produce the efits (in fact up to 30 Jan 2008 we know he was opposed to the idea); I am struggling to accept Martin Smith's account/actions.

Both second statements were being handled by the same Leicestershire Police Officer on the 19/20 September 2007.

This is what Goncalo had to say when interviewed after the 2013 Crimewatch release of the 'Gerry' efit. His last comment is particularly interesting, IMO:


Goncalo Amaral to Diario de Noticias  15 October 2013
 
Interviewer - Why was that e-fit only made now and which criteria are behind that arrest? Do you believe that it has any veracity and is it important for the investigation?

GA - I believe I have already answered partially to your question. If we are talking about the Irish family's testimony that I have referred to, then it has an enormous relevance to the investigation. We only hope that their initial statements aren't misrepresented and "rewritten".

It would appear that, in some quarters, the Smithman sighting is being touted as a deliberate measure to be seen, by GM, of him carrying his lifeless daughter. On this basis, I have a number of questions :

1.   why would Gerry risk being identified when they insist on peddling the abduction theory ?

2.   where has Madeleine's body been since the day she died (presuming a death earlier than 3/5) ?

3.   where might he be taking her in the knowledge that he had to back at the OC pretty swiftly and that her body would not be found ? Was she hidden or passed to someone else ?

4.   and if the latter, who and to be taken where ?

Gerry and Kate McCann interview transcript - Espresso 6th September 2008

Q – But there are no indicia that she has been abducted, either.

Gerry – We firmly believe that she was abducted by a man, minutes after I went to see her in the bedroom. There are two independent witnesses that saw a child of around four years of age being carried that evening. Our friend Jane Tanner and also the Smith family.

Q – The PJ discredits Jane Tanner’s testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn’t seen him as well…

Gerry – I didn’t see her because my back was turned to the location where she passed. I was talking to a friend. And there is also the couple with children that saw a man carrying a child with a pyjama that was similar to Madeleine’s, blond hair, the same age.

Q – Later on, that family stated that the man they saw was Gerry…

Gerry – At that time I was at the restaurant. The fact that we became suspects has probably influenced the Smiths’ testimony.

Q – Was it a coincidence that you were made arguidos on one day and returned home the next day?

Gerry – They questioned us on that day because the PJ knew about our return.

Q – Were you afraid of being arrested?

Kate – Obviously. At a certain point we didn’t know very well what could happen.
Gerry – From the information in the newspapers, of course we were afraid. It was scary.

Q – Being in England, you would not be extradited anymore.

Gerry – We asked the inspector that was in charge of the case of he had any objection: the answer was no. It’s obvious that we were afraid that people might think we were escaping, but it was better not to be in Portugal at that point in time.

Q – Why?

Kate – Because of the hostile environment. We couldn’t even leave the house.

Madeleine Was Here - Cutting Edge Documentary:  Channel 4 broadcast May 2009

The reconstruction

Voice over:  It is possible that Jane Tanner was not the only person to see Madeleine being carried away by the abductor.  40 minutes after Jane's sighting and half a mile away from the McCanns apartment, a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town.  Later the witness thought this might be Gerry McCann but this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.

David Edgar:  A man was seen carrying a child just before 10:00pm on the night Madeleine was abducted.  When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and and carried on walking.  Obviously anyone carrying a child at night .... it's really truly important.  We need to find out who this person was.

Voice over for Martin Smith:  I was with my family, we'd been out for the night, we were walking up the street ... when I saw a man and he was carrying a child.  I thought t hey were father and daughter and so I wasn't so suspicious.  The girl was about four, she looked like my grand-daughter, blond hair, pale white skin, typically British.  the man didn't look like a tourist ... I can't explain why, it was probably from his clothes.



35:30-37:25 minutes

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it.
----------

It was only through having the police files that we learned of several key sightings of a suspicious individual or individuals near our apartment in the days and hours around Madeleine’s abduction. As chilling as some of the accounts were to read, I appreciated that knowing about them gave us the opportunity, at last, to develop these leads.

In addition to the man and child seen by Jane Tanner at about 9.15pm on the evening Madeleine was taken, and the similar sighting forty-five minutes later by the family from Ireland, there were six reports from four independent witnesses of a ‘suspicious’ male noticed around the Ocean Club. He was described either as watching our apartment or generally acting oddly, or both. Details of all eight sightings are given at the end of this book (corresponding artists’ sketches can be found in the illustrations).
----------

The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.

Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’

Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly.

A CALL TO ACTION

Please write to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister, urging the British and Portuguese authorities to commission a joint, independent and comprehensive review of Madeleine’s case.

Please visit [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to see how you can help the search for Madeleine.

KEY SIGHTINGS

Four years on, as we strive to piece together the puzzle of what happened to Madeleine, many questions remain unanswered and several people who may be able to help us have yet to be identified.

The following sightings are still of great interest to us. Explaining them is very important to our continuing investigation, if only to eliminate the individuals concerned from our inquiry. Artists’ impressions and sketches based on the descriptions given by witnesses can be found at the end of the Picture Section.

SIGHTINGS ONE AND TWO

Witness One: Jane Tanner
Witness Two: Holidaymaker from Ireland

These two crucial sightings of a man carrying a child in the street, made around the time of Madeleine’s abduction on the night of 3 May 2007, have been discussed in detail in this book. The description of the man seen by Jane Tanner was eventually made public three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance and an artist’s impression commissioned by our own investigative team was released in October 2007. Yet to this day no man has come forward to identify himself as the father, relative or family friend of the child in either case.

Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five-minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves.

Artist’s impressions of the man seen by Jane Tanner are reproduced at the end of the Picture
Section.

Witness One sighting Witness Two sighting

Date and time of sighting 3 May 2007; 9.15pm approximately 3 May 2007; 10pm approximately

Location Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, Praia da Luz Rua da Escola Primária, Praia da Luz

Age of man 35–40 34–35

Height of man About 5ft 10ins/1.78m (recorded incorrectly in statement as 1.7m) 1.75–1.8m (5ft 9ins–5ft 10ins)

Hair Thick, dark, slightly longer at back of neck Short, brown

Clothing Beige or gold trousers wide and straight, chino style; dark jacket Cream or beige trousers; classic cut
Other Carrying child across arms at front of chest; child's head to the left of man's chest Carrying child over arms with child's head towards left shoulder

Walking hurriedly Did not carry child in a comfortable way

Not felt to be a tourist because of the clothing worn Not felt to be a tourist because of the clothing worn

Age of child Young child, not a baby; assumed to be female because of clothing Approximately four years; female; medium-blonde hair; pale skin, typically British

Clothing of child Pale pink and/or white pyjamas with floral pattern Light-coloured pyjamas

Other Barefoot

No blanket or covering Witness unsure (family members say child was barefoot)

No blanket or covering

[reproduced for research only]

It is interesting that Kate McCann in the piece  above tries to suggest that the P.J. had doubts over whether the man the Smiths saw "existed at all" when it is clear from G.A. that the P.J. found the Smith sighting credible and of great importance. The only man the P.J. did not believe in was Tannerman and after the Smiths returned to give their statements, G.A. states that the P.J. then realised why Tannerman was "sent off" in the opposite direction in Jane's account. Funny, Kate tries to stress the "similarities" between Smithman and Tannerman but neglects to mention that the Smiths identified the man they saw as Gerry! Still, you have to credit her attempt to muddy the waters!

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

From the McCanns findmadeleine.com website