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

by Guest 06.02.18 15:40

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. As I have said in a previous post, the issue of whether the Smiths are lying about seeing a man carrying a girl that night and the issue of whether anyone believes it was indeed Gerry McCann are two entirely different matters.

I disagree - the two seperate issues are very much interwoven, for the very reason that Martin Smith contacted the police in September 2007 when he saw media coverage of the McCanns alighting an aircraft on return to the UK. This was his revelation moment that led to the rumour about the efits shown in the Crimewatch 2013 resembling Gerry McCann.

Four months after the event, Martin Smith and his wife see the McCanns on television, they are fairly sure Gerry McCann is the man they saw on the night of 3rd May 2007 so they contact the police. Saw only briefly, in passing, in the dark, after leaving an Irish bar yet they are fairly certain it was Gerry McCann by the way he was carrying the child? Doesn't almost everyone carry a sleeping or tired or lazy child like that? He's even changed his trousers from the beige possibly with buttons - she hasn't!

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

by ChippyM 06.02.18 16:24

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
ChippyM wrote:I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him.

....snipped.....
"Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him." Truth of the Lie

'Knows him' could mean all kinds of things especially when we are dealing with a translation. It could be anything from 'has knowledge of' to 'close friends'. You could even know someone in your town and not like them at all. So we are no closer to proving he was such a good friend to Murat that he got his kids to commit purjury, or even that he was a friend in anyway.

Martin Smith in an email to Richard D Hall says he wasn't friends but merely knew him by sight.

"Email from Martin Smith, August 2014
Dear Mr. Hall,
I have just watched the 4 parts of your new film "Buried by Mainstream Media etc" which I found very interesting. I would like to point out a major inaccuracy near the end of part 4 of the film where it was stated that I was "friends with Robert Murat". This statement is untrue and I would like it corrected. I had come across Mr. Murat twice in the previous 12 months, had never been introduced to him and merely knew him by sight.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Smith. ''

by ChippyM 06.02.18 16:40

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
ChippyM wrote:re. Gerry certainly not carrying a child dead/ alive around the town. That's not a certainty is it? We can't know for sure. As per Goncalo Amaral's theory a body may have been kept some-where and then moved. This doesn't mean she died on that night.

Maybe something went wrong in the plan and a child had to be moved quickly for some reason. We would be talking about a situation where everything was at stake if that body ( or live child) wasn't moved in a hurry.

That's speculation obviously but I'm not going to present it as factual unlike the theory that the Smith Family are all lying which IMO has very little to back it up.
I was listening to a crime programme the other day and happened to catch part of a conversation where the Priest said "Rigor mortis sets in around 3-4 hours after death but it can be delayed by placing the body in cold water, like a bath". I didn't know that, but obviously the McCanns would.

They would know plenty about the process of death for sure and the signs that indicate time of death. I found out the other day that rigor mortis doesn't have as much effect in young children as they have a different amount of muscle mass. All very interesting....

by Phoebe 06.02.18 16:53

" I disagree - the two seperate issues are very much interwoven, for the very reason that Martin Smith contacted the police in September 2007 when he saw media coverage of the McCanns alighting an aircraft on return to the UK

However, the Smiths had ALREADY spoken to the police in May, first in Ireland, later having flown back to Portugal to give a statement. At this stage they were just reporting having seen a man carrying a child on that night. What I am focusing on is whether they were lying in May or not. Around the time the Smiths arrived in Portugal the Tapas chums were claiming that the man Jane saw was Murat. Smith merely told them that the man he had seen with the child was not Murat. How he later came to believe it might have been Gerry is another issue. They either did see someone or the Smith family, en masse, are all downright liars. That IMO is the crux of the matter.

by Rogue-a-Tory 06.02.18 17:43

ChippyM wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
ChippyM wrote:I still can't see any evidence Martin Smith knew Murat and or why he would lie for him.

....snipped.....
"Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him." Truth of the Lie

'Knows him' could mean all kinds of things especially when we are dealing with a translation. It could be anything from 'has knowledge of' to 'close friends'. You could even know someone in your town and not like them at all. So we are no closer to proving he was such a good friend to Murat that he got his kids to commit purjury, or even that he was a friend in anyway.

Martin Smith in an email to Richard D Hall says he wasn't friends but merely knew him by sight.

"Email from Martin Smith, August 2014
Dear Mr. Hall,
I have just watched the 4 parts of your new film "Buried by Mainstream Media etc" which I found very interesting. I would like to point out a major inaccuracy near the end of part 4 of the film where it was stated that I was "friends with Robert Murat". This statement is untrue and I would like it corrected. I had come across Mr. Murat twice in the previous 12 months, had never been introduced to him and merely knew him by sight.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Smith. ''

Well he would say that wouldn't he. Mr Smith reliability is of question and Richard D Hall exposed exactly that. My preference would be to rely on the professionalism of Dr Amaral & the PJ rather than an uncorroborated email from a guy who's clearly been exposed.

But a difference between knows & knew, you're dancing on a pinhead there I'm afraid.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.02.18 18:18

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
[Martin Smith] would say that wouldn't he. Mr Smith's reliability is in question. Richard D Hall exposed exactly that. My preference would be to rely on the professionalism of Dr Amaral & the PJ rather than an uncorroborated email from a guy who's clearly been exposed.

But a difference between knows & knew, you're dancing on a pinhead there I'm afraid.

Thank you once again Rogue-a-Tory for once again getting to the heart of the matter.

Is Martin Smith a totally trustworthy witness? - a witness of truth?

I dealt with this issue very fully in SMITHMAN 5, where I listed no fewer than TWELVE sets of major contradictions and changes of story in the Smith family's evidence.

This was Section 10 of my article:

Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008: “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ - Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

I invited members and guests to respond to those twelve sets of contradictions and attempt to explain them all, or even some of them. No-one has yet been able to do so.

Note above the bits I have highlighted in red: "MET" "SEVERAL TIMES" for "MANY YEARS". These statements are repeated and I believe them to be the truth. And let us recall how absolutely adamant Martin Smith was that the man could not be Robert Murat, and let us also recall that Martin Smith only jumped into life and reported his 'sighting' the very day after the man he had met several times over many years had just been declared a suspect.

In answer to @ ChippyM, having weighed up the evidence on Smithman for well over four years now, in my opinion the most likely scenario that fits the facts is that Martin Smith and his children did a cunning and careful fabrication of a fake sighting. Here I part company with Lizzy HideHo who says the Smiths must have seen someone that Thursday night, but not Gerry McCann and not anyone carrying away Madeleine. If they did fabricate this sighting, I do not know why. But I have many times given many possible reasons why people might lie.

I must say that I have seen some very bizarre statements in the past trying to explain that Smithman = Gerry McCann, but I cannot recollect one as so completely barmy as was suggested upthread by someone, namely that Madeleine died earlier in the week but for some inexplicable reason the McCanns decided not to parade her body around the streets of Praia da Luz until 10pm on Thursday 3 May, and at the very time that Kate McCann and her Tapas 7 friends were raising the alarm.

One poster even suggested that the McCanns conspired to keep her body in cold water for a few days so that rigor mortis wouldn't set in.

These ludicrous suggestions show how desperate some people are to rescue the Smithman sighting from its proper place - the rubbish bin.

>>> "I'M NOT BUYING IT!" - Wendy Murphy [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

.

by **Jill Havern** 06.02.18 19:09

Tony Bennett wrote:One poster even suggested that the McCanns conspired to keep her body in cold water for a few days so that rigor mortis wouldn't set in.

These ludicrous suggestions show how desperate some people are to rescue the Smithman sighting from its proper place - the rubbish bin.

Ahem.

One poster? pursefight

I haven't got a name now?

I didn't post that in desperation to rescue Smithman at all. I posted it because it was something that stuck in my mind from a crime programme, and if someone did want to believe Gerry was carrying a corpse towards the beach then that might go some way to explain how the corpse wasn't stiff if she died days earlier, that's all. $i don\'t know$

I certainly don't believe Gerry was carrying a corpse, I happen to believe Maddie was already in a freezer days before, although if there really was a Smithman and it really was Gerry, as some like to believe, then more likely he would have been carrying a sedated Amelie.

As it happens, I've finished watching 'Phantoms' again and am totally convinced that Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman are all fake.
My only question is why did Martin Smith involve his 12 year old daughter? I can only conclude that she is the only one who could make this sighting appear credible precisely because of her age, for whatever reason.

I also liked this comment you left on my facebook group this morning, as I think it sums it up very well: "The McCanns and Martin Smith have been working hand-in-glove ever since Brian Kennedy spoke to him way back in December 2007 - despite what Gemma O'Doherty would have us think. The McCanns, Martin Smith, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3 May, instead of us looking at what happened days earlier. And another thing...what actual evidence do we have that there ever was an abduction? The Smith family's dubious claims are ALL that they have got. Without that, they are sunk, they have NO evidence of abduction. No wonder Operation Grange cling on to Smithman like a drowning man grasps a floating log." (my bold)

I'd already made it into a widget this afternoon.

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

by Phoebe 06.02.18 19:20

Verdi, upthread, makes a very important point. He pointed out that in such a small place as Luz, many of the English-speaking ex-pats would most likely be acquainted with each other. That is very true. Murat and his mother, (being half British, Robert, that is) would count as part of this community. Yet, not a single expat (nor any English-speaking locals, or anyone else for that matter) has ever contradicted Martin Smith's claim that he and Robert Murat did not know each other well. Unless the entire town of Luz is "in on the plot" how do we explain this? How can Martin Smith be confident enough to write to Richard Hall and a newspaper, pointing out that he knew Murat by sight only. Surely a simple bit of questioning of the ex-pat community in Luz could find him out if this was a lie? The ex-pat community would surely have witnessed Smith and Murat socializing or speaking to each other at some point during their "friendship"? Unless, as I say, we are to believe that the whole lot of them are also "in on" Smith's plot. I'm sure Dr. Amaral quickly verified that the two men were not on friendly terms.

by Copodenieve 06.02.18 19:38

I don’t understand why people think that an entire family wouldn’t commit perjury if they were seemingly respectful. My ex-husband was a lawyer (seemingly respectful) and he committed perjury a few times during our never ending court cases for separation and divorce. A friend of mine has a huge family bigger than the Smith family and their reputation has to be protected at all cost, even if that means getting the kids to lie for the family. They have a few skeletons in the cupboard and the family feel an overwhelming need to defend other family members against any kind of criticism no matter how much they have to lie. I have no doubt what so ever that, if need be, the children would be told what to say even if this meant committing perjury and the children would do it well because of their family rules or code of honour. Therefore, I don’t think about whether the Smith family, who are seemingly respectful, would be capable or not of committing any sort of crime. To me, that’s like saying the McCanns couldn’t have had anything to do with their daughter’s disappearance because they are doctors and therefore respectable citizens.
I agree with Tony that none of them could have seen enough details in the dark to help draw e-fits and I can’t, for the life in me, think how an entire family could have seen a man carrying a small child on that particular night and not one of them mention it the next morning when they find out that a little girl has gone missing. Not one family member thinks to say “eh, remember that guy carrying the child last night? Shouldn’t we say something to someone?” I do find that very strange. After all, it’s not as if they saw dozens of people in the street that night.
I think Mr. Smith knew Murat for the same reason Verde has stated; they lived in the same small community where there were few English residents and they would most likely stick together.
I lived in a small tourist village in Mallorca and all English residents knew each other despite there being lots of us. We all went in the same bars, restaurants, shops, gym’s, hairdressers, doctors, nursery schools....and in the low season there were very few places open, so we congregated even more. We weren’t all on friendly terms with each other but we all knew each other and spent a lot of time in each other’s company, especially in low season.

by Copodenieve 06.02.18 19:59

Phoebe wrote:Verdi, upthread, makes a very important point. He pointed out that in such a small place as Luz, many of the English-speaking ex-pats would most likely be acquainted with each other. That is very true. Murat and his mother, (being half British, Robert, that is) would count as part of this community. Yet, not a single expat (nor any English-speaking locals, or anyone else for that matter) has ever contradicted Martin Smith's claim that he and Robert Murat did not know each other well. Unless the entire town of Luz is "in on the plot" how do we explain this? How can Martin Smith be confident enough to write to Richard Hall and a newspaper, pointing out that he knew Murat by sight only. Surely a simple bit of questioning of the ex-pat community in Luz could find him out if this was a lie? The ex-pat community would surely have witnessed Smith and Murat socializing or speaking to each other at some point during their "friendship"? Unless, as I say, we are to believe that the whole lot of them are also "in on" Smith's plot. I'm sure Dr. Amaral quickly verified that the two men were not on friendly terms.

I can understand where you are coming from Phoebe and I do think you have a point there. I think it would have been quite easy to find out if they socialised together, if local expats had actually been questioned on this point.

by MayMuse 06.02.18 20:48

Would Martin Smith fabricate this sighting if he didn't know Murat?
As he seems confused as to how long he has said he has known Robert Murat ( thanks for reminding us of the articles above in Mr Bennetts post)

So would it be far fetched to suggest that this is one free mason protecting another ... you know a pact of some sort under their code? If they have such a code? As I cannot think for the life of me why someone would lie to protect another over the disappearance, and by all accounts appears the death of a nearly four year old child?

Just thinking out loud, apologies if this has been mentioned before and if not appropriate please delete.

by Phoebe 06.02.18 23:39

With regard to how well Martin Smith "Knew Gerry McCann" I place little reliance on anything written in the red-tops or indeed, reported by Sky News. After all, the red-tops still, after ten years, refer to Madeleine being left asleep in their "Hotel room" while her parents dined. That always sets my teeth on edge. I think its perfectly reasonable to accept that Martin Smith's P.J statement offers the definitive answer that question.

"Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately."

Judging from this statement it seems Murat made a bit of a show of himself, certainly enough to attract attention. He also "spoke to everyone". I presume that means he prattled drunkenly to Mr. Smith as well. I find it perfectly credible that from these encounters Murat's appearance was readily recognizable. And again, Smith showed absolutely no concern that anyone from Luz would come forward stating that they were in any way well known to each other.

by Guest 07.02.18 0:12

Copodenieve wrote:I think it would have been quite easy to find out if they socialised together, if local expats had actually been questioned on this point.

I can't think of a single reason why expats would have been questioned by the PJ about any liaison between Murat and Smith - why would they? At the point in time, when Martin Smith gave his statement on 26th May 2007, after Robert Murat was made arguido, he was anxious to confirm that the stranger he saw was not Robert Murat. I can only conclude that Martin Smith was specifically asked if the man he saw was Robert Murat as he was prime suspect at the time - not if he personally knew Robert Murat.

Besides, as I said previously, expats living in a community can be very bitchy, even evil by intention. A bloke I knew spread a rumour about town that the bloke he shared a house with (they were not in a relationship winkwink

) had spent years in prison and had tried to poison him with rabbit pâté, heavily disguised as liver pâté laugh

.

Nowt so queer as folk :lol: .

The PJ investigation was confounded by obfuscation and UK influence from the very beginning. What hope was there for the PJ to continue a routine police investigation into a missing person under such circumstances?

This case is not straightforward.

by MayMuse 07.02.18 0:18

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately."

In 2006 , " he did not wear glasses at that time"

So when did RM's need to wear glasses for his detached retina become the norm? As he wore them continuously in May of 2007 and onwards.

Why would Martin Smith state this? Is it of importance?

Or did Mr Smith mean he, himself did not wear glasses at that time?

by Phoebe 07.02.18 10:31

I imagine the P.J. did not have to undertake any onorous investigation to satisfy themselves that Smith and Murat not well acquainted. A quiet word with some locals would soon establish whether it was true or not. I imagine they would have wanted to know, given that Murat at the time was the prime and sole suspect and Jane Tanner was by then loudly proclaiming that it was him she saw carrying the child. In fact , I suspect Smith was directly asked "could it have been Murat - how can you be sure?" and his story was then checked out. I would certainly expect good police work was employed before Smith's evidence was accepted. There were certainly some locals who proved eager to cast further suspicion on Murat, claiming that he was into bestiality and had been sexually inappropriate with a girl in the past. How simple it would have been to claim that Smith and Murat were friends and that Smith's testimony was designed to get his friend off the hook. Nor has Smith shown the slightest concern that Richard Hall or anyone else might investigate his claim about not being well acquainted. That confidence suggests he has nothing to hide.

by lemonbutter 07.02.18 11:13

In my opinion Phoebe makes some very salient and logical reasons as to why the Smith family sound credible as witnesses.

For the record, I don't think that the male person they saw carrying a young female child was acting as a decoy (ie, to make sure he was seen as a possible abductor). Rather, if it was Gerry McCann they saw, I think there was a problem of catastrophic proportions with the planned hoax abduction and he had no choice but to risk moving the child (whoever she was, or whether she was dead or alive).

If this sounds illogical, how can it possibly be any more illogical than the UK government, the MSM and establishment refusing to investigate the McCanns and the Tapas 7?

This case is confusing, complex and mysterious and something is being covered up on a massive scale.

All my own thoughts, of course.

by ChippyM 07.02.18 13:10

Copodenieve wrote:I don’t understand why people think that an entire family wouldn’t commit perjury if they were seemingly respectful. My ex-husband was a lawyer (seemingly respectful) and he committed perjury a few times during our never ending court cases for separation and divorce. A friend of mine has a huge family bigger than the Smith family and their reputation has to be protected at all cost, even if that means getting the kids to lie for the family. They have a few skeletons in the cupboard and the family feel an overwhelming need to defend other family members against any kind of criticism no matter how much they have to lie. I have no doubt what so ever that, if need be, the children would be told what to say even if this meant committing perjury and the children would do it well because of their family rules or code of honour. Therefore, I don’t think about whether the Smith family, who are seemingly respectful, would be capable or not of committing any sort of crime. To me, that’s like saying the McCanns couldn’t have had anything to do with their daughter’s disappearance because they are doctors and therefore respectable citizens.
I agree with Tony that none of them could have seen enough details in the dark to help draw e-fits and I can’t, for the life in me, think how an entire family could have seen a man carrying a small child on that particular night and not one of them mention it the next morning when they find out that a little girl has gone missing. Not one family member thinks to say “eh, remember that guy carrying the child last night? Shouldn’t we say something to someone?” I do find that very strange. After all, it’s not as if they saw dozens of people in the street that night.
I think Mr. Smith knew Murat for the same reason Verde has stated; they lived in the same small community where there were few English residents and they would most likely stick together.
I lived in a small tourist village in Mallorca and all English residents knew each other despite there being lots of us. We all went in the same bars, restaurants, shops, gym’s, hairdressers, doctors, nursery schools....and in the low season there were very few places open, so we congregated even more. We weren’t all on friendly terms with each other but we all knew each other and spent a lot of time in each other’s company, especially in low season.

It's not a question of thinking a family couldn't commit perjury. It's a question of how likely is it, and logically what are the chances of keeping a 12 year old in line without any slip ups? If you wanted a water-tight made up alibi, you would get the bribable adults to do it only.

It doesn't really compare to the 'respectable' McCann situation because we know they were amongst the last people to see Madeleine and she somehow vanished in an extraordinary way. There are also the dog alerts and the chances of them all being false - which is very low.

So what do we actually know about Martin Smith and his possible motivations and character? Very little apart from a police officer saying he was respected in his community. Sometimes he has objected to things said in the press, sometimes he hasn't. Holidaying in the same town a couple of times a year is not evidence he was friends with Murat. There is no evidence here that Martin Smith isn't an honest person, just a list of timings of reports and suspicions.

Saying it was dark and they couldn't see detail is also speculation, we don't know how close they were and what their vision was like.

I'm not desperate to say the Smithman sighting is genuine, it's just that there's no evidence to the contrary. If something comes out and actually proves Smith and Murat were best buddies then of course, it would call his statement into question.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.02.18 15:41

ChippyM wrote:

I'm not desperate to say the Smithman sighting is genuine, it's just that there's no evidence to the contrary. If something comes out and actually proves Smith and Murat were best buddies then of course, it would call his statement into question.

@ ChippyM

I recognise that there is a divide on the forum about whether Martin Smith (and family) are thoroughly honest witnesses whose every word can be trusted, unless there is evidence to the contrary (your view) and my view that they are not.

I would contend that Martin Smith apparently standing by his claims that Smithman = Gerry McCann, while at the same time he has clearly been co-operating with the McCanns since late 2007 and now with Operation Grange, is further evidence that his word cannot be relied on.

However, answering your request for evidence of untruthfulness, I already did that in my OP on SMITHMAN 5, where I set out twelve 'sets of contradictions'.

So I ask this: looking again at these contradictions below, who will say that they are absolutely sure that we can 100% rely on anything Martin Smith says about this 'sighting'?

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

SMITHMAN 5

1. Creating two e-fits of different-looking men when they couldn’t possibly remember the face of the man

When they said they saw this man, they all admit it was dark.

When they said they saw this man, they all admit the street lighting was ‘weak’

They only saw him for a few seconds at the most.

Most of the Smiths say the man’s face was partly obscured, either by him putting his head down, or because the child’s face was obscuring his.

Each of the Smiths said they would never be able to reocgnise him again

Peter Smith said: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ ,26 May 2008).

It is claimed that they drew up their e-fits in 2008, probably at least a year after they say they saw him.

They produced two-fits of contrasting-looking men. One of them, compared with the other:

looks older
has a ‘fatter’ face
has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)
has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)
has a much shorter nose
has a much bigger chin, and
has smaller ears.

2. Did the man lower his head?

Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.

But Martin Smith statement “He put his head down”.

3. Whether they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him – and Martin Smith’s changes of mind

Peter Smith: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ).

All three of the Smiths told the PJ: “It is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph”.

Yet Martin Smith first said: ‘The man was definitely not Robert Murat’. Then, four months later, he said that he was sure the man was Gerry McCann. A few months after that, however, he co-operated with representatives of the McCanns, who were looking for an abductor, and helped them draw up two e-fits of the man they said they would never be able to recognise again.

4. What they saw of the child

Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”

But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”

Martin Smith said: “The man didn’t speak, nor did the child as she was ‘in a deep sleep’,” but how could he tell she was asleep, let alone in a deep sleep, if, as Aofie says, she couldn’t see the child’s face at all?”

5. Was the child wrapped in a blanket?

Daily Mail, 3 Jan 2008: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”.

Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”.

But Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual… (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children]. They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.

7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)

Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special) [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

8. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “Aged 35 to 40”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “Aged approximately 40”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “Perhaps 34 or 35”

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008: “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ - Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

11. Not reporting his sighting despite thinking it could be Madeleine

Martin Smith statement to the PJ, 26 May: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”

Yet he and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

12. Did Mary Smith approach the man and talk to him?

Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Mary Smith approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’”

Yet this is never mentioned by any of the Smiths when they made their statements to the PJ - and Mary Smith refused to give a formal witness statement.

.

by Guest 07.02.18 15:52

12 Processos Vol XII Page 3146a
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3146a

Public Ministry of Portimao

201/07. GALGS

Conclusion 19-11-2007

It has come to the knowledge of the PJ that a South African, ADRIAAN MARAIS, as well as his wife, LIZELLE MARAIS, employees of the Golfinho restaurant, located in Praia da Luz, have knowledge of facts related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, having been questioned in the case process, they said that almost two weeks before the disappearance in question they noticed the presence of an individual, who did not appear to them to be a tourist, opposite the restaurant where they worked and who displayed strange behaviour and who would remain there for periods of up to two hours, either without doing anything or by using the phone cabin that was there to make long phone calls, the number of this public phone is 282789210.

Given this, the diligence described below is essential to discover the truth, namely to identify the person in question, especially as the description made of the person appears to correspond to another that is already in the files, I suggest that in view of the suspicions of the practice of crimes of abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment, concealment of the body in the terms of article 15(2) of Law 88/89 of 11th September, 187(1) and 189(2) of the CPP, we request that the operator PORTUGAL TELECOM urgently send the digital support (CD or DVD) of the complete lists of phone traffic referring to the calls made and received during the period between 00.00 on 30th April 2007 and 3rd May 2007 with regard to the number 282789210.

Signed by the Public Prosecutor

Jose Magalhaes e Menezes

by MayMuse 07.02.18 17:24

Is this the Dolfino phone box? With the e-fit of a guy who in my opinion looks considerably like one of the Tapas group?
Oh the Tangled web keeps weaving.

by Phoebe 07.02.18 18:45

The alleged "contradictions" regarding the Smith sighting are all gleaned from media reports such as the Daily Mail, Mirror, Sky News etc. I place no stock on anything reported in newspapers whose purpose is to create headline and flog a story. They are not trusted on anything else they write about the Madeleine case, so I fail to see why they should be suddenly be deserving of trust over anything they say about the Smith sighting. Another "contradiction" is lifted form the McCanns' own website!

Given that the Smith family were not walking along together in a bunch when they encountered Smithman, but were spread out it makes perfect sense that as he approached, drew level and passed each of the three separate Smith-groupings he was seen differently by each group. That, to me, explains why some saw his face more clearly than others.

As to the two e-fits not possibly looking like the same man, G.E.G. up-thread kindly posted an article which examines the "Suspect Number One" (efits) from the "just five hours in May" website, which shows Gerry McCann resembling BOTH efits (depending on which angle of his face is presented)
Goncalo Amaral has a good, experienced "cop's nose". He was, and remains, satisfied that the Smith sighting was genuine and truthful. He refers to it in his most recent interview and I don't swallow any tales that he lost interest in the case after his investigation was brought to an end. It cost him his job, his marriage and his reputation, so more than anyone else on earth, he has the motive to keep abreast of how the case is unfolding. He also has the contacts as a former detective. If it's good enough for him that's enough for me

by **Tony Bennett** 07.02.18 20:10

Phoebe wrote:The alleged "contradictions" regarding the Smith sighting are all gleaned from media reports such as the Daily Mail, Mirror, Sky News etc. I place no stock on anything reported in newspapers whose purpose is to create headline and flog a story.

@ Phoebe Sorry, but you are very wrong.

My whole article on the Smith family contradictions is NOT based on newspaper reports but on:

A Their own signed statements, as given to the PJ on 26 May 2007 and

B Direct reported quotes from members of the Smith family.

I went back and counted and in my article there are 27 DIRECT QUOTES from their own PJ statements and their very own words.

And the majority of those are from their sworn statements.

Bearing that in mind, I am still very interested in how anyone can explain all these many contradictions.

A few you have attempted to explain - fair enough.

But if you look at all 12 sets of contradictions, can you be sure that you can rely on the words of the Smiths?

by Phoebe 07.02.18 20:39

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008: “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ - Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could

The three "contradictions" above are all cited form newspapers and Sky News.

Tony, you yourself say the contradictions come from -

"B Direct REPORTED quotes from members of the Smith family." (my capitals).

My point is why are we suddenly to believe reports from newspapers which have in the past, and continue still, to spout false information in the Madeleine case? As I stated above, I bow to Goncalo Amaral's judgement. He has judged the Smiths to be credible.

by Verity 07.02.18 22:21

Did anyone else see Smithman, or was it just the Smiths?

by Guest 08.02.18 1:01

Verity wrote:Did anyone else see Smithman, or was it just the Smiths?

According to public record only the Smiths - oh and of course Tanner who saw Tannerman about 45 minutes earlier. Then again he was Crecheman so who was Redwoodman - Smithman or Tannerman?

eyebrows

by nglfi 08.02.18 4:54

Also if Smithman was Gerry, did Jez Wilkins see him before or after Smith did, timeline wise?
For Smithman to be Gerry, would he have had to finish his conversation with Jez, then go back into the apartment to get Madeleine and then set off, to be seen by Smith?

by polyenne 08.02.18 8:05

Or had Madeleine's body been secreted in the shrubbery because Jez was out walking ? Problem is, Gerry was talking to Jez around 9.10-9.15 which is some time away from the alleged Smith sighting. Was Gerry spooked temporarily and returned to the table to agree to change the timeline with the others ?

by **Jill Havern** 08.02.18 10:39

I have added a Poll to this thread to see where we're all currently at. I hope I've listed as many options as possible to cover members and guests thoughts!

eta: Drat, it looks like two of my questions were too long and they've been cut orf in their prime. I hope they make sense!

by nglfi 08.02.18 10:46

I voted 1 but would add that obviously the McCanns have mentioned Smithman and to a extent promoted him, because they couldn't avoid it. As someone else wrote upthread, the McCanns rewrote and twisted it to fit their narrative, because they didn't have an alternative. This is what I'm feeling at the moment, but not fully decided, just because there are so many facets to this case that always keep re-appearing and changing the status quo!

by **Jill Havern** 08.02.18 10:58

nglfi wrote:I voted 1 but would add that obviously the McCanns have mentioned Smithman and to a extent promoted him, because they couldn't avoid it. As someone else wrote upthread, the McCanns rewrote and twisted it to fit their narrative, because they didn't have an alternative. This is what I'm feeling at the moment, but not fully decided, just because there are so many facets to this case that always keep re-appearing and changing the status quo!

I knew I'd miss something out! roll

I tried to look at it from all angles.

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

Smithman: Real or fake? Where are we all currently at?