Re: SMITHMAN 12: Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

by Phoebe 22.03.18 17:42

Both Aoife Smith's and Peter Smith's statements say they saw the man's face with Peter Smith noting that he was "Somewhat tanned as the result of sun exposure". Peter Smith also stated that when he saw him the man made no attempt to "hide his face or lower his look" We do not know what the other members of the family (who did not give personal statements to the P.J.) saw of his face. However, Mary Smith obviously saw enough to agree with her husband's later statement that the man they saw was very similar to Gerry.

by Julie R 22.03.18 20:01

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Have I misremembered?
But did the Smiths, as in, all of them, say they did not see Bundleman's face?
If so, how come TWO of the Smiths gave Exton the descriptions for his eFits?

1. As near as makes no odds. Two of the witnesses interviewed fomally said the lighting was too poor and a) that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph and b) that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. The third witness said at the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it.

2. Very good question!

How is it a very good question?

They gave descriptions because they were asked to by ex mi5 geezer - I doubt there was much scope for "no thanks I decline".

by polyenne 22.03.18 20:41

Gosh, this Smithman issue really has got the pack divided, hasn’t it ?

There are elements to it that I find make it very plausible (mainly the fact a number of them returned to Portugal seemingly willingly) and elements that I don’t (the fact that, in that low light, you can determine someone has recent tanning).

I still fall on the side of it being a true sighting of someone carrying a child. IMO, as a decoy on the abduction night. I can’t say who the carrier or child was.

by Baggy 22.03.18 21:22

Did I miss the 'significant evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat much better than he is admitting' ? The question was asked a while back above, but does not appear to have been addressed.

The quoted passage from The Truth of the Lie is hardly an admission - MS volunteered the information to the Irish Police that he knew RM by sight and not just from the TV reports. We don't know that he told Snr Amaral any more than that in terms of his knowledge of Murat .. but whatever he said as the statement was volunteered it is hardly an admission. (The MS statement would be meaningless without a certain level of knowledge.. ie 'I don't know him but it was not him..'would hardly make him a credible witness.)

The inconsistencies quoted at question 9/60 may be indicative of deception, but equally they may not. Firstly because they come from multiple media sources over a period of time...they may be multiple journalists using different words to describe broadly the same thing. Whether he says he met him once , twice or on several occasions, but sufficient to recognise him, it speaks consistently of something which is a low level acquaintance at best , and falls short of evidence of a friendship or association which would justify perjury by MS (and his family).

As for the argument advanced above that ex-pat communities are all the same and 'birds of a feather..' this seems to have no evidentiary value unless there is some specific evidence that these particular birds flocked together. The normal standards of evidence can't be cast aside to enable this generalisation to stand without some back-up evidence relating to these two individuals.

So what is the 'significant evidence' that these two were friends or associates, in league together, and that one would perjure himself (and his family) on behalf of the other ??
is there evidence that they visited each other's residences?
were they known to eat together or drink together?
were they seen together in bars, restaurants or other public locations?
has anyone ever actually seen them speaking together for longer than the few seconds needed to achieve the personal introduction which was mentioned?
is there evidence that they ever communicated by letter, phone, email, text???
is there any evidence that they had an association which was facilitated by a third party ? (I am not ruling it out, but this one is harder to prove).
has any independent witness come forward in 10 years, either from the ex-pat community in PDL or from the local Portuguese community to say that they knew of a different level of association between MS and RM than has been suggested by either party?

Any of the above could be regarded as 'significant evidence' which would influence me to disregard the Smith testimony. I assumed that someone had that level of evidence and was about to give it or refer to elsewhere on the site where it has been provided previously.

by Guest 22.03.18 23:45

Cut to the chase, whether Martin Smith came across Robert Murat once or whether he came across him a thousand times, fact remains by his own admission, he knew Robert Murat well enough to be able to state categorically it was not he the family saw on the night of 3rd May.

Martin Smith called his local police after seeing the news that Robert Murat was a prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this discourse is not on public record so It's not known what information Martin Smith gave to the Irish police, other than 'he told them everything he'd seen' - or words to that effect.

According to Goncalo Amaral..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. 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. With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they went back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.
----------

Martin Smith witness statement

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

Aoife Smith witness statement

The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.

— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:

— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.

— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.

— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.

— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.

— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

Peter Daniel Smith witness statement

The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

— He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual.

— States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
----------

Come October 2013, the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, the description given by Martin Smith and his son and daughter of the sighting, morphed into this..

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

Spot the deliberate mistake!

According to Martin Smith, on the morning of 4th May 2007, his daughter telephoned him to tell of the missing child. At this time he thought the stranger he and his family had witnessed the night before might have been the abductor carrying Madeleine. His son Peter heard of the child abduction whilst at Faro airport on his way back to Ireland - beyond a shadow of doubt, it the statements are to be believed, the Smith family were aware of Madeleine's disappearance on the 4th May 2007, both in Ireland and in Portugual.

Still they wait until after Robert Murat is declared the prime suspect - over three weeks later and even then, only to exonerate Robert Murat. I've yet to see a compelling argument to persuade me otherwise.

by Basil with a brush 23.03.18 0:09

Verdi wrote:
According to Martin Smith, on the morning of 4th May 2007, his daughter telephoned him to tell of the missing child. At this time he thought the stranger he and his family had witnessed the night before might have been the abductor carrying Madeleine. His son Peter heard of the child abduction whilst at Faro airport on his way back to Ireland - beyond a shadow of doubt, it the statements are to be believed, the Smith family were aware of Madeleine's disappearance on the 4th May 2007, both in Ireland and in Portugual.

Still they wait until after Robert Murat is declared the prime suspect - over three weeks later and even then, only to exonerate Robert Murat. I've yet to see a compelling argument to persuade me otherwise.

I think the timing is paramount with regards to how long it took them to speak up.

The tiniest piece of information you may possibly possess about a missing toddler.....is not something you hold onto. It just isn't. Well, not me anyway. Call me old fashioned again.

I don't think it's a genuine sighting based on this alone.

It would appear, this sighting may be beneficial to a number of people, but not to that of a missing little girl.

by Phoebe 23.03.18 0:10

"Spot the deliberate mistake" I'm afraid it eludes me. What I see are two e-fits - one rather grainy, the other much clearer and more life-like. The grainy one shows the full face whereas the more life-like, better coloured e-fit shows only part of the face with the jaws and jaw line not fully depicted. In fact in the latter e-fit, much more of the suspect's right cheek and jaw are shown than on the left corresponding side. Both efits show similar hair, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, ears and noses. The main difference is the amount of the lower face shown and the quality of the finish. Place a piece of paper or card just below the lower lip to block out what is shown below that on both pictures and the similarity between both e-fits is immediately apparent.

by Guest 23.03.18 0:26

Phoebe wrote:"Spot the deliberate mistake" I'm afraid it eludes me.

Come October 2013, the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, the description given by Martin Smith and his son and daughter of the sighting, morphed into this..

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

by Phoebe 23.03.18 1:00

@ Verdi. I don't know who the Smiths saw but I firmly believe that by September they had convinced themselves that it was Gerry. The press coverage had grown increasingly hostile toward the McCanns and they had just been made suspects in their daughter's disappearance and fled Portugal. Now, if I became convinced that I had seen Gerry McCann that night and was then asked to draw up an e-fit I would of course describe features which closely matched Gerry McCann. It was not difficult to know what he looked like. His mug was wall to wall coverage on T.V. and in newspapers! Let's not forget Richard McCluskey who became convinced that the blonde woman he had seen was none other than Kate McCann - despite the fact that this woman was jabbering away in fluent Portuguese! Humans are quite suggestible after all. Once the McCanns entered the frame as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance it was, IMO, an understandable progression when the Smiths "remembered" seeing Gerry. Whether they really did see him, or just someone who didn't look dramatically unlike him, I don't know but I believe the McCanns needed this claim like a hole in the head. They obviously could not provide concrete, independent proof that it could not have been Gerry so, instead they ignored the Smith sighting for as long as they could. How much of their memory that it was Gerry they saw is fact and how much is imagination or false memory is, for me, the 6 million dollar question.

by Guest 23.03.18 1:52

If Martin Smith is to be believed, it was when he saw television footage of the McCanns descending the aircraft stairs that it dawned on him it was Gerry McCann he and his family saw on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. Not by his appearance but by the way he was carrying a child - quite a normal way of carrying a child a far as I'm aware.

This transpired on 9th September 2007 but again, it wasn't until 11 days later on 20th September 2007, that this revelation was recorded by the Irish police and sent to Portugal. Despite Smiths claim that he couldn't sleep at night, so distraught was he.

Just prior to his removal from the case, Gonçalo Amaral the case coordinator, decided to arrange for the Smiths to return to Portugal to give further statements - this never transpired.

Firstly consider how detailed the description of the nocturnal rambler proffered by the Smith family was, over three weeks after the event. A stranger passing in the night, not looking like a tourist yet carrying a scantily clad child. A fleeting glance, a second or two, that's a remarkable recollection over 3 weeks after the event - and so similar to that of Jane Tanner. A coincidence too far for my reckoning.

It takes a lot of believing - and I'm not believing.

by jazega 23.03.18 4:12

polyenne wrote:I believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm. The chances of there being a father carrying a child with a striking resemblance (size; hair colour; clothing) to MBM within the right time frame and location (general area of 5A) and who hasn't come forward are, IMO, miniscule. Therefore, there has to be an alternative explanation and all I can come up with is a plant. For the plant to work there had to be a willing witness (singular).

It's easy to get carried away speculating the possible reasons but perhaps in the planning stages it was felt that Tannerman needed a backup. IMO, there also has to be a planned reason why Martin Smith later pointed a finger towards GM (who was sitting at the table at 10pm anyway, wasn't he). The McCann camp had to run with however the situation evolved and react on a day-to-day basis.

I still wonder whether many of the surrounding players drawn in to all this believed or were persuaded that there was some genuine altruistic grounds for helping.

This is along the lines of a theory I put forward recently on another thread. I can't be sure that GM WAS at the table at 10pm, we only have the T7/T9 word for that, he was apparently back at 5A after Kate had run to the table, raised the alarm and returned.

If someone was carrying say, Ella through the streets. if stopped it would be very easy to say she was ill and needed some fresh air for example. It not being Madeleine, there wouldn't be a problem.

Or is this another of my blurred theories ?

I am on the same wavelength,it would have given more credence to Jane Tanner,though Jez Wilkins put a spanner in the workings.IMO

by Doug D 23.03.18 8:10

Jazega:

‘it would have given more credence to Jane Tanner’

Really?

The ficticious ‘Tannerman’ seen (?) walking to the east away from the OC at 9.15 (and ‘identified’ by the bullshitter Redwood) doubles back past the OC and is then ‘seen’ again 45 minutes later walking south, a matter of a few hundred yards on the other side of the OC.

Maybe he decided to pop back to 5A for a coffee and to kill some time!

Sorry, but it’s all nonsense, as are the Smith’s statements and photofits, none of which stand up to scrutiny under cross-examination.

by polyenne 23.03.18 8:37

Doug D
Consider this : if the abduction shout was planned to be earlier at 9.30am then Tannerman would fit the required timing. But Gerry met Jez at the time that Jane was (supposedly) walking up the road seeing the "abductor" and that screwed their plan.
So, after a hasty re-working, a new plan was an abduction shout at 10pm and this necessitated a new "abductor" movement. Hence the Smith sighting.

by Baggy 23.03.18 9:09

Phoebe wrote:Both efits show similar hair, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, ears and noses. The main difference is the amount of the lower face shown and the quality of the finish. Place a piece of paper or card just below the lower lip to block out what is shown below that on both pictures and the similarity between both e-fits is immediately apparent.

Thank you Phoebe... I had never attempted that exercise before, and I agree that if you cover up the chin then the two E-fits are much more consistent.

Aren't these E-Fits put together by 'assembling' different parts of the face?? I am surprised (on purpose, incompetence?) that the people who prepared these E-fits didn't resolve this contradiction around the chin area before (belatedly) publishing them ... either by further interviews with the witnesses, by deciding that one of the witnesses had the better view, or simply by softening the chin area. The most common reaction I have heard to the 2 E-fits is that they appear to be of two completely different people, casting further doubt on the report of the sighting, and the credibility of the testimony of the Smith family. In my view this has more to do with the people who prepared the two images than with the Smiths themselves.

by **Jill Havern** 23.03.18 9:17

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

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

To sum up the deception: taking the three famous timelines chronologically, readers can see for themselves not only how a hearsay sighting of a person with a child was turned into a monster but exactly how the group, beginning with O' Brien, Gerry McCann and Payne* on the night of May 3, conspired to make him the history and centre of the entire affair by creating a “slot” for him compatible with the Tanner abductor's time of departure, all with supposedly remembered suggestive (or at least "possible") evidence ** – alas, no longer available once the police had been called and the apartment trampled – of his presence. Doing so involved them in altering and disguising their real movements.

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

Keep It Simple - It Is

Forget detailed and head-spinning analysis: that's what they always wanted you to look at and get confused by.*** Just keep it very simple, look at what they say they were doing in the first timeline, which takes about two minutes, watch them alter them in the second to create the slot and then look at the final typed timeline. All the timings have been changed progressively with one intention, initial estimates being replaced by ludicrous pseudo-exactitude to squeeze them in. In the third document, indeed, which states that “all timings are approximate” the Oldfield movement has been shunted from 9-9.05 to 8.57 (!!!) PM and Gerry McCann is awarded a watch to look at as he supposedly leaves the bar for the apartment at, why, exactly 9.05.

It is, as both the PJ and Scotland Yard know, all in vain, as is normally the case with criminal group lies. Reality – always in flux and movement – is too complex to be defeated by conspiracies. The result is like watching chimpanzees trying to operate a model railway.

Crash!

As they discover while they struggle to get the invented story straight over the next four days. Either their timings make GM shoot away from Tapas station too soon or send him chugging off too late, put him on a direct collision course with Oldfield or leave him gormlessly staring down at his daughter in bed with love in his heart after she’s been snatched or as the crazed monster is forcing his way in.

Or Oldfield has to be struck blind so he can’t see whether shutters are open or closed; or the unwelcome constraint of Wilkins’ presence at the gate means that MancCenstein must be seizing the child just as Tanner is watching him “hurry away” – unless Tanner is held at a stop signal while the monster is kept circling a loop until released to move.

And Fail

The problems are endless and can never be resolved, despite Gerry McCann’s copious and timely urination and unconscious shiver at the prospect of the slavering monster he can sense behind the bedroom door - added by him and the ever-helpful Mitchell months later.**** And as for those suggestive little door movements and locked and unlocked gates that Manccanstein left behind him – oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear, if he didn’t exist any more than Mary Shelley’s creation, who in Christ's name moved them?

It’s all there in writing. For ever. A criminal conspiracy to mislead the police.***** It took six years for them to unravel it. But unravel it they have.

__________________________________________________________________________________

"I Know What I Saw"

But now let’s turn to the monster’s unlikely origins on the twilit streets of Praia da Luz that night.

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

All Too Human

Like most people we tend to be generous to the wily but seriously fragile Jane Tanner, never having suggested that she invented her sighting, quietly admiring of that stuff she spun to an aghast and bewildered PJ about the brutish Anglo-Saxons always leaving their children unsupervised - quite the cultural historian is Jane, at least when attempting to hang onto her child. And who can't warm to a woman who confessed, Textusa, that the thought of swinging with Gerry McCann, either on the top of a big round table, no doubt, or perhaps in an antique chaise d'amour, made her retch?

But let’s face it, and ignoring her naughty refusal to tell Leicester Police whether she identified Murat in the van that famous night or not, as an eyewitness she’s a fucking disaster.**

Show Business

With Operation Grange still running it cannot permit itself to give the full facts about its relationship with Tanner and the holidaymaker, for reasons we’ve given elsewhere. Full visibility will only come after the conclusion of the investigation. Thus, we’ll indulge nice Mr Redwood for his identification exercises which are far more irregular than Amaral’s (and the Yard's) van episode ever was, will never be brought into court and which extend a great deal of slack to Tanner. We’ll accept also that, in order to gain agreement or co-operation in the exclusion exercise, he posed the holiday-maker against a non-police, collective late sketch, not against details exactly matching her police eyewitness evidence.

We’ll also have to accept various other liberties - that the origin of the holidaymaker’s clothes is unknown, that what he was actually wearing is unknown, that whether he has been asked to grow hair etc. to the length it was in 2007 is unknown and, equally important, the time and direction of his presence is completely unknown.

But that doesn’t matter: the only aim of this elaborate television performance by Redwood was not to question Tanner’s eyewitness evidence or to build a case or to make an identification - that was already done - but to announce formally and definitively but without causing trouble for non-suspects, that the abductor, in the timescale and form claimed by her group, does not exist, end of story. Any court will accept that.

So How Did She Do?

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

Mr Redwood is one of those people whose richly Celtic warmth and niceness is likely - look at his eyes - to be a signal of something quite else and when he's as nice on Crimewatch about how strikingly and wonderfully similar the holiday-maker' appearance and M/S Tanner's versions are, then it's time to start looking for the open door before the cuffs come out.

The sub-text beneath the Carnish sweetness is, of course errors occur, of course it's easy to make mistakes, no, no, it doesn't mean your behaviour is questionable, nobody's going to think any the worse of you my dear, not at all my lovely, no, no, you are completely above suspicion of anything. Mistakes happen.

So here's the holidaymaker, around since 2013, though the McCann clique don't seem to be too keen on discussing him, do they? The photograph of the man M/S Tanner saw. ***

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

Looks like a syrup-of-figs on the top of his head, doesn't it? Mr Redwood clearly doesn't want us to see too much of the real hair yet, does he?

But before we get onto objective metrics about such evidence can we say something from the heart? Look carefully at him.

And then look at this, an internet collation of some of the vile, stinking, filthy images that the McCann camp and its beshitted spokesman created, revelled in and thrust at us month after month, year after year as the truth of the world until Grange finally stopped them diverting the investigation any longer. But that is only their world, the McCann world.

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

They could be inhabitants of another planet, couldn't they? And they are: created by the disturbed and fearful minds who, with the gift of free will, took the decision to enter it and be bound by it. Then look back at the mild, inoffensive and thoroughly decent-looking human being that those criminals claim is the origin of their filth. No, the photograph shows an inhabitant of the real world, our world, not theirs, the one they will never re-join. They are now in hell, of their own invention and their own actions. Just looking at their creations on the page makes one want to have a wash. Now, back to work.

Brilliant, fantastic, scrumpical likeness Jane. Arr!

JT to the police in 2007: He was dark-skinned.

The person she saw at twilight: He is light skinned. He is light-skinned! JT accuracy score: 0/10.

JT: About 1.7M high.

Person: The Yard have provided no measuring marks. 0/0

JT: Aged 35-40. Slim build.

Person: Six years on and he is clearly younger than 35-40. 5/10 + 9/10

JT:Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back.

Person: Darkish and wavy, textured not lank. Completely incompatible with the later non-police artist's version. Hair that will not lie flat at the back unless wet. Prominent sideburns. 5/10.

JT: Trousers linen type, straight, beige to golden. Adds 'the same as "corticine",' a cork-based, dark brown floor covering, in colour.

Person: Linen, beige. 10/10.

JT: Shoes dark, "classic type," with a slight heel.

Person: Brown. Unheeled. 5/10.

JT: Jacket a dark "Duffy"***** - not duffle - jacket. These are defined as extra-warm insulated kagools or anoraks. She adds that it was "not that thick".

Person: A short blue-grey lightweight casual jacket or anorak. 1/10.

Additional or Overall qualities

JT: A hurried walk.

Person: Not known, no information provided. 0/0

JT: His clothes were somehow unusual.

Person: The clothes are bog-standard casual resort wear. 0/10

JT: He was "very warmly" dressed.

Person: He is wearing lightweight resort wear. 0/10

JT: Not a tourist. 0/10.

Person: A British tourist.

So , finally, in 2018, you have a good measure of how accurate and dependable Jane Tanner is as an eye-witness. Leaving completely aside that she then willingly joined the rest of the conspirators to turn this minimal and misleading little blur - essentially a flash of pyjama'd legs, a patch of beige at the bottom and black at the top, clouded completely by a set of (invalidated in the photo above) prior assumptions - into a criminally misleading decoy that took six years to destroy, we have the verdict: utterly worthless.

As Amaral always suspected.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* together O Brien rogatory, section 3.

** evidence McCann police statements, Oldfield rogatory, Madeleine.
*** confused by examples on almost every page of rogatory interviews, especially by the males. The confusion is so vast and spidery that the group, Payne particularly, cannot makes sense of their own words, get completely lost and the interviews come to temporary halts while the police attempt to retrieve the thread of meaning.
**** months later The disgraced and beshitten Mitchell's words were fed to the media on behalf of the McCann defence team when the pair were safely back in the UK.

***** A criminal conspiracy to mislead the police The irrefutable evidence is in front of you, documented. The police were misled and the McCanns insisted to the PJ that they must make this phantom the focus of their efforts. Had they succeeded the police might still be looking for the dark-skinned, somewhat demonic, foreigner today.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* made her retch Tanner rogatory (less colourfully). Supposed cultural history of leaving children alone in her police statements.
** she’s a fucking disaster. Look at her eyewitness statement again. Starting with "dark-skinned" and ending in "not a tourist".
*** photograph Crimewatch archive on net.
**** Tanner's words Both police statements and one reference to the bogus creation of the McCann camp (the hair)
***** Duffy definitions Google

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

by Julie R 23.03.18 10:00

"In my view this has more to do with the people who prepared the two images than with the Smiths themselves."

I could not agree more. The investigators knew full well that the Smiths did not see the face clearly enough to produce e-fits. Yet they were asked to anyway, and we end up with two very different images... very clever. How can you confidently say from these images that it was Gerry McCann? You can't. Job done.

(This, along with the press making up nonsense about the Smiths changing their mind about how certain they were = Smith sighting well and truly discredited.)

by polyenne 23.03.18 10:02

The insertion of "Ella" into the timeline TWICE is a redflag IMO and another reason why I think she was used on the night of the 3/5.

I still don't believe that JT walked that route that night, I can't even be sure she ever left the table that night. When caught out, turn on the waterworks.......and sure enough............

by Doug D 23.03.18 11:02

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

‘Consider this : if the abduction shout was planned to be earlier at 9.30am then Tannerman would fit the required timing. But Gerry met Jez at the time that Jane was (supposedly) walking up the road seeing the "abductor" and that screwed their plan.
So, after a hasty re-working, a new plan was an abduction shout at 10pm and this necessitated a new "abductor" movement. Hence the Smith sighting.’

In which case JT would have been told to forget about it.

Why would she later bring up mention of a ‘plan’ that had been changed?

I don't believe she can be completely stupid and it wouldn't have been written down by Russell on the sticker-book timeline if the plan had been changed.

by polyenne 23.03.18 11:37

Doug D

I theorize that other elements were already in place for the 9.30pm "shout" and that included ROB with Ella in the locale. So JT could not just forget about it.

If that is the case and ROB and Ella has to do a 2nd run to coincide with the 10pm "shout", they would have had to be seen in order for the "abduction" theory to hold water. And they were seen, by the Smiths (I accept there is some discrepancy in the description with ROB being taller and thinner but low light, fleeting glimpse ? Who can be sure ?)

by Doug D 23.03.18 11:53

Polyenne:

‘I theorize that other elements were already in place for the 9.30pm "shout" and that included ROB with Ella in the locale. So JT could not just forget about it.’

Still no valid reason for JT to ever say anything & could have just forgotten about the whole thing.

Even going by your theory that ROB was swanning around with Ella at the time, absolutely no reason for JT to come out with her fantasy. If she had blurted it out to Jez or someone at the time (9.15 – 9.30), maybe she would have had to go along with it, but she didn’t.

by Julie R 23.03.18 11:56

If it was the case that the Smith sighting was a planned "run" then Smithman was intended to be seen, and reported. In this case, it would have been rather frustrating that it wasn't reported straight away. It would have been (for want of a better phrase) one of the biggest "f**k ups on the planet!

Not too sure myself but it's definitely worth considering..

by polyenne 23.03.18 12:25

At 10.04 JT states that Jez & pram are "facing DOWN that way" but Jez was walking UP the street back to his apartment !

At 10.44 JT is well & truly done up like a kipper by Gerry and Dave Edgar does his best to placate her but her face says it all.

Due to post-production editing it is not possible to understand where the crying episode fits into the running order.

It is still my opinion that JT did not walk that route.

by Guest 23.03.18 13:15

If Martin Smith and/or his family were involved in the production of the two e-fit images, if they agreed with representatives of Oakley International that the e-fits were a true likeness to the stranger they claim to have seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007 - then whichever way you look at it, they (the Smith/s) are complicit in a grand plot to pervert the course of justice.

Before going into the realms of auto-defence on behalf of Martin Smith and his family, you need to ask exactly why he elected to assist a private detective employed by the McCanns to conjure up bogus e-fits (clearly in order to deceive), rather than offer his services to an official police force. More to the point, you need to ask why the Metropolitan Police took the Smith sighting on board, knowing full well it emanated through the auspices of the dubious Oakley International in collaboration with Martin Smith and/or family

Lest they forget (starting at 20:00 minutes)..

Watch e-DCI Andy Redwood's less than convincing explanation to wipe out Tannerman and then introduce the Smith sighting. It's like a contemporary Keystone cops - nothing short of risible.

by Baggy 23.03.18 18:53

Verdi wrote:If Martin Smith and/or his family were involved in the production of the two e-fit images, if they agreed with representatives of Oakley International that the e-fits were a true likeness to the stranger they claim to have seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007 - then whichever way you look at it, they (the Smith/s) are complicit in a grand plot to pervert the course of justice.

Before going into the realms of auto-defence on behalf of Martin Smith and his family, you need to ask exactly why he elected to assist a private detective employed by the McCanns to conjure up bogus e-fits (clearly in order to deceive), rather than offer his services to an official police force. More to the point, you need to ask why the Metropolitan Police took the Smith sighting on board, knowing full well it emanated through the auspices of the dubious Oakley International in collaboration with Martin Smith and/or family

I do not wish to become a chief apologist for or defender of the Smiths...I am genuinely interested in the responses to Tony's 60 questions, but it is important that the accusations against the Smiths are reasonable.

Why did they collaborate with a private detective force, rather than offer their services to the official police ? Well they had already approached the Irish Police, and had gone back to Portugal to assist Snr Amaral. Is there any evidence that they declined to assist the official police?? What were they supposed to do when approached by the private team... tell them to clear off or take out a restraining order ? We don't know what they were told, but in any event they decided to co-operate. They had already been criticised for not reporting their sighting of Madeleine immediately. . At this stage they were damned if they did co-operate and damned if they didn't.

Either the whole thing was invented from the start, the Smiths were involved or became involved in the entire conspiracy and there never was a Smithman sighting, or there was a real sighting and they did their best to contribute to a true likeness of the individual they saw. The fact of assisting the private investigators from Oakley rather than the official police doesn't in itself indicate one way or the other.

How do we know that the E-fit images are 'bogus' and that the Smiths are therefore 'complicit in a grand plot'? The main problem with the E-fits is they appear to create confusion by depicting two different people. However I understand it is normal practice to produce multiple drawings where there are multiple witnesses. One approach is to work from multiple images and then narrow this down. The fault lies with the investigators for not attempting to reconcile or prioritise the images at the time , and with the McCann team in respect of their website, and later the 'risible' Redwood and the Crimewatch production team for deciding to publish the two images at the same time thereby creating confusion. Unless they have a history and wide experience of contributing to E-fits then I can't see how this decision is down to the Smiths.

As above, either the Smiths are complicit from the start and there never was a sighting (in which case it hardly matters what the E-fits look like) or there really was a sighting. The appearance of the E-fits and the fact that a decision was taken, presumably not by them, to give publicity to both, doesn't indicate one way or the other.

by Guest 23.03.18 21:43

Baggy wrote:Why did they collaborate with a private detective force, rather than offer their services to the official police ? Well they had already approached the Irish Police, and had gone back to Portugal to assist Snr Amaral. Is there any evidence that they declined to assist the official police??

Reply: Martin Smith collaborated with Oakley International to produce an e-fit of the stranger they allegedly witnessed walking the streets on the night of 3rd May 2007. If he was in earnest, he would have worked with an official police force to produce an artist impression/e-fit of the sighting. If this had transpired, there would be no need for him to have collaborated with Oakley International, an organisation led by a renowned very shady character.

Martin Smith contacted the Irish police 23 days after Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared, 22 days after they connected the stranger they claim to have seen in the street, with the disappearance of Madeleine. Dr Amaral was made aware of this information and so arranged a secret return to Portugal by the Smiths He returned to Portugal a) to provide information on the alleged sighting and b) to verify that the stranger he and his family witnessed was not Robert Murat.

This information is evidenced by the PJ files.

What were they supposed to do when approached by the private team... tell them to clear off or take out a restraining order ?

Reply: Yes, the most sensible route would be to tell Brian Kennedy and Oakley International to naff off. If they were a little too persuasive, then report the incident to the police.

During the video interview with Clarence Mitchell I posted very recently, where he speaks of the Irish family sighting, Mitchell said .. 'their private investigators (Metodo3) will be very keen to talk to these witnesses'. Say no more?

At this stage they were damned if they did co-operate and damned if they didn't.

Reply: Not so. There is no documented evidence to suggest they cooperated with the official police with the production of an artist impression/e-fit of the stranger they witnessed.

Either the whole thing was invented from the start, the Smiths were involved or became involved in the entire conspiracy and there never was a Smithman sighting, or there was a real sighting and they did their best to contribute to a true likeness of the individual they saw.

Reply: Astute observation. There is no evidence to back the Smiths claim of witnessing a stranger walking the streets on Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May any more than there is evidence of the stranger Jane Tanner claims to have seen. The extraordinary thing is, the Smith family's description of the stranger bears a striking resemblance to that of Jane Tanner - right down to the child's bare feet. I find it impossible to reconcile with the suggestion that both Jane Tanner and the Smith family saw the same person on that night, a suggestion I've seen in the past.

If Martin Smith and a member of his family worked with Oakley International to produce a likeness to the stranger they allegedly saw, why does this e-fit of two entirely different images differ so entirely from their, the Smiths, description contained in the files. In short - it's not a true likeness to their description nor anything like Gerry McCann.

The fact of assisting the private investigators from Oakley rather than the official police doesn't in itself indicate one way or the other.

Reply: It does. The PJ investigation was only archived, as with any unsolved case it would be re-opened if new evidence came to light + Operation Grange was ostensibly conducting an investigation at the time the Smith e-fit was produced, as shown on the 2013 Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special.

How do we know that the E-fit images are 'bogus' and that the Smiths are therefore 'complicit in a grand plot'?

Reply: I know by just looking at the e-fits that they are bogus. Martin Smith and one of his family were complicit in the drawing-up of the e-fits, they do not accord with the description of the stranger as detailed by the Smiths and contained in the PJ files, nor do they resemble Gerry McCann in any way shape for form.

The main problem with the E-fits is they appear to create confusion by depicting two different people. However I understand it is normal practice to produce multiple drawings where there are multiple witnesses. One approach is to work from multiple images and then narrow this down. The fault lies with the investigators for not attempting to reconcile or prioritise the images at the time , and with the McCann team in respect of their website, and later the 'risible' Redwood and the Crimewatch production team for deciding to publish the two images at the same time thereby creating confusion. Unless they have a history and wide experience of contributing to E-fits then I can't see how this decision is down to the Smiths.

Reply: The e-fits publicised by Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013 production, are undoubtedly two different people/images. If you want the public to identify one person, you don't publicise more than one image of the person that is so totally different. This is exactly what the McCanns themselves did when trying to fool the public as regards Madeleine's identity.

As above, either the Smiths are complicit from the start and there never was a sighting (in which case it hardly matters what the E-fits look like) or there really was a sighting. The appearance of the E-fits and the fact that a decision was taken, presumably not by them, to give publicity to both, doesn't indicate one way or the other.

Reply: It does, it's a whopping great red flag - it's a potentially explosive piece of evidence. The most important aspect being ex-DCI Andy Redwood's extraordinary decision to publicise the e-fits during the Crimewatch production. A professional renowned police force like the Metropolitan Police relying on a dubious private detective agency to interview a key witness and then using that piece of evidence to enhance their own investigation? I don't think so!

by Guest 23.03.18 23:53

Baggy wrote:As for the argument advanced above that ex-pat communities are all the same and 'birds of a feather..' this seems to have no evidentiary value unless there is some specific evidence that these particular birds flocked together

Anyone who has lived abroad will tell you the same. Whatever the nationality the behaviour follows a pattern - even if you don't socialize with your own country folk, you know who's who. They use the same schools, the same doctors, the same dentists, they frequent the same bars, restaurants etc - this is not a pie in the sky theory, it's how it works in reality. Even builders, tradesmen, decorators are advertised as providing a standard to satisfy the specific clientele.

Visit any major city in the UK and you will find communities of immigrants that live in the same way.

In the absence of hard evidence, the police will work with circumstantial evidence. That's what this is - circumstantial evidence.

by Phoebe 24.03.18 0:08

The Smiths were not actual expats, they merely co-owned an apartment in P. de L which allowed them to go on holiday there a few times a year. Their kids were in school in Drogheda not Portugal and I imagine their family G.P. and dentist (outside of an emergency which might occur while on holiday) were also back home in Drogheda. They were not part of the typical expat community in the Algarve, merely frequent visitors who had bought a time share with another owner.

by Guest 24.03.18 0:09

I challenge anyone - anyone, to go out after dark in a dimly lit street where you're likely to pass a stranger, any old stranger will do. Free your mind as you're not looking for anyone or anything in particular, you're just walking along minding your own business. You look at the stranger in passing, for no other reason but the fact that he/she's there, the stranger is not doing anything or wearing anything strange is just an unknown person passing by.

Go home, do what you normally do, go to sleep and forget about the passing stranger until next day - there is no specific reason to think about the stranger, it was just a nobody (a bit like eggman and the Smith's e-fit) walking past you at night in a dimly lit street.

Next day bring the stranger back into your mind - can you honestly describe the approximate age, the height, the skin colour, the visage, the hair colour, the hair style, the clothing, the colour of the clothing. Do you honestly remember anything at all other than passing a stranger, can you remember any detail about your stranger?

I doubt it!

The Smith family however did remember quite accurate detail three weeks later. Not only that but the three family members who gave witness statements on 26th May 2007, gave a very similar description of their stranger. Not only that but the Smith family's descriptions were remarkably similar to that of Jane Tanner and her stranger in the night.

by Guest 24.03.18 0:15

Verdi wrote:Stands to reason anyway. A small community housing a large percentage of resident and regular visitors from other parts of Europe, everybody knows everybody - they make it their business, with naff all else to do with their idle days. Anybody who holidays abroad must have overheard those frequently used words .... 'thank god to find someone who speak English' or .... 'can you direct me to the nearest egg and baconry' or .... 'where is the boozer'.

Birds of a feather flock together

In context.

by Baggy 24.03.18 7:35

Verdi - I understand the commentary on ex-pat communities, and small communities in general. . I don't dispute that a number of the things you have stated as characteristics of these groups may be true, and indeed it is possible to draw inferences from this. I wouldn't necessarily want to live in such a community myself. I imagine I would find it restrictive and suffocating. .

But those inferences surely need to be informed by some specific knowledge of the community in PDL. And there surely needs to be some evidence of collusion between the Smiths and Murat and/or the McCanns. Otherwise the generalisation could be applied to every single resident....... it feels like the equivalent of running into court and yelling "they are all in it together..that's just the kind of people they are'.

Thank you for your detailed comments on my post - these are insightful as always. I have a couple of questions which i will post shortly .. these are intended to elucidate rather than annoy.