Martin Smith's evidence was considered by the PJ to be 'highly contradictory...this type of witness does not deserve credibility" 24 Horas, 7.7.2008

Smith sighting compared to Tanner sighting in Kate McCanns book 

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

sharonl's posting of those 3 pages from Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine' is absolute proof of what I have contended since the BBC CrimeWatch programme of October 2013, namely that the McCanns have for years been making very good use of the Smithman sighting.

As I've repeatedly argued, this use by the McCanns of the sighting began in late December 2007 or January 2008, when they were contacted by Brian Kennedy and other members of the McCann Team and agreed to do efits of their (claimed) sighting.

So why did the McCanns studiously ignore the Smithman sighting until this point?

The answer is simple. They didn't 'own' the Smithman sighting. Unlike Tannerman (Jane Tanner) and Sagresman=Wojcek Krokowski (Nuno Lourenco), 'Smithman was NOT the McCann Team's creation.

What changed things?

ANSWER: The 'SALSALITO SUMMIT' meeting between Team Murat and Team McCann.

There, in Burgau on 13 November 2007, Murat's lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, Robert Murat, his mother Jenny and his uncle and aunt Ralph and Sally Eveleigh confronted...

...the McCanns' lawyer, top Freemason Edward Smethurst and multi-billionaire Cheshire businessman, Brian Kennedy, head of the McCanns' highly controversial private investigation.

There a deal was undoubtedly done between the two camps
- and the McCanns were now free to use the Martin Smith sighting exactly as they pleased.

It is very sad to see that 'Profiler' Pat Brown to this very day insists that the McCanns 'ignored' the Smithman sighting.

No they jolly well didn't.

They have milked it for all it was worth ever since December 2007.

And today, 11 years later, they are STILL doing so.

The Smiths, by January 30th 2008, had not been involved in drawing up e -fits. 

"He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits" (P.J. files. Sgt. Liam Hogan)


None of us know what happened at the so called "Salisito Summit" or what may have been discussed - other than a reported claim by Murat's lawyer that Murat was taking legal action against Jane Tanner for defamation.
After the P.J, files became publicly available in August 2008 the McCanns would have been well aware that the Smiths evidence was available for all to see. They could not ignore this fact without incurring suspicion, and so, Kate did her very best to suggest that Tannerman could have been Smithman - (she conveniently neglected to mention that Martin Smith had contacted the police to say he and his wife believed with up to 80% certainty that it was Gerry McCann whom they had seen).
Kate has been desperately trying to link the two sightings, but now that "Crechedad" has been identified, that ends that nonsense! 

Yes Tony
I notice Martin Smith first got involved just after Murat got arrested, emphasising in his statement that the man he saw was NOT MURAT.  Then following a meeting with McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy, he changes the description of the man he saw to match the description of tannerman.  In addition to that, he fails to turn up and testify when needed.

Phoebe wrote:None of us know what happened at the so called "Salisito Summit" or what may have been discussed - 

I hope that when Phoebe next posts, she will tell us all whether she or not agrees with the following two statements:

1 That BEFORE the 'Salsalitas Summit' on 13th November 2007, the McCanns ignored all mention of the Smithman sighting, but that...

2 Shortly after the 'Salsalitas Summit', the McCanns began USING the Smithman SUMMIT to their full advantage, co-opting the Smiths to draw up efits for the ABDUCTOR, to help them pursue, promote & prolong their abduction narrative.

I hope Phoebe will be able to give us a straight answer this time and without avoiding the question.

Lets examine rationally what benefit the Smiths' statements were to Robert Murat. Did their evidence prove that Murat was not involved in Madeleine's disappearance - NO, not at all!
 There was nothing to prove that Murat had not (as claimed by the McCanns) gone into 5A and taken Madeleine out. He could simply have passed her over to an accomplice (seen by the Smiths) or been waiting to receive her from that same accomplice.
 The Smiths claim re. the man they saw not being Murat in no way rules these possibilities out nor does it give him an alibi for his activities that night.
The P.J. CONTINUED to investigate Murat, to check his alibi, his phones, his house, cars, lock-up garage, his girlfriends house and to tap his phone. Murat continued to be a suspect!
Ergo, the Smiths' statements re. the man they saw was about as useful to Murat as knickers are to a mermaid!

@ Tony Bennett, No I do not agree that the McCanns began using the Smith sighting immediately after the so called "Salasito Summit". They did not publish the e-fits for years nor insist the sighting was prominently promoted until after the files were released.

Of course I agree that the McCanns did not use the e-fits, but will you agree that the McCanns used the sighting in a Channel 4 documentary, on their website, and in Kates' book?

sharonl wrote:Of course I agree that the McCanns did not use the e-fits, but will you agree that the McCanns used the sighting in a Channel 4 documentary, on their website, and in Kates' book?

Yes. After the P.J. files came into the public domain in August 2008 they could hardly pretend the Smith sighting didn't exist and ignore it. That would have drawn suspicion, especially after the Smiths had identified Gerry as Smithman. Kate's book tried desperately to imply that Smithman was Tannerman. Given that Jane "saw" both Tannerman and Gerry simultaneously, then Gerry could not be Tannerman and if Tannerman was also Smithman, then logically Smithman could not be Gerry either. They were desperate to push this idea after Smiths' claim that the man he saw carrying the child was Gerry McCann.

Phoebe wrote:
@ Tony Bennett, No I do not agree that the McCanns began using the Smith sighting immediately after the so called "Salasito Summit". They did not publish the e-fits for years nor insist the sighting was prominently promoted until after the files were released.

Interesting. So, for all CMOMM members & guests to see, you have frankly denied FOUR SEPARATE FACTS:

1 Martin Smith agreed in January 2008 to help the McCanns draw up efits of an abductor

2 The McCanns used the Smithman sighting in a C4 documentary in May 2009

3 The McCanns put the Smithman sighting on their website in May 2009 and it's been there ever since

4 The Smithman sighting was positively mentioned in 7 pages of Kate McCanns book 'madeleine', in May 2011.

Frankly, a member who denies four such crucial facts as these has no place on a forum that is genuinely seeking the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Admin???

@ Tony Bennett. I can make this no plainer. The McCanns did not "use" the Smith sighting until after the P.J. files were published. If you have evidence to the contrary ie that they promoted this sighting before August 2008 I eagerly await it.

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. I can make this no plainer. The McCanns did not "use" the Smith sighting until after the P.J. files were published. If you have evidence to the contrary ie that they promoted this sighting before August 2008 I eagerly await it.

So now you DO frankly admit that the McCanns DID promote the  Smithman sighting in several ways after August 2008?

I began drinking alcohol after my 10th birthday. Actually, I had my first drink at my 18th birthday. This does not equate with me drinking the day after I turned 10 yrs old!!!!
The P.J. files were published on 4th August 2008. After this date anyone interested in the McCann case could read all about the Smith sighting and Martin Smith's statement that he believed, with up to 80% certainty, that the man he saw was Gerry. 
The McCanns could not ignore this reality without drawing suspicion on themselves. Therefore, after the Smith sighting became public in Aug 08 the McCanns could not continue to ignore it as they has done. They attempted to control the information and tried to link Tannerman to Smithman. 
In simple English - when the McCanns could no longer ignore the Smith sighting after the publication of the files, they had to acknowledge it in some way. They did this by airbrushing out Smith's identification of Gerry and by desperately trying to imply that Tannerman was 
Smithman. They did NOT "use" the Smith sighting from May 07 until
after August 08. The fact that the sighting was then in the public domain was, IMO, the obvious catalyst.

Yes. After the P.J. files came into the public domain in August 2008 they could hardly pretend the Smith sighting didn't exist and ignore it.

Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent

By Angela McCormick

Wednesday 6th June 2007

A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz.

They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police.

The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.

The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent.

Portuguese police are convinced that the child, who vanished during a family holiday in the Algarve on May 3, was abducted.

A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments.

'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise,' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor.
....................

Irish family's Maddie quiz The Sun

From: VERONICA LORRAINE in Praia da Luz
Published: 03 Jan 2008

PRIVATE detectives hunting for Madeleine McCann are to quiz an Irish family who may have been the last to see her alive.

Martin Smith, his wife and children told cops they saw a man carrying a little blonde girl in Praia da Luz on the night Maddie vanished.

Investigators from the Metodo 3 agency hired by Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate are preparing to travel to Ireland to interview them.

The family, from Drogheda, Co Louth, believe they saw the man taking the sleeping tot down to the beach at the Portuguese resort.

The Smiths were leaving Kelly's Bar — 400 metres from the McCanns' apartment — between 9.50 and 10pm on May 3 last year.

They flew home to Ireland the next day, but when the times of Maddie's abduction were revealed, the family remembered seeing a man, 5ft 7in to 5ft 9in tall and dressed in beige, carrying the child.

Significantly the description matches that given by Jane Tanner, 37, a friend of the McCanns.

Mr Smith, who has already spoken to Portuguese cops over the sighting, said yesterday: "I'd talk to anyone to move this investigation on. I think about Maddie every day."

He added: "I found the Portuguese cops not to be the most efficient bunch."

His wife Mary, 59, said: "We saw a man carrying a blonde child. It was just such a normal thing to see in a holiday resort — we didn't think anything of it at the time."

The Sun reported on Monday how Metodo 3 — which is costing the Find Madeleine Fund £300,000 — plan to blitz Morocco after several leads pointed to the country.
....................

Maddy: We saw abduction Daily Mirror

Paul Byrne in Praia da Luz
3/01/2008

A family who may have seen Madeleine McCann being abducted could provide vital evidence in the search for the missing four-year-old.

The group saw a man walking towards the beach in Praia da Luz while carrying a child at the time Madeleine vanished, exactly eight months ago.

Portuguese police have taken statements from the family, who live in Drogheda, Ireland.

Now detectives hired by Madeleine's parents want to speak to Martin Smith and his family. The Smiths were leaving Kelly's Bar just before 10pm when they saw a man carrying a child 500 yards from the McCanns' apartment.

Kate McCann, 39, raised the alarm about her missing daughter at around 10pm.

The Smiths are thought to have described the man as white and 5ft 7in to 5ft 9in tall. His top clothing was obscured by the child. That description matches a suspect seen walking away from the apartment at about 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a member of the "Tapas Seven" group of friends who were on holiday with the McCanns.

She saw a man carrying a child wearing pink pyjamas similar to those worn by Madeleine.

The McCanns' spokesman said yesterday: "Our detectives are being very methodical and I am quite sure that this family will be on their list."

The eight-month deadline means suspect Robert Murat, 34, hopes to be formally cleared today.
....................

EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished

By SANDRA MURPHY, VANESSA ALLEN
January 3, 2008[/size]

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.

Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co. Louth, Mr Smith recalled the sighting, which is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the mans rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

He explained: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting.

"My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."

Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.

Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: "Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important."

Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said detectives from the Spanish agency Metodo 3 now hoped to speak to the family. "Metodo 3 is being very methodical, working through a number of people they think might be able to help them, and this family will be on their list."

On the night of the disappearance, Mr Smith was dining with his wife in the Dolphin restaurant in Praia Da Luz, where they are frequent visitors.

The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile,as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.

All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.

"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.

"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.

"I dont know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."

The father of six yesterday said the Irish family would do anything they could to help the McCanns find their missing daughter.

"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.

"But anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will." Recalling the event she witnessed, Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses

"We were out the night it happened. My son and his family were leaving on the Friday and we were going for a family meal. We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day.

"I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz.

"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless.

"We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them.

"They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday.

"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police.

"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone.Then they asked me to make a statement to gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance.

"Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grand children and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement.

"The police were fairly busy and the station was pretty typical. They didnt seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across but they are probably no different to police anywhere else. We were interviewed separately and told them what we saw, and showed them on the map where we met the man and child.

"We spent the whole day there from 10.30am to 7pm with an interpreter. That day, May 26 last year, was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.I remember clearly because it was my wedding anniversary.

"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.

"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.

"As we made our way back to our apartment in Estrella da Luz, we met a guy with a child that appeared to be asleep.

"It looked like a blonde child, and I thought she might be four years old, as she was the same size as my grandchild who was with us.

"It was around 9.55pm and it was getting dark and he was looking downward so I couldnt tell you exactly what he looked like.

"None of us was 100 per cent sure what he was wearing but we all told police he was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s. I didnt think he was Portuguese." 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 told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him."
..................

Irish tourist clears Murat Sky News

John Kelly
First published: 04 January 2008
(Same article later republished with new headline: 'Missing Madeleine McCann: Irish Witness 'Clears' Murat', 12:00pm UK, Monday April 07, 2008 )

An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat.

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.

The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection.

"We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith.

"We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.

"We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day. But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."

The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.

"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone," said Mr Smith.

They asked me to make a statement to the Gardai, which I did, and two days later Leicestershire police got on to us.

"My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.

"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.

"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time and it had a terrible effect on them - they all wanted to sleep in the same room as us."

But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an "arguido" in the Madeleine McCann investigation.

"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.

He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn't think he was Portuguese."

Mr Smith's sighting is similar to the one reported by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCann family.

A spokesman for the McCanns said detectives from the Spanish agency hired to investigate the case are now hoping to speak to the Smiths.

Retired Mr Smith, 58, does not wish to appear on camera in order to protect his family from media intrusion.
..................

So it goes on .... the Smith sighting was common knowledge long before the PJ investigation was archived in the summer of 2008.

Key witness identified Maddie's father Correio da Manhã

Former PJ coordinator says Irish family saw man with child

Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key deposition was devalued at the time of disappearance

By Sara G. Carrilho
21 October 2013 01h00
With thanks to Astro for translation

The McCann family
"The testimony of one of the members of the Smith family that identified Gerry McCann as being the man he saw on the night that Maddie disappeared, carrying a child in his arms as he walked towards the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e-fit that the British police now made public is based on the Smith family's witness statement."

The statements are from Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, to Correio da Manhã. They appear following the publication of e-fits by the Scotland Yard that point one of the drawings out as being that of the main suspect over the presumed abduction of the English child, on the 3rd of May of 2007 - which they say was based on the testimony of an Irish family that was on holiday in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms," Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night," the former coordinator explained.

For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside". "The McCann's hired detectives who made a portrait, a man that resembled Gerry, in order to devalue the deposition," he concluded.
....................

Martin Smith witness statement - 26th May 2007

.... 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.

Slim?

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

Built like a brick privvy.

Thank you @ Verdi for comprehensively in your informative posts for proving Phoebe 100% wrong, once again, in maintaining that nothing was known publicly about the Smithman sighting until the PJ files were released in August 2008.

The FACT is that they were known about publicly 14 MONTHS earlier!

It's clear that the McCann Team had already approached Martin Smith by the time of the press reports of 3 January 2008. And almost certainly at least a few days before those press reports hit the news-stands.

3 January 2008 was just 7 weeks & 2 days after the 'SALSALITO SUMMIT' meeting, when we now know as a fact that the lawyered-up Robert Murat and McCann Teams met at the home of Ralph and Sally Eveleigh. It is pretty clear that the main purpose of this meeting was to sort out their differences and cut a deal

@ Tony Bennett, Now Tony, Its naughty to suggest that I said things I didn't.

I see with great interest that Verdi has reproduced the piece by Angela McCormick. Actually, It was I who produced this for Verdi a while back when he claimed that there was no early report of an Irish family having seen a man with a child, which should have led the McCanns to seek to have this sighting investigated and promoted much earlier!

You will note however, that said report gives few details, does not name the persons concerned and clearly states that the Smiths were bound by judicial secrecy -

"The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.

The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent."


The other reports come from newspapers claiming that the Smiths broke judicial secrecy ie they are dated January 3rd and 4th 2008 respectively , when we KNOW from the Irish Gardai that by January 30th 2008  the Smiths had given no interviews or comments to the press!


The Salisito Summit (as you dub it) happened in November 2007. The McCanns did not make any reference to the Smithman e-fits until 2009 - that's a long time to wait for something they were supposedly so eager to use isn't it! 
They did not publicise the e-fits until after the P.J. files (hard cold police facts) were made available to the public in August 2008. If you can show me any examples of the McCanns promoting the Smith sighting before this I would be most interested in seeing it. The McCanns and their supporters 
 certainly did try to link Tannerman with Smithman. No quibble from me about that. 
However, can you produce one piece of evidence which shows that the McCanns themselves spoke to or contacted the Smiths directly. I think not. Now, if after November 07 the Smiths were working for the McCanns why are there no reports of direct contact with them, why no pictures of Kate and Gerry with the Smiths etc.
It is patently obvious that the Smiths were NOT working with the McCanns. But, this does not preclude Team McCann from trying to manipulate their sighting for reasons of damage limitation. After all, it was most damaging for Martin Smith to have said he saw Gerry carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the very time she was being "kidnapped".


The McCormick piece is very useful. It proves that the McCanns were aware from early June 07 that an Irish family had seen something of great significance. Why then did they NEVER, EVER try to talk to the Smiths themselves about what they had seen. They went out of their way to hassle an O.C. cleaner who had seen nothing!


It is this extraordinary ignoring of the Smith sighting that is most suggestive that the McCanns were terrified of the Smith sighting, avoided it for as long as possible and sought to manipulate it for damage limitation purposes!


In anyone's book, when someone identifies you as being the perpetrator of a crime and sticks to that opinion, they are not HELPING you, they are ACCUSING you. No one "hires" people to accuse them and point the finger of suspicion at them!!!!

Logically, if the Smiths began to "work with" or "support" the McCanns after the meeting between the Murat and McCann legal teams in Nov. 07 the very first thing the Smiths would have been asked to do would be to contact the P.J. again and state that they had changed their minds about Smithman being Gerry!
 It would have been simple to have the Smiths claim that after meeting Gerry face to face, Martin Smith now realised that the man he saw that night was not Gerry. This would have resulted in the files showing evidence of Martin Smith recanting his claim that Gerry was Smithman.

The Smiths NEVER contacted the P.J. to recant this damning claim. Instead, their testimony and allegations against Gerry REMAIN on the police record and in the publicly available files (published a full 9 months after the Salisito meeting). O' Doherty's recent article plainly states that the Smiths have never wavered in the belief that Gerry was Smithman.

With "friends" like the Smiths - the McCanns don't need enemies!!!

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett, Now Tony, Its naughty to suggest that I said things I didn't.

I see with great interest that Verdi has reproduced the piece by Angela McCormick. Actually, It was I who produced this for Verdi a while back when he claimed that there was no early report of an Irish family having seen a man with a child, which should have led the McCanns to seek to have this sighting investigated and promoted much earlier!

You will note however, that said report gives few details, does not name the persons concerned and clearly states that the Smiths were bound by judicial secrecy -

[size=37]"The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.[/size]

[size=37]The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent."[/size]


[size=37]The other reports come from newspapers claiming that the Smiths broke judicial secrecy ie they are dated January 3rd and 4th 2008 respectively , when we KNOW from the Irish Gardai that by January 30th 2008  the Smiths had given no interviews or comments to the press![/size]


[size=37]The Salisito Summit (as you dub it) happened in November 2007. The McCanns did not make any reference to the Smithman e-fits until 2009 - that's a long time to wait for something they were supposedly so eager to use isn't it! [/size]
[size=37]They did not publicise the e-fits until after the P.J. files (hard cold police facts) were made available to the public in August 2008. If you can show me any examples of the McCanns promoting the Smith sighting before this I would be most interested in seeing it. The McCanns and their supporters [/size]
[size=37] certainly did try to link Tannerman with Smithman. No quibble from me about that. [/size]
[size=37]However, can you produce one piece of evidence which shows that the McCanns themselves spoke to or contacted the Smiths directly. I think not. Now, if after November 07 the Smiths were working for the McCanns why are there no reports of direct contact with them, why no pictures of Kate and Gerry with the Smiths etc.[/size]
[size=37]It is patently obvious that the Smiths were NOT working with the McCanns. But, this does not preclude Team McCann from trying to manipulate their sighting for reasons of damage limitation. After all, it was most damaging for Martin Smith to have said he saw Gerry carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the very time she was being "kidnapped".[/size]


[size=37]The McCormick piece is very useful. It proves that the McCanns were aware from early June 07 that an Irish family had seen something of great significance. Why then did they NEVER, EVER try to talk to the Smiths themselves about what they had seen. They went out of their way to hassle an O.C. cleaner who had seen nothing![/size]


[size=37]It is this extraordinary ignoring of the Smith sighting that is most suggestive that the McCanns were terrified of the Smith sighting, avoided it for as long as possible and sought to manipulate it for damage limitation purposes![/size]


[size=37]In anyone's book, when someone identifies you as being the perpetrator of a crime and sticks to that opinion, they are not HELPING you, they are ACCUSING you. No one "hires" people to accuse them and point the finger of suspicion at them!!!![/size]

A long, rambling, repetitive post which, at the end of the day, you cannot deny that the Smithman sighting was used by the McCanns:

...for the efits

...for the C4 documentary

...for their website

...for Kate's book

..and, together with Operation Grange & the BBC, for the 2013 BBC CrimeWatch Special which featured Smithman.

Many times over you note that the McCanns & Operation Grange never used the Smithman sighting until October 2013.

I know. We all know.

What has that got to do with the fact that the McCanns milking the Smithman sighting for all that it was worth for FIVE YEARS from 2008 to 2013?

@ Tony Bennett.

The Smiths had no control over who chose to use their sighting nor how it was portrayed. What were they to do - sue Kate McCann for including it in her book, sue Channel 4 and the BBC!!! Take on Carter Ruck perhaps!! Normal people avoid such costly folly!

If the Martin Smith was, as you allege, "working for" and "supporting" the McCanns since Nov.07 why did he never retract or amend his claim that Gerry McCann was Smithman!
Applying basic common sense, if the Smiths were in the employ of the McCanns from Nov. 07, they would have been asked to retract the damaging claim that Gerry was the man they saw carrying an unconscious blonde girl through the quiet streets of P.da L.on the night of May 3rd.
All it would have taken was another phone call to Sgt. Liam Hogan stating that they wished to contact the P.J. investigation again with further information - then explain that they had reconsidered and changed their minds. Job done.
Did this happen - NO!.
 Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that the McCanns hired the Smiths yet failed to ask them to retract or amend that damning claim - given that there was a time-span of 9 full months between the Salisito meeting and the publishing of the files! 
It would have been the most crucial step in order to have eased suspicion re. Gerry's involvement in his daughter's disappearance.
The fact that the Smiths NEVER retracted their claim and recently reiterated it clearly shows that they were not involved in "helping" the McCanns!

@ Pheobe,

Whilst you and Tony hammer out the Smith sighting and most people are groaning, I must point out that in your last post you stated "applying common sense" when that is the very thing not to apply in the consideration of something potentially so devious.

Verity wrote:If Gerry McCann is Smithman why haven't Operation Grange or the PJ arrested him after the efits were shown on Crimewatch five years ago after Redwood said he was the main focus of the investigation?

Surely it's important to find this man who was heading to the beach with an abducted child? Why take more than five years (so far)?

It's not like they don't know where Gerry lives or works.

1. They know it's not Gerry
2. It's a cover up

Any other reasons?

Good post.

The consensus amongst the 'Smithman = Gerry McCann' brigade is that Operation Grange 'know' that Gerry is Smithman and are patiently, slowly, carefully building a case against the McCanns and will eventually get there and arrest them. 

These same people seem to think that the Met Police can ignore the official remit which of course was to "investigate the abduction".

As far as I can see there is no evidence whatsoever to support these views and a great deal of evidence against their views.

The kindest thing I can think of saying about them is that they are guilty of 'wishful thinking'

I actually find the repetitive claims that the Smiths were liars and helping both Murat and the McCanns quite tedious.
 However, given that this claim is revisited over and over, like the irresistible urge of the tongue to probe a missing tooth, I feel it important for balance to point out the actual facts.
The Smith sighting was of no benefit to Murat. It did not prove that he could not have been involved in Madeleine's abduction and the police continued their investigation of Murat as a suspect long after the Smiths affirmed that the man they saw was not him.
The Smiths were obviously never asked to retract or amend their explosive claim that they believed Gerry was Smithman. If they had been working for the McCanns they would certainly been asked to do so and the evidence of this retraction would be in the files. Instead, the files clearly show the Smiths pointing the finger of blame at Gerry McCann.
IMO these facts are too important to ignore, boring as they may be, if we seek the truth behind Madeleine McCann's fate.
The forum's layout means that those not interested in the Smith sighting need not click on the issue but can choose to ignore it.

Am I correct in saying that Robert murrat and one of the Tapas  men , look very much alike ,at some stage I have seen pictures put here I think ,of the 2 men side by side ,that's who may have been seen at the place that  Robert M was said to be seen ,yes some or one of the tapas wives said it was muratt at the outside that night ,just makes me wonder really ?? joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Am I correct in saying that Robert murrat and one of the Tapas  men , look very much alike ,at some stage I have seen pictures put here I think ,of the 2 men side by side ,that's who may have been seen at the place that  Robert M was said to be seen ,yes some or one of the tapas wives said it was muratt at the outside that night ,just makes me wonder really ?? joyce1938

Yes joyce, it was suggested that David Payne bore a resemblance to Robert Murat - at least enough to create a case for mistaken identity.

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

Particularly after dark in obscure lighting !

Yes Joyce, but it's laughable really, probably just more media hype.  It was Fiona Payne who claimed to have seen Murat but the lookalike was David Payne, you'd think that she recognise her own husband, wouldn't you?

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

Robert Murat and Angus Symington.

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

sharonl wrote:Yes Joyce, but it's laughable really, probably just more media hype.  It was Fiona Payne who claimed to have seen Murat but the lookalike was David Payne, you'd think that she recognise her own husband, wouldn't you?

Recognise her own husband?

She didn't even know her own age: "Erm, erm, I'm thirty, I'll work that out actually, I'm thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I'm married to David PAYNE."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It would have been the most crucial step in order to ....

Maybe a most crucial step backward might be advisable.  Just catching-up on the latest two tedious Smithman threads, frankly I've never read so much repetitive supposition based on nothingness in all my years following this case.

This is just typical manufactured distraction designed to dominate forum activity.  Seen it so many times before and always following much the same pattern.  The train of thought is deliberately taken through a myriad of cul-de-sac, going around and around until the brain becomes dizzy.  It's impossible to argue irrational thought processes, it's a total waste of time and a total waste of forum space.  

Your dogmatic approach to this subject [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] might be commendable to a particular mindset, primarily a minority sect who dedicate  their lives to trying to destroy CMoMM for some obscure reason but to the more rational mind, those who have spent years actually doing something positive in the quest for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann, cogitation leads to a realization that nothing about this case is straightforward nor dependable.  I said before [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and I say again, your commentary is nothing more than supposition built around extracts from the PJ files and a cache of selected past posts filed for your convenience.

Thank goodness there is so much more evidence to raise pertinent questions about all the sightings, bogus and well meaning, the emphasis on a few that have done nothing to progress the investigation and oh so many other aspects of the case that point in one direction and one direction only.

Back to business!

Verdi wrote:

Just catching-up on the latest two tedious Smithman threads, frankly I've never read so much repetitive supposition based on nothingness in all my years following this case...Thank goodness there is so much more evidence to raise pertinent questions about all the sightings, bogus and well meaning, the emphasis on a few that have done nothing to progress the investigation and oh so many other aspects of the case that point in one direction and one direction only.

Back to business!

Agreed there has been a great deal of tedious repetition of late, BUT it's also  clear that the arguments about Smithman continue to draw people to the forum and to discuss the evidence in detail.

I had a quick look at the statistics for the two current Smithman threads:

More info on Met Police FOIAct questions - 104 replies, 6,550 views

Martin Smith's evidence highly contradictory says PJ - 88 replies, 2,843 views

Then I had a look at how many replies there have been to other Smithman threads, e.g.

SMITHMAN 4 (Discrepancies) - 469 replies, 15,538 views

SMITHMAN 12 (60 questions about Smithman) - 151 replies, 7,803 views

SMITHMAN 5 (12 sets of contradictions in Smiths' evidence) - 119 replies, 10,174 views

Has Smithman been identified? - 86 replies, 10,005 views

winnower says Tony's evidence on Smithman is 'seriously flawed' - 54 replies, 5,432 views

SMITHMAN 9 (Smithman and Goncal Amaral) - 38 replies, 5,190 views...

..and so on. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of views of all the Smithman threads.


The interest is because: "Is Smithman Gerry McCann?" is one of the key factual questions we must all ask ourselves in an effort to discover what really happened to madeleine McCann, and when.

These are three of the most important:

IS SMITHMAN GERRY MCCANN?

WAS THE 'LAST PHOTO' TAKEN SUNDAY 29th APRIL OR THURSDAY 3d MAY? and

IS THERE CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE MCCANN WAS SEEN ALIVE AFTER SUNDAY?


To those three questions, I answer: NO, SUNDAY, NO. This view AFAIK is shared by: the CMOMM forum owner, Lizzy HideHo, PeterMac, sharonl, Richard D Hall, Verdi, hentie and a great many others on CMOMM 

Those who answer: YES, THURSDAY, YES include: Textusa, Benjanmin Thompson, Andrew/AndyFish19, blacksmith, Isabelle McFadden, Ben Salmon, dlwiggins, Phoebe, Pat Brown, winnower.


May the best evidence prevail 



.