Martin Smith sighting

Sorry if I am really behind on everything as I have only just joined. I have a general interest in true crime and mysteries so when I found the shear volume of information available on this tragedy of a missing little girl, I have decided to to have a look.

I didn't really take much notice of the case over the years apart from the initial disappearance and the actions of the police at the time.

I would also say I never heard much about The Martin Smith sighting until I read his statement over the weekend.

After reading it I am now wondering if it is just a red herring? I mean Martin Smith claims to know Robert Murat, I have found nothing that explains just how well he does know him. Murat is made a suspect, and Jane Tanner insists initially that Murat was the man she saw carrying the child. Sometime later Martin Smith comes forward with a sighting in which he claims could be Gerry McCann. This helps to get his 'friend' off the suspect list.

So in my mind we could dismiss the Jane Tanner sighting because of the inconsistent information given (I am putting it this way although I know people have stronger views on her statement).

But could the Martin Smith sighting be equally inconsistent (help me here didn't his wife or someone later say they spoke to the person with the child?). An abduction thoerist could easily argue it was a tit for tat statement as in McCanns and friends put Murat in the frame then the Smiths put the McCanns in the frame.

If the above is true then it puts real doubts to when the child did indeed leave the apartment block. Even with the abduction theory you would have to question the direction the abductor took. Looking at the Google Earth Prai da luz map the person carrying the child is travelling into a more built up area, I am not sure how lively it is though all I can really see around that area is a bar, apartment block and German dentist. I am just working along the lines that the nearer you get to the beach, the more bars and restaurants there seems to be. I would have thought heading to North East would have given somebody a much better chance of escaping any distance on foot without be challenged. There seems to be far more rough ground and private apartments (not sure how occupied they would be at that time of year) leading to open land with little on it. Perfect place to stash a car or anything else.


Sorry if the subject of my post has been discussed before, like I say I am new.

Pershing36 wrote:So in my mind we could dismiss the Jane Tanner sighting because of the inconsistent information given (I am putting it this way although I know people have stronger views on her statement).

But could the Martin Smith sighting be equally inconsistent (help me here didn't his wife or someone later say they spoke to the person with the child?). An abduction thoerist could easily argue it was a tit for tat statement as in McCanns and friends put Murat in the frame then the Smiths put the McCanns in the frame.

Many people have completely dismissed the Tanner sighting.

As for the Smith sighting, just for clarification, no one spoke to the person with the child. But there are two sides to this story. Those who believe in this sighting and those who do not. Personally, I am very skeptical.

Oh ok, I'm sure I read something like one of them said to the man carrying the child "is she asleep?" or something along those lines but never got an answer.

If the sightings were indeed inaccurate, the police could have well been searching in the wrong places from the very start of the the investigation. Vital minutes, hours and forensic information could well have been missed.

I don't remember that bit, but I do know that the person never spoke. Perhaps it is in Mrs Smith's statement?

Pershing36 wrote:Sorry if I am really behind on everything as I have only just joined. I have a general interest in true crime and mysteries so when I found the shear volume of information available on this tragedy of a missing little girl, I have decided to to have a look.

I didn't really take much notice of the case over the years apart from the initial disappearance and the actions of the police at the time.

I would also say I never heard much about The Martin Smith sighting until I read his statement over the weekend.

After reading it I am now wondering if it is just a red herring? I mean Martin Smith claims to know Robert Murat, I have found nothing that explains just how well he does know him. Murat is made a suspect, and Jane Tanner insists initially that Murat was the man she saw carrying the child. Sometime later Martin Smith comes forward with a sighting in which he claims could be Gerry McCann. This helps to get his 'friend' off the suspect list.

So in my mind we could dismiss the Jane Tanner sighting because of the inconsistent information given (I am putting it this way although I know people have stronger views on her statement).

But could the Martin Smith sighting be equally inconsistent (help me here didn't his wife or someone later say they spoke to the person with the child?). An abduction thoerist could easily argue it was a tit for tat statement as in McCanns and friends put Murat in the frame then the Smiths put the McCanns in the frame.

If the above is true then it puts real doubts to when the child did indeed leave the apartment block. Even with the abduction theory you would have to question the direction the abductor took. Looking at the Google Earth Prai da luz map the person carrying the child is travelling into a more built up area, I am not sure how lively it is though all I can really see around that area is a bar, apartment block and German dentist. I am just working along the lines that the nearer you get to the beach, the more bars and restaurants there seems to be. I would have thought heading to North East would have given somebody a much better chance of escaping any distance on foot without be challenged. There seems to be far more rough ground and private apartments (not sure how occupied they would be at that time of year) leading to open land with little on it. Perfect place to stash a car or anything else.

I totally agree with this theory about the Martin Smith sighting. Identifying that it was NOT Murat he saw and the only thing he was positive about in his statement kind of gives it away

Would a real abductor seriously be running around the streets of a small town for over 40 mins carrying the child he had just taken? Don't think so somehow

The many faces of the sightings

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

A, B or C?

Brian Kennedy flew over with his lawyer to see Robert Murat and his lawyer on 13 November

a) To see if Murat could help find Madeleine
b) Because the Eveleighs had kindly invited them all to dinner
c) To do a deal with Murat, the fall guy, and discuss how much we wanted for his libel settlement

Brian Kennedy contacted witness Martin Smith because

a) He wanted to leave ‘no stone unturned’ in the search for Madeleine
b) He wanted to check the exact time he saw a man carrying a child
c) His evidence contradicted that of Jane Tanner.

Pershing

This is a different way of looking - thank you for mentioning it.

How about this Smith sighting and Tanner's were used to focus ours and the PJ's attention on the evening of the 3rd because the time frame is difficult it would be used as defence insofar as it would be nigh impossible to arrange everything to clean apartment, remove body etc. They needed everyone to believe it happened then for this reason.

jd wrote:A, B or C?

Brian Kennedy flew over with his lawyer to see Robert Murat and his lawyer on 13 November

a) To see if Murat could help find Madeleine
b) Because the Eveleighs had kindly invited them all to dinner
c) To do a deal with Murat, the fall guy, and discuss how much we wanted for his libel settlement

Brian Kennedy contacted witness Martin Smith because

a) He wanted to leave ‘no stone unturned’ in the search for Madeleine
b) He wanted to check the exact time he saw a man carrying a child
c) His evidence contradicted that of Jane Tanner.

jd, like I said before I am a newbie here and would hope one day that I can add some good constructive comments on the forum. I really don't feel I have read enough about the case to start speculating about potential accessories to a possible crime to whom on the face of it seem to have been no where near the scene. I have yet to see a motive for his possible involvement and surely would have risked a hell of a lot, but I will continue my study and may change my view when I have read more. . Sorry if this sounds naive but I am determined to try approach this with the most open mind. I have deleted a couple of posts where on hindsight I got carried away in theories about fridges.

I do think that Jane Tanner has not helped anyone in her account, if she was trying to describe something she saw her constant changes in her statement have certainly not helped the statements of the McCanns as well as being the major reason for many people dismissing the PJ theory.

Angelique, I have seen a few things written along the lines you were suggesting. This would obviously open an entire new can of worms like why this particular date was chosen, the location and surely would have to have involved co-operation of the certain friends way before the 3rd.

Sorry if I am a bit slow on the up take of questions and theories, as I said I am new. I do realise that I am less well educated as many on here and do not want to jump into rash answering of things that maybe would not look good for the MF site.

Don't worry Pershing, there is an awful lot to learn, I'm still learning all the time. You will need a good memory!

There are lots of very informative topics on here and as I am sure you are already doing is reading them

I will leave you to learn more facts and I am sure you will realise with an open mind as we have on here once you dig deeper into the case. One more thing about the Smith sighting, Smith has an apartment in PDL and goes there 3/4 times a year so knows the place very well. Murat's father pretty much built the area and Murats cousin is Angus Symington who is one of the 3 co owners of Ocean Club. The Symingtons as you may know are legendary there for their shipment of Port

I learnt last week that 2 floors up from apartment 5A (mccanns) were the Moyes, who said that they were on their balcony at 9.15pm that night & said how quiet it was. This was the exact same time that gerry and Jeremy Wilkins (who is a specialist doing crime reconstructions for Crimewatch UK) were outside chatting and jane tanner saw her abductor running away, the Moyes didn't see all this despite being in a prime viewing position

The date chosen could be just as Gordon Brown took the reigns of power in the UK (7 days later), gerry and Gordys brother were on the board of COMARE and Gordy was quite involved for a PM in this case & gerry did seem to have a hot line direct to 10 Downing Street after only a few weeks. Not even high established important people in this country get this but 2 supposedly ordinary doctors do

The answers were C

Yeah I kind of guessed the the general concise on the questions were C

Interesting about Gordon Brown, it is going to be very difficult to stay unbiased when it comes to him, I hated him!! There again I was wonder if anyone liked him and you might have found a few candidates.

Something else came up on a website about Gordon Brown and a Dunblane Massacre cover-up? The link was dead so I found out nothing more.

Interesting facts about the Prai da Luz, it will help me build a better picture in my mind as things go on. I wondered were Jeremy Wilkins fitted in, he wasn't really announced when it was all over the news which I find weird in it's self. Surely having somebody so specialist in visual observation reconstruction would have been very significant at the time.

Was Malinka a resident around there?

Imo the Smith sighting is of major significance, if not the Emma Loach documentary would not have altered the position of the child in the man's arms.
 Why on earth would a witness statement, signed and on police record in Portugal, be changed? From a child being carried head on man's shoulder, the usual position for a toddler to be carried, asleep or awake, due to size and weight........

 to that of the Tanner sighting, across the arms, more appropriate for a baby.
 Regardless of the above, it clearly altered what Martin Smith said to police about who and what he witnessed.


 Also, googling Martin Smith I have re- read his statement along with statements from the people he was with May 3rd.
 Then came across what is below on the Sky news site from April 2008. Can anyone else find a statement in the files given by any of the Smith party, mentioning having spoken to the man they saw?

 I can't. Martin Smith has told Sky News that he spoke to the man. Nothing re this in the files as far as I can see. [ bold mine where the report contradicts or omits what is on file]



By John Kelly


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.

A reminder of the Smith statement, where there is clear description of pyjamas, not visible if the child had been wrapped in or covered with a blanket . There is no mention of any question to the man about the child being asleep.

 Why did Sky news print what they did ?



 After leaving the bar, he travelled in the opposite direction and reached a set of stairs which gave access to Rua 25 de Abril (25th of April Street). On this artery they followed a second street, parallel to Rua 1 de Maio (1st of May Street) whose name he does not remember. He was heading toward his apartment (Estrela da Luz complex) which is located a little above the street Travessa da Escola Primária (Primary school crossing). As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— 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.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.


 So, the man was silent. That matched the Sky article above, but there is no mention of him ignoring a question, lowering his head or averting his eyes in his statement.

It appears that Sky News have put words into Mr Smith's mouth or that Mr Smith has decided to give details to the media which he did not give to the police.

 I am bewildered.

 btw there has been an interpretation given on twitter to the  " questioned " in the statement ; this refers to the police questions imo and is not a reference to Mr Smith speaking to the man he saw  but getting no reply.

hi russiandoll, what a strange find?  I wonder why in the Sky report they or he (whoever is telling the 'truth') say they asked if the child was asleep - why would you ask that of a stranger?
It is odd that he says in his statement that his daughter rang him from Ireland the NEXT day and told him what had happened and at that point he wondered if it could have been MBM, so why did he not say anything until they got home and I thought it was the sighting of GM carrying S off the plae that triggered his call to the police.  Yet in the sky new report he says he (they) did not think anymore of it until 2 weeks later when his son rang him and asked if he had been dreaming??!!  SO which was it?
He also states that he had seen RM in May and August of 2006 - so he 'knew' him by sight pretty well it would seem yet there does not seem to be any more questions regarding this. 
Makes you kinda wonder if this is not all part and parcel of this weird tale.  Someone to add more confusion - which is of course good!!!!!!!

Martin Smith and family travelled back to Ireland on 4/5/2007 (probably without realising that MM had disappeared the previous night). They learned what had happened when they arrived home and phoned the Portuguese police to report their sighting, then 3 members of the family returned to Portugal to make statements on 26/5/2007.

A few months later, in Sept, as Martin Smith watched the television news, he noticed a similarity between GM carrying Sean down the steps of a plane, and the man he had seen carrying a child on 3/5/2007 and so he contacted the PJ to add to his previous statement.

I am very puzzled about this. The statements both to the police and this journalist are straightforward, yet are conflicting. There has been additional information given to the journalist, there is also the very major issue of the child being covered, not what was told to the police : that statement matched the JT sighting, child barefoot and in PJs.

There are only so many explanations for this.
 The journalist has fabricated words from Mr Smith, the journalist has misunderstood Mr Smith and this went to print minus necessary corrections.
 Mr Smith decided to tell a journalist something he did not tell to the police, for whatever reason[s].


Both of the things mentioned in the Sky article are significant, blanket and speaking to the man.


Mr Smith was described by police as being a person who holidayed in the area regularly. He did not speak Portuguese [ probably had learnt to order food, drink and some basic get-by language for holidays but no more, therefore classed as not speaking Portuguese ]

 If he spoke to this man, he did not have the Portuguese for asking if the child was asleep. Yet he told police the man did not look like a tourist. I took this to mean Mr Smith thought the man was a local....so why would he ask, in English, " Is she/ the little one/ whoever..........asleep?"

 Also, he would only have asked this if he was not convinced that the girl was asleep, otherwise Mr Smith would have thought simply a father and sleeping child and would not have spoken.

So, if he spoke to the man , he must have thought the man understood English, therefore WAS  tourist or an ex=pat resident.
 This was NOT in his police statement.

 So, did he speak and was he prompted to do so by the appearance of the child?  What alternative was there, in Mr Smith's mind, to her being asleep?
 She was evidently not awake, but he must have had an alternative in mind or would not have asked the question.

 So, why does this Sky piece conflict with the official files?
 I know the media spin things, but this is not spin, it is conflicting information and there must be an explanation for it. Mr Smith was speaking English to an English -speaking journalist.

 I am scratching my head over this one.

 A changed story..........why?

 Also, Mr Smith was paid a visit by a certain interested party, wasn't he ?   Leaned on perhaps....why would that be?

from GA 's book :


- The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed.


- Their testimony is credible, but given the lack of light in the area, they can't identify the man who was carrying the child.

- The described the way he walked and carried her; this image is strongly fixed in their memory.


 
Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199

- Sept 2007, McCanns return to UK

- Gerry exits the plane, carrying his son against his left shoulder, the child's arms down along his sides, down the stairs and across the tarmack Gerry walks

- The Smith family see this recording on the news at 22h00 and are hit hard: they know this person, this way of carrying a child and of walking. It is Gerry McCann, they believe with a high degree of certainty, that they saw on 3 May at about 22h00, carrying a 4 yr old girl who appeared to be deeply asleep

- The father contacts the police to communicate this new information. He says he has not slept since 9 Sept and is very upset. It's as if he re-lived the night he saw the man carrying the child. Seeing Gerry walk and carry the child, awoke something in his head...

- Still not completely convinced, he watches the news again on ITV and also on Sky.

- No, there are no doubts. Gerry McCann looks just like the same person he saw carrying the child on May 3.

- Smith, upset and worried about what he saw and has concluded, needs the investigators to contact him.

- In late September, the Portuguese police receive this information from Smith. This appears to be a piece of the puzzle.

- Now Jane Tanner's insistence at seeing the abductor go the other direction makes sense, removing attentions from the way Gerry walked, in the direction of the beach. The man carrying a child didn't walk east towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the Smiths.

- This puzzle piece allows the investigators to reconstruct what happened on that cold night of 3 May. The puzzle is almost complete.

- We make the decision to bring the Smiths back to Portugal. They will be heard, and in legal and procedural terms, will give their identification using televised images, since a personal identification [of Gerry] is out of the question.

- A reconstitution of that night, with the Smiths, is seriously considered.

- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal.

- The Portuguese police changed their minds after GA leaves the team; they decide to use the international request mechanism [letters rogatory]

- This leads to absurd delays

- In the meantime, rumours abound that strangers to the investigation have found about about this witness and his family and, supposedly, have tried to talk to Smith, though their intentions in doing so are unknown.

dated  30.1.2008.  [ bold mine]


Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please Sergeant Liam Hogan I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true. I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.