Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

boo boos wrote:I took Martin smith statement to mean Robert Murat was not wearing glasses at that time?

So did I.

Woofer wrote:

boo boos wrote:I took Martin smith statement to mean Robert Murat was not wearing glasses at that time?

So did I.

Me too....

I see further back some posters are suggesting that Father Pacheco took confessional from the McCanns.  He didn`t - he said so himself that he couldn`t because he doesn`t speak English - someone else did.

It may have been the catholic priest who married the McCanns - the one that was sent for straight after Maddie went missing - can`t remember his name.   Father Pacheco said he didn`t arrange for the key, but the UK priest did.

Tony, thanks a lot for your detailed reply to my post.

I think it's best to agree to disagree.

Woofer wrote:I see further back some posters are suggesting that Father Pacheco took confessional from the McCanns.  He didn`t - he said so himself that he couldn`t because he doesn`t speak English - someone else did.

It may have been the catholic priest who married the McCanns - the one that was sent for straight after Maddie went missing - can`t remember his name.   Father Pacheco said he didn`t arrange for the key, but the UK priest did.

It seems everyone who finds themselves somehow involved in this sorry case is fair game for smearing.

I have always believed in Smithman, I think this sighting is one of the best chances the police have of finding out / proving what happened to MM. I think the most likely explanation is that someone was headed for the beach, in a hurry, without too much time to assess their situation. I don't think that someone expected to run into a family of nine in a quiet street.

I was interested to learn that PdL medical centre was in that direction and thought possibly that someone was trying to find medical help, however, even though the medical centre was closed at that time (24 hr assistance available by phone) there doesn't seem to be enough time available to, say GM, to take MM to the medical centre at 9.55pm, realise nothing could be done, leave MM temporarily at the beach and then run back to the Tapas by 10 pm. Unless of course KM set off back to 5A at 10 pm not knowing of events, in which case her initial reaction would be entirely genuine.

In this scenario, the rest of the Tapas group would have to say that GM was present at the Tapas when KM went to check at 10 pm. it's possible, I suppose, that JT, MO, ROB were aware of a medical emergency prior to this. Is it likely that GM was walking around PdL in an attempt to awaken MM by access to fresh air? That could also be a reason for opening a window.

justathought wrote:I am pleased you have explained your comments, as to some, the original post seemed to be directed as to the on-going case.
My post was not meant to be antagonistic, in many ways trying to help you, to give you an opportunity to expand on the comment and why you made it.

Thank you.

FWIW, one of the articles about Father Pacheco below:

++++++++++++++++++++++

'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Daily Mail - Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

According to reports, Father Jose Manuel Pacheco claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply "supporting two lost souls."

But, bizarrely, he also appeared to say he had been the victim of some form of deception.

It has also emerged Father Pacheco was apparently called in to see his superior, Algarve Bishop Manuel Quintas and warned about his behaviour.

In the days after Madeleine vanished on May 3, the McCanns, both 39 and devout Catholics, frequently sought refuge at the priest's church.

They became so close to Father Pacheco, he gave them the keys to the tiny building so they could go in to pray whenever they liked.

However, his friendship with the couple appeared to spectacularly backfire after police became convinced Kate had told him she had killed her daughter during confession.

But he has vowed to take whatever she had said to the grave, despite being quizzed by detectives.

Father Pacheco appeared to virtually vanish from the public eye in the weeks after Gerry and Kate were made arguidos - or official suspects.

The pair left Portugal without saying goodbye and handed the church keys to another clergyman.

Last week, police moved in to search the churchyard and there has been some suggestion that they may consider digging for Madeleine's body at the location.

Father Pacheco, runs two churches and teaches at three local schools, yesterday broke his silence.

According to the Daily Express, he admitted he had become too close to the couple, still official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

"I was deceived," he said.

"I was just doing my job supporting lost souls. I would do that with any family who were in their situation. I didn't do anything wrong.

Father Pacheco, 46, said he had felt compelled to help Kate and Gerry because of their "inconsolable grief".

ENDS

Cheshire Cat wrote:The question I have, why, if it was not actually GM that Mr Smith saw would he say the man was 60-80% Gerry...why Gerry? Why not just say he was 100% certain it was not Murat.

 That assumes that he/the family really did see someone carrying a 2-year-old in pyjamas around Praia da Luz on a coldish, very late, early May evening at 10.00pm.

As stated earlier, I find his reason for saying it was Gerry McCann (seeing him coming down the steps of the plane) hugely unconvincing.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:The question I have, why, if it was not actually GM that Mr Smith saw would he say the man was 60-80% Gerry...why Gerry? Why not just say he was 100% certain it was not Murat.

 That assumes that he/the family really did see someone carrying a 2-year-old in pyjamas around Praia da Luz on a coldish early May evening at 10.00pm.

As stated earlier, I find his reason for saying it was Gerry McCann (seeing him coming down the steps of the plane) hugely unconvincing.  

Thank you Tony. What I mean is what could be the motivation for Smith to point the finger at Gerry? To take the heat off Murat, but why say Gerry McCann? To get even because Murat (their buddy) had been dropped in it by Tanner etc?

Cheshire Cat wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:The question I have, why, if it was not actually GM that Mr Smith saw would he say the man was 60-80% Gerry...why Gerry? Why not just say he was 100% certain it was not Murat.

 That assumes that he/the family really did see someone carrying a 2-year-old in pyjamas around Praia da Luz on a coldish early May evening at 10.00pm.

As stated earlier, I find his reason for saying it was Gerry McCann (seeing him coming down the steps of the plane) hugely unconvincing.  

Thank you Tony. What I mean is what could be the motivation for Smith to point the finger at Gerry? To take the heat off Murat, but why say Gerry McCann? To get even because Murat (their buddy) had been dropped in it by Tanner etc?

Cheshire Cat, I'm cautious about guessing why Martin Smith named Gerry McCann, but I would have to say that...

...you have probably sussed it.

Does anyone know the exact location of the CCTV Camera that was wiped?

Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

Tony Bennett wrote:

justathought wrote:I am pleased you have explained your comments, as to some, the original post seemed to be directed as to the on-going case.
My post was not meant to be antagonistic, in many ways trying to help you, to give you an opportunity to expand on the comment and why you made it.

Thank you.

FWIW, one of the articles about Father Pacheco below:

++++++++++++++++++++++

'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Daily Mail - Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

According to reports, Father Jose Manuel Pacheco claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply "supporting two lost souls."

But, bizarrely, he also appeared to say he had been the victim of some form of deception.

It has also emerged Father Pacheco was apparently called in to see his superior, Algarve Bishop Manuel Quintas and warned about his behaviour.

In the days after Madeleine vanished on May 3, the McCanns, both 39 and devout Catholics, frequently sought refuge at the priest's church.

They became so close to Father Pacheco, he gave them the keys to the tiny building so they could go in to pray whenever they liked.

However, his friendship with the couple appeared to spectacularly backfire after police became convinced Kate had told him she had killed her daughter during confession.

But he has vowed to take whatever she had said to the grave, despite being quizzed by detectives.

Father Pacheco appeared to virtually vanish from the public eye in the weeks after Gerry and Kate were made arguidos - or official suspects.

The pair left Portugal without saying goodbye and handed the church keys to another clergyman.

Last week, police moved in to search the churchyard and there has been some suggestion that they may consider digging for Madeleine's body at the location.

Father Pacheco, runs two churches and teaches at three local schools, yesterday broke his silence.

According to the Daily Express, he admitted he had become too close to the couple, still official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

"I was deceived," he said.

"I was just doing my job supporting lost souls. I would do that with any family who were in their situation. I didn't do anything wrong.

Father Pacheco, 46, said he had felt compelled to help Kate and Gerry because of their "inconsolable grief".

ENDS

mr Bennet
no need to apologise. as and i am aware of the Catholic church's role in the case.
the "smith's" sighting is very significant to my mind. maybe a hoax. but an elaborate one if so.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

From Sky News 7.4.2008
"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."

Thanks for the location of the CCTV camera NFWTD

Tony Bennett wrote:

justathought wrote:I am pleased you have explained your comments, as to some, the original post seemed to be directed as to the on-going case.
My post was not meant to be antagonistic, in many ways trying to help you, to give you an opportunity to expand on the comment and why you made it.

Thank you.

FWIW, one of the articles about Father Pacheco below:

++++++++++++++++++++++

'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann

Daily Mail - Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

According to reports, Father Jose Manuel Pacheco claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply "supporting two lost souls."

But, bizarrely, he also appeared to say he had been the victim of some form of deception.

It has also emerged Father Pacheco was apparently called in to see his superior, Algarve Bishop Manuel Quintas and warned about his behaviour.

In the days after Madeleine vanished on May 3, the McCanns, both 39 and devout Catholics, frequently sought refuge at the priest's church.

They became so close to Father Pacheco, he gave them the keys to the tiny building so they could go in to pray whenever they liked.

However, his friendship with the couple appeared to spectacularly backfire after police became convinced Kate had told him she had killed her daughter during confession.

But he has vowed to take whatever she had said to the grave, despite being quizzed by detectives.

Father Pacheco appeared to virtually vanish from the public eye in the weeks after Gerry and Kate were made arguidos - or official suspects.

The pair left Portugal without saying goodbye and handed the church keys to another clergyman.

Last week, police moved in to search the churchyard and there has been some suggestion that they may consider digging for Madeleine's body at the location.

Father Pacheco, runs two churches and teaches at three local schools, yesterday broke his silence.

According to the Daily Express, he admitted he had become too close to the couple, still official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

"I was deceived," he said.

"I was just doing my job supporting lost souls. I would do that with any family who were in their situation. I didn't do anything wrong.

Father Pacheco, 46, said he had felt compelled to help Kate and Gerry because of their "inconsolable grief".

ENDS

A confession perhaps....

sami wrote:

Woofer wrote:

boo boos wrote:I took Martin smith statement to mean Robert Murat was not wearing glasses at that time?

So did I.

Me too....

Here are the relevant extracts from Martin Smith's first 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.
— 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

++++++++++++++++

Having re-read that, yes, he is saying that the man he claimed to have seen did not wear glasses....

He also seems to be saying that Robert Murat did not wear glasses at that time i.e. when he (Murat) was 'inebriated and spoke to everyone'.


It doesn't change my main point on this which was that Martin Smith said quite clearly:  "it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph". Yet he did that very thing four months later - after claiming to 'recognise' Gerry McCann 'from the way he was carrying his child'.

Further, on re-reading this, I am struck by the almost uncanny similarity of the description given by Smith and the description given by Tanner:

* light coloured pyjamas
* blonde hair
* female
* about a metre in height
* not covered with a blanket
* did not look like a tourist, but can't explain why not
* beige-coloured trousers
* aged 35/40
* average build
etc.

No wonder that three pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' (pp, 370-372) were devoted to the, quote, 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman.

But, hey ho, Tannerman has morphed into creche man.

Surely Smithman couldn't be crecheman as well, could he?

Or another crecheman?

Unless it was just one of those cold May nights that just brought out men between 9.00pm and 10.00pm carrying children back from creches all over the village in the cold night air, just in their pyjamas.

Presumably they don't have pushchairs over there.

Was it not Wendy Murphy who spoke of 'fake sightings'?

Woofer wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

From Sky News 7.4.2008
"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."

Thanks for the location of the CCTV camera NFWTD

SEVERAL TIMES.

Thank you Woofer, we are edging closer to the truth about Robert Murat and Martin Smith.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

The Smiths were on their way back to Ireland early in the morning of 4th May (it was the reason they were headed back to their apartment at 10 pm) If they left PdL very early they may not have seen any newspaper reports or tv or pictures of GM on that day. It was only when one of the party said a few days later, did we not see someone carrying a child on that night?, that they remembered the incident and called police. Then three of them returned to PdL later in May to give statements.

I know that MM's disappearance was given coverage in Ireland but perhaps not so much as in England or Portugal. When Smith saw the tv news in Sept, what he thought he recognised more than the facial features was Gm's manner of walking and carrying a child.

what is most significant. Is that SY had ample opportunity to interview the "smith's" before the airing of the crimewatch programme. but they choose not to. but happy to float the smith-man sighting as a credible sighting.

suzyjohnson wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

The Smiths were on their way back to Ireland early in the morning of 4th May (it was the reason they were headed back to their apartment at 10 pm) If they left PdL very early they may not have seen any newspaper reports or tv or pictures of GM on that day. It was only when one of the party said a few days later, did we not see someone carrying a child on that night?, that they remembered the incident and called police. Then three of them returned to PdL later in May to give statements.

I know that MM's disappearance was given coverage in Ireland but perhaps not so much as in England or Portugal. When Smith saw the tv news in Sept, what he thought he recognised more than the facial features was Gm's manner of walking and carrying a child.

A few days later???

suzyjohnson wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

The Smiths were on their way back to Ireland early in the morning of 4th May (it was the reason they were headed back to their apartment at 10 pm) If they left PdL very early they may not have seen any newspaper reports or tv or pictures of GM on that day. It was only when one of the party said a few days later, did we not see someone carrying a child on that night?, that they remembered the incident and called police. Then three of them returned to PdL later in May to give statements.

I know that MM's disappearance was given coverage in Ireland but perhaps not so much as in England or Portugal. When Smith saw the tv news in Sept, what he thought he recognised more than the facial features was Gm's manner of walking and carrying a child.

sometimes the most credible  evidence, is full of inconsistencies  including confirming unlikely circumstances arising?

justathought wrote:what is most significant. Is that SY had ample opportunity to interview the "smith's" before the airing of the crimewatch programme. but they choose not to. but happy to float the smith-man sighting as a credible sighting.

 What about CW made you conclude that the Smiths had not been re-interviewed  before it went to air?

There is a statement I am sure from a Smith family member, Martin himself I believe, where it is said that they were told the day after M disappeared that a child had gone missing from her bed close to where they had been staying.
 Smith had simply thought the man he had seen was a father with his child.
 will check when he told police for first time he might have witnessed something important.

 I know his statement was not taken until 26 May, I recall reading somewhere when he got in touch with police but can't find the date...he went back to Ireland 9th, maybe he reported his sighting before then, as he says after hearing about Maddie on 4th he thought he might have passed by and seen her.

 If he got in touch before leaving, it took 2 weeks to interview him it seems.

Tony Bennett wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is there any evidence though that the Smiths (or some of them) were friendly with Robert Murat? Mr Smith Senior knew him by sight and that I thought was it.
 
I have to say that it is odd to me that they did not immediately recognise Gerry the next day (when the story broke) as the person they had seen before.
 
I'm not accusing them of lying - it's simply that I can't at the moment fathom their statements out.

P.S. According to the Daily Mirror, Woofer, the camera was at the hotel Estrela da Luz.

The Smiths were on their way back to Ireland early in the morning of 4th May (it was the reason they were headed back to their apartment at 10 pm) If they left PdL very early they may not have seen any newspaper reports or tv or pictures of GM on that day. It was only when one of the party said a few days later, did we not see someone carrying a child on that night?, that they remembered the incident and called police. Then three of them returned to PdL later in May to give statements.

I know that MM's disappearance was given coverage in Ireland but perhaps not so much as in England or Portugal. When Smith saw the tv news in Sept, what he thought he recognised more than the facial features was Gm's manner of walking and carrying a child.

 A few days later???

Yes, I thought I'd read that, that one of the Smith family had phoned the others and said, didn't we see someone on that night? Perhaps they had only just watched the news, perhaps they were busy. I didn't see anything odd in that.