Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

Cristobell wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Cristobel
---------------------------------------

Can you at least concede that the DCI Redwood's Smithman/men 'revelation' e-fits/photo-fits were produced with absolutely NO 'help', at all, from M Smith?

3rd January 2008.

"He, Martin Smith, has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."

Why would I do that?  I believe the efits come from the Smith family.  I simply don't accept that someone sitting at a keyboard in the UK, with no inside knowledge of the case, knows more about what the Smith family saw that night, than the family do themselves.

Well, i concede THAT, Cristobell, nobody knows more than what the Smith family themselves know.

What i asked was were the DCI Redwood's revelation photo-fits/e-fits drawn up WITHOUT the help of M Smith?

The Smithman/men e-fits/photo-fits were drawn up by the OTHER Smith family 'members' with no help from, at all, M Smith, as he has said, on record, to Drogheda Police..

Is that what you believe?

PeterMac wrote:

Woofer wrote:
If that was the case, surely he would have come forward and said `hey, that was me` - no one could have been unaware of the publicity at that time.

Many years ago I was in New York.  During my stay there were two murders.  One in Manhattan one in Queens
I have no idea what happened in either investigation and if I was described or seen on CCTV.
I was not involved, I was nowhere near either scene, and have never bothered to do anything to find out.

So why would someone not involved in any way "Come forward"
Tannerman didn't !

Peter - IMO the two aren`t comparable. The Maddie mystery has been full on for years all over the world.

And you don`t honestly believe that OG`s Tannerman is real do you?

Marlie wrote:

Irish Central 14/10/13 wrote:An Irish couple will feature in a major campaign on British television on Monday to find those responsible for the 2007 disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann from a Portuguese resort.



Drogheda couple Martin and Mary Smith have provided key evidence to a new investigation by British police into the McCann case.

New computer generated images of  a man the Smiths say they saw carrying a young girl through a side-street in the resort of Praia da Luz at the time Madeleine vanished are to be broadcast on BBC television on Monday night.

The Irish Sun report that the computer e-fits of the prime suspect were composed from statements and descriptions given by two members of the Smith family.

Drogheda man Martin was holidaying on the Algarve with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife, son Peter and other family members at the time Madeleine disappeared.

They have again told police of their experience on the night in question when they saw a man carrying a young girl, three or four years old and in a deep sleep, down a street in the seaside resort.

Martin has told the BBC programme that the man was carrying the child along the middle of a deserted side street in an uncomfortable position with her head slumped against him.

The report says she had pale ‘typically British’ skin, blonde shoulder-length hair and wore light coloured or pink pyjamas which match the description of those Madeleine was wearing that night.

The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now.

The man described by the Smiths is now the central figure in a new gallery of potential suspects to be released by English police’s Operation Grange inquiry into the case.

The images will be broadcast in a special edition of BBC One show Crimewatch on Monday night.
Madeleine’s mum Kate told the programme: “We’re not the ones that have done something wrong here.

“It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said: “The e-fits are clear and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them.”

The Irish Sun reports that one image shows the suspect square-jawed and chubby-faced. In the other he is leaner.

A Scotland Yard police spokesman said: “It’s two different people’s version of the same suspect.”
The Smiths saw the man at around 10pm, around the same time that Kate discovered Madeleine was missing from the family’s apartment.

The BBC programme, which is also to be broadcast in Germany and Holland, features a full reconstruction of the events in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

Thanks Marlie - very interesting.
If we are to believe these reports, Martin Smith did report his sighting to Portuguese police on the 5th.

And - "A Scotland Yard police spokesman said: “It’s two different people’s version of the same suspect.”
which I`ve always thought.  Tony has always disagreed with this I know and said it has got to be two different men.

jeanmonroe wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Cristobel
---------------------------------------

Can you at least concede that the DCI Redwood's Smithman/men 'revelation' e-fits/photo-fits were produced with absolutely NO 'help', at all, from M Smith?

3rd January 2008.

"He, Martin Smith, has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."

Why would I do that?  I believe the efits come from the Smith family.  I simply don't accept that someone sitting at a keyboard in the UK, with no inside knowledge of the case, knows more about what the Smith family saw that night, than the family do themselves.

Well, i concede THAT, Cristobell, nobody knows more than what the Smith family themselves know.

What i asked was were the DCI Redwood's revelation photo-fits/e-fits drawn up WITHOUT the help of M Smith?

The Smithman/men e-fits/photo-fits were drawn up by the OTHER Smith family 'members' with no help from, at all, M Smith, as he has said, on record, to Drogheda Police..

Is that what you believe?

I have no idea how the efits were drawn up, none of us have.  At the time of that statement, Martin Smith may not have contributed to the efits, but at a later stage may have, we just don't know. Logic dictates that they would all have offered whatever assistance they could.

From Peter Mac's earlier post it is obvious that it would take some time to get from the apartment to the Smith sighting spot and still do all the other actions required.
Could a vehicle have been used. There is an out of the way parking area just up from the sighting and to the right, you can see a few cars parked there on Google Maps.
What makes me believe it was Gerry is the trouser buttons described by Aoife Smith. She was at the top of the steps when the man passed and she made this observation. Coupled to her parents recognition of Gerry as he came off the aircraft and the fact that he owned such unusual trousers is it more than just a coincidence?

Ah
Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey!
-------------------------------------------
An Irish couple will feature in a major campaign on British television on Monday to find those responsible for the 2007 disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann from a Portuguese resort.

Drogheda couple Martin and Mary Smith have provided key evidence to a new investigation by British police into the McCann case.

New computer generated images of  a man the Smiths say they saw carrying a young girl through a side-street in the resort of Praia da Luz at the time Madeleine vanished are to be broadcast on BBC television on Monday night.

The Irish Sun report that the computer e-fits of the prime suspect were composed from statements and descriptions given by TWO members of the Smith family.

Which TWO? There were EIGHT Smiths, weren't there?

The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now.

SO, SMITHS REPORTED TO POLICE ON 5/6th May 2007. That will be 'on record' then.

The man described by the Smiths is now the central figure in a new gallery of potential suspects to be released by English police’s Operation Grange inquiry into the case.

“It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said: “The e-fits are clear and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them.”

ABSOLUTELY NO AMBIGUITY THERE FROM DCI REDWOOD

“It’s THE person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”"The e-fits are CLEAR" SAID DCI Redwood.

A Scotland Yard police spokesman said: “It’s two different people’s version of the same suspect.”
The Smiths saw the man at around 10pm, around the same time that Kate discovered Madeleine was missing from the family’s apartment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case solved !

"It WUZ Smithman wot dunnit' says DCI 'crackedit' Redwood!

eta: 3rd January 2008.

"He, Martin Smith, has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."
---------------------------------------------

So did M Smith 'lie' to Drogheda Police Sergeant, Liam Hogan, 30th January 2008, when he said he had NOT 'helped' in any photo-fits?

@Jeanmonroe,your not taking what the papers sayfor  any thing near the truth,are you?


 its a bit like there, arrests are imminent 

Jeanmonroe I took it to read:

Kate wrote:We’re not the ones that have done something wrong here.

“It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

A R wrote:“The e-fits are clear and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them.”

Wicki used the Irish Central piece as source that Martin and his wife Mary compiled the efits

Marlie wrote:Jeanmonroe I took it to read:

Kate wrote:We’re not the ones that have done something wrong here.

“It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

A R wrote:“The e-fits are clear and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them.”

Wicki used the Irish Central piece as source that Martin and his wife Mary compiled the efits

BUT DCI Redwood would not, imo, be immune from using, er, obscuration, to have people 'read' something into something that is not, kosher.

Adding a sentence followed immediately by a 'quote' from him........  

Perception, dear boy, perception.

I know it was K McCann who 'said' that, about apartment.

My ears are still 'ringing' from her squealy voice!   

jeanmonroe wrote: BUT DCI Redwood would not, imo, be immune from using, er, obscuration, to have people 'read' something into something that is not, kosher.

Adding a sentence followed immediately by a 'quote' from him........  

Perception, dear boy, perception.

I know it was K McCann who 'said' that, about apartment.

My ears are still 'ringing' from her squealy voice!   

Agreed, jeanmonroe, it was a very cleverly constructed piece  

The BBC programme, which is also to be broadcast in Germany and Holland, FEATURES A FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
------------------------------------
Well, THAT didn't happen, did it!

Irish Central 14/10/13.

The Smiths gave descriptions to Portuguese police two days after the disappearance but no e-fits or sketches were ever produced until now.
-----------------------------------------------------------

"UNTIL NOW" ................14/10/13?

Surely NOT?

That would be over 6 YEARS 6 months AFTER the 'event'!

"I don't beliiieve it!"

jeanmonroe wrote:The BBC programme, which is also to be broadcast in Germany and Holland, FEATURES A FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
------------------------------------
Well, THAT didn't happen, did it!

Heck no!

Now I'm confused...AGAIN! I thought the Smiths didn't even report their sighting until after Murat was arrested mid May and why Tony believes it didn't happen?

So is it fact that the Smiths gave descriptions TWO DAYS after the disappearance?

But bear in mind that most of the source was the Irish Sun

pennylane wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:The BBC programme, which is also to be broadcast in Germany and Holland, FEATURES A FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
------------------------------------
Well, THAT didn't happen, did it!

Heck no!

In fairness to them all a reconstruction is physically impossible.
Every step would have to be a conscious choice by the "producer" to accept one of the versions of the truth.
We still do not know for sure which route Gerry took. We have two versions, one later than the other, but that does not mean that the second one is accurate and the first a lie.
It might be the other way round. Or he might not have visited at all - since his word clearly cannot be relied upon.

Similarly the curtains were either wide open (v. 1.1) or tight shut (v. 2.1) or possibly in between( v. 3.1)
We have no idea which is the 'correct' version
And any producer would surely research the weather conditions and discover there were no gusts of wind of Force 4 or 5 that evening. As has Hall.
Then what do yo do with that extraordinary piece of ham acting by Kate ?
So anyone attempting a "reconstruction must make a series of decisions, even before the 'actors'' get involved.
Hardly surprising that the only attempt was such a botch that Tanner burst into tears as her original version was trashed straight to camera by Gerry.
The Tapas mob must have realised that early on,and decided, possibly in the secret Rothley meeting with their lawyers, to make their excuses.

No decent lawyer - and certainly not one advising the McCanns would permit them to take part. Think of the fees they would lose.

PeterMac wrote:

Woofer wrote:
If that was the case, surely he would have come forward and said `hey, that was me` - no one could have been unaware of the publicity at that time.

Many years ago I was in New York.  During my stay there were two murders.  One in Manhattan one in Queens
I have no idea what happened in either investigation and if I was described or seen on CCTV.
I was not involved, I was nowhere near either scene, and have never bothered to do anything to find out.

So why would someone not involved in any way "Come forward"
Tannerman didn't !

Except there was no Tannerman.

The Smithman could be a random man, who did not think of  'coming forward' even though he knew he was in the general vicinity of the crime scene, not realising he was sought by Police.
That is assuming he also did not see the efits, otherwise by now he would have known the Police are waiting for him to come forward.
It could not have been a holidaymaker at the resorts as one assumes the PJ would have done the fundamental of TIE (trace investigate and eliminate) every guest who'd children with them from the Resorts' Register, even those that did not use the night creche service.

I don't see why Smith family would fabricate the sighting.  What I struggle to understand is why he waited until he arrived back in Ireland before making police report on the 9th given that it had dawned on him since 4th (day he heard of the incident) that the girl being carried by a man he saw less than 24 hours earlier could have been Madeleine.

Some people can and do react slowly especially if they do not realise the significance.
But given that Martin Smith had realised the significance - having connected his sighting to Maddie - from the moment he learnt of the incident, the delay reporting is odd.

Also given that Peter Smith learned of the incident also on the 4th, from separate source as that of his father, it's also strange he did not ask his dad who was still in PDL at that time to report the sighting they saw less than 24 hours earlier. Whether it dawned on him at the time of learning of incident that the girl could have been Madeleine or not is irrelevant.  The significance of a man seen carrying a child on night of incident and the man did not respond when talked to by one member of the family, that alone is suspicious.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Now I'm confused...AGAIN! I thought the Smiths didn't even report their sighting until after Murat was arrested mid May and why Tony believes it didn't happen?

So is it fact that the Smiths gave descriptions TWO DAYS after the disappearance?

I knew I read that before, just didn't know where. Two days is reasonable I think considering at the time the abduction supposed to have happened at. 9:15 and was going in the opposite direction from the smiths. If it was gm, I bet he's still laughing and been given some ideas to discredit himself, I hope they don't read this forum!
IMO

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Now I'm confused...AGAIN! I thought the Smiths didn't even report their sighting until after Murat was arrested mid May and why Tony believes it didn't happen?

So is it fact that the Smiths gave descriptions TWO DAYS after the disappearance?

 
Well ...... if you can call MSM reporting FACT !  It`s all up for grabs really.
 
But two newspapers are quoting Mr. Smith as saying he reported his sighting 2 days afterwards.  I think it would make more sense that he did actually report it to the local police in PdL because its hard to believe anyone would go 12 days and not say anything.  Anyway Martin and Peter both say in their statements that they wondered if it could be Maddie the day after she went missing (Peter is not so definite).
 
Not sure about the efits, except I agree with the newspaper article that they were constructed from two different witnesses. Goodness knows who constructed them - whoever did must have had the two Smiths there to show them different shaped faces and arrive at something they were happy with - obviously done by two different efit machines.
 
  Obviously the Smiths` sighting was taken seriously at a later date because they travelled back to Portugal on the 26th to make statements.

What I can`t understand is why Martin Smith is saying that the local officers didn`t take his sighting seriously - he says they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting.

Woofer wrote:Well ...... if you can call MSM reporting FACT !  It`s all up for grabs really.
 
But two newspapers are quoting Mr. Smith as saying he reported his sighting 2 days afterwards.  I think it would make more sense that he did actually report it to the local police in PdL because its hard to believe anyone would go 12 days and not say anything.  Anyway Martin and Peter both say in their statements that they wondered if it could be Maddie the day after she went missing (Peter is not so definite).
 
Not sure about the efits, except I agree with the newspaper article that they were constructed from two different witnesses. Goodness knows who constructed them - whoever did must have had the two Smiths there to show them different shaped faces and arrive at something they were happy with - obviously done by two different efit machines.
 
  Obviously the Smiths` sighting was taken seriously at a later date because they travelled back to Portugal on the 26th to make statements.

What I can`t understand is why Martin Smith is saying that the local officers didn`t take his sighting seriously - he says they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting.

It does make sense it would be two days because didn't they travel back home on the 4th? I'm definitely erring toward the Smiths being completely legit at this point though.

As to Martin Smith getting the impression the local officers weren't taking his sighting seriously...Hasn't Amaral made it clear that the LP/UK government were putting the Portuguese under immense pressure to go with the Tannerman sighting? Not really an excuse, but that is what was claimed.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Now I'm confused...AGAIN! I thought the Smiths didn't even report their sighting until after Murat was arrested mid May and why Tony believes it didn't happen?

So is it fact that the Smiths gave descriptions TWO DAYS after the disappearance?

Newspaper report is best taken with large pinch of salt.
Some articles state he reported after he'd returned to Ireland.

PeterMac wrote:

tiny wrote:I also believe the Smith family, i also believe it was Gerry carrying Madeleine.

Do you therefore dismiss the dogs alerts, the forged Last Photo, the blue tennis bag and so on.

Having an opinion it was Gerry with Madeleine does not mean any of the above are ruled out , depending on what opinion you have of a timeline, what was in the blue bag, or the Last Photo.

The one thing that can rule it out is the timeline for Gerry from 9.45 to 10.30 the real question is working out what of the timeline for Gerry that is independent of the Tapas Nine. Does it give an opportunity to conicide with being seen by the Smiths.  Now I know the opinion by some on here is that he has one investigating it you go back to a timeline I am struggling to reach that opinion but will keep looking.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Woofer wrote:Well ...... if you can call MSM reporting FACT !  It`s all up for grabs really.
 
But two newspapers are quoting Mr. Smith as saying he reported his sighting 2 days afterwards.  I think it would make more sense that he did actually report it to the local police in PdL because its hard to believe anyone would go 12 days and not say anything.  Anyway Martin and Peter both say in their statements that they wondered if it could be Maddie the day after she went missing (Peter is not so definite).
 
Not sure about the efits, except I agree with the newspaper article that they were constructed from two different witnesses. Goodness knows who constructed them - whoever did must have had the two Smiths there to show them different shaped faces and arrive at something they were happy with - obviously done by two different efit machines.
 
  Obviously the Smiths` sighting was taken seriously at a later date because they travelled back to Portugal on the 26th to make statements.

What I can`t understand is why Martin Smith is saying that the local officers didn`t take his sighting seriously - he says they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting.

It does make sense it would be two days because didn't they travel back home on the 4th? I'm definitely erring toward the Smiths being completely legit at this point though.

As to Martin Smith getting the impression the local officers weren't taking his sighting seriously...Hasn't Amaral made it clear that the LP/UK government were putting the Portuguese under immense pressure to go with the Tannerman sighting? Not really an excuse, but that is what was claimed.

It was only Peter, his Wife, his nephew and his Wife`s son that returned on the 4th.
I believe Martin, his Wife Mary, his daughter Aoife and his 2 nieces returned on the 9th. And the news article claims Martin reported it to local police on or about the 5th before they went home. 

The 11/12 day gap is (I think) is regarding Martin Smith`s watching the News on 9th Sept and not contacting Leicester police until the 20th.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html

Woofer wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Now I'm confused...AGAIN! I thought the Smiths didn't even report their sighting until after Murat was arrested mid May and why Tony believes it didn't happen?

So is it fact that the Smiths gave descriptions TWO DAYS after the disappearance?

 
Well ...... if you can call MSM reporting FACT !  It`s all up for grabs really.
 
But two newspapers are quoting Mr. Smith as saying he reported his sighting 2 days afterwards.  I think it would make more sense that he did actually report it to the local police in PdL because its hard to believe anyone would go 12 days and not say anything.  Anyway Martin and Peter both say in their statements that they wondered if it could be Maddie the day after she went missing (Peter is not so definite).
 
Not sure about the efits, except I agree with the newspaper article that they were constructed from two different witnesses. Goodness knows who constructed them - whoever did must have had the two Smiths there to show them different shaped faces and arrive at something they were happy with - obviously done by two different efit machines.
 
  Obviously the Smiths` sighting was taken seriously at a later date because they travelled back to Portugal on the 26th to make statements.

What I can`t understand is why Martin Smith is saying that the local officers didn`t take his sighting seriously - he says they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting.

If we can try to imagine the chaos that ensued after the McCanns and the Tapas gang hit the phones, we might be able to understand why this important sighting took so long to come to light.

The PJ were inundated with calls and leads, remember the McCanns are a very proactive family.  Within hours of Madeleine's disappearance the world's media were descending upon PDL.  Not only the world's media, but all the powerful people listed in Richard Hall's documentary.

How much evidence did the police have to sift through?  Additionally, they had to interview the parents, the tapas gang, and everyone in the immediate vicinity when the incident occurred.  Martin Smith's report may have lain among mountains of papers and may have seemed unimportant at the time.  The police are only human and as we know, TM were doing everything they could to scupper the investigation, including phoning the police with messages from psychics and mediums!

We can see from the Smiths' statements that they did not understand the importance of their sighting and possibly no-one else did at the time. They were in a holiday resort and the sight of a man carrying a sleeping child, did not seem out of the ordinary. They themselves had children with them.  From their perspective there could have been dozens of men walking around carrying sleeping children - there was a night crèche. 

If they didn't think their sighting important, and neither did the police, we can see how it sunk further to the bottom of the pile.  Again, we have no idea how many hundreds of sightings and leads the PJ were chasing up, the ones that were followed up and dismissed.  Martin Smith, a modest man, may have felt there were other sightings more important than theirs, particularly if they did contact the police and the call wasn't followed up. 

The PJ were under enormous pressure, this case is unique.  Unbelievably, the parents, two of the three arguidos in this case, were running an independent investigation of their own assisted by the British police!  This was hugely discourteous to the host country, but as if that were not bad enough, they were made 'celebrities' by the British media and encouraged in their flauting of Portuguese Law by the British authorities!  Judicial Secrecy, pah, only when it suits. 

Goncalo Amaral was trying to run an investigation alongside a sensational media campaign where the McCanns were encouraging every loon on the planet who saw a 3 year old blonde girl to telephone the PJ.  In addition they were being pressurised to lay off the parents and focus on Tannerman by someone with a lot of power. 

The important thing is the Smith family did come forward and they are still co-operating with the police now.

Woofer wrote:It was only Peter, his Wife, his nephew and his Wife`s son that returned on the 4th.

I believe Martin, his Wife Mary, his daughter Aoife and his 2 nieces returned on the 9th. And the news article claims Martin reported it to local police on or about the 5th before they went home. 

The 11/12 day gap is (I think) is regarding Martin Smith`s watching the News on 9th Sept and not contacting Leicester police until the 20th.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html

Thanks for that Woofer. I should have checked that before I posted, but this case is now so complicated and vast it is nigh on impossible to remember even basic stuff.

So, if what you say above is the correct series of events and the IrishCentral/Irish Sun article is accurate, then it looks to me the Smiths are legit.

Reports sighting on or around the 5th to the PJ. Gets feeling they aren't interested. Then on 9th Sept he sees Gerry walking off the plane which sparks a memory. As it is based on what amounts to a gut feeling and body language I understand why he would be reluctant to report it, but he felt strong enough about it to (eventually) do so.

And if this is all about helping Murat, would he still need Smiths help in September? When was Murat officially (and unofficially) "cleared" again?

Right, I'm off bed! Night all.

I think the mcs and Murat were "cleared" when the case was shelved but even if Martin was helping Murat, would he really tell a lie blaming maddies daddy?  That plane episode was an unintentional reconstruction and worked, unfortunately for gm, could you imagine if the reconstruction was real? Same time, same street, gm carrying a blonde 3/4yr old sleeping? If only gm had carried an awake Amelie off that plane eh?
IMO

Justformaddie wrote:I think the mcs and Murat were "cleared" when the case was shelved but even if Martin was helping Murat, would he really tell a lie blaming maddies daddy?  That plane episode was an unintentional reconstruction and worked, unfortunately for gm, could you imagine if the reconstruction was real? Same time, same street, gm carrying a blonde 3/4yr old sleeping? If only gm had carried an awake Amelie off that plane eh?
IMO

I was having a re-read of the Smith family statements last night and if you scroll down to the bottom, it becomes perfectly obvious why the McCanns never wanted their evidence out there.  Poor Mr. Smith was up all night worried sick by what he had seen when Gerry stepped off that plane.

"Crecheman" and "Tannerman"



Does anyone know who is this, wearing strikingly, and remarkably 'similar' clothing, to 'Crecheman' who J Tanner DID 'see', according to DCI Redwood of the Met Police?  

A er, um, THIRD 'burglar/abductor/suspect', possibly, that OG haven't told us to look out for.................YET!

Cristobell wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:I think the mcs and Murat were "cleared" when the case was shelved but even if Martin was helping Murat, would he really tell a lie blaming maddies daddy?  That plane episode was an unintentional reconstruction and worked, unfortunately for gm, could you imagine if the reconstruction was real? Same time, same street, gm carrying a blonde 3/4yr old sleeping? If only gm had carried an awake Amelie off that plane eh?
IMO

I was having a re-read of the Smith family statements last night and if you scroll down to the bottom, it becomes perfectly obvious why the McCanns never wanted their evidence out there.  Poor Mr. Smith was up all night worried sick by what he had seen when Gerry stepped off that plane.

Couldn't eat or sleep after he'd seen it. To me, that's says he didn't really want to believe what he'd seen but, being an honest man IMO knew he had to do the right thing. If I'd witnessed anything like that, I'd be in turmoil too, but he did report it and needs an award for his braveness!
IMO

I have been on the forum for only a year or so  and only became aware of the Smith controversy on this forum recently.  I have to say I was utterly gobsmacked that he was being accused of lying in order to get a friend off the hook. I understand that people have their own opinions and that theorising certain scenarios can be interesting but I did find this view extreme and somewhat disturbing given there is no evidence to back it up, merely supposition. Now Mr Smith has spoken out and asked Richard Hall to publish a correction on his video stating that he is not a friend of Murat and knows him only by sight. I would hope that this statement would cause his accusers to rethink their stance. It is one thing theorising without evidence but quite another to accuse someone of lying following a clarifying statement and may have legal  implications in addition to the moral ones. I understand that this theory has been a long time in the making and the road may appear to be well travelled and defined, however that doesn't make it right and there is now a new piece of evidence to be considered in the form of Mr Smith's first public statement in many years. I would hope that forum members are open minded and reasonable enough to accept it unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.