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

And IF the Smith family DO know Robert Murat well, then, given Murat's exceedingly close relationship with Portuguese police (acting as translator in all the early police interviews) one might have to possibly explore any potential conflicts of interest.

Whatever is the case, RM seems to have many, many contacts. And the Smith family do own an apartment in Luz and go several times a year I think it was reported. So they are likely to have more of a local network than if it had just been a 'one -off' holiday.

They could, for instance, be part of an ex-pat scene.

And I do believe they co-own the property with someone else so it would be interesting to know who that was and whether they had any Luz connections, apart from co-owning a property in Luz.

One thing that has really characterized this case is the enormous amount of 'co-incidences' that there seem to be with all sorts of links between what could be principal 'players' and key witnesses.

It does seem more and more like and Agatha Christie with interwoven links. If this were an AC, would have been wrapped up in 20 chapters by Smithman being GM's estranged twin bro', who had donated sperm for the IVF, and was taking back his daughter  

fossey wrote:

Close

Previous

  

admin wrote:

fossey wrote:

Close

Previous

  

Trying to jog anyone's memory  

kevmack wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

kevmack wrote:

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.

this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi.   Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.

In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— 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.

He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

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

Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.

He didn't need to be asked though, he would be well aware of all of the news reports by that time, naming Murat as an arguido, and like in the example I gave above, if, after witnessing an event, and knowing that someone was being accused of the crime, when the person I saw was definitely not the person I had witnessed committing the crime, then I would offer that information to the police myself.

Completely agree with this and your earlier post. The Smith sighting seems to me to be perfectly in line with a group of people walking past a stranger, not consciously taking in many physical details because they're not aware of any need to, having filtered out the information that it's not one of their circle of acquaintances. Surely we all do this every time we walk down our local high street? We usually recognise and talk to people we know without having looked carefully at each and every passer by.

From what I can see from the witness statements and from media interviews, there are some puzzles and inconsistencies in the Smith statements.

1. Even though Martin Smith states that the day after Madeleine disappeared he though that the child he saw being carried by a man the night before might be Madeleine, he does not contact the police for two weeks. Neither do any of the other members of the Smith group of nine people which comprised of four adults and five children, despite the fact that they all saw this person and were all aware of Madeleine's 'abduction'. 


2. In his first police statement Martin Smith says he saw Robert Murat twice in May and August 06. But in a newspaper report on 8th August 2007, a family member is reported as saying: The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' In a Daily Mail report on 3rd January 2008 Martin Smith is reported as 'insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years.'  Did he know him 'non-visually' too?! For instance, the time he saw him in a bar inebriated in 2006 and he 'spoke to everyone'. That presumably means that Murat spoke to Mr Smith on at that one occasion or vice versa. 


3. In the Daily Mail report  the family appear to make a link between the Jane Tanner sighting and their sighting and the 'coincidence' prompted them to contact police. In this report Martin Smith is quoted as saying: "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." Yet in his police statement of May 2007 he says: "it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season." Yes - normal in the height of the holiday season but, as Mr Smith told reporters from the Mail in Jan 08, at the time of year that Madeleine 'disappeared' Luz was "very,very quiet" so much so that the likelihood of seeing two separate incidents of young children being carried around would be very small. So why, if it was so quiet at that time of year and not usual to see many young children being carried around, did none of the Smith family report their sighting of a girl who looked like Madeleine when they heard about the 'abduction'? Surely they would have been struck by the 'coincidence' of having seen a girl looking like Madeleine being carried around on the evening she disappeared the moment they found out about the 'abduction', especially given how quiet the resort was.


4. In Amaral's book, Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him. The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.  Why did Martin Smith become 'almost certain' it was Madeleine at this particular point in time? Why not earlier? The Jane Tanner sighting gives no description of Madeleine's face. Whereas in their police statement it is apparent that they did see the  girl's face. And he also states that in the family's opinion the girl they saw could have been Madeleine. So why did not one of them report this earlier? 


5; In Amaral's book, he describes how the Smiths, having seen Gerry on TV carrying Sean from the airplane coming back from Portugal in september 2007 are convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann. Why did they become 'convinced' at this particular time? In his police statement he says: Regarding the individual he states that: 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 use 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.  SO I just don't understand how, months later, he can be so sure that it was Gerry McCann.




From Martin Smith 26th May 2007 police statement: 


As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. 



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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. 


Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not use glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

From Drogheda Independent. August 8, 2007:

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.'


Daily Mail, 3rd Jan 08


"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."


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."
 
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.


From 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amaral. Ch 8:

Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.


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.


 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

@jrob, good post.

This is why I believe something else caused him to point the ID Gerry.

j.rob wrote:From what I can see from the witness statements and from media interviews, there are some puzzles and inconsistencies in the Smith statements.

1. Even though Martin Smith states that the day after Madeleine disappeared he though that the child he saw being carried by a man the night before might be Madeleine, he does not contact the police for two weeks. Neither do any of the other members of the Smith group of nine people which comprised of four adults and five children, despite the fact that they all saw this person and were all aware of Madeleine's 'abduction'. 

He says he thought it might have been Madeleine but he wasn't sure. He didn't see the man's face, he's used to lots of people carrying their kids around at night and didn't want to point the finger at an innocent dad. Perhaps he also thought it very unlikely that a child abductor would be walking around with a stolen child that far from where she went missing. Maybe (like many others) he thought the kind of person who abducted kids might use a car or get themselves under cover fast. Also the child didn't really look like an abducted child - she seemed very relaxed, sleeping in the man's arms, hence the assumption that he was a father bringing his own child home. Surely a small child being carried off by a stranger would be panicking and making a noise?

2. In his first police statement Martin Smith says he saw Robert Murat twice in May and August 06. But in a newspaper report on 8th August 2007, a family member is reported as saying: The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' In a Daily Mail report on 3rd January 2008 Martin Smith is reported as 'insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years.'  Did he know him 'non-visually' too?! For instance, the time he saw him in a bar inebriated in 2006 and he 'spoke to everyone'. That presumably means that Murat spoke to Mr Smith on at that one occasion or vice versa. 

This family member is his son, I think. Martin Smith himself seems to be quite consistent about how well he knows Murat. He seems to know him very casually from having seen him around local bars. I imagine English-speaking expats in a small place like Praia da Luz do get to know each other a little after a while. It doesn't mean they're friends, or that they've arranged to spend time with each other. The number of times Martin Smith may have casually been aware of Murat in the same bar would not necessarily be known to every member of the Smith family, unless Martin Smith never goes out without his son.

3. In the Daily Mail report  the family appear to make a link between the Jane Tanner sighting and their sighting and the 'coincidence' prompted them to contact police. In this report Martin Smith is quoted as saying: "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." Yet in his police statement of May 2007 he says: "it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season." Yes - normal in the height of the holiday season but, as Mr Smith told reporters from the Mail in Jan 08, at the time of year that Madeleine 'disappeared' Luz was "very,very quiet" so much so that the likelihood of seeing two separate incidents of young children being carried around would be very small. So why, if it was so quiet at that time of year and not usual to see many young children being carried around, did none of the Smith family report their sighting of a girl who looked like Madeleine when they heard about the 'abduction'? Surely they would have been struck by the 'coincidence' of having seen a girl looking like Madeleine being carried around on the evening she disappeared the moment they found out about the 'abduction', especially given how quiet the resort was.
See above.

4. In Amaral's book, Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him. The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.  Why did Martin Smith become 'almost certain' it was Madeleine at this particular point in time? Why not earlier? The Jane Tanner sighting gives no description of Madeleine's face. Whereas in their police statement it is apparent that they did see the  girl's face. And he also states that in the family's opinion the girl they saw could have been Madeleine. So why did not one of them report this earlier? 
Didn't this happen after the Smiths saw the news footage of Gerry carrying one of the twins down the aeroplane steps? If it happened before that, I'd be interested to know, but I've always believed that Mr Smith's certainty about Robert Murat postdates his recognition of Gerry.

5; In Amaral's book, he describes how the Smiths, having seen Gerry on TV carrying Sean from the airplane coming back from Portugal in september 2007 are convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann. Why did they become 'convinced' at this particular time? In his police statement he says: Regarding the individual he states that: 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 use 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.  SO I just don't understand how, months later, he can be so sure that it was Gerry McCann.
Why did he become convinced then? Because he recognised Gerry. Because even though he hadn't seen the child carrier's face, something about his build, gait, musculature and way of holding a small child fell into place and rang bells for Mr Smith. If he recognised Gerry as the man carrying the child they saw that night, then obviously the man carrying the child becomes significant. Gerry is very much connected to Madeleine and therefore worth telling the police about, whereas before perhaps Mr Smith felt unconvinced that what he and his family saw that night was actually a "sighting", as opposed to an ordinary bloke and his kid. Once Smith believed Gerry McCann was the man, he would obviously be equally sure that Robert Murat was not.


From Martin Smith 26th May 2007 police statement: 


As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. 



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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. 


Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not use glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

From Drogheda Independent. August 8, 2007:

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.'


Daily Mail, 3rd Jan 08


"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."


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."
 
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.


From 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amaral. Ch 8:

Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.


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.


 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

Thanks for your very detailed and thoughtful post J Rob. I don't have an axe to grind on this one – never having met the Smiths – but I'm inclined to believe them. Perhaps one of the main reasons is that I've yet to hear a convincing reason for them making this sighting up. Also, I guess I don't think the 'puzzles and inconsistencies' are as damning as you do, and I've tried to add an alternate explanation (in green) to the points you make.
Either way, the thing that has always interested me most about this sighting is not so much who - if anyone - the Smith family saw, but the McCanns' reaction to it.
I have heard some posters claim that the McCanns "promoted" this sighting, but it always seemed to me that their promotion of it served mainly to conflate it with Jane Tanner's sighting, whereas a "creepy" man seen by Gail Cooper several days before the McCanns set foot in Praia da Luz – who was merely seen hanging around harmlessly – got a Clarence Mitchell press conference, police-style sketch and massive coverage.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwmaddieskidnapper.jpg&target=tlx_pic6psu
Then there was the woman seen in Barcelona days after Madeleine's disappearance – who was also not committing a crime or in the company of a Maddie-like child – who got similar coverage simply because she asked a British stag-night attendee if he'd seen her daughter (or words to that effect).
Quite why a man who was allegedly seen by a large family group walking through Praia da Luz carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description at the very time she went missing was not therefore deemed worthy of a massive press conference beats me. Even if Mr Smith did think he looked like Gerry, the McCanns must surely have known that it had to be someone else, so you'd think they'd have rushed to give that sighting maximum exposure asap - as Scotland Yard have now done.

.He says he thought it might have been Madeleine but he wasn't sure.

Okay, fair enough. 

But after watching the news and learning about the Jane Tanner sighting and the suspicions falling upon Murat, he goes from 'not being sure' whether the child was Madeleine, to being 'almost certain' that the girl he saw was Madeleine. 

As time passes, you would expect the memory of an event to fade. The recollection of what you saw would become less sharp, not more sharp. Jane Tanner's Tannerman does not show the child's face at all. So there is nothing specific in the Tannerman description that would enhance his memory of the child he saw.

It makes me wonder if it is possible that he knew Murat(or had friends/family who knew Murat and his wider family) was concerned that he was being 'framed'. Or perhaps the co-owner of the flat knew Murat. A lot of people locally would have known RM.


 Amaral writes: Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat. The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he 
Didn't this happen after the Smiths saw the news footage of Gerry carrying one of the twins down the aeroplane steps? If it happened before that, I'd be interested to know, but I've always believed that Mr Smith's certainty about Robert Murat postdates his recognition of Gerry.


Not according to Amaral's book. According to him, the Smith family only contact the police AFTER learning of Jane Tanner's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

At this point, Mr Smith simply states that Tannerman is NOT Robert Murat.

It is not until September 07 when Mr Smith sees Gerry on TV carrying Sean down the steps of the plane back from Portugal that he becomes convinced that the person they saw carrying the child that looked like Madeleine on 3rd May looked just like Gerry McCann.



It's a long time later. And given that in the earlier descriptions, the Smith family report it was quite dark that evening. 

I'm not necessarily making any judgement about their statements. 

But it is impossible to ignore the fact that Robert Murat was very closely involved in the initial police investigation as he acted as translator. So there are potentially conflicts of interest here. 

In any event, would Gerry really be mad enough to carry his own daughter away from the resort at the precise time that the alarm was being raised? Surely that would be complete madness? It just doesn't make sense. So much risk of being seen - going in a direction away from the resort rather than back to the resort? What possible excuse would he had come up with if, say, the whole Smith family had gone to police that very evening and said that they were pretty sure they saw Gerry carrying Madeleine in that direction that night?

One of them could even have taken a photo on a mobile as he scuttled away. How could he have extricated himself from that?

IMO, IF the Smith family did see a man who looked like Gerry carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine it is more likely to have been:

1. Someone else (who was involved in the plot) carrying Madeleine (but again, incredibly risky move to do this at 10pm).

2. Someone else who looked like Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine. 

Why the latter, given that it had the potential to incriminate Gerry? Perhaps because they could 'morph' the Tannerman sighting with who-ever this was. Perhaps to add weight to the 'abduction' theory. Perhaps to confuse everyone. Perhaps to have a decoy in place. Just as no-one can 'prove' that Jane Tanner saw Tanner-man, no one can 'prove' that the man the Smith family saw (or didn't see) was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine.

I still think there is something incredibly weird about Jez Wilkins just happening to be pushing his pram around the resort at a crucial time that evening. Especially as in his first statement to police on Friday 4th May he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant that night. And then completely changes his version of events.

What the hell is all that about??

As far as I can make out Smithman allows of only five possibilities.

1  He did not exist.   In this case we are looking at a massive Conspiracy to commit Perjury, and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, involving several people, including a child.

2  He did exist. In this case there are then three FOUR possibilities
a)  It was Gerry carrying Madeleine
b)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying Madeleine
c)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine    (using the language of formal logic)
d)  It was Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine

2 a) is inherently extremely unlikely for reasons of timing.  Gerry was doing other things around the apartment at 10pm
2 b) is inherently unlikely given the evidence of the dogs, forged Last Photo, ludicrous descriptions of their activities during 3/5/7 and so on
2 c) is most probable.  It involves no conspiracy, no having to account for the 'evidence' of dogs etc, no retro-fitting
2 d) is possible, but in my view highly unlikely for a number of reasons. These include finding an equivalent child, roping the parents into a further Conspiracy, relying on being seen at all by someone who would then report the sighting, (this could have taken a long time) relying on NOT being seen returning to the apartment with the child, and so on

Which is why I tend towards 2 c)

EDITED IN BLUE in the LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION - for which many thanks

PeterMac wrote:As far as I can make out Smithman allows of only four possibilities.

1  He did not exist.   In this case we are looking at a massive Conspiracy to commit Perjury, and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, involving several people, including a child.

2  He did exist. In this case there are then three possibilities
a)  It was Gerry carrying Madeleine
b)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying Madeleine
c)  It was NOT-Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine    (using the language of formal logic)

2 a) is inherently extremely unlikely for reasons of timing.  Gerry was doing other things around the apartment at 10pm
2 b) is inherently unlikely given the evidence of the dogs, forged Last Photo, ludicrous descriptions of their activities during 3/5/7 and so on
2 c) is most probable.  It involves no conspiracy, no having to account for the 'evidence' of dogs etc, no retro-fitting

Which is why I tend towards 2 c)

2d)  It was Gerry, carrying NOT-Madeleine


Quite possibly Peter. Re elimination of option 2a).....how can we be sure what GM's movements were at that time ? Surely we are not relying on T9 timelines for conformation of this ?


You may well be right Peter, but my 2d suggestion is one that I have personally gone with for some time. Despite the theories put forward, I do believe the Smiths to be genuine.


IMO of course.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
.

Many thanks for the correction.
I have amended the previous posting.

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

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.

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

Me too, tiny!  

Apologies, I should have given reasons for my thinking.

1. The Smiths come across as an honest family, and there were many of them . Hence I agree with Peters elimination of option 1.
2. The man they saw fitted the overall description of GM.
3. The buttons observed on the side of the trousers, similar to those owned by GM.
4. The necessity for an abductor to be observed, carrying a small blond girl.
5. The child seemed lifeless/sleeping, as were the twins.
6. MS thought the person was GM when seeing him alight from the plane, 60-80%.

The delay in reporting could be due to doubt/fear or not realising what they had seen.
Stating it was not RM - For someone we know, we can tell without seeing a person up close that it is (or isnt) that person, so this is a reasonable thing to say.

Just my opinion based on the information and arguments put forward.

I agree with 2c. But I also think there is the small possibility that the Smiths may have got the date wrong too. 

I cannot fathom why Martin Smith did not report the sighting until two weeks later. He was in the middle of all the commotion and must have known that a little girl had disappeared. And only did so when prompted by his son. 
It is possible that he didn't report it because in his mind it was a different day. The memories of several people of that couple of evenings could be mixed together, and this may account for the discrepancies in the bar receipt.

Justformaddie wrote:

admin wrote:

fossey wrote:

Close

Previous

  

Trying to jog anyone's memory  

omg that's brilliant, fossey!

You can run but you can't hide Gerry!  

Why would Smithman be a Gerry look-alike ? If Smithman was needed to assist in a staged abduction, then surely he would have been chosen to look quite different to GM. 2c seems a bit of an own goal in this respect (although possible).

IMO.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Why would Smithman be a Gerry look-alike ? If Smithman was needed to assist in a staged abduction, then surely he would have been chosen to look quite different to GM. 2c seems a bit of an own goal in this respect (although possible).
IMO.

I tend to the view that he was nothing at all to do with anything.
Totally irrelevant
Nothing to do with staged abduction, not 'needed' to do anything, not arranged, not organised . . .
Just a random bloke looking after his child, who happened to pass a family going back to their apartment, either that night, or as someone else has observed, on some other night.

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.

Petermac, despite the INCORRECT claim that I have said that Martin Smith lied, when all I said was there are inconsistencies in MS's statements, I try to keep a balanced mind. As I've already stated, I don't know if Martin Smith has been got at, and this could explain his inconsistencies, but there's something else that often crossed my mind. I am in total agreement with you, that if this was staged, and everything points to it having been staged, and this would have taken time, so, as you have said, why would Gerry McCann be Smithman, if the stage had been set long before 10PM on 3 May?

Well, let me begin with what may be truth or myth, and this is, that around the time MM disappeared there were claims that J Wilkins saw Gerry tampering with  the shutters. Now, if JWs threw the T9's plans into disarray, this may account for a number of issues, including the fact that MM's body may still have been in the apartment at the time Gerry was spotted by JW. Gerry would have known that the plan (if there was one) had now been scuppered. So this may explain the panic of drawing up new timelines on the torn colouring book covers, even having to do it at least twice.

Moreover, it may also explain why the phone calls home to at least four members of the McCann's family stated that the "shutters had been jemmied" Was this due to  confusion and  was part of the original plan that had now gone down the tubes?  Was this the major cock-up.? If this is the case, then maybe Martin Smith DID see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine that night. This is all speculation on my part, but if this is what happened, it goes a long way to explain why it all unravelled for the others, who may have been involved in the cover-up.

I am interested in what you think about the above theory, and why it could, or could not be correct.

Edited to add, Petermac, in my opening paragraph of the above post, I want to clarify, for all the other members, that it wasn't aimed at PM, but reading it back, it could appear to be that way. So my apologies to you PM, if any member thought that I was referring to you.

I believe Martin, the reason is, while it's possible he could have been helping someone he's seen a few times, I honestly don't think he'd have contacted the police after the plane episode. He'd already told police that it wasn't murat he'd seen that night, so why would he go a huge step forward in saying he's 60/80% he seen gm? After all, the mcs were going through hell (aparantly) why on earth would he lie and put them through more turmoil?
IMO

PeterMac wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Why would Smithman be a Gerry look-alike ? If Smithman was needed to assist in a staged abduction, then surely he would have been chosen to look quite different to GM. 2c seems a bit of an own goal in this respect (although possible).
IMO.

I tend to the view that he was nothing at all to do with anything.
Totally irrelevant
Nothing to do with staged abduction, not 'needed' to do anything, not arranged, not organised . . .
Just a random bloke looking after his child, who happened to pass a family going back to their apartment, either that night, or as someone else has observed, on some other night.

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.

I`ve brought this post over from another thread as it`s more relevant here:-

I found this odd - Martin Smith interviewed for The Daily Mirror straight after the Crimewatch programme.  Martin Smith is saying he made his statement soon after Maddie disappeared, the PJ did not take him seriously because they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting, and he said he provided details for an efit a year later but this only became public 6 years later.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
 
"A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.
Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.
But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.
Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.
 
Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

Why would Martin Smith join the `let`s run down the PJ` brigade.

In his statements he said that his daughter phoned him the day after Maddie went missing and he admits he thought the person he had seen the night before could have been carrying Maddie.  So maybe, going on the Mirror piece, he did contact the PJ straight after and as he says they weren`t interested.  And after seeing the News Item on the 9th September it reinforces his memory that it was in fact GM so phones his local police.

I don't think Martin has got mixed up in the dates because his son (Peter, I think) was returning home the next day, 4th which was why they were going home early that night.
IMO

Woofer wrote:I`ve brought this post over from another thread as it`s more relevant here:-

I found this odd - Martin Smith interviewed for The Daily Mirror straight after the Crimewatch programme.  Martin Smith is saying he made his statement soon after Maddie disappeared, the PJ did not take him seriously because they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting, and he said he provided details for an efit a year later but this only became public 6 years later.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
 
"A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.
Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.
But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.
Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.
 
Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

Why would Martin Smith join the `let`s run down the PJ` brigade.

In his statements he said that his daughter phoned him the day after Maddie went missing and he admits he thought the person he had seen the night before could have been carrying Maddie.  So maybe, going on the Mirror piece, he did contact the PJ straight after and as he says they weren`t interested.  And after seeing the News Item on the 9th September it reinforces his memory that it was in fact GM so phones his local police.

I've always thought the timeline of 9:15/9:20 had confused people. Especially the pj, which could be the reason Martins sighting was not taken as seriously. 
IMO

Justformaddie wrote:I believe Martin, the reason is, while it's possible he could have been helping someone he's seen a few times, I honestly don't think he'd have contacted the police after the plane episode. He'd already told police that it wasn't murat he'd seen that night, so why would he go a huge step forward in saying he's 60/80% he seen gm? After all, the mcs were going through hell (aparantly) why on earth would he lie and put them through more turmoil?
IMO

 

Cristobell wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:I believe Martin, the reason is, while it's possible he could have been helping someone he's seen a few times, I honestly don't think he'd have contacted the police after the plane episode. He'd already told police that it wasn't murat he'd seen that night, so why would he go a huge step forward in saying he's 60/80% he seen gm? After all, the mcs were going through hell (aparantly) why on earth would he lie and put them through more turmoil?
IMO

 

Thank you Cristobell, it just stands out that IF it was Martins good deed for Murat, he'd done that, no reason at all to try and get the blame on the father. That's why I believe the Smiths are not lying and infact, have tried to help maddie fully. 
IMO

Justformaddie wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:I believe Martin, the reason is, while it's possible he could have been helping someone he's seen a few times, I honestly don't think he'd have contacted the police after the plane episode. He'd already told police that it wasn't murat he'd seen that night, so why would he go a huge step forward in saying he's 60/80% he seen gm? After all, the mcs were going through hell (aparantly) why on earth would he lie and put them through more turmoil?
IMO

 

Thank you Cristobell, it just stands out that IF it was Martins good deed for Murat, he'd done that, no reason at all to try and get the blame on the father. That's why I believe the Smiths are not lying and infact, have tried to help maddie fully. 
IMO

Indeed JFM, that's a pretty damning allegation, no wonder the Smith family were in such emotional turmoil. As you say, it is one thing to confirm it wasn't their 'friend Robert Murat, its quite another to point the finger at the father of a missing child!

We can only imagine the number of criminal charges the entire Smith family would face if they are lying, including prison terms for obstructing the course of justice in a major crime.  The idea that Martin Smith would persuade his wife, children and grandchildren to assist him in misleading the police in the case of a missing child is absurd.

Those accusing the Smiths of lying, are doing so on a fraction of the evidence collected in this case.  So sparse is our knowledge that we can run to 100 page threads trying to deconstruct a single sentence uttered by one of the main protagonists.  We know nothing of the investigation!

A few facts we do know are, Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case when he was arranging to fly the Smith family back to PDL.  We know that the McCanns suppressed the efits of Smithman.  We know Smithman is Scotland Yard's prime suspect.  We know the police suspect death in the apartment.

We can dissect every word uttered in the Smith statements, but as anyone familiar with linguistics and semiotics will know, communication is 93% non verbal.  None of us have met the Smith family, the police have, and others who have met them, describe them as decent, honest people.  The fact they have stayed away from the McCann circus, makes them honourable people in my opinion, which I why I am so uncomfortable with this invasion of their privacy.