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

dantezebu wrote: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.

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.

Woofer wrote:Jean Monroe - do you know this for sure - is there a link?

"He didn't go anywhere NEAR the police 'investigating' the 'kidnapping' in PDL he had 'heard about' on the 4th May 2007."

sallypelt wrote:

Marlie wrote:I don't know sallypelt, the first statement was made in Portugal using an interpreter and the second was made in his local garda station, a bit of a difference for me. 

In the first statement he said that smithman wore light trousers but wasn't sure about the remainder of the clothing. We don't know what other questions were asked. 

But now he's being asked specific questions at his local station, they may have probed him about say if his top was lighter or darker in colour than the trousers, if he had long/short sleeves so no doubt easier for him to answer.

To the best of my knowledge he didn't sell his stories unless there is something that I missed. I don't know if they were involved in efits however if they were couldn't it have been after his interview in Jan?

Marlie. I have no idea whether Martin Smith is telling the truth, or whether he's been "got at". All I am going on is the inconsistencies in his statements. This is what we are judging the Tapas members on. I don't do hypocrisy.

Woofer wrote:Martin Smith KNEW on Friday 4th May that it could have been Maddie he`d seen the night before.
In his statement of the 26th May 2007 he says :-

"— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Smith also realised soon after it could have been Maddie.
In his statement of the 26th he says :-

"He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day
— At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

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

Aoife Smith does not say, in her statement, when she realised it could have been Maddie.

What I am getting at here is that 2 of the Smiths admit that it was the next day that they thought it could have been Maddie they saw.

And from the Mirror article that I`ve posted above, it seems that Martin Smith did report this to local officers`soon after`  but `this was virtually ignored` and he was not taken seriously.  So have we all got in wrong when accusing him of not reporting it for 12 days?  From the Mirror article it seems Martin Smith isn`t too happy with the Portuguese police.

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Marlie wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Marlie wrote:I don't know sallypelt, the first statement was made in Portugal using an interpreter and the second was made in his local garda station, a bit of a difference for me. 

In the first statement he said that smithman wore light trousers but wasn't sure about the remainder of the clothing. We don't know what other questions were asked. 

But now he's being asked specific questions at his local station, they may have probed him about say if his top was lighter or darker in colour than the trousers, if he had long/short sleeves so no doubt easier for him to answer.

To the best of my knowledge he didn't sell his stories unless there is something that I missed. I don't know if they were involved in efits however if they were couldn't it have been after his interview in Jan?

Marlie. I have no idea whether Martin Smith is telling the truth, or whether he's been "got at". All I am going on is the inconsistencies in his statements. This is what we are judging the Tapas members on. I don't do hypocrisy.

I've taken this off below thread as requested. I hope that I'm not going too far off topic, just to say sallypelt I was in no way inferring that you are a hypocrite, I was simply trying to tease through the differences, that's all.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10089p220-buried-by-mainstream-media-new-film-due-soon

jeanmonroe wrote:http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg

He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
---------------------------------------------------------

So, M Smith did NOT help 'produce' the e-fits/photo fits DCI was so er, excited, about showing/promoting to the UK public, of Smithman/men!

WHERE did the 'producers' of DCI Redwood's 'revelation' e-fits 'moment' ACTUALLY get the e-fits from?

Did they, the 'compilers' just take a wild 'guess' as to what an 'abductor/suspect' MIGHT look like, in their 'imagination'?

Good job they haven't seen my OH! Or he'd be in 'nick' right now!   

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Cristobel - it was only Martin, Peter and Aoife that said they saw a man. AFAIK Mary, his wife, never made a statement.  I don`t know why you keep saying Martin would implicate the children - they are too young, the eldest being a step-son of Peter at 13yrs and the others much younger.  I doubt the police would rely on their untarnished testimonies (that`s if they noticed anything and anyway kids usually do what their parents tell them).

If they are lying the only people that would have committed a criminal offence would be Martin, Peter and Aoife.

I haven`t come to a conclusion on this matter myself.

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:Jean Monroe - do you know this for sure - is there a link?

"He didn't go anywhere NEAR the police 'investigating' the 'kidnapping' in PDL he had 'heard about' on the 4th May 2007."

He says so HIMSELF. (in his 'statements')

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

By SANDRA MURPHY, VANESSA ALLEN..................................Daily Mail (paper version only)

3rd January 2008.

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."

...........the COINCIDENCE PROMPTED THEM  to CONTACT police  AFTER they RETURNED TO Ireland!

on the 9th May 2007.

So NO 'feeling a DUTY' to 'telling' police 'anything' and letting the police decide, what was IMPORTANT, between 4th May and up to, and until AFTER, 9th May 2007?

His words, not mine!

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Cristobel - it was only Martin, Peter and Aoife that said they saw a man. AFAIK Mary, his wife, never made a statement.  I don`t know why you keep saying Martin would implicate the children - they are too young, the eldest being a step-son of Peter at 13yrs and the others much younger.  I doubt the police would rely on their untarnished testimonies (that`s if they noticed anything and anyway kids usually do what their parents tell them).

If they are lying the only people that would have committed a criminal offence would be Martin, Peter and Aoife.

I haven`t come to a conclusion on this matter myself.

Aoife made a statement and she was 12 at the time Woofer.  She is Martin Smith's daughter.

Angelique wrote:I think the "efits" came from Exton - but thats another thread.

pennylane wrote:

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

Me too, tiny!  

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Cristobel - it was only Martin, Peter and Aoife that said they saw a man. AFAIK Mary, his wife, never made a statement.  I don`t know why you keep saying Martin would implicate the children - they are too young, the eldest being a step-son of Peter at 13yrs and the others much younger.  I doubt the police would rely on their untarnished testimonies (that`s if they noticed anything and anyway kids usually do what their parents tell them).

If they are lying the only people that would have committed a criminal offence would be Martin, Peter and Aoife.

I haven`t come to a conclusion on this matter myself.

Aoife made a statement and she was 12 at the time Woofer.  She is Martin Smith's daughter.

ok, that changes things somewhat.
Anyone know the ages of them all in 2007?

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:

Cristobell wrote:If the sighting by the Smith family is fabricated, why the need for Martin Smith to drag his wife, his children and his grandchildren into the lie?  Why implicate the entire family including the minors in a criminal offence?  If he fabricated the entire story to implicate the missing child's father and get his friend Robert Murat off the hook, he could have put forward any scenario that would have protected his family, something that is a priority even for the most hardened of villains.

Cristobel - it was only Martin, Peter and Aoife that said they saw a man. AFAIK Mary, his wife, never made a statement.  I don`t know why you keep saying Martin would implicate the children - they are too young, the eldest being a step-son of Peter at 13yrs and the others much younger.  I doubt the police would rely on their untarnished testimonies (that`s if they noticed anything and anyway kids usually do what their parents tell them).

If they are lying the only people that would have committed a criminal offence would be Martin, Peter and Aoife.

I haven`t come to a conclusion on this matter myself.

Aoife made a statement and she was 12 at the time Woofer.  She is Martin Smith's daughter.

ok, that changes things somewhat.
Anyone know the ages of them all in 2007?

jeanmonroe wrote:Jean - well, why is he saying in the Mirror article that he reported it to the Portuguese police but they were not interested?  They knew it might have been Maddie and Mr. and Mrs Smith and Aoife were still there until the 9th. (Peter had already gone home on the 4th).
----------------------------------------------------
What DATE is the Mirror 'article'?

Mr Smith STATES that he was ONLY 'prompted' to CONTACT the police AFTER he returned, with his family, to Ireland, which was on 9th May 2007.

If the article is dated AFTER 9th May 2007 then he wouldn't have contacted the local PJ before then, otherwise he would have said, "I contacted the local PJ immediately the moment i heard about the kidnapping on 4th May 2007, and told them what my family saw, but they weren't interested'

Has M Smith ever said he did that?
-------------------------------------------------
3rd January 2008.

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."

...........the COINCIDENCE PROMPTED THEM to CONTACT police AFTER they RETURNED TO Ireland!

on the 9th May 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------
I can't 'speak' for M Smith as to why he 'said' this or that, obviously.

If, IF, the Smith family HAD gone to the PJ on the 4th May 2007, i'm almost certain that the PJ could have gotten a reasonable e-fit from THEM, if they had seen his 'face', instead of giving us................... EGGMAN!

And circulated the Smiths 'e-fit' from late 4th May 2007 onwards.

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."

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.

jeanmonroe wrote:Woofer

I`m not suggesting he went to the PJ - it sounds as if he spoke to `local officers` which could have meant it was a GNR officer that did not take it seriously.
--------------------------------------------------

"HEARSAY and SUPPOSITION m'lady"   

"Could have", "might have", "may of meant"  etc',

Blame it on the 'pleb'!

Normally you deal in 'facts' Woofer.

not 'interpretations'.

I COULD 'say' "my daughter's was definitely abducted by a paedophile predator burglator' when actually i may have MEANT to say 'my daughter was abducted, probably, although i have absolutely no evidence to back that statement up with"

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.