Martin Smith's evidence was considered by the PJ to be 'highly contradictory...this type of witness does not deserve credibility" 24 Horas, 7.7.2008

Irishman was already discarded, 07 July 2008

Irishman was already discarded 24horas Gonçalo Amaral placed a strong bet on this witness Text: Carlos Tomas July 07, 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie Case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don't give him credibility The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who led the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process. During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m. precisely when Maddie disappeared. "He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory", a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24horas. The same source specified: "First he said that he saw Maddie's father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility". It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analysing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns.

 

1 Attachment
No preview
Download
image001

COMMENT:  This report has checkable information in it, e.g. that there was a request for a Rogatory Interview of Martin Smith and also that the PJ were about to conclude their report with a recommendation in it concerning 'the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns' (acknowledgement to 'astro' for the translation) 




.

This report (above) attributed to "24horas"  and dated July 2008 directly contradicts the FACTS contained in the P.J files.

"24horas" claims that the Smiths were heard informally. The files show otherwise.

"24horas" claims the Irishman is known only as Smith - yet the files show that Martin Smith gave his full name and relevant details to the P.J during his statement.

"24horas" states that - "First, he (Martin Smith) said that he saw Maddie's father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being"

The official files, and Dr. Amaral's book, show that the claims of "24horas" cited above are complete and utter fiction and nonsense. 

 However, if we were to accept that the published P.J. files contain misinformation and errors, and that "24horas" and its unnamed "source" is correct, then it must follow that the P.J. files are not to be trusted and may contain incorrect information. Consequently, every SINGLE deduction and theory that has been based on what is contained in those files would be open to question! 

 Ye Gawds!- maybe Gerry never contradicted himself about which door they used,  or whether the apartment was locked or not.
 Maybe the timelines of the Tapas nine do not contradict each other. Maybe Kate never refused to answer questions - after all we only have the evidence of the files to go on and if we believe "24horas" they are not an accurate account of what really happened at all! 
The McCanns and their chums missed a trick here - oh wait, maybe they didn't. Haven't they been moaning that the files were not properly translated since they were published!!

@ Phoebe

You are right that this 24Horas report does not coincide with what we see in the PJ files.

But let us remember that

1  A considerable number of PJ files are still undisclosed

2  Many people lied in the statements that are in the PJ files, so there are many statements in there we can't rely on as being true

3  I fully agree that mainstream media are not a reliable source of information, but they often are, and most journalists strive for accuracy. The 'source' in this case appears to have been very well informed e.g. about the request for a Rogatory Interview and especially of course about the impending archiving the case on suspicion of the McCanns hiding a body and homicide

Tony Bennett wrote:The 'source' in this case appears to have been very well informed e.g. about the request for a Rogatory Interview and especially of course about the impending archiving the case on suspicion of the McCanns hiding a body and homicide

That's just as it should be, request by rogatory - routine policing.

The PJ did not have the means to liaise directly with Martin Smith or his family once they left Portugal, if this alleged return to Portugal in September 2007 instigated by Gonçalo Amaral was a reality, then it must have been orchestrated through a mediator so where is the evidence to support this claim?  Where are the letters rogatory either requesting re-interview on home ground or requesting a return to Portugal for re-interview/re-enactment?

If Gonçalo Amaral's words, after having been removed from the case, are to be interpreted to the letter - where is the evidence to confirm this alleged agreement/arrangement with Martin Smith?  An informal arrangement doesn't seem to be a possibility and without documented evidence, neither does a formal arrangement seem to be a possibility.

Anyone with experience of translated documentation, between one language and another,  will know that context can so easily be misconstrued.  You only need look at the translation of Dr Amaral's interviews to understand how this transpires - musing on numerous possibilities misinterpreted into factual information.

'The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral

Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock

- Sept 2007, McCanns return to UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal.

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

- This leads to absurd delays

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

@ Tony Bennett. In the event that the P.J., had any doubts about Martin Smith's testimony, I find most unlikely that they would publish ANY of his statements if they were contradictory or deemed of no interest. There are numerous examples in the files of where the P.J. report on a lead or a sighting by giving it short shrift, merely stating that the evidence was deemed unlikely to be of use. It would be a most extraordinary decision by them to withhold certain statements of the Smiths yet publish others if any of the Smiths evidence was deemed inconsistent.

Yes, people have lied to the police in their statements in the files eg. the McCanns and their chums. However, that is quite different from suggesting that the files themselves are untrue or inaccurate. The files are a faithful recording of what was stated - whether the information itself was true or not, and the files clearly show that the report by "24horas" is incorrect. 
 People also lie or give half truths, invention and exaggeration to the media. Remember the famous "syringe in the bedroom" was attributed to "sources" too!

I trust nothing from the media about the McCann case. If any police source did leak to the press then he or she was in direct contravention of the Portuguese code of judicial secrecy which surrounds criminal investigations. That hardly inspires confidence in their trustworthiness or veracity. Still the hungry media can and does pay for "news" and there will always be some who will sell it, even if they have the facts wrong or have only heard chinese whispers to pass on as facts.

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. In the event that the P.J., had any doubts about Martin Smith's testimony, I find most unlikely that they would publish ANY of his statements if they were contradictory or deemed of no interest.

There were many sightings reported and investigated by the PJ included in the files (witness statements included), which were deemed of no interest to the investigation, mostly it would appear created by the McCanns private investigators and their campaigners. The Smith family sighting was one such until Martin Smith declared with 60-80% certainty (no mean difference) that the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann. Then and only then, his witness testimony was taken seriously by Dr Amaral - not the ensuing PJ investigation per se.

There is a reference somewhere in the files that covers the approach to all the sightings, it's late but I'll find it in due course.

Phoebe, credit to your perseverance but I’m afraid you’re up against the collective “might” of Verdi & Mr Bennett who have decided that Martin Smith is not to be believed. They won’t have it any other way no matter any other opinion/theory.
Short-sighted & intransigent ? Maybe.
Go bang your head against the nearest wall.

polyenne wrote:Phoebe, credit to your perseverance but I’m afraid you’re up against the collective “might” of Verdi & Mr Bennett who have decided that Martin Smith is not to be believed. They won’t have it any other way no matter any other opinion/theory.
Short-sighted & intransigent ? Maybe.
Go bang your head against the nearest wall.

One thing that can be said about this thread, as can be said about all threads on CMOMM, is that robust debate IS allowed on CMOMM and robust debate IS allowed on the controversial issue of the Smithman 'sighting'.

There are those who have (maliciously) put it about on Twitter & elsewhere that 'there is only one view allowed on Smithman on CMOMM' and that people on CMOMM 'are banned for expressing the 'wrong' view on Smithman etc. 

No-one has ever been banned from CMOMM for expressing a different view on Smithman or any other issue; the forum-owner's instinct and practice has been to ban pr sanction people ONLY for clear breaches of forum rules.

That said, I regret it when the debate becomes personal, as it is tending to do on Smithman.

For example, there was this exchange on the Gemma O'Doherty thread:

QUOTE Verdi  "It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded".

QUOTE Phoebe: "And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors?"

I think Verdi could well have put his point in a more neutral way and what he wrote drew forth a reasonable response from Phoebe.

However, the answer to that question must be "Let each party marshal  the evidence in favour of their viewpoint, and may the best argument win".

I do admit to personal frustration, like Verdi, that some cannot see the obvious problems this the Smithman sighting.

Only yesterday on Twitter Isabelle McFadden. the Californian/Portuguese McCann-skeptic, made this public claim:

"A family of Irish citizens, the Smiths will be KEY witnesses in the Prosecution of Kate & Gerry". 

I find that comment absolutely baffling. I assume everyone here has reasonable knowledge of evidence in court and especially what is called identification evidence.

Let those who believe in the Smithman sighting, and especially in the claim Martin Smith made on 20 September 2007 after seeing a news clip 11 days earlier that he believed he saw Gerry McCann on the basis of the way he walked and lowered his head, please pause for a moment and consider carefully how this evidence would be torn apart as useless in a court of law.

And please also further consider how Martin Smith would answer for his complete silence over 10 years as the McCanns and Operation Grange mercilessly exploited his sighting to suggest a real abductor:

Co-operating by producing two efits

The May 200 Channel 4 Mockumentary

Putting his sighting on their website

Altering the age of the man he said he saw, for the second time, from 40 down to 34/35 (Why?) 

Using 7 pages of Kate's book 'madeleine' to tell readers there was a 'striking similarity' between Tannerman & Smithman

Using Martin Smith and the efits on the Crimewatch McCann Special in 2013 to once again reinforce in the public's mind the 'reality' of the abduction narrative (the show was watched by 7 million). 

During all this time Martin Smith is totally silent (and then Gemma O'Doherty comes along).

Verdi and I coincide on Martin Smith though not in every detail and not on some other aspects of the case.

I also believe it's the case that there is not yet a majority on CMOMM for our views on Smithman.

As I've always said, let each side present their evidence in this open forum, robustly but politely, and may the better arguments prevail. 



  

.

polyenne wrote:Phoebe, credit to your perseverance but I’m afraid you’re up against the collective “might” of Verdi & Mr Bennett who have decided that Martin Smith is not to be believed. They won’t have it any other way no matter any other opinion/theory.
Short-sighted & intransigent ? Maybe.
Go bang your head against the nearest wall.

Totally agree with you.
Why don't Verdi and Mr. Bennett put their theories out in the open for discussion and educate us all.

There are numerous threads here regarding the Smith's reported sighting where TB has posted in detail his views which have been openly discussed and challenged.

Ladyinred wrote:There are numerous threads here regarding the Smith's reported sighting where TB has posted in detail his views.

I was also infering to their theories on what may have happened to Madeleiene,as I believe the Smith sighting of a person carrying a child very important.Decoy,Decoy

Mr Bennett : In the interests of clarity, it was I who posted the quote above, that you’ve attributed to Phoebe.

jazega wrote:

polyenne wrote:Phoebe, credit to your perseverance but I’m afraid you’re up against the collective “might” of Verdi & Mr Bennett who have decided that Martin Smith is not to be believed. They won’t have it any other way no matter any other opinion/theory.
Short-sighted & intransigent ? Maybe.
Go bang your head against the nearest wall.

Totally agree with you.
Why don't Verdi and Mr. Bennett put their theories out in the open for discussion and educate us all.

For your mutual edification..

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

Rather time consuming I feel but you did ask.  Feel free to present your views on any areas you think worthy of dispute, better still proffer an alternative theory that might explain the discrepancies surrounding the Smith family involvement.

1) If the P.J. felt that the Smith sighting was of no value and leading nowhere then they would have noted this conclusion in the files, as is the case with other information they deemed unworthy of investigating. There is no such notation anywhere in the files.

2) Martin Smith cannot be held responsible for what is written in Kate's book nor how the BBC and British police decided to portray his evidence. We have absolutely NO idea of whether he attempted to contacted the police to complain. We do however Know that he did raise the matter with the BBC and was ignored - until Gemma O'Doherty's intervention.

3) The Smiths are ordinary civilian witnesses. They are neither Portuguese nor British, therefore it would be breathtakingly forward of them to have taken to the media (which would be their only outlet) to publicly condemn the actions of the police or, indeed, the National Broadcasting authority of a foreign country. This is especially true when it is obvious that the British Government is fully supporting the McCanns version of events.

4) When the Smiths reported their sighting in Ireland the P.J. were interested enough to arrange for three of them to return to Portugal to give formal statements about what they had witnessed. This disproves any claim that the police only showed interest in them after they identified the man as Gerry.
 
5) In Martin Smith's statements to the P.J. he puts  the man's age at -

"35-40 years old" - (26th May 2007)


"Aged 40 years approximately" - (30th Jan, 2008)

While his son Peter's sole statement places the man's age at -

"About 35 years or older" - (26th May 2007)

The only statement putting the man's age as younger comes from 13 year old Aoife Smith (a child herself) who thought the man was -

"between 20 and 30 years old" (26th May 2007)

Given that she is a child and that in their eyes everyone over 25 seems "old" I would not expect accuracy from her in this regard.

These are the only official statements made by the Smiths and therefore, the only ones that can be relied on. I do not see any evidence of Martin Smith "altering" the age of Smithman. If any such alteration occurred emanating from the media it should be treated with the caution media reports deserve!

5) Kate McCann may have desperately tried to link the Smiths' sighting to Tannerman when she could no longer ignore it without arousing suspicion, but it is crystal clear that the description the Smiths gave of the man they saw is different from Tannerman - different hair colour and style, different heights, different jackets, different skin-tone.! The Smiths cannot be held responsible for what Kate McCann claims.

6) Ever since the Smiths came forward with their evidence they have endured a character assassination. Is anyone surprised that they decided they had done all they could and sought some peace and privacy!!

The irony of the Smithman sighting is that it potentially lends credence to both theories; it places Gerry McCann walking down to supposedly hide the corpse of MM and, conversely, supports the T9 timeline, as GM was nowhere near the location of the sighting.
I personally don't think that even the ice-cold nerve of a heart surgeon would walk all that way to temporarily hide the body of his own daughter, in full view of the general public and could be accosted at any time.
He'd be shitting himself all the way, probably breathing heavily, lactic acid building up in his arms, full of nervous tension. Would a rational person not opt for a secluded spot that is not traversed, but is far enough away to be out of the zone of an initial search? There's a large swathe of wasteland directly adjacent to the point where the Smiths supposedly saw this person carrying child. I'd be tempted to jump in there and find a hollow, or a area of dense scrub - anything. I wouldn't continue past the bars and restaurants for another 4 or 5 minutes down to the beach somewhere with a dead child.

If Madeleine’s body had been disposed of earlier and, to create a certain scenario, Gerry” was seen carrying another child (sedated ?) then he wouldn’t necessarily have been “sh*tt*ng himself”.
My issue with this is that, if it was indeed Gerry, then that was an awfully risky decision but, in my opinion, their grand plan started to unravel when Jez Wilkins appeared and a hasty re-hash needed to take place.

polyenne wrote:If Madeleine’s body had been disposed of earlier and, to create a certain scenario, Gerry” was seen carrying another child (sedated ?) then he wouldn’t necessarily have been “sh*tt*ng himself”.
My issue with this is that, if it was indeed Gerry, then that was an awfully risky decision but, in my opinion, their grand plan started to unravel when Jez Wilkins appeared and a hasty re-hash needed to take place.

But surely he wouldn't want to be seen carrying anything anywhere - the scenario being created was that he was with his mates getting smashed and eating patatas bravas. He certainly wouldn't be asking one of them if he could borrow one of their unconscious children to walk down to the beach and back, dressed as an extra in Boogie Nights.

@ Sundance . You state above -
 
"The irony of the Smithman sighting is that it potentially lends credence to both theories; it places Gerry McCann walking down to supposedly hide the corpse of MM and, conversely, supports the T9 timeline, as GM was nowhere near the location of the sighting."


Actually, the only witnesses who place Gerry at the Tapas Bar at the crucial time are the Tapas 9 group themselves! Even among these Jane Tanner states that Gerry was absent from the table for quite a while and that they thought the explanation for this was that he was watching " the footie" in his apartment. Other witnesses claim that the Tapas group, with the exception of  Diane Webster, had abandoned the table long before 10 p.m. As there were no other diners in the Tapas Bar on May 3rd  (while the McCanns and their friends ate) it is very difficult to get a reliable picture of who was where and when. I believe the difficulty in proving that Gerry was at the table is what panics the McCanns and is one of the reasons for their avoidance of the Smith sighting.


I don't know who the Smiths saw, but I do find it extraordinary that the McCanns made no attempt to have this sighting investigated as soon as  it became public. After all, here are 9 witnesses saying they saw a man carrying an unconscious child matching Madeleine's description at the very time she was supposedly taken! Do the McCanns show any interest in following up this important lead - no - Instead Kate and Mrs. Hubbard positively badger a female Ocean Club employee who was not even at work that night. Their interest stemmed from the fact that she lived near the church. So, on one hand we have the McCanns frantically trying to contact a woman who has not claimed to have seen anything and who wasn't even at work that night, and on the other, we have them studiously ignoring the sighting of a man, carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the very time she was taken. How on earth can this be justified or explained!

@"Phoebe "Unconscious child". Which Smith family member said that?

Didn't Brian Kennedy's investigators visit the Smiths in Ireland?

Smith Family Memorandum regarding contact with PJ after McCanns return home

[Note:  This communication was made eleven days after Martin Smith watched the footage of the McCann family arriving back in the UK]

From: DC Hughes  [Leicestershire Constabulary]
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

__________________


From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family

Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland

Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.

NOTE

On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

__________________________

NUIP 201/07 o GALGS
4' Brigada Information

We can infer, from the analysis of the information contained in folios 2871 and 2872, that the statement of Martin Smith, duly identified and filed as folio 1606, reports new elements.

This information alleges that upon catching sight of Gerald McCann on the television news, when he (GM) arrived at the UK and still at the airport, he (GM) appeared to him to be the individual whom he saw on 3rd May in Praia da Luz, carrying a child.

As a result of this and because of the fact of the witness being resident in Ireland, we contacted an officer from the Irish force for the Iberian Peninsula, in Madrid, Bernard Gattney, who took on the task of carrying out the necessary arrangements in order to proceed to a new questioning of Martin Smith.

He was sent by email a copy of the information including the witness statement, and a list of questions to ask him, duly translated into English.
Portimao, 8th November 2007
Inspector

Joao Carlos

__________________________________

Email sent from Joao Carlos Silva Pereira to Bernard Gattney

8th November 2007
Subject: Martin Smith

Bernard ,

According to our phone contact, I hereby enclose the report on Martin Smith, son of P S and C S, born in Ireland on *****, and an Irish citizen, passport n' *****, home address*****.

Following the enclosed report you are now kindly requested to ask him the following questions:

- Does he confirm the statement he made in Portugal on May 26th 2007?

- Can he describe in detail the individual he saw carrying a child on May 3rd 2007, notwithstanding the fact that he has already made this description in his previous statements? Was this individual alone?

- When and in what mass medium has he seen the news of Gerald McCann going down the plane stairs, and carrying one of his children? (If possible he should be shown the above-mentioned pictures, as well as asked whether he confirms or disconfirms this man was the same individual he saw on May 3rd 2007).

- Was it really Gerry McCann? Is he sure of this fact?

- Does he recognise Gerald McCann from the facial features or from the way he was carrying the child?

- Are his family members, namely the ones who were with him on May 3rd 2007, able to recognise the individual? If yes, do they also identify the individual as being Gerald McCann? (If yes, such family members should also be interviewed with a view to equally answering the above questions).

- Any other possible significant question, whether arising from the answers of Martin Smith to the above questions or that is deemed as relevant, should be equally asked.

3993 to 3994 – Portuguese translation of email from Prior
re: Smith statement 2007.09.20

___________________________

30th January 2008

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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

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

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

Forwarded please

Sergeant

Liam Hogan

I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.


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

Intercalary Report by Inspector Joao Carlos - 30th January 2008

As reported on folio 1606 and following pages, a new element appeared, brought by an Irish family, who told of a sighting on 3rd May 2007 at about 21.55 of a man carrying a child who was walking down a road that leads to a zone near to P da L. They did not manage to recognise the man, however Martin Smith, in subsequent information, folio 2871, said that judging by the bearing it could have been Gerald McCann, which upon initial analysis did not seem very viable to us given the time period indicated. However, new questioning of Martin Smith by the Irish authorities was requested in order to check the reliability of his information. A reply is awaited.

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

The PJ Final Report [excerpt concerning witness sightings]

From the 4th of May, 2007 - the day after the facts - onwards, initially at an inordinate rhythm, the Policia Judiciaria received thousands of news about sightings and locations that covered the entire national territory, the most diversified locations abroad, from neighbouring Spain to faraway Indonesia and Singapore, with the missing child being "recognised" at the most diversified locations, in multiple situations and company, in such manner that on the same day, she is allegedly seen at locations that are 4000 km apart.

Some of the information did not merit, due to the circumstances surrounding it, the least credibility, leaving those, at the other extreme, which required a more solid and effective systemization and treatment. Those which, by their geography and time-space relevance, seemed credible were thoroughly explored and included in the documentation and this appendix.

There remains a large, diffuse stain of supposed sightings and localizations – some receiving notable emphasis, such as those in Belgium and Morocco – which had few, vague, discordant, incompatible or incongruent elements, which deserved a treatment with a view towards their infirmaçao or set aside for the future, should solid elements arise, which all are herein included;

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

Stands to reason the PJ took a particular interest in the Smith family sighting reported on 26th May 2007 even though the statements were given over three weeks after the event. The close proximity to the alleged crime scene, Ocean Club apartment 5a, the time span being within an hour of the Jane Tanner sighting and the description of the two sightings being similar in certain respects.

Have another dekho at the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special production, feat. DCI Andy Redwood having a revelation moment..



@ 23:43 minutes, the presenter has this to say..

"It was here at 10:00pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child ...."



".... two of the witnesses helped to create e-fits of the man they saw. Today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images"

OK, they didn't actually name Martin Smith or any of his family which I wouldn't expect them to do but beyond reasonable doubt they are referring to the Smith family as regards drawing up the e-fits.

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

@ Ladyinred. Part 1 is a response to your point above about my use of the term unconscious.
 1) The child is reported as lying against the man's shoulder with her arms hanging limply and was apparently oblivious to both the individual carrying her or the fact that she was being carried. For example, there was no attempt by the child to put her arms around the neck of the person carrying her nor to respond to her surroundings.  For a dictionary definition -   

.[size=32]unconscious[/size]
ʌnˈkɒnʃəs/
adjective

[list=lr_dct_sf_sens]
[*]1.
not awake and aware of and responding to one's environment
 


[/list]


 2) The title of this thread is

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

I think it is clear, both from the evidence in the police files and from Dr. Amaral's book, that this is untrue.

Phoebe wrote:
The title of this thread is

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

I think it is clear, both from the evidence in the police files and from Dr. Amaral's book, that this is untrue.

@ Phoebe,

It's obvious we are never going to agree, no matter what further evidence is produced or discussed.

I will just gently point out that you may have never read this thread...

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

...in which I pointed out no fewer than TWELVE sets of contradictions. I certainly can't recall you explaining many of them, if any.

Moreover, some time ago I posted up a list of 60 questions which were designed to challenge those who adamantly maintain that Martin Smith is a witness of truth. I thought perhaps my opponents would rally to the challenge and inundate me with good answers for all or nearly all of the questions....

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

...but I hardly got a single response...

@  Tony Bennett.  Ok Tony, I have opened the link you provided above  and am responding.

1) You state that the Smiths "created" two different e-fits of two different looking men. The fact is that we know nothing of how those e-fits came into being, other than the official response which says that they were drawn up with the aid of two witnesses. Who is to say that the Smiths did not assist with only one image (probably the older-style, less lifelike one) and that the second image was not produced until afterwards, using a different method to "enhance" and alter it slightly. Both e-fits, despite their differences, resemble the face of Gerry McCann from different angles as has been shown previously on other threads on CMOMM and elsewhere with relevant images and comparisons.

2) You state that the Smiths said they would be unable to recognise the man again and infer that this means that they have forgotten what he looked like. You also quote  (yes, FROM THE MEDIA again) claims that the Smiths spoke to the press to state that they had barely seen the man. 
 The fact is that Martin Smith NEVER gave any interviews to the press. All claims by the media refer to "a family member" or "a source close to the family". Meanwhile, (in the real world) the letter from the Irish Gardai to the P.J. makes it perfectly clear that Smith "Has Given no stories" to the press.
Martin Smith never said he could not remember the man's face in order to describe it - what he actually said was that -
"It is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph." 
This means that he would not be confident about picking the correct man out of a line-up of men of similar appearance and dress or a photographic spread of similar-looking faces. Not that he cannot remember what he saw!

3) You make much of the fact that some of the Smiths saw the man's face clearly while others didn't, while ignoring the fact that the Smiths did not all encounter him at the same time, nor from the same angle nor at the same spot on the road. The Smith group were not walking together in a single group but spread out in several small groupings. 

4) Again you rely on the MEDIA reports which claim that the Smiths said the child was and wasn't wrapped in a blanket. It is perfectly clear from the P.J. files that the Smiths were totally consistent in describing the child as not being covered by anything other than clothing.

5) Once again, you turn to MEDIA REPORTS to suggest that there is a discrepancy in the Smith's reaction to the sighting, even referring to the "audio report in an Irish voice". Whoever was hoping this "Irish" voice would be mistaken for Martin Smith got it badly and hilariously wrong. As a Drogheda man, born and bred, Martin Smith would have a north Dublin accent, not a Northern Irish one, despite the geographical location. (clumsy mistake this!!!)

6) Once again, in your section on reasons for their delay in reporting the sighting you rely on MEDIA REPORTS, this time the Daily Fail and The Mirror for evidence. Half of the Smith witnesses left Portugal the next morning. What would you have them do, delay returning to work, school, ante-natal appointments in order to go to a foreign police force to say they had seen a man down town carrying a child! Hardly an unusual sight, was it and - "Oh and by the way, half of us who witnessed it are gone back home"!  In any case, the news of Tannerman having been seen "abducting Madeleine 50 mins earlier and going in the opposite direction to the man they saw nearly an hour later would have convinced them there was no connection.

7) with regard to the alleged inconsistencies in describing Smithman's upper clothing, I think there is a very simple, reasonable explanation. There were numerous witnesses and it is obvious and natural that they discussed at length among themselves what each remembered seeing.  In fact, the P.J. files tell us in Peter Smith's statement that his son Tadhg   "WAS QUESTIONED IN IRELAND AND SAID THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS DRESSED IN A LONG-SLEEVED COAT OR JACKET. BLACK IN COLOUR AND THAT THE CHILD WAS BAREFOOT."  Once again you turn to the phony "audio recording" to support claims of inconsistencies.

8) Martin Smith said the man was aged "35-40 years" and later "aged approximately 40". Where is the inconsistency! Oh wait! There it is in THE MEDIA again, once more taken from the phony "audio recording" in the wrong accent, put out by those supporting the McCanns !

9) Re. Smith's alleged "inconsistencies about how well he Robert Murat well, in the P.J. files he clearly states that "He met Murat twice in May and Aug. 2006".
 But wait for it! Here comes the trustworthy MEDIA again (you know the Media who claim that Madeleine was "snatched", that specialist dogs are often wrong and that P. de L. was full of smelly burglars who loved to sit on little girls beds) claiming to quote a man WHO HAS GIVEN NO INTERVIEWS.

10) I very much doubt hat Mary Smith "approached" the man to ask if the child was asleep. It is much more likely that she made a comment as she passed along the lines of "Aw! is she asleep". No, the Smiths do not mention this specifically in their statements but they DO say ( in the reliable files) that "The individual did not speak". Why would he unless he had been spoken to. Gemma O'Doherty, who has interviewed the Smiths (kudos there) confirms that Mrs. Smith did address such a comment to the man.

Finally, we are either to believe the media and press reports or we are not. It is ridiculous to pick what suits and proclaim its veracity while simultaneously scoffing at media reports which do not suit.
If the all-trustworthy media is to be heeded, then Madeleine was indeed snatched from her bed by a paedophile ring operating in a crime ridden town policed by sardine-munching, incompetent buffoons who didn't bother to turn up to Apt 5A for hours and stood around 
scratching themselves while Kate and Gerry "braced themselves" for news. We cannot have it both ways!!!!!

@ sharonl. Maybe I see things differently to you, but to my eyes Image 1 (the less lifelike one) is the absolute spitting image of poor Gerry. I believe he had the misfortune to be seated underneath it on a chat show and the program had an influx of calls saying "You're interviewing the man in the e-fit!! I suspect image two (the "improved" version missing half the face) was created to try to distract from the extraordinary resemblance between Gerry and image 1.

Phoebe wrote:@ sharonl. Maybe I see things differently to you, but to my eyes Image 1 (the less lifelike one) is the absolute spitting image of poor Gerry. I believe he had the misfortune to be seated underneath it on a chat show and the program had an influx of calls saying "You're interviewing the man in the e-fit!! I suspect image two (the "improved" version missing half the face) was created to try to distract from the extraordinary resemblance between Gerry and image 1.

And yet, in these past five years since Crimewatch, Operation Grange have done nothing about it.

DCI Redwood did nothing. DCI Wall has done nothing.

So, does that mean it wasn't Gerry McCann and Operation Grange are still looking for the real 'abductor'?

Or does it mean the McCann's are so protected that they will never be brought to justice because Operation Grange is simply a farce as DCI Colin Sutton suggested when he said he "was told by someone very senior that Grange would be very narrowly focused, away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns"?

But then it's not for Operation Grange to decide, it's up to the PJ as it's their investigation.

And the PJ have done nothing about it either in the past five years.

"Too much politics" as Dr Amaral once said.

Personally I don't think it will be Smithman that solves this case, because Grange and the PJ are doing nothing about it, but something else like Peter Mac's Last Photo evidence. In which case, Smithman is irrelevant anyway because Gerry would not have been carrying a days-old corpse, although he might have been carrying a drugged Amelie in the staged abduction.  IF this case is ever allowed (by politicians on both sides) to be solved, that is.

This case isn't about Madeleine unfortunately.

It's about the 'something else' that none of us know the real reason. Whatever it is, the lid is being kept on. With all the evidence that's been around for the past eleven years that points directly at Kate and Gerry McCann, I cannot understand how any police force, even the Keystone Cops, could not have solved this case back in 2007.