Smith's statements. don't ya just hate um Gerry?

Lets just hope that the pride of Britain's best police
care to do what I just accomplished in about 5 mins!
read the darn files!
The Smith evidence, is so darn critical that it yells out
to be examined and followed,
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html?hilit=Aoife%20Smith

A very revealing, and can I say? incriminating sequence of
material that puts our Gerry bang on the spot!
see what you think....

I agree they seem to put Gerry bang on the spot but it does not amount to any sort of proof that it was Gerry and the Smiths are the only independent witnesses to see a man carrying a child. Wilkins saw Gerry around 9.10pm but only assumes he had been to check the apartment. Tanner says she saw Wilkins and Gerry and a man with a child but has contradicted herself many times. The Smiths are the most credible witnesses of the lot but, even so, they cannot say 100% that it was Gerry. In the very last statement Martin Smith says only his wife is of the same opinion with ref, I presume, to the TV news clip of Gerry carrying one of the twins. Mr Smith is a sinsere and genuine person, of that I am sure, but they cannot add more to what they have already said, even if they were interviewed a thousand times.

He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise.

This is just so, so wrong.

If the McCanns sincerely wanted every lead followed, they'd be trying their hardest to locate the man the Smith family saw. They'd spend fund money on producing posters with images of that bloke carrying a child through the streets and plaster them everywhere and they'd arrange some kind of Crimewatch reconstruction to be aired in Portugal, raising awareness of this guy and trying to locate him, if only to eliminate him. That's what the generous public donors sent them the money for. But no. They send someone to interfere with the witness and invite him to engage in some kind of pretendy photo fit exercise. And what could be the purpose of such an exercise? The police do these things to get witnesses to pick the perp out from a line up of similar looking innocent others as a means of demonstrating that they can reliably identify a suspect. So what was Kennedy's test supposed to prove? Who was the suspect in this situation? Gerry. So presumably his role was to show Mr Smith pictures in order to convince him that the bloke he saw WASN'T Gerry. How does this aid the search for Madeleine? It doesn't. It just aids the McCanns defence. How can Kennedy have got away with doing this? Interfering with a witness, intimidating a witness, attempting to pervert the course of justice... it's all of these things.

He had to move house because he was continually harassed and also he wasn't happy that his photo was all over the newspapers...

If SY are doing their job properly, they will interview the Smiths again to get insight into the Kennedy visit - as you say its definitely interfering with the course of justice. Also Gerry muscling in on Martin Grimes`s boss - its obvious interference. Just wonder how many more witnesses have had `visits`. To my mind Martin Smith is acting scared.

@ Wintabells

Wintabells wrote:He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise.

This is just so, so wrong.

If the McCanns sincerely wanted every lead followed, they'd be trying their hardest to locate the man the Smith family saw. They'd spend fund money on producing posters with images of that bloke carrying a child through the streets and plaster them everywhere and they'd arrange some kind of Crimewatch reconstruction to be aired in Portugal, raising awareness of this guy and trying to locate him, if only to eliminate him. That's what the generous public donors sent them the money for. But no. They send someone to interfere with the witness and invite him to engage in some kind of pretendy photo fit exercise. And what could be the purpose of such an exercise? The police do these things to get witnesses to pick the perp out from a line up of similar looking innocent others as a means of demonstrating that they can reliably identify a suspect. So what was Kennedy's test supposed to prove? Who was the suspect in this situation? Gerry. So presumably his role was to show Mr Smith pictures in order to convince him that the bloke he saw WASN'T Gerry. How does this aid the search for Madeleine? It doesn't. It just aids the McCanns defence. How can Kennedy have got away with doing this? Interfering with a witness, intimidating a witness, attempting to pervert the course of justice... it's all of these things.

Well said!

Velvet wrote:

Wintabells wrote:He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise.

This is just so, so wrong.

If the McCanns sincerely wanted every lead followed, they'd be trying their hardest to locate the man the Smith family saw. They'd spend fund money on producing posters with images of that bloke carrying a child through the streets and plaster them everywhere and they'd arrange some kind of Crimewatch reconstruction to be aired in Portugal, raising awareness of this guy and trying to locate him, if only to eliminate him. That's what the generous public donors sent them the money for. But no. They send someone to interfere with the witness and invite him to engage in some kind of pretendy photo fit exercise. And what could be the purpose of such an exercise? The police do these things to get witnesses to pick the perp out from a line up of similar looking innocent others as a means of demonstrating that they can reliably identify a suspect. So what was Kennedy's test supposed to prove? Who was the suspect in this situation? Gerry. So presumably his role was to show Mr Smith pictures in order to convince him that the bloke he saw WASN'T Gerry. How does this aid the search for Madeleine? It doesn't. It just aids the McCanns defence. How can Kennedy have got away with doing this? Interfering with a witness, intimidating a witness, attempting to pervert the course of justice... it's all of these things.

Well said!

hope that they come un stuck , because its awful that the smith family were contacted . sy should look into everything from start to finnish

As was brought up in another post the Smiths sightings. For discussion and in trying to get to the truth, this is my view on the sighting and reasons why I feel it was to give Murat an alibi (I don't blame him if you are being stitched up for something you didn't do)

Timing - After Murat is officially made a suspect on the 15th May, Smith suddenly remembers this sighting and proceeds to give his statement on the 26th May. This sudden memory after nearly 14 days later despite the fact in the UK and Ireland this story was about the only story in the news for days on end with news channels like the BBC, ITN and Sky covering it 24/7, newspapers covered with pages written about it. You would have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to have known all about this & seen all the pictures and coverage. So taking this sighting on face value when he became aware on the morning of the 4th May whilst being in PDL itself & in the centre of the action, he would immediately remember what he saw the night before and not go back to home to Ireland only to suddenly remember it nearly 2 weeks later. This is logical

Statement of 26th May - Smith is only very 100% sure about one thing as he states " He says that it would not possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph. He adds (which to me is the point of the statement) 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 this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately".....If he can't ID the individual he saw from a photograph which is all he would have had seeing Murat on the news, so how can he then be 100% it was not Murat he saw? He says he has only seen Murat twice in his life on the off chance in bar a year previously and if his memory is so bad he can;t remember the sighting he saw for 2 weeks, why is it so good he can remember an individual from a packed out bar from a year ago? He is totally contradicting himself with this part of the statement

None of the rest of the family can confirm or deny about recognising who the individual was, and Smith co owns an apartment in PDL and goes there at least 3 times a year.

On Sept 8th 2007, the mccanns are made arguido's. The very next day.. the 9th Sept from a TV report he saw ...Smith reappears again saying he suddenly realises that the individual who he saw on the night of 3rd May is now 60-80% certain it was gerry he saw. Coincidence too? He is just short of confirming it was gerry but enough to send the wind up the mccanns imo

Reading between the lines, the mccanns and Lori Campbell were trying to frame Murat, he needed an alibi of some sort as he was at home on the night of 3rd May & only has his mother to back him up. Behind the scenes I believe Murat and mccanns/jane tanner all knew each other beforehand, I believe the sudden realisation it was gerry that Smith saw was said as a warning to the mccanns to back off him as he could expose them, hence a few weeks later brian kennedy flies over with smethurst for a private meeting with murat after which the mccanns & co suddenly retreat from their accusations of murat....done deal. To keep their side of the bargin kate in her bewk states that she never believed murat was a suspect, this total contradiction from the summer of 2007 when she was very clearly stating it was murat and swearing blind that it was him and could only be him...why the sudden change? Also, 4 months after this meeting in November 2007 murat receives £600,000 in damages...wonder who helped get him this??

In short, when Murat is made suspect Smith appears with his statement confirming it was not Murat he saw. When the mccanns are made arguido's he appears for the 2nd time falling just short from saying it was gerry he saw...the rest they say is history!

To me this is what I see from the Smith events, and putting myself in Murats shoes of being stitched up for something I didn't do, I would probably have done the same as there was no real other option to prove my innocence and with Smith saying it definitely was not Murat he saw would put him in the clear. Anyway, this is my view up for discussion

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html?hilit=Aoife%20Smith

It's an interesting thought jd16, l've also wondered about the delay in Martin Smith making his statement, especially as he was aware the next day about Madeleines disappearance and the significance of what he saw - so why didn't he go to the police before he flew home on 9th May??

However, regards the bit about Robert Murat it doesn't say he only saw him twice in PDL bars, it says 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 this time. . It's ambiguous, he could have seen Robert in those bars several times.

Wintabells wrote:He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise.

This is just so, so wrong.

If the McCanns sincerely wanted every lead followed, they'd be trying their hardest to locate the man the Smith family saw. They'd spend fund money on producing posters with images of that bloke carrying a child through the streets and plaster them everywhere and they'd arrange some kind of Crimewatch reconstruction to be aired in Portugal, raising awareness of this guy and trying to locate him, if only to eliminate him. That's what the generous public donors sent them the money for. But no. They send someone to interfere with the witness and invite him to engage in some kind of pretendy photo fit exercise. And what could be the purpose of such an exercise? The police do these things to get witnesses to pick the perp out from a line up of similar looking innocent others as a means of demonstrating that they can reliably identify a suspect. So what was Kennedy's test supposed to prove? Who was the suspect in this situation? Gerry. So presumably his role was to show Mr Smith pictures in order to convince him that the bloke he saw WASN'T Gerry. How does this aid the search for Madeleine? It doesn't. It just aids the McCanns defence. How can Kennedy have got away with doing this? Interfering with a witness, intimidating a witness, attempting to pervert the course of justice... it's all of these things.

It's beautifully put. Take silk and put your case in court!
This is why I think it was Gerry, just the sort of 'clever' thing he'd think of imo. Bound to go wrong, pretty well everything else did that evening.
Why would BK turn up otherwise trying to sort it out?
The fact that they ignored the sighting speaks volumes, surely it would have been a much better one than the JT bundle man? This was not quite the right time, but the right place, seen by independent witnesses. Damn! Wrong witnesses. There's always something.
Didn't Kate say something in the bewk that it was terrible how the PJ had ignored this sighting? Well, they didn't. TM did for reasons best know to themselves.
Although I don't believe it was Maddie he was carrying, could be one of the T7 children, Ella. I think Maddie was already safely hidden. That way, should he have been challenged by anyone, it could be explained as e.g. getting lost taking the child home. Very low risk.

tigger wrote:

Wintabells wrote:He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise.

This is just so, so wrong.

If the McCanns sincerely wanted every lead followed, they'd be trying their hardest to locate the man the Smith family saw. They'd spend fund money on producing posters with images of that bloke carrying a child through the streets and plaster them everywhere and they'd arrange some kind of Crimewatch reconstruction to be aired in Portugal, raising awareness of this guy and trying to locate him, if only to eliminate him. That's what the generous public donors sent them the money for. But no. They send someone to interfere with the witness and invite him to engage in some kind of pretendy photo fit exercise. And what could be the purpose of such an exercise? The police do these things to get witnesses to pick the perp out from a line up of similar looking innocent others as a means of demonstrating that they can reliably identify a suspect. So what was Kennedy's test supposed to prove? Who was the suspect in this situation? Gerry. So presumably his role was to show Mr Smith pictures in order to convince him that the bloke he saw WASN'T Gerry. How does this aid the search for Madeleine? It doesn't. It just aids the McCanns defence. How can Kennedy have got away with doing this? Interfering with a witness, intimidating a witness, attempting to pervert the course of justice... it's all of these things.

It's beautifully put. Take silk and put your case in court!
This is why I think it was Gerry, just the sort of 'clever' thing he'd think of imo. Bound to go wrong, pretty well everything else did that evening.
Why would BK turn up otherwise trying to sort it out?
The fact that they ignored the sighting speaks volumes, surely it would have been a much better one than the JT bundle man? This was not quite the right time, but the right place, seen by independent witnesses. Damn! Wrong witnesses. There's always something.
Didn't Kate say something in the bewk that it was terrible how the PJ had ignored this sighting? Well, they didn't. TM did for reasons best know to themselves.
Although I don't believe it was Maddie he was carrying, could be one of the T7 children, Ella. I think Maddie was already safely hidden. That way, should he have been challenged by anyone, it could be explained as e.g. getting lost taking the child home. Very low risk.

Maybe tigger, then again maybe not! I believe it was Gerry the Smith's saw carrying Maddie, and as I've said before, there's no way he would run through the streets with a live child to fake a fake abduction, with all the risks inherent in that act .... even he's not that stupid (imho)

If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

jd16 wrote:If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

Yes Pennylane and JD16, it's a puzzler, because I'm not moving from a very early disappearance of Maddie max. 1/5. So that's why I'm arguing there was no risk in being stopped with a live child of a friend of his but a hell of a lot of risk being found with a dead child of your own.
Besides, there was no time, a fridge/freezer would have to be found. Someone to meet, a key to an apartment/hiding place.
For me, the 3rd could never have been Maddie but very likely have been Gerry.

tigger wrote:

jd16 wrote:If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

Yes Pennylane and JD16, it's a puzzler, because I'm not moving from a very early disappearance of Maddie max. 1/5. So that's why I'm arguing there was no risk in being stopped with a live child of a friend of his but a hell of a lot of risk being found with a dead child of your own.
Besides, there was no time, a fridge/freezer would have to be found. Someone to meet, a key to an apartment/hiding place.
For me, the 3rd could never have been Maddie but very likely have been Gerry.

Goncalo Amaral seemed to believe the McCanns knew somebody, or were seen earlier visiting the vicinity where Gerry was allegedly seen scurrying towards with a pale skinned, 3 year old child. The Mc's deleted their phone messages and who knows who they knew on that fateful holiday. I still believe Maddie died late 2nd or during the 3rd.... but I also believe the McCanns knew a lot more people than they claimed.

pennylane wrote:

tigger wrote:

jd16 wrote:If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

Yes Pennylane and JD16, it's a puzzler, because I'm not moving from a very early disappearance of Maddie max. 1/5. So that's why I'm arguing there was no risk in being stopped with a live child of a friend of his but a hell of a lot of risk being found with a dead child of your own.
Besides, there was no time, a fridge/freezer would have to be found. Someone to meet, a key to an apartment/hiding place.
For me, the 3rd could never have been Maddie but very likely have been Gerry.

Goncalo Amaral seemed to believe the McCanns knew somebody, or were seen earlier visiting the vicinity where Gerry was allegedly seen scurrying towards with a pale skinned, 3 year old child. The Mc's deleted their phone messages and who knows who they knew on that fateful holiday. I still believe Maddie died late 2nd or during the 3rd.... but I also believe the McCanns knew a lot more people than they claimed.

What's a forum for if not for different viewpoints? We're each entitled to put our own interpretations on events. However, I think the particular apartment block that Amaral had an interest in wasn't in that vicinity but near the church.

tigger wrote:

pennylane wrote:

tigger wrote:

jd16 wrote:If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

Yes Pennylane and JD16, it's a puzzler, because I'm not moving from a very early disappearance of Maddie max. 1/5. So that's why I'm arguing there was no risk in being stopped with a live child of a friend of his but a hell of a lot of risk being found with a dead child of your own.
Besides, there was no time, a fridge/freezer would have to be found. Someone to meet, a key to an apartment/hiding place.
For me, the 3rd could never have been Maddie but very likely have been Gerry.

Goncalo Amaral seemed to believe the McCanns knew somebody, or were seen earlier visiting the vicinity where Gerry was allegedly seen scurrying towards with a pale skinned, 3 year old child. The Mc's deleted their phone messages and who knows who they knew on that fateful holiday. I still believe Maddie died late 2nd or during the 3rd.... but I also believe the McCanns knew a lot more people than they claimed.

What's a forum for if not for different viewpoints? We're each entitled to put our own interpretations on events. However, I think the particular apartment block that Amaral had an interest in wasn't in that vicinity but near the church.

True tigger.

Certainly Eddie and Keela are unbiased, and they seem to have arrived at a rather deadly conclusion which I think most of us here agree with.

THE APARTMENT WAS IN THE SW ST JAMES AREA.

I personally believe Maddie met her fatal accident on April 30th. This after analysing things like phone records, creche records, their behaviours etc. For the Smith sighting, I put myself in gerrys position (does't feel good I can tell ya!) and being the one running the streets would be too risky knowing that I had contacted the media to get public exposure to support my fairytale, knowing by doing this I would be known to millions of people & images of me known to millions, so I would't risk being seen by a witness especially when I needed to be seen by one to further back up my fairytale. For me, if it was gerry that Smith saw then Maddie would have had to met her fate that night on May 3rd running in panic. Or if as I believe it was before May 3rd, then Smith is either lying or it was someone else from the mccann crew that was running. It could have been an innocent just as equally. Im just trying to see logic in any alternatives to what I believe the sighting to be about

Just as an observation, Smith mentions in his statement that when he saw Murat the year previous 'He was not wearing glasses at this time' which I find an odd thing to say considering he is also saying he did not know him and had only seen a few times in a bar the previous year....why would Murats wearing of glasses be on his mind to state in police statement? especially when at this point of the statement he was not describing him. His description of who he saw mentions no wearing of glasses. And when you add to this that jane tanners sighting and released sketches of whom she saw like the ‘egg man’ sketch of the alleged abductor that Tanner had approved, these various alleged abductors do not wear glasses

On 13 May, Tanner was taken by a Leicestershire Police Officer, Bob Small, into a police van with darkened windows, from where she could see passers-by. Amongst those who walked by whilst she was hidden with police officers in the van was Robert Murat. She apparently instantly identified Murat as the probable abductor she had seen a few nights previously. Crucially, Robert Murat has poor eyesight and wears glasses all the time. However, when Tanner was asked to give a description of the abductor she claimed to have seen, she did not mention his wearing glasses.

Don't know exactly what I am saying here but something odd strikes me about the glasses mentioning and non mentioning of them

jd16 wrote:Just as an observation, Smith mentions in his statement that when he saw Murat the year previous 'He was not wearing glasses at this time' which I find an odd thing to say considering he is also saying he did not know him and had only seen a few times in a bar the previous year....why would Murats wearing of glasses be on his mind to state in police statement? especially when at this point of the statement he was not describing him. His description of who he saw mentions no wearing of glasses. And when you add to this that jane tanners sighting and released sketches of whom she saw like the ‘egg man’ sketch of the alleged abductor that Tanner had approved, these various alleged abductors do not wear glasses

On 13 May, Tanner was taken by a Leicestershire Police Officer, Bob Small, into a police van with darkened windows, from where she could see passers-by. Amongst those who walked by whilst she was hidden with police officers in the van was Robert Murat. She apparently instantly identified Murat as the probable abductor she had seen a few nights previously. Crucially, Robert Murat has poor eyesight and wears glasses all the time. However, when Tanner was asked to give a description of the abductor she claimed to have seen, she did not mention his wearing glasses.

Don't know exactly what I am saying here but something odd strikes me about the glasses mentioning and non mentioning of them

Murat may use contact lenses from time to time. This would certainly change his appearance somewhat. I know plenty of people who alternate between the two. I agree, it does seem a strange thing, this glasses or no glasses scenario. Had not really thought about it. Well done you!

Smith can't say for sure that he saw Gerry McCann, but he is positive that it wasn't Robert Murat. Possible explanation - Smith didn't see anyone - the sighting is to give his friend Murat an alibi?

T4two wrote:Smith can't say for sure that he saw Gerry McCann, but he is positive that it wasn't Robert Murat. Possible explanation - Smith didn't see anyone - the sighting is to give his friend Murat an alibi?

Cor blimey, T4two, you have hit the nail on the head, at least with me anyway. Yes, that is possible isn't it. Very possible indeed. Yes, the Smiths were doing everything they could to get Murat off the hook. Another bloody red herring most likely. The can say who it definiately was not but they cannot identify who it was. And despite hearing the news of a missing child the next day, they say they did not make any connection with their own sighting and then the penny dropped two weeks later. No, I don't believe that either for some reason. They eventually say the man they passed drew suspicion from them because he ignored them, but then next day when they hear a child has gone missing they make no connection at all. That's just rubbish, isn't it?

From what I can see Martin Smith is saying it can't be Murat because he is taller than the person he alleges he saw carrying a child. How tall is Murat in comparison to Gerry McCann. I get the feeling Gerry is only around 5' 7-8" tall as isn't much taller than Kate.

jd16 wrote:If it was gerry that Smith saw running through the streets, I can't understand why gerry would even risk being recognised as this would blow the abduction fairytale completely. (I am coming from the view Maddie died prior to May 3rd)

Morning jd,

We've all heard of the expression "caught in the act." I believe this is precisely what happened to Gerry McCann!

I personally do not believe Madeleine died earlier in the week. I believe late 2nd or during 3rd May was when Maddie met her demise.