Smith Statement

with thanks to Hardlinemarxist


1610
06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1606

06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1607

06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1608

06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1609

06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1610


Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10H40
Location: DIC Portimao
Name: MARTIN SMITH

The witness states:
— That he comes to the process as a witness.
— Being of Irish nationality, he does not understand Portuguese in its written or oral form and is accompanied by an interpreter.
— That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment. Concerning this period, he states that he arrived in Portugal on the 30th of April, 2007, with a booked return date of May 9, 2007. He arrived at Faro airport and flew out from Dublin.
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
— After leaving the bar, he travelled in the opposite direction and reached a set of stairs which gave access to Rua 25 de Abril (25th of April Street). On this artery they followed a second street, parallel to Rua 1 de Maio (1st of May Street) whose name he does not remember. He was heading toward his apartment (Estrela da Luz complex) which is located a little above the street Travessa da Escola Primária (Primary school crossing). As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— 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.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
— At being asked, states that when he saw the individual he was accompanied by his wife, MARY SMITH, his son, PETER SMITH, his daughter-in-law, S***, his grandchildren of 13 and 6 years of age (children of PETER) TA*** and CO**, his daughter AOIFE (12 years of age), and his other two grandchildren (AI****** (10 years old) and EI**** (four years old). These are children of his daughter B***** who was in Ireland.
— States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.
— He adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other so they would have seen the individual in different positions.
— He adds a sketch indicating the route and the locale of the sighting.
— He has nothing else to offer the investigation.
— And nothing more was said. He reads and finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs together with the interpreter.
1611 to 1614 Witness testimony of Aoife Smith taken 2007/05/26
6-Processos, Volume VI, pgs. 1611 to 1614
06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1611

It sounds awfully like the description of clothing given by Jane Tanner, actually. Sure it's not the same person? i.e. was it Gerry McCann that Jane saw, and she blabbed before getting the script straight?

It also seems as though he was prompted to confirm Tanner's Statement. !!!! Also, the statement was taken on 26th May, not a very reliable
recollection after 3 weeks. Sorry, but I wouldn't say this Statement is as important as many think.

the one thing that strikes me with this statement is the robert murat reference and the conviction with which the witness is able to say it was not murat. what are the chances of an irish man who as far as i can tell did not personally know murat, being the person to walk along the road that night, see the man and be able to say it was definately not murat.

i suppose mr smith was almost a part time resident of PDL visiting a couple of times a year and during times when it was quiet and not over run with holiday makers. it would make sense that he would see and remember other residents, particularly english speaking ones, even if he did not get to know them personally.

still, i cannot help thinking it was a stroke of luck for murat. had things turned out differently during the investigation for him, there was an independent witness and aparantly the only other witness in pdl that night to see a man with a child and he was able to state it was definately not murat.

then, what makes the smith sighting very credible in my mind, is mccann's obvious reluctance to put any emphasis on it. why is that ? a man is seen carrying a blond child around the time their child disappeared, where are the appeals, where are the egg man images, where is the publicity. it is like having a mad granny in the corner, we don't talk about it.

but then the smith follow up statement months later to the gardai. what is that about ? smith surely must have felt very strongly about what he was saying in that second statement. you don't go to the bother of contacting police with a follow up statement about a crime committed months earlier, in a different country, unless you feel very strongly about what you are saying. by this point in time, it did not benefit murat or anybody as far as i can see. other than drawing a whole heap of hassle on himself, there is no obvious motive for smith doing this.

re-interviewing this man is as important as the re-construction.

Annabel wrote:He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.

Note: This demonstrates just how close Martin Smith was to Gerry McCann— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas.

So he was close enough to see that the child's eyes were closed, and

— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour.

Yet Jane - who was much, much further away, and did not see the closed eyes - could tell us that the pyjamas were pink and white with little frills on. I know which out of the two, I believe!

I must say I haven't read before that Mr Smith said her eyes were closed. He must have been very close to her. A lot closer than Jane Tanner was to whoever she said she saw. And I think the Smith sighting is an extremely important piece of evidence. Vital I'd say. Why was this person carrying the child not asked to come forward and be eliminated from the enquiry. And this sighting was a lot more credible than many but has been given so little publicity. Iris just noticed your post and I wrote the same that Jane was much further away and therefore you would have thought not as good a witness. But you wouldn't think it by the amount of publicity her sighting was given

Morning mossman ,

according to his Statement he even admits that it was quite normal to see Parents carrying their children from the creche, he had had a few drinks
but was more than interested in this guy passing him by to remember what he wore. Why didn't he go to the Police straightaway when he knew a child
was missing , presumed abducted.

Annabel wrote:He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.

Note: This demonstrates just how close Martin Smith was to Gerry McCann— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas.

Morning Annabel, well spotted.!!!

"arrived in Portugal on the 30th of April, 2007, with a booked return date of May 9, 2007. "

Mr Smith says he goes to PDL about 3 times a year. Question, why did he not have an interview before 9th May,everyone in PDL knew madeleine was missing by the 4th May . Did he come back especially to make a Statement on 26th? if so, what or who prompted him.
Did the Garda really interview him in Ireland?

I remember in the early days of 3A’s, a few people referred to the Irish sighting. There was so little about it in the media at the time, that many posters were convinced the Smith sighting was a forum myth. Well that quickly changed when the files were released.
Why didn’t the Mccanns’ push the Smith sighting? As far as I recall, the first mention by Gerry is in the Expresso interview September 2008, a full 16 months after Madeleine disappeared.

From the mccannfiles.com:-

Cover note

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

L*** H****

Additional statement by Martin Smith, 30 January 2008

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.

curious george wrote:I remember in the early days of 3A’s, a few people referred to the Irish sighting. There was so little about it in the media at the time, that many posters were convinced the Smith sighting was a forum myth. Well that quickly changed when the files were released.
Why didn’t the Mccanns’ push the Smith sighting? As far as I recall, the first mention by Gerry is in the Expresso interview September 2008, a full 16 months after Madeleine disappeared.

Morning curious george ....stranger,

I think the McCanns dismissed it at the time , probably because Jane's sighting was considered the most relevant. Jane sees Eggman about 9pm,
Mr Smith sees him about 10 pm.......PDL is a small place, would it take that long to go from one scene to the other? Wouldn't a Man carrying a child
through several streets to get from A to B be spotted by other Holidaymakers.?

mossman wrote:From the mccannfiles.com:-

Cover note

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

L*** H****

Additional statement by Martin Smith, 30 January 2008

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.

Oh mossman, I do love the way you clever posters find stuff xx

See, I do have a good memory, even to remembering Kennedy's visit ....I just can't find it that's all.LOL The Garda point out that Kennedy had visited
Smith and Smith admits he and his family did not discuss seeing Gerry walking down the steps until days later., really, is that believeable. If I was a
Lawyer defending Gerry, I would not call this man as a Witness.

Panda wrote:

curious george wrote:I remember in the early days of 3A’s, a few people referred to the Irish sighting. There was so little about it in the media at the time, that many posters were convinced the Smith sighting was a forum myth. Well that quickly changed when the files were released.
Why didn’t the Mccanns’ push the Smith sighting? As far as I recall, the first mention by Gerry is in the Expresso interview September 2008, a full 16 months after Madeleine disappeared.

Morning curious george ....stranger,

I think the McCanns dismissed it at the time , probably because Jane's sighting was considered the most relevant. Jane sees Eggman about 9pm,
Mr Smith sees him about 10 pm.......PDL is a small place, would it take that long to go from one scene to the other? Wouldn't a Man carrying a child
through several streets to get from A to B be spotted by other Holidaymakers.?

Hi Panda. Yes, rarely post now, but I still read the forum most days, so I'm still here, at least in spirit.

I believe it would be extraordinarily brave to rule out the Smith sighting. Considering some of the bizarre stuff Gerry has asked people to believe over the years I don't believe he ruled it out at all.

Martin Smith didn't finger Gerry until September 2007 after watching him descend from the plane. I can understand Gerry's reluctance to avoid discussing Martin Smith after September, but not before. Something worried Gerry sufficiently between May and September to keep silent and that reason is he knew he had been seen. After the files were released in 2008 however, he couldn't avoid talking about it.

I am connfused now - are we generally convinced that this is an unbiased - untainted sighting and that it was Gerry or are we saying the Smith's were got at by Kennedy and that the sightng is a red herring!!??

curious george wrote:

Panda wrote:

curious george wrote:I remember in the early days of 3A’s, a few people referred to the Irish sighting. There was so little about it in the media at the time, that many posters were convinced the Smith sighting was a forum myth. Well that quickly changed when the files were released.
Why didn’t the Mccanns’ push the Smith sighting? As far as I recall, the first mention by Gerry is in the Expresso interview September 2008, a full 16 months after Madeleine disappeared.

Morning curious george ....stranger,

I think the McCanns dismissed it at the time , probably because Jane's sighting was considered the most relevant. Jane sees Eggman about 9pm,
Mr Smith sees him about 10 pm.......PDL is a small place, would it take that long to go from one scene to the other? Wouldn't a Man carrying a child
through several streets to get from A to B be spotted by other Holidaymakers.?

Hi Panda. Yes, rarely post now, but I still read the forum most days, so I'm still here, at least in spirit.

I believe it would be extraordinarily brave to rule out the Smith sighting. Considering some of the bizarre stuff Gerry has asked people to believe over the years I don't believe he ruled it out at all.

Martin Smith didn't finger Gerry until September 2007 after watching him descend from the plane. I can understand Gerry's reluctance to avoid discussing Martin Smith after September, but not before. Something worried Gerry sufficiently between May and September to keep silent and that reason is he knew he had been seen. After the files were released in 2008 however, he couldn't avoid talking about it.

Forget Gerry for a moment and just go through Smiths statement and the bits we have all highlighted , from the initial delay in reporting what he saw
in that split second the Man passed him , the time it took to make his first Statement , the visit of Kennedy, his Wife declining to make a second
statement etc.....I just don't think he is a reliable enough Witness.

NoStone wrote:I am connfused now - are we generally convinced that this is an unbiased - untainted sighting and that it was Gerry or are we saying the Smith's were got at by Kennedy and that the sightng is a red herring!!??

Hi NoStone,

Go back to his Statement , the first post on this thread, make a note of our observations and make your own mind up, let us know what you think.

None of us really know, it is just an opinion based on the evidence we have.

He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

Smith could not say with any certainty that it was Gerry McCann but was able to say categorically that it was not Robert Murat.

ive never known what to make regarding the smith statement other than why make a statement months after madeleine went missing fgs she was in every paper front page for months , when i was on 3as it was forum gossip ? now this summat is very wrong sorry

T4two wrote:

He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

Smith could not say with any certainty that it was Gerry McCann but was able to say categorically that it was not Robert Murat.

Also, he was close enough to see the childs' eyes were closed!!!

Well I for one think the Smith sighting is a credible one. But who the Smiths saw is more difficult. But I think they saw somebody significant. Not just any old parent going back with their child else they would have come forward by now. Maybe if the sighting was more publicised they would have come forward. But it wasn't very much publicised was it. I think something more might come out. But on the other hand it might not.

NoStone wrote:I am connfused now - are we generally convinced that this is an unbiased - untainted sighting and that it was Gerry or are we saying the Smith's were got at by Kennedy and that the sightng is a red herring!!??

I've always thought it very strange the Mcs never made alot of this sighting but we may know why...

Although there was a theory a few weeks ago that maybe Smith made his statement in a direct response to the Mcs trying to frame Robert Murat, as he clearly states the man wasn't RM. i.e was it a message to Gerry McCann, l know you're trying to frame an innocent man so l'm taking him out of the equasion??

margaret wrote:

NoStone wrote:I am connfused now - are we generally convinced that this is an unbiased - untainted sighting and that it was Gerry or are we saying the Smith's were got at by Kennedy and that the sightng is a red herring!!??

I've always thought it very strange the Mcs never made alot of this sighting but we may know why...

Although there was a theory a few weeks ago that maybe Smith made his statement in a direct response to the Mcs trying to frame Robert Murat, as he clearly states the man wasn't RM. i.e was it a message to Gerry McCann, l know you're trying to frame an innocent man so l'm taking him out of the equasion??

Something of that nature - which is possibly why a certain old washer of windows allegedly paid Smith a visit after visiting Murat?