Smith Statement

ann_chovey wrote:
Could be, like 'clam pickers' as they are known, otherwise just for decoration. GM seems to have both long and shorter beige pants.

That's it, yes... or is it 'clam diggers' even? Anyway, I reckon that's what they are - magic trousers for the master of illusion.

Just looking at the Smith statement in Amaral's book. As an investigating member of the police force, I think he is a more reliable source than the press.

The Smiths ( a group of 4 adults and 5 children ) saw a man, aged between 30 and 35, dressed in beige trousers, height about 1.70-1.80 metres, with short brown hair, carrying a bare-foot, blond child dressed in light-coloured pyjamas, perhaps pink. The child's arms were hanging by her sides. This sighting occurred at approximately 21.55 on the evening of May 3rd.

On returning to Ireland and hearing that Robert Murat was considered as a main suspect at the time, they contacted the Irish police to say that the man they saw that evening was definitely not Murat. Mr Smth knew Murat and was certain that the man they'd seen wasn't him. With hindsight, they had become convinced, however, that the child they'd seen on May 3rd was Madeleine. They returned secretly to Portugal where Mr Smith and his son were questioned by the Portuguese police on May 26th. They were deemed to be credible witnesses.

In September 2007, having seen TV images of the McCanns' return to the UK and particularly the sight of McCann carrying Sean down the stairs of the plane, they are 'shocked' to recognise the appearance of McCann, his way of carrying the child, his manner of walking as being that of the man they saw in the streets of PDL on May 3rd.Mr Smith watched TV footage over and over again on various channels before making the decision to contact the Irish police. The Portuguse police, including the national director agree to ask the Smiths to return to Portugal to make a statement, but, after Amaral left the inquiry, it is the Irish police who take the statement. All this takes time and delays the whole procedure.

Find it interesting that Mr Smith, or at least Amaral, mention McCann's way of walking as such things are unique to everyone..

Wintabells wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:
Could be, like 'clam pickers' as they are known, otherwise just for decoration. GM seems to have both long and shorter beige pants.

That's it, yes... or is it 'clam diggers' even? Anyway, I reckon that's what they are - magic trousers for the master of illusion.

Yes, that's it 'clam diggers', I am unfamiliar with Mississippi delta parlance.

Anyway, in this pic GM is wearing 'shorties' but I can't see any buttons, however in the other pic 'with buttons' I'd suggest they are long pants, I think he is wearing them in the Wider Agenda pic. Maybe the button decoration is just a nod to fashion.

e.t.a. they are different trousers, the button ones have a seam across the knee, buttons and maybe pockets , like combats only in beige.
KM as I recall thought Gerry went out in jeans, the Smiths saw their man in long pants with buttons. Onda saw him in short beige pants in the bar at Praia da Luz around I think 11. 10 p.m. waiting for the police. Could have done a quick change routine for one reason or another.

ann_chovey wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:
Could be, like 'clam pickers' as they are known, otherwise just for decoration. GM seems to have both long and shorter beige pants.

That's it, yes... or is it 'clam diggers' even? Anyway, I reckon that's what they are - magic trousers for the master of illusion.

Yes, that's it 'clam diggers', I am unfamiliar with Mississippi delta parlance.

Anyway, in this pic GM is wearing 'shorties' but I can't see any buttons, however in the other pic 'with buttons' I'd suggest they are long pants, I think he is wearing them in the Wider Agenda pic. Maybe the button decoration is just a nod to fashion.

e.t.a. they are different trousers, the button ones have a seam across the knee, buttons and maybe pockets , like combats only in beige.
KM as I recall thought Gerry went out in jeans, the Smiths saw their man in long pants with buttons. Onda saw him in short beige pants in the bar at Praia da Luz around I think 11. 10 p.m. waiting for the police. Could have done a quick change routine for one reason or another.

Hi Ann_Chovey. You're absolutely right - the shorts are completely different to the long beige things with buttons. I'd quite forgotten that Kate bothered to invent notice what Gerry was wearing on the evening of May 3rd.

Tiny Tears in his magic pants.

Wintabells wrote:

Tiny Tears in his magic pants.

Wintabells wrote:

Tiny Tears in his magic pants.

his pants of ganga more like...

Wintabells wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:
Could be, like 'clam pickers' as they are known, otherwise just for decoration. GM seems to have both long and shorter beige pants.

That's it, yes... or is it 'clam diggers' even? Anyway, I reckon that's what they are - magic trousers for the master of illusion.

Yes, that's it 'clam diggers', I am unfamiliar with Mississippi delta parlance.

Anyway, in this pic GM is wearing 'shorties' but I can't see any buttons, however in the other pic 'with buttons' I'd suggest they are long pants, I think he is wearing them in the Wider Agenda pic. Maybe the button decoration is just a nod to fashion.

e.t.a. they are different trousers, the button ones have a seam across the knee, buttons and maybe pockets , like combats only in beige.
KM as I recall thought Gerry went out in jeans, the Smiths saw their man in long pants with buttons. Onda saw him in short beige pants in the bar at Praia da Luz around I think 11. 10 p.m. waiting for the police. Could have done a quick change routine for one reason or another.

Hi Ann_Chovey. You're absolutely right - the shorts are completely different to the long beige things with buttons. I'd quite forgotten that Kate bothered to invent notice what Gerry was wearing on the evening of May 3rd.

KM statement.......................

As the children were asleep, she dried her hair and put on make up. Gerry maybe had a shower and they sat on one of the sofas in the living room, she doesn’t know which one. She had a glass of wine, poured by Gerry, and he had wine or beer. The wine was from New Zealand, white.

Gerry was wearing blue denim trousers and sports shoes. She doesn’t remember what else he was wearing.

Smith's man....long beige trousers with buttons
Onda's man ...'cropped' beige trousers.

I take 'sports shoes' to mean trainers.

Aoife Smith....As regards his shoes she cannot say anything because she did not see them.

Aoife Smith says in her statement "At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember any detail. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, cut in a short style, short from behind (normal) and a bit longer on the top"

Aoife saw the face so why was she never asked or has there been any effort to get her to do an E-fit drawing? tanner gave lots from a faceless bundle man e-fits so why not Aoife Smith too? She can be 60% the girl was Maddie without seeing her face yet no mention of maybe gerry from actually seeing this mans face...mmmmm

When her father believes it was gerry he saw in sept 2007, why wasn't Aoife confirming or not if she felt it was gerry she saw? maybe she was in private but her father took the responsibility on his shoulders?

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8614-smith-family-statements?highlight=smith

I wonder if the Smith sighting will be mentioned in this upcoming Panorama programme. Wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. It would raise too many questions.

MaryB wrote:I wonder if the Smith sighting will be mentioned in this upcoming Panorama programme. Wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. It would raise too many questions.

the smith sighting has always been treated like a mad aunt in the corner of a room. you have to acknowledge she is there but you don't want to draw attention to her and you don't talk to her unless you absolutely have to. that is how they treat the sighting.

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

Personally I always believe the Smith sighting was set up by murat to give him an alibi but........what you say is without doubt so very true "..very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it"

And when they attack someone you know the person is credible in exposing the truth

Not sure what you mean by the alibi for Murat. I have thought about it but can't figure it out!

jd16 wrote:

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

Personally I always believe the Smith sighting was set up by murat to give him an alibi but........what you say is without doubt so very true "..very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it"

And when they attack someone you know the person is credible in exposing the truth

Hi Jd16, why would Murat need an alibi?

I've explained in one of the murat topics. To cut it short, the T9 were out to get murat as the abductor from day 1 (tanner even ID him from a police car) then one member from each pair suddenly backed up trying to put him at OC on the night of May 3rd seven days later. Murat is made suspect and all he has is his mothers say so he was at home. 4 days after murat is made suspect Martin Smith & family (after 2 whole weeks) suddenly realises despite it being on the news 24/7 that the man he saw might be of interest (pull the other one imo...2 weeks!!). The only fact he was 'certain' about in his statement is that it was 'not robert murat' he saw, even though he didn't see the face and he does't know murat except seeing one or 2 nights in bar a year previous.....How can he 'know' it was not murat if he does't know him or saw the man's face? This btw was something Smith wanted to point out in his statement....clearly on his mind to do so then

Then Sept 2007 when the mccanns are made suspects, Smith suddenly reappears again saying he is 80% sure it was gerry he saw. The T9 and murat all knew each other prior to the holiday and I can see the games going on behind the scenes. The mccanns leave the Smith sighting afar as they know it gives murat a credible alibi it was not him with the child, and that the sighting is pointing towards gerry being the man instead. However, kennedy swiftly sorted this out with their meeting in November and since this meeting the games have stopped and murat got his pay day the following few months with the newspaper payout....The T9 suddenly retract from their constant accusations of him. kate goes as far to say she never thought it was him....Its so full of contradictions and constant lies but why the T9 were trying to pin the abductor on him is the mysterious part to me

mossman wrote:

MaryB wrote:I wonder if the Smith sighting will be mentioned in this upcoming Panorama programme. Wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. It would raise too many questions.

the smith sighting has always been treated like a mad aunt in the corner of a room. you have to acknowledge she is there but you don't want to draw attention to her and you don't talk to her unless you absolutely have to. that is how they treat the sighting.

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

You're so right!

Also, they only accept this sighting if, and only if, it's linked with the JT sighting (so if it's the same guy at 9h15 and 10h).. Pat Brown pointed this out in her Profile.

jd16 wrote: The T9 and murat all knew each other prior to the holiday

Could you confirm how you know this, please?

jd16 wrote:

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

Personally I always believe the Smith sighting was set up by murat to give him an alibi but........what you say is without doubt so very true "..very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it"

And when they attack someone you know the person is credible in exposing the truth

Hi JD16, yes, when I first read the statement the thing that jumped out at me was that Murat clearly benefited from the statement. He was indeed "cleared" by an independent witness.

However I do not understand why he would then return to the Gardai and make his second accusation as regards GMcC. When you read the cover note
provided by the Garda, he certainly seems to think the statement was sincere.

I also think it difficult for us to read his and all other statements and get a full understanding of the discussions. They are written more as a synopsis to a discussion and talk in the past tense. Whilst it should have been enough for Mr Smith to say the man he saw was nobody he recognised from the area, if this were the case, but perhaps he was asked a direct question. Do you know Murat and was this him. Hence his reply ......it was not Murat....... If the statements took the format of the rogatory statements they may be clearer.

Personally, and this is obviously just speculation on my part, I think the McCanns did have some local help. Not to the extent whereby the assistant knew exactly what he or she was getting involved in. It might have been simply a case of giving a key to a property to them, on they basis they asked for same suggesting they wanted somewhere to go for some "fun". Something quite simple on the face of it. Whoever my have helped them out in this way would indeed have received one hell of a shock when what happened, happened. No reason not to come forward to the police obviously but who knows what was said / done / suggested in order for them to stay quiet.

I also feel Murats physical likeness to Payne could be a reason for the Tapas to so readily identify him and might yet turn out to be important in this.

Going back to the book, I would think part of the agreement with Murat, if there is one following Kennedys visit, was that they would publically retract what they said. This is Kate's offering, a couple of lines in the book.

I still go back to asking myself why, if that were not Gerry McCann the Smiths saw, are they so concerned about it. It could have been a fantastic stroke of luck for them. Child gone, man seen with child. Take Tanners sighting away and leave the Smith one stand, suddenly the story is much more simple and possibly believable.

No, Gerry knows Smith saw him and in a panic they came up with their own sighting, it was not thought through and done in a hurry. So their story is not credible.

The cannnot talk about both sightings, it does not make sense. They cannot retract their statement, it shows they lied. So ignore the Smith sighting to the best of their ability is all they can do with it.

If Mr Smith had been a lone Irishman wandering along the road after a few pints happy as Larry that night, things might have been different and worth taking a chance on. But there were a whole family, a group of adults, clearly not the worse for wear after a night out. Mrs Smith spoke to him, he knew then they were Irish, worse again. They would recognise a Scots accent in a second, disaster.

On balance I believe the Smiths.

mossman wrote:

MaryB wrote:I wonder if the Smith sighting will be mentioned in this upcoming Panorama programme. Wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. It would raise too many questions.

the smith sighting has always been treated like a mad aunt in the corner of a room. you have to acknowledge she is there but you don't want to draw attention to her and you don't talk to her unless you absolutely have to. that is how they treat the sighting.

it is one of the main reasons i think the sighting is very credible, purely because the mccanns choose to ignore it.

On the few occasions they didn't ignore it, they stated that the distance from 5a to the spot where the Smiths saw the man was 1.5 miles.
In fact is less than half that on foot. Easily done in less than 10 minutes.
Pat Brown checked it out on her visit there.

TM not 'using' the Smiths sighting made me sure it was too dangerous for them.
Then those trousers on the bed in one photo and gone the next, the bed was covered, so the change was done after the bed was made that day. Playing tennis, he wouldn't have worn those trousers. So the change from beige pants to jeans would have to have been that evening?

tigger wrote: TM not 'using' the Smiths sighting made me sure it was too dangerous for them.
Then those trousers on the bed in one photo and gone the next, the bed was covered, so the change was done after the bed was made that day. Playing tennis, he wouldn't have worn those trousers. So the change from beige pants to jeans would have to have been that evening?


Yes, possibly 2 changes, jeans to long beige and then to shorter beige ones.