Smith Statement

STATEMENT TWO info
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.

The Smiths seem to have been contacted by Kennedy after they made their first statement and, from the sounds of it, before they made their second. In fact, I don't think Kennedy was involved with the McCann case until September 2007 (as far as the newspapers would have it, anyway).

Hi Wintabells,

Thanks for the info, the first report is rubbish...nothing like the original statement and the second statement dated 30th January 2008he is more positive it was Gerry he saw carrying the child from the plane which is puzzling . If the PJ hhan ad insisted on a recon after this bit of news they could have had Gerry carrying a Dummy starting 5a walking to the Restaurant. taking the same route Smith took to the street where he was seen by the Smith Family. My guess would be a lot less than the hour from 10pm to 11pm .

Panda wrote:

Hi Wintabells,

Thanks for the info, the first report is rubbish...nothing like the original statement and the second statement dated 30th January 2008he is more positive it was Gerry he saw carrying the child from the plane which is puzzling . If the PJ hhan ad insisted on a recon after this bit of news they could have had Gerry carrying a Dummy starting 5a walking to the Restaurant. taking the same route Smith took to the street where he was seen by the Smith Family. My guess would be a lot less than the hour from 10pm to 11pm .

Hi Panda - Not sure what you're meaning regarding the hour from 10pm to 11pm. The Smiths sighting was at 9.55pm or so... shortly before the alarm was raised by Kate.

My take on the Smiths is as follows:

Clearly the Smith family knew very well what Gerry McCann looked like once they'd returned to Ireland after their holiday and read/watched the news. However, in their first statement, they don't claim that the man they saw was Gerry McCann. This doesn't mean they didn't wonder if perhaps it was Gerry McCann and discuss the possibility amongst themselves, but what we know is that they didn't state to the police that they believed the man they saw was Gerry McCann.

Anyone who has witnessed a crime, made a statement to the police and/or attended court as a witness, knows it's not an easy thing to do. Stating that the person you saw was definitely person X, especially when you cannot be 100% certain, has enormously serious implications. That person's life could be destroyed because of you. That person could lose their children, wife, job, home, freedom and hope all because of you. The Smith family appear to be people who just want to get on with their lives and let the rest of the world get on with theirs. Why would they want to shoulder the responsibility for having someone charged with murdering their own child, hiding her body, lying to the police and defrauding the public, especially when that very person appears to be a fine, upstanding parent and doctor with absolutely no history of anything other than good, positive things? You'd have to be 100% certain before making such a decision, and even then, it would still be a very tough call.

I suspect that the Smiths had a feeling it was GMcC they saw on the street, but since they couldn't be sure, their attitude would be similar to what I imagine my own would have been. They'd have told the police the truth 'We'd never seen him before', described what they saw and left the rest to the police. They may even have hoped there'd be other witnesses who'd seen the same man, making their own sighting of less significance than the statements of those other witnesses. As time went on and the finger of suspicion began to point towards the McC's, they'd have felt relieved that the person/s they suspected were responsible for the missing child looked like they were going to be brought to justice. But it didn't happen. Those very people were freed from police questioning and allowed to return, apparently free, to the UK. Seeing Gerry emerging from the plane, carrying his child in exactly the same way, with his head tilted at exactly the same angle, and his entire demeanour exactly the same as it was when they saw him back in May 2007, perhaps made it impossible for the consciences of some members of the Smith family to remain silent. Perhaps this is why they decided to be brave, contact the police again and share their concerns.

"Anyone who has witnessed a crime, made a statement to the police and/or attended court as a witness, knows it's not an easy thing to do. Stating that the person you saw was definitely person X, especially when you cannot be 100% certain, has enormously serious implications. That person's life could be destroyed because of you. That person could lose their children, wife, job, home, freedom and hope all because of you."

Agreed 100%! Interesting though how easy it was for Jane Tanner, Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien, and Rachel Oldfield to all positively identify Robert Murat, especially since none of them had ever even met him before.

Sorry Wintabells,

Of course I meant 9-10pm , 9 pm time from Tanner seeing Eggman to Smith sighting at at 10pm. I wonder if the Police walked the distance ...I doubt
it would have taken an hour.

Trouble is, there are so many different Press Reports of the same incident it's hard to know which is the most reliable.

Panda wrote:
Sorry Wintabells,

Of course I meant 9-10pm , 9 pm time from Tanner seeing Eggman to Smith sighting at at 10pm. I wonder if the Police walked the distance ...I doubt
it would have taken an hour.

Trouble is, there are so many different Press Reports of the same incident it's hard to know which is the most reliable.

pat brown walked the distance, this is what she says:-

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner.

Wintabells
Thank you for clearing up the kennedy visit.

Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning mossman......aren't you the clever one

Right, there is no way these sightings can be linked , yet the descriptions have these men wearing similar clothes??? As GErry would say "It"s Ludicrous"

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

Hi Panda - thanks!

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

Hi Panda, it maybe nothing, but why would the
Smiths ask if the child was asleep? I find this
odd. Most people confronted by an adult with
a child in their arms late at night would assume
the child would be a sleeping child. So why ask?
They state that the child's eyes were closed so
sleeping would be a logical deduction but asking
for confirmation is very odd, is it not? Not unless
complexion, or posture, or other triggered concern?
enough to ask.

What a nightmare this is.

There only reason to question the length of time between Tanner's sighting and the Smiths' one, is a) if one believes Tanner's sighting and b) believes it to be the same bloke as the Smiths' saw.

It's incredible to imagine that Tanner would be willing to invent a sighting to protect two people she hardly knew (Gerry/Kate) so did she invent it to protect someone else? someone who didn't have an alibi at that moment and was very important to her?

Or maybe she really did see someone, but he wasn't abducting and/or hasn't come forward to be eliminated, or has being eliminated but the police haven't revealed this.

If it was Gerry who the Smiths saw, there really must have been a pact of silence within the entire group, because none of them said he was missing from the table at any point after he returned from his 9.05pm 'check'.

Or, Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and the Smiths saw the same guy who was still inexplicably roaming around with his plunder... or, Smithman was some innocent bloke carrying a child who hasn't come forward to be eliminated.

It's very odd that until the Police files were released, the McCanns focussed on Tannerman and not Smithman, given that the latter was definitely carrying a child, whereas Tannerman initially was described (by Gerry) as carrying 'a bundle' that may have been a child.

marxman wrote:
Hi Panda, it maybe nothing, but why would the
Smiths ask if the child was asleep? I find this
odd. Most people confronted by an adult with
a child in their arms late at night would assume
the child would be a sleeping child. So why ask?
They state that the child's eyes were closed so
sleeping would be a logical deduction but asking
for confirmation is very odd, is it not? Not unless
complexion, or posture, or other triggered concern?
enough to ask.

I think some people just can't allow a social silence, so they have to fill it with something... anything... no matter how pointless.

I can imagine it being said in that sort of empathic, 'aww... how sweet,' sort of tone.

NoStone wrote:

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

Hi Panda - thanks!

I"m beginning to think none of us really knows what went on that night and we pay too much attention to Press reporting , forgetting it is often inaccurate. We can certainly acknowledge neglect , lies re the timelines and general unhelpfulness but everything else is supposition.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

Hi Panda, it maybe nothing, but why would the
Smiths ask if the child was asleep? I find this
odd. Most people confronted by an adult with
a child in their arms late at night would assume
the child would be a sleeping child. So why ask?
They state that the child's eyes were closed so
sleeping would be a logical deduction but asking
for confirmation is very odd, is it not? Not unless
complexion, or posture, or other triggered concern?
enough to ask.

Morning Marxman.... Mr Smith never said it, in either of his statements, it's what you call poetic licence in the Press.!!!

Wintabells wrote:What a nightmare this is.

There only reason to question the length of time between Tanner's sighting and the Smiths' one, is a) if one believes Tanner's sighting and b) believes it to be the same bloke as the Smiths' saw.

It's incredible to imagine that Tanner would be willing to invent a sighting to protect two people she hardly knew (Gerry/Kate) so did she invent it to protect someone else? someone who didn't have an alibi at that moment and was very important to her?

Or maybe she really did see someone, but he wasn't abducting and/or hasn't come forward to be eliminated, or has being eliminated but the police haven't revealed this.

If it was Gerry who the Smiths saw, there really must have been a pact of silence within the entire group, because none of them said he was missing from the table at any point after he returned from his 9.05pm 'check'.


Or, Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and the Smiths saw the same guy who was still inexplicably roaming around with his plunder... or, Smithman was some innocent bloke carrying a child who hasn't come forward to be eliminated.

It's very odd that until the Police files were released, the McCanns focussed on Tannerman and not Smithman, given that the latter was definitely carrying a child, whereas Tannerman initially was described (by Gerry) as carrying 'a bundle' that may have been a child.

I think it suspicious Tanner told RACHEL some hours later that she had seen Eggman, why didn't she tell Kate of Gerry? Maybe, they all realised they could be guilty of neglect apart from the Paynes who had a Monitor. The Timeslines were quickly worked out to save their skins and Jane asked to say
she saw Eggman while Gerry was talking to Jez Wilkins . Do we know what time on 4th May she made her statement, did she tell the Police when they
came to PDL? That would be the first thing to do.

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

I do not have time now, but i think if mrs smiths statement is checked she mentioned at the time that it was she who said something like ah is she asleep and got no response which she thought odd.
irish people have a way about them and the way they make conversation in passing. they sometimes state the obvious. for example, you could walk along the road in five feet of snow and pass a person who will say "it is snowing" and the response would be "it is". i do not think it strange she asked.

i do not think the sightings are connected either. gerry mccann knows he was seen by smith and because mrs smith spoke to him he knows they were irish. had he replied they would immediately have recognised a scottish accent.

jane tanners sighting came about because of this, hence the similar description of the clothing but the totally faceless man. trying to be as vague about the features as possible. had smith not seen mccann, tanners sighting might not exist. perhaps a sighting was never part of their plan but they needed something after bumping into the smiths. quite why tanner was the willing participant is hard to fathom. perhaps the time of her sighting was chosen because it was the one time that gerry had an alibi outside of the group as he was talking to wilkins.

mccann could not have been unluckier that night. it was not just one mr smith, it was a whole family of them, so no chance of rubbishing one individual, smith had back up as to what he saw and plenty of it.

the mccanns have ignored him and his sighting to the best of their ability. if mr smith had been alone that night i bet my house things would have been different. god knows what spin would have been put on it. he would be sending suspect pictures of himself to ricardo pavia by now i bet.

i believe the smiths.

any discussions that kennedy had with him had obviously no impact . he named mccann after that meeting so i can see no reason why he would change that statement now. worse again for the mccanns he could alibi murat who they wanted to point the finger at back then and this was in his first statement so there is a good chance the mccanns knew this.

the more i think about it the more i am convinced mr smith is a lucky man not to have been alone that night. he would have been taken apart one way or another, had he been a lone man strolling along the road back to his apartment.

just my opinion for what it is worth.

I applaud you Mossman, excellent

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:Thanks wintabells - that helps me a lot. Panda - why do you say the first article is rubbish?? - in comparison with what - the actual statement? Why did Smith have to take legal action to stop inaccurate reporting - what was beng reported inaccurately??

Morning NoStone Statement 1

from the sky news report by John Kelly


The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.

This was never said in either of his statements!!

I do not have time now, but i think if mrs smiths statement is checked she mentioned at the time that it was she who said something like ah is she asleep and got no response which she thought odd.
irish people have a way about them and the way they make conversation in passing. they sometimes state the obvious. for example, you could walk along the road in five feet of snow and pass a person who will say "it is snowing" and the response would be "it is". i do not think it strange she asked.

i do not think the sightings are connected either. gerry mccann knows he was seen by smith and because mrs smith spoke to him he knows they were irish. had he replied they would immediately have recognised a scottish accent.

jane tanners sighting came about because of this, hence the similar description of the clothing but the totally faceless man. trying to be as vague about the features as possible. had smith not seen mccann, tanners sighting might not exist. perhaps a sighting was never part of their plan but they needed something after bumping into the smiths. quite why tanner was the willing participant is hard to fathom. perhaps the time of her sighting was chosen because it was the one time that gerry had an alibi outside of the group as he was talking to wilkins.

mccann could not have been unluckier that night. it was not just one mr smith, it was a whole family of them, so no chance of rubbishing one individual, smith had back up as to what he saw and plenty of it.

the mccanns have ignored him and his sighting to the best of their ability. if mr smith had been alone that night i bet my house things would have been different. god knows what spin would have been put on it. he would be sending suspect pictures of himself to ricardo pavia by now i bet.

i believe the smiths.

any discussions that kennedy had with him had obviously no impact . he named mccann after that meeting so i can see no reason why he would change that statement now. worse again for the mccanns he could alibi murat who they wanted to point the finger at back then and this was in his first statement so there is a good chance the mccanns knew this.

the more i think about it the more i am convinced mr smith is a lucky man not to have been alone that night. he would have been taken apart one way or another, had he been a lone man strolling along the road back to his apartment.

just my opinion for what it is worth.

irish people have a way about them and the way they make conversation in passing.

Mossman, I was just sitting here thinking about how sometimes we (speaking for myself anyway!) say something just to make conversation, something that might sound daft or obvious. I could imagine saying something like "Is she asleep?" on passing a man carrying a child who appeared to be being carried in a loving and protective way.

marxman wrote:I applaud you Mossman, excellent

Yes me too. Spot on Mossman!

Just to add to all the above, Mossman and AnnaEsse - great! Exactly what I thought.

When Gerry told his relatives on the phone 'it's a disaster - it's a disaster!' - he wasn't talking about Maddy disappearing, but about the GNR not being masons and not recognizing his 'cry for help', about the Smiths - instead of having one lone sighting he got a whole bunch. (I don't believe it was Maddy he was carrying) spread out over the whole road, so that he would be seen from any angle.

What I totally fail to understand about JT's sighting is that it is down on the first two timelines, one of which was signed by Gerry. So who didn't know what when?

Morning mossman, well if it WAS Mrs Smith who said it...see how sloppy Reporters are? it makes all the difference.


However, here we are with the Crime of the Century as far as Portugal is concerned, yet the PJ made no attempt while he was in PDL in May and the McCanns were still there to take him around PDL like they did Tanner. Had he confirmed then that Gerry was the Man he saw , his Family would have backed him up and we wouldn't be writing this.

I believe Smith and his Family saw someone, but it wasn't Gerry.

Hi Panda, I went to find Mrs Smiths statement but found something else first which i have copied below. It is, for me anyway, interesting, in particular the phrases used, which i have highlighted. Now I know for a fact that when i became interested in all of this i read a document which said mr smith had stated he was saying he was only 80% sure it was mccann he saw because having discussed it with his wife he thought it better to leave a little room for doubt as he was aware what he was saying could ruin somebodys life and on the off chance he was wrong he was going to say he was only 80% sure. This is what he was saying in general terms, what i read was written far more clearly and eloquently than i am doing here. It was absolutely not from a press article as at that time i made a point of reading only the official files and not press articles so that i would have the background in my head and would know it to be true.

This evening i am going to go back and find that document along with mrs smiths statement which i cannot seem to find at the minute. But from below mr smith seems to be rather shaken and it is copied mr stuart prior. I assume returning to the uk is an error and should be ireland.

Still after all perhaps you are right and it was not mccann they saw. The fact that the mccanns don't want to talk about him though is strange.


Email from John Hughes to DIC Portimao, C.C. to Stuart Prior
20th September 2007

Subject: Fwd Smith family

From Lindsay Long to John Hughes

20th September 2007

Re – Smith family

Location : Portugal Out of Force Area

Origin: Mr Martin Smith Ireland.

Text: Reported that he had 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 May and returned to UK. Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM 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 male seen the night Maddie 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 OP task ring him back. He was with group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite worried and shaken whilst speaking to me

Panda wrote:Morning mossman, well if it WAS Mrs Smith who said it...see how sloppy Reporters are? it makes all the difference.


However, here we are with the Crime of the Century as far as Portugal is concerned, yet the PJ made no attempt while he was in PDL in May and the McCanns were still there to take him around PDL like they did Tanner. Had he confirmed then that Gerry was the Man he saw , his Family would have backed him up and we wouldn't be writing this.

I believe Smith and his Family saw someone, but it wasn't Gerry.

So why didn't the McCanns get their pink mouthpiece to acknowledge it? He certainly managed to acknowledge pockman, eggman, bundleman, georgeharrisman, and toothyman, etc. But not a peep about the family who saw a man carrying a blonde child about Maddie's age with no shoes on shortly after the alleged abduction. Mitchell would have been all over Sky News with his flip chart pointing to the attire and direction of this child carrying man if the McCanns weren't scared to death of it!

imo