Martin Smith

woodward wrote:The mccanns knew about the smith siting -it was all over the internet that clarence mitchell is always boasting about keeping an eye on-the irish family were doorstepped and harrassed to such an extent that they formally complained to the irish police-who -not being in thrall of the mccanns took the complaints seriously

Was that whilst Clarence was still employed by the UK Gov. ?

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:Sprite, they only want people to concentrate on their 'abductor'. It's a distraction.

But the Smith sighting should be a gift to them. Several completely independant witnesses, none of the inconsistancies surrounding JT's with Gerry and Jez not seeing her.

And yet they chose to ignore it.

Why?

Am I on ignore, when did they have it, how much detail did they have, surely you must know this in order to accuse them of ignoring it, it seems to me they publicised it as soon as they practically could, during the documentary after they had translated a vast chunk of the investigative files that contained the details.

are you suggesting the mccanns first learnt of the smiths testimonies was after they received the files?

that is not true - they would have known about it instantly from the papers - their media monitoring would have seen to that or clarence m

Exactly my point until they got the files they presumeably only had the same information that we did through the newspapers and that combined with the unwillingness of the Smith family to be any more involved means they could not have made a big thing of the sighting even if they wanted to. They didn't have the means.

so basically you are saying they couldn't have promoted any sighting/suspect until they had the files. are you having a laugh?

goodnight anyway, nice chatting

the Smith sighting was only given to the PJ and not to the Mccanns, I'm not sure what you expect them to do about that. So no, I'm not having a laugh. Good night.

i don't see that it matters who the sighting was given to - was there a competition? statements given to pj are not much and statements given to us are worth more?

an extremely credible sighting was published - whomever it was given to should not matter a jot but CHASED with no stone unturned, really going now, you know, last look and all that see you later

tyra -on that we can fully agree-they say dont shoot the messenger but in this case the messengers have directly distorted and interfered with the investigation some journos should have been arrested for wasting police time-lori campbell for one

tyra wrote:

Sprite wrote:

Nellie wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:tyra, I don't suppose they decided to reveal it in their documentary because Mr Amaral had mentioned it in his first. Because then they really had to address the issue, hadn't they?

What were they supposed to mention about it? None of The Smiths saw his face properly, and Mr Smith wasn't wearing his glasses. There was nothing to follow up on. Except the possibility of Madeleine being taken off on a boat. They are still looking for one boat that disappeared that night. It could be anywhere.

"What are they supposed to mention about it" ??

How about the fact that a group of people, independant to their holiday friends, saw a man carrying a blonde child around PDL at approx. the time Madeleine was supposed to be abducted?

You would expect them to be shouting from the roof tops about this sighting - it at least has some credibilty.

And yet we have press conferences about Cooperman and Pimpleman and Posh lookalikes instead.

There is some reason Team McCann wish to smother the Smith sighting.

It's not their job to do it, the only reason they could with Tanners is because she is their friend and gave permission, the Smiths did not want any further poublicity, refused to speak with the Mccanns and the description wasn't any better than the one they already had from jane, presumeably they assume it was the same person.

Mrs Cooper came to the McCanns and agreed to take part in a sketch and publicity, Pimpleman I can't remember before the files were out and Posh was recent, the information was given to them.

What's the difference between these witness accounts, the Smith one is the only one given ONLY to the PJ and not to the McCanns. You don't think that's at all relevant?

The fact the Smiths didnt want any further publicity would not have hindered the McCanns mentioning their sighting - lets face it, Team McCann have never seemed too concerned about publicising anything or anyone they want to. Many innocent people have found themselves dragged unwilling into this case.

If the McCanns assumed that it was the same person as JT saw then it would have enhanced JT's sighting a hundred fold - truly independant witnesses. But they didnt even mention it in passing. Which is very strange.

I think there is something very relevant in the fact that the Smith sighting was ignored by Team McCann until they were forced to ackowlegde it by Amarals documentary and book - Im just not sure why yet.

Im going to try and get some sleep now x

lori campbell? i heard her on youtube saying she rang the uk police on monday to inform them of her suspicions and according to the files her concerns were noted before at least the LP wrote a memo on the sunday 6th
who is forgetting dates? ah gone.............

I believe the Smith Family sighting is credible.There is no way that whole family were mistaken.I believe they seen GMcCann going to the Beach at 9.55pm on May 3rd carrying M. Also did'nt MS have a visit from Brian Kennedy back in Ireland. That in itself speaks volumes.

I have just been looking at the newly updated findmadeleine site. There is a section saying that two people remain of interest to the inquiry.

Why no Smith sighting I wonder!!

http://www.findmadeleine.com/contact-us.html

HUMMM the less said about Martin Smith seeing MR G the better i reckon.Truth and Lies dont mix.

I think they don't mention Smith because he's not a 'unknown' person. I was surprised though to still see the Posh alike on there.

They are so selective in the evidence they wish to promote. What about the 6 am sighting. That is a significant one and yet it is never mentioned. Which makes me think it might be an important one.

Now, you'd think that parents who truly believed that their child had been carted off by a stranger, swarthy or otherwise, would want to make sure the sketches were as accurate as possible, to jog the memories of potential witnesses. Not so, the McCanns, obviously. The two images of the swarthy man, show different styles of pyjamas and neither truly reflects how Maddie's pyjama would have looked, the ones she was said to have been wearing, had she been carried like that. In reality, the wide legs of the real pyjamas would have ridden up over her knees and her calves would have been bare. So, why haven't the McCanns commented on this? And why are they still showing images after over two years that must be inaccurate in a very important detail? (They're totally fabricated in the first place. So, it doesn't matter?)

26th May 2007 - Martin Smith & Family statements to PJ, confirming sighting of man carrying girl at 9:50pm, 3rd May 2007.

20th September 2007 - Memorandum added. Martin Smith has contacted the police to say he has witnessed Gerry descending from a plane on the TV News and is sure that he is the man he saw, that night, carrying Madeleine.

30th January 2008 - Irish Police report to PJ they have taken an additional statement from Martin Smith to confirm this.

However, the press report this latest development differently at the time:

Daily Mail – 3rd January 2008
"We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCann’s, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.

Sky News – 4th January 2008
The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.

Now the above press reports are technically true. Martin Smith's later statements are made to British and Irish police forces, not the PJ. But with clever semantics, it enables the press to completely gloss over the fact that Mr Smith had made his later statement to the police regarding his belief that he saw Gerry that night.

It's the timing that intrigues me. Weeks later in March 2008, the Express Group agree to an out of court settlement with the McCann’s. Reportedly, the McCann’s were asking for £4M. The Express was offering £250K. Lawyers had advised the Express they were completely f**ked. And yet, very quickly, an agreement is reached at £550K. A result for the Express, I would say, although Clarence Mitchell puts a very different spin on it at the time. Why didn’t the McCann’s hold out a little longer? If you have the high ground, the lawyers say you cannot lose, why agree to little more than 25% of the original claim?

I suspect, it has everything to do with keeping Martin Smith’s latest statement suppressed just long enough to reach an agreement.

Good point. I hadn't realised they had settled for so much less than they requested.

4m...greedy bastards!!!!


The mccanns KNEW the papers would accept out off court thats why they set a HIGH amount and the papers couldnt PROVE everything that their sources had told them.


Then again, the mccanns couldnt prove otherwise.

THE PAPERS BACKED DOWN.....

It will all come home to haunt them in the end. They are nobodys in the limelight being used as shields, when their use is no longer required they'll be thrown to the wolves.

If you remember poor Mr Smith was harrassed by YOU KNOW WHO!!


Didnt man off the year MR DOUBLE GLAZING visit Mr Smith?

The same as murat?

Change off subject.....mccanns were arquidos...the tapas 7 were witnesses....I THOUGHT IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW FOR AN ARQUIDO TO TALK TO A WITNESS!!

It's quite astonishing how this case of a missing child seems to have money at its very heart and has had from the very early days. But wherever the money comes from, I haven't heard of any family members or the parents themselves putting their house on the market, thus demonstrating how willing they are to make a financial sacrifice to continue the 'search' for Madeleine. That puzzles me, as with all the families I know, that would be the first thing they'd be doing if their child was missing and they needed money for a search. People do it all the time, in cases where a child is seriously ill and they need to raise money for treatment abroad; they also do it at times when a child shows promise in some area of sport, music or whatever, and they need money for training and travel, etc. Yet not in this case, where they seem to prefer to ask the cash-strapped public for money or get someone's book banned and demand his money.

Something very odd about this attitude, IMO.

:h

You are quite right dimsie you would have thought the parents would have put money in to help look for the daughter yes it is very odd

Eve wrote::h

You are quite right dimsie you would have thought the parents would have put money in to help look for the daughter yes it is very odd

They're way too greedy to put money in themselves, it's all money, money, money to them as long as it's not theirs. They also knew that it was pointless spending their money looking for their daughter as they knew her fate; it's just a farce that involves money kindly donated by the compassionate public.

Dimsie wrote:It's quite astonishing how this case of a missing child seems to have money at its very heart and has had from the very early days. But wherever the money comes from, I haven't heard of any family members or the parents themselves putting their house on the market, thus demonstrating how willing they are to make a financial sacrifice to continue the 'search' for Madeleine. That puzzles me, as with all the families I know, that would be the first thing they'd be doing if their child was missing and they needed money for a search. People do it all the time, in cases where a child is seriously ill and they need to raise money for treatment abroad; they also do it at times when a child shows promise in some area of sport, music or whatever, and they need money for training and travel, etc. Yet not in this case, where they seem to prefer to ask the cash-strapped public for money or get someone's book banned and demand his money.

Something very odd about this attitude, IMO.

i think to be honest that gerry mccanns brother in law did get his house valued to sell just incase they needed the money it all fell short though when the estate agent said "are you selling the brick shitehouse too"
"nah" he said "thats my wife philomena gerrys sister"

the one and only big_l wrote:

Dimsie wrote:It's quite astonishing how this case of a missing child seems to have money at its very heart and has had from the very early days. But wherever the money comes from, I haven't heard of any family members or the parents themselves putting their house on the market, thus demonstrating how willing they are to make a financial sacrifice to continue the 'search' for Madeleine. That puzzles me, as with all the families I know, that would be the first thing they'd be doing if their child was missing and they needed money for a search. People do it all the time, in cases where a child is seriously ill and they need to raise money for treatment abroad; they also do it at times when a child shows promise in some area of sport, music or whatever, and they need money for training and travel, etc. Yet not in this case, where they seem to prefer to ask the cash-strapped public for money or get someone's book banned and demand his money.

Something very odd about this attitude, IMO.

i think to be honest that gerry mccanns brother in law did get his house valued to sell just incase they needed the money it all fell short though when the estate agent said "are you selling the brick shitehouse too"
"nah" he said "thats my wife philomena gerrys sister"

malena stool wrote:

the one and only big_l wrote:

Dimsie wrote:It's quite astonishing how this case of a missing child seems to have money at its very heart and has had from the very early days. But wherever the money comes from, I haven't heard of any family members or the parents themselves putting their house on the market, thus demonstrating how willing they are to make a financial sacrifice to continue the 'search' for Madeleine. That puzzles me, as with all the families I know, that would be the first thing they'd be doing if their child was missing and they needed money for a search. People do it all the time, in cases where a child is seriously ill and they need to raise money for treatment abroad; they also do it at times when a child shows promise in some area of sport, music or whatever, and they need money for training and travel, etc. Yet not in this case, where they seem to prefer to ask the cash-strapped public for money or get someone's book banned and demand his money.

Something very odd about this attitude, IMO.

i think to be honest that gerry mccanns brother in law did get his house valued to sell just incase they needed the money it all fell short though when the estate agent said "are you selling the brick shitehouse too"
"nah" he said "thats my wife philomena gerrys sister"

big_l
The old ones are the best, so true in this case.......

I remember well an incident in the PCC Meeting where the Carter Ruck Lawyer was asked by one of the
Committee Members whether his Firm had taken the DE case on a no win no Fee basis.

The Lawyer looked a bit taken aback then said it was originally on a retainer (that"s why the Legal Expenses
of £111.000 appear in the Fund accounts) then on a no win no fee basis. Gerry buts in and says he was willing
to sell his house to get justice.He can do that to get money from the Express but not to keep searching for his
daughter!!!!!!

I find it hard to believe that a Law Firm whose Fees are reportedly £600 per hour would take on a case on a
no win no fee basis, what say you?

Beattie wrote:I remember well an incident in the PCC Meeting where the Carter Ruck Lawyer was asked by one of the
Committee Members whether his Firm had taken the DE case on a no win no Fee basis.

The Lawyer looked a bit taken aback then said it was originally on a retainer (that"s why the Legal Expenses
of £111.000 appear in the Fund accounts) then on a no win no fee basis. Gerry buts in and says he was willing
to sell his house to get justice.He can do that to get money from the Express but not to keep searching for his
daughter!!!!!!

I find it hard to believe that a Law Firm whose Fees are reportedly £600 per hour would take on a case on a
no win no fee basis, what say you?

as much chance as scotland qualifying for a big tournament beattie