The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Pershing36 wrote:

galena wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering what the link is between Smith & Murat as to how well they really knew each other and in what capacity? My guess is they knew each other very well If Martin was willing to stick his neck out for Murat to give him an alibi? And then how could Martin be so certain who they saw if it was such a vague description of the man they supposedly saw to know it was not Murat? But if it was only to cover for Murat that they saw some mystery man carrying a small child, and they fabricated that man to get Murat off the hook? Dunno.

Murat seems to have been a bit of a fixer the guy who could get stuff done.  Maybe Smith owed him a  favour and this was his chance to repay it?  Just a thought ...

I always felt that Murat was thought of a kind of fixer guy, maybe a romancer who said innocently he could 'fix' things.  He went in to help with his bi-lingual skills but was quickly sussed out as not the connected man he portrayed himself as.  Once his weakness was exposed he was made the Patsy in the case.

He certainly gives the impression to me of someone who knows more than he's telling ...

Mirage wrote:Back to basics. Forget the recons. Forget the Smiths. Forget Tannerman. Forget everything put in the public domain for our edification and stupefaction.

Some knowns:-

 A child disappeared.
No evidence of an abduction.
Lies told about the state of the apartment.
Conflicting statements from T9
False testimony against RM
T9 able to read each others' statements prior to LP rogatories
A subsequent pact of silence sworn by T9 when back in the UK
A sighting promoted by T9 and discredited after 6.5 yrs.
Another sighting kept from the public for 6.5 years by former arguidos, now promoted.
Alerts to cadaverine and blood given by two world-renowned sniffer dogs, independently, and to objects and places associated with two people now declared non-suspects by MET.
The Portuguese investigator removed from post having reached conclusion parents were suspects
Unprecedented expenditure of £6million and rising on the review and investigation.
Almost zero reportage of the McCann v Amaral libel case.
Non-co-operation by UK in the early stages of investigation regarding basic information to be sent to PT investigation.
No evidence in word or deed of current co-operation between Portuguese and UK investigators
Public comment on the case systematically supressed.



 Only the public in numbers can force this issue. We now have to be as canny as the Mcs in our PR and it is the time, after 6 wearying years, to stay strong for Madeleine's sake.

In a nutshell.

Well said

galena wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

galena wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering what the link is between Smith & Murat as to how well they really knew each other and in what capacity? My guess is they knew each other very well If Martin was willing to stick his neck out for Murat to give him an alibi? And then how could Martin be so certain who they saw if it was such a vague description of the man they supposedly saw to know it was not Murat? But if it was only to cover for Murat that they saw some mystery man carrying a small child, and they fabricated that man to get Murat off the hook? Dunno.

Murat seems to have been a bit of a fixer the guy who could get stuff done.  Maybe Smith owed him a  favour and this was his chance to repay it?  Just a thought ...

I always felt that Murat was thought of a kind of fixer guy, maybe a romancer who said innocently he could 'fix' things.  He went in to help with his bi-lingual skills but was quickly sussed out as not the connected man he portrayed himself as.  Once his weakness was exposed he was made the Patsy in the case.

He certainly gives the impression to me of someone who knows more than he's telling ...

Some posters speculate that Maddie died earlier in the week due to research done on the mobile phone records and the discovery of forged signatures on the creche records leading to the probability of a substitute child who took Maddie's place the whole week. Jane Tanner received or made a call at about 4am on 29 April, 2007 which is suspicious at that time of the morning. It is thought that AFTER Maddie died, a call was made to him asking him to return to PDL urgently. He caught an early morning flight at 4am IIRC on the Monday having booked it at about 2am. When asked, why he returned, he said he had to see his solicitor.  I do not know where I can check these details now but that is how I remember it. The research that Tony did revealed 17 lies from Statement 1 to Statement 2 and the research Dewi Lennard on the mobile phone records revealed that Gerry and Murat were in touch before May 3 as their phones were switched on and off at exactly the same time for 30 hours from May 2 to May 3.

Estelle wrote:

galena wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

galena wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering what the link is between Smith & Murat as to how well they really knew each other and in what capacity? My guess is they knew each other very well If Martin was willing to stick his neck out for Murat to give him an alibi? And then how could Martin be so certain who they saw if it was such a vague description of the man they supposedly saw to know it was not Murat? But if it was only to cover for Murat that they saw some mystery man carrying a small child, and they fabricated that man to get Murat off the hook? Dunno.

Murat seems to have been a bit of a fixer the guy who could get stuff done.  Maybe Smith owed him a  favour and this was his chance to repay it?  Just a thought ...

I always felt that Murat was thought of a kind of fixer guy, maybe a romancer who said innocently he could 'fix' things.  He went in to help with his bi-lingual skills but was quickly sussed out as not the connected man he portrayed himself as.  Once his weakness was exposed he was made the Patsy in the case.

He certainly gives the impression to me of someone who knows more than he's telling ...

Some posters speculate that Maddie died earlier in the week due to research done on the mobile phone records and the discovery of forged signatures on the creche records leading to the probability of a substitute child who took Maddie's place the whole week. Jane Tanner received or made a call at about 4am on 29 April, 2007 which is suspicious at that time of the morning. It is thought that AFTER Maddie died, a call was made to him asking him to return to PDL urgently. He caught an early morning flight at 4am IIRC on the Monday having booked it at about 2am. When asked, why he returned, he said he had to see his solicitor.  I do not know where I can check these details now but that is how I remember it. The research that Tony did revealed 17 lies from Statement 1 to Statement 2 and the research Dewi Lennard on the mobile phone records revealed that Gerry and Murat were in touch before May 3 as their phones were switched on and off at exactly the same time for 30 hours from May 2 to May 3.

That's rather a stunning claim about GMcC not being in the apartment. Any evidence?

Okeydokey wrote:

Estelle wrote:

galena wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

galena wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering what the link is between Smith & Murat as to how well they really knew each other and in what capacity? My guess is they knew each other very well If Martin was willing to stick his neck out for Murat to give him an alibi? And then how could Martin be so certain who they saw if it was such a vague description of the man they supposedly saw to know it was not Murat? But if it was only to cover for Murat that they saw some mystery man carrying a small child, and they fabricated that man to get Murat off the hook? Dunno.

Murat seems to have been a bit of a fixer the guy who could get stuff done.  Maybe Smith owed him a  favour and this was his chance to repay it?  Just a thought ...

I always felt that Murat was thought of a kind of fixer guy, maybe a romancer who said innocently he could 'fix' things.  He went in to help with his bi-lingual skills but was quickly sussed out as not the connected man he portrayed himself as.  Once his weakness was exposed he was made the Patsy in the case.

He certainly gives the impression to me of someone who knows more than he's telling ...

Some posters speculate that Maddie died earlier in the week due to research done on the mobile phone records and the discovery of forged signatures on the creche records leading to the probability of a substitute child who took Maddie's place the whole week. Jane Tanner received or made a call at about 4am on 29 April, 2007 which is suspicious at that time of the morning. It is thought that AFTER Maddie died, a call was made to him asking him to return to PDL urgently. He caught an early morning flight at 4am IIRC on the Monday having booked it at about 2am. When asked, why he returned, he said he had to see his solicitor.  I do not know where I can check these details now but that is how I remember it. The research that Tony did revealed 17 lies from Statement 1 to Statement 2 and the research Dewi Lennard on the mobile phone records revealed that Gerry and Murat were in touch before May 3 as their phones were switched on and off at exactly the same time for 30 hours from May 2 to May 3.

That's rather a stunning claim about GMcC not being in the apartment. Any evidence?

I did not state that Gerry was not in the apartment. Which post are you talking about?

You don't need to repost the entire thread to rebut something like that....makes it really hard to read especially on mobile devices. Admin has asked repeatedly for us to all think really hard about whether we use the 'quote' or 'reply' buttons and if we DO quote, can we at least just snip it down the the really pertinent bits only? Thanks in advance

I echo that, Prof.

Less is more is my philosophy!

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:They, the McCanns, have never, ever, PRODUCED a minutest piece of 'evidence' that an 'abduction' occurred.

They have.
Up until now, we have had their word PLUS Tannerman.
Redwood has found Tannerman - it was crecheman.
The abduction evidence is now their word PLUS Smithman.
It is as simple as that.
I hopes that clears it up.

Quite so.  Neatly sums up the entire case.
And if Smithman turns out to be another loving father holding his little daughter in the approved manner . . . ?
Or Smithman turns out to have been a trick of the light, and succession of shadows thrown by a passing weather balloon reflecting the light off Venus  (Men in Black 1 !) . . .
The evidence for abduction remains exactly the same.
The McCanns - and ONLY the McCanns - say so.  

Not even Mrs Matorell from Carter-Ruck said so.

No one else has ever provided a shred of evidence to say so.

But Gerry McCann says she was abducted.  And surely he is an honourable man

Neither Tannerman nor Smithman are evidence of abduction. Unless someone has covered up irrefutable conclusive proof that it was Maddie being carried and concluded that a father could have 'abducted' his own daughter in that situation.

The only 'evidence' the McCanns have ever provided for an abduction is that they said that is what happened.

The worrying thing in this totally unprecedented case is that now every man and his dog (phrase deliberately chosen and of course the 'male' reference includes 'female' alike) is offering their 'tuppenceworth' on every piece of information in the files.

I believe in the 80-20 rule when it comes to a human being's observance of morals and ethics.

I place the McCanns firmly in the 20, given that they have consistently demonstrated an unflinching ability to lie through their back teeth.

I would put the Smith family in the 80.

Whether one places another human being in the 80 or the 20 will determine one's ability to believe that what that other human being says happened truly did happen.

I am going to copy and paste the two statements made by Martin Smith, as some people appear to be having difficulty accessing the PJ Files:

1606 to 1610 Witness testimony of Martin Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting

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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT 30.1.2008@

4134 Cover of fax re: Dublin correspondence (English)
4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)
4140 Email

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

Liam Hogan

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

I realise this thread is about the Smith`s till receipts but as sallypelt has retrieved it I`ll just mention something I found odd about the press interview Martin Smith gave to Tom Pettifor of The Daily Mirror straight after the Crimewatch programme.  Martin Smith is saying he made his statement soon after Maddie disappeared, the PJ did not take him seriously because they were more interested in the Jane Tanner sighting, and he said he provided details for an efit a year later but this only became public 6 years later.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
 
"
A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.
Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.
But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.
Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.
 
Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.
He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

Its odd that Martin Smith has seemed to join the `let`s run down the PJ` brigade.