Gonçalo Amaral claimed that so-called Smithman e-fits were simply a ruse!

[G-Unit]

your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone.  What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13.  Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!

Those authorities who have found nothing to progress the case you mean? Perhaps they should have put more effort into forensically examining the timeline then.

[ferryman]

I think it is also significant that Mrs Smith added in her statement (well after release of the files, where she made plain the Smiths had (both) long since forsaken any view that the man might be Gerry) that the man, nevertheless, had a similar build to Gerry.

That might well be (almost certainly was!) what led them both to the (initial, mistaken) impression that the man might have been Gerry.

[Robittybob1]

I think it is also significant that Mrs Smith added in her statement (well after release of the files, where she made plain the Smiths had (both) long since forsaken any view that the man might be Gerry) that the man, nevertheless, had a similar build to Gerry.

That might well be (almost certainly was!) what led them both to the (initial, mistaken) impression that the man might have been Gerry.

But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification.  He appears real keen to take up bits that suited his theory.  We are all a bit like this.

[pegasus]

But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification.  He appears real kean to take up bits that suited his theory.  We are all a bit like this.

Almost 3 months after Mr Amaral was taken off the case, the Irish police, on behalf the PJ Rebelo (not Amaral) investigation, took this statement from the witness on 23 Jan 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134

[mercury]

I think it is also significant that Mrs Smith added in her statement (well after release of the files, where she made plain the Smiths had (both) long since forsaken any view that the man might be Gerry) that the man, nevertheless, had a similar build to Gerry.

That might well be (almost certainly was!) what led them both to the (initial, mistaken) impression that the man might have been Gerry.

She did no such thing  you should stick to FACTS not your interpretaton of them

[ferryman]

But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification.  He appears real keen to take up bits that suited his theory.  We are all a bit like this.

That's fairly accurate, Rob, yes.

[Angelo222]

Have any of the Smiths ever given an interview about the events they witnessed that night or are they being prevented from doing so?

[Brietta]

Have any of the Smiths ever given an interview about the events they witnessed that night or are they being prevented from doing so?

The Smiths have been very discrete about the events of May 3 2007.  They have sought no publicity and have actively discouraged it by complaining vociferously about press intrusion into their privacy.
In my opinion there is nothing to prevent them from discussing the event in which they were involved except the intrusive scrutiny of what they have to say, to which they have already objected.

Should smithman ever be discovered and found to be worthy of prosecution, their self imposed silence could be valuable as their evidence would not be compromised or tainted by remarks made by them for public consumption.

Perhaps that personal constraint acts as a preventative measure of which they have become aware by their ability to recall features to enable efits which they were unable to divulge to the PJ at the time.  Who knows what else they were able to recall to the McCann private investigators which may also be of value to the investigation?

[ferryman]

Have any of the Smiths ever given an interview about the events they witnessed that night or are they being prevented from doing so?

Yes.

Mrs Smith gave an interview recently in which she said they (the Smiths) stand ready to support the McCanns in whatever way they can to  find Madeleine.

And I really don't understand why some people question the Smiths' probity based on the time that elapsed before they gave their interviews.

How long did it take to interview Mrs Fenn?

She was the person in closest to proximity to the apartment when Madeleine was abducted and a resident of PdL.

Yet it was weeks after the event that she was (finally) interviewed.

The Smiths had to travel (especially) from another country to be interviewed. alot more organising involved. 

[ferryman]

The Smiths have been very discrete about the events of May 3 2007.  They have sought no publicity and have actively discouraged it by complaining vociferously about press intrusion into their privacy.
In my opinion there is nothing to prevent them from discussing the event in which they were involved except the intrusive scrutiny of what they have to say, to which they have already objected.

Should smithman ever be discovered and found to be worthy of prosecution, their self imposed silence could be valuable as their evidence would not be compromised or tainted by remarks made by them for public consumption.

Perhaps that personal constraint acts as a preventative measure of which they have become aware by their ability to recall features to enable efits which they were unable to divulge to the PJ at the time.  Who knows what else they were able to recall to the McCann private investigators which may also be of value to the investigation?

Good post!

[ferryman]

Mrs Pamela Fenn (date of interview):

20 August 2007

Getting on for 4 months after Madeleine's abduction.

And she lived on the doorstep of where it all it happened (almost literally). 

[Brietta]

Mrs Pamela Fenn (date of interview):

20 August 2007

Getting on for 4 months after Madeleine's abduction.

And she lived on the doorstep of where it all it happened (almost literally).

In my opinion Mrs Fenn's statement lent nothing substantive to the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Apart from showing the missed opportunity and disregard of taking statements from close neighbours who might have been able to add to the narrative.
Careful questioning of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment immediately above Mrs Fenn and who were out and about in the street just before Madeleine was missed, might have relayed detail which although insignificant to them might have added intelligence to the police investigation. 

Whereas, if the Smith family did indeed encounter an individual carrying a child described as resembling the missing child
I wonder what direction the investigation might have taken had the Smith sighting been reported to the police on the 4th when the news broke of the disappearance of a little girl.

One outcome would have been the immediate availability of the CCTV images which would have confirmed the time of their return and thus given a good approximation of exactly when they had passed the stranger;  might even have captured an image of him and his direction of travel prior to encountering the Smiths.

Another outcome might have been that the heat did not settle on Robert Murat in quite the way it did and the focus of the investigation might have taken an entirely different path.

[ferryman]

In my opinion Mrs Fenn's statement lent nothing substantive to the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Apart from showing the missed opportunity and disregard of taking statements from close neighbours who might have been able to add to the narrative.
Careful questioning of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment immediately above Mrs Fenn and who were out and about in the street just before Madeleine was missed, might have relayed detail which although insignificant to them might have added intelligence to the police investigation. 

Whereas, if the Smith family did indeed encounter an individual carrying a child described as resembling the missing child
I wonder what direction the investigation might have taken had the Smith sighting been reported to the police on the 4th when the news broke of the disappearance of a little girl.

One outcome would have been the immediate availability of the CCTV images which would have confirmed the time of their return and thus given a good approximation of exactly when they had passed the stranger;  might even have captured an image of him and his direction of travel prior to encountering the Smiths.

Another outcome might have been that the heat did not settle on Robert Murat in quite the way it did and the focus of the investigation might have taken an entirely different path.

My point was, more, that I think the Smiths are being unfairly slated (in certain quarters) for 'not coming forward' before.

Judgement about the value or worth of statements (necessarily and by definition) must, always, be retrospective.

Beforehand, you just can't know.

[Brietta]

My point was, more, that I think the Smiths are being unfairly slated (in certain quarters) for 'not coming forward' before.

Judgement about the value or worth of statements (necessarily and by definition) must, always, be retrospective.

Beforehand, you just can't know.

Given the uncertainty shown by the Smith family individually and collectively the delay between reporting their version of events of the 3rd May and the penny dropping with Peter contacting his family to enquire was he dreaming or not allowed pressing events to move along a route they may not have otherwise taken.

Hindsight is an exact science.  Nor can one see through the Smith eyes as to why they made no connection with their observation as it related to the furore taking place in Luz and with which they were familiar from both near and afar.

Prior to 2013 and before going into the case in any greater detail than the tabloid stories of the time, I had been under the impression that the Tanner sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the investigating authority contemporaneously.

I found comprehending that was not what had happened very difficult to take on board.  Given the in-depth analysis which is usually derisory that other witness statements have been subject to, for example, Jane Tanner's sighting of a man outside the apartment block ... the Smith statements have met with extraordinary univeral credibility and acceptance.

[ferryman]

Given the uncertainty shown by the Smith family individually and collectively the delay between reporting their version of events of the 3rd May and the penny dropping with Peter contacting his family to enquire was he dreaming or not allowed pressing events to move along a route they may not have otherwise taken.

Hindsight is an exact science.  Nor can one see through the Smith eyes as to why they made no connection with their observation as it related to the furore taking place in Luz and with which they were familiar from both near and afar.

Prior to 2013 and before going into the case in any greater detail than the tabloid stories of the time, I had been under the impression that the Tanner sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the investigating authority contemporaneously.

I found comprehending that was not what had happened very difficult to take on board.  Given the in-depth analysis which is usually derisory that other witness statements have been subject to, for example, Jane Tanner's sighting of a man outside the apartment block ... the Smith statements have met with extraordinary univeral credibility and acceptance.

The Smiths made an initial statement (to the Portuguese police) on 26 May.

It was following the McCanns return to England (after they had been made arguidos) that Mr Smith (and to some extent, his wife, but never his children) formed a tentative (and hedged!) view that the man might have been Gerry.

I think the delay between Madeleine's abduction and the statement (on 26 May) was probably due to the logistics of organising it.