Author Topic: The Smith family sighting.  (Read 3957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

The Smith family sighting.
« on: April 08, 2013, 12:42:20 PM »
There's another detail:

G.A. - They can reveal who was the person that carried the child on that night on its way to the beach. According to an Irish couple statement, with an alleged 80% certainty, it was Gerald McCann himself. That could be the confirmation of that Irish couple's statement.


Martin Smith: 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm


The "60-" seems to have disappeared.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 01:04:59 PM by Admin »

debunker

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 12:58:20 PM »
60-80 % - mindset again- only remembering the most favorable option.

Offline gilet

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 01:29:09 PM »
There's another detail:

G.A. - They can reveal who was the person that carried the child on that night on its way to the beach. According to an Irish couple statement, with an alleged 80% certainty, it was Gerald McCann himself. That could be the confirmation of that Irish couple's statement.


Martin Smith: 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm


The "60-" seems to have disappeared.

Why do [ censored word] such as Bennett and Hideho and now C.Edwards use such disgraceful misquotations. There can be only two reasons that I can think of. They are genuinely ignorant of the facts and true quotations or they are deliberately trying to deceive people.

Offline gilet

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »
That "60" has a habit of doing a disappearing act in some quarters.  Not that 80% certain means anything apart from "not certain".

Correct. It is proof of nothing.

And isn't it interesting that these people never do mention that none, not one, of the other Smiths that night make even a 1% suggestion that it might be Gerry. I wonder why they always ignore the fact that Mr. Smith's view was not held by the others at all? That his, in fact, was the odd view and the others all agreed.

Online Eleanor

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2013, 01:35:00 PM »
There's another detail:

G.A. - They can reveal who was the person that carried the child on that night on its way to the beach. According to an Irish couple statement, with an alleged 80% certainty, it was Gerald McCann himself. That could be the confirmation of that Irish couple's statement.


Martin Smith: 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm


The "60-" seems to have disappeared.

Why do [ censored word] such as Bennett and Hideho and now C.Edwards use such disgraceful misquotations. There can be only two reasons that I can think of. They are genuinely ignorant of the facts and true quotations or they are deliberately trying to deceive people.

They are deliberately trying to deceive people.  In My Opinion.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2013, 01:55:34 PM »
That "60" has a habit of doing a disappearing act in some quarters.  Not that 80% certain means anything apart from "not certain".

Correct. It is proof of nothing.

And isn't it interesting that these people never do mention that none, not one, of the other Smiths that night make even a 1% suggestion that it might be Gerry. I wonder why they always ignore the fact that Mr. Smith's view was not held by the others at all? That his, in fact, was the odd view and the others all agreed.
Martin S said his wife was the only one who agreed with him but she wouldn't testify. His son was worried with his wife and hardly looked at the carrier. Now would a father let his young daughter (A., who made a precise description of the carrier) make a crucial statement concerning the identity of someone (either positive or negative) ? Too much responsibility, personally I never would, even if I were 90% certain, since after all nobody's life was at stake. Even MS hesitated during 3 days. The only possible conclusion is that the carrier was somehow Gerryalike.

Offline John

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2013, 02:02:50 PM »
I have found that the identification of people is something which leaves a lot to be desired.  Undoubtedly Mr Smith wanted it to be Gerry McCann but when his family couldn't back him up in this he relented and went with the 'maybe' scenario.

Surely even he can appreciate that Gerry couldn't possibly be the person he saw as he was sat in the taps bar enjoying his meal at 10pm.   I don't think the Irish have invented the time machine just yet.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposι of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online Eleanor

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2013, 03:04:05 PM »

I seem to remember something about Mr. Smith and his glasses, and not wearing of.  But not sure about this.  Can anyone help?
Hopeless I am at finding stuff.  But I do have a phenomenal memory.

Offline Carana

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2013, 03:22:23 PM »
That "60" has a habit of doing a disappearing act in some quarters.  Not that 80% certain means anything apart from "not certain".

Correct. It is proof of nothing.

And isn't it interesting that these people never do mention that none, not one, of the other Smiths that night make even a 1% suggestion that it might be Gerry. I wonder why they always ignore the fact that Mr. Smith's view was not held by the others at all? That his, in fact, was the odd view and the others all agreed.
Martin S said his wife was the only one who agreed with him but she wouldn't testify. His son was worried with his wife and hardly looked at the carrier. Now would a father let his young daughter (A., who made a precise description of the carrier) make a crucial statement concerning the identity of someone (either positive or negative) ? Too much responsibility, personally I never would, even if I were 90% certain, since after all nobody's life was at stake. Even MS hesitated during 3 days. The only possible conclusion is that the carrier was somehow Gerryalike.


Could you explain this, AnneGuedes?

Are you suggesting that Martin Smith did not want her to make a further statement so as to protect her because she was a minor?

Possible, I suppose.

Why wouldn't the elder son (the one with the wife...) not feel able to testify if he had shared his father's view?


AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2013, 06:17:18 PM »
That "60" has a habit of doing a disappearing act in some quarters.  Not that 80% certain means anything apart from "not certain".

Correct. It is proof of nothing.

And isn't it interesting that these people never do mention that none, not one, of the other Smiths that night make even a 1% suggestion that it might be Gerry. I wonder why they always ignore the fact that Mr. Smith's view was not held by the others at all? That his, in fact, was the odd view and the others all agreed.
Martin S said his wife was the only one who agreed with him but she wouldn't testify. His son was worried with his wife and hardly looked at the carrier. Now would a father let his young daughter (A., who made a precise description of the carrier) make a crucial statement concerning the identity of someone (either positive or negative) ? Too much responsibility, personally I never would, even if I were 90% certain, since after all nobody's life was at stake. Even MS hesitated during 3 days. The only possible conclusion is that the carrier was somehow Gerryalike.


Could you explain this, AnneGuedes?

Are you suggesting that Martin Smith did not want her to make a further statement so as to protect her because she was a minor?

Possible, I suppose.

Why wouldn't the elder son (the one with the wife...) not feel able to testify if he had shared his father's view?
The elder son wasn't able to add anything to his first statement (not surprising since his pregnant wife was not feeling well).
We don't know whether the young daughter did or didn't have the same feeling. Does the law allow questioning a minor on that kind of topic ?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2013, 06:37:24 PM »
Mr Smith's daughter Aofe (an excellent witness) was very sure and precise about the time, not of the sighting, but of when they left the bar. 

She was so because she recalled that some of their party were returning home to Ireland the following morning and had to catch a very early flight.

From her statement we can get a pretty accurate fix on the time of the sighting.

It's also worth mentioning that none of Mr Smith's children (including Aofe, an excellent and observant witness) agreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry.

And at the time of his first statement, Mr Smith himself actually said that he didn't believe he would recognise the man they all saw that night again from photographs.

It was only the ensuing months and with all the publicity of events that Mr Smith would come to his, apparent, Damascus moment ...
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 05:39:00 AM by John »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2013, 07:24:21 PM »
The witness statement of Aofe Smith:

The witness states:

— Being an English citizen, and not understanding Portuguese neither spoken nor written, she is accompanied by an interpreter.
— On 30 April 2007 she travelled to Portugal on holiday, specifically to the Algarve. She came with her parents Martin and Mary Smith and her two nieces, AC and EC.
— They stayed in the Estrela Da Luz complex in Praia da Luz where her parents have an apartment.
— When they arrived at the apartment they met her brother, Peter Smith, her sister-in-law, S.McD.Smith, her nephew (six years old), CO** and the son of her sister-in-law, TA*** (13 years old).
— They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day).
— Her days on holiday were spent in the swimming pool of the complex where they were lodged, on the beach of Luz and in the shopping centre. Normally, they were spent in Praia da Luz - Vila da Luz.
— Dinner was taken between 19h00 and 20h00, in the apartment or in the Restaurants "Dolphin", "Cavaleiro da Luz", "Chaplin" or the "Marujo", all situated in the Praia da Luz area.
' When they ate at home they would not normally go out. When they went to eat at the restaurants they stopped by Kelly's Bar, situated, she thinks, on Calheta Street in Praia da Luz.
— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.

— Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres. At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with stairs that give access to Rua 25 de Abril. As they were a large group (four adults and five children) they travelled apart from each other along the street with some more to the front and the others more behind. She does not remember how they were divided [who was where].
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primαria in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.
— Asked to tell the truth, she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.
— And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it inconformity, ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.

Offline Carana

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2013, 08:35:14 PM »
That "60" has a habit of doing a disappearing act in some quarters.  Not that 80% certain means anything apart from "not certain".

Correct. It is proof of nothing.

And isn't it interesting that these people never do mention that none, not one, of the other Smiths that night make even a 1% suggestion that it might be Gerry. I wonder why they always ignore the fact that Mr. Smith's view was not held by the others at all? That his, in fact, was the odd view and the others all agreed.
Martin S said his wife was the only one who agreed with him but she wouldn't testify. His son was worried with his wife and hardly looked at the carrier. Now would a father let his young daughter (A., who made a precise description of the carrier) make a crucial statement concerning the identity of someone (either positive or negative) ? Too much responsibility, personally I never would, even if I were 90% certain, since after all nobody's life was at stake. Even MS hesitated during 3 days. The only possible conclusion is that the carrier was somehow Gerryalike.


Could you explain this, AnneGuedes?

Are you suggesting that Martin Smith did not want her to make a further statement so as to protect her because she was a minor?

Possible, I suppose.

Why wouldn't the elder son (the one with the wife...) not feel able to testify if he had shared his father's view?
The elder son wasn't able to add anything to his first statement (not surprising since his pregnant wife was not feeling well).
We don't know whether the young daughter did or didn't have the same feeling. Does the law allow questioning a minor on that kind of topic ?



 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.


It sounds to me as if he had a doubt upon seeing them landing back in the UK as arguidos and thought he ought to share it with the police.


AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2013, 11:06:26 PM »

It sounds to me as if he had a doubt upon seeing them landing back in the UK as arguidos and thought he ought to share it with the police.
Exactly. He had a doubt, thought 3 days and nights about it and finally decided to share it with the police. A kind of citizen duty. No use to ask his wife to testify.

Offline gilet

Re: The Smith family sighting.
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2013, 11:39:09 PM »

It sounds to me as if he had a doubt upon seeing them landing back in the UK as arguidos and thought he ought to share it with the police.
Exactly. He had a doubt, thought 3 days and nights about it and finally decided to share it with the police. A kind of citizen duty. No use to ask his wife to testify.

No use? Wouldn't two witnesses count more? Has she no citizen duty? I don't understand.