Currently editing this thread but this dated post by Sadie has reminded me that I have always found it puzzling that Mary Smith (as far as we know) never gave a statement to the Irish Gardaí nor returned to Portugal to assist with enquiries yet she was an eye witness to a potential child abduction. That in itself is very odd?
Do you really think so?
From the Smith family viewpoint, 3 members flew back to Portugal to give statements, and then took part in a photo reconstruction.
This effort was when the sighting might, or might not, have been significant.
The process for the 3 would not have been simple. Apart from the flight, they then had to first participate in the interview process. I believe that on 26 May, the PJ was using Portimão, as it's base, so it is better than Faro, but worse than Luz.
And the conduct of the interviews must have been a bit tortuous. Questions in Portuguese put by the PJ. Translation into English. Answer in English. Translation by interpreter into Portuguese. PJ note the result in Portuguese. With a wrapper at the end of getting the final statement translated into English, for each witness to agree and sign.
So which Smiths didn't come forward, who might have useful information (even now)?
One 4 year old and one 6 year old. I doubt either had anything particularly useful to add, then or now. I cannot see any family putting two children of such ages through a flight abroad etc. on the hope that they might have a sliver of information that makes a difference. As it happens, nowadays those two kids just might have a tiny sliver of information that progresses the case. It has nothing to do with descriptions or e-fits. It would not come near to cracking the case. And by now, I doubt they can remember the incident much, if at all.
Aoife did the trip, and put on record some very valuable information. I particularly like her statement for the way that when she doesn't know the answer, she is clear that she doesn't know.
Peter's wife, the one pregnant and feeling unwell, on her first trip to Luz, appears to have been alongside Peter, at the time of the sighting. This is based on Peter's description that he did not notice Smithman much as he was concentrating on his wife. One would assume that a pregnant woman, feeling unwell, faced with a next day flight had more to think about at encounter time than Smithman. Peter was with her. One of the two flying to Portugal was surely enough. If Peter's wife had gone back, then judging by Peter's statement, she would not have been asked more than Peter would, and so would probably have added little. Both Peter and his wife can be asked fresh questions today, and the answers may (or may not) provide additional useful information.
Martin's wife, at the time of the Smith sighting, was I assume alongside Martin, but that is an assumption on my part. I am not au fait with Martin and Mary's family structure. But again, it seems if they were together, then on the surface one sighter would do.
If anyone makes it out to Luz, please come out and have a look with me at the Smith sighting scene under comparable conditions. I do not make it poor lighting. I make it adequate for purpose - pedestrian and vehicular traffic - but not fit for an identification parade or e-fits.
(And yes, I have a keen interest in the Smithman sighting.)
That takes me on to the two children who did not return. From memory, they were aged 10 and 13, compared to Aoife's 12, and those two might have added something useful then. They might still be capable of adding something useful now, just not descriptions or e-fits.
Let me turn to the issue of the Gardaí. I mean no disrespect to them, but like many of those involved in this case, they had basically no clue as to the layout of the sighting, or the questions to ask. If they had taken statements from Mary, from Peter's wife, from the children aged 10 and 13, the only way they would have got further valuable information is by pure chance.
If Mary had made a statement, and later had been involved in the e-fits, as the Telegraph suggests, surely we should have another statement and two e-fits that look like Gerry? Both seemed to think Smithman was a Gerry look-a-like. So why does one e-fit look like Gerry while the other does not?
