Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[stephen25000]

Like I said - anyone who thinks Mrs Smith didn't make it crystal clear from those comments that they don't think it was Gerry they saw - is deluding themselves.

The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.

I would prefer to see signed statements from the Smiths.

How about you ?

[faithlilly]

Like I said - anyone who thinks Mrs Smith didn't make it crystal clear from those comments that they don't think it was Gerry they saw - is deluding themselves.

The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.

She could have made it crystal clear by admitting that they made a mistake. Why do you think she didn't ?

[Benice]

She could have made it crystal clear by admitting that they made a mistake. Why do you think she didn't ?

Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them.   It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their  daughter..

If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.

(Have to go out now)

[Alfred R Jones]

Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them.   It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their  daughter..

If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.

(Have to go out now)

[stephen25000]

Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them.   It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their  daughter..

If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.

(Have to go out now)

Now did she actually make those comments ?

[faithlilly]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 97648.html

In the body of the article we have these lines :

'Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers.

'Martin Smith and his wife Mary revealed to investigators how they saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of Praia da Luz in Portugal on the night Madeleine went missing.'

Would the review officers have found the Smith's evidence credible if they'd flip-flopped between Gerry probably being the carrier and then not ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Grasping. At. Straws.  The Smiths obviously saw a man carrying a child.  There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact.  That two of the group once upon a time thought it might be Gerry then changed their minds does not invalidate the sighting or its possible significance.

[Carana]

This is the whole article the quotes were taken from :

Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared The Irish Mail on Sunday (no online link, appears in paper edition)
 
10 August 2008
 
Father-of-six gave garda a signed statement saying he and his wife were ''60 to 80% sure'' that the man they saw holding the child was Maddie's father.

The claim, which was taken seriously by the Portuguese police, was made almost four months after Maddie disappeared on May 3rd this year.

Since then the McCanns have been totally exonerated of any involvement.

Mr. Smith had initally told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses. The following September, however, the businessman saw clips of the McCanns returning from their holidays and said the footage of Mr McCann carrying his younger child had instantly reminded him of the mystery man.

''I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann that I met that night carrying a child," Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.

''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''

Mr Smith's claim was passed to the Portuguese police who took it as more evidence in support of their mistaken belief that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearence.

Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may.

One said ''Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland.

"The McCanns returning to England - It was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry.

''By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what??

''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese,who were clearly desperate to get something against them."

The extraordinary saga began on the night of May 3rd 2007, as Martin and his wife, Mary, walked back from a local pub in Praia da Luz to their apartment with members of his family. They had decided to return to their apartment within an hour of dining out becasue their son, Peter, was catching an early morning flight the next day.

As they made their way back, they crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.

It was 9.55 pm and the man was carrying a sleeping little blonde girl of about 4-years of age. The child's head was was resting on the man's left shoulder.

At this stage Maddie had already disappeared but the Smiths were unaware that a child had gone missing from PDL.

It was not until the following morning that a family member living in Ireland told them of Madeleine's disappearence. Mr Smith returned to Ireland six days after the litle girl went missing and it was another 2 weeks before he travelled back to Portugal to make a statement about what he saw that night.

In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather -who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw.

Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

After making his statement, Mr Smtih returned to Drogheda and it was not until four months later that that he made contact with the police again.

This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''


No word of either Martin Smith or his wife changing their minds. In fact it could be argued that if Mary or her husband felt that they had made a mistake identifying Gerry then she had the perfect platform to tell the world about it. She was not hog tied by judicial secrecy any more so what was stopping her ?

What would you have expected her to say?

His wife seems to have agreed that whoever they saw had the same "stature". Was that the point of agreement between them? If it was more than that, why did the apparent correspondence between Team Amaral only concern Martin?

[faithlilly]

Grasping. At. Straws.  The Smiths obviously saw a man carrying a child.  There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact.  That two of the group once upon a time thought it might be Gerry then changed their minds does not invalidate the sighting or its possible significance.

The two of the group who provided the efits.

[G-Unit]

doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry.  It's glaringly obvious, surely?!

You are forgetting that the e-fits were allegedly connected to a report which was 'hypercritical' of Jane Tanner and the parents. We don't know when or why it was done, but it wasn't handed over during the life of the contract, which finished in September 2008.   

Kate's book;

The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light.

Kate doesn't say if they acceded to the investigator's demand, but as his problem was with Oakley the Fund was under no obligation at all to reimburse him. (Demand is a very strong word by the way, much stronger than ask or request).

What it is claimed happened was that the hypercritical report and the e-fits were handed over in mid-November 2008 and the investigators at some point received a legal threat re confidentiality.

Three questions arise.

1. Why were the report and e-fits produced?

2. Why were they handed over after the investigators were sacked?

3. Why did Redwood publicise the e-fits.

[ShiningInLuz]

Grasping. At. Straws.  The Smiths obviously saw a man carrying a child.  There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact.  That two of the group once upon a time thought it might be Gerry then changed their minds does not invalidate the sighting or its possible significance.

Nonsense.  3 of the group gave statements.  It looks like some stuff has been attributed to Mary in various media reports.

That means we are missing 5 of 9.

[Alfred R Jones]

The two of the group who provided the efits.

Oh hello!  I thought I was on ignore...?

[Alfred R Jones]

Nonsense.  3 of the group gave statements.  It looks like some stuff has been attributed to Mary in various media reports.

That means we are missing 5 of 9.

What is nonsense exactly?  That nine individuals saw a man carrying a child that night?  Can you please explain to me how that is nonsense?

[Alfred R Jones]

You are forgetting that the e-fits were allegedly connected to a report which was 'hypercritical' of Jane Tanner and the parents. We don't know when or why it was done, but it wasn't handed over during the life of the contract, which finished in September 2008.   

Kate's book;

The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light.

Kate doesn't say if they acceded to the investigator's demand, but as his problem was with Oakley the Fund was under no obligation at all to reimburse him. (Demand is a very strong word by the way, much stronger than ask or request).

What it is claimed happened was that the hypercritical report and the e-fits were handed over in mid-November 2008 and the investigators at some point received a legal threat re confidentiality.

Three questions arise.

1. Why were the report and e-fits produced?
Because they were commissioned by the McCanns..?

2. Why were they handed over after the investigators were sacked?
Why wouldn't they have been?

3. Why did Redwood publicise the e-fits.
Why wouldn't he?  They may or may not be relevant, he cannot be sure either way at this time, so better to put the info in the public domain I would have thought...

[Carana]

You are forgetting that the e-fits were allegedly connected to a report which was 'hypercritical' of Jane Tanner and the parents. We don't know when or why it was done, but it wasn't handed over during the life of the contract, which finished in September 2008.   

Kate's book;

The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light.

Kate doesn't say if they acceded to the investigator's demand, but as his problem was with Oakley the Fund was under no obligation at all to reimburse him. (Demand is a very strong word by the way, much stronger than ask or request).

What it is claimed happened was that the hypercritical report and the e-fits were handed over in mid-November 2008 and the investigators at some point received a legal threat re confidentiality.

Three questions arise.

1. Why were the report and e-fits produced?

2. Why were they handed over after the investigators were sacked?

3. Why did Redwood publicise the e-fits.

I can understand that investigators / others under an Oakley contract who had not been paid would be disgruntled (who wouldn't be?). However, if the agreed fees had been paid to Oakley / Halligen, then they should have taken the issue up with Halligen... except that he was elusive / on the run / wanted and eventually found for more serious charges.

If the Fund had paid out prior to the discontinuation of the contract, should the Fund have paid out over and above the agreed fee to Oakley?

if there was a legal issue about using the efits (assuming that they had indeed been produced at that time), a threat of legal action as to copyright could have prevented the McCanns from using them.