The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[John]

Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact.  So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?

A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.

[Brietta]

Seeing Gerry on the TV News carrying Sean down the steps of the aircraft certainly reminded Martin Smith of the man they had encountered carrying a child on the night that Madeleine disappeared but as has already been pointed out, they had already considered whether that sighting was imporatnt or not when they heard that Robert Murat was in the frame as Tannerman and by extension possibly Smithman.

The Smiths had two involvements with the police, initially to inform them that the man they had seen was definately not Robert Murat and much later on to assert their suspicion that the man may have been GMcC.

In his statement taken by the PJ on 26th May 2007 Martin Smith affirmed that the individual he saw was not Robert Murat.

In a statement to an Garda Síochána on 20th September, 2007 Martin Smith identified Gerry McCann from a news broadcast ten days before, as the man he saw carrying a child on 3rd May 2007.

The first statement 'cleared' Murat. 
The second statement 'implicated' McCann.

[Brietta]

A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.

Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.

Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question.  None more so than Jane Tanner's.

There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)

There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'. 
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.

Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?

[Robittybob1]

A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.

But is it right I am not allowed to say "IMO I think it is false"?  We should be allowed to have an opinion on such matters.

[G-Unit]

Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.

Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question.  None more so than Jane Tanner's.

There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)

There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'. 
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.

Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?

I think it's fine to point out discrepancies in statements when people contradict themselves or each other. The twin's crying being changed to Madeleine and Sean crying, for example. That's based on written evidence.

There may be no evidence placing the Smiths where they said they were, but there's no evidence suggesting they weren't there either. Suggesting that they weren't is akin to calling a 12 year old girl a liar without any evidence to support the accusation imo.

[slartibartfast]

I understand what you mean now thanks.  I thought that was a moderator comment.

It was.

[Robittybob1]

It was.

No hope for me sorry, I'm lost.

[faithlilly]

Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.

Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question.  None more so than Jane Tanner's.

There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)

There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'. 
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.

Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?

The Smiths had no reason to lie. The same cannot be said of the McCanns and their friends.

This is from the transcript of Martin Smith's first interview.

'— 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.'

It is obvious that MS was responding to a line of questioning  and did not offer up the information freely. Given the context of Murat having just been made an arguido it would have been strange if MS hadn't been asked about him.

To suggest that the Smith family came forward to clear Murat is disingenuous to say the least.

[Benice]

The Smiths had no reason to lie. The same cannot be said of the McCanns and their friends.

This is from the transcript of Martin Smith's first interview.

'— 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.'

It is obvious that MS was responding to a line of questioning  and did not offer up the information freely. Given the context of Murat having just been made an arguido it would have been strange if MS hadn't been asked about him.

To suggest that the Smith family came forward to clear Murat is disingenuous to say the least.

In your opinion.   I have never yet  read a credible reason why any of the friends of the McCanns would decide to lie to the police.

It seems to me that if M. Smith was absolutely certain the man he saw was not Robert Murat - he would be far more inclined to 'get involved' with the PJ with that 'definite' information than he would be with a sighting which for all he knew could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I have always thought that M.Smith was keen not to have his family dragged into the media frenzy etc etc which surrounded this case.    Even in Kate's book - she doesn't describe his family by name - which IMO was probably at his request.

I also think there may be potential witnesses around who decided it was best 'not to get involved' with the PJ - in line with Mrs. Murat's thinking on that subject.   It could even be that Smithman came into that category.


AIMHO

[pathfinder73]

Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 

[Benice]

Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 

She listed the similarities between two descriptions given by people who did not know oneanother  - especially their jointly held opinion that the man did not give the impression of being a tourist.

That would seem to be a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do in the circumstances imo.

IMO

[Alice Purjorick]

In your opinion.   I have never yet  read a credible reason why any of the friends of the McCanns would decide to lie to the police.

It seems to me that if M. Smith was absolutely certain the man he saw was not Robert Murat - he would be far more inclined to 'get involved' with the PJ with that 'definite' information than he would be with a sighting which for all he knew could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I have always thought that M.Smith was keen not to have his family dragged into the media frenzy etc etc which surrounded this case.    Even in Kate's book - she doesn't describe his family by name - which IMO was probably at his request.

I also think there may be potential witnesses around who decided it was best 'not to get involved' with the PJ - in line with Mrs. Murat's thinking on that subject.   It could even be that Smithman came into that category.


AIMHO

As I recall there are accounts of Mr Smith becoming very "humpy" with PIs and the press even unto the point of his solicitors firing off high calibre missives.

[pathfinder73]

She listed the similarities between two descriptions given by people who did not know oneanother  - especially their jointly held opinion that the man did not give the impression of being a tourist.

That would seem to be a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do in the circumstances imo.

IMO

Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators. As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.

[John]

Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described?  Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.

If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.

[Benice]

Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.

In your opinion.   

IMO - it's not unusual for certain employment contracts to include a 'non-disclosure' requirement in order to prevent ex employees from taking advantage of their former positions by selling their stories to the press etc.

In this case it could be that unauthorised disclosure could damage ongoing investigations.
IMO