The Smithman e-fits

[Carana]

Who judges what's satisfactory or not?

Anyway, reading through them bit by bit - I happen to agree with points 1-4:
"1.           Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
2.           Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
3.           Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?
4.           How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?"

I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him.

[Carana]

"5.           Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’ "

In which of the Smiths' PJ statements was it described as a "disturbing encounter"?

[G-Unit]

I don't see much point in arguing about opinion, and questions 1-4 cannot, in my opinion, be answered by looking at evidence apart from;

2. Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?

Looking at the evidence that statement can't, in my opinion, be seen as factual. 'The very moment' hasn't been identified as yet.

[Robittybob1]

Who judges what's satisfactory or not?

Anyway, reading through them bit by bit - I happen to agree with points 1-4:
"1.           Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
2.           Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
3.           Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?
4.           How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?"

I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him.

What made you say this?  "I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him." 

[faithlilly]

The right thing for who?
He can't now testify against anyone in Portugal or anywhere else.
He can't identify someone who may come forward as an innocent holidaymaker.
He can't prove he/the family saw the man they described any more than anyone can prove he didn't.
 He didn't provide efits for the police so he hasn't attempted to pervert the course of justice.
He can, however, testify that the man he saw wasn't Murat, despite the fact that no-one had ever suggested the man he saw was in any way connected to the person suspected of being Tannerman. He provided an alibi for RM, for the earliest possible time he was able, on 3/5/07.

All IMO.

I’m sorry you’ll lost me. In what way did he provide an alibi for Murat ?  He said the man he saw wasn’t Murat. How did that provide Murat with an alibi ?

[faithlilly]

Are we doing anything else? ... so why not give it a bash if it is within the libel laws and forum protocols?
In my opinion questions one and two might as well be rhetorical ... once you overcome the very obvious about why your immediate action on finding an injured child would not have been to seek immediate assistance and why your companions some of whom hardly knew you would join in an elaborate and I would think doomed attempt at a coverup.

• Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
• Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?

Quite frankly I don't think such a scenario either did or would have happened;  I think anyone who would have must have known the streets well enough to negotiate them in the dark;  I don't think they would have been openly carrying either ... I think they would have had access to a vehicle much closer to the point where Madeleine vanished.         

We were told by Gerry himself that PDL was very quiet and he hadn’t seen anyone else throughout the week while checking so not sure it being a popular tourist resort is relevant. As to Smithman knowing the streets well, the streets are well lit and the way Smithman was proceeding is one of the main ways to the beach. Any tourist who had stayed in the resort for even a few days would know the route.

[Robittybob1]

I’m sorry you’ll lost me. In what way did he provide an alibi for Murat ?  He said the man he saw wasn’t Murat. How did that provide Murat with an alibi ?

By saying Murat was not there is providing an alibi, of a sort.

[G-Unit]

"5.           Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’ "

In which of the Smiths' PJ statements was it described as a "disturbing encounter"?

I agree, I haven't seen that in their statements so a cite is required. According to the files on 30th January 2008 Mr Smith's position was;

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Any media stories about him before that date cannot therefore be assumed to be telling the truth.

[faithlilly]

Who judges what's satisfactory or not?

Anyway, reading through them bit by bit - I happen to agree with points 1-4:
"1.           Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
2.           Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
3.           Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?
4.           How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?"

I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him.

1. It was quiet as Gerry testified and how can you cry abduction if you don’t move the body ?
2. We don’t know exactly when the alarm was raised. Estimates range between 9.30 and 10.13pm.
3. In a municipal bin, in an abandoned building etc etc
4. If Smithman had come from the Ocean Club it wouldn’t have taken him many minutes to find a hiding place, deposit the body and return there.

[Carana]

6.           Why did not one of them – bearing in mind that the news of Madeleine’s disappearance was headline news in Portugal, Ireland and around the world - suggest contacting the police at any time before the day Robert Murat was made an ‘arguido’ (15 May)?
7.           Is it credible (as claimed by the Smiths) that Martin Smith only acted to contact the police after his son Peter ’phoned him on 16 May (the day after Murat was declared a suspect) and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on the day Madeleine was reported missing?”

I can think of potential explanations: Perhaps quite simply because the timing didn't initially ring an alarm bell?

8.           Why was Martin Smith so adamant that a man he saw in the dark for barely a second or two could not possibly be Robert Murat?    

Possibly because he got badgered by the media wanting to know if it was Murat or not?

9.            How well did Martin Smith know Robert Murat?
Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat:
Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.
Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.
‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.
‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.
Which one of these versions, if any, is the truth?

What's supposedly odd? He'd encountered him a few times in the past and thinks he'd have recognised him if it had been him.

[Carana]

10.           What is the explanation for all three Smiths giving the Portuguese Police on 26 May 2016, in Portimao, a description of the man they said they had seen, which exactly matched in almost every detail those given by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by Nuno Lourenco of ‘Sagresman’/Wojcek Krokowski? (including cloth clothes, ‘classic shoes’ and ‘did not look like a tourist’)

Perhaps because there might have been more than one male answering that vague description in the Algarve at the time?

[Carana]

11.   According to Martin Smith, his wife Mary Smith actually spoke to the man. So why did she not accompany her husband and her children to Portugal to give the police her evidence?

What's the source?

12.   In Martin Smith’s statement to the PJ, 26 May, he told them: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”. So why did he not report the sighting for a further 12 days? Hetand his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

Where did he state "On 4 May, I thought..."? To start with, the PJ statements are in the 3rd person.

The original states "Sendo então conhecedor de essa situação inferiu..."

It's unclear whether he did suddenly think it could have been her as soon as his daughter rang him the next morning, or whether it was now (as in having mulled it over) that he thought it might be.

[Carana]

13.   Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?

Is there something suspicious about going for a nightcap?

[G-Unit]

13.   Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?

Is there something suspicious about going for a nightcap?

No.

[Carana]

14.   Why could none of the staff at Kelly’s Bar remember this party of nine coming in?

Only being asked on 10 October might have something to do with it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm#p10p3276

15.   Which of the four bar bills between 9.30pm and 10.00pm Thursday 3 May, if any, was theirs?

Hard to tell. Might even have included more than one, including possibly after 10pm. Did they pay cash or by credit card?