How else to explain this morning's Sunday Express story, "Madeleine McCann: Did the Camera Hold Vital Clue?"
(http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210032/Madeleine-McCann-Did-the-camera-hold-vital-clue- )
Of course, ostensibly, to the uninitiated, it rather reads like the "Disgraced Porto Plod", (Goncalo Amaral), is apologising for his department apparently having WIPED a CCTV tape which may have shown Madeleine's "abductor".
Of course, this would be quite normal fayre for the British Media, given their predilections when reporting on this case; to sympathise with the poor parents and to remind everyone just how useless the Portuguese are.
Except.
A name.
Martin Smith.
For Martin Smith, apparently, witnessed someone carrying a child on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. The most interesting aspect of his STATEMENT, made to the Portuguese Authorities however, came some time after the sighting.
"Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children"
Now, Mr. Amaral made direct reference to this in his Book, " Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" - 'The Truth of the Lie" a book which the McCanns were originally successful in BANNING, until recently where the Lisbon Appeal Court overturned that ruling.
What we have to consider is whether or not Goncalo would have omitted to share Mr. Smith's assertions with the JOURNALIST, James Murray, in the EXPRESS story.
EXTREMELY unlikely, unless Mr. Amaral now wishes to detract that part from his book.
More SALIENTLY, I am sure that the Journo is MORE than conversant with Goncalo's book, and almost CERTAINLY aware of who Martin Smith is and what he purports to have seen.
So what is going on???
I have already BLOGGED about how Richard Desmond, perhaps the most vociferous and aggressive man in the Media world, meekly apologised and ended up forking out well over a MILLION to the McCanns and their Tapas friends in an "out of Court" Libel settlement, for doing no more than what every other periodical and newspaper had done already, which was to reprint the stories appearing in the Portuguese Media.
I have also alluded to the fact that I considered such payments to be made by way of "favours", due to certain Government friends of Richard's.
HOWEVER, this new twist is CATEGORICALLY guaranteed to set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons!! Sure to replicate the excrement hitting the fan and open up that infamous can or worms!!
FORGET that a few seconds checking with the name Martin Smith/Madeleine McCann on GOOGLE will result in stories certain to turn Clarence Mitchell several shades of grey, but I can not possibly SEE how ANY of the mainstream media can allude to this story, and the name of Martin Smith, without reference to his apparent belief:
That the man he saw carrying Madeleine McCann was ...........
GERALD McCann.
As the EXPRESS points out, Mr Amaral concludes that any new investigation should fully consider the statement of Mr Smith.:
“I hope this is seriously examined because it is an important aspect of the case,” he said.
Richard. You naughty boy.
Trick or Treat, anyone?
Always found the Express settlement strange - wonder if they'll mention this sighting next
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/wear_couple_told_police_we_saw_maddie_1_1152843
Those who have been silenced might now be able to be heard. The hotel in question, it would be unthinkable for the security tape to be erased without being watched by security men. That image no one could forget. Five people was it that seen an actual man and child. It cannot be the 'abductor' as to a holiday maker known to her that is the man as he would have to turn ful circle and could not. No Mr Smith is the only viable sighting of any man carrying a child as is the security tapes. Something tells me that they were not wiped. Call it sixth sense.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find strange is that the Smith sighting was a sighting the McCanns chose to ignore now why would that be?
ReplyDeleteA family saw a man looking like Gerry now if Gerry was man seen carrying child he is going to want to draw attention away from this family or even ignore it totally.
whether this story is true or not at least Dr Amaral and his book got a mention and the SMITHS SIGHTING so i say bravo to the express,but best of all there was no disgraced cop ect,ect
ReplyDeleteif you think recollectively about it all, they were often on all sorts of trips, and excursions ,and did not bother at all at many of the reported sightings,may be because they knew perfestly well,, all along that Madeleine had died....... and its all a cover up, by the friends and family, of Kate and Gerry,Also they planned many events, to find Madeleine, and even to celebrate her being gone for a year ,how would they know she would not be found before the first year was over..... with clever, many events and diversions scheduled??????
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:51 The McCanns did mention the Smiths sighting (not the Smiths name) in their Cutting Edge mockumentary, but they ignored the fact that the Smiths saw a man who was carrying a child in the vertical position and not horizontally as shown in the McCanns version.
ReplyDeleteWhy? To fit the Tanner 'horizontal' sighting? To discredit the Smiths sighting in accordance with Gerry coming out of the plane carrying Sean vertically?
I think this is very strange, a witness that is not taken seriously when your child has been 'abducted'.