21 October 2013

Key witness identified Maddie's father



Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key deposition was devalued at the time of disappearance

by Sara G. Carrilho

"The testimony of one of the members of the Smith family that identified Gerry McCann as being the man he saw on the night that Maddie disappeared, carrying a child in his arms as he walked towards the beach was devalued after I left the case. It is a lie that the e-fit that the British police now made public is based on the Smith family's witness statement."

The statements are from Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, to Correio da Manhã. They appear following the publication of e-fits by the Scotland Yard that point one of the drawings out as being that of the main suspect over the presumed abduction of the English child, on the 3rd of May of 2007 - which they say was based on the testimony of an Irish family that was on holiday in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.

"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms", Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night", the former coordinator explained.

For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside". "The McCann hired detectives who made a portrait, a man that resembled Gerry, in order to devalue the deposition", he concluded.



in: Correio da Manhã, 21.10.2013


48 comments:

  1. Don't know what time this was posted, but I was just posting similar on twitter
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg

    ''he has given no stories, or helped with any photo fits''

    One assumes that was correct at that time, January 08, whilst under judiciary secrecy as it is to this day

    There was always something strange about the Smiths Rogatory interviews being negotiated & sent to the British Consulate\or whoever - that the Smiths were holders of Irish passports. So did they ever have a Rogatory interviews, that didn't make it into the transcriptions with the British ones ? And does this also account how Brian Kennedy got to know who they were, and at what point was Brian Kennedy whether relative of the McCanns or was it Mr Brain Kennedy (Everest Co) although I didn't think he was on the scene until around Halligen P.I. et al got involved and therefore, to know about the Smiths.

    I thought the MET CW said\implied I could be misinformed, that the eFits came from Metodo? but that all seems impossible. How or when would they have known of\ or interviewed the Smiths. And at what point is all this witness tampering?

    But it's now my opinion, ''if'' you go along with and support the abduction scenario, it changes nothing from the Tanner's alleged sighting at 9.25pm or Smiths at 10.00pm, since there is nothing tangible to know what happened thereafter. Thousands of sightings around the world count for nothing, it's what happened, next - that is after the 10pm sighting. But it will always remain an enigma why the media and McCanns supported Tanners Sketchman from the days of the Panorama BBC programme promoted it.

    One looks at wonderment at the story out of Greece of Maria, whatever her background pans out to be, even found under a gooseberry bush, she has been loved by the family who had her. But the point is, it's the lucky break the tales of the expected, when least expected that cracks open stale, cold & old cases. Not going through piles of files, letting off balloons or rent a gob of the British MSM (main stream media) since, it's most unlikely in any BREAK, Madeleine will be found alive in the UK

    puddleduck
    aka Meadow

    ReplyDelete
  2. this is yet more reason to have the case re-opened.we cannot let this drop.remember a little girl is at the heart of this case.she needs justice as do all of us

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://blog.larmani.com/ I have reposted a comment I made a long time ago regarding Tanner's sighting of 'Bundleman' - it was my beleif that this sighting would need to be removed to open up a 'window of opportunity'. Exactly what has now been accomplished by Redwood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can someone please help me out.... I am confused as to why the McC's would want to promote an image that looked like GM? is it because they know it could be proved he was elsewhere at that exact time? thus discrediting the witness?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr Smith was going to be interviewed on the Joe Duffy Radio programme on RTE Ireland (2 p.m. afternoons), some years ago. It was announced days beforehand and I stayed in specially. The afternoon programme went by with no mention of the Smith family and they were never referred to again. Total silence. The official hand behind the scenes again, even in Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Always found it strange that the smiths have never been interviewed here in ireland.

      Delete
  6. What I would like to see is for the Portuguese police to issue a summons to the McCann's to request answers to all the original 48 questions as they are reopening the case. These two and who ever they are protecting need to be squeezed until the truth comes out. If they won't agree a European arrest warrant is issued. Time for them to play to someone else's tune. The crime was committed in Portugal so Scotland Yard can butt out. Let's see the headlines on that one if they refuse. Kate's book should be done for fraud and lies as well since time lines have now been blatantly changed. Time this lot were brought to task.

    ReplyDelete
  7. maybe now the people who don't believe this case to be a conspiracy can explain why such a lie has been put forward? ..those who are still blind to the cover up ..can now explain what the strategy for this misinformation of the witness statement is all about and what its aim is trying to achieve. I suspect we will see now who really are looking for the truth and those who have lived in denial I have no doubt will slowly disappear under the unturned stones.

    Mojo

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good for you Mr Amaral!
    Best wishes for next month

    ReplyDelete
  9. How many ways can you carry a child? Playing devils advocate

    ReplyDelete
  10. So is the plan to make people dismiss this sighting as they dismissed the Tanner one (unsatisfactorily) and the trail dies, Scotland Yard did their best, end of the trail? The German connection is interesting, isn't that where the keystone cops (McCann pretendy cops) tried to pin the thing on Hewlet (I think that was the name)?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I read somewhere that those "same man two faces" E-fits were made under the "reign" of Metodo3! Since we know, from the police files (correspondence between Leicester Police and PJ) that Mr. Smith never spoke to anyone but the police, and denied assisting the McCanns (via Brian Kennedy, who travelled to Ireland to harass Mr. Smith) and their PIs in the making of an E-fit of the man he saw, then Mr. Amaral is right, those E-fits have nothing to do with the Smith sighting! I believe there was none made, it's not in the police files. If the investigation (under Gonçalo Amaral) had succeeded in bringing the Smiths back to Portugal, then I'm sure an E-fit would have been made by the PJ. Sadly, it all fell through...

    ReplyDelete
  12. First British newspaper to break ranks ?
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jackie-bird-madeleine-mccanns-crimewatch-2472659.
    The worm turns.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To GAONCALO AMARAL Please do not give up on your belief .their are so many people that believe in you and understand that the mcanns have been protected and want to see justice .Please contact Martin Smith and family and seek the truth through him.I am sure he as an Irish man will want to help you GOD BLESS YOU SENOR AMARAL......

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Smith may or may not have seen Gerry McCann carrying a blonde child.

    If not, it's just as possible that the McCanns timed the 'abduction' to coincide with a high probability of parents traveling with children after picking them up from the night creche. I imagine between the hours of 9-10:30pm but not sure what time the night creche closed.

    It will be interesting if someone who was innocently taking their child home after creche comes forward and the Smith sighting is eliminated.

    There's a reason the Crimewatch programme was not shown in Portugal, regardless of the 'legal' cited by the BBC

    It's highly unlikely that a 'tourist' would decide to abduct a child while on holiday....so, if not a tourist or someone living in Portugal or surrounding countries, then who?

    I think SY are looking to eliminate the Smith citing. Then all bets are off. I think the phone records will tell different story.

    Those Joker Ducks floating on the pool (last photo) and on the ocean (Smith citing heading towards) tell their own story (:

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scotland Yard has dismissed the Tanner sighting and is concentrating on the Smith sighting. This is all very well but can we totally dismiss the Tanner 'sighting'? There is much to glean from the Tanner depositions during the various interviews conducted. The investigation should not lose sight of this and determine why Tanner changed her statements so ludicrously. Why did she change her statements so wildly? Herein may lie the key.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What time was the smith sighting? How would this fit into the time frame?
    Gerry checked on the children around 9.00pm, could he have found Madeleine dead from an unfortunate accident in the apartment and decided to hide her body? This would have taken some very quick thinking and action on his part. He was gone for a while supposedly talking with J Wilkins but was that long enough?
    Alternatively, Kate could have found Maddy dead at 10.00pm but this would have involved all the tapas 9 being party to the cover up?
    Could she have fallen from the window or down the stairs while trying to see her parents at the tapas bar or trying to make her way to the tapas bar? The dogs detected blood behind the sofa and at the bottom of the stairs, I believe?
    When Kate checked at 10.00pm and found her missing, could she have been lying in the garden and wasn't found until Kate raised the alarm? This again would involve all the tapas 9 being party to the cover up?
    Alternatively, she may have died much earlier, hidden in the apartment until Gerry got the chance to move her body.
    What other scenario's could there be?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The papers all write about the blonde girl and the gypsies, that has nothing to do with Madeleine, that Mitchell is trying to make other story about Madeleine, they should come out with the true story whats happened to her. There is witness evidence of Mr Mcann with her in his arms going to the sea and that is the truth. Portugal should bring that to the court, Mr Amaral has a good case the two dogs showed there was a body in the flat and in the car, and they believed she died in the flat. They have brought enough lie stories over 6 years its time they stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Smith sighting actually being GM, all hinges on the timeline provided by the McClan - and whether Gerry was at the restaurant table at 10pm. Does anyone else remember reading at the time, that some guests at the hotel said they'd heard people shouting, what sounded like Madeleine's name, before 10pm??

    ReplyDelete
  19. That is so sad. I will keep praying for this family

    ReplyDelete
  20. Amaral is right in that it has been set aside...I remember Mr Smith and another family member being as sure as 70 to 80% that Gerry McCann had been the man they had seen?
    Here's a thought...it may have been Gerry McCann but was in Madeleine?
    If Madeleine died earlier than the time window given,say on the 2nd May rather than the day later, and her body temporarily dealt with, then perhaps moved again...and the McCanns were subsequently intent on staging an abduction theory,who is to say he didn't do a simulated abduction with Amelie in his arms...it would have taken him 15 mins or so and then a return to the apartment,having secured a witness?
    Clearly just a theory?? However to further add credence to this theory...Amelie had much shorter hair and looked more androgynous(whilst being carried) than Madeleine? In fact, I believe also reading that the Smiths couldn't determine fully whether the mystery man had been carrying a girl or a boy?
    I must say that for several years.. I strove to think the best of the McCanns..yet when I read the case more fully their behaviour morphed for me from being unusual to frankly unbelievable.
    When I read that they had,for example, returned the twins to the'Kids Club' AFTER Madeleine's disappearance... I became incredulous,noone with a human sensitivity and fully bonded to their children would do that? This meant that they claimed abduction by a predator, who had by Kate McCann's assertion 'Being watching them for days' as they went about their business in the Warner Resort,from pool to creche,from apartment to creche,from beach to creche......and then this couple put their two remaining kids back in the same creche as their sister may have been under continuous surveillance by a predatory paedophile ?!
    This,sadly was when I threw out the abduction theory.....they knew the twins were perfectly safe in the creche at the Ocean Club Resort because there was no predator and no real abduction but there was a 'staged' one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Amaral is right in that it has been set aside...I remember Mr Smith and another family member being as sure as 70 to 80% that Gerry McCann had been the man they had seen?
    Here's a thought...it may have been Gerry McCann but was in Madeleine?
    If Madeleine died earlier than the time window given,say on the 2nd May rather than the day later, and her body temporarily dealt with, then perhaps moved again...and the McCanns were subsequently intent on staging an abduction theory,who is to say he didn't do a simulated abduction with Amelie in his arms...it would have taken him 15 mins or so and then a return to the apartment,having secured a witness?
    Clearly just a theory?? However to further add credence to this theory...Amelie had much shorter hair and looked more androgynous(whilst being carried) than Madeleine? In fact, I believe also reading that the Smiths couldn't determine fully whether the mystery man had been carrying a girl or a boy?
    I must say that for several years.. I strove to think the best of the McCanns..yet when I read the case more fully their behaviour morphed for me from being unusual to frankly unbelievable.
    When I read that they had,for example, returned the twins to the'Kids Club' AFTER Madeleine's disappearance... I became incredulous,noone with a human sensitivity and fully bonded to their children would do that? This meant that they claimed abduction by a predator, who had by Kate McCann's assertion 'Being watching them for days' as they went about their business in the Warner Resort,from pool to creche,from apartment to creche,from beach to creche......and then this couple put their two remaining kids back in the same creche as their sister may have been under continuous surveillance by a predatory paedophile ?!
    This,sadly was when I threw out the abduction theory.....they knew the twins were perfectly safe in the creche at the Ocean Club Resort because there was no predator and no real abduction but there was a 'staged' one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. How very convenient! The blond Maria stolen by gypsies and found in Greece!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Joana and Astro,
    Something strange seems to have happened on the jillhavern.forum recently regarding the Smith families Testimony.
    Tony Bennett and a lot of other senior or longterm members of that forum tare hellbent on dismissing the entire Smith families testimony to the point of implying the entire Smith Family including the 12 year old child of fabricating the sighting with Tony Bennett pushing a theory that Martin Smith is a closer friend to Robert Murat than people think and made up his testimony in order to help Robert Murat !!!!!!!!!! WTF

    Guests were invited to join this forum over the past few days to which I registered with the name " Logical" with the main intention of firstly defending the Smith family because I and others were incensed by Tony Bennett and others casting aspersions on the entire Smith family (whom I don't Know) and casting doubts on Goncalo Amarals current knowledge of the Maddie case!!!!..

    My posts were not aggressive or rude or libellous in any way and anything I posted was done so quoting Mr Amaral and from the Smiths testimonies.

    Yesterday on the jillhavern forum Tony Bennett signalled myself "Logical" and a number of factual posters out claiming that we had just joined because of the bbc crimewatch programme and were intent on pushing the so called Smithman and then later on without any warning whatsoever I was banned from the jill havern forum?

    In my opinion alls not what it seems on that forum Posters Beware.

    Yours Logical.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would to know why this information does not appear to have been taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  25. the British Press Association published today that the boss of the Met police defended the PJ, when he talked through a Radio in England, this morning.
    That is definitely a piece of a Met puzzle, I have no doubts about it. Last week they denied Tanner's sighting and concentrated themselves on the Smith-man. Today they showed their support to the PJ and they told that the Maria girl of the gypsies did not influence the Maddie investigation.
    It is a large puzzle.
    The Met boss's statement of today's has a goal but what?

    After one year of review, 2012, the Met showed us a photo of Maddie's at her 9th or 10th years of age, asking the public to search for her.
    After two years they forgot the photo,probably a demonstration that the child died, they cancelled Tanner's sighting and they want to localize that man with the child.

    Today they show that they trust the PJ.
    We are getting there, aren't we?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just been announced on BBC radio4 at 8p.m. Wednesday 23rd October that the blonde girl in Ireland IS the daughter of the Roma family in Tallaght. Proved via DNA testing.
    Very strange, this clustering of blonde little girls appearing all over the place. It is a development of the 'sightings' of Maddie that stretched as far as New Zealand (remember that angry father defending his daughter?)
    As a dedicated conspiracy believer, I see the hand of a certain PR expert behind all this, suddenly silent after so many years of spokesman duties, but still soldiering on in the TM cause.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Twice per century we were receiving an alms from the Scotland Yard, none from the PJ and now it is raining information from both police.
    Very happy that the McCCanns are getting what they wanted: the review, the investigation and probably the PJ reopening the case, trying to find the abductor.

    Kate and Gerry are lucky, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Everywhere seems to be buzzing with the news that the case is to be reopened in Portugal. Would love to read your comments:
    > Is it true
    > Will the status of arguido be re-instated
    > Does this cause any delays to the Lisbon libel (personally I hope not and can't see that it would
    > Was Portugal forced into re-opening, or is there really sufficient information new, old or indifferent ?
    > Really what happens next?

    puddleduck
    aka Meadow

    ReplyDelete
  29. Can anyone from Portugal please tell us if it is true what the press in England are claiming today, that "Portugal is going to re-open the case and use officers who are VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE MCCANNS" ???
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  30. And now it is confirmed that the PJ have re-opened the case and SY will be working alongside the new team. What will this mean? Joana, do you feel this is a good step forward or are there any doubts?

    ReplyDelete
  31. If it's proven that the parents had no involvement in the child's disappearance and they are fully cleared by the PJ investigation - will they be charged with child neglect? I may be understanding wrong but they couldn't rule them out as suspects originally and therefore wouldn't be able to prove neglect but if they get ruled out as suspects does this mean they can prove neglect?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Re Post 22 "Logical"
    Yes I joined too and defended the Smith sighting..... they banned me without warning .....although other reasons were given - I fully believe that it was really because my robust defense of the honourable and courageous Mr Smith that they wanted rid of me. I am shocked at how they are espousing ridiculous theories attacking the decency and integrity of the Smiths. What are they up to - have they lost the plot? Eileen

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Eileen @31
    I had an idea you and the rest of the posters singled out by Tony Bennett had been banned without warning after posting in the jill havern forum topic :

    Where could "Smithman have been heading (Or was there ever a Smithman? )
    Not one poster included in Tony Bennetts "Hitlist" posted anything aggressive, rude, offensive or lies and the only reason we were banned (what a joke) was because we obviously hit a raw nerve with Tony Bennett and others in our defence of the Smith family in posing questions to them which they couldn't answer with any degree of honesty or facts. Mr Bennett not only has cast aspersions on the entire Smith family he also stated in a further posting that Martin Smith worked with Brian Kennedy and Knows Robert Murat more than what he has testified ???
    As previously mentioned some things just don't add up with the jill havern forum.

    Logical.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just wondered if anyone,like me,remembers that the original Smith sighting was placed at 9.50pm or 9.55pm.
    Pat Brown claimed(as she walked the route herself)that it takes 6 and a half minutes from the apartment to the street where the sighting happened.
    In short it's possible?If the original timing is correct.....

    ReplyDelete
  35. I never heard of the smiths knowing Robert Murat but there was a big question Mark over whether Gerry McCann knew him. Mr Smith goes to PDL 3 or 4 times a year hes bound to know some locals. but I believe he is an honest man who has kept his head down until needed. Kate and Gerry tried to frame Murat

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mrs Fenn said in her statement said that she heard a Child crying for over an hour on the 1st may, Kate said the next morning Madeleine asked why didn't you come when we were crying last night ?? as to which Kate said was on the morning of the 3rd.?? and not the 2nd ?? so did Madeleine cry for two nights ?? Kate imo had no choice but to say something with regards to the crying,... Justice for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The reason I believe Tony Bennett is pushing aside the sighting made by the smiths ...has some substance. I believe Goncalo Amaral did a fantastic job co-ordinating the investigation during the period he was in charge and has he as said was removed before he could finish all the investigation steps required......however the events of the third are based on what ?
    Tony Bennett I believe is on to something when he says that the events lead to something happening on the 2nd and the 3rd is where the conspiracy starts and many are involved - this is why the cover up is so big.....there are many who would be prosecuted should the truth come out.

    tell me what was the proof that Madeleine was actually around on the third ?

    Mojo

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Mojo @38
    Tell me who is Tony Bennett to be pushing aside the Smith sighting full stop and just to correct you Tony hasnt attempted to push it aside he has attempted to dismiss it entirely and in the process implying that the entire Smith family including a 12 year old child perjured themselves !!!!!
    Can you tell me what is the proof of this perjury ?
    Can you tell me what is the proof Madeleine was not there on the 3rd ?

    All us ordinary Joes can really go by is whats in the pj files including all testimonies and Goncalo Amarals statements.

    Wild speculations , theories and sugestions are not imo helpfull to getting justice for Madeleine but are seemingly very helpfull to the "coverup" ? perpetrators.

    Logical

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi logical.

    you haven't really answered my post .....the sighting may have been a genuine mistake, what other evidence is their of madeleine been around on the 3rd ?

    the crèche records look doctored - other statements are obscure.
    have you ever considered that their is a tangled webb a foot.

    I sense you ranting ....60 - 80 % is not conclusive of anything...theres a 20-40% room for a mistake....which can be genuine ....people make them.

    Perjury would be telling a lie in court that you know is not the truth ....very different to a witness testimony of what you think you may have seen ...but not 100% sure.

    Cover ups can also take on many forms - more so when there is a split camp.
    People can act like ordinary Joes and not necessarily be that...some people have agendas in life ....im sure this case has demonstrated facets of that to you.

    again tell me what other evidence puts Madeleine around on the 3rd ?

    Mojo

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Mojo
    The only "evidence" is all the Testimonies as far as im aware.
    Tony Bennett didnt imply the Smiths could have been mis'taken he has implied all the Smiths made up the sighting in the first place to assist Murat ??? !.

    Logical

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am amazed that Mr Bennett can believe that nursery workers in a small creche are incapable of recognising a child from one day to the other I am also amazed that he does not seem to understand how people can be recognised as "Tourists" I think he has never had much contact with children and child care workers nor taken a package holiday on the continent. I respect the work he has done and the risks he has personally taken but there are some things he is just plain wrong about. Anyone can be wrong or make a mistake (even Dr Amaral re- the "sedative properties" of Calpol! lol) It is time for Tony and others to drop the whole "no proof of Madeleine being there on the 3rd " tripe. There is no evidence except that from the Tapas group that Gerry was in the Ocean Club at the time of the Smith sighting. All the evidence points to a tragic accident falling off the back of the sofa due to neglect and possible drugging. Drunken people panicking about losing everything and helping to cover up. The Smiths saw Gerry - Why anyone interested in bringing the McCanns to justice should insist otherwise is mind-boggling and that they would attack the character and motivations of an entire respectable family to dismiss the Smith sighting is a disgrace. Eileen

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just got banned from JillHavern for no apparent reason...very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Joana
    I am wondering if you or someone else on your forum can help me with a question.
    I thought that even Mr. Amaral and the rest of the PJ had ruled out the possibility of Gerry McCann being the man in the Smith sighting. I thought that there were lots of independent witnesses that saw Gerry at the apartment at the precise same time, which ruled him out entirely?
    Now, I am confused, because it seems that Mr. Amaral still believes the man in the e-fit is Gerry McCann, or am I mistaken? By the way, I don't mean to offend anyone with this question, as I am quite new to all of this, and am just trying to sort out some confusions in my head.
    I thought that you might be the person and/or site to clarify whether or not Amaral still thinks this man could be Gerry, and if so, how does it explain his presence at the Ocean Club at that time?
    Thanks
    Marianne

    ReplyDelete
  44. @43,do you remember a poster said that his granddaughter worked at Madeleines nursery and they are BANNED from saying anything about Madeleine.

    @44,you do not get banned for nothing on Jill Haven site,are you trying to stir up a little trouble???????.Why don't you just keep looking for Justice for Madeleine instead of trying to cause trouble.....

    ReplyDelete
  45. whole group of posters just been banned on TCMOMM for taking on Bennet on the Smith family evidence .He has declared them as disruptors etc .

    ReplyDelete
  46. the only way that mr smith would be sure if it was gerry he saw with madeline that night is to go under hypnosis,can be a very powerful tool and slows everything down to allow analysis of the situation,

    ReplyDelete