Book - The Truth Of The Lie, former inspector Goncalo Amaral

This book is available online free, chapter by chapter. I read 2-3 chapters didn't think much of it. May read the rest if I can find it again online.

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com.au/

Martin Smith wasn't a suspect he gave witness statements.

This is what Mr. Martin Smith told police, in Portugal and, later, in Ireland:

“I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.”

I doubt anyone posting on this thread thought Martin Smith was a suspect. It was quite clear he and his family gave a statement saying they saw a man carrying a child at approx 10pm, the night Maddie when missing.

20-40%  NOT sure

could have been Gerry

This man at the time of the sighting, would not have known there was a suspected abduction of a small child. How much attention would he have paid to the man carrying this child?

iza - if Kate was doing the room checks at 10pm, and Gerry was at the table with other friends (6 or so persons.. what are you claiming?

That Gerry was involved in the disspearance of his own daughter and ALL his friends present at dinner are covering up for him??

Why haven't the police arrested Gerry, if you think that information is so vital? Mr Smith is not 100% certain it was Gerry McCann he passed on the street that night.

Post 83 is copied from a blog. Where is it published  that Mr Smith gave that exact same information to the police in a formal statement.?

---

@am*3 wrote:

Complaints were brought on behalf of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against The Daily Express, The Daily Star and their sister Sunday newspapers over stories that suggested that the parents may have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The complaints led to the publication of unprecedented front-page apologies to Kate and Gerry McCann, in addition to the payment of £550,000 in damages, which was donated to the fund to find Madeleine

 

I can't see anything wrong with that. A legal process. Newspapers publishing untrue stories..defaming the parents? Parents won the case.

 

Are you basing your train of thought on conspiracy theories like this: 

More than £2million was ploughed into the Find Madeleine fund ... you covered up your child's death and then sought to make money out of it.

 

Rather than on the legal judgements so far?

---

why wouldn't it be OK for the media to say 'may be' ?

They may not not be proven guilty but they have not been proven innocent either have they ?

there version of fact isn't necessarily fact is it ?

ie;we now know that their friend (a key witness) did not see the abductor at 9.15pm did she ?

Am3 , Personally I'm more and more inclined to think that Criminal profiler Pat Brown may be on the right track .You can look up her blog, her own org and contribution to this cause.

Their friend (Jane) did see a man carrying a child in pj's walking near the apartments on the street at 9.15pm.

Only years later was that lead followed up and the police were able to identify that man - he was the father of the child he was carrying and had picked her up from an evening creche (of which there are a few in that area). This is why the timeline changed as this man was ruled out as a suspect.

Mr Smiths report of seeing a man carrying a child at 10pm was not investigated at the time, not seen as important or whatever, by the Portugese police.

why wouldn't it be OK for the media to say 'may be' ?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think you know the answer to that.

They may not not be proven guilty but they have not been proven innocent either have they ?

They haven't been arrested or even charged with an offence. What and to whom do they have to prove?

;we now know that their friend (a key witness) did not see the abductor at 9.15pm did she ?

At around 9.15 Jane Tanner saw somebody carrying a child and police quite logically concluded the man  she saw might well have ben the abductor. Based on that evidence, everybody (including the McCanns) assumed that sometime around   9.15 was the most likely time of the abduction.

Now that possibility has been discounted the focus has shifted to the man Martin Smith saw and the likely time of the abduction has been altered to around 10.00.

How does that affect anybody's credibility.

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10H40
Location: DIC Portimao
Name: MARTIN SMITH

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good. 

— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same. 

— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. 

— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet. 

— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual. 

— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.

— 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. 

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

(note: not Gerry McCanns blog)