Gemma O'doherty. Her forthcoming Analysis of McCann Case.

Now it seems Mr.Smith never changed his mind about the 'sighting', and if Ms.O'Doherty is correct, the MSM and the McCann supporters have neen peddling yet another lie.

I haven't had time to read the full article yet, but maybe there is more accurate reporting of what happened.

Yep correct as I always argued against them. Martin Smith has never changed his mind about the sighting.

Gemma O'Doherty
‏
@gemmaod1
36 minutes ago

Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann







20:40 "The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else."

I see that one of the McCann moderators has made reference to the 'relatives and children of Mr. Smith.

Now what guarantee is there, that any comments they may (or may not)have made, have been correctly reported ?

Posted elsewhere.

' Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers.

Martin Smith and his wife Mary revealed to investigators how they saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of Praia da Luz in Portugal on the night Madeleine went missing.

She disappeared on May 3, 2007, from her family's apartment on the Algarve.

The Smith family told police how they had left Kelly's Bar in the resort at around 10pm

They then passed a man walking down the middle of the street who was carrying a girl aged about three to four years old

It was claimed that the child's head was lying against the man's left shoulder and her arms were hanging down alongside her body.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/irish-couple-may-hold-key-evidence-in-madeleine-mccann-case-29397648.html '

The McCann supporters must be consulting in the background with headquarters.

I doubt if many will be surprised, or convinced, by my view but still. I repeat what I said about the (intimately linked with Smithman sighting)
Jane Tanner sighting.

Grange will not go anywhere near the question of the Smith identification publicly until the investigation is closed. Nor will they go anywhere near the identification of Bundleman publicly until the investigation is closed.

It has suited everyone involved, including until his comment to GO'D, Martin Smith, not to press the Yard about either. With the investigation coming to an end we may see that change as interested parties may seek out what Grange have.

AJS wrote:I doubt if many will be surprised, or convinced, by my view but still. I repeat what I said about the (intimately linked with Smithman sighting)
Jane Tanner sighting.

Grange will not go anywhere near the question of the Smith identification publicly until the investigation is closed. Nor will they go anywhere near the identification of Bundleman publicly until the investigation is closed.

It has suited  everyone involved, including until his comment to GO'D, Martin Smith, not to press the Yard about either. With the investigation coming to an end we may see that change as interested parties may seek out what Grange have.

Have to agree,the piece regarding the sighting and not the withdrawal is not earth shattering,the MSM in the guise of the beeb on its panorama 10th anniversary special is of no surprise,Smithman is known imo,there is nothing on the MET site looking for any one in relation to the disappearance.

The supporters have gone quiet.

Admin wrote:The supporters have gone quiet.

Yes, I wonder if the strategy is not to post and thereby shorten the lifespan of the topic ?

Travers wrote:

Admin wrote:The supporters have gone quiet.

Yes, I wonder if the strategy is not to post and thereby shorten the lifespan of the topic ?

It seems that a blatant lie perpetuated by the MSM, and the McCann entourage if of no consequence.

So, just to remind them, Mr. Smith has not recanted what he first said.

AJS wrote:I doubt if many will be surprised, or convinced, by my view but still. I repeat what I said about the (intimately linked with Smithman sighting)
Jane Tanner sighting.

Grange will not go anywhere near the question of the Smith identification publicly until the investigation is closed. Nor will they go anywhere near the identification of Bundleman publicly until the investigation is closed.

It has suited  everyone involved, including until his comment to GO'D, Martin Smith, not to press the Yard about either. With the investigation coming to an end we may see that change as interested parties may seek out what Grange have.

I go along with that AJS.

The 'good' sign from this, is that the lies in the MSM and from other sources are gradually unravelling.

The supporters, somewhat inevitable started to attack Mr. Smith.

Truly pathetic but not unusual for their operating procedure.

Sensibly, he appears to ignore them.

Now I see the McFlukers are trying to suggest that Ms. O'Doherty did not get her comments from Mr. Smith.

Is there really no end to their stupidity.

I see Misty is desperately shrieking that the Smith family said they would not recognise the man again, as if that is somehow a clincher.

Of course, the only way of determining whether a witness could recognise the man again would be to put him in a line-up so the question was entirely hypothetical.

The PJ reopened their investigation immediately after the Crimewatch appeal. I have often wondered if that was purely coincidental.

Watcher wrote:I see Misty is desperately shrieking that the Smith family said they would not recognise the man again, as if that is somehow a clincher.

Of course, the only way of determining whether a witness could recognise the man again would be to put him in a line-up so the question was entirely hypothetical.

She must be worried

Travers wrote:

Watcher wrote:I see Misty is desperately shrieking that the Smith family said they would not recognise the man again, as if that is somehow a clincher.

Of course, the only way of determining whether a witness could recognise the man again would be to put him in a line-up so the question was entirely hypothetical.

She must be worried  

Along with others like lace,another of the blessed collective.What really gets to them is that no one else has been named.

Drivel Spotter wrote:

Travers wrote:

Watcher wrote:I see Misty is desperately shrieking that the Smith family said they would not recognise the man again, as if that is somehow a clincher.

Of course, the only way of determining whether a witness could recognise the man again would be to put him in a line-up so the question was entirely hypothetical.

She must be worried  

Along with others like lace,another of the blessed collective.What really gets to them is that no one else has been named.

What else can you expect with these loons.

What sticks in their craw is that all we have seen are ludicrous images of an 'abductor' which really belong in children's books of fairy tales, and some expect them to be swallowed. I believe these images still persist on the gruesome twosome's 'Find Madeleine' website, including the Beckham 'lookalike' and Mr. Spotty.

If anyone wanted evidence to show the Mccann's know perfectly well she won't be found, then look no further than that site, and the known fact, that they last searched for her with a brief stroll in the morning after she disappeared. 'Brief' being the key word.

...and to use the buzzword or term prevalent elsewhere, IMHO.

I see supporters are now trying sarcasm by calling her GO'D.

Quite pathetic.

Beer Batter on the jf is working herself into a frenzy.

She is clearly implying Ms. O'Doherty is lying, and at one point could not even give her name correctly.

The thesaurus is ripped asunder, reverberating into a chaotic miasma of discombobulating recalcifications of pereblumbanic genialigies.

I think the evidence she was craving has now been found and links provided. .