Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Enfants Kidnappés: an Irish witness saw Gerry carrying Maddie.

Martin Smith, from Ireland, was on holiday in Praia da Luz at the same time as the McCanns. This week it has been reported in the Portuguese press that Mr Smith saw a man carrying a child, whom he thought was Madeleine, and that only when he returned to Ireland and saw Gerry's image on TV, did he think that the man he had seen was Gerry.

Enfants Kidnappés, dated 7/07/08


07 juillet 2008

An Irish witness saw Gerry carrying Maddie

Irishman Martin Smith told the PJ that he had seen a man carrying a child under his arm. To him, that child seemed to be Maddie. The events would have taken place round about dinner time on the evening of May 3rd. The hearing of the witness was recorded early on in the research. A few days after returning to his country of origin, Martin Smith went to the police. Following the media coverage of the case, he guaranteed that he had no doubts when he saw Gerry's face on television for the first time, as he was leaving a plane. The man who was carrying the child on the day that Maddie disappeared was her father!

The information was sent to the Portuguese authorities at a time when the PJ were still concentrating on the abduction theory. And, according to the final report, the lead would not have been followed because at the time when Martin stated having seen Gerry carrying Maddie under his arm, the latter was having dinner with friends of the couple at the Tapas Bar. It was only later that the PJ realised that no one amongst the T9 could say at exactly what time each member of the group was to be found at the restaurant. The PJ then requested additional investigation of this witness via the rogatory letters. The additional tasks concerning this witness were finally not carried out and without other details could not be examined more thoroughly.

The British police hand over certain details of the investigation to the McCanns.

On Monday, the British police agreed to hand over to Madeleine McCann's parents, certain details of their file on the little girl's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007, to enable private investigators whom they had engaged to assess them. In return, Kate and Gerry McCann withdrew from a legal procedure designed to force the police of Leicestershire, the central England county where they live, to let them have that information. "Kate and Gerry are satisfied with this compromise reached with the police," Clarence Mitchell, their spokesman, stated. "If we had not gone to court, we would not have obtained these 81 pieces (of information) The whole file would contain nearly 11,000 documents. They are now going to our private investigators who will work with them as a priority."

It remains difficult to believe that these documents will be useful to Metodo 3 in the sole objective of finding Madeleine. It seems difficult that this company, with a doubtful reputation and dubious legal methods, could do better than the PJ who have placed more than 300 men on the case. It remains to know if these 81 documents and hearings also contain the witness statements of the two crucial witnesses of whom the hearings have still not been sent to the Portuguese authorities? If such is the case, this looks more like a manoeuvre for preparing a defence than searching for a missing little girl.

Metodo 3 called into question by the PJ.

The final report criticises the, "research," done by the private detective agency hired by the couple. It was because of them that the PJ lost enormous amounts of time, money and energy in following, checking, assessing, analysing every, "false," lead put forward by Metodo 3, all over the place. There was Gail Cooper's witness statement, heard for the first time by the British authorities. She spoke of a beggar, whom she had only seen once and who could have taken the child. Later at the agency of the private detectives hired by the couple, she stated that she had seen the same beggar three times. And that on one of these three times, he had surprised her by looking at the group of children that Madeleine was part of, in a, "strange," way.

Then it was the turn of Jane Tanner who had not succeeded, initially, in describing the face of the man whom she asserted she had seen carrying Maddie in his arms, to go back on her statements. She stated that the man seen by Gail Cooper resembled the one she saw. The photo-fit went round the world and forced the PJ to check hundreds of leads which turned out to be false. Without taking into account that the PJ have had to take themselves to the farthest flung places on the planet. On the same day, at the same time, Maddie happened to be seen at places more than 4,000 kilometers apart! The report leaves to be implied that if someone had wanted to slow down the investigation, to prevent its being successful, this was as good a way as any.

The British modified the results of the tests.

This was the strangest about-turn of the investigation. The first analyses of the biological samples, carried out in the UK, on residues collected under the spare wheel, in the boot of the car rented by the parents, were compatible with Madeleine's genetic profile. Later, after the parents were designated as, "arguidos," or suspected of having concealed Madeleine's body, the laboratory announced the correction of their initial analyses. Afterward, the biological traces found in the Renault Scenic rented by the parents were not conclusive. In addition, even the quality of the samples was suddenly placed in doubt. This scientific reversal, not yet completely clarified, risks taking the investigation to a dead end. In effect the doubt always benefits the accused.

If one of the most important testing laboratories suddenly places samples themselves in doubt, that will be wholly beneficial for the defence. Note, however, that the use of dogs for detecting cadaver odours and traces of blood, is quite valid in the Portuguese legal system and the laboratory would have to scientifically corroberate the indications of the dogs. The PJ's decision to send the analyses to the UK, when they could have been done in Portugal, was initially a question of credibility.The inspectors did not want the results to be called into question in the UK.