Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.

the smith family. part 1.

a family from ireland that had already many holidays in praia da luz, not all travelled all times in the same group they were out that week. in total a group of 9 people, still only 4 made statements about what they had said, have seen on the evening of may 3, 2007, when going back to their quarters.

it is grown into complicated sighting grown in the name of operation smithman. it resulted in all kinds of viewpoints, between just a helpful family, up to part as actors of a covering up and by that ending too often in a complete fantasy.

still it is a nice one to explain why witness sightings can be a bit of a problem.

first there are 3 types of witnesses, the first is much rarer, but are the witnesses that in the moment of observation think what they see is a part of a crime, and bring that immediately to the notice of the police.

there are a lot more witnesses that only in a later moment, and usually when there is news made public, remember something that they noted, and because of how the news is given, deduce that could be information that can be helpful to solving a crime.  
this is also the most common group of witnesses, what they have observed was not direct noticeable as part of something bad happening.

a sub group of this group of witnesses are the ones who have their own reasons to wait to make known what they have observed.

another group is a bit of a mix, it is more the result of this witnesses that brings them together. it has all kinds of people that bring on words, but not to help an investigation of a crime, but to gift themselves some feeling good. some do it with intent, many do not, they do believe in their own stories, and besides that we have to let all the physics, dreamers and other not reproducible or controllable handy extras sit in the same group.

only the first witnesses can be more easily checked, because the period of time works with them, it is usually so short, it is much easier to find some evidence of what they noticed.
sometimes they are called direct witnesses, but that term is used for witnesses that have been much nearer and even part of a crime.

the second group, and there is nothing in the pj files that excludes the witnesses of the smith family from this group, is much harder to use. time is eating from all sides on such statements, not something the witness is necessary to blame for.

first our brains are not wired to take snapshots or even full video-like movies and keep hold of them, many parts of a crime itself are not easy to recognize at all as being that.
and our minds do not store so much when our brains deduce it as ordinary, there is simply no investment in keeping the observation for later use.
and we usually have so much filters on what we observe, that we only see boots and pieces.
only a marginal number of people can take in much more of their surroundings, and a few of them can even reproduce that well.
also our own emotional state works as a filter, life experiences, even if they are only from stories read or heard come to that.
and our senses are not very great for taking in much of the surroundings into details too. when we look to the right, we simply can not see anything to the left or behind us.
our hearing is influenced by the ‘landscape’ and the habits of noises to travel through it does not help much.
our brains are also wired in different ways, some can remember faces very well, others do not and fix maybe more on appearance in total. remembering a face and giving a description of it are two different entities too.

that is why photo fits or sketches have a low rating in being successful, they already miss one full of the 3 dimensions we normally see in reality. but our brains do not store portraits in the same details, but for most more as a picture, but it can be hard to get that back in front of your memory.

and time has another problem in these kinds of witnesses, it gives the opportunity to let your brain be influenced by others, other stories, and it can even be done with bad intent. and we have little control over that from our own brains.

there are many other things in all witnesses that influence a statement, we usually put much more attention to a scene from our own feelings and emotions. fear can make a memory better, sharper, but also more false, seeing a weapon does not tell you who is the bad guy in what you see, but fear of a weapon can make you fixing so much on the weapon you do not notice anything else at all.
even gender and ability can have influences, i think the smith witnesses shows a great example of that.

so back to the smith witnesses, there is nothing that can prove they were anything else , than just people doing their own business. so when they walked back to their own accommodation after dinner and a drink in one of the bars, they say; they saw a man carrying a female child of a young age at the specific place. from the 9 people in that family, only 3 adults and a then teenage girl remember that.

the meeting with the man with a child seems to have brought little concern to that observation. it was not a situation they expected something bad was happening.
the adults observed it each on their own from about the same area of that street, the teenage girl remembers she stood in a more different position higher up on that street.
the adults had their meeting in a passing way, the teenager stood still, waiting for the others.

the problem with this group of witnesses, is that they only later on seems to be brought back in their memories of this moment, because the son peter made a connection from looking for a man walking with a child from the jane tanner story as part of the madeleine mccann case.

all members of the family had already been back home. such flashback memories are very common in humans, ever been looking for your keys, that one jacket, that bit of paper with that now important phone number, that we can all have an example of from our own memory.
so that in itself does not and cannot tell something fishy is going on. you can not exclude it either. but it is not a choice that is asked from us to make.
the problem for me is more that peter walked in with these words into the memories of his co-witnesses in his family. and as is normal in a family they must have talked about it, who remembered what exactly, who not, the time could be discussed.
we do not behave instant as the perfect witness, and certainly not when in a group that shared the moments, and trust each other. it is absolutely normal to talk about something that already have slipped from your memory, so that is not something you much put ot as a point against this group of witnesses, it only tells they are just humans too.
it is also still not part of the curriculum of teaching in 50 rules to keep in mind when you become a witness one day.

the problem is that you have yourself hardly any control over influences put from one story into yours, and it is not easy to detect it later on by even well experienced detectives.
we are simply group animals, socially bound to other humans, and groupthink works often well in that. it is usually just luck to see influences in a story, like when a witness never could have observed a detail, but it is made part of their story.

where it for this overall kind of witnesses happens without much purpose, or realizing it even happened, the third group used this often as a great tool.

but this type of influencing is why there is a reference to keep your witnesses as far apart as is possible. as soon as one of them starts to talk, the influence walks in.
and it can not be escaped, even when you are told before, or now it will be given a try in training sessions, and you are experienced, and have a good slate as a detective, it still happens.

in the situation of the smith witnesses it could not even be avoided, even if peter was first gone to a police station to put his statement down, the other 3 witnesses lived at the same address. so impossible to ask them in, to do the same and not wake up something in the minds of the others.

the smith family part 2.

going further about influences on the statement;

so that part does count pretty hard for the investigation done from their statements, but that is not a fault of these witnesses. influencing would not be that bad if only true observations would play a role, but thinking back in our memories can replace bits from other observations and become mistakes.

influencing a witness by officers of the law is a bad thing, done with intent and even for reasons we could talk straight, it is a do not do rule.
but traditionally it was very easy to do. these line ups to ask a witness if they recognize a person, are the best even, so nowadays there is to work from a very strict protocol to use it.
same with pictures shown of people. because if you was able to show a person in a way most would recognize it as that must be a bad man, like walking them with handcuffed hands on their back , by two officers in a fierce way through the hallway where the witness was waiting for its turn. the chance their number in the row, or their picture would be picked out as the bad guy was quite successful.

the same it does work with the media attention, showing faces with a story, can influence a witness when it takes more time between the observation and the making of their statement.
and stories about the possible bad guy are influencing too. and it can be laid down on the shoulders of a witness. during an investigation officers of the law have a duty of care to not bring on influencing by their own actions.

it also works with asking questions, the way you ask them, the information you put in them, the influences of your handling of the witness can make it an unusable story to investigate.

the media is a more difficult one, they have no direct responsibility , there is in most law systems a kind of free pass to write what they like and say what they like. so it is up to the choice of the makers and producers of the media, how responsible they want to be.
but there is also a need to have the media pay attention, when you have a need of witnesses, witnesses that can know about bits of the case at hand that did happen, or that did not happen then, or in a different order.

all the time you observe anything just doing your own business, you still can have seen bits that are part of the crime, but because they do not stand out as a serious situation, you normally would think nothing about it. so you would not know about it being part of a crime, so it is nice that media attention makes you remember it.

we do not know how much influence there was from the media into the story of the smith witnesses. it was not a question asked directly, about what their habits are with using the media. that can be very different and even by different outlets for each witness. they all would have their own social circle that can influence them too, or make them know information.

and people do have already a lot of pretty standard social bias. crime is by that mostly a sole male expression. and there is nothing in this case that tells there was third party involvement, and by that there cannot be any upfront expectation if a third party was involved of it was a man, a woman, in 2007 there was no legal standing for other genders by choice, but still opinions of the public when thoughts dwindle to a third party they do select 99% for a male offender.

and with that we land in the next problem with the smith sighting, there is nothing to base a third party entering the scene at all. there never been found any traces of a break in anywhere on unit 5a. the left open patio door and entrance gate to the garden and stairs in the back garden of unit 5a could made that escape the story, still there is a story by the parents about that break in, there is only nothing that showed that indeed even was the situation in unit 5a at all.
it was not even that a strange to spot a man with a child walking around in the streets of praia da luz. If you look through the witness statements and even all kinds of pictures from that time, it was not uncommon to see one.
we have the carpenter family, that left the tapas area and the father carried his child, his wife was with him, but there could have been moments people only seen him , we had tannerman, that as a result of the later on uk investigation most likely was the father of the totman family, at least he made known he had been carrying his own child that same evening, it still does not suit te tannerman, but totman was also at a moment that evening out there with a child on his arm. jez wilkins used a buggy, but was like totman on his own.
this are all 3 fathers that been out in the street direct near unit 5a, that made themselves known.

most other areas are not investigated for looking for fathers carrying their own children. there certainly could have been others, it is at least known other people used the creche evening service but that full set of information never made it into the pj files. We also do not know if there been other child care services available to tourists that booked with other tour operators than mark warner.

but we do not know what the local residents had as habits in that matter too. We can take from the social culture in portugal it could be very common to see even young children being around when adults socialised. because of the different climate they have already often a different daily schedule too. it would be strange if local born children of tender ages did never been carried home by parents, including their fathers.

so it does not matter much if people start from the smith witnesses of that family told a true story or not, they have no say in that anyway, because it never gone over just having an opinion. the identity of the potential male with child never is became known. by statements only one of the smith family witnesses we do know there was months later on a possible recognition available, a 60 to 80% opinion that it very well could have been gerry mccann.

but that is all there is. When the new team took over the portuguese investigation, this sighting lost the interest of the investigation, and no more work wat put in it.

so all we can get from it, that some members of a larger family group have seen a man with a child, but there is nothing that tells who this actually was, or could have been, gerry mccann is based on one witness.

the witness statements of the smith family does tell it was not a very special meeting, none of them had at that specific moment any idea the man with child stood really out, beyond, he was most likely one of the few people they passed in the streets on their way back home.

and praia da luz was that evening of may 3 still a village where lives have been lived, good and bad things just take their turns as always. the people there did simply their own things, the case of the girl that got missing happened not in a vacuum.
and from that you can expect there simply could been quite a few people around that, even what their doings have been, not would like to have them out in the open.
people who prefer for their own business, not to become known as being out on the streets.

and on this point the massive attention starts to have a role too, making yourself known would easily end up, in being seen as a possible suspect in a very serious crime. so besides the ‘problem’ in their own home, when having to tell why they have been there at that time, your name and maybe even your picture would be used in the media all over the world, and locally every one would have their say about it too.
and not everyone want to pay a price for something, that has maybe absolutely nothing in any possible way or connection to the missing child case, and is maybe as event itself very innocent too.

if this man indeed exist, but has not even a finger tip in a possible crime, there is no legal obligation to make himself known. the sighting itself contains no criminal offence in itself.

this sighting can only be of importance when their is indeed a connection to the case.
because of when and where the sighting took place, it is indeed of interest for an investigation to clear it up. still if that ended up with just a local guy with his own daughter, it would be a dead end in that investigation, and even be a time waster.

you can put the result not to the original witnesses, witnesses can not change the information that is used from their words, they supposedly only remembered something that could be what the public was asked for to assist with; to make known anything that maybe could help to tell what happened, or where the child could be.

so this problem is just a later result from their statements, not theirs in the making.

the smith family. part 3.

there is another problem to keep in mind because of being all from the same group, staying there for that week at least. And this was simply never investigated at all.

because when the statements are all the result of one of the adults, peter, remembering that they have seen a man with a child, almost 2 weeks after that supposedly has happened, we have to look to possible interference, called projection. and as hard this is to understand, even for the witnesses themselves, this does happen. if this family had made a pattern, or at least on more days that week also go out to eat in the same restaurant, or another near it, visit these evenings a bar for a afterdrink, it could happen that from the eagerness to help the investigation, and talking within the family, it could happen the day they have seen a man with child was placed on that thursday evening.
this is not lying about something, or making up stories, and because all describe it as an quite ordinary meeting, it could easily been placed on thursday.

and this could be a reason why the man never made himself known too, the question was always who was the man with a child on thursday. and because it was quite an heavy question, because all who made themselves known would be under serious attention, not only from the police, but in their own families too, and in their complete social network.
gossip, loose thoughts can reshape a unsure role into much to large proportions, and is one of many reasons why people are usually not very active in making themselves known.

so that is why this sighting because of the date it was placed on, and how near unit 5a, it need still much more investigation into it.
there is word the family had a bill from the restaurant, but if they been dining out as their pattern that week, that does not secure it enough. there is a print out from the control role of the til at the bar, but none of these in that time period can tell exactly more about the time they been there and when they paid.

and this is exactly what investigation do, checking a witness statement to other points that can be used, these checked are needed, not even so much to tell if it are lies, made up stories or true stories, of only for smaller bits.
a witness statement in itself cannot be called evidence, it needs a lot of back up in facts and other circumstances. It has not even much to do with the witnesses, or any intent they can have, most often witnesses deliver only smaller pieces to the story, and that must fit together to understand what has taken place.

until a witness statement is further looked into, it has no reason for going out hard on witnesses. It is never up to the witness to give their observations meaning in an investigation. they simply deliver information, only because they got into an understanding the investigation could have a need for it, and seeing a man with a child is enough to make it into that. finding good witnesses is usually sheer luck, even much more when you ask to tell about an observation that at the time itself had very little to make a deep impression into their brains.

also we do have very different ways to what we observe, some people do faces, others more clothing, or a more vague but still more overall impression. observing from even some metres apart can make what is seen or could be seen very different.
like in this example there been two different people to observe and also the combination of them together. a meeting in passing, that usually means a moving target that you see for seconds. It is unknown when each of the 3 adults started to notice the man with child, and when they began to observe. the female teenager was standing still on a higher point looking back into that same street, she had a complete different perspective.

and males and females do observe different, certainly when it is already dark, the female teenager was of an age she could already been starting to look from a female perspective.
seeing a unknown male, makes usually a much sharper impression to females than to most males. growing up with look out for the guys, certainly out on a dark street, is what does that.

so it is not strange the statement of the female teenager has so much more details, her observation time was much longer, she stood on her own a bit more away from her family.
and she could had that typical female danger/escalation observation to see if she was at risk herself.

and we recognize most other people much more in their moving form in 3d, than as the 2 dimensional photo fits or even pictures. it is for that reason that the tv shows with police cases that are looking for who knows this person, are more successful when videos are available. much more effective than descriptions and photo fits and pictures.

faces can also very easily be influenced by pictures seen in the media, but people who have in real life hardly any difficult to recognize a face from someone they met before, can not always give a correct description of the face.

and from these witnesses and we do not know who of them are on a much later time, almost a year later even asked to make a photofit/ drawing. the older male witness has said he did not assisted in that, so only the younger male, his adult son, his wife, the other female witness, who’s statement is never been published, and the female teenager a daughter too can have assisted.
both are said to be the result of at least two witnesses, both the results are made with different systems, that could also be two different operators, and we have nothing to check their credentials in that. they are made by private arrangement through private detectives.

so when they made in into the public eye during the presentations in multiple countries in europe in 2013 by operation grange they became more a disturbance than a help. two on first sight very different male faces. without details that even could make them stand out.

it was a bit a just try something, than the usual habit when you end up with second hand information and as far as known there is not much spoken with these witnesses again.

what did happen later on, was made up saying about the ideas the witnesses years later had, and by that should have changed their information given in 2007 to the first investigation. what just make it more difficult to understand and use.
not at fault of the witnesses, but all the more the mouths of the media, that did that for their not told reasons.

only one witness has a know second statement made, from what sounds an unwilling mind, he still saw it as his duty to tell he thinks with 60 to 80% of being sure to have recognized gerry mccann, as the man he saw from his statement about thursday may 3, 2007.
a recognition triggered when gerry mccann came down the stairs from the plane, carrying his son. what was part of a news item, when the family mccann returned back home from portugal.

all together it is hard to put meaning to these statements, they simply lack a serious investigation. there is no direct link to unit 5a that can help in that too.
there is no clear timeline and even zero hour is still insecure enough.
so it would be very hard to include as possible lead, or exclude it as impossible.

this sighting was already a bit later known of, but to the public it took much longer, and public must be read to all people, only who read through the pj files had a better insight, but that was already over a year later.

so others who could have seen this same man can be missed by that and lost in what time simply does to memories, they do fade easily if not used.

it simply results in a very weak link, you cannot build much of this case on.

Why is there reason to think the Smith family were in any way involved?

We are all different, we all process information differently. There is no right or wrong way recollections can be reasonably assessed.

Statement analysis is not the answer, too many obstacles to be definitive.

i think the involved part lives more in opinions formed by people who are not part of the investigation.

and involved would be a very harsh conclusion, it happens often with all people who made formal statements.
and formal statements are in itself not very special, it only tells information in it, is or was at/or around that time during an investigation of intrest. and it is more about the information itself than the person itself.

to see jokers around in formal statements is normally pretty rare, by doubt, keep it informal, not even all formal statements been published in the pj files, or if earlier interview really been formal or simply informal.

the statements from a group are nice to use as an example why being a witness is quite hard. part of this family has spent many days there, the parents had their own unit, so to know the prominent local faces is not strange. it is a very small village, and the group foreigners frequently out there or even took residency is from the uk, the chance is quite big that they pass by during the same events.

and look around in your own life, there are people you know from just seeing them at multiple times, over the years it is not strange to pick up some names to the faces, but it would not tell you know each other well, knowing off is all you need to say i saw that one there, or not.

and remembering stuff from a situation that brought not much in emotions to imprint it in your brain are common, i mean take now a pen and a piece of paper and try to write down what you have eaten each day of the last 7 in one minute.
even if you cooked then yourself that is already hard.
this meeting took place in seconds.

and it is sound enough to investigate with effort, that did not really happened. so we look only to half a story.
the members of this family answered simply when there was asked for information, they did that, after that it is simply up to an investigation to see if it has a meaning and use in the full story.

and it does not mean they are fair game, and can be worked through only opinions into criminals. and this was done pretty extreme too, wasn't this the family that got mixed up with another family of the same name at the time?

if a witness statement does not fit and has so little to establish identity, it works so much easier to simply set it aside and see where it brings you without it.

i think the involved part lives more in opinions formed by people who are not part of the investigation.

Exactly! There is no way the outside observer can be privy to inside information, there has of course been those with feigned knowledge of inside information to promote their social media standing but that feigned knowledge has no foundation. It's just fantasy.

Internet super sleuths are not official police investigators, they have no place interfering with a police investigation, less still the lives of innocent people. How can anyone morally try to ruin a strangers reputation on a whim or fancy? In this particular case not just one family but another mistakenly identified as the Smith family.

If anyone was to ask me what day, date and/or time I did or saw no way could I respond with any accuracy, even with a specific event that might make it stand out in daily routine. Size, colours, features can only be guess work. We all perceive things differently.

And then to work on the entire family weaving in a 12 year old daughter and relatives with problems of their own only to produce a fantastical tale of evil intentions.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

When privately looking into a police investigation by all means question every aspect but don't bring specific people's name into disrepute on a social media platform.

Remember mud sticks.

If anyone wants to promote themselves as the ultimate repentant sinner then go for it, fill your boots, but not at the expense of others. Make it your own personal crusade, not a strangers fate.

The Portuguese police case coordinator thought the Smith family to be of particular interest to the investigation, hence he asked them to return to Portugal to assist. He had first hand knowledge of the investigation thus I think it only reasonable to trust his experience over and above non-entities who think they know better.

There is nothing obviously sinister about the Smith family's movements and behaviour, even if there was it's not for the internet armchair detective to determine.

Unless of the course the desire is to further drag the Portuguese police through the mud