A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Well well well Madam Phoebe - be sure your sins will find you out.

On 5th October 2018, you quoted this from an ancient post of mine in an attempt to imply that I agree point to point with a specific member's extensive research and resultant conclusions on the subject of Martin Smith as regards the stranger description compared to that of Jane Tanner et al..

Verdi wrote:
Every point you make Tony I think is valid, even though one or two areas are perhaps slightly tenuous, that trifle doesn't detract from the overall picture."

This is a screenshot of your post @Phoebe



By some strange coincidence, I came across the very post that you pinched the quote from - so let's put things into perspective, this is the actual post which can be seen doesn't relate directly to the subject of the description by any witness of a sighting..


Aside from the deliberate false representation of my words, it can be seen clearly my post dates back to 14th July 2015.  My accessible posting history doesn't go back that far so .... I'm asking you .... where or who did you get this from?

What a devious little minx you've turned out to be.  I await your explanation .

Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?

My view is that the Smiths did not see anyone at all. This is at present a minority view on the forum, though it does have quite a few supporters, and that number is growing.

A rather bigger number think that the Smiths saw somebody else - another bloke mysteriously carrying a young girl in pyjamas around the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold early May evening at 10pm.

The claim that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter's body to the beach would appear still to be the most popular view on the forum, despite my best efforts to suggest otherwise.

********

My (evidenced) hypothesis can be summed up like this:

When Martin Smith contacted the police on 16 May, he was doing so to support a man he knew, Robert Murat.

When he 'phoned the police on 20 September, he was AGAIN supporting Murat, but was now also pointing the finger directly at Gerry McCann.

THEN came the all-important SALSALITO SUMMIT  when the lawyered-up Murat Team met the lawyered-up McCann Team. They settled what were obviously major differencs between them, and reached a deal.

Part of that deal, I suggest, was that the IMO fabricated Smithman sighting would now be used to help the McCanns pursue their abduction narrative, via what Wendy Murphy once described as a 'fake suspect'.

And this is actually what has happened.

In spades.

 
By the morning of 4 May news reports were full of the abduction story and Martin Smith’s daughter in Ireland had told him what had happened - a man had taken a young girl. He would have heard more that day. The Mcs made their first televised appeal that evening. Apparently distraught parents; missing abducted innocent. One scenario would have been in everyone's minds, and it wouldn’t have been a good one.
 
MS rogatory:
He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
 
What would any sane individual do under the circumstances? A little girl’s life might still be saved. Not only does Smith not immediately report what he saw, he doesn’t report what he saw when backed up by 3 other adults and 2 teenagers (although all did not ultimately make statements). What possible excuse could anyone have, none in my view. Sergeant Hogan states that Smith seems like a decent man but a decent man would have been straight down to the nearest police station, and I don’t have to add IMO because that is FACT. Was he having sleepless nights or feeling worried sick about what he’d seen and its possible significance? Apparently not.
 
Suddenly, almost 2 weeks later, something triggers the Smiths in to action. It wasn’t to save a child.
 
Then, on 20 September 2007, Martin Smith contacts the police again. Now he is having sleepless nights and is worried sick over something, which isn’t going to save the life of a child. On face value, whatever happened to Madeleine happened over 4 months previously and whether Smith phones the police on the 15^th, 20^th or 30^th September makes not a jot of difference to her wellbeing. What was he worried sick about then – was the thought of pointing a finger at GM so much worse than the thought of a child being taken by a paedophile?
 
Strangely at exactly the same time another witness (apparently) makes a statement, which also implicates Gerry McCann.
 
I don’t confess to fully understand what is going on here BUT the timing of Martin Smith’s statements make no sense unless looked at in the wider context of what was going on at the time, IMO. Smith tells us that he has at least spoken to Robert Murat before (Murat ‘spoke to everyone’ – which conveniently includes Smith himself, without him stating as much) and that he saw Murat several times in May and August 2006.
 
If the Smithman sighting had been a father carrying a child – why wouldn’t the Smiths have reported it immediately and why wouldn’t the father have come forward?
 
If the sighting had been of GM carrying Madeleine (I can hardly bring myself to write that) or a decoy child, or, if the sighting had been of some other person acting as a decoy – why wouldn’t the Smiths have reported it immediately?
 
If there was no sighting how do we have 3 witnesses?
 
There is no logical, innocent explanation, IMO. Those who discount what Tony and others are theorizing i.e. that Martin Smith is not a genuine witness, need to come up with reasonable explanations for the strange and yet strangely convenient first statement(s) date (including the reason for the delay); the strange co-incidences of the McCluskey/Smith second statements; etc.

@ Tony Bennett. Tony, you have not answered the question I put to you re the Smith sighting, and, as I understand it, the claim that the Smiths were inventing their sighting is heavily based on the (flawed) idea that their description of the man they saw matches those of Jane T and Lourenco, which you interpreted as "proof" of collaboration and pre-planning. Therefore, I think I important to  thoroughly examine this claim.  

@ Verdi. I have no idea of what that particular rant (above) is about. I got your post for reference (solely lest it be claimed I was not backing up what I claimed with evidence) simply by using the search bar on this forum! Ask the forum owner to check it out if you wish! I also asked you the same question re. the very obvious differences in the descriptions given by the Smiths and Tanner and you have not answered it either!

@ Tony Bennett. Tony, you have not answered the question I put to you re the Smith sighting, and, as I understand it, the claim that the Smiths were inventing their sighting is heavily based on the (flawed) idea that their description of the man they saw matches those of Jane T and Lourenco, which you interpreted as "proof" of collaboration and pre-planning. Therefore, I think I important to  thoroughly examine this claim.  

@ Verdi. I have no idea of what that particular rant (above) is about. I got your post for reference (solely lest it be claimed I was not backing up what I claimed with evidence) simply by using the search bar on this forum!!!! Ask the forum owner to check it out if you wish!

I also asked you the same question re. the very obvious differences in the descriptions given by the Smiths and Tanner and you have not answered it either!

Since I began this post I have seen that another message has been posted. 

For the record -  as I have stated before, I don't give a fig who like or dislikes my posts and cannot be responsible for who dislikes or likes them. Nor can I control other peoples reactions be they positive or negative!
I do NOT know Ben Salmon. He once messaged me on this forum when I raised the issue of a phone call which Jane Tanner speaks about in her rogatory interview (but if I remember correctly he had a user name here, April 28th). I had pointed out that there had been phone contact between someone with connections to the FSS lab with an almost identical name and Jane.
April 28th sent me a P.M. to sate that he too had noted this and he provided the phone number evidence to show that it was this same scientist to whom Jane had spoken. 
I posted this information and was challenged, (by Verdi if I recall) to produce evidence to back up this claim.
Having basic good manners, I asked April 28th (by P.M.) if he was Ben Salmon (as I knew this name in association with most phone research about this case). I asked his permission to reproduce his evidence and he kindly agreed. That is the one and only occasion on which I have ever had contact with Ben Salmon and it was done through this forum!

Things are spiralling here.

Is Martin Smith a reliable, credible witness?

No.

Would any half decent lawyer call him?

No. It would seriously undermine their case.

That's about it folks.

@ Crackfox. Given that SO much has been made of the Smith family's alleged lies and involvement in the plot to impede the investigation, this matter surely deserves clarification. Otherwise, there will be a "Groundhog" style rehashing of allegations of their "involvement" based on flawed claims again and again (as has been the pattern)
 True, the Smith testimony would not stand up in any court, that however, is very different from claims that they themselves are liars and were involved in some dastardly plot to derail the investigation. Such serious allegations need to addressed.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?

My view is that the Smiths did not see anyone at all. This is at present a minority view on the forum, though it does have quite a few supporters, and that number is growing.

A rather bigger number think that the Smiths saw somebody else - another bloke mysteriously carrying a young girl in pyjamas around the streets of Praia da Luz on a cold early May evening at 10pm.

The claim that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter's body to the beach would appear still to be the most popular view on the forum, despite my best efforts to suggest otherwise.

********

My (evidenced) hypothesis can be summed up like this:

When Martin Smith contacted the police on 16 May, he was doing so to support a man he knew, Robert Murat.

When he 'phoned the police on 20 September, he was AGAIN supporting Murat, but was now also pointing the finger directly at Gerry McCann.

THEN came the all-important SALSALITO SUMMIT  when the lawyered-up Murat Team met the lawyered-up McCann Team. They settled what were obviously major differencs between them, and reached a deal.

Part of that deal, I suggest, was that the IMO fabricated Smithman sighting would now be used to help the McCanns pursue their abduction narrative, via what Wendy Murphy once described as a 'fake suspect'.

And this is actually what has happened.

In spades.

There are many places one could duck into and avoid being seen. Dumpster bins on both sides of the road, a stairwell, the hotel at the top of the street etc. My view is that if someone was seen (and I remain agnostic on it for now), they must have wanted to be seen.

The idea of carrying a dead child through the streets so openly is hard to swallow because (he) would definitely be seen. All the bars and restaurants there with people coming and going. If he turned right he would go past one. If he turned left he would go past several (going left would also make no sense due to the fact that he could have just gone down the M537-1 in the first place), and if he went down the same stairwell the Smiths came from he'd be literally walking into a hub of them. Why take such a risk? Other than for the sake of being seen, I can't think of a sensible reason.

There's also the fact Gerry was alibi-ed at the Tapas at the very same time, not just by the group.

@ Mainline. You posted above -


"There's also the fact that Gerry was alibi-ed at the Tapas at the very same time, not just by the group."


Could you please provide a link to this alibi (other than the group) Thanks.

Mainline:
 
‘My view is that if someone was seen (and I remain agnostic on it for now), they must have wanted to be seen.’
 
Or not ‘not wanted to be seen’.
 
A random stranger walking home with a sleeping daughter in his arms, who wasn’t in the slightest bit interested in whether he was seen or not.
 
But if that was the case, why has he not come forward after all this time to say it was probably him that was seen?
 
Oh well, it took Redwood’s ‘Tannerman’ over six years to come forward and still be able to produce his child’s pyjamas, so what’s another five years or so!
 
No doubt Smithman will still have his ‘not a tourist’ clothes and these pyjamas as well, he just hasn’t quite got round to speaking to the PJ yet, but he will one day when he gets time.
 
We wait with baited breath for Nicky ‘Nick ‘em so Quick’ to reveal all!

@Phoebe

Jeronimo Salcedas Rogatory:

'On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.'


Interestingly though, we have these two statements which say Kate went to the apartment upon Gerry's return:


Vitorino Starikova:


'Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'


Joaquim Batista:


'[size=13]The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;'[/size]




@DougD

A good point. Surely after all these years that person would've come forward. Then again, it's surprising how little knowledge of the case some people have. There are some witnesses who aren't even aware the files are online. It always amazes me that people so close to the events haven't followed every moment of the case like we do.

@ Mainline  - The above citations do not give Gerry and alibi for the time when the Smiths encountered Smithman. In fact, the citation from Vitorino Starikova states that -
 "one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes"
Why Smithman has never been traced is indeed a mystery.

Yes, I included those two quotes to highlight just that. They imply he got back to the table at around ten.

 Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

 by Phoebe on 12.08.17 14:48

I've received a p.m. from a member indicating that there was indeed contact via text messages between JaneTanner and Dr. Christine Flaxman at 8:21:46 and 10:05:20 on May 2nd 2007. I haven't put the chart up as I can't separate it from the rest of the message (too techno challenged) but if I get the member's permission I will post it. Why then did Jane Tanner lie and designate the contact as either Claxman or Paxman, claiming to be unsure of her name? She works at the same university, Exeter, as Dr. Flaxman so it's most unlikely she didn't know her name! Was she trying to hide the fact that she had been in contact with Dr. Christine Flaxman, a published expert in the area of low copy DNA analysis, who also had worked at the F.S.S. Birmingham where the blood samples recovered from 5G were tested with such controversial results? Or, did she have another reason for hiding the contact made on May 2nd?



This is the jist of my contacts with April 28th Ben Salmon

 Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

 by Phoebe on 12.08.17 21:10

[size=11]From April28th To Phoebe, Today at 18:25
Hey, no problem. This is her:

http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/people/profile/index.php?web_id=Christine_Flaxman
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Flaxman
http://exeter.crf.nihr.ac.uk/node/22 (scroll down)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-flaxman-642a6748/

Linkedin is the most important as it confirms she worked at FSS!

Please feel free to share these links as I see verdi is being pedantic on the basis of not finding the name on 192 or some such. I don't post anymore myself so please don't worry about crediting me.


@ Verdi. Message received this eve. I believe the poster April28th has already done some extensive research into the whole area of the phone records in the Madeleine case other than this Flaxman contact. I can find no reference to the name Claxman through ANY internet search, even beyond Exeter.
[/size]

I trust this clears up the matter of "Ben Salmon knows" Phoebe!!

Phoebe wrote:@ Crackfox. Given that SO much has been made of the Smith family's alleged lies and involvement in the plot to impede the investigation, this matter surely deserves clarification. Otherwise, there will be a "Groundhog" style rehashing of allegations of their "involvement" based on flawed claims again and again (as has been the pattern)
 True, the Smith testimony would not stand up in any court, that however, is very different from claims that they themselves are liars and were involved in some dastardly plot to derail the investigation. Such serious allegations need to addressed.

Phoebe I disagree. There are some things there simply isn't enough concrete evidence to establish and determining the motive of Mr Smith is one of those things IMO. I do find this testimony very odd and I can at least see the potential that Mr Smith was defending Murat - but I don't know for sure. I think Tony's theory is plausible and makes sense on a number of levels.

I don't see the Smiths as special cases - as far as I'm concerned it's a fair cop to explore the motives of all the players in this case - Smiths included! And that's about it - Mr Smith throws no light on this case and so long as he keeps being such a hot topic he will continue to cast shade, IMO.

Phoebe wrote:

 Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

 by Phoebe on 12.08.17 21:10

[size=11]From April28th To Phoebe, Today at 18:25
Hey, no problem. This is her:

http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/people/profile/index.php?web_id=Christine_Flaxman
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Flaxman
http://exeter.crf.nihr.ac.uk/node/22 (scroll down)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-flaxman-642a6748/

Linkedin is the most important as it confirms she worked at FSS!

Please feel free to share these links as I see verdi is being pedantic on the basis of not finding the name on 192 or some such. I don't post anymore myself so please don't worry about crediting me.


@ Verdi. Message received this eve. I believe the poster April28th has already done some extensive research into the whole area of the phone records in the Madeleine case other than this Flaxman contact. I can find no reference to the name Claxman through ANY internet search, even beyond Exeter.
[/size]

I trust this clears up the matter of "Ben Salmon knows" Phoebe!!

Hi Phoebe,First and foremost,thanks for continuing on the Smith Family sight evidence E-fit identity,Tannerman,Lourenco.

It must now ring "Alarm Bells" in someones personae,that Jane T has contact with a"Friend from Exeter 2 May 2007"  to FSS.Birmingham results,DNA/LCI,a Police log on missing Madeleine McCann,a day earlier than she vanished without trace,3 May 2007!

A Three year old girl disappears?

A friend of the parents has contact with a Blood expert(as above)?

The "Friend" picks out a possible Abductor on the proposed evening of the event having to have happened,who just so happens to pick Mr Robert Murat from inside a Police Surveilance van,then twelve moths later rescinds her description of Mr Robert Murat?

During this Twelve moth period the mysterious benefactor has contact with all Three Arquido's through various dubious legal shenanigans, with contact with Sky News Corporation,(Contract Robert Murat)Martin Brunt,yet there is No "Hoax Scenario",collusion?

The harassment by Sky News,Martin Brunt, death of Mrs Brenda Leyland,Dossier to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe on behalf of the McCann's, needed to be exposed silenced,Jim Gamble make an example of, Suicide?

Yet non of these events have anything to do with the McCann family who have lost their eldest Daughter Madeleine?

Operation Grange DCI Andy Redwood,the friends,(Tapas 7/9 "Are Not suspects or Person's of interest"?

Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?

Hello again Mainline,

Please forgive my former bluntness, it was late at night and on the spur of the moment I thought your introductory post was a bit odd.

I was about to log-out so rather than lock the thread for a few hours which would not only cause confusion but  prevent members from continuing discussion, I moved your posts to a safe place for a few hours.  I've been busy all day, this is the first real opportunity I've had to get back on it, so to speak.

So, if you will allow, I will start again.

Hello Mainline and  to the forum.  I look forward to you contribution .

NO REASON TO LIE ?


@ crackfox   Once again I would like to thank you very much for your measured and considered approach to the Smiths’ evidence and that of Martin Smith especially. I can’t fault what you say. I have repeatedly stated that EVERY witness statement in this deeply mysterious case must be examined for whether it has the ‘ring of truth’ about it, whether it is credible, the circumstances in which it came to be made, whether it is inconsistent or contradictory etc. etc. 

I don’t in the least expect rapid acceptance of my hypothesis that Martin Smith was acting to help Robert Murat, and then switched to supporting the McCanns a few weeks after the key ‘SALSALITO SUMMIT’ between the lawyered-up rival Murat and McCann Teams at the home of Ralph and Sally Eveleigh on 13 November 2007. I shall be developing that theory further, with evidence, when time permits.

In the meantime, I want to share a relevant video. It deals with a problem that I’ve faced throughout the four years now that I have been querying the Smiths’ evidence. I’ve lost count of the number of times that people have said of Martin Smith’s evidence:

“He seems like a credible person”

“There’s no reason to doubt what he says”

“He seemed sincere” or

“He had absolutely no incentive to lie” etc. etc.

Two weeks ago, a 55-year-old woman, Christine Blasey Ford, gave evidence before a Senate Committee that she had been nearly raped by Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15 years old. If her account was true, Kavanaugh would not have been elected to the Supreme Court. The Committee did not believe her, and Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Judge.

During the past two weeks, overwhelming evidence has accumulated that she deliberately lied AND that her rape claim had been covertly planned by the left-wing Democratic Party beforehand for several weeks. In particular:

1 She could recollect no details of where the incident took place, what the floor plan was, how she got there, how she got back etc.

2 She couldn’t recollect who was there except that she named two people. Both of those gave sworn testimony that there never was such an incident and they were not there

3. She lied about several things, including a wholly fabricated claim that she had a fear of flying and enclosed spaces

4. She changed her story several times

5. It emerged at the hearing that she regularly rented out her house to Google internees. Days before she made her dramatic revelation, Google wiped almost every reference to her on the internet. This could only have been done manually

6. It emerged that Christine Blasey Ford had for years been involved in training in hypnosis and ‘self-hypnosis’ including training in ho to ‘get away with’ a false statement. The training also included specific lessons on how to beat a lie detector. Christine Blasey Ford took a lie detector test before she made her dramatic ‘revelation; and passed it.

Besides that, 75 women who had known Kavanaugh since his teenage years and throughout his professional life voluntarily came forward to testify to his unimpeachable integrity and correct conduct with women.

I could go on. There is much more.

This video is by Michelle Malkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV019fkNOqs  (5 minutes)

Malkin: 'Sincere' Christine Blasey Ford...or sincere BULLCRAP…?




.

@ Tony Bennett.
 I have asked you several times Tony whether you accept that the men described by Smith, Tanner and Lourenco, are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers). The Smiths' man is described as having light skin, and short, light brown hair. Tannerman is described as having dark skin and copious long, dark, glossy hair while Sagresman is described as having a Latino appearance with long dark hair in a ponytail.

You persist in ignoring this question about a straightforward facts which have been used to underpin the theory of the Smiths being liars.

Diverting into tales of American political skullduggery is irrelevant to the Madeleine case. Claiming that the said descriptions are "carbon copies" when the evidence contradicts this IS an important, relevant issue which needs addressing. It is the one of the linchpins underpinning the theory of the Smith family being liars.
 I do wish you would answer this straightforward, evidence based question, instead of making wild untrue allegations against me in retaliation for asking it or introducing irrelevant American political wrangling. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question.

@Tony Bennett thank you for the link - a great analysis! What's happening in America reminds me of The Crucible - a witch hunt if ever there was one. People trying to use emotion to evaluate truth are very scary.

Regarding the evidence of Mr Smith, it seems people approach it the wrong way. From a forensics angle, you start by looking at the external conditions that may affect the reliability: light, distance, length of contact. You consider other factors such as alcohol, whether there was discussion between witnesses, the emotional state and personality of each witness - confident witnesses are often the least reliable. After that, you look at the system variables and how this may affect testimony - in this case GM being identified as a suspect has a huge significance because in effect, Mr Smith identified a suspect from a two man media identity parade. If you tell a witness that the perpetrator is in the line up research shows witnesses are more likely to pick someone than if you say the perpetrator may or may not be in the line up.


I understand why people say things like "He had no reason to lie" because it's a very human response but it's not scientific. From a forensic point of view you have to evaluate the reliability of the evidence and Mr Smith's testimony falls at the first hurdle when you do that.

I only know a bit about this because I did a free Open University course and it taught me it is important to eliminate what's not credible and look at what's left. When you do that you see that there is a shocking lack of credible eye witness testimony in this case and that in itself is a red flag.

@ Crackfox y ou wrote -" Regarding the evidence of Mr Smith, it seems people approach it the wrong way"

I agree. The first thing to establish is whether the Smiths DID see a man carrying a child. The whole family say they did, and the police believe their testimony is credible.
It has been claimed that they invented seeing someone. Examining this claim is surely the first port of call before pondering who they saw, or how well they could see, remember and describe him.
The reason touted to suggest the Smiths are liars are based on two theories. The first, that they were "given" a description which was a "carbon copy" of those given by Tanner and Lourenco. This claim is patently false as evidenced in the files.
The second is that they knew Robert Murat well enough to perjure themselves, including getting children to join in this false testimony.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the Smiths knew Murat, other than by sight, as Martin Smith explained. An explanation which satisfies the police.
 Before wondering who the Smiths saw, or how well they saw and remembered him, it is vital to establish whether they are lying about seeing someone in the first place, and - there is no supporting EVIDENCE for any claim that they did not see what they reported.

@Phoebe - If you evaluate Mr Smith's evidence, it soon becomes apparent that it is not credible. If it's not credible, then the argument as to whether or not he deliberately lied is a semantic one - unless you have a theory as to why he lied - and I think it's okay to explore that possibility.

Personally and from a wanting to get as close to the truth as I can POV, I start where I trust a detective would start and ask myself is it credible? If not, I move on!

Because it was dark, because the interaction was fleeting, because Mr Smith had alcohol in his system and because scientifically, the first statement has more validity than any subsequent statements and because his identification was from a very loaded two man media parade, I've eliminate Mr Smith's testimony from my armchair investigation because it doesn't further my understanding of the timeline. I don't need to know if he saw someone else - I know enough to discount it being a credible sighting of GM carrying Madeleine.

Whether or not he lied is a matter of opinion. He certainly wasn't helpful. Personally, I'm satisfied with that.