SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

bobbin wrote:

bobbin wrote:

j.rob wrote:Also, if it became known from the local gossip/rumour machine that the Tannerman sighting had been fabricated by TM. How better to counter a fabricated sighting than to fabricate another sighting? 

Especially if the Tanner-man fabricated sighting is then morphed into a real-life suspect in the form of Robert Murat, as did indeed happen.

Those 'in the know' - and this might be a surprisingly large number - decided to put the spotlight back where they thought it should be. I think the Smiths are quite brave, actually. What with all the 'whooshing' that has been going on. 

It's interesting that TM don't seem to have directed any specific vitriol in that direction. This makes me wonder whether the Smithman sighting really was a bit of a 'tit for tat' in terms of Murat being made a suspect.  It was a sighting that was only brought out when Murat was made a suspect. And it was only 'firmed up' in terms of the man being Gerry when the McCanns fled from Portugal.

Timing is everything, so they say. Very interesting timings. 

Sometimes you have to play people at their own game. I think this has been going on in spades.

Theorizing again.

Whereas I agree that is all possible, I am more of the opinion at present that the Smith sightings were genuine.
I have looked very carefully at the PJ statements again of the Smiths.
Oaife is walking UP steps towards the road where Smithman is walking, downhill.
The other Smith statements place Smithman in the middle of the road.
Oaife sees Smithman at about 2 meters.
Her rising view will have been focussing on his trouser /leg level as opposed to if she were looking down from a balcony where she might focus on his shoulders and jacket.
She noted beige trousers, heavier material than cotton, straight in the leg, and buttons.
I asked for photos of Gerry McCann beige trousers.
There are several pictures, but it is not possible to determine if there are any buttons until AFTER Oaife gave her statement to the PJ.
Her statement was end May and the first 'button trousers' on Gerrry McC photos are around 14th 15th June.
To me this timing is important because unless the Smiths had access to photos which the public have not seen, and unless there is a photo PRECEDING Oaife's statement to the PJ, then it cannot be suggested that she had been influenced by photos of G McC in button trousers.

ETA [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Photo of trousers on bed. Photo outside Church on Madeleine's 4th birthday 12th May 2007.
I can't seem to put photos up but they are on this thread.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Gollum wrote:

WMD wrote:

Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.

Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.

Or why would someone and his family risk going to jail for fabricating a sighting or making up evidence or perverting the course of justice in an internationally recognised missing child case? That doesn't make any sense either.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Gollum wrote:

WMD wrote:

Gollum wrote:
Yet only Martin Smith his 12 year old daughter and his 23 year old son were officially interviewed?  Why not any other of the group (not a 4 year old of course)?  Martin Smith and his daughter gave quite similar details of the alleged sighting although the sons account is IMO quite vague.  This leads me back to question why the sighting wasn't reported to the police on 4th May when the Smith family reportedly first heard of the disappearance of a child.  Again I stress, on the morning of the 4th Martin Smith said it occurred to him that the child they saw being carried through the streets of PDL the night before could have been Madeleine.

Devils advocate here,did they actually see a child being carried or a bundle that may have been a child.

I have to remain open minded as to whether or not they saw anything at all.  As I've said before (and no doubt others also have said), why would someone who has committed a serious crime or their accomplice carry a body around the streets at the risk of being seen?  Chances of being seen around 10:00 pm I imagine to be 50-80% likely.  Who would be that stupid even in a state of desperation or panic?

To suggest it was a planned alibi of some sorts doesn't make any sense to me, I can't see what it would achieve.

Or why would someone and his family risk going to jail for fabricating a sighting or making up evidence or perverting the course of justice in an internationally recognised missing child case? That doesn't make any sense either.

As far as they're concerned they saw what they saw and someone would have to come out prove they couldn't have seen what they saw. Maybe CCTV could have put and end to that speculation - there was a CCTV camera along the route Smithman took. But Jane Tanner saw what she saw and six years later she didn't quite see what she thought she saw but she's riding into the sunset right now totally exonerated.

None of the Smiths will be going to jail ever for making their statements, so dont worry about lies or perjury. At 10pm Smithman was walking towards a junction with a child in his arms. Did he go forward towards Kelly's Bar and risk getting spotted, left towards the east, or right towards the west. At the same time the T8(?) were making their way towards 5A as the alarm was raised and if this was a simulated abduction one of the twins is not in their cot and GM is walking around PdL with a kid in his arms. So what time did he get back to 5A with one of the twins?

bobbin wrote:

j.rob wrote:Also, if it became known from the local gossip/rumour machine that the Tannerman sighting had been fabricated by TM. How better to counter a fabricated sighting than to fabricate another sighting? 

Especially if the Tanner-man fabricated sighting is then morphed into a real-life suspect in the form of Robert Murat, as did indeed happen.

Those 'in the know' - and this might be a surprisingly large number - decided to put the spotlight back where they thought it should be. I think the Smiths are quite brave, actually. What with all the 'whooshing' that has been going on. 

It's interesting that TM don't seem to have directed any specific vitriol in that direction. This makes me wonder whether the Smithman sighting really was a bit of a 'tit for tat' in terms of Murat being made a suspect.  It was a sighting that was only brought out when Murat was made a suspect. And it was only 'firmed up' in terms of the man being Gerry when the McCanns fled from Portugal.

Timing is everything, so they say. Very interesting timings. 

Sometimes you have to play people at their own game. I think this has been going on in spades.

Theorizing again.

Whereas I agree that is all possible, I am more of the opinion at present that the Smith sightings were genuine.
I have looked very carefully at the PJ statements again of the Smiths.
Oaife is walking UP steps towards the road where Smithman is walking, downhill.
The other Smith statements place Smithman in the middle of the road.
Oaife sees Smithman at about 2 meters.
Her rising view will have been focussing on his trouser /leg level as opposed to if she were looking down from a balcony where she might focus on his shoulders and jacket.
She noted beige trousers, heavier material than cotton, straight in the leg, and buttons.
I asked for photos of Gerry McCann beige trousers.
There are several pictures, but it is not possible to determine if there are any buttons until AFTER Oaife gave her statement to the PJ.
Her statement was end May and the first 'button trousers' on Gerrry McC photos are around 14th 15th June.
To me this timing is important because unless the Smiths had access to photos which the public have not seen, and unless there is a photo PRECEDING Oaife's statement to the PJ, then it cannot be suggested that she had been influenced by photos of G McC in button trousers.

j.rob wrote:

bobbin wrote:

j.rob wrote:Also, if it became known from the local gossip/rumour machine that the Tannerman sighting had been fabricated by TM. How better to counter a fabricated sighting than to fabricate another sighting? 

Especially if the Tanner-man fabricated sighting is then morphed into a real-life suspect in the form of Robert Murat, as did indeed happen.

Those 'in the know' - and this might be a surprisingly large number - decided to put the spotlight back where they thought it should be. I think the Smiths are quite brave, actually. What with all the 'whooshing' that has been going on. 

It's interesting that TM don't seem to have directed any specific vitriol in that direction. This makes me wonder whether the Smithman sighting really was a bit of a 'tit for tat' in terms of Murat being made a suspect.  It was a sighting that was only brought out when Murat was made a suspect. And it was only 'firmed up' in terms of the man being Gerry when the McCanns fled from Portugal.

Timing is everything, so they say. Very interesting timings. 

Sometimes you have to play people at their own game. I think this has been going on in spades.

Theorizing again.

Whereas I agree that is all possible, I am more of the opinion at present that the Smith sightings were genuine.
I have looked very carefully at the PJ statements again of the Smiths.
Oaife is walking UP steps towards the road where Smithman is walking, downhill.
The other Smith statements place Smithman in the middle of the road.
Oaife sees Smithman at about 2 meters.
Her rising view will have been focussing on his trouser /leg level as opposed to if she were looking down from a balcony where she might focus on his shoulders and jacket.
She noted beige trousers, heavier material than cotton, straight in the leg, and buttons.
I asked for photos of Gerry McCann beige trousers.
There are several pictures, but it is not possible to determine if there are any buttons until AFTER Oaife gave her statement to the PJ.
Her statement was end May and the first 'button trousers' on Gerrry McC photos are around 14th 15th June.
To me this timing is important because unless the Smiths had access to photos which the public have not seen, and unless there is a photo PRECEDING Oaife's statement to the PJ, then it cannot be suggested that she had been influenced by photos of G McC in button trousers.

This would tend to suggest that there had been 'a disaster' (Gerry McCann) and a massive co** up (Robert Murat). And that TM cobbled together Tanner-man and 9.15pm/10pm timelines in a very last-minute fashion. 

So maybe GM really was left 'carrying the baby'. (And the dreadful bruises on KM's wrists shown in photographs taken shortly after 'the abduction' - which Kate writes about in her book - might possibly suggest that KM, at least, was coerced into a plan of action that was most unwelcome.)

I am really not wedded to any particular theory. I find this all very dark. And do not want to believe where my mind is taking me. But I suppose certain people have played on naivety and kindness and twisted it to their advantage. And why would a sweet nearly-four year old child not deserve to be cared for and protected? And if she 'disappears' then surely it is right to find out what happened and who is responsible?

Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey @ some time recently


Martin Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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.



Peter Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



When asked, he states that when he passed this individual it was around 21H55/22H00 and he had absolutely no knowledge at that time that a child had disappeared. He only found out about disappearance of the girl the next morning by means of someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on this day.

******




So the following day, 4th May, Martin Smith members of the Smith family holidaying in PDL, Martin Smiths daughter in Ireland and the son of a builder were all aware of the disappearance of a child, allegedly the previous night.



Martin Smith and other members of his family returned to Ireland on 9th May 2007, so they stayed in PDL for almost a week after Maddies disappearance. They knew a child had disappeared and I think even you will agree that, even though they appear to have failed to immediately inform the police of their sighting, it must have occured to them that the man they saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd could well have been the missing child? I doubt if they became reclusive during the remainder of their stay so there is every chance that they told others in the locality, would you agree? My point being, the fact that their sighting didn't hit the press until a later time, doesn't mean that their sighting wasn't know generally in the area. We already know by way of Smiths testimony that his daughter in Ireland was aware as was the son of a builder Peter Smith met at the airport.

Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey today @ 9:02 am

You asked a question, I gave a few possibilities.  I don't intend to get involved in a pointless debate about detail.

Gollum wrote:
Martin Smith and other members of his family returned to Ireland on 9th May 2007, so they stayed in PDL for almost a week after Maddies disappearance. They knew a child had disappeared and I think even you will agree that, even though they appear to have failed to immediately inform the police of their sighting, it must have occured to them that the man they saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd could well have been the missing child? I doubt if they became reclusive during the remainder of their stay so there is every chance that they told others in the locality, would you agree? My point being, the fact that their sighting didn't hit the press until a later time, doesn't mean that their sighting wasn't know generally in the area. We already know by way of Smiths testimony that his daughter in Ireland was aware as was the son of a builder Peter Smith met at the airport.

sami wrote:

Gollum wrote:
Martin Smith and other members of his family returned to Ireland on 9th May 2007, so they stayed in PDL for almost a week after Maddies disappearance. They knew a child had disappeared and I think even you will agree that, even though they appear to have failed to immediately inform the police of their sighting, it must have occured to them that the man they saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd could well have been the missing child? I doubt if they became reclusive during the remainder of their stay so there is every chance that they told others in the locality, would you agree? My point being, the fact that their sighting didn't hit the press until a later time, doesn't mean that their sighting wasn't know generally in the area. We already know by way of Smiths testimony that his daughter in Ireland was aware as was the son of a builder Peter Smith met at the airport.

He appears to have reacted very quickly to what he saw on Sky news, went to the Gardai, who described him as very shaken and being unable to sleep etc.  he also took the time to discuss it with his wife.  So watching the tv freaked him out but he calmly went about his business in the days following the sighting and it didn't dawn on his wife to tell the police either.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey @ some time recently


Martin Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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.



Peter Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



When asked, he states that when he passed this individual it was around 21H55/22H00 and he had absolutely no knowledge at that time that a child had disappeared. He only found out about disappearance of the girl the next morning by means of someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on this day.

******




So the following day, 4th May, Martin Smith members of the Smith family holidaying in PDL, Martin Smiths daughter in Ireland and the son of a builder were all aware of the disappearance of a child, allegedly the previous night.



Martin Smith and other members of his family returned to Ireland on 9th May 2007, so they stayed in PDL for almost a week after Maddies disappearance. They knew a child had disappeared and I think even you will agree that, even though they appear to have failed to immediately inform the police of their sighting, it must have occured to them that the man they saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd could well have been the missing child? I doubt if they became reclusive during the remainder of their stay so there is every chance that they told others in the locality, would you agree? My point being, the fact that their sighting didn't hit the press until a later time, doesn't mean that their sighting wasn't know generally in the area. We already know by way of Smiths testimony that his daughter in Ireland was aware as was the son of a builder Peter Smith met at the airport.

You are making assumptions that it must have occured to them but as it became generally known that an abductor was seen at 9:15pm it might not have occured to them that they had seen 'the abductor' at around about 10pm. Tannerman may well have put them off because of the timescales.

As for who knew about their sighting you're assuming he said something to his daughter when she called when he may not have told her what he'd seen, likewise the builders son told Peter, it doesn't say that Peter told this guy what he saw, he may or may not have we dont know.

sami wrote:

He appears to have reacted very quickly to what he saw on Sky news, went to the Gardai, who described him as very shaken and being unable to sleep etc.  He also took the time to discuss it with his wife.  So watching the tv freaked him out but he calmly went about his business in the days following the sighting and it didn't dawn on his wife to tell the police either.

Gollum wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Gollum wrote:Hongkong Phooey @ some time recently


Martin Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



Urged, states that when he passed this individual, it must have been around 22H00. He did not know at the time that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, from his daughter in Ireland. She 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.



Peter Smith's witness testimony taken on 26th May 2007



When asked, he states that when he passed this individual it was around 21H55/22H00 and he had absolutely no knowledge at that time that a child had disappeared. He only found out about disappearance of the girl the next morning by means of someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on this day.

******




So the following day, 4th May, Martin Smith members of the Smith family holidaying in PDL, Martin Smiths daughter in Ireland and the son of a builder were all aware of the disappearance of a child, allegedly the previous night.



Martin Smith and other members of his family returned to Ireland on 9th May 2007, so they stayed in PDL for almost a week after Maddies disappearance. They knew a child had disappeared and I think even you will agree that, even though they appear to have failed to immediately inform the police of their sighting, it must have occured to them that the man they saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd could well have been the missing child? I doubt if they became reclusive during the remainder of their stay so there is every chance that they told others in the locality, would you agree? My point being, the fact that their sighting didn't hit the press until a later time, doesn't mean that their sighting wasn't know generally in the area. We already know by way of Smiths testimony that his daughter in Ireland was aware as was the son of a builder Peter Smith met at the airport.

You are making assumptions that it must have occured to them but as it became generally known that an abductor was seen at 9:15pm it might not have occured to them that they had seen 'the abductor' at around about 10pm. Tannerman may well have put them off because of the timescales.

As for who knew about their sighting you're assuming he said something to his daughter when she called when he may not have told her what he'd seen, likewise the builders son told Peter, it doesn't say that Peter told this guy what he saw, he may or may not have we dont know.

It could likewise be said that you are making a truck load of assumptions, ne'er the twain shall meet.

Tony Bennett wrote:

sami wrote:

He appears to have reacted very quickly to what he saw on Sky news, went to the Gardai, who described him as very shaken and being unable to sleep etc.  He also took the time to discuss it with his wife.  So watching the tv freaked him out but he calmly went about his business in the days following the sighting and it didn't dawn on his wife to tell the police either.

@ sami

Even this is not at all clear.

The TV footage of Gerry McCann carrying Sean down the airplane ssteps was shown across the networks on Sunday 9 September. 

Yet the statement of Martin Smith, accompanied by a note from Liam Hogan, is apparently dated Thursday 20 September - ELEVEN DAYS LATER.

Unless anyone can determine what happened between 9 and 20 September, and on the assumption that Liam Hogan, as any police officer would do, sent off his note and Martin Smith's statement promptly, then it looks like we have an original THIRTEEN-DAY delay, followed by another ELEVEN-DAY delay.

This may be important for another reason.

As you've rightly pointed out, when Martin Smith met Hogan, he was, as you've put it, 'very shaken', 'unable to sleep', 'freaked out' etc.

What, 11 days later? Did he have 11 days of torment and sleeplessness before pouring out all his angst in front of Liam Hogan?

I want to suggest a possible alternative.

Namely that this was fake distress - a drama show, designed to get Hogan to treat his really worthless evidence as seriously as possible.

Now, if I'd have been Hogan, I think I might have said:


"Hold up.

You saw this TV news bulletin - when exactly?

So why didn't you tell us before?

You recognised Gerry by the way he was walking down the steps of a plane?

Oh really?

Was he walking down the steps of a plane when you saw him in Praia da Luz?

I thought not.

He was carrying Sean how exactly?

On his shoulder?  I see.

And how do most other people carry tired or sleeping infants?

Exactly.

So what else made you think it was Gerry McCann?

Yes, yes, thank you Mr Smith.

And, let me see, what did you put in your statement of 26 May?

Let's just have a look...

...hmmm...

...10.00pm...

...dark...

...street lighting weak...

...only saw him for a few seconds... 

...you would never be able to recognise him if you saw him again...

Is that right?

You were in Praia da Luz on 3 May. So did you report your sighting the very next day?

You didn't? Why ever not?

You thought it was routine to see single men without a buggy or pushchair carrying their infant children dressed only in pyjamas from creches at that time of night, did you?

So did you report it the next day, then?

You didn't?

When did you report it, then?

What?!*?!*?!?  

Mr Smith, are you sure you're not having me on?

palm tree wrote:If Martin Smith had known GM before the disappearance, then he proberly would've noticed that the man he'd seen was highly likely to be GM, but there's no evidence to show MS knew even off GM. The unintentional reconstruction of GM coming off the plane carrying a sleeping child suddenly brought back that night for him. That's what a reconstruction is exactly for, to jog anyone's memory. IMO, if MS wasn't so sure it was GM, he wouldn't have given his statement in September, 11 days of will I, won't i? tells me he was pretty sure of what he'd witnessed. If GM came off the plane carrying no child, MS may not have been shocked into reality.
IMO only.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
In this highly unusual case (nothing like it has ever been seen before) not everyone is a liar and has an alternative agenda etc. It is correct that ‘we’ question everyone / everything but there are some who have only told what they saw or what they know. Without further questioning or information (it does appear that for example Mrs Smith’s statement has been held back) then we can only guess. Guess what, they may actually be telling the truth!

sami wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
In this highly unusual case (nothing like it has ever been seen before) not everyone is a liar and has an alternative agenda etc. It is correct that ‘we’ question everyone / everything but there are some who have only told what they saw or what they know. Without further questioning or information (it does appear that for example Mrs Smith’s statement has been held back) then we can only guess. Guess what, they may actually be telling the truth!

I don't believe that asking questions equals calling somebody a liar and I most certainly am not calling the Smith family liars.

Look at it another way.

Redwood has stated the parents are not of interest/suspects.  An innocent third party is on record as having identified the man with a 60-80% certainty.  As far as we are aware, McCann has not been formally questioned in relation to the Smith identification.  Therefore Redwood has discounted the Smith identification. 

So why has Mr Smiths identification of Gerry McCann, given with 60-80% certainty, been discounted by Operation Grange ?  

Are Grange lying, are the Smiths simply mistaken and they got the night wrong, have Grange un-covered evidence to allow them discount Smiths statement or are the Smiths for reasons unknown not being 100% truthful.

There are a host of reasons to question the statements, it does not automatically mean they are being called liars.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

As far as I can see the identification has been discarded by Redwood because GM was in the tapas bar according to 'witnesses' at the time of the Smiths sighting (he hasn't dismissed the sighting though)

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

As far as I can see the identification has been discarded by Redwood because GM was in the tapas bar according to 'witnesses' at the time of the Smiths sighting (he hasn't dismissed the sighting though)

You are very 'hot' on the issue of evidence in this matter, Phooey, and always criticising people for making 'assumptions' and 'speculating'.

Pray, what is your evidence (with links please as well) for your assertion that "As far as I can see the identification has been discarded by Redwood..."

On the BBC CrimeWatch Special just under a year ago, viewed by 6.7 million Brits, 14 October 2013, Redwood and CrimeWatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala repeatedly emphasised that 'Smithman' was now the chief suspect. There was video footage of Amroliwala in the place in Praia da Luz where this sighting was supposed to have taken place.

The public were urged to ring in if they knew who he was.

Amroliwala told the viewers that identifying him could be 'the key to unlocking the whole mystery'.

Redwood did not only say that Smithman was the focus of their investigation.

In one of those pompous, ridiculous phrases that he trots out every other sentence, he said Smithman was, quote: 'the centre of our focus'.


-------

So please tell us on what basis you claim that Redwood has 'discarded' the identification of the man who was the 'centre of his focus'?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Tony, you’ve jumped in and attack one specific aspect and made a faux pas, as ‘far as I can see’ is stating an opinion I was not stating a fact or giving evidence. I was in fact referring that OG look to have taken the Smiths sighting as credible (as it’s now their centre of focus as you point out) but they (OG) do not believe the Smiths saw GM (or that is what they are stating publicly by declaring the investigation is not looking at the parents).
Don't need to supply links as you misinterpreted original post.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Tony, you’ve jumped in and attack one specific aspect and made a faux pas, as ‘far as I can see’ is stating an opinion I was not stating a fact or giving evidence. I was in fact referring that OG look to have taken the Smiths sighting as credible (as it’s now their centre of focus as you point out) but they (OG) do not believe the Smiths saw GM (or that is what they are stating publicly by declaring the investigation is not looking at the parents).
Don't need to supply links as you misinterpreted original post.

I see.

So you are stating that Redwood must have discarded what you say is the Smiths' 'identificaton' evidence (i.e. of Gerry McCann) because (you think) it is because of evidence that Gerry McCann was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club around the time of the Smith sighting.

In fact, the Portuguese Police decided that long ago, and I also consider that there is sufficient evidence in the police files that Gerry McCann was indeed in the vicinity of the Ocean Club/G5A during, say, the period 9.30pm to 10.30pm that night.

So you agree that Redwood has not dropped his claim that the 'Smithman' sighting - of an alleged abductor - is still 'at the centre of his focus'?