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

by Guest 09.10.14 11:20

Dee Coy wrote:
Doug D wrote:Cracking brilliant moon tonight, casting really good shadows.

Just as an experiment, take a mirror outside & place it one metre away (distance doubles as it's in a mirror), with you facing the moon to get maximum light on your face.

Now look in the mirror and can you honestly say that anyone could draw up any kind of accurate e-fit from a two second glance of what you can see?

Sorry, just not going to happen.

There is no evidence that the Smiths created the efits.

But does there need to be, less is more,the less known publicly the more chance of securing a successful prosecution, if Redwood is keeping it close to his chest why should he say so and so created this,he put it out on crimewatch for a reason,what the reason is remains to be seen.

This is where the whitewash comes in we either have to believe he his trying to unravel all of it or he's trying to find a way not to.

by Doug D 09.10.14 11:38

Palm Tree:

‘MS didn't need to remember every facial feature, GM was always on the news’

Precisely! (Sorry to have to use it again)

So the alleged e-fits cannot possibly be based on what was actually seen (not seen) on the night, but a perceived reconstruction many months after the event.

MS 26^th May 2007

‘His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.’

AS 26^th May 2007

‘She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top’

PDS 26^th May 2007

‘About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.’

Personally, I have no problem in accepting that the Smith family saw somebody walking the streets that night with a small child and I do not believe them to be lying, but from those descriptions there is no way the two e-fits could be constructed.

Even these descriptions I suspect were ‘encouraged’ out of them by the PJ, as ‘brown’ hair but ‘cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone’, and ‘somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure’ make little sense from what they could actually see in the available light.

MS 30^th January 2008

Cover note to statement from Irish Police:

‘He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.’

& then MS statement:

‘In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.’

Nothing whatever about facial recognition.

Why had MS not ‘helped in any photo fits’ by 30^th January 2008, when the PJ would have been delighted to have something to go on and BK had already contacted him to take part in a photo fit exercise?

I suggest it was because he honestly felt that he couldn’t, based on what he had actually seen, otherwise we would have had ‘Eggman 2’, with some hair and no features.

As an aside, I would also like to throw in a suggestion about why TM are keen to keep Smithman in the picture, whether it allegedly looks like GM or not.

With Tannerman now having been discredited by Redwood, Smithman is all that is left to ‘prove the abduction’, so he has to remain.

But, in the event that anything ever came to Court, what better alibi would there be than Smithman, who could be used either way ‘It was me/It wasn’t me’ depending on what the prosecution were suggesting.

Reasonable Doubt? Based on the volumes that have been written, and the arguments and fall outs over Smithman, I should say so.

by palm tree 09.10.14 13:03

Hi Doug D, I've no idea who helped with the efits but was just saying if MS did help, he didn't need to recall features, GM was all over the news.
IMO

by Liz Eagles 09.10.14 13:06

It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

by Guest 09.10.14 13:15

aquila wrote:"McCann: It doesn't meet Leveson's requirements, and Leveson's recommendations
was the minimum acceptable to us, the victims. IPSO haven't consulted with us.
They're in the pockets of the industry and the industry ..
Humphrys: Well we don't know that, do we? Thats the thing
McCann: Well they clearly are because they're not ..
Humphrys: Sir Alan Moses, a retired but distinguished High Court judge in the
pockets of the industry?
McCann: Well who's paying his salary?
Humphrys: It's quite a serious allegation, isn't it?
McCann: Well it seems like that to us because IPSO clearly is not
Leveson-compliant."

..................................................................................................................

That most certainly is a serious allegation. I do hope Sir Alan Moses, a retired but distinguished High Court judge finds time to challenge Mr McCann.

This serious allegation is quite breathtakingly defamatory isn't it?

Certainly true, DEFAMATORY indeed.

If I were a person who believed Mr. Gerry McCann's judgement and integrity I would certainly find myself persuaded into thinking that Sir Alan Moses, a retired but distinguished High Court judge, must be at risk of making partial decisions based upon the corrupting sources of his financial engagement with IPSO, namely that IPSO and Sir Alan, according to Gerry McCann's quote "are in the pockets of the industry".

Gerry McCann should never be let out without his pink leash around his neck.

by Guest 09.10.14 13:16

aquila wrote:It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

Indeed. Which raises the question, did whoever compiled them do so in an attempt do illustrate Smithman? Or were they intended to be efits of someone completely different?

And is is Redwood who has hijacked them to become the face of Smithman?

Just questions and assumptions, not fact.

by Guest 09.10.14 23:51

Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

Indeed. Which raises the question, did whoever compiled them do so in an attempt do illustrate Smithman? Or were they intended to be efits of someone completely different?

And is is Redwood who has hijacked them to become the face of Smithman?

Just questions and assumptions, not fact.

Crimewatch UK: October 2013 Madeleine Mccann Special

"... two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @ 24:08

by Doug D 10.10.14 9:16

Just for the record, the bible according to S&S says (p.226):

‘The McCanns and Kennedy at first got the impression that Oakley was doing its job. Its investigators appeared to be collating and following up information that came in as a response to the parents’ appeals and were conducting covert interviews in Portugal. They worked with Martin Smith and his family – who like Jane Tanner, had encountered a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished – to generate computer e-fits for identification purposes.’

I read this initially that Oakley ‘worked with’, but is the paragraph actually saying that or is it the Mc’s & Kennedy?

Either way ‘worked with’ is more suggestive of a pushy salesman getting agreement to something, rather than MS and his family creating something from memory, which based on their statements, they clearly did not have.

Whilst on the subject of e-fits it is interesting to see that S & S in their completely balanced manner say on p.215:

‘Months earlier, the Portugese police had produced an entirely useless drawing of a man the McCann’ friend Jane Tanner had seen carrying a child near Apartment 5A…………… A featureless image………resembled nothing so much as an ‘egg with hair’. It contained no useful information.’

Yet they follow this up with:

‘………in England, a British forensic sketch artist took on the job of extracting more and relevant information from Tanner……………….
The result, a profile image………..offered at least a notion – albeit without facial details – of how she remembered the man…………
Raising the possibility of generating new leads.’

This is of course ‘eggman with a body carrying a child’. So much better it only took 6 years for that clever Redwood chap to identify him!

Xenophobic or what! Those bloody 'useless' Portugese, but a ‘British forensic sketch artist’. So much better of course.

Is it any wonder the book has achieved such staggering sales figures?

by Liz Eagles 10.10.14 10:13

Gollum wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

Indeed. Which raises the question, did whoever compiled them do so in an attempt do illustrate Smithman? Or were they intended to be efits of someone completely different?

And is is Redwood who has hijacked them to become the face of Smithman?

Just questions and assumptions, not fact.

Crimewatch UK: October 2013 Madeleine Mccann Special

"... two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @ 24:08

Perhaps I'm playing with semantics.

Look at those two sentences in a heavily edited programme....

'two of the witnessed helped create e-fits of the man they saw.

Take the next sentence as 'stand alone'.

'today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images'

Absolutely nowhere does Redwood say these are the images compiled by the Smiths imo....you know..'two of the witnesses helped to compile'....

It has to my mind not been stated clearly who compiled the images shown, who drew them and who released them.

by palm tree 10.10.14 15:07

aquila wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:It has never been stated that these e-fits were compiled by the Smith family. It has been 'implied' and 'assumed'.

Just my opinion.

Indeed. Which raises the question, did whoever compiled them do so in an attempt do illustrate Smithman? Or were they intended to be efits of someone completely different?

And is is Redwood who has hijacked them to become the face of Smithman?

Just questions and assumptions, not fact.

Crimewatch UK: October 2013 Madeleine Mccann Special

"... two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @ 24:08
Perhaps I'm playing with semantics.

Look at those two sentences in a heavily edited programme....

'two of the witnessed helped create e-fits of the man they saw.

Take the next sentence as 'stand alone'.

'today for the first time we can reveal the true significance of these images'

Absolutely nowhere does Redwood say these are the images compiled by the Smiths imo....you know..'two of the witnesses helped to compile'....

It has to my mind not been stated clearly who compiled the images shown, who drew them and who released them.

Agree completely

by iamalurker 10.10.14 15:42

Totally agree with your last posting aquila

Back to lurking

by SixMillionQuid 10.10.14 18:25

palm tree wrote:Hi Doug D, I've no idea who helped with the efits but was just saying if MS did help, he didn't need to recall features, GM was all over the news.
IMO

He didn't base his almost positive identification based on facial features but by the way GM carried his son during a single TV news clip. As you say GM was all over the media but this single event caused him to point the finger. This form of identification was a bit of stretch, a huge risk which would not go anywhere in an ID parade. But I believe he pointed the finger at GM for another as yet undisclosed reason.

by palm tree 10.10.14 19:35

SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:Hi Doug D, I've no idea who helped with the efits but was just saying if MS did help, he didn't need to recall features, GM was all over the news.
IMO
He didn't base his almost positive identification based on facial features but by the way GM carried his son during a single TV news clip. As you say GM was all over the media but this single event caused him to point the finger. This form of identification was a bit of stretch, a huge risk which would not go anywhere in an ID parade. But I believe he pointed the finger at GM for another as yet undisclosed reason.

Hmm, interesting, any ideas of why?

by SixMillionQuid 11.10.14 6:47

palm tree wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:Hi Doug D, I've no idea who helped with the efits but was just saying if MS did help, he didn't need to recall features, GM was all over the news.
IMO
He didn't base his almost positive identification based on facial features but by the way GM carried his son during a single TV news clip. As you say GM was all over the media but this single event caused him to point the finger. This form of identification was a bit of stretch, a huge risk which would not go anywhere in an ID parade. But I believe he pointed the finger at GM for another as yet undisclosed reason.
Hmm, interesting, any ideas of why?

Maybe it was personal?

by palm tree 11.10.14 8:59

SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
palm tree wrote:Hi Doug D, I've no idea who helped with the efits but was just saying if MS did help, he didn't need to recall features, GM was all over the news.
IMO
He didn't base his almost positive identification based on facial features but by the way GM carried his son during a single TV news clip. As you say GM was all over the media but this single event caused him to point the finger. This form of identification was a bit of stretch, a huge risk which would not go anywhere in an ID parade. But I believe he pointed the finger at GM for another as yet undisclosed reason.
Hmm, interesting, any ideas of why?
Maybe it was personal?

Maybe, but there's nothing that I have ever seen linking the Smith family to the mcs at all, before or after, personally.
Eta, personally

by Guest 11.10.14 12:09

Me neither, Palm Tree. Apart from a Donegal connection - where supposedly the McCanns visit regularly as they have family there (I doubt that though) and a shared interest in golf - there's nothing to suggest the Smiths and McCanns knew each other.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.14 12:39

palm tree wrote:
Maybe, but there's nothing that I have ever seen linking the Smith family to the McCanns at all, before or after.

THE FACTS:

1. Sometime before news articles are published on 3 January 2008, Smiths admit that they have been contacted by McCann Team member Brian Kennedy and 'are expecting a visit from Metodo 3'

2. Sometime in 2008, Smiths visited by Henri Exton (and maybe others) on behalf of the McCann Team

3. 2008 - Smiths make public statements saying they hope Madeleine will be found and abductor traced, sympathise with the McCanns' plight, etc.

4. May 2009 - 'Smithman' used for several minutes in Mentorn Media/Channel 4 'Mockumentary' - 'maybe the same man as Tannerman'

5. From May 2009 onwards, McCanns feature 'Smithman' as one of their lead suspects on their website, including 30-second audio of a man with an Irish accent recounting his sighting - this stays there, on the 'Find Madeleine' website, for the next 5 years

6. May 2011 - SIX pages of references to the Smith sighting in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', including THREE pages devoted to the 'striking similarities' between 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman'

by palm tree 11.10.14 12:58

Opps, sorry, should've added personally.

by Hongkong Phooey 11.10.14 14:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Maybe, but there's nothing that I have ever seen linking the Smith family to the McCanns at all, before or after.
THE FACTS:

1. Sometime before news articles are published on 3 January 2008, Smiths admit that they have been contacted by McCann Team member Brian Kennedy and 'are expecting a visit from Metodo 3'

2. Sometime in 2008, Smiths visited by Henri Exton (and maybe others) on behalf of the McCann Team

3. 2008 - Smiths make public statements saying they hope Madeleine will be found and abductor traced, sympathise with the McCanns' plight, etc.

4. May 2009 - 'Smithman' used for several minutes in Mentorn Media/Channel 4 'Mockumentary' - 'maybe the same man as Tannerman'

5. From May 2009 onwards, McCanns feature 'Smithman' as one of their lead suspects on their website, including 30-second audio of a man with an Irish accent recounting his sighting - this stays there, on the 'Find Madeleine' website, for the next 5 years

6. May 2011 - SIX pages of references to the Smith sighting in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', including THREE pages devoted to the 'striking similarities' between 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman'

They may be facts (extremely ropey ones) but mean nothing.
1. They spoke to BK about what? You've no idea. They're expecting M3, doesn't mean they spoke to them or what the content was supposed to be.

2. Visited by HE. Was he invited or turned up, what was he told? Maybe nothing maybe something you don't know.

3. They are hardly going to make statements contrary to what was said I.e. She won't be found etc. Just not cricket that one.

4,5&6. Where is the argument that these points have anything to do with the Smiths at all?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.14 15:03

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
They may be facts (extremely ropey ones) but mean nothing.

1. They spoke to BK about what? You've no idea. They're expecting M3, doesn't mean they spoke to them or what the content was supposed to be.

2. Visited by HE. Was he invited or turned up, what was he told? Maybe nothing maybe something you don't know.

3. They are hardly going to make statements contrary to what was said I.e. She won't be found etc. Just not cricket that one.

4, 5 & 6. Where is the argument that these points have anything to do with the Smiths at all?

It's the facts that really get you going, isn't it, Hongkong Phooey?

Not forgetting the little matter of Martin Smith's chats to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange in 2012 and 2013.

What were they about?

To put it in your own colourful, rather aggressive way: "What did they talk about? Maybe something. Maybe nothing. You've no idea. Something you don't know".

But no doubt these two chats with Smith were all-important for DCI Andy ('revelation-moment') Redwood and his boss, as they sat down with the CrimeWatch Team and their bosses to plan, meticulously, over six months or more, every single word of the programme shown to 6.7 million viewers on 14 October last year - and discuss every single word and scene of the documentary that in so many ways misrepresented the events of 3 May 2007.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Martin Smith actually saw and approved of the script in advance

by Hongkong Phooey 11.10.14 16:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
They may be facts (extremely ropey ones) but mean nothing.

1. They spoke to BK about what? You've no idea. They're expecting M3, doesn't mean they spoke to them or what the content was supposed to be.

2. Visited by HE. Was he invited or turned up, what was he told? Maybe nothing maybe something you don't know.

3. They are hardly going to make statements contrary to what was said I.e. She won't be found etc. Just not cricket that one.

4, 5 & 6. Where is the argument that these points have anything to do with the Smiths at all?
It's the facts that really get you going, isn't it, Hongkong Phooey?

Not forgetting the little matter of Martin Smith's chats to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange in 2012 and 2013.

What were they about?

To put it in your own colourful, rather aggressive way: "What did they talk about? Maybe something. Maybe nothing. You've no idea. Something you don't know".

But no doubt these two chats with Smith were all-important for DCI Andy ('revelation-moment') Redwood and his boss, as they sat down with the CrimeWatch Team and their bosses to plan, meticulously, over six months or more, every single word of the programme shown to 6.7 million viewers on 14 October last year - and discuss every single word and scene of the documentary that in so many ways misrepresented the events of 3 May 2007.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Martin Smith actually saw and approved of the script in advance

That's funny this is what you said 21/9:-

My further hypothesis is that he has NOT endorsed these two e-fits, as he knows they were not created by himself and members of his family. That in my view perfectly explains why BBC CrimeWatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala did NOT say that these images were created by 'members of the Irish family' but very deliberately said they were created 'by two of the witnesses'. Remember that every single word of that broadcast would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked before being approved by the top brass in the BBC and also Redwood's masters in the Met. The choice of 'two of the witnesses' rather than 'two members of the Irish family' was IMO deliberate and a deception.

by Liz Eagles 11.10.14 21:40

The provenance of these e-fits remains unclear and no-one can convince me that these e-fits are one and the same person as described to an e-fit compiler(s) by two independent witnesses from the Smith family - that's too far a stretch of the imagination imo.

There are also the other factors pointed out by Tony Bennett.

It would be pretty difficult to give an e-fit of such clarity - not to mention two glaringly different versions.

Nope, no provenance - and that is something that must surely be questioned.

Just my opinion and all that jazz.

by SixMillionQuid 12.10.14 9:05

Still trying to understand the simulated abduction theory. You take one of your twins, walk from 5A around PdL, your face not covered, hoping to get spotted, along a predetermined path and then work your way back to 5A sometime after 10pm when everyone is running around like headless chickens.

Whatever route you take the only people to spot you are the Smiths. I dont understand why you would want to get spotted and then go on to make a world wide press conference on the 4th May. He's already been spotted by a tennis colleague - a chance meeting. What would be his excuse if someone known to him spots him again?

If before the simulated abduction takes place, discussions were had amongst your friends and everyone agreed that "if the police ask we will say you were sitting with us in the Tapas Bar between 9:30pm and 10pm". But really what happens is that between 9:50pm and 10Pm you leave 5A with a twin and head south towards Kelly's Bar/ beach. You may get spotted again by another tennis colleague or holiday maker that knows to speak to you - afterall JW caught you out. Your simulated abduction goes out the window and your friends look like liars. So why take this massive risk?

by pennylane 12.10.14 9:51

SixMillionQuid wrote:Still trying to understand the simulated abduction theory. You take one of your twins, walk from 5A around PdL, your face not covered, hoping to get spotted, along a predetermined path and then work your way back to 5A sometime after 10pm when everyone is running around like headless chickens.

Whatever route you take the only people to spot you are the Smiths. I dont understand why you would want to get spotted and then go on to make a world wide press conference on the 4th May. He's already been spotted by a tennis colleague - a chance meeting. What would be his excuse if someone known to him spots him again?

If before the simulated abduction takes place, discussions were had amongst your friends and everyone agreed that "if the police ask we will say you were sitting with us in the Tapas Bar between 9:30pm and 10pm". But really what happens is that between 9:50pm and 10Pm you leave 5A with a twin and head south towards Kelly's Bar/ beach. You may get spotted again by another tennis colleague or holiday maker that knows to speak to you - afterall JW caught you out. Your simulated abduction goes out the window and your friends look like liars. So why take this massive risk?

Never in a million years was there 'a simulated abduction' so as to be seen, but hopefully not recognised. That's plain nuts, even for the gruesome twosome, (imvho) nah

by palm tree 12.10.14 9:56

Nope, i don't think GM would act out an abuction at 10pm either, that would be nuts.
IMO

by Guest 12.10.14 10:57

So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

by Liz Eagles 12.10.14 11:21

It was a CrimeWatch extravaganza....that 'revelation moment'....it was announced and announced and announced on television to alert the public to watch the programme. The programme that wasn't shown in Portugal, the programme that had two different reconstructions.

Now someone tell me why there is nothing questionable about this, the Smith family's 'witnessing'.

It all smells of ratticus to me - and no, I don't believe Scotland Yard are doing a grand job. I believe this is a whitewash.

by Hongkong Phooey 12.10.14 14:36

aquila wrote:It was a CrimeWatch extravaganza....that 'revelation moment'....it was announced and announced and announced on television to alert the public to watch the programme. The programme that wasn't shown in Portugal, the programme that had two different reconstructions.

Now someone tell me why there is nothing questionable about this, the Smith family's 'witnessing'.

It all smells of ratticus to me - and no, I don't believe Scotland Yard are doing a grand job. I believe this is a whitewash.

If you go back to the hypotheses from Tony on 21/9 he summarises it up quie nicely:-

My further hypothesis is that he has NOT endorsed these two e-fits, as he knows they were not created by himself and members of his family. That in my view perfectly explains why BBC CrimeWatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala did NOT say that these images were created by 'members of the Irish family' but very deliberately said they were created 'by two of the witnesses'. Remember that every single word of that broadcast would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked before being approved by the top brass in the BBC and also Redwood's masters in the Met. The choice of 'two of the witnesses' rather than 'two members of the Irish family' was IMO deliberate and a deception.

If you then consider that in a court of law witnesses can be almost anyone who can have a positive impact (whether for or against the prosecution I.e 'experts in their field) then HE and associate could be witnesses. As Tony says deliberate and deception however AR didn't tell any lies. imo

by sami 12.10.14 15:44

aquila wrote:It was a CrimeWatch extravaganza....that 'revelation moment'....it was announced and announced and announced on television to alert the public to watch the programme. The programme that wasn't shown in Portugal, the programme that had two different reconstructions.

Slightly off topic, but it's something I have wondered about. - what happened with the promised Irish edition of the reconstruction ? Redwood promised one, but nothing was aired. Had it been made and shelved or the idea shelved ?

by SixMillionQuid 12.10.14 17:17

WMD wrote:So if tannerman was discounted,smithman never happened or maybe he did but its not GM,then any possibilty how ever remote a witness of an abduction is a no no,dead in the water.IMO.

Without the Smith sighting there isn't much left of the abduction scenario. Maybe that's why some are keen to hang onto it.

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

Having looked at the various contradictions set out in the article...