SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

Placing here an update, in summary form only, of twelve contradictions revealed by what the Smiths have said about their 'Smithman' sighting:

++++++++++++

• looks older
  
  
• has a ‘fatter’ face
  
  
• has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)
  
  
• has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)
  
  
• has a much shorter nose
  
  
• has a much bigger chin, and
  
  
• has smaller ears.
  

All three of the Smiths told the PJ: “It is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph”.

Yet Martin Smith first said: ‘The man was definitely not Robert Murat’. Then, four months later, he said that he was sure the man was Gerry McCann. A few months after that, however, he co-operated with representatives of the McCanns, who were looking for an abductor, and helped them draw up two e-fits of the man they said they would never be able to recognise again.


Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”

But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”

Martin Smith said: “The man didn’t speak, nor did the child as she was ‘in a deep sleep’,” but how could he tell she was asleep, let alone in a deep sleep, if, as Aofie says, she couldn’t see the child’s face at all?”

5. Was the child wrapped in a blanket?

Daily Mail,  3 Jan 2008: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”.

Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)



 
7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)
 
Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½  years]










Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.





Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Mary Smith approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’”

Sounds to me like they've been heavily leaned on rather than dishonest. But again their testimony regardless has to be dismissed purely on the basis that it is useless. Either liars or menaced by the people covering up what happened.

1. Martin Smith told a Drogheda, Ireland police officer on 16 May 2007 that he and members of his family had seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine was first reported missing

2. He says he only did so because his son Peter 'phoned him up that day and said: 'Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on 3rd May in Praia da Luz?'

3. Then, in his own words, Martin Smith he said that all of his family suddenly 'remembered that they had the same recollection' [if you can actually 'remember' a recollection]

4. It was thirteen days since Madeleine disappeared. There had been saturation coverage of Madeleine's disappearance on Portuguese, British and Irish TVs and in the papers, with repeated calls for people to come forward with information

5. Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well; he and his family confirmed that the two had 'met several times' over a period of at least 'two years'

6. Robert Murat was made a suspect in the case amidst massive media publicity on 15 May

7. When making a statement about what he had seen, Martin Smith was vague

8. However he was absolutely certain that the man he had seen was NOT Robert Murat

9. At the time he saw the man, he admitted it was dark

10. He said the street lighting was 'weak'

11. He only saw the man for a few seconds

12. He said he didn't see what the man was wearing above the waist because the child he was carrying obscured his view of anything 

13. He declared in a written statement that he would never be able to recognise him again if he saw him

14. Much later, Martin Smith said he WAS able to remember that the man was wearing a dark jacket

15. The description he did give of the man-carrying-a-child was a virtual carbon copy of the descriptions given to the PJ by Jane Tanner on 4 May and by Nuno Lourenco on 5 May of a man he said had tried to kidnap his daughter a week earlier

16. All three of these descriptions of a man-carrying-a-child had strange common features such as 'did not look like a tourist' and 'wearing cloth jacket and trousers' and 'dressed warmly'. It turned out that the man Nuno Lourenco identified was a Polish tourist, Wojeck Krokowski    

16. Smith told the PJ that the age of the man was '35-40'. But later, when helping the McCanns to upload an audio message to their website based on his description (still there today), he changed that to '34-35'. He has never provided an explanation of why he changed his statement 

17. Weeks and months went by...

18. Nothing more happened...

19. Until Martin Smith saw this image on the news on 9 September 2007...                

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

20. After that, he did nothing for another 11 days

21. But on 20 September 2007 he sprang into life, contacted the police once again, and said: "I'm 60% to 80% sure that that bloke I saw on 3 May 2007 [141 days previous] was Gerry McCann"

22. The police said 'Why?

23. Martin Smith said: 'Because of the way he was carrying Sean - just like that bloke I saw in the dark'

24. Martin Smith later changed his mind and since December 2007 has been co-operating with the McCann Team in maintaining that this man he saw could have been carrying Madeleine McCamn

25. He has since allowed his name to be used by BBC Crimewatch and the Met Police to endorse two e-fits of quite different-looking men as 'the man seen by the Smith family'. The former S.I.O. in the case, DCI Andy Redwood, announced on 14 October 2013 that this individual was not merely our 'focus' but, quote, the 'centre of our focus'

26. But these two e-fit images no longer feature either on the Met Police website or on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website.


Has Martin Smith told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about 'Smithman'?

That's a very curious poll result so far.  I can understand why people might be unsure but I find it very difficult to see how anyone can believe the Smith family story without some reservations.

The thing that sticks out for me above all else is their failure to report the alleged sighting as soon as they became aware of Madeleine's disappearance.  A relatively small resort like PdL with a large ex-pat community, news travels fast - especially something as important as a missing child.  Maybe not the night of 3rd May but I'm certain they must have known the very next day and having seen a stranger wearing full attire and carrying a semi-clothed child at around 10:00 at night, you'd think at least one of the group would have associated one with the other.

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.

Verdi wrote:That's a very curious poll result so far. 

Agreed.

I think it's partly a reflection of some posters here having become convinced a long time ago that Martin Smith really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine.

When you've become convinced of something in your mind, even strong evidence the other way may fail to persuade one to change.

I think opinion has shifted and continues to shift on the issue of Smithman - and the poll might well have different results if re-run from scratch today

The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.

I agree that those trousers are highly distinctive and unusual, and the buttons are just the sort of thing a child of her age might notice. Not only was a crumpled pair of them on the bed in 5a, I remember seeing a picture of GM wearing a pair of identical trousers... with those odd decorative buttons. (Never mind the face of the person carrying a child being shadowed in the half-light, or who he might be).

Tony, I don't think you can assume that people have earlier become convinced about the Smith sighting and so are rigidly sticking to that view. Even with all your amazingly detailed probing information which sheds light on the subject, there is still doubt  and I for one, feel the jury is still out.

No the jury is still out for me about the smiths sighting ,yes its been going on for some time and I guess we have got used to this ,so I still am not certain of this ,one way or the other .  joyce1938

Rob Royston wrote:The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.

@ Roy Royston    I understand where you are coming from on this, and I concede that at first sight the mention by Aoife Smith of the man wearing buttons on his trousers is superficially persuasive.

You have mentioned a couple of very important points in your post (I’ve bolded them), and I’ll mention those as I go along.

In weighing up Aoife Smith’s statement, we must once again remind ourselves that when she says she saw this man with a child…

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

* The man had his head down

* The child was obscuring part of the man’s upper body and head 

* They only saw him, at most, for a few seconds

* None of them took any action to report their sighting for 13 days, and

* All of them said they would never be able to recognise him if they saw him again.


We must also bear in mind the truly remarkable level of similarity between the statements of Nuno Lourenco about Wojcek Krokowski, Jane Tanner and he Smiths about Smithman. As I’ve tried to suggest on the Wojcek Krokowski and Smithman threads, and as Richard Hall has also suggested in his ‘Phantoms’ film, there is evidence that all three were working to a prepared script.  


A further point is the unreliable content of so very many witness statements in this case of smoke and mirrors. Are we to make an exception for the Smiths, and not trouble to put them under any scrutiny at all?
 
Let’s now look, for example, at one reference you make ,as follows: “The man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her”. That is from Aoife Smith’s statement.
 
When she encountered this man, he was - she says - walking in the opposite direction to her and other family members. He suddenly appeared - her own words – two metres in front of her. That’s just over 6 feet, the length of a typical bed, or 2 to 3 paces.
 
So, by the time they have each taken just one more pace, they will very nearly have crossed with each other. A  typical pace takes just over half a second. By the time they had each taken one more pace, they would already have crossed. So Aoife Smith had no more than one second’s sight of this man, even on her own evidence. She says nothing about having then turned round do look at him behind her.   

With all that in mind, let’s look at exactly how Aoife Smith described the man and child:  
 
1 - the man was white
2 - the man was ‘light-skinned’
3 - the man was out ‘of normal complexion’
4 - the man between 20 and 30 years old
5 - the man was 1.75m to 1.8m in height (5’ 9” to 5’ 11”)
6 - the man was of ‘normal physique’
7 – she thinks the man was clean-shaven
8 – she doesn’t remember any tattoos, scars or earrings
9 - he had ‘thickish’ here
10 - the hair was light brown in colour
11 - his hair was ‘cut short’
12 - he was wearing trousers, which were beige in colour,
13 - his trousers were made of cotton
14 - his trousers possibly had buttons on them
15 - she can’t say what he was wearing on top because ‘the child he was carrying covered  him completely from the top’
16 - he was walking ‘normally’
17 - the child he was carrying was female
18 - the child had straight hair
19 - the child’s hair was long, down to the neck
20 - the girl was about four years old ‘because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height’
21 - she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder
22 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she says the child ‘appeared to be sleeping’
23 - the child’s arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck
24 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she thinks the child was white
25 - the child had no covering over her
26 - she was wearing trousers or pyjama bottoms
27 - they were ‘light’ in colour
28 - they were ‘white’ or ‘light pink’
29 - they were made of ‘light material’
30 - they could have been made of cotton
31 - she was wearing a top
32 - it was ‘light’ in colour
33 - it had long sleeves.
 
She added the following to her statement: “she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child again”.
 
Now just imagine for one moment that you are on a jury.
 
Forget for a moment that the case has anything to do with Madeleine McCann.
 
You are presented with a witness.
 
She is 12 years old.
 
She tells you that she saw a bloke in the dark.
 
She then tells you that she had no more than a second in which to see him.
 
You then hear her reel off a list of 33 separate details of the man and the child.
 
How, as a juror, would you assess the reliability of her evidence?
 
 
Now, @ Roy Royston, you correctly referred to one other very important matter You said, and I quote:  “If I remember correctly, a crumpled [sp.] pair [of Gerry McCann’s trousers with buttons on]  an be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards”.
 
That is right. There were very early photographs of Gerry’s trousers with buttons on available for all and sundry to see – certainly before the Smith s made their police witness statement on 26 May. I think he was photographed walking around in them.
 
If you’ve followed my arguments about the contents of the statements of Nuno Lourenco re the alleged kidnapper of his daughter, Jane Tanner and finally the Smiths, you’ll recall that I suggested that all three descriptions were based on an original description of an actual man, Wojcek Krokowksi.
 
And as we’ve seen, all the Smiths’ statement harmonise to a great degree with those of Nuno Lournenco and Jane Tanner.
 
All Aoife Smith has said is that ‘possibly’ (no more than that) the trousers of the man had buttons on. We surely cannot base a whole set of assumptions about the validity of her testimony just on the ‘possibility’ that she may have seen some buttons on the trousers.
 
But has it occurred to anyone how every easy it would be, especially for a 12-year-old girl who had been coached, to add in this little bit of detail to  add credence to her story?
 
How could she realistically have absorbed in her mind the possibility of button on the trousers, along with an incredible 32 more matters of detail, in no more than one second?
 
And one other thought. If, as some still suggest, it really was Gerry McCann walking with his newly-dead child through Praia da Luz and really had passed  a family of nine who saw him, would he really lay them open to public view just days later?
 
That is only one objection of many to the very idea that Gerry McCann might have been so stupid as to do this, and the very time his wife and friends were raising the alarm.

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

Has anyone been to the exact spot to see how weak the lighting was at 10pm.

So we have;

A) it was a proper sighting and description.
B) it was a proper sighting but not of GM
C) it was all made up.

surely if it was c, it would have been mentioned to the pj on the 4th not days later.
All imo.

notlongnow wrote:Has anyone been to the exact spot to see how weak the lighting was at 10pm.

So we have;

A) it was a proper sighting and description.
B) it was a proper sighting but not of GM
C) it was all made up.

surely if it was c, it would have been mentioned to the pj on the 4th not days later.
All imo.

@ notlongnow

A good point, but this is where you need to look closely at the 'Robert Murat' connection. Let me summarise:

1. The Smiths see nothing

2. So they don't say anything - obviously

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - 'several meetings' over 'two years'

4. Murat pulled in for questioning and made arguido on 15 May

5. [My hypothesis] Conversations between Murat and Smith (maybe via intermediaries) - Smith agrees to help Murat, gets template script, based on Krokowksi again, for the man he, er, didn't see 

6. 16 May - Smith 'phones police: 'We remember a bloke carrying a child, sorry we never mentioned this before' (various excuses for the delay given, see the OP)  

7. Martin Smith, son and daughter make statements in Portugal. Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

8. Over 4 months later, Smith is up to 80% sure the man was Gerry McCann

9. Another 4 months later, changes his mind, supports McCanns' version of events, tells people to look for the abductor, agrees to put his name to two e-fits drawn up by the Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5 and convicted shoplifter, Henri Exton  

10. Over 5 years after that, BBC Crimewatch, 14 October 2013

What date was smiths description of what smithman was wearing given to the pj please.

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

Tony Bennett wrote:

notlongnow wrote:What date was Smiths description of what Smithman was wearing given to the PJ please.

Saturday 26 May 2007

Thank you.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

No one can say you aren`t persistent and don`t put up a good argument Tony but a lot of us go on gut feelings.  Unless you can come up with definite proof that the Smiths are all lying, I don`t think your poll results are likely to change.

Rob Royston wrote:The trousers with the buttons, that's what convinces me. Aoife Smith said in her statement that she was approaching the top of the stairs when the man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her. It turned out that Gerry had a pair of these trousers and, if I remember correctly a crumbled pair can be seen on the bed in 5A in photographs taken shortly afterwards.

Are you saying that the trousers with the buttons convinces you that the Smith family are to be believed or does it convince you that they are not to be believed.

The description of the Smithman trousers given by Aoife Smith to me is anything but convincing.  Time of night, dingy if not dark, a brief passing encounter of a stranger carrying a child?  That, along with the other detail given, is an awful lot to notice in a matter of seconds and to recall much later (3 weeks) without any prior reason to think twice about the roaming stranger.

Besides, if Gerry McCann was roaming the streets carrying the body of his child, or a substitute as some might think, and was seen by passing strangers - would he keep the trousers to wear again for press appearances or would he get rid of them?  A good point in itself - what was Gerry McCann wearing on the night of 3rd May?  No one seems to know, not even the PJ.  My guess is whatever he was wearing was hastily destroyed.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

And that is why witness evidence is not very reliable in criminal cases, and there has to be other more solid evidence to support a case of getting a conviction in a Trial.
The "Smith sighting" IMO is far too sketchy to hold up under scrutiny.

Verdi wrote:The description of the Smithman trousers given by Aoife Smith to me is anything but convincing.  Time of night, dingy if not dark, a brief passing encounter of a stranger carrying a child?  That, along with the other detail given, is an awful lot to notice in a matter of seconds and to recall much later (3 weeks) without any prior reason to think twice about the roaming stranger.

Precisely.

I am not certain of this but , did mr amaral say that the smiths did go back to luz quite early to give evidence ,he would know ofcourse as he would have been around at that time ? As for not reporting it the next day , I am not too surprised . One might play around in their mind first ,didn't seem too unusual for someone to carry child back or to somewhere ,so maybe didn't really find it too revelent straight away ,its quite a difficult thing for some to do really ,obviously one would need to be certain of facts of what your reporting,not as simple as it looks today , by the way I am still on the fence I just cant find it to be certain. joyce1938

Possibly saw buttons? Why did buttons on the side of trousers enter her head at all unless she saw them? (NB This is a separate issue than who the man was, and what he was doing carrying a child.) I have never seen decorative buttons like that. They are extremely distinctive, and I do not think likely to be make-up-able IYSWIM.

As with all your extremely well researched theories Tony, fact is piled upon fact, is piled upon fact, and the sum total of it all tends to persuade. I bought your original booklet/pamphlet about the McCann case years ago, and in that case was definitely persuaded by the totality of your list of presented facts and arguments.

Most of the points you mention here are 'sins of omission'. 'Why didn't they do X or Y', or 'Why didn't they do it sooner?'  I guess i think people can often be passive, or unsure, or maybe not wishing to get involved, or maybe they mean mean to do it, but something more pressing comes up instead. In the same circumstances, I would do X, you would do X, and quickly, but other people may be more lackadasical, or muddled, or inclined to change their minds - unsure about much of what they had seen, expecially if the light was poor. I do not think that many of us would care to assume early on, without hard proof, that the Smith family are all liars.

Also, you have to multiply in spades the conspiracy possibility if you assume the Smiths are all liars including the children. Very difficult to 'bind' a child to lying.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, was nothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

I think that this latest blog from former member here, Cristobell - Rosalinda Hutton - belongs here, simply because it is a direct response to a few posts of mine about 'Smithman' here, yesterday.

In her diatribe, she refers to the Smiths, twice, thus:

"the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution" and even,

"the most important witnesses in this case".

She goes on to refer to my attempts to demonstrate that the Smiths may have fabricated their statement as "interfering in a live police investigation" and says my aim is to "destroy the witnesses for the prosecution".

To which I have this brief answer: the Smiths have evidence of what, precisely?

One of them, and only one of them, Martin Smith, once made a highly dubious claim that the man he claimed to have seen on 3 May 'might have been' Gerry McCann. He was '60% to 80% sure'.

Months later, he began co-operating with the McCanns, he urged people to 'find the abductor' and relieve the McCanns' misery, and helped the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, Henri Exton, who was employed by the McCanns, to draw up two (controversial) e-fits. Since then, he has co-operated with the McCanns in the making of the 2009 documentary on the case, supported their putting his evidence on their website by changing his statement about the age of the man he said he had seen, and of course his evidence featured in 7 pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

After that, he spoke to DCI Andy Redwood twice, in 2012 and 2103, and was a major influence on the content of the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on October 2013.

Bearing all that in mind, he plainly is absolutely not a potential witness against the McCanns. Can Hutton really not see that?  

The attacks on my views on Smithman, like this one, are often exceptionally angry and bitter. I wonder sometimes just why that is.

+++ 

One other thing: Hutton refers to my interest in 'celebrities caught in sex scandals'.

Could this by any chance refer to my assistance to Terry Lubbock, a man from my home town, Harlow, whose son Stuart Lubbock was brutally raped and murdered by two or three men, possibly including Michael Barrymore, who was arrested on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock after my book Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder, exposing Barrymore's lies and 'drowning hoax' was serialised in the News of the World? 

The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?  

Ah yes, I thought so.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++         

Thursday, 16 July 2015
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHERE DO WE BEGIN?
by Cristobell

Tony Bennett is certain he is right and he is on a mission it seems to discredit an innocent family who did no more than report seeing a man on the night of May 3rd 2007 who looked like Gerry McCann.  Tony's mission is to blow their evidence out of the water and discredit them before or if, a trial ever takes  place in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Tony believes he has the right to question and interfere with anyone he chooses.  The means are available, through his computer he has access to as much private information about his victims as he likes and the will to seek and destroy them.  He is driven by hatred, probably wakes up each morning and thinks what poor fucker can I set about today, misery is my gospel, repent and ye shall be saved.

He is bored with Kate and Gerry, and he's never had much interest in the Tapas friends, or indeed any of the central characters involved in this case.  He is in the midst of a two pronged attack - destroy the witnesses for the prosecution and 2, destroy the enemies of himself.  He has worked way too hard to have his limelight stolen by manicured and coiffered bimbos.  I can imagine him weeping to 'It should have me', when the very attractive DCI Wall took over the Madeleine investigation.  He uses her picture as an avatar to keep his bile bubbling away and if Verdi is his sock, he is revealing a dark, twisted sexuality that he is blissfully unaware of.

Bennett seems to have spent the last two years (at least) attacking the enemies of the McCanns, his eye is definitely not on the ball, the ball being the questionable abduction, to focus on the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution in case members of CMoMM forgot.

Most of the people Tony now attacks weren't even in PDL at the relevant time, but it matters not to TB.  His enemies now are those who would relieve him of his imaginary crown.  Every theory, other than his own must be stamped out, his opposition to Sonia Poulton's documentary has reached epic, paranoid, proportions.  He must convince the world, that those striving to expose the truth are the bad guys.  He forgets, there is only ONE truth, and it doesn't matter one iota how anyone gets to it.  Richard Hall gave it a good shot, but he should have done his homework.  Unfortunately, TB pitches volumes of dross, and people prefer to take his word, rather than trawl through it themselves, on the assumption that he has done so much research, he can't possibly be wrong.  A shame really, because it doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest reading, it is biased with a foregone conclusion, ergo it is worthless.

Tony, for whatever reason, is desperate to prove that the most important witnesses in this case are liars.  He has been smearing this innocent family for over 2 years and becomes apoplectic if anyone opines that the Smith family saw Gerry on that fateful night.  We all have the power and/or ability to stalk our enemies, the internet, our lives are more public than they have ever been.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should and happily most of us respect each other's privacy.  For Bennett, there are no moral or social boundaries, he is without conscious or empathy, one of the witnesses he is smearing was 12 years old at the time of the incident!  Why he has never faced criminal charges for interfering in a live police investigation, I will never know.  A cynic might say, any potential trial is fucked before it begins.

Some very nasty characters have attached themselves to this case, not least Mr. Bennett, who has done as much, if not more, to keep the case of missing Madeleine on the front page of the tabloid newspapers.  This angry preacher of mob justice, has for too long been seen as the face of those who do not believe the abduction story.  His angry diatribes and physical presence in the parents home town sealed the myth that doubters were 'haters' and 'pitchforkers' - even though the majority of us were as shocked and appalled by his actions as everyone else.

I don't think he is acting with or for the McCanns, though he may have 'threats' hanging over him for other matters.  He is disingenuous, and more than willing to lie to smear his opponents or defend himself, that he may well be putty in the hands of someone who has something on him.

People like Tony are very easy to manipulate.  He is an easy target, ergo he is corruptible.  Why is he corruptible?  Simple, he has set himself up on a pedestal, he declares himself to be a man of faith with high moral values, he doesn't drink, smoke, party or do drugs.  He is a middle class professional in a suit, there is no white cider in his fridge or tracky bottoms in his wardrobe.  He sees himself as several notches above the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder and sadly, he has been able to convince several others beneath him, to look up to and admire the bleeding heart, religious zealot he has created.  Those a few rungs up however, merely see him as the twat he is.

Tony is playing the game of the many weeping television evangelists who have gone before him, though far less successfully it must be said.  Sadly for him, he has the face, if not the voice, for radio and he lacks a shapely, multi-(eye)lashed Babe and of course, Charisma.  Tony wants to lead an army of the people in a quest for justice, he wants to create a legacy.  Any 'cause' will do - from road signs to celebrities caught in sex scandals to a little girl who disappeared on her holiday - the causes Tony attaches himself to, come with newspaper headlines and precious television airtime for his loony beliefs - he wants to spread the word, the word of course, being his own.

The best that can be said of Tony, is that no-one doubts his sincerity. Anyone who can argue creationism with a straight face, takes seriously deluded off the scale.  This is a man with beliefs carved in stone, there is no room for discussion or debate, he is right. End of.  You can kind of see, why he has never achieved his goals, unwieldy people in any sphere whatsoever, workplace, domestic, etc, are impossible to work with, unless of course, they achieve the tyrannical status they desire, in which case, no-one has a choice.  Tony pretends to be open minded while taking notes to use against his correspondent later - to him, everyone is a potential enemy - it is why he has to keep such close tracks on anyone who joins his forum.  He lives in permanent fear of being 'found out' - most weeping evangelists do.  We can only guess at what it is he fears, but he sure as hell fears something.  The disingenuous always do.  

I am not knocking him entirely, anyone who wants to leave a legacy (if they are honest) will do the same, from Joan of Arc leading an army to Jim Gamble cleaning up Sin City to the humble writer trying to get a break.  I used my time in the convent to get a book deal with a major publisher, but it was too honest, it didn't contain any graphic sexual violence because I didn't see any.  I saw only the cruelty and the physical violence, I found out about the sexual abuse of others after I left.  Honesty has always been my downfall and my opinions on the McCann case was the kiss of death to my writing career.  Seriously, what (sane) writer would comment negatively about the McCanns knowing that they had a book being released by a major publisher?  In 2011 (having been delayed a year), when my book came out, Kate and Gerry were virtual Saints, no-one dared to criticise them at that time and trust me, being at the top of their dossier/blacklist did me no favours whatsoever.

By 2010 (when I got my book deal), I had been commenting on the McCanns for nearly 3 years, and yes, I'm sure they have all the screenshots, lol.  Had they left me alone, I may have dropped out and moved onto other projects but they have pursued me relentlessly.  To be honest, I don't know whether to thank them for their tenacity or curse them for distracting me from other things, but without doubt, they have driven me to pursue this case to the end.  When I get my (at the moment very sore*) teeth into a subject, I am a finisher.  

But back to Mr. Bennett.  Clean living, quasi intellectuals and zealots can and do inspire followers - people who admire devotion, sacrifice, high moral values and quasi egalitarianism - qualities essential for all leaders and wannabe despots (on the surface at least) - they must be better than us, in order to lead us.  Our leaders must not be tempted by frivolity and sins of the flesh and we prefer that they not get high during world peace summits - though some might argue, that they should  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  

Unfortunately for the clean living (I've never attempted it myself, lol), they must keep up the façade for evermore.  No-one can ever smell liquor on their breath or discover a bong in their filing cabinet.  As for off limits hanky panky, forget it.  For the holier than thou, it is one partner for life and sex is for procreation only. The truly zealous want bibles and cameras in the nation's bedrooms to ensure everyone adheres to the missionary position.

This case has unfortunately, attracted more than its fair share of the morally righteous, from those who would never have left their babies on their own, myself included, to those want blood.  Quite literally.  They are eschewing the natural order and the law of the land by acting as investigators, judge and jury, themselves and Bennett is chief rabble rouser.  Tony will not be the hero who solves this crime, though he believes he is, and he will not be the one issuing the punishment (his orgasmic moment), the fate of the child's aggressors, is, thank God, in the hands of a democratic, cilivised society - we hope.  

I can't normally be arsed to comment on Bennett anymore, but his latest rantings against the unfortunate Smith family, dragged into this circus through no fault of their own, happens to coincide with my recovery from major dental surgery (*I had a tooth out [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]) and I am a bear(ess) with a bit of a sore head.

END OF DIATRIBE

@Tony Bennett  above:

"The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?  "

Are you a solicitor ?

 I have never seen decorative buttons like that.

I have. The idea was that you could either wear the trousers full length or you could turn them up and wear them 3/4 length. There is a tab on the inside which holds up the rolled up material and fastens with the button on the outside. They were very common at the time - I had two pairs like that.

They are exactly the sort of garment you would buy for a holiday because you could wear them two ways, so ring the changes, but save on packing/weight.

Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.