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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.07.15 22:53

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?

@ Nuala Once again, I refer posters to my OP, which by the looks of things most commenters on this thread haven't read.

Here is point 10, with the relevant parts highlighted in red:

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

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

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”.

by Verdi 17.07.15 22:53

Amy Dean wrote:Quote from Verdi:

IIRC there were four adults in the group, two of which (Martin and his daughter Aoife) gave a distinct description of the stranger, Martin Smith's son was very evasive and his wife more so.

Are you counting then 12-year-old Aoife as one of the adults?

No, sorry about that - my computer's gone a bit wacky. I edited to make the post more presentable (for some reason half the text reduced in size) but somehow the text was partly deleted and partly rearranged. It does this sometimes - don't think it likes the climate.

I'll edit again!

by tinkier 17.07.15 23:04

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?

Mr Smith stated….."It was definitely not Murat because the man wasn't as big as him, I would have recognized Murat because I had met him previously" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html
ETA…..Ah, just seen your post above TB re the contradicting reports.

by Nuala 17.07.15 23:17

@ Tony Bennett

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

Actually that wasn't what Martin Smith said. What he said was, and I quote the exact words from his statement:

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars.

There is a difference between "saw" and "met".

Whatever was said by the media I'm not really interested in, as we know the media misquotes people all the time. And indeed we know from the Maddie McCann case that not only does the media misquote, it reports downright lies.

So I'm not interested in that, but what Martin Smith himself said because that is the only reliable thing we can go by, and Martin Smith, as I understand it, is quite clear that he only knew Robert Murat by sight.

So I'm still a little confused why you would say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well, unless you mean he knew him well but by sight only?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.07.15 23:35

tinkier wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?
Mr Smith stated….."It was definitely not Murat because the man wasn't as big as him, I would have recognised Murat because I had met him previously" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html

ETA…..Ah, just seen your post above TB re the contradicting reports.

@ tinkier Yes, indeed, the contradictions are very important in evaluating all the Smith's statements and utterings.

And what I was trying to get over in the OP was the sheer scale of them - so many contradictions - and significant ones.

But let's stick with the Martin Smith-Robert Murat relationship.

Smith says he saw that bloke only momentarily in the dark. The child was hiding the man's face, he says - and what he was wearing above his waist. No-one can explain why he waited 13 days before any of this 9-strong family thought of informing the Portuguese Police about their claimed 'sighting'. Yet when he did speak to the police, he was sure, very sure, that it wasn't Robert Murat he'd seen.

I've listed the contradictions above in what Smith says about how well he knew Murat. I say:

'Well enough for Smith to express absolute, rock-hard certainty that the man was not Murat'.

Now why does he swing from 'met him once in a bar two years ago' to 'met him on several occasions and known him for many years'.

There is a very big difference there, isn't there?

And what it also tells us is that Martin Smith is evasive about his relationship to Murat.

Why?

Surely we have another clue in his reaction when an Irish newspaper reported on his relationship with Murat. Smith was incandescent and threatened to sue the paper (see other thread).

Why such sensitivity by Martin Smith about Murat?

A raw nerve being touched, by the looks of it

by Verdi 17.07.15 23:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
tinkier wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?
Mr Smith stated….."It was definitely not Murat because the man wasn't as big as him, I would have recognised Murat because I had met him previously" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html

ETA…..Ah, just seen your post above TB re the contradicting reports.
@ tinkier Yes, indeed, the contradictions are very important in evaluating all the Smith's statements and utterings.

And what I was trying to get over in the OP was the sheer scale of them - so many contradictions - and significant ones.

But let's stick with the Martin Smith-Robert Murat relationship.

Smith says he saw that bloke only momentarily in the dark. The child was hiding the man's face, he says - and what he was wearing above his waist. No-one can explain why he waited 13 days before any of this 9-strong family thought of informing the Portuguese Police about their claimed 'sighting'. Yet when he did speak to the police, he was sure, very sure, that it wasn't Robert Murat he'd seen.

I've listed the contradictions above in what Smith says about how well he knew Murat. I say:

'Well enough for Smith to express absolute, rock-hard certainty that the man was not Murat'.

Now why does he swing from 'met him once in a bar two years ago' to 'met him on several occasions and known him for many years'.

There is a very big difference there, isn't there?

And what it also tells us is that Martin Smith is evasive about his relationship to Murat.

Why?

Surely we have another clue in his reaction when an Irish newspaper reported on his relationship with Murat. Smith was incandescent and threatened to sue the paper (see other thread).

Why such sensitivity by Martin Smith about Murat?

A raw nerve being touched, by the looks of it

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

Déjà vu?

by tinkier 18.07.15 1:09

Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tinkier wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?
Mr Smith stated….."It was definitely not Murat because the man wasn't as big as him, I would have recognised Murat because I had met him previously" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html

ETA…..Ah, just seen your post above TB re the contradicting reports.
@ tinkier Yes, indeed, the contradictions are very important in evaluating all the Smith's statements and utterings.

And what I was trying to get over in the OP was the sheer scale of them - so many contradictions - and significant ones.

But let's stick with the Martin Smith-Robert Murat relationship.

Smith says he saw that bloke only momentarily in the dark. The child was hiding the man's face, he says - and what he was wearing above his waist. No-one can explain why he waited 13 days before any of this 9-strong family thought of informing the Portuguese Police about their claimed 'sighting'. Yet when he did speak to the police, he was sure, very sure, that it wasn't Robert Murat he'd seen.

I've listed the contradictions above in what Smith says about how well he knew Murat. I say:

'Well enough for Smith to express absolute, rock-hard certainty that the man was not Murat'.

Now why does he swing from 'met him once in a bar two years ago' to 'met him on several occasions and known him for many years'.

There is a very big difference there, isn't there?

And what it also tells us is that Martin Smith is evasive about his relationship to Murat.

Why?

Surely we have another clue in his reaction when an Irish newspaper reported on his relationship with Murat. Smith was incandescent and threatened to sue the paper (see other thread).

Why such sensitivity by Martin Smith about Murat?

A raw nerve being touched, by the looks of it
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Déjà vu?

The Smiths had an apartment there for some time, visiting three times a year. Murat strikes me as the type of person you would get to know whether you wanted to or not, the confident man about town type, knew everyones business. All regulars to that area would definitely know him, he would make sure of it!

by lj 18.07.15 2:53

Just as a general remark. I have a daughter who dabbles a bit in painting and drawing. I don't if it is because of that, but often when we see the same thing or event, we completely differ in description. She is not 12 anymore, but this started at least that early. She will remember and describe the finest details, often leaving out the full picture, while I am opposite. It has led to some very different descriptions of the same events. In the past I have given examples of that. I can imagine that someone, who looks like she does, will see the buttons. I think we all look with different eyes.

by Nuala 18.07.15 9:24

@ Tony Bennett

The child was hiding the man's face, he says - and what he was wearing above his waist.

I can't find that in Martin Smith's statements. Indeed, he said in his 26th May statement:

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.

So he obviously did see the man's face.

Can you tell me where you got the information that Martin Smith said the child was hiding the man's face?

Thanks smilie

by Rob Royston 18.07.15 9:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

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

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?
@ Nuala Once again, I refer posters to my OP, which by the looks of things most commenters on this thread haven't read.

Here is point 10, with the relevant parts highlighted in red:

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

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

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”.

What do we believe, a man's statement to the police, on 26th May 2007, not 2008, or newspaper reports printed after he had been "visited"?

In his statement to the PJ, Martin Smith says it was his son who had telephoned him and reminded them all about the encounter. Peter Smith had never been to Portugal before and Murat had been in England until two days before he went home, so it is quite unlikely that he knew Murat. He did know the son of the developer of the complex where his father had the apartment as he says he talked with him at Faro airport, so it could be possible that he knew of Murat from others mentioning him in conversation. This may be the reason why he called his father after Murat had been made an arquido.

by Doug D 18.07.15 10:09

I’m sure it’s been discussed before, but is Martin Smith initially suggesting a ‘Tannerman’ holding position, before changing it to the shoulder ‘carrying off plane’ position later on?

The shoulder position is certainly the most comfortable and natural position and one which a father would know, so his comment in his first statement does not make sense.

From Martin Smith’s 26^th May statement:

‘He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.’

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

Yet Peter Smith’s statement of same date:

‘He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder, as such on the right of the deponent, appearing to him in a natural manner.’

It was dark and fleeting, making it impossible to give any sort of identification/description that would ever stand up in a Court, but the manner in which a child was being carried should have been one of the few 'definites' in the statements, if there were any at all.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.07.15 10:36

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

The child was hiding the man's face, he says - and what he was wearing above his waist.

I can't find that in Martin Smith's statements. Indeed, he said in his 26th May statement:

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.

So he obviously did see the man's face.

Can you tell me where you got the information that Martin Smith said the child was hiding the man's face?

Thanks

@ Nuala

Actually, it looks from Martin Smith's statement that he saw part of the man's face, or certainly did not see his face full on. He does not actually say that the child was covering his face (my mistake, sorry about that), but what he does say is that the man 'put his head down' (see bolded red, below). He also does, of course, say in his original statement (see below) that he can't recall what the man was wearing above his waist. But then he had an amazing bout of 'recovered memory' many months later and now 'remembers' that he was wearing 'a dark jacket'!

It is actually Aoife Smith who says this: "She can’t say what he was wearing on top because the child he was carrying covered him completely from the top".

Another significant change in his statement was about the age of the man he says he saw. Originally, he said: '35-40'. But when the McCanns wanted to put a summary of his statement on their 'Find Madeleine' website (which they did in May 2009), Martin Smith was quite happy to alter that to '34-35'. It would be very interesting to find out exactly when, why and how Martin Smith decided to change his original statement.

References below from the OP:

2. Did the man lower his head?

Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.

But Martin Smith statement “He put his head down”.

3. Whether they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him – and Martin Smith’s changes of mind

Peter Smith: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ).

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.

4. What they saw of the child

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?”

8. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “Aged 35 to 40”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “Aged approximately 40”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “Perhaps 34 or 35”

by **Tony Bennett** 18.07.15 10:49

Rob Royston wrote:
What do we believe, a man's statement to the police, on 26th May 2007, not 2008, or newspaper reports printed after he had been "visited"?

REPLY: I suspect you would agree with me if I said: "A witness statement could be a tissue of lies from start to finish, while a newspaper report could be 100% accurate". Equally, it is possible that a witness is telling the God's honest truth, and a journalist or editor has got a story wrong.

I think in all cases, and in this case especially, it is important to bring analysis to everything that has been done, said or written, by anyone. I have set out a veritable mass of contradictions in the Smiths' statements, which deal a severe blow to their collective credibility.

By contrast, the newspaper reports dated 3 and 4 January 2008 purport to quote directly from Martin Smith, don't they? IIRC at least one of the papers spoke directly to him. I am satisfied from all that I have seen that Martin Smith having 'met Murat several times' over 'many years' is accurate.

In his statement to the PJ, Martin Smith says it was his son who had telephoned him and reminded them all about the encounter. Peter Smith had never been to Portugal before and Murat had been in England until two days before he went home, so it is quite unlikely that he knew Murat. He did know the son of the developer of the complex where his father had the apartment as he says he talked with him at Faro airport, so it could be possible that he knew of Murat from others mentioning him in conversation. This may be the reason why he called his father after Murat had been made an arquido.

REPLY: I remain to be persuaded that Peter's 'Am I only dreaming?' alleged 'phone call to his father on 16 May 2007 is anything but yet another Smith family fabrication

by **Tony Bennett** 18.07.15 11:07

Doug D wrote:I’m sure it’s been discussed before, but is Martin Smith initially suggesting a ‘Tannerman’ holding position, before changing it to the shoulder ‘carrying off plane’ position later on?

The shoulder position is certainly the most comfortable and natural position and one which a father would know, so his comment in his first statement does not make sense.

From Martin Smith’s 26^th May statement:

‘He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.’

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

Yet Peter Smith’s statement of same date:

‘He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder, as such on the right of the deponent, appearing to him in a natural manner.’

It was dark and fleeting, making it impossible to give any sort of identification/description that would ever stand up in a Court, but the manner in which a child was being carried should have been one of the few 'definites' in the statements, if there were any at all.

I fully agree with your observations, and indeed it is striking that we do not get a coherent description of how the child was supposed to have been carried from any of the three Smiths.

This conflict of evidence is particularly impossible to explain:

Aoife Smith: "she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder

Peter Smith: The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed".

So: Aoife couldn't see the girl's face at all; Peter had a clear vision of both eyelids!! Any police officer would tell you that something is badly wrong here.

And then we have Martin Smith weighing in with: "she was‘in a deep sleep". How oln earth does he fathom out that not only she was asleep but in a 'deep' sleep.

There are really so many different indications that they have fabricated Smithman

by Nuala 18.07.15 11:34

@ Doug D

I’m sure it’s been discussed before, but is Martin Smith initially suggesting a ‘Tannerman’ holding position, before changing it to the shoulder ‘carrying off plane’ position later on?

No, all three Smith statements in May 2007 are quite clear that the child was being carried in an "off the plane" position. Martin Smith said this: He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent.

A Smith said this: She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual.

Peter Smith said this: He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder

It's a shame therefore, that Richard D Hall, in his Phantoms video, has the Smith sighting child being carried in a "Tannerman" position, when all three Smiths said the opposite. So that was a notable inaccuracy.

by joyce1938 18.07.15 11:36

I am still on fence regards all this . I do realize that gaggle of a group of people walking in a that way some behind the other,it could bethtey saw different things. He could have slightly looked down or up and then there would be a difference to what people observed . The child would be lot shorter and hence see or observe something else,that's not at all odd thing .what would be odd is if all said exactly the same .Its understandable that they might not rush to get intouch with police straight away ,they would have been trying to make sure that this would be important trying to say what was needed to help,could easily been a child and father going home . hope this makes sense . joyce1938

by sallypelt 18.07.15 11:41

joyce1938 wrote:I am still on fence regards all this . I do realize that gaggle of a group of people walking in a that way some behind the other,it could bethtey saw different things. He could have slightly looked down or up and then there would be a difference to what people observed . The child would be lot shorter and hence see or observe something else,that's not at all odd thing .what would be odd is if all said exactly the same .Its understandable that they might not rush to get intouch with police straight away ,they would have been trying to make sure that this would be important trying to say what was needed to help,could easily been a child and father going home . hope this makes sense . joyce1938

It's strange that no one mentions any other person in that area (pub area?) that night at that time, unless we haven't seen all the PJ files, and there WAS someone else, but they aren't telling us. But there again, if my aunty had ~~bal~~... oh, never mind, you get my drift spin

by joyce1938 18.07.15 11:46

Mr Amaral has told us that there are things he cant tell now ,so I have nodoubt ,we don't have all the info we would like to think we have,there will be holes in what we are and have been putting together over the years .Just got to waite for MFI to open the files again we are told ,then the truth maybe told . joyce1938

by Joss 18.07.15 11:47

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. 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.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. — Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further.

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

by Doug D 18.07.15 11:54

If that is what he meant by:

‘He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent.’

(ie not Tannerman, arms out with head to left side)

why then add:

‘He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.’

The ‘off the plane position’ is the natural and most comfortable position for both parent and child.

So why add clarification to something that should not need clarifying?

Hobs?

by joyce1938 18.07.15 11:57

the tanner sighting has gone very quiet ,supposedly found to be a fathet has at last come forward and said he walked that route taking his daughter home ,the pyjamas didn't at all look like the Marks and spencers ones at all father still had them and they were shownfor us to see.what did people make of that situation ? its gone quiet and not now spoken about?joyce1938

by Nuala 18.07.15 12:23

@ Tony Bennett

what he does say is that the man 'put his head down'
Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.
But Martin Smith statement “He put his head down”.

Actually Martin Smith didn't say that, he said this about GM carrying his child down the steps of the plane in Sep 2007:

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.

I think anyone looking at that footage can see that even with GM's head slightly down, his face is still perfectly clear, so I don't see that as a contradiction. I don't see this as a contradiction either:

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?”

Both Martin Smith and Peter Smith were perfectly clear that the child was asleep so they obviously passed the man with the child's face in view, but A Smith passed on the opposite side of the man, so couldn't see the child's face.

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man
Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “Aged 35 to 40”
Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “Aged approximately 40”
Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “Perhaps 34 or 35”

The first two statements aren't a contradiction. Aged 35-40 is the same as aged approximately 40. The third statement though, is very interesting and you refer to it as well in this bit:

But when the McCanns wanted to put a summary of his statement on their 'Find Madeleine' website (which they did in May 2009), Martin Smith was quite happy to alter that to '34-35'. It would be very interesting to find out exactly when, why and how Martin Smith decided to change his original statement.

That's a very good point. Can you tell me where you got this information from, that it was Martin Smith that changed the estimated age of the man for the Find Madeleine website?

Thanks smilie

by Nuala 18.07.15 12:39

@ Doug D

The ‘off the plane position’ is the natural and most comfortable position for both parent and child.
So why add clarification to something that should not need clarifying?

He wasn't clarifying the position of the child, but the apparent comfort of transporting "not being habitual" i.e. he wasn't used to it.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.07.15 16:25

Nuala wrote:That's a very good point. Can you tell me where you got this information from, that it was Martin Smith that changed the estimated age of the man for the Find Madeleine website?

@ Nuala    I will be along later to reply to this and the rest of your post, but to answer it fully and to provide context for my reply - and for the benefit generally of anyone else coming along to view this thread, let me set out what are the obvious 'NINE PHASES' of the 'Smithman' sighting.

Thus:

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

Phase 1
from 3 to 15 May 2007:
AN UNREPORTED SIGHTING

The Smiths claim to have seen a man carrying a child, but do not report it – a baffling delay

Phase 2
rom 16 May to 20 September 2007:
A REPORTED SIGHTING

The Smiths get round to reporting what they say they saw – the day after someone they know, Robert Murat, is made an unofficial suspect in the case. The Portuguese Police interview three members of the Smith family on 26 May.

Phase 3
from 20 September to December 2007:
COULD IT BE GERRY MCCANN?

Martin Smith triggers new interest in the sighting by claiming that he was 60% to 80% sure that he really saw Gerry McCann that night in early May. He bases this on the way Gerry McCann walked down the steps of an aeroplane on 9 September. He delays reporting his new belief for 11 days

Phase 4
from January 2008 to December 2008:
THE MCCANNS TAKE OVER THE SMITH SIGHTING

Newspaper articles on 3 and 4 January 2008 reveal that Metodo 3 have ‘already’ been in touch with the Smith and that Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, one of the McCann Team, is also involved. The Sun reported that “Investigators from the Metodo 3 agency hired by Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate are preparing to travel to Ireland to interview them”. Kennedy contacts the Smiths. Henri Exton, and possibly Irishman Kevin Halligen, talk to the Smiths and produce two e-fits of different-looking men.

Phase 5
from January to May 2009:
SMITHMAN FEATURES IN A PRO-MCCANN DOCUMENTARY

Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar appointed to lead the McCann private investigation, around November 2008. Former Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley appointed later. They help to prepare the ‘Mockumentary’ prepared by Mentorn Media and shown by Channel 4 on May 2009. The documentary, in two lengthy passages, suggests that ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’ are one and the same

Phase 6
from May 2009 to April 2011:
SMITHMAN PROMOTED AS A KEY SUSPECT ON THE MCCANNS’ FIND MADELEINE WEBSITE

This is the period during which the McCanns actively promoted the Smith sighting on their ‘Find Madeleine’ website, with a 30-second audio clip of a man with an Irish accent repeating a summary of the Smiths’ evidence. During this audio clip, the voice is heard to say that the man looked ’34-35’. But in his original police statement, he had stated the man looked ’35-40. This was actually the second time Martin Smith changed his mind, as when he was interviewed a second time by the Irish police, he gave the man’s age as ‘40’.

Phase 7
May 2011:
SMITHMAN PROMOTED IN KATE MCCANN’S BOOK, ‘madeleine’:

When Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, on 11 May 2011, seven pages of her book mentioned Smithman. Three of these seven pages consisted of an itemised list of the ‘striking similarities between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’.

Phase 8
from May 2011 to September 2013:
DCI REDWOOD PREPARES TO REVEAL SMITHMAN AS HIS MAIN SUSPECT

He talks to Martin Smith at least twice. There is on-the-record confirmation that he met Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood of Operation at least twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013. Undoubtedly this was to discuss the BB Crimewatch McCann Special which had long been planned with the BBC Crimewatch Team.

Phase 9
from October 2013 to now:
SMITHMAN REVEALED BY SCOTLAND YARD AS THE CHIEF SUSPECT

There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann show, transmited to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. In this broadcast, DCI Andy Redwood showed us two efits of different-looking people, implying that the Smiths drew them up. He claimed that the man represented by these two e-fiyts ‘is now the centre of our focus’.

by Nuala 18.07.15 18:05

@ Tony Bennett

I will be along later to reply to this and the rest of your post
Thank you, much appreciated smilie

Phase 4
from January 2008 to December 2008:
THE MCCANNS TAKE OVER THE SMITH SIGHTING
Newspaper articles on 3 and 4 January 2008 reveal that Metodo 3 have ‘already’ been in touch with the Smith and that Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, one of the McCann Team, is also involved. The Sun reported that “Investigators from the Metodo 3 agency hired by Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate are preparing to travel to Ireland to interview them”. Kennedy contacts the Smiths. Henri Exton, and possibly Irishman Kevin Halligen, talk to the Smiths and produce two e-fits of different-looking men.

The e-fits are clearly of the same man. On this thread here:

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

Jon Tait from Twitter has shown that when you make a composite of the two images it's exactly the same man. Indeed so alike are they it's virtually impossible to tell that it's a composite of two images.

Also, I would add to this phase the sentence:

These two e-fits were not released to the public because they looked exactly like Gerry McCann.

Phase 9
from October 2013 to now:
SMITHMAN REVEALED BY SCOTLAND YARD AS THE CHIEF SUSPECT

There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann show, transmited to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. In this broadcast, DCI Andy Redwood showed us two efits of different-looking people, implying that the Smiths drew them up. He claimed that the man represented by these two e-fiyts ‘is now the centre of our focus’.

They were drawn up by the Smiths, I believe an FOI request confirmed this?

Also, I would add to that Phase 9 the sentence:

Since the release of the e-fits of Op Grange's main suspect the Find Madeleine website has removed all references to the Smith sighting (apart from the short audio clip) and is actively promoting the Tannerman sighting, followed by Pimpleman and the VB lookalike. This, of course, is because the e-fits released by Op Grange look exactly like Gerry McCann.

by Joss 18.07.15 18:42

I think what logical question that needs to be asked about the Smith's sighting is Why would they deliberately contact the police with such a story if it wasn't true? What would they possibly hope to gain by it? To insert themselves into a high profile criminal case of a missing child for their bit of fame, or for some other reason? I am still really not certain what to think about the Smith's sighting and how it all ties in to the case? I just can't see why parents would place their child into the stressful situation of being interviewed by the police as to what she saw if it was all untrue, and that would mean they had to coach their daughter to lie to the police and get their stories straight, i just can't imagine they would do that as loving parents, and it keeps me on the fence about it all, yet on the other hand something is also a bit off with the story.
Eyewitness testimony can in a lot of cases be very wrong, and convict innocent people in crimes.

by Joss 18.07.15 18:49

Also if M. Smith states this:
(Quote from PJ files)
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. —
How on earth would he be able to participate in drawing up an e-fit of the person he saw on the night carrying a child? Was he making stuff up from his imagination?

by notlongnow 18.07.15 18:51

Joss wrote:I think what logical question that needs to be asked about the Smith's sighting is Why would they deliberately contact the police with such a story if it wasn't true? What would they possibly hope to gain by it? To insert themselves into a high profile criminal case of a missing child for their bit of fame, or for some other reason? I am still really not certain what to think about the Smith's sighting and how it all ties in to the case? I just can't see why parents would place their child into the stressful situation of being interviewed by the police as to what she saw if it was all untrue, and that would mean they had to coach their daughter to lie to the police and get their stories straight, i just can't imagine they would do that as loving parents, and it keeps me on the fence about it all, yet on the other hand something is also a bit off with the story.
Eyewitness testimony can in a lot of cases be very wrong, and convict innocent people in crimes.

Likewise i have the same veiw as you.
The only person i can see it has helped is RM.

by cockerspaniel 18.07.15 19:03

Just a thought but, if Mr Smith had seen someone carrying a child and it had been RM, wouldnt he have thought "thats odd, RM carrying a child about at night, ive seen him around before (most likely I assume without his daughter) , what on earth is he doing carrying a child around at this time of the evening? maybe to even say something in passing to the group re this?? also, with people you know by passing looks only, in such a small village you would expect a mutual head nod of acknowledgement maybe between 2 adult men of that age ??

hope this makes sense.

by Joss 18.07.15 19:21

notlongnow wrote:
Joss wrote:I think what logical question that needs to be asked about the Smith's sighting is Why would they deliberately contact the police with such a story if it wasn't true? What would they possibly hope to gain by it? To insert themselves into a high profile criminal case of a missing child for their bit of fame, or for some other reason? I am still really not certain what to think about the Smith's sighting and how it all ties in to the case? I just can't see why parents would place their child into the stressful situation of being interviewed by the police as to what she saw if it was all untrue, and that would mean they had to coach their daughter to lie to the police and get their stories straight, i just can't imagine they would do that as loving parents, and it keeps me on the fence about it all, yet on the other hand something is also a bit off with the story.
Eyewitness testimony can in a lot of cases be very wrong, and convict innocent people in crimes.

Likewise i have the same veiw as you.
The only person i can see it has helped is RM.

And the lovely Kate McCann had this to say about RM with no proof whatsoever:

[color:c14e=000000]In her notes dated July 18, almost two months after Maddie's disappearance and at a time when there are starting to appear indicia against the McCanns, Kate sounds disheartened and reinforces the accusations against Murat: "I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't".
[color:c14e=000000][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[color:c14e=000000]K. McCann sure liked to wish harm [color:c14e=000000]on people, what a despicable person she is.

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

After looking at this list of contradictions about the 'Smithman' sighting