SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.15 8:14

THE NINE PHASES OF SMITHMAN

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

The Smiths claim to have seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm on 3 May, but do not report it – a baffling delay. They give several contradictory reasons for not reporting what they say they saw

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

On 16 May 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. Martin Smith is adamant that the man he saw was not Robert Murat. All the three Smiths admit they saw the man in the dark and for a few seconds at the most, and agree that none of them would be ablse to recognise him again if they saw him

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 carried his son Sean 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 Smiths - 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, visits the Smiths and produces two e-fits of what, to many people, looks like different men: different face shape and size, differences in chin and nose length, hair style and so on. From this moment on, Martin Smith drops his identification of the man he says he saw as Gerry McCann, supports the McCanns’ search for the abductor, and in effect becomes a McCann supporter, working with the McCann Team

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 a documentary, widely called 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 said the man looked ’35-40’. This was the second time Martin Smith changed his mind, because when he was interviewed a second time by the Irish police, he gave the man’s age as ‘40’. The most likely explanation for Smith changing the age of the man from ‘40’ to ’34-35’ is because he was asked to by the McCann Team

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

DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, 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 BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which had long been planned together with the BBC Crimewatch Team, at a cost of around £2 million

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, transmitted 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-fits ‘is now the centre of our focus’. Despite that, the e-fits of Snithman are no longer viewable either on the Met Police website or the McCanns’ ‘Find Madeleine’ website. The audio of an Irish voice describing a man aged ‘perhaps 34-35’ is still on the McCanns’ website

by Liz Eagles 21.07.15 8:55

No Crimewatch update in the last couple of years. Smithman image not available on McCann website or Met website. OG all quiet since the media extravaganza, the retirement of Andy Redwood, the introduction of Nicola Wall (nicks 'em before they know they've been nicked) and the visit to Portugal by Alison Saunders (can't prosecute an MP because he has dementia).

What a dog's dinner.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.15 12:37

@ TheTruthWillOut

I have been forwarded by a member of another forum a question you have posed over there which the member felt I ought to answer. Here is your question:

QUESTION BY TTWO:

“The problem I have with the 8 threads/polls of Smithman is that even if they are 100% lying, how does it further the case of the disappearance of Madeleine? Eliminate them from the story and what does that do/change/tell us apart from they lied? Genuine question”.

+++++++++++

REPLY: First, let it be noted that I return to the subject of Smithman not because I want to return to it, but because someone has asked me to.

Second, on a quick check of the forum stats, I see that the eight main Smithman threads have attracted, so far, over 1,300 replies and over 80,000 views. And there are other Smithman threads that other members here have started.
Over 350 have voted in the various Smithman polls. All of this suggests there is real interest in the issue of whether Smithman is a fabrication, as I suggest. People want to debate and discuss this subject, and even those who believe Martin Smith is as honest as they day is long often concede that there are inexplicable delays in his actions and a host of contradictions that need explanation.

Third, before giving you my answer to your question, please have a look again at the interview Wendy Murphy gave to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News when asked about this new ‘suspect’ which DCI Andy Redwood had presented to 6.7 million viewers on BBC Crimewatch. Link:

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

In terms, she said this:

* There was no abductor

* Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 48 questions?

* Why did the McCanns rush to hire the country’s most expensive lawyers?

* These e-fits are just another desperate attempt to prove there really was an abductor when there wasn’t one.

Wendy Murphy is a former U.S. criminal prosecutor and expert in matters relating to child abuse and especially child sexual abuse.

So, to answer your question, what do we all gain in our understanding of this case if it turns out that the Smiths were fabricating their sighting?

You asked: “Eliminate them from the story and what does that do/change/tell us apart from they lied?”

The problem I have with the way you frame this question is that if the Smiths were lying about their sighting, by no means does that ‘eliminate’ them from this case.

I would suggest that the exact opposite is true.

IF…

* he was not telling the truth

* he and his son and daughter conspired to mislead the police

* his description of ‘Smithman’ was – like Jane Tanner’s – based on a description of Polish holidaymaker Wojcek Krokowski

* he was being evasive about his relationship with Robert Murat …

THEN this opens up a whole series of lines of enquiry, such as:

1. Why did he lie?

2. From whom did he get the description of Wojcek Krokowski?

3. Why was he so sure that the man he claimed to have seen was not Robert Murat?

4. What exactly was his relationship with Robert Murat?

5. What was the real reason he delayed reporting his ‘sighting’ for 13 days?

6. Why was he so keen to identify Gerry McCann as the person he said he had seen?

7. Why did he change his mind soon afterwards and co-operate fully with the McCann Team?

8. Did he and his family really draw up those e-fits, or are those also a fabrication by Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton?

9. Why did he consent to the age he gave for the man he claimed he saw to be changed from ‘40’ to ‘around 34-35’, for the purpose of using his description of the man for the McCanns’ website (from May 2009 to the present)?

10. What exactly was discussed between Martin Smith and DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange at their two admitted meetings, one in 2012 and one in 2013?

11. (And probably the most relevant question of all) Why did these two controversial e-fits feature so very heavily in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 – the very event that led me to analyse the ‘Smithman’ sighting in depth? Was this a dedicated police team determinedly telling the British public that this man was now ‘the centre of our focus’ and that it was vital that he be traced. Or was it, as Wendy Murphy clearly implied in her Fox News interview, a deliberate attempt by the Met Police and the powers-that-be at the BBC to once again influence public perception and to keep up the pretence that Madeleine McCann had been abducted when, in reality, there never was an abductor?

There is one other matter I wish to address.

It has been suggested elsewhere that in undermining the ‘Smithman’ sighting, I am undermining ‘the best witness that Gerry McCann was responsible for the death of Madeleine McCann’ and so frustrating a possible prosecution.

I have addressed this before, but will do so again as I see that this ridiculous suggestion is being regularly repeated, by those who have no grasp of the rules of evidence.

Let’s put it this way. Of what possible use to man or beast is a witness who:

* doesn’t report his alleged ‘sighting’ for 13 days?

* gives a description of the man he says he saw almost identical to those by Nuno Lourenco of Wojcek Krokowksi and by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’?

* claims that he is, er, 60% to 80% sure that the man he says he saw – in the dark for a few seconds at most - was Gerry McCann, based merely on the way he was carrying his son on his shoulder?

* delayed coming up with this purported identification for 11 days?

* then changed his mind, co-operated with the McCann Team, and urged people to ‘find the abductor’?

* claimed to be able to produce a detailed e-fit, one whole year after he saw the man for a few seconds in the dark, and after telling the police on 26 May 2007 that he’d never be able to recognise the man if he saw him again?

* changed his story about the age of the man he claimed to have seen from ‘40’ to ‘about 34-35’ for the McCann Team?

* told police in his first statement that he could not see what the man was wearing above his waist but in his second statement said he was wearing ‘a dark jacket’?

The worst barrister on the planet would tear apart his so-called evidence that he had successfully identified Gerry McCann.

How can any person with a brain possibly think that Martin Smith could provide credible evidence of who this man was?

by kinell 16.08.15 13:14

I was reading something on the 'onlyinamerica' blog the other day (can't remember which post it was now) but 'Himself' said "Smithman was Gerry McCann, end of".

No reasons big grin

by Sarah_Lambert 16.08.15 13:29

According to mccanns scribbled time line there was no Oldfield check.
Miss Pennington was first on the scene after Kate raised the alarm”They’ve taken her” pennington said she was in the apartment just after ten. The twins were not there, she assumed that one of the friends had already taken them to another apartment.
Oldfield ‘s apartment was next door to the mccanns. Easy then for kate while everyone else was searching to slip the twins from next door back into 5a. just in time before the arrival of GNR. Twins in a deep sleep in their cots minus sheets.. On a cold night??????.Sedated twins so as not to wake during the evening and being transported from one apartment to
another…
This left the apartment empty to be prepared for the crime scene, Jez was the fly in the ointment. Otherwise Mccann would have had those shutters just the way he wanted them. The abduction may well have been believed.
It seems that Quiz mistress did not sit with mccanns on the night of the 3rd. Therefore Mccann does not have an alibi. Maybe it is possible that Martin Smith did see mccann carrying a very limp madeleine..; just before 10 pm on the 3rd.

by **sharonl** 16.08.15 13:46

Three members of the Smith family made statements to the police. Mr Smith later claimed that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen.

After a visit from the McCanns benefactor, Brian Kennedy, Smith back peddled on this, failed to testify and has allowed team McCann to go ahead with using his sighting as significant evidence of abduction.

If we believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine that he saw that night, then Madeleine must have been alive up until tea time on May 3rd and that within an hour or so, the group got over the shock, cleaned her up, cleaned the apartment, staged an abduction, wrote out a timeline, sorted the other children out for bed and got ready to party at the tapas. Gerry would be walking the streets of PDL carrying the corpse of his daughter just as the alarm was raised and everyone was looking for her. Hardly a credible scenario

How did Brian Kennedy get hold of Martin Smiths address? Did he know him or did the PJ give it to him? Not likely to be the latter?

There is no credible evidence that Madeleine was around after tea time on the 29th April. The only evidence of abduction was Tanners' sighting. Smiths' description of the alleged abductor was almost identical to Tanners', this backed up the Tanner sighting and the disappearance on May 3rd story.

I would ask whether the Kennedy visit to Smith was the first meeting that he had with him? Was payment offered? Was there an argument between Smith and Team McCann that caused Smith to temporarily point the figure at Gerry? This of course is just my judgement of the situation, it could be that Smith did see a man with a child but as he said in his statement, there was nothing unusual about that, it could be any man with any child. After all, isn't that what the Tanner sighting turned out to be? According to DCI Redwood, anyway.

by TheTruthWillOut 16.08.15 15:04

@Tony

Before I (try!) and answer your question(s) could I ask a simple yes/no question of you?

Do you believe a sighting by the Smiths occurred at all?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.15 15:14

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

Before I (try!) and answer your question(s) could I ask a simple yes/no question of you?

Do you believe a sighting by the Smiths occurred at all?

No, I don't believe a word of what they all claim about this sighting, I don't believe they saw anything at all.

However, I was essentially replying to your hypothetical question, which I paraphrase: "if this 'sighting' was fabricated, so what? - where does it lead us?"

by TheTruthWillOut 16.08.15 16:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

Before I (try!) and answer your question(s) could I ask a simple yes/no question of you?

Do you believe a sighting by the Smiths occurred at all?
No, I don't believe a word of what they all claim about this sighting, I don't believe they saw anything at all.

However, I was essentially replying to your hypothetical question, which I paraphrase: "if this 'sighting' was fabricated, so what? - where does it lead us?"

Thanks. That should make it easier for me to get my simple point across, which I spectacularly failed to do with how I phrased/framed the question! blushing1

If your belief of them never seeing anything is true, it is a very serious crime itself and I would agree that needs to be dealt with. Just separately and/or another time.

Given the above my point is the Smithman debacle becomes (directly) irrelevant to what happened to Madeleine so why waste time and effort on the issue right now?

As it stands right now I believe the Smith sighting to be genuine. It probably got complicated with TM sending in the heavy mob to "persuade" them to change certain aspects and OG spent 2012/13 getting to the bottom of it before
presenting it on Crimewatch. I really can't see all of the Met/BBC being involved in presenting a total lie to the nation.

I'm open to being proven wrong, however.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.15 19:55

sharonl wrote:Three members of the Smith family made statements to the police. Mr Smith later claimed that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen.

After a visit from the McCanns benefactor, Brian Kennedy,

REPLY: I am not certain that there was an actual 'visit' to the Smiths by Brian Kennedy, although there might have been. All I have seen is references to Brian Kennedy 'contacting' the Smiths, maybe be just by 'phone. What seems certain is that one of Kennedy's men, Henri Exton - the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, no less - visited the Sniths in the spring of 2008. The those two controversial e-fits somehow emerged from tha meeting (0r maybe a series omeetings). Possibly the Dublin-born Irishman Kevin Halligen, the conman and convicted fraudster, also visited the Smiths.

It seems that those two controversial 'Smithman' e-fits, then, were produced by:

1) The ex-Head of MI5's Covert Intelligence Unit, dismissed by MI5 after she stole a bottle of perfume from Manchester Airport,
2) A convicted fraudster and serial con-man, and
3) Brian Kennedy, the man who chose discredited Spanish detective agency Metodo 3, followed by Kevin Halligen's Oakley International, as his lead invesigators in the hunt for Madeleine McCann, and who was publicly accused by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in 2009 of having intimidated several witnesses in the case into silence.

Now some people may be prepared to accept that this unlikely trio produced two genuine e-fits produced by the Smiths one year after they saw him for a few seconds in the dark. And then told the PJ in unison: "WE wouldn't be able to recognise him again if we saw him".

Well, I am not one of those people.

Smith back peddled on this, failed to testify and has allowed team McCann to go ahead with using his sighting as significant evidence of abduction.

REPLY: 100% correct.

If we believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine that he saw that night, then Madeleine must have been alive up until tea time on May 3rd and that, within an hour or so, the group got over the shock, cleaned her up, cleaned the apartment, staged an abduction, wrote out a timeline, sorted the other children out for bed and got ready to party at the tapas. Gerry would be walking the streets of PDL carrying the corpse of his daughter just as the alarm was raised and everyone was looking for her. Hardly a credible scenario.

REPLY: You are being generous. It is a manifestly absurd scenario.

How did Brian Kennedy get hold of Martin Smith's address? Did he know him or did the PJ give it to him? Not likely to be the latter?

REPLY: I guess they may have found out following this report in the Drogheda Independent on 6 June 2007 - just 11 days after the Smiths gave their written statements to the PJ:

“A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal. The family is understood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz. They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police. The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations. The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent… A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments. 'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise’, said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor”.

Exactly who informed the Drogehda Independent about the Smiths' trip to Portugal on 26 May is an interesting conundrum. I suspect it was NOT Martin Smith.

There is no credible evidence that Madeleine was around after tea time on the 29th April. The only evidence of abduction was Tanner's sighting.

Smiths' description of the alleged abductor was almost identical to Tanner's...

REPLY: Yes

...this backed up the Tanner sighting and the disappearance on May 3rd story.

REPLY: And backed up the claims of Nuno Lourenco.

I would ask whether the Kennedy visit to Smith was the first meeting that he had with him? Was payment offered? Was there an argument between Smith and Team McCann that caused Smith to temporarily point the figure at Gerry?

REPLY: I think it is vital to consider exactly what occured when Brian Kennedy and lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete at the Eveleighs' Salisalitas villa in Burgau on Tuesday 13 November 2007. When news of this clandestine
meeting was leaked to the Portuguese press two weeks later, Kennedy claimed he had flown to Portugal 'to offer Murat a job in the search for Madeleine'.

Pull the other one! Why were two highly-powered lawyers necessary for that?

Consider what had happened in the lead-up to this high stakes meeting:

1. Jane Tanner had adamantly insisted (on May 13) that Robert Murat had been the man she said she had seen at 9.15pm on 3 May
2. Murat had been declared an arguido two days later (15 May)
3. The Smiths reported their sighting the day after (16 May)
4. Rachael Odfield told the PJ the following day (17 May) that she had seen Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late on the evening of 3 May
5. Ditto Fiona Payne
6. Ditto Russell O'Brien
7. On 10 July Murat admitted to the PJ that he had previously lied to them in at least17 different respects about his movements on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May
8. At a 'confrontation' between the above three Tapas Seven members and Robert Murat, organised by the PJ, which took place on 11 July 2007, Murat denied he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May, while the three Tapas Seven' members insisted: 'Oh yes you were'. The confrontation, held in a tiny room where their knees were practically touching each other, was inconclusive
9. The McCanns were declared arguidos on 7 September 2007
10. On 20 September, 11 days after seeing TV footage of Gerry McCann walking down the steps of a plane, Martin Smith told the PJ he was '60% to 80% sure that the man he had seen on 3 May was Gerry McCann.

Things changed rapidly after that summit meeting on 13 November between Kennedy, Murat and their lawyers. No doubt some very serious business as transacted at that meeting.

All worked out well for them within the next few months Murat netted 600 grand. The McCanns shared 550 grand. And the Tapas Seven did OK too, they shared 375 grand - over 50 grand each.

This of course is just my judgement of the situation, it could be that Smith did see a man with a child but as he said in his statement, there was nothing unusual about that, it could be any man with any child. After all, isn't that what the Tanner sighting turned out to be? According to DCI Redwood, anyway.

REPLY: And who, honestly, believes that 'Crecheman' is a real person?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.15 20:13

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

Before I (try!) and answer your question(s) could I ask a simple yes/no question of you?

Do you believe a sighting by the Smiths occurred at all?
No, I don't believe a word of what they all claim about this sighting, I don't believe they saw anything at all.

However, I was essentially replying to your hypothetical question, which I paraphrase: "if this 'sighting' was fabricated, so what? - where does it lead us?"

Thanks. That should make it easier for me to get my simple point across, which I spectacularly failed to do with how I phrased/framed the question!

If your belief of them never seeing anything is true, it is a very serious crime itself and I would agree that needs to be dealt with. Just separately and/or another time.

Given the above my point is the Smithman debacle becomes (directly) irrelevant to what happened to Madeleine so why waste time and effort on the issue right now?

REPLY: This forum is explicitly about searching for the truh about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. If the Smiths fabricated their sighting, that is a major truth in this case. If the BBC and the Met Police spent £2 million or more, preparing for 9 months to publicise as their main suspect a figment of the Smiths' imagination, then that in tun also becomes a major truth in this case.

I have set out in great detail my specific reasons for believing that the Smith' statements, and consequently the two e-fits of two very different-looking men, arte fabrications.

I have yet to see a proper rebuttal of my arguments beyond somethnig like: "I refuse to accept that the Smiths could be lying".

Of course, you and others may well believe that Operation Grange is a wholehearted, committed search for the truth, that 'Smithman' really is their chief suspect - and that Crecheman really exists.

It was my sincere doubts about what I saw on that Crimewatch McCann Special that impelled me to re-examine the Smiths' evidence. I have presented my evidence. I do not consider it to have been a waste of my time, despite the criticisms my suggestions have attracted.

As it stands right now I believe the Smith sighting to be genuine. It probably got complicated with TM sending in the heavy mob to "persuade" them to change certain aspects and OG spent 2012/13 getting to the bottom of it before presenting it on Crimewatch.

REPLY: OK. We agree to disagree.

I really can't see all of the Met/BBC being involved in presenting a total lie to the nation.

REPLY: Both organisations routinely lie about many things. But, hey, we'll have to disagree on that one as well.

I'm open to being proven wrong, however.

REPLY: I am equally open to being proved wrong about the Smiths' claims. But to change my view, I'd like to see better arguments attempting to demolish my case than I have seen so far over the past 22 months

by Liz Eagles 17.08.15 9:43

I find it amazing that a large majority of people are completely acceptable to believing the Smith statements yet question every other statement made by anyone else.

by **Jill Havern** 17.08.15 10:14

sharonl wrote:If we believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine that he saw that night, then Madeleine must have been alive up until tea time on May 3rd and that within an hour or so, the group got over the shock, cleaned her up, cleaned the apartment, staged an abduction, wrote out a timeline, sorted the other children out for bed and got ready to party at the tapas. Gerry would be walking the streets of PDL carrying the corpse of his daughter just as the alarm was raised and everyone was looking for her. Hardly a credible scenario

by MRNOODLES 18.08.15 23:31

Thinking what could the most simple explanation be...imo.

Murat (who had access to bits of the investigation) gets fingered.
Smith helps his 'mate' out with a possible abduction story/sighting saying definitely not Murat.
McCanns obviously know it's bo****ks. But pick up the baton and run with it because it's like a free gift to keep up the abduction line.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.08.15 6:28

MRNOODLES wrote:Thinking what could the most simple explanation be...imo.

Murat (who had access to bits of the investigation) gets fingered.
Smith helps his 'mate' out with a possible abduction story/sighting saying definitely not Murat.
McCanns obviously know it's bo****ks. But pick up the baton and run with it because it's like a free gift to keep up the abduction line.

@ MRNOODLES

You have either scored a bull's eye there - or come pretty damn close

by **sharonl** 19.08.15 7:40

MRNOODLES wrote:Thinking what could the most simple explanation be...imo.

Murat (who had access to bits of the investigation) gets fingered.
Smith helps his 'mate' out with a possible abduction story/sighting saying definitely not Murat.
McCanns obviously know it's bo****ks. But pick up the baton and run with it because it's like a free gift to keep up the abduction line.

A plant perhaps? I believe that there were a few of these put in place to add credibility to the abduction or at least the disappearance on May 3rd theory, to prevent the PJ from looking too closely at the activities of the previous days (note the absence of much info on those days)

Murat flies back to PDL early on Tuesday 1st May [CORRECTION]

Team McCann points the finger at Murat - he is rescued by Smith

Smith accuses McCann - he is safe because Smith uses May 3rd and Gerry has an alibi for that night

You can't really blame the PJ for looking at May 3rd as the date of disappearance, no wonder there was a lack of evidence as to who did it

by Liz Eagles 19.08.15 11:20

MRNOODLES wrote:Thinking what could the most simple explanation be...imo.

Murat (who had access to bits of the investigation) gets fingered.
Smith helps his 'mate' out with a possible abduction story/sighting saying definitely not Murat.
McCanns obviously know it's bo****ks. But pick up the baton and run with it because it's like a free gift to keep up the abduction line.

That sounds about right to me.

by guest12345 19.08.15 15:03

IMO the Smiths sighting are both a fabrication but actively promoted for a number of reasons....

Tanner initially fingered Murat for the earlier sighting, however, Tanner was/is an attention seeker whose statements were both inaccurate, ever changing and quickly discredited. Why did she say it was Murat? possibly because she thought he was a bit dodgy helping out so much and wanted some media limelight, so wanted to blame someone, but most likely due to her having some personal issue with him (make of that what you will, but the finding of both Tanners and Murats DNA in an apartment in Burgau should answer that).

Clearly the initial sighting wasn't Murat (and he is 100% in the clear), but he was in the frame for it and the world was wanting someones head the block. In steps the Smith family to claim that they saw someone and it definitely wasn't Murat, how convenient. In fact, 80% Gerry, also convenient.

Now, the dilemma for the McCanns is this... Do they stick with the earlier sighting, knowing that it presents an almost impossible timeline of events, an impossible window of opportunity that was too tight for a 'live abduction' and puts them well and truly in the frame for neglect due to cadaver scent found in the apartment (hence not checking on the kids at all), or, do they capitalize on the Smiths later sighting which gives them more wriggle room, helps the checking timeline fit, could (only just) give enough time to explain the cadaver scent if she was killed then moved??......

They allow crimewatch to promote the Smith sighting, thus extending the timeline, rubbishing Tanners "it was Murat" fabrication and turning attention the other way down the street.

However, OG are not that stupid, they know they weren't checking the kids, they know she died in the apartment, they know she was removed and carried up/across the road (witnesses, but not Tanner), so i suspect that the Smithman crimewatch saga is just an attempt to show the public they are making breakthroughs and a bit of a 'tie up lose ends' exercise to the public.

Smithman is a no-man.

by Guest 19.08.15 15:34

guest12345 wrote:IMO the Smiths sighting are both a fabrication but actively promoted for a number of reasons....

Tanner initially fingered Murat for the earlier sighting, however, Tanner was/is an attention seeker whose statements were both inaccurate, ever changing and quickly discredited. Why did she say it was Murat? possibly because she thought he was a bit dodgy helping out so much and wanted some media limelight, so wanted to blame someone, but most likely due to her having some personal issue with him (make of that what you will, but the finding of both Tanners and Murats DNA in an apartment in Burgau should answer that).

Clearly the initial sighting wasn't Murat (and he is 100% in the clear), but he was in the frame for it and the world was wanting someones head the block. In steps the Smith family to claim that they saw someone and it definitely wasn't Murat, how convenient. In fact, 80% Gerry, also convenient.

Now, the dilemma for the McCanns is this... Do they stick with the earlier sighting, knowing that it presents an almost impossible timeline of events, an impossible window of opportunity that was too tight for a 'live abduction' and puts them well and truly in the frame for neglect due to cadaver scent found in the apartment (hence not checking on the kids at all), or, do they capitalize on the Smiths later sighting which gives them more wriggle room, helps the checking timeline fit, could (only just) give enough time to explain the cadaver scent if she was killed then moved??......

They allow crimewatch to promote the Smith sighting, thus extending the timeline, rubbishing Tanners "it was Murat" fabrication and turning attention the other way down the street.

However, OG are not that stupid, they know they weren't checking the kids, they know she died in the apartment, they know she was removed and carried up/across the road (witnesses, but not Tanner), so i suspect that the Smithman crimewatch saga is just an attempt to show the public they are making breakthroughs and a bit of a 'tie up lose ends' exercise to the public.

Smithman is a no-man.

I entirely disagree. Operation Grange has now been on the case for well over six years with a full compliment of staff, diligently beavering away at tremendous cost to the UK taxpayer, with not a whiff of a breakthrough - how much time do they need? The groundwork was all done in the first few months of MBMs disappearance, under the leadership of Dr Goncalo Amaral, short of a more comprehensive interpretation of the forensic evidence, a reconstruction and robust interrogation of the main players and periphery extras - what more can they do? Instead Grange appear to be ignoring the important evidence/intelligence and concentrating their resources on chasing a vapour trail. I don't call that making a breakthrough.

External interference halted the investigation when full focus switched to the parents, from then on it was diluted and eventually archived. Subsequently pressure was exerted by the Murdoch empire, Rebekah Brooks in particular, to force the government into agreeing to an independent (cough!) review of the case which later led to yet another investigation.

Why whould Operation Grange throw out little hints for the benefit of the public - this is the Met Police we are talking about ostensibly investigating a very serious crime, not Ms Poulton and her ever elusive documentary. Reminds me, must go off and buy a tanker load of distemper - the exterior's looking very shabby!

By all intents and purposes the Smith sighting is a myth - and so is Operation Grange!

by guest12345 19.08.15 15:54

so i suspect that the Smithman crimewatch saga is just an attempt to show the public they are making breakthroughs and a bit of a 'tie up lose ends' exercise to the public.

Smithman is a no-man.

"I entirely disagree. Operation Grange has now been on the case for well over six years with a full compliment of staff, diligently beavering away at tremendous cost to the UK taxpayer, with not a whiff of a breakthrough - how much time do they need? The groundwork was all done in the first few months of MBMs disappearance, under the leadership of Dr Goncalo Amaral, short of a more comprehensive interpretation of the forensic evidence, a reconstruction and robust interrogation of the main players and periphery extras - what more can they do? Instead Grange appear to be ignoring the important evidence/intelligence and concentrating their resources on chasing a vapour trail. I don't call that making a breakthrough.

External interference halted the investigation when full focus switched to the parents, from then on it was diluted and eventually archived. Subsequently pressure was exerted by the Murdoch empire, Rebekah Brooks in particular, to force the government into agreeing to an independent (cough!) review of the case which later led to yet another investigation.

Why whould Operation Grange throw out little hints for the benefit of the public - this is the Met Police we are talking about ostensibly investigating a very serious crime, not Ms Poulton and her ever elusive documentary. Reminds me, must go off and buy a tanker load of distemper - the exterior's looking very shabby!

By all intents and purposes the Smith sighting is a myth - and so is Operation Grange!"
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I don't think the Smith sighting is a myth, i think the Smiths genuinely contacted the police, i just think it was a complete fabrication to get Murat off the hook. The McCanns just used it to their advantage to add to the 'live abducted' story (which they knew from day 2 was not the case), keep the gravy train going and extend the timeline.

What OG/SY/Met tell the public through the media and what they are actually working on are 2 very different things. They have to say something to the gullible public masses to justify the cost of the investigation, hence THEIR labelled 'breakthrough' (not mine). They will NOT publicly discuss evidence, forensics and intelligence, especially if the guilty party is/parties are out there.

I agree, OG is a shambles....jobs for the boys, going through the mountains of paperwork bit by bit.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.08.15 23:51

I've taken a look over the road at another forum this evening and have been pleasantly surprised to see that there has been a sudden and welcome outbreak of common sense over there on both 'Smithman' and Operation Grange.

Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests

First, I noted this very pertinent observation by JJ:

"So if JT saw a genuine crecheman and OG are adamant she did, who has been traced and eliminated, the Smiths are either lying, or the man they saw was dressed very similar to Tannerman, carrying a very similar child, [and] could not be GM but could be a genuine stranger abductor".

Quite right!

Then 'JJ' leaps in with a very obvious point which casts severe doubt on whether DCI Andy REdwolo was lying about crecheman:

"If DCI Redwood believes crecheman was walking home from the creche, did he ever ask why he was walking the wrong way?"

And he follows that up with this robust comment on Grange:

"There is no evidence to show OG is not a scam".

To that, 'JJ' adds for good measure:

"OG have 2 efits according to DCI Redwood as the very centre of their investigation and he sits on them for weeks/months waiting for a TV programme to air so he could have a revelation moment.

No urgency whatsoever to find Madeleine or the man.

OG are not bothered by the delay and neither are the McCanns.

Why not?"

Excellent points, all.

Then 'Resistor' also chimes in by virtually accusing DCI Redwood of dishonesty:

"I think he was an actor, introduced by OG".

That comes very close to suggesting that DCI Redwood deliberately misled the British public and may have perverted the course of justice in the process.

'Chirpyinsect' is now also plagued with doubts about whether Operation Grange is genuine or fake. He writes of Grange:

"I really can't make up my mind on this...Sometimes I think they are painstakingly going over every single thing so as to secure a conviction. No mistakes can be made that would allow slippery people to wiggle off the hook.
I doubt they would spend over 10 million on a fake investigation, but then again we only have their word for it that all those officers are beavering away solely on this case".

He then adds this tremendously important observation:

"Then we have the FOI request that stated that the Smiths did the efits - but now find GA says this is a lie".

Goncalo Amaral at least has sussed that the Smiths could not have produced those two e-fits - so they must have been produced by some other means, as I have been saying for nearly two years.

Up next, 'Chirpyinsect' on Crecheman:

"Next we have crecheman who is an invention of OG imo".

He follows up with this pertinent observation:

"It is possible that once MS came forward and they thought about the stupidity of Tannerman they had to find a way to make Smithman the abductor but not Crecheman, as they realised that there wasn't a big enough window of opportunity for it to have been him who took M. They don't want to discredit Jane so had to have her see someone. Enter Crechedad 6 years later. Aye right".

'Chirpyinsect' concludes with:

"I think there is a cover up, of what I don't know...I think OG could be just a front but I am really undecided".

The numbers of those convinced that OG is genuine are diminishing by the day.
And finally, wonder of wonders, 'Andrew' over there (who was Andrew77R over here and once 'phoned me repeatedly beteween 4am and 5am one morning threatening to 'sort me out' and visit my house) now admits to doubts about Grange, having previously insisted it must be genuine:

"If OG is an absolute fake, then how do they justify everything?"

+++++++

If 'Smithman', as claimed by DCI Andy Redwood, is the 'centre of Grange's focus', it should therefore also be the centre of our focus.

by guest12345 20.08.15 9:31

Exactly.

Smithman is not real, but IMO is a fabrication of the Smiths, not any police force. The only reason GM didn't want them initially released is because the e-fits looked like him and they were already feeling the heat from the public about their involvement. However, it then did present them with an opportunity to widen the timeline, thus adding weight to the "we were checking our kids" BS they keep peddling (all police forces are aware they were not checking their kids) and also provide an answer for the cadaver scent found by the dogs...should Madeleine's body ever turn up and they face questions regarding neglect, i.e "we only left her for an hour, which is enough time for cadaver scent to spread", rather than 3-4hrs which is clear neglect.

Tannerman - Is the correct sighting, based on witnesses, however, the description Tanner gave changed so much, her sighting is worthless along with anything else that sprouted from her mouth.

Crecheman - Fabrication of OG to show the public their 'breakthrough' later sighting by the Smiths (and to help stop speculation against the McCanns about neglect and the impossible window of opportunity based on the 9.15 sighting) and also to draw a line through Tanners statement once and for all without having the public hate her for 'false information', hence making Tannerman real with Crecheman.

OG - Not fake at all, however, they are extremely inefficient. There are so many aspects to the case (not just the disappearance of Madeleine) and so many police forces involved, that it is a logistical and administrative nightmare, hence why progress is slow. That, plus the staff changes and the fact that it's just a feeding frenzy for 'the boys' to spend budget, it's a big mess.

by sami 20.08.15 10:08

There is actually a benefit for Gerry McCann being identified as Smithman by the Smith family, in so far as if he were ever to be identified by an impartial witness in another place, at another time, in similar Smithman clothing, then it could cause much loved confusion and have people automatically assume both men were one and the same.

So create a sighting at a time when he had an alibi in order to eliminate any suspicion of a similar man seen elsewhere, whilst also taking Murat out of the picture. Two alibis for the price of one witness.

That's why Smithman had to look similar to Gerry, imo.

by willowthewisp 20.08.15 11:51

Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?

by guest12345 20.08.15 14:49

"Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?"
...........................................................................................................................................

I think the reason the investigation is still on-going is because the statements cannot be relied on, therefore OG are having to work from the outside-in rather than inside-out.

The statements of the Tapas 9 were very quickly deemed worthless due to the contradictions, certain agreed activities and the 'pact of silence' approach, all pointing to the fact that the information within them was fabricated/altered/ manufactured by some, or all of them.

This is why IMO they haven't done a reconstruction... there's no point reconstructing false information, it's just wasting time. The only benefit to doing a reconstruction would be to highlight the fabrications to help eliminate certain times/scenarios, which is when the Tapas lot close up and refuse to do one. Non of them want to put themselves in a vulnerable position which could expose them all to child neglect charges.

I do however think that the OC staff and creche records are important.

by Guest 23.08.15 19:56

Tony Bennett @ Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:51 am

"I've taken a look over the road at another forum this evening and have been pleasantly surprised to see that there has been a sudden and welcome outbreak of common sense over there on both 'Smithman' and Operation Grange.

Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."

That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors? I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.

No names, no pack-drill? For obvious reasons steam is coming out of my ears aaaah

!

by Guest 23.08.15 20:13

guest12345 wrote:"Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?"
...........................................................................................................................................

I think the reason the investigation is still on-going is because the statements cannot be relied on, therefore OG are having to work from the outside-in rather than inside-out.

Therefore wouldn't it be more sensible and/or profitable to start work inside-out by re-interviewing the main players?

The statements of the Tapas 9 were very quickly deemed worthless due to the contradictions, certain agreed activities and the 'pact of silence' approach, all pointing to the fact that the information within them was fabricated/altered/ manufactured by some, or all of them.

Indeed the Tapas9 statements were/are worthless - even more reason to work inside-out by re-interviewing. The Metropolitan Police (Operation Grange) are a professional outfit aren't they?

This is why IMO they haven't done a reconstruction... there's no point reconstructing false information, it's just wasting time. The only benefit to doing a reconstruction would be to highlight the fabrications to help eliminate certain times/scenarios, which is when the Tapas lot close up and refuse to do one. Non of them want to put themselves in a vulnerable position which could expose them all to child neglect charges.

The Tapas9 declined to participate in a reconstruction required by the Portuguese police not Operation Grange. By this time of course they were firmly ensconced back at blighty, without the cooperation of the whole group the exercise was futile. There was/is nothing to stop Operation Grange insisting on a reconstruction to highlight the inconsistencies in the original statements - the very reason for the Portuguese requirement. Question is why haven't they..

I do however think that the OC staff and creche records are important.

Agreed! Maybe Operation Grange should also be re-interviewing them, after all they did take time out (at the tax payers expense) to swan off to Portugal in quest of various persons of no interest, yet it seems they have neglected key witness on their own doorstep.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.08.15 20:44

Verdi wrote:Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."

That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors? I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.

The very strange thing is that the oft-repeated claims made over in the other place about our Smithman discussions - "No dissent is allowed on CMOMM - everyone is forced to agree with that dictator Tony Bennett" - actually apply over there rather than over here.

As this thread and the other Smithman threads here make very clear, open debate on here is welcome, and there is no oppressive dictator brooding over every post. Indeed the voting so far on my own thread shows that I am still in a minority - 59% (so far) disagree with my suggestion that Martin Smith has in effect been batting for Team McCann since early 2008. I think it was 'Gaggzy' who saw through all the bluster in the other place, and made a post over here flatly disagreeing with my analysis of Smithman. And he added: 'There, I've done it!" S/he wasn't banned. Wasn't suspended. Wasn't told off. Nothing.

Whereas over there the common position is that the Smiths really did see someone, almost certainy Gerry McCann, but just maybe they were mistaken about who thy saw. That's why I was surprised to see murmurings of some differing views emerging over there. And, yes, all their Smithman discussions are secret over there - members only - unless someone brings the comments over here.

All I want to see on Smithman, like everything else in this contorted and controversial story, is that people give reasons and evidence for their theories. That way we edge nearer and nearer to the truth.

To give one example.

One of my many 'proofs' that Martin Smith has 'been turned' - or maybe turned himself - into a McCann Team supporter who does their bidding is the extraordinary way in which his description of the age of the man he said he had seen was bent by the McCann Team when they placed an audio summary of his statememt on their website back in May 2009 (it's still there to thos day).

In his original statement to the PJ, on 26 May 2007, Smth said the age of the man was '35 to 40'.

In a further statement, months later, he changed this to '40'.

But when one heard the Irish voice summarising Martin Smith's statement on the McCanns' website, all of a sudden he is able to be precise and say the man's age was 'about 34 to 35'.

Now why would any reliable witness change a statement made to the police: 'He was 40', to 'He was 34 to 35', when the McCanns wanted a summary of his statement on their website?

The answer surely is that no reliable witness would agree to do that.

There seem to be three possibilities here - all equally unsatisfactory:

1. The McCann Team for reasons best known to themselves wanted the man's age to be '34 to 35' - and Martin Smith meekly agreed

OR

2. Over the passage of time Martin Smith continued to ponder over the age of the man he said he saw for a second or two in the dark and - two years after the event - thought to himself: No, he wasn't 35 to 40, and wasn't 40, but was 'about 34 to 35'

OR

3. The McCann Team changed the age to '34-35' without telling Martin Smith - and Martin Smith has been too timid to object or simply isn't bothered.

Whether you pick (1), (2) or 3) above, Martin Smith isn't going to look too good on the witness stand.

Not one defender of the Smiths as honest witnesses has yet provided an answer to this point - not even Nit-picking Nuala Seaton

by TheTruthWillOut 23.08.15 22:17

At the end of the day Tony, you have made your point/stance clear and I don't see why you need to keep going over and over the same ground.

You will either be proven right or wrong. Nobody knows the answer at this point.

I myself am still suspicious of Gerry's sunglasses in the last photo even accepting PeterMac's assurances from two experts. I have researched the issue over the years and can't see how it is right.

I haven't, however, felt the need to create 8 threads on the subject and repeat my thoughts. I could be wrong and short of doing a reconstruction I can't see how I'll ever find the answer (or for it to matter in the case!). The sunglasses and camera are probably long gone either way.

I'm sure a lot of what is being posted and talked about here and at MMM is born out of frustration of no news from OG. To be honest though I take it over the terrible daily articles we got for so many years.

Bottom line is OG interviewed the Smiths twice and went on Crimewatch to ask the public who the man is. We are not privy to any developments in this yet and all we can do is wait.

I know, and understand why, a lot think cover-up in this case......I think more like cover my arse. I think there is a lot of difference between the two.

by Guest 23.08.15 22:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."

That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors? I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.
The very strange thing is that the oft-repeated claims made over in the other place about our Smithman discussions - "No dissent is allowed on CMOMM - everyone is forced to agree with that dictator Tony Bennett" - actually apply over there rather than over here.

As this thread and the other Smithman threads here make very clear, open debate on here is welcome, and there is no oppressive dictator brooding over every post. Indeed the voting so far on my own thread shows that I am still in a minority - 59% (so far) disagree with my suggestion that Martin Smith has in effect been batting for Team McCann since early 2008. I think it was 'Gaggzy' who saw through all the bluster in the other place, and made a post over here flatly disagreeing with my analysis of Smithman. And he added: 'There, I've done it!" S/he wasn't banned. Wasn't suspended. Wasn't told off. Nothing.

Whereas over there the common position is that the Smiths really did see someone, almost certainy Gerry McCann, but just maybe they were mistaken about who thy saw. That's why I was surprised to see murmurings of some differing views emerging over there. And, yes, all their Smithman discussions are secret over there - members only - unless someone brings the comments over here.

All I want to see on Smithman, like everything else in this contorted and controversial story, is that people give reasons and evidence for their theories. That way we edge nearer and nearer to the truth.

To give one example.

One of my many 'proofs' that Martin Smith has 'been turned' - or maybe turned himself - into a McCann Team supporter who does their bidding is the extraordinary way in which his description of the age of the man he said he had seen was bent by the McCann Team when they placed an audio summary of his statememt on their website back in May 2009 (it's still there to thos day).

In his original statement to the PJ, on 26 May 2007, Smth said the age of the man was '35 to 40'.

In a further statement, months later, he changed this to '40'.

But when one heard the Irish voice summarising Martin Smith's statement on the McCanns' website, all of a sudden he is able to be precise and say the man's age was 'about 34 to 35'.

Now why would any reliable witness change a statement made to the police: 'He was 40', to 'He was 34 to 35', when the McCanns wanted a summary of his statement on their website?

The answer surely is that no reliable witness would agree to do that.

There seem to be three possibilities here - all equally unsatisfactory:

1. The McCann Team for reasons best known to themselves wanted the man's age to be '34 to 35' - and Martin Smith meekly agreed

OR

2. Over the passage of time Martin Smith continued to ponder over the age of the man he said he saw for a second or two in the dark and - two years after the event - thought to himself: No, he wasn't 35 to 40, and wasn't 40, but was 'about 34 to 35'

OR

3. The McCann Team changed the age to '34-35' without telling Martin Smith - and Martin Smith has been too timid to object or simply isn't bothered.

Whether you pick (1), (2) or 3) above, Martin Smith isn't going to look too good on the witness stand.

Not one defender of the Smiths as honest witnesses has yet provided an answer to this point - not even Nit-picking Nuala Seaton

I've had a similar argument in the past on another board where I was 'reliably' informed that it's quite usual for the recollection of a witness to vary from one time to another due to time affecting memory recall. Apparently it would be more suspicious if a witness stuck fast to their original statement of events.

Hmmm, yes - next question.
'Is it likely that an eye witness (as in the case of Martin Smith) would fluctuate one hour/day/week/month/year as to description, rendering the initial description null and void?'

Answer - a professional experience police officer would expect variations in witness statements, it's quite normal, nothing suspicious unless you're a conspiraloon (?).

Hmmm, yes - clearly doesn't understand the question or can't answer, next question..
'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'

Answer - No I do not agree. Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment. As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.

Hmmm, yes - let battle commence! No reasonable response, this is roughly where the insults about conspiracy theorists start to fly.

You can't expect a reasoned argument against the points you raise because your critics don't have one!