SMITHMAN 12: Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

Verdi wrote:If Martin Smith and/or his family were involved in the production of the two e-fit images, if they agreed with representatives of Oakley International that the e-fits were a true likeness to the stranger they claim to have seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007 - then whichever way you look at it, they (the Smith/s) are complicit in a grand plot to pervert the course of justice.

Before going into the realms of auto-defence on behalf of Martin Smith and his family, you need to ask exactly why he elected to assist a private detective employed by the McCanns to conjure up bogus e-fits (clearly in order to deceive), rather than offer his services to an official police force.  More to the point, you need to ask why the Metropolitan Police took the Smith sighting on board, knowing full well it emanated through the auspices of the dubious Oakley International in collaboration with Martin Smith and/or family

Baggy wrote:Why did they collaborate with a private detective force,  rather than offer their services to the official police ?  Well they had already approached the Irish Police, and had gone back to Portugal to assist Snr Amaral. Is there any evidence that they declined to assist the official police??

Reply: Martin Smith collaborated with Oakley International to produce an e-fit of the stranger they allegedly witnessed walking the streets on the night of 3rd May 2007.  If he was in earnest, he would have worked with an official police force to produce an artist impression/e-fit of the sighting.  If this had transpired, there would be no need for him to have collaborated with Oakley International, an organisation led by a renowned very shady character.

Martin Smith contacted the Irish police 23 days after Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared, 22 days after they connected the stranger they claim to have seen in the street, with the disappearance of Madeleine.  Dr Amaral was made aware of this information and so arranged a secret return to Portugal by the Smiths  He returned to Portugal a) to provide information on the alleged sighting and b) to verify that the stranger he and his family witnessed was not Robert Murat.  

This information is evidenced by the PJ files.


What were they supposed to do when approached by the private team... tell them to clear off or take out a restraining order ?

Reply:  Yes, the most sensible route would be to tell Brian Kennedy and Oakley International to naff off.  If they were a little too persuasive, then report the incident to the police.

During the video interview with Clarence Mitchell I posted very recently, where he speaks of the Irish family sighting, Mitchell said ..  'their private investigators (Metodo3) will be very keen to talk to these witnesses'.  Say no more?

At this stage they were damned if they did co-operate and damned if they didn't.

Reply:  Not so.  There is no documented evidence to suggest they cooperated with the official police with the production of an artist impression/e-fit of the stranger they witnessed.

Either the whole thing was invented from the start, the Smiths were involved or became involved  in the entire conspiracy  and there never was a Smithman sighting,  or there was a real sighting and they did their best to contribute to a true likeness of the individual they saw.

Reply:  Astute observation.  There is no evidence to back the Smiths claim of witnessing a stranger walking the streets on Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May any more than there is evidence of the stranger Jane Tanner claims to have seen.  The extraordinary thing is, the Smith family's description of the stranger bears a striking resemblance to that of Jane Tanner - right down to the child's bare feet.  I find it impossible to reconcile with the suggestion that both Jane Tanner and the Smith family saw the same person on that night, a suggestion I've seen in the past.

If Martin Smith and a member of his family worked with Oakley International to produce a likeness to the stranger they allegedly saw, why does this e-fit of two entirely different images differ so entirely from their, the Smiths, description contained in the files.  In short - it's not a true likeness to their description nor anything like Gerry McCann.

The fact of assisting  the private investigators from Oakley rather than the official police doesn't in itself indicate one way or the other.

Reply:  It does.  The PJ investigation was only archived, as with any unsolved case it would be re-opened if new evidence came to light + Operation Grange was ostensibly conducting an investigation at the time the Smith e-fit was produced, as shown on the 2013 Crimewatch Madeleine McCann Special.

How do we know that the E-fit images are 'bogus' and that the Smiths are therefore 'complicit in a grand plot'?

Reply:  I know by just looking at the e-fits that they are bogus.  Martin Smith and one of his family were complicit in the drawing-up of the e-fits, they do not accord with the description of the stranger as detailed by the Smiths and contained in the PJ files, nor do they resemble Gerry McCann in any way shape for form.

The main problem with the E-fits is they appear to create confusion by depicting two different people. However I understand  it is normal practice to produce multiple drawings where there are multiple witnesses. One approach is to work from multiple images and then narrow this down. The fault lies with the investigators for not attempting to reconcile or prioritise the images at the time , and with the McCann team in respect of their website, and later the 'risible' Redwood and the Crimewatch production team  for deciding to publish the two images at the same time thereby creating confusion. Unless they have a history and wide experience of contributing to E-fits then  I can't see how this decision is down to the Smiths.

Reply:  The e-fits publicised by Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013 production, are undoubtedly two different people/images.  If you want the public to identify one person, you don't publicise more than one image of the person that is so totally different.   This is exactly what the McCanns themselves did when trying to fool the public as regards Madeleine's identity.

As above, either the Smiths are complicit from the start and there never was a sighting (in which case it hardly matters what the E-fits look like) or there really was a sighting.  The appearance of the E-fits and the fact that a decision was taken, presumably not by them, to give publicity to both, doesn't indicate one way or the other.

Reply:  It does, it's a whopping great red flag - it's a potentially explosive piece of evidence.  The most important aspect being ex-DCI Andy Redwood's extraordinary decision to publicise the e-fits during the Crimewatch production.  A professional renowned police force like the Metropolitan Police relying on a dubious private detective agency to interview a key witness and then using that piece of evidence to enhance their own investigation?  I don't think so!

Baggy wrote:As for the argument advanced above that ex-pat communities are all the same and 'birds of a feather..' this seems to have no evidentiary value unless there is some specific evidence that these particular birds flocked together

Verdi wrote:Stands to reason anyway. A small community housing a large percentage of resident and regular visitors from other parts of Europe, everybody knows everybody - they make it their business, with naff all else to do with their idle days. Anybody who holidays abroad must have overheard those frequently used words .... 'thank god to find someone who speak English' or .... 'can you direct me to the nearest egg and baconry' or .... 'where is the boozer'.

Birds of a feather flock together

Verdi wrote:I challenge anyone - anyone, to go out after dark in a dimly lit street where you're likely to pass a stranger, any old stranger will do.  Free your mind as you're not looking for anyone or anything in particular, you're just walking along minding your own business.  You look at the stranger in passing, for no other reason but the fact that he/she's there, the stranger is not doing anything or wearing anything strange is just an unknown person passing by.

Go home, do what you normally do, go to sleep and forget about the passing stranger until next day - there is no specific reason to think about the stranger, it was just a nobody (a bit like eggman and the Smith's e-fit) walking past you at night in a dimly lit street.

Next day bring the stranger back into your mind - can you honestly describe the approximate age, the height, the skin colour, the visage, the hair colour, the hair style, the clothing, the colour of the clothing.  Do you honestly remember anything at all other than passing a stranger, can you remember any detail about your stranger?

I doubt it!  

The Smith family however did remember quite accurate detail three weeks later.  Not only that but the three family members who gave witness statements on 26th May 2007, gave a very similar description of their stranger.  Not only that but the Smith family's descriptions were remarkably similar to that of Jane Tanner and her stranger in the night.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

The Death of MancCannstein's Monster

Baggy wrote: I wouldn't necessarily want to live in such a community myself. I imagine I would find it restrictive and suffocating.

Baggy wrote:Verdi - thx as above.

In relation to the Smiths agreeing to work with the private team rather than the police - is it known that they were ever asked by the official police to assist in the production of an E-fit and declined to do so? (My speculation would be that the PJ decided that the sighting was insufficiently clear to justify producing an E-fit).

That's really not the point.  If the Smith family had potentially important evidence relative to a missing child, I would expect them (or anybody else) to make it their business.  You only need look at the gallery of 'suspects' in this case to see how many potential witnesses came forward with a description of the person they claim to have witnessed - some, like eggman, a complete joke.  Jane Tanner's stranger and the Smith family's stranger stand out over and above any other potential 'suspect'.  Both hoodwinked the PJ and both were used by ex-DCI Andy Redwood, ostensibly to enhance the Operation Grange seemingly illicit 'investigation'.

In relation to  the quality of the E-Fits
- is the charge that they don't look like GM?? Whilst hardly a good likeness I've seen it suggested that they do.

It's amazing what you can do given the urge.  Th e-fits have been likened to any number of people - even Redwood !!!

- that they don't look like somebody else?? who??

Don't understand your question.

- that they don't look like anyone? somebody thought they looked like the Podesta brothers

See above.

- that they look like two different people?? at this point we are looping - I believe Phoebe suggested above that if you ignore the chin area then there are common features. I agree with this. In any event I believe the publication of the two images to be the fault of the investigators rather than the witnesses (alleged!)

You can fiddle about with the two e-fits in order to morphe into one person as much as you like, fact remains side by side, as publicized by Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013 production, the two images are not of one man.

It would be helpful to have police input on the extent to which different witnesses produce different descriptions of the same sighting. My assumption is that this is far from unusual, but maybe it is.

No doubt witness descriptions of any one suspect vary.  There would be many factors drawn in before an e-fit could be produced - apart from that, just look at Jane Tanner's stranger, how he evolved over a period of time.  The salient point as regards the Smith family witnesses statements is the distinct similarity between their stranger description and as I said beforehand, the distinct similarity to that of Jane Tanner's stranger.

Baggy wrote:In what way is being 'acquainted'..information freely provided to Snr Amaral  to explain how he was able to identify Robert Murat, evidence of Martin Smith's  participation in a criminal conspiracy to deceive?