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

by Baggy 24.03.18 9:05

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).

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.
- that they don't look like somebody else?? who??
- that they don't look like anyone? somebody thought they looked like the Podesta brothers
- 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!)

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.

by **Jill Havern** 24.03.18 10:21

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.

I agree with that.

A few years ago I came home from work in the dark and as I was trying to open my front door two men came out of my side gate and walked down my driveway. One of them turned to look at me before both quickly walked out of sight.

I went through my side gate and discovered that the window of my utility room was smashed. By the time the police arrived all I could tell them was that they were two males, possibly in their 20's, wearing dark clothes and beanie hats (that should narrow it down a bit!). I wasn't able to tell them their race or describe anything about their facial features etc. Nothing. I couldn't even tell the police what they were carrying, even though one of them must have been carrying my laptop.

Weeks, months later my recollection of what I saw for a few seconds in the dark did not improve and I certainly would not have been able to help make an e-fit or two of their faces, even if my memory had been jogged by the image of a man walking down plane steps carrying a laptop in a 'just-done-a-successful-burglary' type manner.

by **Jill Havern** 24.03.18 10:40

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

The Death of MancCannstein's Monster

Blacksmith Bureau: Comment from PeterMac:

Sensible one back on duty, though apart from the ad hominem abuse, the last was insightful.

In this one he says clearly
It’s all there in writing. For ever. A criminal conspiracy to mislead the police.***** It took six years for them to unravel it. But unravel it they have.

and later
But that doesn’t matter: the only aim of this elaborate television performance by Redwood was not to question Tanner’s eyewitness evidence or to build a case or to make an identification - that was already done - but to announce formally and definitively but without causing trouble for non-suspects, that the abductor, in the timescale and form claimed by her group, does not exist, end of story. Any court will accept that.

as we said at the time/.

Peter

by Julie R 24.03.18 12:07

Verdi quote: "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."

Forgive me, but I thought he agreed to assist the private detective because he was approached by them and asked to? Did the police approach them and ask? (genuine question - I honestly don't know) My thoughts are that they would never have invited themselves to do e-fits to either police or detectives because they wanted to keep a low profile. Perhaps the detectives were very persuasive.. they did work for the McCanns after all. They were effectively Team McCann and I don't trust any of that shower!

by Guest 24.03.18 16:37

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

You don't need to live in their community or socialize with them, they are nonetheless there whether you like it or not. It's much like living in a village in the UK, you keep yourself to yourself but that doesn't stop the local gossips making your business their business.

You go to a local store, you can't help but acknowledge the storekeeper or assistant - unless of course you're pig ignorant. You're served in a bar or restaurant, you're polite to the staff - unless of course you're pig ignorant.

I've been acquainted with probably thousands of people over the years, I can't say I've been friends or socialized with them all but I can say I know them or are acquainted with them or even have worked with them. Still I wouldn't count them as personal friends/acquaintances.

Back to basics - did Robert Murat know Martin Smith? I think the odds are stacked in favour of a big yes! Besides, Martin Smith admitted he knew Robert Murat - that's all you really need to acknowledge.

How many times, where when and why is but window dressing, fact remains, by Martin Smith's own admission - they were acquainted!

by Baggy 24.03.18 17:01

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?

by Guest 24.03.18 17:05

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.

by Guest 24.03.18 17:08

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?

This has all been covered extensively over the many Smithman threads on CMoMM.

by willowthewisp 24.03.18 17:23

Hi Verdi,I posted an article from a person named as Andy Wolf(Twitter) in the Operation Grange to continue after March 2018.

This article if taken in the context that it was written,and in light of the Smithman/Creche Dad scenario from 14th October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,Crime Watch, Metropolitan Police force, would hasten to conclude the veracity of Crime Watch October 2013 Madeleine McCann special!
I cannot vouch for the article from Andy Wolf,but if you take what has been written to the words wrote it has sinister means to the Programme content?

by Phoebe 24.03.18 18:27

@ Verdi You stated in a post above about your own experience -

"I've been acquainted with probably thousands of people over the years, I can't say I've been friends or socialized with them all but I can say I know them or are acquainted with them or even have worked with them. Still I wouldn't count them as personal friends/acquaintances"

Isn't this exactly the point some of us have been making about Martin Smith and Robert Murat!!

Smith was "acquainted" with Murat - he knew what he looked like and what his name was and that he lived in P. de L. yet Martin Smith, just like yourself, "could not say he'd been friends with or socialised with (him) but he can say he knows or is acquainted with Murat. Still he would not count Murat as a personal friend - acquaintance"

If what you wrote above is true for you why on earth can't it be true for Martin Smith.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.18 20:10

SMITHMAN:  REPLIES TO COMMENTS ON CMOMM (PART ONE)

I’m responding to some of the main points made by members amongst the posts that have so far been made on tis thread. In doing so I thank all those who have taken the time to contribute to date.

‘Verdi’ has very effectively answered many of the points raised, so I will not duplicate all the responses made in Verdi’s posts.

Baggy wrote: “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)”.

REPLY: I fully agree. Given that on 26 May 2007 the PJ were overwhelmed by international media attention and criticism, and were trying to disentangle multiple witness statements strewn with untruths, half-truths and fabrications, they obviously decided that holding things up while the three Smiths each did an E-fit was a waste of resources. Especially as it seems the Smiths each made a deliberate statement to the PJ that they would ‘never be able to recognise him if they saw him again’.

Baggy wrote:   “In relation to the quality of the efits, is the charge that they don't look like anyone?...It would be helpful to have police input on the extent to which different witnesses produce different descriptions of the same sighting”.

REPLY: It has been said on here by many that the two efits could look like hundreds of thousands of European males aged between 20 and 50. There is evidence that they may each have been generated from photographs. Computer experts noted on here that the two e-fits had a different ‘grain’ from each other and were therefore probably done on two different computer progams. That would tend to suggest that the Smiths did NOT produce these efits. Why would Henri Exton run two of their efits through different computer programs.

Baggy wrote: “There surely needs to be some evidence of collusion between the Smiths and Murat and/or the McCanns…”

REPLY: We have dramatic evidence of collusion and planning from the witness statements of five witnesses: Jane Tanner, Nuno Lourenco and the three Smiths. As I explained in one of the SMITHMAN threads, the descriptions of a supposed abductor are identical in 17 different respects. That is beyond coincidence. The Nuno Louenco statement is worthy of special attention as it is a manifest fabrication from start to finish The timing of Nuno Lourenco’s call to the PJ on early 5 May is further strong evidence of collusion. It was meant to derail the investigation and clearly did so if you read Amaral’s book. Collusion and co-operation between Martin Smith and the McCanns from January 2008 until today is so obvious that it needs no elaboration. Martin Smith himself speaks of having ‘met’ Murat ‘several times’.

Baggy wrote: “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: Agreed, and Verdi has answered this. As to ‘doing their best to contribute a true likeness of the individual they saw’, how Martin Smith help the police by one minute saying: “It was Garry Mcann” and then spending the next ten years helping the McCanns and Operation Grange to say “No, it was an abductor”.

polyenne [partly supported by jazega] wrote: “ I believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm… all I can come up with is a plant. For the plant to work there had to be a willing witness (singular). It's easy to get carried away speculating the possible reasons but perhaps in the planning stages it was felt that Tannerman needed a backup…If someone was carrying say, Ella through the streets. if stopped it would be very easy to say she was ill and needed some fresh air for example. It not being Madeleine, there wouldn't be a problem…The insertion of ‘Ella’ into the timeline TWICE is a red flag IMO and another reason why I think she was used on the night of the 3/5.I theorise that other elements were already in place for the 9.30pm ‘shout’ and that included ROB with Ella…If that is the case and ROB and Ella has to do a 2nd run to coincide with the 10pm ‘shout’, they would have had to be seen in order for the ‘abduction’ theory to hold water. [Did the Smiths see ROB & Ella?]…low light, fleeting glimpse? Who can be sure?”

REPLY: Basically speculation without any evidence to support it.

Phoebe wrote: “Both efits show similar hair, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, ears and noses”.

REPLY: The argument is ‘take the chin out of the equation’, and they both look very similar. I disagree.

First, the different chins cannot simply be removed from discussion. It is arguably the most noticeable difference. So we have to account for why the Smiths approved one efit with a very ‘pointy’ chin and one with a massive, rectangular chin. Were the Smiths asked about the chin? Did one clearly remember a massive rectangular chin and another Smith a very pointy chin? Did they really remember the shape of the man’s chin?

Second, there are several differences between the two, even if we forget about the major chin differences. I have previously listed these (SMITHMAN 3):

1. they look like differently-aged people, one younger, one middle-aged/older

2. their faces have a different geometric shape

3. one has a fatter face, the other a thinner face

4. their hairstyles are different (one is wavy, the other is not)

5. their noses are different - one is much longer than the other.

Were the Smiths asked about the length of their noses? Why is one nose noticeably longer than the other.

I have suggested in the past, with evidence, that these two different images were simply derived from photographs. I do not personally think that the Smiths drew these up at all. I think Martin Smith has been persuaded, for whatever reason, to simply go along with them and do and say whatever the McCanns and Operation Grange want them to do.

Phoebe wrote: “I don't know who the Smiths saw…”

REPLY: This statement assumes in advance that the Smiths saw someone and you have excluded the possibility that their accounts were fabricated

Phoebe wrote: “…but I firmly believe that by September they had convinced themselves that it was Gerry”.

REPLY: The facts are very much against you. Martin Smith admitted that seven out of the nine members of his family group that night did not agree with him that Gerry McCann was the man they said they saw. Martin Smith said his wife agreed with him, but she has never made a statement to that effect. That may mean that Martin Smith is the only one of the nine who claimed that ‘Smithman’ was Gerry

Phoebe wrote: “Once the McCanns entered the frame as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance it was, IMO, an understandable progression when the Smiths ‘remembered’ seeing Gerry. Whether they really did see him, or just someone who didn't look dramatically unlike him, I don't know...How much of their memory that it was Gerry they saw is fact and how much is imagination or false memory is, for me, the 6 million dollar question”.

REPLY: See above. The only one of the party of nine - who say they saw someone - and who believes it was Gerry McCann, was Martin Smith. And then three months later he was co-operating with the McCanns.

Phoebe wrote: “What I see are two e-fits - one rather grainy, the other much clearer and more life-like”.

REPLY: Yes, that’s correct, and that is what led computer experts on the forum to suggest that these two efits were derived from photographs using two different computer programs.

Phoebe wrote: “However, Mary Smith obviously saw enough to agree with her husband's later statement that the man they saw was very similar to Gerry”.

REPLY: Mary Smith has never made any statement to this effect, nor did she make any formal witness statement.

Phoebe wrote: “[The Smithman sighting] … was reported in Ireland 11 days later. Reading between the lines I would imagine that the gentleman quoted, Jem O'Neill, was the likely source for the local rag Reading between the lines I would imagine that the gentleman quoted, Jem O'Neill, was the likely source for the local rag. The Smiths co-owned their apartment with a man named Liam O'Neill, possibly a relative…”.

REPLY: Yes, and I think that is very interesting. We can but speculate on how the Drogheda Independent came to learn about the Smithman sighting. My best guess is that someone from the ‘Murat camp’, informed them – and, yes, Jem O’Neill would fit the bill – an Irishman who very likely knew both Martin Smith and Robert Murat, and I believe someone involved in the construction of the Estrala da Luz complex. The report of 6 June said: “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…”

Phoebe wrote: “The McCanns made NO attempt to either speak directly with or to meet the Smiths, such potentially crucial witnesses. Instead, with maximum publicity for each trip, they hared off all over the world as far away from the Smiths as they could possibly get. That tells its own story IMO”.

REPLY: We know that by December 2007 the McCann Team were seeking to speak to the Smiths. I have to agree with you that there is no evidence that the McCanns raised the subject of the ‘Smithman’ sighting before them. I also agree that this is very odd. I think a probable explanation is that, having nailed their colours to the mast that the abductor was the man Jane Tanner claimed to have seen at 9.15pm, another sighting at 10.00pm just didn’t fit in. As we all said at the time, what abductor would take a child at 9.15pm and still gaily walking around the village 445 minutes later. They were IMO ‘thrown’ by this alleged ‘sighting’, which threw a spanner in the works as it don’t fit in with their timetable. DCI Redwood’s achievement, if that is what we should call it, was telling everyone that their ‘top’ suspect was no longer Tannerman but Smithman. It took them all 6½ years to come up with that.

CONTINUED IN PART TWO

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.18 20:16

SMITHMAN: REPLIES TO COMMENTS ON CMOMM (PART TWO)

skyrocket said: “I don't believe for a nanosecond that GM was walking around the streets with Madeleine; I can't believe that a 12-year-old child (Aoife) would be capable of sticking to such a lie so convincingly, so I do believe that there was someone carrying a child at around 10pm. The chances of there being a father carrying a child with a striking resemblance (size; hair colour; clothing) to MBM within the right time frame and location (general area of 5A) and who hasn't come forward are, IMO, miniscule. Therefore, there has to be an alternative explanation and all I can come up with is a plant”.

REPLY: The dilemma of how to resolve the ‘Smithman problem’ is elegantly and concisely put here. It is right to say that all the alternatives seem highly improbable. All I can say is that the notion that Martin Smith felt constrained to help someone he knew well, i.e. Murat, and got members of his family to fabricate a sighting, seems to me the least improbable – and is supported by all the evidence I have accumulated on the SMITHMAN 1–12 threads.

polyenne wrote: “Tony, I’m interested in two of your points above. What is the “evidence that someone called Robert Murat and summoned him to Portugal”?...What is the SIGNIFICANT evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat. Numerous MSM articles giving different versions does not constitute significant evidence… Martin Smith has been REPORTED BY THE MEDIA to have made ‘contradictory statements’ - that is not the same as Martin Smith MADE any contradictory statements. Since when has anything written in the press re the Madeleine case been taken as truth!”.

REPLY: Verdi responded ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) with two quotes:

Martin Smith statement, 26 May 2007: “Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone”.

Gonçalo Amaral – ‘The Truth of the Lie’: “[Martin Smith] insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him”.

The fact that Martin Smith was so adamant that the man was not Murat, despite only seeing him in the dark for a few seconds at the most, is on its own significant evidence that Martin Smith ‘knew’ Murat.

For further significant evidence, we go to the various statements that he or members of his family have made about him knowing Robert Murat. Here are four of them:

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

2 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”.

3 ‘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”.

4 ‘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”.

The first point is that each one of these statements contradicts the others. Which one, if any, is true? We simply do not know.

Second, there appears to me to be an attempt to minimise his degree of knowledge of Robert Murat. He knows perfectly well who he is, so well that he has (a) met him (b) several times (c) known him for ‘years’ and (d) is able to see a bloke in the dark for a second or two and just ‘know’ that it isn’t Robert Murat.

Yet when it comes to making his police statement, he only cites two cases of ‘meeting’ him. Note he says ‘met’ not ‘seen’.

As to relying on mainstream media reports, of course these have to be taken with a good dose of salt. However, the SKY News quote: ‘Met him several times previously’ is reported speech, and it is much rarer for the media to get reported speech incorrect. Besides that, if he had been misquoted, do you not think he would have protested, and complained to SKY News: “Look, I never said ‘met several times previously!”

Baggy wrote: “Did I miss the 'significant evidence’ that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat much better than he is admitting'? The question was asked a while back above, but does not appear to have been addressed... So what is the 'significant evidence' that these two were friends or associates, in league together, and that one would perjure himself (and his family) on behalf of the other?
1 is there evidence that they visited each other's residences?
2 were they known to eat together or drink together?
3 were they seen together in bars, restaurants or other public locations?
4 has anyone ever actually seen them speaking together for longer than the few seconds needed to achieve the personal introduction which was mentioned?
5 is there evidence that they ever communicated by letter, phone, email, text?
6 is there any evidence that they had an association which was facilitated by a third party? (I am not ruling it out, but this one is harder to prove).
7 has any independent witness come forward in 10 years, either from the ex-pat community in PDL or from the local Portuguese community to say that they knew of a different level of association between MS and RM than has been suggested by either party?

Any of the above could be regarded as 'significant evidence' which would influence me to disregard the Smith testimony”.

REPLY: See my answer to Phoebe. You have asked seven questions about matters which you suggest would help to confirm the degree of association between Martin Smith and Robert Murat. Two of them can straightaway be answered ‘Yes’ on the basis of Martin Smith’s own witness statement, i.e. (1) were they known to eat together or drink together? And (2) were they seen together in bars, restaurants or other public locations? My answer to your other five questions is: “I am not aware of any such evidence”.

Baggy wrote: “Whether he says he met him once, twice or on several occasions, but sufficient to recognise him, it speaks consistently of something which is a low level acquaintance at best”.

REPLY: There is no good reason to disbelieve Martin Smith’s quoted words on SKY News: ‘Met Murat several times previously’ and his quote ‘known him for many years’. He told the PJ that he ‘knew’ him so well that he could be sure the man he saw was not Murat.

You asked: “So what is the 'significant evidence' that these two were friends or associates, in league together…”   ANSWER: You are putting words into my mouth. I said none of those things. My words were: “Significant evidence that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat much better than he is admitting”. “Met several times previously for many years” is a lot different from what he told the police: “Once in May and once in August 2006”.

One final line of evidence we also have is Martin Smith’s apparent extreme sensitivity to what was said about him in an Irish newspaper about his relationship to Robert Murat. The offeding article is no longer available, but this issue as alluded to in the Drogheda Independent, 8 August 2007: ‘‘Drogheda family hit out over Madeleine case clue coverage’. An extract from their article said: “A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police.”.

Martin Smith sought legal advice from a solicitor and the newspaper was reported to have removed the offending article..

ENDS

.

by Phoebe 24.03.18 21:37

Verdi, in a post on the previous page to this has given a perfect example of how one can "know" somebody without being friends or indeed closely acquainted with them -

"I've been acquainted with probably thousands of people over the years, I can't say I've been friends or socialized with them all but I can say I know them or are acquainted with them or even have worked with them. Still I wouldn't count them as personal friends/acquaintances."

This is exactly what Martin Smith claimed re. his own knowledge of Robert Murat, but for some reason while it's O.K. for someone like Verdi or anyone else to state this is normal, when Martin Smith says he can know someone well enough to be able to identify him without being a friend, it is regarded as evidence of something sinister!
Martin Smith has been crystal clear that he only knew Murat by sight. Suggestions to the contrary come solely from media sources (6 of which Smith threatened to sue over such a claim)
The e-fits do not show images with different chins - One e-fit shows all of the cheek and jaw area while much of the cheek and jaw of e-fit 2 is MISSING from the picture.
The Smiths described meeting a man of about 5 ft 8 to 5 ft 10. Jane's man was shorter, eventually shrinking to 5 ft 6. The Smith's man had short hair in a traditional men's short back and sides. Jane's man had a lot of dark hair, longer at the back, while Lourencos man had long hair in a PONYTAIL! The Smiths' man wore beige or cream trousers. Jane's man wore mustard-gold-corticine trousers. The Smiths' man wore a dark sports jacket. Jane's man wore a puffy padded anorak while Lourenco's man wore a beige jacket the same colour as his trousers. How anyone can insist these three descriptions are nearly identical escapes me. There are very significant differences in these descriptions that cannot and should not be ignored.
The local police would have discovered pretty quickly if Murat, their prime suspect, was in any way friendly with Smith - a witness who claimed to have seen someone with a child who was not Murat. A simple questioning of the locals and ex pats would have established whether Murat and Smith were better known to each other than in the way Smith stated. No such relationship was uncovered and G.A. had no doubt about the veracity of the Smiths as witnesses.
Martin Smith told the police that his wife agreed with him about the man being Gerry. It is there in black and white for all to see.

Edited to add - Martin Smith never claimed nor admitted to have gone drinking with Murat. He happened to be in the same PUBLIC establishment at the same time as Murat on a couple of occasions. That does not suggest a relationship. it is merely two separate men, among many others having a drink in a local bar. Even lions and antelope have been known to share the same watering hole, often at the same time. It sure as hell does not make the lion and the antelope friends - just creatures having a drink in the same place,

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.18 22:32

Phoebe wrote:Martin Smith has been crystal clear that he only knew Murat by sight. Suggestions to the contrary come solely from media sources (6 of which Smith threatened to sue over such a claim)

Which six newspapers were these, please, @ Phoebe, and on what date, or approximate date, were they published?

TIA

by Guest 24.03.18 23:00

Phoebe wrote:Verdi, in a post on the previous page to this has given a perfect example of how one can "know" somebody without being friends or indeed closely acquainted with them -

Verdi wrote:"I've been acquainted with probably thousands of people over the years, I can't say I've been friends or socialized with them all but I can say I know them or are acquainted with them or even have worked with them. Still I wouldn't count them as personal friends/acquaintances."

This is exactly what Martin Smith claimed re. his own knowledge of Robert Murat, but for some reason while it's O.K. for someone like Verdi or anyone else to state this is normal, when Martin Smith says he can know someone well enough to be able to identify him without being a friend, it is regarded as evidence of something sinister!
Martin Smith has been crystal clear that he only knew Murat by sight.

You're totally missing the point again. I'm illustrating how one can be connected with someone without being personally involved with them, i.e. as a personal friend. A business relationship/arrangement doesn't equate to a long/short term friendship, a connection of any sort doesn't necessarily mean a long/short term friendship.

Martin Smith did not make crystal clear that he only knew Robert Murat by sight nor did he claim anything else you imply by your words "that's exactly what Martin Smith claimed re. his knowledge of Robert Murat" - at least not through an official source.

Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007 [snipped]

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

At the risk of repeating myself - again, Gonçalo Amaral made clear in his resume of the investigation, as detailed in his book, that Martin Smith contacted the Irish police after hearing about Robert Murat being the prime suspect..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat.

It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action.

As I said previously, whichever way you wish to twist and turn Martin Smith in order to safeguard his innocence, the fact remains, documented evidence suggests his motives are questionable in the extreme.

by Ruffian 24.03.18 23:30

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Verdi, in a post on the previous page to this has given a perfect example of how one can "know" somebody without being friends or indeed closely acquainted with them -

Verdi wrote:"I've been acquainted with probably thousands of people over the years, I can't say I've been friends or socialized with them all but I can say I know them or are acquainted with them or even have worked with them. Still I wouldn't count them as personal friends/acquaintances."

This is exactly what Martin Smith claimed re. his own knowledge of Robert Murat, but for some reason while it's O.K. for someone like Verdi or anyone else to state this is normal, when Martin Smith says he can know someone well enough to be able to identify him without being a friend, it is regarded as evidence of something sinister!
Martin Smith has been crystal clear that he only knew Murat by sight.

You're totally missing the point again. I'm illustrating how one can be connected with someone without being personally involved with them, i.e. as a personal friend. A business relationship/arrangement doesn't equate to a long/short term friendship, a connection of any sort doesn't necessarily mean a long/short term friendship.

Martin Smith did not make crystal clear that he only knew Robert Murat by sight nor did he claim anything else you imply by your words "that's exactly what Martin Smith claimed re. his knowledge of Robert Murat" - at least not through an official source.

Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007 [snipped]

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

At the risk of repeating myself - again, Gonçalo Amaral made clear in his resume of the investigation, as detailed in his book, that Martin Smith contacted the Irish police after hearing about Robert Murat being the prime suspect..

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat.

It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action.

As I said previously, whichever way you wish to twist and turn Martin Smith in order to safeguard his innocence, the fact remains, documented evidence suggests his motives are questionable in the extreme.

Jane Tanner never identified Murat on the 3rd

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.18 23:56

Ruffian wrote:
Verdi wrote:
At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat.

It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action.

As I said previously, whichever way you wish to twist and turn Martin Smith in order to safeguard his innocence, the fact remains, documented evidence suggests his motives are questionable in the extreme.
Jane Tanner never identified Murat on the 3rd

No she didn't - you are right - but neither does the passage above say that.

Looking at what Verdi has quoted:

"After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case".

COMMENT: Actually, that doesn't accord with the Smiths' own evidence. They all nine of them claim they completely forgot about their sighting until Peter Smith woke up on 16 May (day after Murat was made a suspect) and 'phoned his Dad asking: "Was I just dreaming, but do you remember..." (A wholly unlikely claim and don't buy it)

"They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction".

COMMENT: We actually don't know how he got to know that. We ASSUME he got this from the news broadcasts on 15 May. But he MAY have got this from someone else, possibly even MURAT himself or one of Murat's many friends and contacts. WE simply don't know.

"Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat".

COMMENT: Correct.

Verdi added: "It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action".

COMMENT: That's also correct.

For the record Jane Tanner identified Murat, as the man she had seen, on Sunday 13 May, after she had had a long briefing from Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small of Leicestershire Police and two men from the government-backed Control Risks Group. She then promptly, and adamantly, identified Murat...leading directly to the police pulling him in for questioning. In Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', she spends an extraordinary four pages (pp. 131-134) desperately trying to make out that Jane Tanner never really identified Murat, or that it was a mistake or misunderstanding of some kind. And of course she blames the police for this...All very curious

by Ruffian 25.03.18 0:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ruffian wrote:
Verdi wrote:
At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat.

It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action.

As I said previously, whichever way you wish to twist and turn Martin Smith in order to safeguard his innocence, the fact remains, documented evidence suggests his motives are questionable in the extreme.
Jane Tanner never identified Murat on the 3rd

No she didn't - you are right - but neither does the passage above say that.

Looking at what Verdi has quoted:

"After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case".

COMMENT: Actually, that doesn't accord with the Smiths' own evidence. They all nine of them claim they completely forgot about their sighting until Peter Smith woke up on 16 May (day after Murat was made a suspect) and 'phoned his Dad asking: "Was I just dreaming, but do you remember..." (A wholly unlikely claim and don't buy it)

"They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction".

COMMENT: We actually don't know how he got to know that. We ASSUME he got this from the news broadcasts on 15 May. But he MAY have got this from someone else, possibly even MURAT himself or one of Murat's many friends and contacts. WE simply don't know.

"Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat".

COMMENT: Correct.

Verdi added: "It never previously occurred to Martin Smith or any of his family to report the stranger they allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May, yet directly he hears Robert Murat is being fingered by Jane Tanner, he springs into action".

COMMENT: That's also correct.

For the record Jane Tanner identified Murat, as the man she had seen, on Sunday 13 May, after she had had a long briefing from Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small of Leicestershire Police and two men from the government-backed Control Risks Group. She then promptly, and adamantly, identified Murat...leading directly to the police pulling him in for questioning. In Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', she spends an extraordinary four pages (pp. 131-134) desperately trying to make out that Jane Tanner never really identified Murat, or that it was a mistake or misunderstanding of some kind. And of course she blames the police for this...All very curious

Where does that info come from?

by Guest 25.03.18 0:59

Drogheda Independent

Drogheda family hit out over Madeleine case clue coverage

Wednesday August 08 2007

A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police.

Maple Drive man Martin Smith, his wife and his children had just left the Kelly bar, which is located approximately 400 metres from the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club between 9.50-10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.

They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.

As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory.

They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.

Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is,' said the family member.

The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.

However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.'

by Phoebe 25.03.18 1:27

The objections to the Smiths being genuine about what they saw seem to chop and change. One minute it's said that they couldn't identify a man just through knowing him by sight. That IMO is ridiculous. I know many people to see yet I have never had a conversation with them. If they passed me on the street I would know them immediately.
Next, it's their delay in approaching the police.
The Smiths delayed reporting their sighting. Well, so do very many witnesses. Some people think what they have seen is probably unconnected or of no value, others are loathe to involve themselves. Peter Smith's wife was pregnant and they had a flight booked early next morning. I'm not surprised that they did not cancel their flight and rush to the police the next day. They had other things on their minds - jobs to return to, bosses to answer to, children who needed to get back to school, obstetric appontments and God only knows what other pressing commitments awaiting them back home. After they left, the likelihood of Martin Smith rushing up to a foreign, non English speaking, frantically busy police force to say "Well, we saw a man with a child that night down-town, albeit going a different direction to the reported abductor and about 50 mins after he was seen but, sorry, some of our group decided to leave without telling you" was very slim. In addition, who in their right mind would expect an abductor to openly walk through the streets of the town for nearly an hour carrying his victim! Of course the Smiths dismissed what they had seen as unlikely to be connected. After they left, they learned that the only police lead, despite intensive searches, was still focused on a man seen carrying a child. I think that the Smiths' consciences were then pricked, especially if others back home persuaded them that what they had seen was potentially important.

The Drogheda Independent admitted that the Smiths would not speak to them when approached for comment. I wouldn't believe a word written in the press about anything, it's noteworthy that the report says "A family member" why not name them if it's true.

by Baggy 25.03.18 1:28

Tony - how have the Smiths spent 10 years 'helping the McCanns'? I mean in terms of what they themselves have said or done as a matter of public record.

Their public pronouncements over this period seem rather limited. In fact their latest statement reported earlier this year in an Irish publication restates their view that the person they saw, with 60-80% certainty, was Gerry McCann, and that they have never changed from this view. As I believe Phoebe has argued, I do not see how this helps the McCanns.

They contributed to two E-Fits at the beginning of this period. As has been argued above, they could have told Metodo/Oakley to clear off and been un-cooperative, but they didn't and weren't. A few years later they could have told Redwood/OG/the Crimewatch team to clear off, but they didn't - as by this stage the E-Fits were already in the hands of the OG team what were they supposed to say to them - 'No they can't be used! Give them back to us and we will tear them up. '?

I do not believe that they are responsible for the way that the E-Fits have been used - this rests with the McCann team, OG, and the Crimewatch team. Between their contribution to the E-Fits (in 2008?) and their reported statements from early 2018, in terms of what they themselves have said publicly what is the charge against them?

by Guest 25.03.18 1:35

It's interesting to note, the story about Martin Smith's recognition of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft steps on their return to the UK on 9th September 2007, as being the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007, didn't hit the headlines until early 2008.

At the time, January 2008, it was reported that Martin Smith had been approached but was quoted to have said he hadn't given any information or helped with any e-fit . At this time Metodo3 was the private detective agency working for the McCanns, as confirmed by Clarence Mitchell during the video interview I recently uploaded.

Yet, at a later date, it seems Martin Smith was only too willing to assist Oakley International with the production of the e-fits of two individuals, as presented by ex-DCI Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013 production. Makes you wonder why Operation Grange didn't approach Martin Smith direct, rather than relying on the medium of a very dubious conman, operating under the guise of a private investigator à la 007.

Again the subject was reported by the UK press in August 2008 as an exclusive. Timing is relative?

This case stinks to high heaven.

by Phoebe 25.03.18 1:45

If Op. Grange HAD approached Martin Smith directly it would have been difficult for the BBC to claim that he had retracted his opinion re. it being Gerry he saw that night. I don't think it was an accident that Smith was avoided by both Grange and the BBC. They don't like what he has to say!

by Baggy 25.03.18 3:03

Verdi - I agree completely that a properly functioning OG team should have dealt with the Smiths directly rather than via the dodgy private conmen, and from a much earlier date.

Referring back to the 60 questions, how does this failure on the part of the official police reflect back onto the Smiths ? What is the charge against them?

by Guest 25.03.18 3:19

Phoebe wrote:If Op. Grange HAD approached Martin Smith directly it would have been difficult for the BBC to claim that he had retracted his opinion re. it being Gerry he saw that night. I don't think it was an accident that Smith was avoided by both Grange and the BBC. They don't like what he has to say!

Again you are missing the point. Again I say, ex-DCI Andy Redwood used the Martin Smith e-fit drawn-up in collaboration with Oakley International, to enhance the Operation Grange illicit investigation.

I'm very interested to understand why you relentlessly defend the honour of Martin Smith and his family, disregarding all the evidence presented that casts a heavy shadow of doubt over his integrity. You gloss over all the evidence, contradictions, discrepancies, intelligence etc. presented, in favour of defending a total stranger with a bevy of excuses and adverbs, seemingly without a moments consideration of the factual evidenced material presented before you.

Have you ever, even for a moment, considered the possibility you could be mistaken about the faith you place in the integrity of a total stranger? This is a genuine question.

by Guest 25.03.18 3:43

Phoebe wrote:The objections to the Smiths being genuine about what they saw seem to chop and change. One minute it's said that they couldn't identify a man just through knowing him by sight.

The Drogheda Independent admitted that the Smiths would not speak to them when approached for comment. I wouldn't believe a word written in the press about anything, it's noteworthy that the report says "A family member" why not name them if it's true.

1. I don't recall anyone on this forum making such a claim - certainly not me.

2. It was you who cited the Drogheda Independent to make your point but three days ago. I'm just helping you along the way.

Having said that, I really have to give up! It's like a merry-go-round of folly.

by lemonbutter 25.03.18 9:12

I see Raj Balu is standing with reporters and camera people in the last few seconds of "Gerry's no comment" video, posted in this thread.

So he didn't return home on the 5th of May then?

by Phoebe 25.03.18 11:40

@ Verdi. I cited the Drogheda Independent as having broken the story of the Smith sighting 11 days after the Smiths gave their statements, to prove that word of Smithman was public as early as then. You had claimed it was not public knowledge until month later. I did not however, quote from it. I make the point again that the claims of inconsistencies re. what the Smiths said all arise from media reports quoting "a source" and not the Smiths themselves.
With regard to the contradictions I am charged with "ignoring" - I fear it a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". The Smith statement is supposedly suspicious because it alleges a sighting of a man who matches descriptions given by Tanner and Lourenco - something that is patently not the case.
The Smiths are blamed for not rushing to the police in Portugal. How many of us, when we were due to fly home the next morning and resume our everyday lives of work, school, maternity appointments would cancel our flight and go to the police. To tell them what exactly - that we might have seen a kidnapper marching openly all around P de L nearly an hour later still carrying his victim. I'd feel very stupid bothering the police with that mad idea. As I pointed out, after Peter Smith and his family left it became less likely that Martin would go too the police in P de L. The idea that the Smiths, a random bunch of parents, grandparents and kiddies, were working for the McCanns (whom they did not know) or the British secret service forces is a conspiracy theory too far. For years it has been boldly claimed that Martin Smith had retracted his opinion and was "working with" the McCanns. Not only is there no evidence of this, there is evidence to the contrary. Smith has publicly stated that he never changed his mind about it being Gerry he saw. How on earth is that working for the McCanns. Other posters have asked to see the EVIDENCE that the Smiths were aiding the McCanns. None has been forthcoming. It is merely someone's theory. Nothing the Smiths have ever said directly can be construed as pro-McCann. It amuses me that when the Smiths are involved taking what is written in the press as true is fine. Should I also believe every paper that claimed "Madeleine was snatched from her bed"!! The McCanns did their best to ignore the Smith sighting for as long as they possibly could. They never even contacted them directly about what they had seen that night. How can that be compatible with the notion of the Smiths "working for them".

by Doug D 25.03.18 15:11

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

Verdi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has the ‘no comment’ video clip.

I’m pretty sure that he bald guy in sunglasses in that clip is not Raj Balu.

by Guest 25.03.18 22:27

Doug D wrote:Lemonbutter [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Verdi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has the ‘no comment’ video clip.

I’m pretty sure that he bald guy in sunglasses in that clip is not Raj Balu.

Seems to me any bloke caught on camera wearing sunglasses around the McCanns or Robert Murat is thought to be Raj Balu. Frankly I can't understand the obsession with Balu, he was just another Ocean Club guest on holiday. There has to come a time when baseless theorizing stops and reality kicks in.

@ 00:28

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