A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.

sharonl wrote:How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.

The Smiths spoke with each other about what each recalled of the sighting. Snipped from the statement of Peter Smith - 
 
"Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot."


 It most unlikely that Martin  Smith would feel the need to perjure himself over his wife's accord with his opinion. I expect his wife was unwilling to get further involved - can't say I blame her after all the dreadful accusations that have been leveled at her family since they came forward to report what they saw!

So all we have then is the testimony of one Smith family member, after he met with McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.

Furthermore, if Martin Smith is pointing the finger at Gerry McCann, why on earth is Brian Kennedy meeting up with him?

Phoebe wrote:

sharonl wrote:How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.

It is most unlikely that Martin  Smith would feel the need to perjure himself over his wife's accord with his opinion. I expect his wife was unwilling to get further involved - can't say I blame her after all the dreadful accusations that have been leveled at her family since they came forward to report what they saw!

As per usual, Phoebe has ignored the point put to her, namely how could Martin Smith say on 26 May that he couldn't see what the man was wearing above the waist, yet months later says: 'Oh I remember, he was wearing a dark jacket!'?

This is not evidence. He's CHANGED his evidence because of what others have told him.

Just like he TWICE  changed the details of the age of the man he said he saw - and gave varying and  contradictory evidence about how well he knew Robert Murat.

And still, judging by the other thread, she continues to deny the obvious fact that BEFORE the 'SALSALITAS SUMMIT' (13 Nov 2007), the McCanns ignored the Smithman sighting, then AFTER it, they shamelessly used it to their advantage on documentaries, on their website and in Kate's book.

It's starting to look to me Tony, that this coverup is not about protecting the McCanns, but about protecting something very sinister that may have happened in Praia Da Luz in late April 2007.  Something that the McCanss are well aware of, of course.  It seems that whatever happens, the truth about what was going on over there during this time must remain a secret at all costs.

The Smiths, between statements, like normal people, discussed what they had seen among themselves. Doing this helps jog one's memory -simple as that! 
The McCanns did not make use of the Smith sighting - the e-fits were not made public for years. 
Mr. Smith NEVER "gave contradictory evidence" about how well he knew Murat. This claim is based on MSM drivel - the same drivel which claimed the Smiths said that they had not been in contact with the police after May 26th 07, conveniently omitting their identification of Gerry as Smithman in Sept 07.
It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!

Phoebe wrote:The Smiths, between statements, like normal people, discussed what they had seen among themselves. Doing this helps jog one's memory -simple as that! 

REPLY: CHANGING one's evidence after talking to others invalidates the subsequent changed evidence. As simple as that.

The McCanns did not make use of the Smith sighting - the e-fits were not made public for years.

REPLY: Please reply saying whether you agree or not to the following 3 statements:
1. The McCanns used the Smithman sighting in the May 2009 Channel 4 documentary
2. The McCanns used the Smithman sighting on their website from May 2009 onwards
3. The McCanns  included 7 pages referring to Smithman in Kate's book 'Madeleine', including 3 pages describing the 'remarkable similarities between Smithman and Tannerman

Mr. Smith NEVER "gave contradictory evidence" about how well he knew Murat. This claim is based on MSM drivel - the same drivel which claimed the Smiths said that they had not been in contact with the police after May 26th 07, conveniently omitting their identification of Gerry as Smithman in Sept 07.

REPLY: I have outlined no fewer than TWELVE SETS of contradictions in the Smith's evidence (see SMITHMAN 5) and you've never rebutted them yet

It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!

REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless

Replies as above

There is absolutely NO evidence that Martin Smith  has been "Supporting the McCanns for ten years". That is your opinion. 
The Smiths pointed the finger of blame at Gerry McCann in Sept 07. They have allowed it to be put on public record that they have never changed their mind about Smithman being Gerry and that they had objected to BBC misrepresentation of this fact.
The McCanns did not use the Smith sighting until after it came into the public domain with the publication of the P.J. Files. Then they tried, desperately, to link Smithman to Tannerman.

#96 - Snipped from Phoebe's post:


"It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!"


#97 - Snipped from Tony Bennett's post:


REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless




Err .... that would be because Gemma O'Doherty DOES NOT believe that Martin Smith had been supporting the McCanns for 10 years!!


Her article is VALID and extremely WORTHWHILE

lemonbutter wrote:#96 - Snipped from Phoebe's post:


"It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!"


#97 - Snipped from Tony Bennett's post:


REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless




Err .... that would be because Gemma O'Doherty DOES NOT believe that Martin Smith had been supporting the McCanns for 10 years!!


Her article is VALID and extremely WORTHWHILE

OK, Please give me the cites for the places in Gemma O'Doherty's article where she states all, or any, of the following:

Martin Smith...

1 Being contacted by Brian Kennedy Dec 2007 or Jan 2008

2 Agreeing with the McCann Team to do an efit 

3 Doing an efit (well, 2 efits) for Kevin Halligen's right-hand man, Henri Exton, in September 2008

4 Staying silent as the McCanns milked his sighting on the May  Channel 4 documentary

5 Staying silent when, also in May 2009, the put the Smithman sighting on their Find Madeleine website

6 Staying silent after Kate McCann used the Smithman sighting in her (on 7 pages) to imply that Tannerman and Smithman were the same

7 Co-operating with the BBC and the Met Police to produce the 2013 CrimeWatch McCann Special.

Even Phoebe admits to these 7 points

There is no doubt that the Smiths helped to draw up the e-fits. The Met have confirmed this. There is also nothing suspicious about the Smiths doing so. They were fully aware that the U.K. police had no qualms about working with the McCann private investigators, therefore why would the Smiths refuse to help.
We do not know how the Smiths reacted to the manipulation of their sighting. We do not know if they complained. What we DO know (thanks to Gemma O D.) is that they objected to the BBC over the misrepresentation re. their belief about Gerry being Smithman, and that they complained, in vain.

The Smith family sighting/Tannerman sighting?

Phoebe has been consistent in her arguments of the Smith family sighting that people disagree with.

Yet, people from the forum take Janes sighting as gospel,which Jane retracted in April 2008 at Leicestershire Police HQ!
Jane "Identified " Robert Murat as the person she had seen on 3 May 2007,from the back of a surveillance van,Bob Small UK Police in attendance?
Jane,Russell,Fiona,state seeing Robert Murat outside of the Apartment the same night Madeleine Disappeared?
Lourenco was invented to send Portugal PJ off the scent.
None of these people "Chose" to return to Portugal to assist the Portugal PJ in a reconstruction,yet you take their word as gospel on what they had seen?

The light is then suddenly shone into the Smith family meeting a  " Mysterious Benefactor",Salisto meeting,with dubious legal representatives in November 2008!

Who stood to benefit from the Salisto Meeting,the Three Arqiuidos!
Martin Brunt,Secret Contract with Robert Murat,Sky News Corporation,Murdoch,News of the World 1.5 Million reward never paid out for the "Safe Return" of Madeleine!
You now have the"Mephisto Waltz"created by Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwood,that Mr Julian Totman Tannerman/Creche Dad,Daughter,"Moving time Frame",is the person everyone seen on 3 May 2007!
The public are supposed to believe that a person(Totman) who was known by sight to the Tapas 7/9,awakens from some type of hibernation as the Father taking his Daughter Home from a Night Creche!

This saga will end up just like the unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan with extreme machinations to a well known Businessman,who has just sold his Company for Millions,secret payments to Police Officers,Leveson,a "Special Brotherhood",eh Brian!

Do we have any evidence that Martin Smith was actually involved with the e fits?

The FOI response to one of Tony’s requests stated ‘members’ (plural) but could this have been the others?

It’s been said before, but if you identify someone by name, it makes a complete nonsense to then be asked to produce an e-fit.
………………………………………………

At Question 4 you asked:
Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.
The MPS response is:
The program was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.
At Question 5 you asked:
Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?
The MPS response is:
Yes they are the same man.
At Questions 3, 6 & 7 you asked:
3. On what date were these two e-fits created?
6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation Grange?
7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or (b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail, letter or otherwise? 
The MPS response is:
DECISION 
The information you have requested is exempt in part by the virtue of Section 30(1)(a) and Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) of the Act. 

To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be maintained. 
 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_two_e_fits_of_a?unfold=1

……………………………….


In the first response they would not disclose the requested dates, but this changed by the time of the second response. Does this mean that this evidence had been officially kicked into touch by then?


.............................
 
1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
The efits were drawn up on 04/09/08.  The request "by whom" seeks access 
to personal data.  This personal data is withheld under section 40 of the 
Act.
2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two 
efits released and to whom? 
3. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to Leicestershire Police? 
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
The MPS do not hold and information in respect of these matters.  Please 
note this relates to the period before the efits were passed to the MPS.
5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and 
by whom?
The efits were supplied to Operation Grange on 24th October 2011.  The 
request "by whom" seeks access to personal data.  This personal data is 
withheld under section 40 of the Act.
6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and 
from whom?
The efits were received by Operation Grange on 24th October 2011.  The 
request "from whom" seeks access to personal data.  This personal data is 
withheld under section 40 of the Act.
7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation 
Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department of the MPS were they received?
The efits were not received by the MPS before Operation Grange was set up. 
 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/madeleine_mccann_case_operation?nocache=incoming-1156533#incoming-1156533
………………….
 
We then have Martin Smith’s statements and accompanying letters:
 
20^th September 2007
 
‘Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes’
 
………………………..
 
The letter from Sergeant Liam Hogan dated 30^th Jan 2008 was faxed through on 19^th February.
 
Martin Smith’s statement was made to him on 23^rd January.
 
Such urgency!
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4137.jpg
 
‘He (Martin Smith) has been contacted by Brian Kennedy …..to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.’
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg
 
Martin Smith’s statement of 23^rd Jan 2008 is as follows. The blue comparisons are from his May 2007 statement and the red highlights are a couple of bits missed off the transcription in McCannfiles:
 
‘I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build (a bit on the thin side), 5 foot 10' in height (175–180 =  5’9” - 5’11”), brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately (35/40). Wearing beige (cream or beige) trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer (He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.) 
He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet.
‘In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. (States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.)
 After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I gave this matter serious consideration and on the 20^th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife Mary. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs off the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later.’
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
 
Reading this again, he does not say he recognized him facially (he had previously said this was not possible) but based his identification on ‘his mannerism in the way he carried the child’.
 
I might almost agree with Phoebe here, although, as the Smiths seem to like percentages, would probably go for a pretty high likelihood in the ‘unlikely’ stakes, on the assumption, which may well be wrong, that they did actually pass somebody in the street:
 
Phoebe #50
‘Personally, I believe it unlikely (although not completely impossible) that it was Gerry they saw.’

Thank you very much, @ Doug D, for once again bringing original thinking to the forum, adding information in your post for us to consider, but perhaps most of all for asking that very good question at the start of your post: “Do we have any evidence that Martin Smith was actually involved with the e-fits?”

My short answer to that is: “Yes we do, but I think it is very unreliable”. I shall explain why.

First of all I will set out my overall assessment of the Smtihman sighting, all in my opinion and based on all the evidence I have considered:

1    Jane Tanner’s ‘Tannerman’ was probably a fabrication 

2    Nuno Lourenco’s ‘Sagresman’ - which turned out to be the Polish holidaymaker Wojcek Krokowski - was a very obvious fabrication. His description of Krokowski matched that of ‘Tannerman’, as it was meant to - and it misled the PJ at the time, as I am sure it was meant to 

3    Both fabricated sightings were planned by a ‘controlling mind’ (or minds) who  planned the abduction charade on the Thursday night and may have planned other deceptions 

4    Martin Smith’s initial ’phone call to police on 16 May 2007 would appear to have been an attempt made on behalf of someone he knew, Robert Murat, who had been made a formal suspect only the day before. I am not satisfied that the Smiths saw anyone that night 

5    As I have presented on the forum, I think there is much evidence that the Smiths’ statements were fabricated. Martin Smith himself is reported (more than once) as saying that he only contacted the police ‘because we found out that our description of the man matched that of Jane Tanner’. That explains why the descriptions DID match, and were ‘remarkably similar’, despite the efforts of one CMOMM member to magnify some differences in the descriptions of the man’s skin and hair colour    

6    All the Smiths unanimously agreed that they had only seen the man’s face for a few seconds at most, in the dark, with weak street lighting, and admitted that they would never be able to recognise the man if they saw him again  

7    Martin Smith’s call to the police on 20 September 2007, where he claimed that he had ‘recognised‘ Gerry McCann ‘by the way he was walking and carrying his son off a plane’ is IMO not credible; moreover there is a stunning coincidence with an identical form of words used by a Robert McCluskey in a telephone call to police around the same date. Both men claimed to have seen a man with a child in Praia da Luz (Smith on 3 May, McCluskey on 5 May). Both said in late September, over 4 months later, that seeing Gerry McCann walking off a plane on 9 September made them think it was Gerry McCann 

8    It is likely that both Smith and McCluskey were prompted by Robert Murat or someone close to him to make a positive ID of Gerry McCann. The motive for this was the way in which four of the Tapas 7 - JT, R’OB, RO and FP - had all made formal statements to PJ implicating Murat as the abductor 

9    At a lawyered-up meeting in Portugal on 13 November 2007, the two camps (Murat v McCann) settled their differences. Thereafter the probably-fabricated Smithman sighting could be used by the McCanns exactly as they wished, which is exactly what has happened for the past 11 years - with additional help from the BBC and Operation Grange (Crimewatch 2013). ‘Crecheman’/’Creche Dad’ was another probable fabrication 

10   I think Martin Smith was spoken to by Brian Kennedy and/or other members of the McCann Team in December 2007 or January 2008 and asked to agree to whatever the McCanns wanted to do with his claimed sighting. I agree that he has probably not at any time formally revoked his ‘60-80%’ ID of Gerry McCann, and in that very limited sense his statement to Gemma Doherty may have been technically correct. But I am satisfied that his conduct since January 2008 is one of going along completely with whatever the McCanns and Operation Grange wanted to do, or not do.

 

DID ANY OF THE SMITHS DRAW UP THOSE TWO E-FITS?   

My answer to that is ‘NO’. Here’s why.

A  It would be impossible for any of the Smiths to draw up credible e-fits well over a year after seeing the man

B  Press reports on 3 January 2008 said that Martin Smith had agreed to help Team McCann by doing e-fits. But according to answers to one of my Freedom of Information Act questions, the e-fits were not done [by Henri Exton] until September 2008. Why the 8-month-delay? It is inexplicable. According to that FOIAct answer, the e-fits were drawn up 16 months after the sighting (!)

C  The e-fits were produced by Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, and a co-worker with the rogue and criminal Kevin Halligen, who was paid £563,000 by the Find Madeleine Fund for 4 months’ work. In my judgment, Henri Exton is not a trustworthy source in a case that has been overrun with agencies like Special Branch, MI5, CEOP, Control Risks Group and other arms of the British security services, along with top government PR officials

D      The 2013 BBC Crimewatch programme was evasive about who helped to draw up the e-fits. These were the actual words used in the broadcast:

=================================

MATTHEW  AMROLIWALA (BBC)

This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years.

Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here…

[FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA]

…at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?

DCI REDWOOD (OPERATION GRANGE)

He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas - a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann.

MATTHEW AMROLIWALA (BBC)

Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images.

DCI REDWOOD (OPERATION GRANGE)

This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward.

================================

Why did the BBC say “two of the witnesses” and not “two members of the family”? My belief is that this is because the e-fits were NOT drawn up by any of the Smiths.  Further, the Smiths themselves have never ever said that they drew them up

E    I asked a Freedom of Information Act question:  “Did the reference in the Crimewatch programme to ‘two witnesses’ refer to two members of the Smith family?” The Met Police answered ‘Yes’. I do not believe them

 

F    As discussed at length on CMOMM, there is evidence that the two e-fits were produced from two actual photographs of actual, different men and were not drawn up by the Smiths at all

G    Moreover a CMOMM member received circumstantial information that one of the two e-fits was derived from actual photographs of this man:   




 

P.S.  Phoebe is quoted (#50) by Doug D (#50) as saying:    “Personally, I believe it unlikely (although not completely impossible) that it was Gerry the Smihs saw”.

REPLY: In which case (i.e. if the Smiths saw someone else), the sighting is utterly irrelevant to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

@ Tony Bennett - You wrote above -

5    As I have presented on the forum, I think there is much evidence that the Smiths’ statements were fabricated. Martin Smith himself is reported (more than once) as saying that he only contacted the police ‘because we found out that our description of the man matched that of Jane Tanner’. That explains why the descriptions DID match, and were ‘remarkably similar’, despite the efforts of one CMOMM member to magnify some differences in the descriptions of the man’s skin and hair colour    


1) Your "quote" re the Smiths is from a newspaper.The Smiths did not breach judicial secrecy.
2) Re your claim about "magnify"(ing) differences in appearance. Short hair is the opposite of long, light skin is the opposite of dark skin, Light brown hair is very different to dark glossy hair, Baggy clothing is the opposite of classic - cut clothing. No need for any magnification - the words speak for themselves!