SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?

Tony Bennett wrote:Back from holiday, and on checking back on the forum (I don't do the internet at all whilst on holiday), I became aware of what I might term the 'Cristobell Suspension Incident'.

Among the charges levelled against me by Cristobell was that my absence last week was 'very convenient'.

A tad harsh, I thought.

I have since seen her blog article titled 'Buried by the Anti's', which is a sweeping attack on this forum, and when I checked last night there were 162 comments on her blog, mostly once again attacking this forum and me personally. Most of them I think from disruptors here who have previously been banned. One of those 162 comments, by Cristobell herself, does call for a brief response, as it focuses, once again, on 'Smithman', the central figure now in Operation Grange's investigation.

The allegation is that my posts re Smithman could 'jeopardise a trial' and are 'attacking the best witness in the case'. Here is Cristobell's argument in full:

QUOTE

Rosalinda Hutton 19 August 2014 16:00_ Comment 162

I am now under fire from pros and a number of antis on twitter = funny old world. They have all merged into one, like the final scene in Animal Farm where you can't tell the pigs from the men.

The response to this post has been amazing and indeed enlightening. So many voices stifled and censored and so many interesting theories. No wonder the discussion on JH has become like a stuck record! I am certainly now starting to wonder if the JH forum has been used as a tool to misdirect the investigation and the trial.

Why are they so determined to dismiss the Smiths' sighting and implicate Robert Murat? It goes against everything we set out to do - get justice for Madeleine Beth McCann.

Tony either:

Truly believes there is a vast network of paedophiles operating from a golf course in PDL and leading directly to the heart of the British Government, or

He is laying the groundwork for discrediting the key witnesses in the event of a trial. What he is doing is very useful to the parents as it diverts attention from them and supplies all the preparing work for their lawyers. Tony has helpfully given hundreds of reasons (in blue) why the Smiths couldn't possibly have identified he man they saw that night, and done his best to smear Henri Exton, who seems to have been the only investigator to have prepared a credible report.

Should Martin Smith be asked about being 60-80% certain it was Gerry he saw, the McCanns' barrister can wave a TB leaflet giving 50 reasons why it couldn't have been!

I have no idea why it is essential for Tony to convince people the Smith sighting doesn't count and why he and others are going to such extreme lengths to shut up and discredit anyone who opposes them on this point. Much food for thought.

UNQUOTE

On a preliminary point, one tactic Cristobell frequently uses is to accuse people of something they have not done and are not doing.

One such false claim is that "he and others are going to such extreme lengths to shut up and discredit anyone who opposes them on this point".

NO. No 'extreme lengths'. No trying to 'shut people up'. No 'trying to discredit' anyone.

But back to Cristobell's central charge in her comment No. 162. She writes:  "Should Martin Smith be asked about being 60-80% certain it was Gerry he saw, the McCanns' barrister can wave a TB leaflet giving 50 reasons why it couldn't have been!".

To be honest, when I first saw the apparently serious suggestion that Martin Smith could be called by the prosecution in any trial, I laughed out loud. It is stunningly obvious, surely, that his testimony would be utterly worthless.

But just to drive the point home, here is how a cross-examination of Martin Smith might go. Let's assume he has told the trial that he was 60% to 80% sure, from the way Gerry McCann was carrying his child on 9th September when descending the steps of an aeroplane at East Midlands Airport, that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3rd May - over 4 months earlier.

Here's how the cross-examination might go:


McCanns' defence barrister: What were the lighting conditions when you say you saw this man?

Smith: It was dark and the street lighting was weak.  

McCanns' defence barrister: How long did you see him for?

Smith: No more than a few seconds.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you see his face clearly?

Smith: No. He had his head down and the child was hiding his face.

McCanns' defence barrister: When interviewed by the PJ, did you tell them that if you saw this man again, you wouldn't be able to recognise him?

Smith: That's true. And Peter and Aoife said exactly the same.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did this man on his own carrying a child in pyjamas as 10.00pm at night make an impression on you?

Smith: Well, er, yes, sort of.  

McCanns' defence barrister:  Were you still in Praia da Luz on 4 May?

Smith: Yes.

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you report your sighting?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Why not?

Smith: Er, um, ?????

McCanns' defence barrister: Did you report your sighting when you got back to Ireland on 9th May?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Why not?

Smith: ER, um, ?????

McCanns' defence barrister: You reported your sighting on 16 May, 13 days after Madeleine was reported missing. How come?

Smith: My son Pester 'phoned me up, and said: 'Dad, am I dreaming or something, or did we see a man carrying a child on 3rd May?'

McCanns' defence barrister: I see. So in September, you saw Gerry McCann coming off a plane and you were 60% to 80% sure it was Gerry McCann you'd seen 'because of the way he was carrying his child'?

Smith: Yes.

McCanns' defence barrister: How was he carrying his child?

Smith: On his left shoulder.

McCanns' defence barrister: But isn't that the way most parents carry sleeping or tired young children?

Smith:  I admit that's very true.

McCanns' defence barrister: Final question: Did you or any member of your family draw up either of those 2 e-fits shown by DCI Andy Redwood on the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special on 13 October last year?

Smith: No.

McCanns' defence barrister: Thank you very much Mr Smith, no further questions.

sallypelt wrote:

I am interested in knowing, if anyone can enlighten me, what ORIGINAL research Christobell has done. herself? I am not talking about the PJ files, as we all have access to these. Has she trawled through primary sources and joined up the dots? I am not interested what the newspapers say. I have been in the thick of news media and I could write a book about it. Christobell was quick to jump on anyone who has a different opinion to hers. However, from what I saw from Christobell was nothing more than opinion. Unlike some of those she has attacked, including me, others backed up what they said with FACTS. But when I asked her to clarify HER statements, she told me  "as I tell there pros, I am not here to do your research".
I nearly spit my tea all over my computer screen

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

I am interested in knowing, if anyone can enlighten me, what ORIGINAL research Christobell has done. herself? I am not talking about the PJ files, as we all have access to these. Has she trawled through primary sources and joined up the dots? I am not interested what the newspapers say. I have been in the thick of news media and I could write a book about it. Christobell was quick to jump on anyone who has a different opinion to hers. However, from what I saw from Christobell was nothing more than opinion. Unlike some of those she has attacked, including me, others backed up what they said with FACTS. But when I asked her to clarify HER statements, she told me  "as I tell there pros, I am not here to do your research".
I nearly spit my tea all over my computer screen

I cannot enlighten you except to say that I am not personally aware of any research that Cristobell has done or even contributed to on this forum.

I would just like to add one other observation.

One of Cristobell's many lines of attack against me runs like this: "Tony's problem is that he has already made up his mind before he looks at the evidence".

On the contrary. I had not done exhaustive research on Smithman until the CrimeWatch McCann Show in October when DCI Redwood promoted 'Smithman' - and in doing so showed us two e-fits, clearly of two different people, which simply [IMO] could not have been drawn up by the Smiths, as claimed. Then I became really interested and researched all I could about the Smith 'sightings'.

Cristobell also wrote:

"The chances of Goncalo Amaral being wrong, SY and the PJ, all being wrong and Tony Bennett being right, are about as remote as being struck by lightening [sic]. Especially given, he has the least facts available to him. His refusal to adapt to the new evidence as it emerges..."

Taking (1) Goncalo Amaral, (2) SY and (3) the PJ one by one:

1. True, I most respectfully part company with Dr. Goncalo Amaral on two matters: (a) his acceptance of the evidence of the nanny who gives evidence that Madeleine was at a 'high tea' at the Ocean Club around 5.30pm on 3 May and (b) as to his assessment of the significance and evidential value of the Smiths' evidence

2. As for SY, I repeat, in total opposition to Cristobell's view, that the evidence I see suggests IMO that Grange was never a genuine investigation from the start, and

3. I do not think that, if the PJ were asked today, that they would give any importance whatsoever to the Smiths' claims.
 

Tony Bennett wrote:On the contrary. I had not done exhaustive research on Smithman until the CrimeWatch McCann Show in October when DCI Redwood promoted 'Smithman' - and in doing so showed us two e-fits, clearly of two different people, which simply [IMO] could not have been drawn up by the Smiths, as claimed.
 

Woofer wrote:Apparently Mr. Smith did report the sighting 2 days afterwards to the local police (whether it was the GNR or the PJ don`t know) but Mr. Smith said they did not take it seriously.  This info comes from two newspaper articles, one from the Mirror on 16th October 2013 and the other is an Irish Newspaper (can`t remember which one but I think it was on a Pat Brown thread). 
 
This information really needs to be checked out before making claims that Mr. Smith did not report the original sighting.
 
It`s true he didn`t report the `GM carrying Sean off the plane` realisation until about 11/12 days later. Apparently because of what this might mean to a bereaved family.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

P.S. It was the Irish Central News on the 14th October :-
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

BlueBag wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:On the contrary. I had not done exhaustive research on Smithman until the CrimeWatch McCann Show in October when DCI Redwood promoted 'Smithman' - and in doing so showed us two e-fits, clearly of two different people, which simply [IMO] could not have been drawn up by the Smiths, as claimed.
 

Hello Tony, Where do you think the e-fits came from?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:Apparently Mr. Smith did report the sighting 2 days afterwards to the local police (whether it was the GNR or the PJ don`t know) but Mr. Smith said they did not take it seriously.  This info comes from two newspaper articles, one from the Mirror on 16th October 2013 and the other is an Irish Newspaper (can`t remember which one but I think it was on a Pat Brown thread). 
 
This information really needs to be checked out before making claims that Mr. Smith did not report the original sighting.
 
It`s true he didn`t report the `GM carrying Sean off the plane` realisation until about 11/12 days later. Apparently because of what this might mean to a bereaved family.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

P.S. It was the Irish Central News on the 14th October :-
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-couple-key-witnesses-as-british-police-launch-new-enquiry-into-madeleine-mccann-case-227647711-237782841.html

OK, Woofer, let's take a very close look at that Daily Mirror story, published on 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special and over 6 years and 5 months after the Smiths claimed to have seen a lone man carrying a child clad only in pyjamas wandering around Praia da Luz at 10.00pm in the dark:

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

Retired businessman Martin Smith provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man close to where Maddie vanished

A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.

REPLY: 'Yesterday'. That's Tuesday 15 October 2013. So did a Mirror journalist actually speak to Martin Smith that day? Or did Clarence Mitchell merely supply this made-up quote to the Mirror editor? I only ask the question. I cannot provide the answer.

No I cannot provide an answer either, but I would like to assume the journalist spoke directly to Martin Smith that day after the Crimewatch programme - that is what is implied.


Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.

REPLY: It was not 'an e-fit', as the Mirror incorrectly reports.

The Mirror says `details for an e-fit`. That makes it ambiguous.  It doesn`t suggest that Martin Smith actually created the e-ft.

It was TWO e-fits, and two e-fits moreover which the vast majority of observers sat are of two different people.

2 e-fits yes, but I have to disagree about them being 2 different people. I believe they could be 2 witnesses perspectives of the same person.

Moreover, for all the reasons previously given (saw him only for a few seconds, didn't see his face, in the dark etc. etc.), I suggest he could not have drawn up any e-fits a year or more later. I had omitted one further reason why he couldn't have drawn up the e-fits.

I have previously failed to mention that Martin Smith told the police that he (Smith) normally wore glasses but on that particular evening was NOT wearing glasses. Why not, Mr Smith?

I believe he was referring to Robert Murat not wearing glasses on the second occasion he saw him in a pub some years previously.

But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.

REPLY: This is the first time in over 6 years and 5 months that he has made this claim. Moreover, neither he nor any other members of his family had made this claim in ANY previous statements of theirs to the police or to newspapers in the previous 6 years and 5 months. It must therefore be viewed with extreme scepticism.

I agree with you here - this is why it MUST be clarified.  Because it throws a whole new light on the Smiths if they did in fact report it to the local police 2 days later (Irish Central paper).

Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.

REPLY: IMO Redwood's claim to have 'discovered' 'Crecheman' all of a sudden after 6 years is highly suspect.

Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive,

REPLY: Is he? Maybe so. But we don't have any evidence for this. Moreover, if you look at the promotional material put out by Martin Smith in support of his company Golf Net Ltd, he describes himself there as 'a retired army officer'. Again, we have nothing whatsoever to substantiate this. So was he both? Both a Unilever executive AND a retired army officer. To coin a phrase: 'I'm not buying it'.  

made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.

REPLY: Did he compile e-fits? There is substantial evicdence that he did not and could not have done so.

Again, notice it says `he helped compile e-fits`


Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.

He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

REPLY: 'Over the past 18 months'. So he had apparently first had contact with DCI Andy Redwood 18 months previously, i.e. April 2012. If that is right, DCI Redwood is guilty of suppressing those e-fits for 18 months.

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case".

Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.

The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.

Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”

At least two callers who responded to the TV appeal gave the same name for the two e-fits provided by the Smiths.

REPLY: Yet nearly a year after Crimwatch, no arrests. No word from Grange as to whether we should still be looking for 'Smithman' and the man/men that match those 2 e-fits. I assume then, especially as the two-fits are plastered all over the 'splash' page of the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, that we all ARE supposed to still be looking for him. Grange has not said otherwise. 

Finding the man and determining whether he was in Praia da Luz on the night the three-year-old vanished is a top priority of Scotland Yard detectives.

REPLY: They've not found him yet despite it being a 'top priority'?

Around 1,000 people have contacted police as a result of the appeal.

They include a number of British people who were in the Algarve resort at the time. At least one ex-pat called from the town on Monday night.
Senior investigating officer Det Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said his team are working through the calls and material generated by the appeal.

A total of 330 calls were made to the Operation Grange incident room and 400 to BBC1 Crimewatch as well as 220 emails.

REPLY: Adding to an already-enormous pile of Redwood statistics which IMO are no more than a desperate attempt to 'prove' to the nation that Grange is genuine.

In a statement issued through their spokesman, Kate and Gerry McCann said: “We are absolutely delighted with the overwhelming public response to Crimewatch, which was broadcast last night.

“We know that the public desperately want to help the search for Madeleine.

“We are genuinely hopeful that one of more of these responses will lead to a major breakthrough in the investigation.”

REPLY: Not yet, it hasn't.

They added: “If anyone was in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s abduction and has not spoken to the Metropolitan Police, or if they know who any of the e-fits might be, please have the courage to come forward and speak to the police in confidence.”

DCI Redwood added: “Detectives are now trawling through and prioritising that material. This will take time.”

Mr Redwood, who travelled to Holland yesterday to continue the appeal, said: “I will be repeating similar appeals in Holland this evening and in Germany tomorrow night.”

A reward of up to £20,000 is being offered for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of those responsible for Madeleine’s abduction, he said.

There are 40 people answering calls at any time, and officers waiting to “action the information”.

Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said the response to the programme was “truly unprecedented”.

He said: “They received several names for the key 10pm sighting, the sighting of a man carrying a child towards the beach.

“Several different names but also several callers mentioned the same name for that man.”

Mr Mather said there were “inevitably a fair few calls” which were not helpful but there were “genuinely calls that were helpful” after last night’s broadcast.

During last night’s programme, Mr and Mrs McCann urged people to “rack their brains” and come forward with information.

Kate said: “Please, please have the courage and confidence to come forward now, and share that information with us, and you could unlock this whole case, so please.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328#ixzz3AvYsKm9m

I agree with your other points.  But my main concern is we need to know for sure if Martin Smith did report the sighting 2 days after the disappearance. It is not recorded on the PJ files, but would every reporting be on the files anyway? They must have had hundreds of calls around that time.

I cannot really come to any conclusion about the Smiths until I know this.

Woofer wrote:

I agree with your other points.  But my main concern is we need to know for sure if Martin Smith did report the sighting 2 days after the disappearance. It is not recorded on the PJ files, but would every reporting be on the files anyway? They must have had hundreds of calls around that time.

I cannot really come to any conclusion about the Smiths until I know this.

dantezebu wrote:TB
"I have previously failed to mention that Martin Smith told the police that he (Smith) normally wore glasses but on that particular evening was NOT wearing glasses. Why not, Mr Smith?"

I thought it was Mr Smith saying that Murat was not wearing glasses when he saw him in a bar once, not that he himself was not wearing glasses:
 
"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."


Is there another statement I have missed where Mr Smith says he usually wears glasses?

pennylane wrote:

I also believe Mr Smith was referring to Robert Murat as not wearing his glasses on that occasion.

dantezebu wrote:TB: "I think the team of Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and Tim Craig-Harvey, all ex- or current MI5 personnel, simply used and adapted existing photographs of two entirely different people who had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."


That's very interesting.

Why would they adapt photographs of real random people for the efits and not just make them up from scratch? 

Tony Bennett wrote:TB wrote:

"I have previously failed to mention that Martin Smith told the police that he (Smith) normally wore glasses but on that particular evening was NOT wearing glasses. Why not, Mr Smith?"

dantezebu wrote:

I thought it was Mr Smith saying that Murat was not wearing glasses when he saw him in a bar once, not that he himself was not wearing glasses:

"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."

Is there another statement I have missed where Mr Smith says he usually wears glasses?

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

REPLY: @ Dantezebu   -  Yes there is indeed another statement which clarifies this. The police witness statement which you quoted says: "He did not wear glasses at the time", making it ambiguous as to whether the 'He' referred to him (Smith) or to Murat.

This was made clear in a very long article about the case in the Irish Mail on Sunday, 10 August 2008 [15 months after Madeleine's reported disappearance]. Here is the relevant extract:

QUOTE

“Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may. One said: ‘'Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland. The McCanns return to England…it was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry. By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what?’

''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese, who were clearly desperate to get something against them."

“As they made their way back, the [Smiths] crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.

“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

UNQUOTE

++++++

There is another observation I would like to make about this article.

The first paragraph contains a quote from 'Friends of the McCanns'. I believe this to have been Clarence Mitchell.

What is fascinating to see is how the McCanns gradually shifted their attitude to the Smith sighting.

In August 2008 (see above) they rejected it.

Just 9 months later, however, the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentaty, which was based entirely on the McCanns' account of events, clearly floated the possibility that the Tannerman and Smithman sightings might be the same man. This in my view laid a very careful foundation stone for all that was to follow. 

Shortly thereafter, the McCanns included the Smithman sighting, in full, as one of their five 'suspects' or 'persons of interest' on their 'Find Madeleine' website, where it remained ever since. They even had an Irish voiceover audiotape on their website which summarised the Smiths' witness statements

Then they upped their interest in Smithman still further when Dr Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine' mentioned the 'Smithman' sighting on SIX pages of her book including a THREE-PAGE list of the 'striking similarities' between Smithman and Tannerman.

Then of course, DCI Redwood caught up with this, eliminated Tannerman, and produced two e-fits allegedly of Smithman as his 'prime suspect'.

A much better understanding of this whole case can IMO be achieved by exhaustively researching all references to Smithman.

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:

I also believe Mr Smith was referring to Robert Murat as not wearing his glasses on that occasion.

Hi pennylane, not often I disagree with you, very much the reverse usually.

However on this occasion Martin Smith did later clarify (see my post above) that he was admitting that he was not wearing his glasses on the evening of 3rd May, as he usually did.

Why not, he has not explained.

It does create yet another hurdle of difficulty for him about his claim to be 60% to 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann on 3 May, and as for the claim that he produced either of those two efits...in the dark, not seeing the man's face AND not wearing his usual glasses??!!

I hope you are keeping well

dantezebu wrote:

So it was not in any statement to the police, but appeared in the Irish Mail. My belief is that this is either a misinterpretation by the Irish Mail journalist of the part of Mr Smith's statement as follows:

"His hair was short, in a normal male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark brown or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses nor did he have a beard or moustache." 

pennylane wrote:

Hi Tony, I'm well thank you.  I hope you are well tool 

The holiday was good thank you, but I'm only just now recovering from Cristobell's onslaught

I see the quotes in The Irish Mail, 10th August 2008, but I cannot tell whose actually speaking, hence I don't find it very compelling as proof of what Mr Smith meant.  Unless I'm missing something?

I think there may be issues with the translations which are making it difficult to establish whether Martin Smith was

a) saying he himself was not wearing glasses

OR

b) Murat was not wearing glasses

OR

c) Both of them were not wearing glasses (which I think may be the case).

Please see my post above

Tony Bennett wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

So it was not in any statement to the police, but appeared in the Irish Mail. My belief is that this is either a misinterpretation by the Irish Mail journalist of the part of Mr Smith's statement as follows:

"His hair was short, in a normal male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark brown or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses nor did he have a beard or moustache." 

The statement: "He did not wear glasses at that time" is exactly how it appears in the official translation reelased in the PJ files.

The Irish Mail on Sunday article provides IMO a simple clarification of that short statement.

It is IMO probbaly a translation of: "He [Martin Smith] was not wearing glasses on that occasion".

I suggest that during his interview Martin Smith said TWO things:

(1) I was not weasing glasses that evening

AND

(2) Robert Murat was not wearing glasses (did not have a beard or moustache etc...] 


But I am not going to fall out with anyone over which it was

jeanmonroe wrote:Does anyone know which TWO of the Smith family, they were EIGHT, actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008?

PeterMac wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Does anyone know which TWO of the Smith family, they were EIGHT, actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008?

Or to put in another way
"Does anyone know IF ANY of the Smith family actually 'collaborated' with PI's in the drawing up of the two 'e-fits' in 2008 ?"

It seems highly likely that the answer may be NO