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

by Guest 11.09.14 14:10

Dee Coy wrote:
logical wrote:Tony/ Tigger
Smithman zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn IMO

Why? Don't you think Smithman is important?

They are important in both sides of the debate,if the Smiths did indeed see someone carrying a child and later because of the mannerism's of Mr McCann exiting the plane carrying a child Mr Smith believes it was possibly him then it is important.Equally if the smith sighting is a red herring to lead away from something else then that is just as important,if this is the case then why did they make claim to a sighting and be 60% to 80% sure.Do they hold a bigger key in all of thisAll IMO.

by logical 11.09.14 14:11

Oh extremely important Deecoy and Truthful in the Smiths minds IMO.

Its just that Smithman has been flogged to Death inside out upside down left to right corner to corner and still we all come up with the same arguments for the past number of years.

In my opinion its time to rest Smithman debate until it/if becomes clear what the official conclusion on Smithmans importence to this case is . thumbsup

by **Tony Bennett** 14.09.14 16:01

logical wrote:Oh extremely important Deecoy and Truthful in the Smiths minds IMO.

Its just that Smithman has been flogged to Death inside out upside down left to right corner to corner and still we all come up with the same arguments for the past number of years.

In my opinion its time to rest Smithman debate until it/if becomes clear what the official conclusion on Smithmans importence to this case is .

So we should stop debating 'Smithman' until DCI Andy Redwood and his bosses in the Met and the government have decided what the 'official conclusion' is?

We should stop debating all the queries about the Smithman sighting?

I don't think so, 'logical'.

But then you have a bit of a track record here, don't you, for wanting to end the 'Smithman' discussion?

One further point - we have not been debating 'Smithman' for a number of years. We have only been engaged in debate about it since 14 October 2013, when DCI Andy Redwood and the BBC CrimeWatch Team - against all expectations - made 'Smithman' the absolute focus of this 7-year-long missing person case - and in the process (see below) expected a naive and gullible British public to believe that two e-fits, clearly of different men, were of the same man, and could have been drawn up by the Smiths over a year after seeing him for a fleeting second or two in the dark.

I now turn to a recent post in another place by a poster called 'Bagheera', who trots out a familiar line in total support of DCI Andy Redwwod's focus on 'Smithman'. But in the process, 'Bagheera' gets a number of facts wrong, so here is his post and my replies:

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

BAGHEERA POST IN BLACK

MY ANSWERS IN BLUE

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

If you use the statements, the known facts and see the garbled accounts in the press for what they are, there is no problem with the Smiths at all.

REPLY: We will put that to the test by looking at the remainder of this posting.

Add to that the e-fits, the current research from experts in forensic psychology as to their reliability shows that it is a well tested and reliable method - far better than the old photofit or showing the witness photographs.

REPLY: The two e-fits of quite different men: (a) thin-triangular face younger man and (b) fat-rectangular face older man do not IMO help us in any way to believe that the Smiths drew up those two e-fits. Quite the reverse.

Hardly anybody is prepared to insist that these two e-fits look like the same man. And that raises all sorts of questions about who really did draw up those e-fits and on what basis.

As for 'Bagheera's claim that, quote "the current research from experts in forensic psychology as to their reliability shows that it is a well tested and reliable method - far better than the old photofit or showing the witness photographs", I await anyone who can on this thread prove that 'forensic psychology' does make such claims. Let's have the links to anywhere where these claims are made. Let's see what these forensic psychologists really claim - or don't claim.

Is it seriously being suggested that over one year later, a sighting made for a second or two in the dark with poor street lighting, members of the Smith family had clear recollections of the hairstyle, shape of the face, outline of the lips etc.

And if that is stil lserioulsy suggested by anyone, why do we have two very different faces?

As for the contested remark 'he did not look like a tourist' this appears to be a standard question asked by the PJ. This same sentence appears in unrelated statements by other witnesses.

REPLY: This rather misses the point I made in the OP that there are up to SEVENTEEN remarkable similarities between all the various sightings. 'Bagheera's point above explains only ONE of those remarkable similarities of description. What about the other SIXTEEN (accepting that Jane Tanner appears not to have mentioned the hair colour of the child).

We need to remember that it was Jane Tanner who first came up with 'he didn't look like a tourist', a comment strangely echoed days after Madeleine was reported missing by 'Sagres man', the man said to have tried to kidnap a child on the beach. IIRC 'jd' when he was here pointed this unusual coincidence of all these men that 'didn't lok like a tourist' - whatever that is supposed to mean, anyway

As for Martin Smith not wearing glasses, that is not in the statements but from the Pro-McCann Irish Times article. Which article also had a long quote from 'a friend of the Mccanns' rubbishing the Smith sighting.

REPLY: No, it actually comes in one of the police summaries of the Smiths' evidence

So as late as August 2008 the Mccann team were not at all keen to incorporate that event in their version of 'the abduction'. I find this most curious as it should have been a godsend - after Wilkins and Gerry's rock-solid alibi, a truly independent sighting.

REPLY: That is fully consistent with my hypothesis about the Smith 'sightings'.

It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' the very day after (see below) Robert Murat was made a suspect - whatever interpretation is put on that fact.

On 20 September 2007 (see also below) he said he was fairly sure he'df seen Gerry McCann - based only 'on the way he was carrying his child'.

By January 2008, he had conceded that Brian Kennedy of the McCann Team had been in contact with him.

A recent statement from official sources said that the e-fits were drawn up in October 2008.

I suggest that what happened then was that the McCann Team got the 'green light' from Martin Smith (whether by threats or inducement or whatever) to be able to suggest that 'Smithman' was NOT Gerry McCann.

This resulted in the following sequence of events:

1. Smithman is featured on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary - the 'Mockumentary' - in May 2009

2. Smithman is added to the 'Find Madeleine' website's list of suspects from that moment on, and has been on their site ever since (well over 5 years)

3. Smithman is mentioned as a likely suspect on SIX pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'

4. Having dealt with the 'Tannerman problem', Redwood unveils 'Smithman' as his No. 1 suspect on BBC CrimeWatch.

As for the date of the 16th May - allegedly when M. Smith phoned the PJ - well before a description of bundleman was given out - that is conjecture. A date was never given in any article or statement I have seen.

REPLY: This misses a crucial point that I've mentioned before. Robert Murat was a translator for the first few days after 3 May 2007. He would therefore know what description Jane Tanner had given. Murat and Smith knew each other, for 'two years' and over 'several meetings'. I suggest that it is at least possible that Martin Smith got his details of the Tannerman description direct from Robert Murat.

On 'Bagheera's questioning of the date of 16 May for the Smiths giving their evidence for the first time to police, let's have the actual facts:

Daily Mail 3 Janueary 2008

"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police. I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the ‘phone. Then they asked me to make a statement to Gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance.

Drogheda Independent

Peter Smith also told the Drogheda Independent: “…it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife. 'When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man’, Peter added. He went on: ‘We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy’.”

Further, in the PJ files, this reference to Peter Smith statement can be found:

At this time, he did not associate the individual with the disappearance, however after having thought about the subject and about the coincidence of the time, he inferred that Madeleine could have been the girl who was being carried by the individual he saw.

This by the way refers to an excuse given by the Smiths for taking 13 days to report their sighting. They claimed that they had deliberately not told the police about their 'sighting' because they though the time of their sighting didn't match the reported time that Madeleine had been found missing. They said that once they found out the correct time, they then 'realised' the significance of their sighting.

This unlikely tale contradicts with other evidence from the Smiths about why they took so long to report their sighting, andis IMO yet another reason for examining all their claims in great detail

There is also no earthly reason why Martin Smith would point to Gerry if his sole reason in May was to get Murat off the hook.

REPLY: The change, of course, was that by then Gerry McCann had been made a suspect. Just as Martin Smith reacted soon after Murat was made a suspect, so he did again in September just after Gerry McCann was made a suspect.

In the first place it would have been better to give Murat his alibi for an earlier time - somewhere between 9.15 and 9.30 - in the second place there was no need to make a second statement in September.

REPLY: What we know is that the only thing Smith could say with any certainty about the man he claimed to have seen was that it wasn't Robert Murat. That is evidence that maybe that was all he really had on his mind. It is certainly possible IMO (see below) that a suggestion was put to him by someone, after 9 September, that he should now 'firm up' his evidence about 'Smithman' by accusing Gerry McCann

I feel very sorry for Martin Smith, it has been suggested that in May 07 he forced his 12 year old daughter to lie.

REPLY: It would not by a long chalk be the first time in the history of the world that a person induced a son or daughter to come up with fabricated evidence. It is all the other major question marks about this 'sighting' that make us even consider the posisbility that Aoife Smith was being untruthful

His business has been said to be suspect and his partners named on the company's register said to be bogus.

REPLY: Yes, because we have TWO unsubstantiated versions of his career (1. former senior Army officer and 2. former Unilever executive). In addition, he claims to have four of the world's top directors of the world on the board of Golf Net Ltd, based in California and Vienna. Yet Golf Net Ltd is a company that has never had any degree of public visiblity on the net or elsewhere

His statement has been misquoted and misinterpreted to suit other and far more convoluted theories of different 'camps' and conspiracies which have to get ever more complicated because the facts do not fit.

REPLY: If this is a reference to me, I am not aware of any 'misquoting'. As far as the 'two camps' theory is concerned, yes I do suggest that as a possibility because of:

1. MI5 & Control Risks Group targeting Murat by suggesting he fitted the profile of the abductor '90%' [Amaral's book]

2. Jane Tanner, under influence from Det Chief Supt Bob Small and Control Risks identifying Murat as the person Jane Taner said she had seen carrying a child on 3 May

3. After Murat being made a suspect, Fiona Payne claiming Murat had been seen near the McCanns' apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing

4. ditto Rachael Oldfield

5. ditto Russell O'Brien

6. All three (FP, R'OB and RO) continuing their confrontation with Murat at Portimao Police Station on 11 July

7. Martin Smith identifying Murat in September 2007

8. Sudden change in all of this after the top-level 'summit' meeting between Murat & lawyer and McCann Team (Kennedy & lawyer) at the home of Murat's aunt & uncle 13 November 2007

Imo this was a crime committed by a small number of social mountaineers who weren't particularly intelligent. If the files had not been published we would not even be here discussing this case, I'm grateful that we have facts and statements to use in the search for what justice there will be in this case.

REPLY: One further matter I want to address in this posting is WHEN exactly Martin Smith reported his belief hat the man he claimed to have seen was Gerry McCann. The TV clip he says he saw of Gerry McCann coming down the aircraft steps carrying Sean was on 9 September. Yet according to the evidence belowm it seems he did not make his report until a whole ELEVEN days later.

If that's correct, why the delay (again)?

From Police files: Martin Smith sees Gerry McCann coming down the steps of the plane as he lands at East Midlands Airport on his way back from Portugal. As Goncalo Amaral records this in his book. ‘The Truth About A Lie’: “The Smith family see this recording on the news at 22h00 and are hit hard: they know this person, this way of carrying a child and of walking. It is Gerry McCann, they believe with a high degree of certainty, that they saw on 3 May at about 22h00, carrying a 4-year old girl who appeared to be deeply asleep”.

However (see below), it is not certain whether Martin Smith reported this immediately. The report to the Portuguese Police about Martin Smith’s recollection was not dated until 20 September.

Following the report dated 20 September, Goncalo Amaral decides to bring the Smiths back to Portugal for a further interview. But before this can happen, Amaral is replaced as the investigation co-ordinator on 2 October - just 12 days later.

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. 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

__________________

From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family

Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland

Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.

Rec by: TPHONE Serial: 241 Ident:BC19-8286 1055 20/09/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNG: QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Closed

Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station

Processos Vol XI Page 2875

Policia Judiciaria

NUIPC 201-070 GALGS

NOTE

On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva

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

Finally...

@ logical - You have made it very clear that you find the 'Smithman' topic 'boring'. Why do you not do what all other posters on this forum do - visit the threads that they find interesting? - instead of keeping on visiting a thread you find boring?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.09.14 17:39

tigger wrote:Cover note

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

L*** H****

unquote

Note: It is clear from the wording that the above refers to at least two statements made by M.Smith...[SNIPPED

@ tigger

It is clear from the wording that the above refers to at least two statements made by M. Smith

REPLY: Agreed

possibly this is even the third. i.e: the statement made around two weeks after the abduction, not necessarily on the 16th as that date stems from "a friend of the McCanns" and the remark comes from an article in the Irish Times statement made some time after September 9th and this would be the third.

REPLY: Not agreed. IMO it is simply a reference to his first statement to the Irish police on 16 or 17 May and tis being his second statement. I refer to my above post in response to one from ‘Bagheera’ in another place, where I pointed out that it seems that Smith did not come forward with his ‘Gerry McCann revelation moment until ELEVEN days after his claim of watching the TV broadcast on 9 September. Again as I pointed out in the posting above, the fact that the Smiths made no statement until ‘two weeks after’ they returned from Praia da Luz is confirmed by two separate press statements by first Martin Smith and also his son Peter.

Mary Smith not wishing to make another statement is ambiguous, it may mean that she did make a statement at an earlier date or that she does not wish to add a statement to that of her husband. Any statement of hers would be to the Gardai as she did not go to Portugal.

REPLY: Agreed. The evidence is that she made a verbal or written statement to the Gardai in May 2007 but then refused to say any more.

Note: there is a difference imo in tense which IIRC is also in the early statements, the man they saw turned his head down as he was getting close to the group. A group of nine would not be walking quickly so I would suppose several seconds to see a face which was seen from different angles and I believe from slightly below as the road slopes.

REPLY: But the Smiths’ statements taken as a whole, say both that his head was down AND that the child was covering his face. All of this in the dark and with ‘weak’ street lighting – so how could they possibly come up with two clear, sharp e-fits (and of two very different men to boot)? And bear in mind that the time when they are supposed to have drawn up these e-fits this was a whole year later, in fact 1 year and 5 months’ later according to a recent report

As to e-fits. We don't even know if these are EV-fits where a video programme is used. The brain is very good at recognition and not at all good at reconstructing separate features.

REPLY: Memory fades. Another poster (IIRC it was Doug D) has already demonstrated on this thread that police put no reliability at all on a face that was:

hidden
seen in the dark
for a few seconds at the very most, and
recalled 12-17 months later.

The way a person walks or moves - the gait - is already being used as an identification method on CCTV images.

REPLY: But Smith watching a TV news bulletin of a man walking down the steps of a plane cannot possibly compare with sophisticated computer programmes which analyse the way a person walks or moves. Yes, in a market square I might be able to pick out the gait of a close family member I’d observed for years, but most emphatically NOT someone I saw in the dark for a few seconds.

So I have no problem at all with the two faces which are IMO of the same man,

REPLY: How can they be, tigger? They:

look of different ages - one eise much youngr-looking that the other
their faces have a different geometric shape
one has a fatter face, the other a thinner face
their hairstyles are different

one has a much bigger chin than the other

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

I cannot understand the basis of your opinion. What do you say are the similarities?

seen by two different people and from different angles. In both images the chin area differs as the jawline would be mostly hidden by the back of the child's head.

REPLY: So you agree the images look different?

Whether the harassment by the media started before January isn't clear to me. It seems to me that between January 3rd when there are several articles about the sighting and January 30th when the additional statement above was made, the Smiths were finally visited by Kennedy et al.

REPLY: Yes, the evidence is that Kennedy butted his way in during January. At hat time, Smith was presumably (I don’t think we can be 100% sure) maintaining that he’d seen Gerry McCann

A photofit was requested to be made - if this was going to be on the lines of bundleman and possibly with the help of the ubiquitous Ms Little I don't know. However IIRC the Powerpoint presentation by the McCanns was made some time in November and made no mention of the Smiths- no photofit was made.

REPLY: That’s correct, even after EIGHT MONTHS, no-one had made an e-fit based on the Smiths’ recollections. Given the length of time and the circumstances of the alleged sighting, honestly, what could the Smiths come up with? We are told the e-fits were done during 2008, we are told they were done by Henri Exton - and recently we learned that they were done in October 2008. My suggestion is that the two e-fits of (IMO obviously) different men were NOT made up from the Smiths’ recollections but were made in some other way. I further suggest that both the Smiths and DCI Andy Redwood know fine well that the Smiths did NOT produce these two e-fits.

And here I guess I part company with Dr Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown, if they both really think that these two e-fits were (a) drawn up by the Smiths and (b) are both of Gerry McCann.

by **tigger** 20.09.14 11:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
tigger wrote:Cover note

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

L*** H****

unquote

Note: It is clear from the wording that the above refers to at least two statements made by M.Smith...[SNIPPED
@ tigger

It is clear from the wording that the above refers to at least two statements made by M. Smith

REPLY: Agreed

possibly this is even the third. i.e: the statement made around two weeks after the abduction, not necessarily on the 16th as that date stems from "a friend of the McCanns" and the remark comes from an article in the Irish Times statement made some time after September 9th and this would be the third.
REPLY: Not agreed. IMO it is simply a reference to his first statement to the Irish police on 16 or 17 May and tis being his second statement. I refer to my above post in response to one from ‘Bagheera’ in another place, where I pointed out that it seems that Smith did not come forward with his ‘Gerry McCann revelation moment until ELEVEN days after his claim of watching the TV broadcast on 9 September. Again as I pointed out in the posting above, the fact that the Smiths made no statement until ‘two weeks after’ they returned from Praia da Luz is confirmed by two separate press statements by first Martin Smith and also his son Peter.
Can't see the problem, statement one, around the 18th to Gardai, statement two, September 2007, statement three above 30/1/08, additional statement (to that of September) as cover note suggests.

Mary Smith not wishing to make another statement is ambiguous, it may mean that she did make a statement at an earlier date or that she does not wish to add a statement to that of her husband. Any statement of hers would be to the Gardai as she did not go to Portugal.

REPLY: Agreed. The evidence is that she made a verbal or written statement to the Gardai in May 2007 but then refused to say any more. 'Did not wish' is imo many miles away from 'refused'.

Note: there is a difference imo in tense which IIRC is also in the early statements, the man they saw turned his head down as he was getting close to the group. A group of nine would not be walking quickly so I would suppose several seconds to see a face which was seen from different angles and I believe from slightly below as the road slopes.

REPLY: But the Smiths’ statements taken as a whole, say both that his head was down AND that the child was covering his face. All of this in the dark and with ‘weak’ street lighting – so how could they possibly come up with two clear, sharp e-fits (and of two very different men to boot)? And bear in mind that the time when they are supposed to have drawn up these e-fits this was a whole year later, in fact 1 year and 5 months’ later according to a recent report

As to e-fits. We don't even know if these are EV-fits where a video programme is used. The brain is very good at recognition and not at all good at reconstructing separate features.

REPLY: Memory fades. Another poster (IIRC it was Doug D) has already demonstrated on this thread that police put no reliability at all on a face that was:

hidden

seen in the dark

for a few seconds at the very most, and

recalled 12-17 months later.

The way a person walks or moves - the gait - is already being used as an identification method on CCTV images.

REPLY: But Smith watching a TV news bulletin of a man walking down the steps of a plane cannot possibly compare with sophisticated computer programmes which analyse the way a person walks or moves. Yes, in a market square I might be able to pick out the gait of a close family member I’d observed for years, but most emphatically NOT someone I saw in the dark for a few seconds.In fact Gerry was coming down a sloping road in PdL and down the steps of the plane, the angle and the gait plus the way he carried Sean could easily have triggered a deja vue response

So I have no problem at all with the two faces which are IMO of the same man,

REPLY: How can they be, tigger? They:

look of different ages - one eise much youngr-looking that the other

their faces have a different geometric shape

one has a fatter face, the other a thinner face

their hairstyles are different

one has a much bigger chin than the other

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

I cannot understand the basis of your opinion. What do you say are the similarities?

seen by two different people and from different angles. In both images the chin area differs as the jawline would be mostly hidden by the back of the child's head.

REPLY: So you agree the images look different?
Of course they do, as every image constructed by different people of the same subject will be. I used to teach life drawing.

Whether the harassment by the media started before January isn't clear to me. It seems to me that between January 3rd when there are several articles about the sighting and January 30th when the additional statement above was made, the Smiths were finally visited by Kennedy et al.

REPLY: Yes, the evidence is that Kennedy butted his way in during January. At hat time, Smith was presumably (I don’t think we can be 100% sure) maintaining that he’d seen Gerry McCann
As the additional statement indicates, before the 3rd of January 08 the Smiths had not been in contact with TM. The main onslaught was in January 08. Clarence stated in one of the press reports of the 3/1/08 that TM would be contacting the Smiths. Note future tense.

A photofit was requested to be made - if this was going to be on the lines of bundleman and possibly with the help of the ubiquitous Ms Little I don't know. However IIRC the Powerpoint presentation by the McCanns was made some time in November and made no mention of the Smiths- no photofit was made. The Powerpoint presentation was made in October 07. Not a peep about the Smiths, lots about creepy men and desperately bad drawings.

REPLY: That’s correct, even after EIGHT MONTHS, no-one had made an e-fit based on the Smiths’ recollections. Given the length of time and the circumstances of the alleged sighting, honestly, what could the Smiths come up with? We are told the e-fits were done during 2008, we are told they were done by Henri Exton - and recently we learned that they were done in October 2008. My suggestion is that the two e-fits of (IMO obviously) different men were NOT made up from the Smiths’ recollections but were made in some other way. I further suggest that both the Smiths and DCI Andy Redwood know fine well that the Smiths did NOT produce these two e-fits.
It's just adding way too many players to a fairly imcompetent team as it is imo.

And here I guess I part company with Dr Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown, if they both really think that these two e-fits were (a) drawn up by the Smiths and (b) are both of Gerry McCann.
As I'm not Bagheera I'm afraid I can't answer your earlier post, but I'll keep an eye out for his posts.

by palm tree 20.09.14 14:56

IMO Martin Smith, in his own head, wouldn't really need to study and search his memory for every little detail on who he saw anyway, he knows who and what he seen that night. The 60/80% proberly came from nerves and/or worry, with who he was dealing with (the mcs). That could be why he didn't say I'm 100% it was gm.
IMO

by Naz_Nomad 20.09.14 16:22

"Smithman" has obviously lost any importance it had less than a year ago, judging by last week's "Crimewatch" (now sadly unavailable on BBC iplayer after less than 7 days)

by palm tree 20.09.14 20:05

Crimewatch last week was a 30yr special, when AR was speaking with tannerman behind him, was that not part of the crimewatch from October 13? That's the way I saw it, just part of last years episode.
IMO

by Liz Eagles 20.09.14 20:17

palm tree wrote:Crimewatch last week was a 30yr special, when AR was speaking with tannerman behind him, was that not part of the crimewatch from October 13? That's the way I saw it, just part of last years episode.
IMO

I'm glad you mentioned this Palm Tree.

The glass 'wall' with the previous year's OG investigation was there for all to see. I did wonder if it had been physically stored or 'thoughtfully' reconstituted and pulled out for the latest episode.

Obviously the two different reconstructions of holiday accommodation and the Tapas Bar set-up are long forgotten and will probably never see the light of day again.

Equally obvious was the lack of Smithman appeal, lack of any form of appeal by the McCanns - still no personal message to Madeleine their daughter who they believe is alive and findable. Absolutely NO mention of the age progression photograph and NO NO NO mention of looking for a child with an eye defect.

by palm tree 20.09.14 20:42

aquila wrote:
palm tree wrote:Crimewatch last week was a 30yr special, when AR was speaking with tannerman behind him, was that not part of the crimewatch from October 13? That's the way I saw it, just part of last years episode.
IMO
I'm glad you mentioned this Palm Tree.

The glass 'wall' with the previous year's OG investigation was there for all to see. I did wonder if it had been physically stored or 'thoughtfully' reconstituted and pulled out for the latest episode.

Obviously the two different reconstructions of holiday accommodation and the Tapas Bar set-up are long forgotten and will probably never see the light of day again.

Equally obvious was the lack of Smithman appeal, lack of any form of appeal by the McCanns - still no personal message to Madeleine their daughter who they believe is alive and findable. Absolutely NO mention of the age progression photograph and NO NO NO mention of looking for a child with an eye defect.

Spot on Aquila, to me it looked as AR and the mcs were "looking back"on how crimewatch had helped the investigation.
IMO

by Liz Eagles 20.09.14 21:02

palm tree wrote:
aquila wrote:
palm tree wrote:Crimewatch last week was a 30yr special, when AR was speaking with tannerman behind him, was that not part of the crimewatch from October 13? That's the way I saw it, just part of last years episode.
IMO
I'm glad you mentioned this Palm Tree.

The glass 'wall' with the previous year's OG investigation was there for all to see. I did wonder if it had been physically stored or 'thoughtfully' reconstituted and pulled out for the latest episode.

Obviously the two different reconstructions of holiday accommodation and the Tapas Bar set-up are long forgotten and will probably never see the light of day again.

Equally obvious was the lack of Smithman appeal, lack of any form of appeal by the McCanns - still no personal message to Madeleine their daughter who they believe is alive and findable. Absolutely NO mention of the age progression photograph and NO NO NO mention of looking for a child with an eye defect.
Spot on Aquila, to me it looked as AR and the mcs were "looking back"on how crimewatch had helped the investigation.
IMO

What you have to ask yourself is would you ever agree to any media appearance where you would not be granted at least a couple of minutes to doggedly speak about the possibility of your own daughter's return. Would you not hold up age progression photos, would you not speak of eye defects, would you not negotiate any interview with the press that wouldn't allow you to only speak of your daughter first and foremost?

Or would you on the other hand prefer to wear wristbands, sell a pile of 'awareness' tat and park your arse on any telly sofa that will promote awareness of missing children?

by palm tree 20.09.14 21:19

Puts it all into perspective, poor Maddie.
IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 24.09.14 8:29

tigger wrote:
Can't see the problem, statement one, around the 18th to Gardai, statement two, September 2007, statement three above 30/1/08, additional statement (to that of September) as cover note suggests...

@ tigger - Full reply to all your points, and those of 'Bagheera' in another place, below - in two parts:

Points of contention re ‘Smithman’: Tony v tigger and Bagheera (in another place)

@ tigger

I’m replying to your post above and to the very similar points made by your alter ego in another place, Bagheera. I accept of course your statement that you are not Bagheera, but as his/her points are so similar to yours, I’ll answer them both here.

Points of disagreement and my replies

1. How many statements did Martin Smith make?

You wrote: “Statement one, around the 18th [May] to Gardai, Statement two, September 2007, Statement three above 30/1/08, additional statement (to that of September).

REPLY: That’s agreed.

2. Did Mrs Mary Smith refuse to make a statement to the PJ?

I wrote: “…she made a verbal or written statement to the Gardai in May 2007 but then refused to say any more. You replied: “‘Did not wish’ [to make a statement] is IMO many miles away from 'refused'.”

REPLY: If she was asked to make a statement, but declined, then she ‘refused’ – in the same way as we can say that the Tapas 9 ‘refused’ to take part in any reconstruction. We are agreed, anyway , that she did not wish to confirm to the PJ whatever she may have said to the Gardai.

3. Could Martin Smith really have identified Gerry McCann as the man he said he’d seen over four months earlier, just from the way he was carrying his son and his gait?

I wrote: “But Smith watching a TV news bulletin of a man walking down the steps of a plane cannot possibly compare with sophisticated computer programmes which analyse the way a person walks or moves. Yes, in a market square I might be able to pick out the gait of a close family member I’d observed for years, but most emphatically NOT someone I saw in the dark for a few seconds”.   And you replied: “In fact Gerry was coming down a sloping road in PdL and down the steps of the plane, the angle and the gait plus the way he carried Sean could easily have triggered a deja vu response”.

REPLY: 1. You have said: ‘Gerry was coming down a sloping road in PdL…” That’s clearly not a correct statement; should you not, rather, to be accurate say: “The man that Martin Smith claimed that he saw was coming down a sloping road into PdL…”?

2. You are comparing his gait, seen in the dark for a few seconds on along a sloping road’, with walking down the steps of the plane. There is a world of difference. A sloping road does not have steps, and I doubt if the gradient was steeper than, say, 1 in 10. By contrast, steps on a plane would probably be between 1in 2 (45 degrees) and 1 in 3 (30 degrees. I can’t understand how you can possibly compare the two. And there are not many different ways of walking down a plane with a child on your shoulder

3.Smith’s main stated reason for his identification of the man he says he saw as Gerry McCann is ‘the way he was carrying his child’. We can all see that there is nothing unique about the way he was carrying Sean: it was the way all parents carry their asleep or tired infants.

It looks like we are destined to disagree on this one. My answer to the question 3 is ‘No’, yours is ‘Yes’.

4. Are the two –fits of two different men or the same man?

REPLY: I listed some obvious differences between the two e-fits. I then asked: “I cannot understand the basis of your opinion. What do you say are the similarities?”. You didn’t reply to that question.

You acknowledged that ‘of course there are differences, “as every image constructed by different people of the same subject will be. I used to teach life drawing...”

I can see we are not going to agree on this, so once again we shall have to agree to disagree. It remains unusual in the extreme, however, to issue to the public two e-fits with obvious differences. Moreover, there remains two further awkward questions: (1) could ANY of the Smiths produce, over one year later, a credible e-fit of a bloke they saw in the dark for a few seconds, with his head down and (2) what use is it to release this image to the British public 6½ years after the event?

5. When did Brian Kennedy contact Martin Smith?

I wrote: Yes, the evidence is that Kennedy butted his way in during January. At that time, Smith was presumably (I don’t think we can be 100% sure) maintaining that he’d seen Gerry McCann).

You came back with: “As the additional statement indicates, before the 3rd of January 08 the Smiths had not been in contact with TM. The main onslaught was in January 08. Clarence stated in one of the press reports of the 3/1/08 that TM would be contacting the Smiths. Note future tense”.

REPLY: I think we can settle this as follows.

It was on 20 January 2008 that Liam Hogan of the Gardai wrote to the PJ:

“I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement…He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits…”

Thus Martin Smith had been contacted by Brian Kennedy at least before 20 January 2008. And IMO that’s a very significant part of the whole story. Brian Kennedy, whose men are on record in a 2009 Evening Standard article has having intimidated witnesses (plural), has interfered with a Portuguese investigation by approaching a key witness on behalf of two of the three suspects. Moreover, he has done so despite the fact that Martin Smith (however unreliably) has identified Gerry McCann.

6. When was the ‘Powerpoint presentation made’?

I wrote: “The Powerpoint presentation by the McCanns was made some time in November and made no mention of the Smiths - no photofit was made. You came back with: “The Powerpoint presentation was made in October 07. Not a peep about the Smiths, lots about creepy men and desperately bad drawings”.

REPLY: So we are agreed about all that, except for your claim that the Powerpoint presentation was made in October, not November. Not that that matters a great deal, but do you have a link for that please?

7. Did the Smiths make the two e-fits?

I wrote: “My suggestion is that the two e-fits of (IMO obviously) different men were NOT made up from the Smiths’ recollections but were made in some other way. I further suggest that both the Smiths and DCI Andy Redwood know fine well that the Smiths did NOT produce these two e-fits”. And you came back with: “It's just adding way too many players to a fairly incompetent team as it is IMO”.

REPLY: We have a clear difference of opinion and are unlikely to resolve this.

8. Bagheera

I wrote: And here I guess I part company with Dr Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown, if they both really think that these two e-fits were (a) drawn up by the Smiths and (b) are both of Gerry McCann. You came back with: “As I'm not Bagheera I'm afraid I can't answer your earlier post, but I'll keep an eye out for his posts” .
REPLY: Noted.

9. Was it Martin Smith or Robert Murat who wasn’t wearing glasses?

I suggested that it was Martin Smith who told the police that he wasn’t wearing glasses on the night of 3 May. Bagheera came back with:

“As for Martin Smith not wearing glasses, that is not in the statements but from the Pro-McCann Irish Times article 10/8/08. Which article also had a long quote from 'a friend of the McCanns' rubbishing the Smith sighting. See [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I corrected Bagheera’s response and said: “This came in one of the police summaries of the evidence”.

Bagheera replied: “You are referring to the last bit of Martin Smith’s statement where it is clear from the syntax that he is talking about Murat not wearing glasses. The statement 26/5/07 reads:
‘Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not use glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately’.

From the Irish Times, 10/8/2008:
‘Mr. Smith had initially told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses. The following September, however, the businessman saw clips of the McCanns returning from their holidays and said the footage of Mr McCann carrying his younger child had instantly reminded him of the mystery man’.

The newspaper simply made it up or it was a Chinese whisper. I find the statement clear enough. Robert was not wearing his glasses on the occasion when he was inebriated. It’s known as context”.

REPLY: @ Bagheera -   Yes, well I’ve heard of ‘context’. However, I stick by my suggestion and further suggest that something may have been lost in translation here. The phrase: “ He did not use glasses at this time…” could (so far as we know) equally be translated from the Portuguese as “He [Martin Smith] was not wearing glasses on this occasion [i.e. the evening of 3 May]”. It is not even clear whether the phrase: ‘On one of these occasions, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone’ refers to himself or to Robert Murat’. Even if he is referring to Murat, I think the context supports me, as here IMO Martin Smith is moving away from saying that Murat was drunk and is describing what he was able to see and the fact that ‘he would have recognised Robert Murat immediately’.

The Irish Times stated, after I think speaking to Mr Smith: “Mr. Smith had initially told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses”. I think that’s exactly what Martin Smith told the PJ and I believe that the Irish Times has got it exactly right.

10. Did the Smiths report their sighting the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect?

I wrote: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' the very day after Robert Murat was made a suspect - whatever interpretation is put on that fact”. 

Bagheera came back with: “No it absolutely isn’t. In the first place the source is the press. In the second place Peter Smith arrived home on the 4th. Two weeks make it the 18th. Which works well with the following events which included a two days wait for LP to contact them and subsequent booking of flights to PdL. In short we do not know the date but if you want to go by the Drogheda Times it makes it the 18th, 14 plus 4”.

Bagheera later wrote: “As for the date of the 16th May - allegedly when M. Smith phoned the PJ - well before a description of bundleman was given out - that is conjecture. A date was never given in any article or statement I have seen”.

REPLY: I cheerfully concede to Bagheera that it is possible that I may have overstated my case by saying that the Smiths came up with their sighting ‘the very day after’ Robert Murat was made a suspect. For the purpose of the ongoing debate re Smithman, I will change that, for the moment, to: “It is a FACT that the Smiths came up with their 'sighting' very soon after Robert Murat was made a suspect”.

Robert Murat was made a suspect on 15 May.

My source for believing that the Smiths reported their sighting on 16 May comes from the Irish Mail on Sunday report of 10 August 2008, where we read this: “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...”

I believe this quote from a ‘friend of the family’ to have come from Clarence Mitchell. I believe that Mitchell would not be inaccurate when he speaks with such precision about Smith reporting his ‘sighting’ ‘13 days later’. This is 16 May, and I stick with that as the best evidence we have about the date the Smiths reported their sighting, i.e. the date when Peter Smith made his he ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ telephone call to his father.

Even if, as Bagheera suggests, their report to the Gardai came as late as 18 May, it does not fundamentally alter my two key points:
1. That they waited an inexplicably long time before reporting their ‘sighting’ (I said it was 13 days, you say it may have been 15), and
2. Their ‘sighting’ came very soon in time after Robert Murat was made a suspect.

Looking further at the evidence, Martin Smith says: “We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police”. Two weeks from when, though? According to you, tigger, only Peter Smith returned on 4 May, the others (including Martin Smith) returned on 9 May. Two weeks after 9 May brings us to 23 May, and I think we will be agreed that the ‘Am I dreaming or something’ telephone call (if it ever happened, that is) was before then. At all events, the three Smiths made their statements at Portimao Police Station on 26 May. I will see if we can establish the dates of the ‘Was I dreaming or something?’ ’phone call from Peter and the date of Martin Smith’s call to the Gardai, which may of course have been the same day.

[ CONTINUED IN PART 2, NEXT POST ]

by **Tony Bennett** 24.09.14 8:54

CONTINUED RESPONSE TO 'tigger' and 'Bagheera':

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

11. Did Martin Smith ‘concede’ that Brian Kennedy had approached him?

I wrote: “By January 2008, [Martin Smith] had conceded that Brian Kennedy of the McCann Team had been in contact with him.

Bagheera wrote: “Conceded is the wrong verb. On January 3rd he said that he had not yet been contacted by Metodo 3. In his additional statement of the 30th January he stated that he had”.

REPLY: On 3 January 2008, Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, the Sun, reported: “PRIVATE detectives hunting for Madeleine McCann are to quiz an Irish family who may have been the last to see her alive. Martin Smith, his wife and children told cops they saw a man carrying a little blonde girl in Praia da Luz on the night Maddie vanished. Investigators from the Metodo 3 agency hired by Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate are preparing to travel to Ireland to interview them. But by 30 January, when Sgt Liam Hogan wrote a letter to the PJ attaching a summary of Martin Smith’s evidence about being ‘60% to 80% sure’ he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May, Hogan wrote: “He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy”.

Martin Smith was quoted in the Daily Mail of 3 January as saying: ‘We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns…”

I used the word ‘conceded’ because, looking at the various media reports of 3 January, Martin Smith appears to be somewhat evasive about who exactly he had been in touch with. It seems that by the time we get to the date of Liam Hogan’s letter of 30 January, he is prepared to say, admit, concede, or whatever word you choose, that it is in fact Brian Kennedy who has personally contacted him.

12. Have the Smiths been working with Team McCann?

I wrote: “A recent statement from official sources said that the e-fits were drawn up in October 2008. I believe there is further evidence from Exton and co on the drawing up of these e-fits. I suggest that what happened then was that the McCann Team got the ‘green light’ from Martin Smith (whether by threats or inducement or whatever) to be able to suggest that 'Smithman' was NOT Gerry McCann.

Bagheera wrote: “You’ve lost me there, so the Smiths were working closely with TM?”

REPLY: Let’s examine these facts:

1. Before 3 January 2008, Martin Smith was already ‘expecting a visit from Metodo 3’, who were employed by Team McCann.

2. By 30 January 2008, as we saw above, Martin Smith admitted – all right, said - that Brian Kennedy had been in contact with him. Brian Kennedy was working for Team McCann.

3. We know that during 2008, Henri Exton, and may be another ‘private detective’, visited the Smiths in connection with possible e-fits of Smithman. Exton was also of course working for Team McCann.

4. By 5 August 2008, the BBC is able to say this: “When detectives replayed video footage of the couple's arrival at East Midlands airport [to Martin Smith], the witness said he was 60-80% sure that the man he passed was Gerry McCann. But this was later dismissed by prosecutors because at the time of the reported sighting, shortly before 10.00pm, Gerry McCann was sitting in the Ocean Club's Tapas Bar with other members of his party”. Martin Smith’s ‘sighting’ has been rejected as irrelevant.

5. On 10 August 2008, the Irish Mail on Sunday published this quote from Mrs Mary Smith: “This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward. ‘He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it. The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw…our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours. 'I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own. The poor McCann family must be heartbroken”

I suggest, then, that by August 2008, Martin Smith was no longer insisting that he had seen Gerry McCann. I suggest also that Brian Kennedy and his ex-intelligence service helpers had been influential in Martin Smith altering his views on his ‘sighting’. Martin Smith spoke to DCI Redwood once in 2012 and 2013 and is I suggest now fully co-operating with DCI Redwood and the McCann Team in focusing attention on ‘Smithman’ as the abductor.

13. Was ‘Smithman’ mentioned in Dr Kate McCann’s book?

I wrote: “1. Smithman is featured on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary - the 'Mockumentary' - in May 2009  
2. Smithman is added to the 'Find Madeleine' website's list of suspects from that moment on, and has been on their site ever since (well over 5 years)  
3. Smithman is mentioned as a likely suspect on SIX pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' The word ‘smith’is not mentioned - check content via word search and see earlier posts in this topic.   
Bagheera came back with: “The word ‘Smith’ is not mentioned in the book - check content via word search and see earlier posts in this topic”.

REPLY: Bagheera’s reply does not affect or contradict any of my points 1, 2 and 3 above. I accept that the word ‘Smith’ is not mentioned in the book – but, as I am quite sure Bagheera is well aware, all the six pages of ‘Smithman’ sightings are listed in the index under “man carrying child sighting – Rua da Escola Primaria”.

14. Why was the description by the Smiths of ‘Smithman’ so strikingly similar to Jane Tanner’s description of ‘bundleman’ – in at least 16 different respects?

In attempting to answer this question, I wrote: “Robert Murat was a translator for the first few days after 3 May 2007. He would therefore know what description Jane Tanner had given. Murat and Smith knew each other, for 'two years' and over 'several meetings'. I suggest that it is at least possible that Martin Smith got his details of the Tannerman description direct from Robert Murat”.

Bagheera came back with: “Where to start. No, the translator for JT on the 4th was Filipa Silva, on the 10th it is given as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which is probably the same person. There is no earthly reason why Murat would be given the translations from other interpreters. There is no evidence whatsoever that Murat and Smith knew each other for two years and several meetings. As to the rest...End of part one, time for a snifter...”

REPLY: Note, I did not state that Murat translated any of Jane Tanner’s statements. I said he would know about Tanner’s description because he was so heavily involved in translating (and also discussing the case so intensely with police officers – so much so that later an inspector filed a report to Goncalo Amaral complaining about Murat’s excessive interest in the case, attempting to steal a look at police documents, and suggest lines of enquiry to them).

On the subject of Bagheera’s claim that “There is no evidence whatsoever that Murat and Smith knew each other for two years and several meetings”, the Drogheda Independent carried this report on 8 August 2008: “[A family member said that] the family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago’.

So, two years ago - and a very different story from Martin Smith who said to police that he’d met Murat ‘twice’ in ‘May and August last year’.

Moreover, in the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008, we read this: “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 story seems to change each time. Now Martin Smith has known Murat ‘visually for years’.

Then, finally, we have this report on SKY News, 4 January 2008:

“An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat…But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an ‘arguido’ in the Madeleine McCann investigation. ‘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’.”

Another change of story, then – and, yes, he refers to ‘several meetings’ with Murat this time. So, Bagheera, Smith DID meet Murat several times and over a period of years. Might I respectfully suggest that you read up more fully on all matters relating to Martin Smith, then you’d be better informed.

15. Martin Smith’s career

I have questioned whether Martin Smith can substantiate claims about his career in the press, which include a claim that he is a ‘retired senior army officer’ and ‘a former Unilever executive’. Impressive if true, but I wrote: “So, we have 'a senior army officer' - but no details given, not even his rank...”

Bagheera replies with: “The Wiki entry for TB has (POLITICIAN) behind his name. Which political offices were held?”

The first point is that my Wiki entry is entirely written by others, and not always by people of the same political views as me.

The second point is that I have never ever described myself as a ‘politician’ - whereas it appears that Martin Smith is actively claiming he is a retired senior army officer and a former Unilever executive.

But third, in response to Bagheera’s evident curiosity, my main political offices and dates:

Councillor on North East Derbyshire District Council 1976-8

Councillor on Hasland Parish Council 1976-8

Campaign Manager for UKIP Eastern Region Euro Election Campaign 1999

Political Secretary to Jeffrey Titford, UKIP M.E.P., 1999-2001

Member of UKIP Eastern Region Committee 1999-2001

Researcher for UKIP M.E.P., Robert Kilroy-Silk, 2004-5.

Maybe Martin Smith could tell us sometime what his army rank was, when he was discharged, and what executive position he held in Unilever.

I also wrote: “His career, to say the very least, is a puzzle”.

And Bagheera came back with: “I can’t see the significance of MS having had both a career in the army and with Unilever”.

REPLY: If he was both a senior army officer, and either before or after that a Unilever executive, then hats off to him, he is a very successful man. But where’s the evidence?

16. When Martin Smith listed the Directors of Golf Net Ltd in an application for a business grant of some kind, did he tell the truth?

Bagheera’s comment: “Explanation at the end. Bear in mind this is publicity in order to obtain a grant of sorts”.

REPLY: This seems uncomfortably close to Bagheera suggesting that it’s OK to make up fake Directors just to get a business grant.

Bagheera then added this extended comment on the Directors of Golf Net Ltd and on Martin Smith’s career:

“Explanation: He did not claim to have 4 of the world’s top directors on the board of his company Golf Net. This is an interpretation from a prospectus looking for outside investment in his company under a tax efficient government scheme. In this prospectus he named three men with impressive CVs under the heading Directors and Management. Note he did not claim that all three were directors.

Information filed in the companies office confirms that two of the men named were directors at the time of the prospectus. One is still a director; the other left the board in 2013 but still has a small shareholding in the company. Many companies do not have any significant public visibility. Are all these companies equally suspicious? It’s simple to check out the actual directors of any company – it should be done before jumping to conclusions.

In the prospectus Mr Smith stated he had been a senior army officer. He did not mention working for Unilever. That was mentioned in a media article. Are all media articles 100% accurate? Possibly he did work for Unilever at the start of his working life but did not include it in the Prospectus as he felt it wasn’t relevant and was so long ago. Also, the word ‘executive’ - say just like ‘politician’ - tends to be used rather loosely especially in the media.

Executive can mean that one has a desk job rather than being a factory worker. Politician has a more precise definition. I would take it to be somebody whose work is exclusively in politics, e.g. of some status in the executive part of a political party rather than just being a member of it.

Companies House are telling the truth, that's where the details came from.

Anyone can look it up. For some details the fee is £2.50. I replied here at admin's suggestion as I’m in fact replying to a post I made on this topic earlier which was copied and replied to by TB on JH.

REPLY: The key issue here is: was Martin Smith’s prospectus for Golf Net Ltd. honest and true in naming these three people under the heading: ‘Management and Directors’:

John Coleman, Executive Chairman & Director of Golf Net: Former President and COO of Bose Corporation, Former Head of the College of Business & Law, NUI, Cork, Chairman of the Property Registration Authority, Board of Rosetta Stone - the global leader in language-learning software –etc. etc.

Count Andreas von Faber-Castell, Director, Managing Director, Faber-Castell AG ., Asia Pacific.

Mike McDonough, Sales & Marketing (USA): Mike holds a Masters Degree in Management (Marketing, Information Technology) from Massachusets Institute of Technology. As the leader of core marketing efforts for multi-billion dollar audio products company, Bose, he developed and oversaw strategies for products sold through both direct and dealer-focused channels, helping turn-over to more than double during his tenure…

If he has been honest and true, fine.

If not, and whether they are named as ‘Management’ or ‘Directors’ is irrelevant, then he has been dishonest in an application for money - and his words on a claimed ‘sighting’ of a man carrying a child would carry little credibility. I only raise this issue as a query about whether we can rely on what he says. I would be only too happy if Martin Smith would confirm all the claims made by and about him.

But there also queries about his other companies, which, contrary to Bagheera’s claims, I have investigated in detail, including inspecting the Companies Register and, for that matter, the DueDil site. I noted for example the addresses of two of his Managers/Directors:

The address of Count Andreas W. von Faber-Castell is given as 69 O’Connell Street, Smithfield, New South Wales, Australia.

John Coleman’s address is given as 1 Greenwood Road, Hopkinton, Maryland, 01748 U.S.A.

This would make board meetings somewhat difficult - and very expensive - to arrange.

The other companies in which Martin Smith is involved are:

Gimme Golf Ltd ( This has a presence on Facebook here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) and is on YouTube here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tairigi Golf
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Ltd

Martin Smith was on Twitter at @GolfPuttCaddy and at @T3golf

by Doug D 24.09.14 10:48

Many people desperately want to believe that Smith, his wife & daughter saw GM parading through the streets of PdL at 22.00, either carrying Madeleine to her initial hiding place, or, one of the other girls in order to create the illusion of an ‘abduction’.

Similarly, with the two e-fits which Redwood announced ‘were the same man’, people desperately want to believe that is GM.

Nobody, outside the inner circle, knows, but there seems to be no middle ground between the Smith family being called liars & making the whole story up and the ‘fact’ (it is not a fact as even the Smith family are not completely sure and do not agree with each other) that they saw GM carrying M that night.

Both camps are so adamant that they are right, that this has caused more dissent, disruption and acrimony, than any other issue, exactly the result that TM (who are no doubt feeding the fires in all of the forums) must wish for.

I do not understand why it cannot be accepted that the Smiths probably did see someone carrying a young girl that night (who has strolled through a holiday resort at night and not seen the same thing?) and leave it up to the investigating officers on both sides to evaluate the veracity of the sighting and whether or not it is relevant. We can discuss & debate this all day (as we do), but we don’t know and why does everyone have to fall out over it? (again exactly what TM want).

For those who want to believe it was GM, Textusa goes into great detail about how and why it was GM and that he wanted to be seen. Fair play to her (them), it’s a reasonable theory if you want to go with it. If you want to tear it apart, similarly feel free. None of us know.

Tony’s stance in questioning the sighting from the opposite direction is equally as valid. Why the delay in reporting? There seems little to back up the ‘2 day report’ other than two press reports 6 years later which does not attribute this seemingly ‘new’ revelation to anything or anyone. He questions Murat’s involvement, why he was apparently set-up, and then set-down (is there such an expression?) again, with Smiths definitive ‘not Murat’ at the time of his first published statement and then T7 changing their stories yet again.

If we look at MS statement of 26/5/07 he said:

‘Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's shoulders to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.
Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE alongside her images on television, states that she may have been the child he saw. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE. Indeed, this is the opinion of his family.
States that it is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.’

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

So it could have been virtually any young girl, being carried by someone who did not look like a tourist.

I don’t understand the comment about not held in a ‘comfortable position’. The way GM came off the plane carrying a child is the easiest and most comfortable position to carry someone, so why would you say otherwise?

‘Tannerman’ carry, however, is an unlikely and uncomfortable position as you cannot support a ‘nearly 4 year old’ child properly (if at all!) just in two hands or arms and personally I feel there is some confusion and subliminal input in his original statement, probably having already seen the description (and picture) which were released by the PJ the day before, on 25^th May I believe.

I can see no logical likelihood of GM carrying a body through the streets that evening, it would be far too risky, but would not dismiss entirely the ‘creation of an abductor’ scenario, as a substitute child could easily be passed to one of her parents before GM returned quickly to the Tapas Bar as the alarm was being raised. There is so much confusion as to who was or was not at the Bar at and around the time of KM’s call, I don’t think anything should be ruled out.

Similarly, I am not in a position to rule the sighting out as completely irrelevant to the case.

by HelenMeg 24.09.14 11:06

Doug D wrote:Many people desperately want to believe that Smith, his wife & daughter saw GM parading through the streets of PdL at 22.00, either carrying Madeleine to her initial hiding place, or, one of the other girls in order to create the illusion of an ‘abduction’.

Similarly, with the two e-fits which Redwood announced ‘were the same man’, people desperately want to believe that is GM.

Nobody, outside the inner circle, knows, but there seems to be no middle ground between the Smith family being called liars & making the whole story up and the ‘fact’ (it is not a fact as even the Smith family are not completely sure and do not agree with each other) that they saw GM carrying M that night.

Both camps are so adamant that they are right, that this has caused more dissent, disruption and acrimony, than any other issue, exactly the result that TM (who are no doubt feeding the fires in all of the forums) must wish for.

I do not understand why it cannot be accepted that the Smiths probably did see someone carrying a young girl that night (who has strolled through a holiday resort at night and not seen the same thing?) and leave it up to the investigating officers on both sides to evaluate the veracity of the sighting and whether or not it is relevant. We can discuss & debate this all day (as we do), but we don’t know and why does everyone have to fall out over it? (again exactly what TM want).

For those who want to believe it was GM, Textusa goes into great detail about how and why it was GM and that he wanted to be seen. Fair play to her (them), it’s a reasonable theory if you want to go with it. If you want to tear it apart, similarly feel free. None of us know.

Tony’s stance in questioning the sighting from the opposite direction is equally as valid. Why the delay in reporting? There seems little to back up the ‘2 day report’ other than two press reports 6 years later which does not attribute this seemingly ‘new’ revelation to anything or anyone. He questions Murat’s involvement, why he was apparently set-up, and then set-down (is there such an expression?) again, with Smiths definitive ‘not Murat’ at the time of his first published statement and then T7 changing their stories yet again.

If we look at MS statement of 26/5/07 he said:

‘Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's shoulders to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.
Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE alongside her images on television, states that she may have been the child he saw. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE. Indeed, this is the opinion of his family.
States that it is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.’

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

So it could have been virtually any young girl, being carried by someone who did not look like a tourist.

I don’t understand the comment about not held in a ‘comfortable position’. The way GM came off the plane carrying a child is the easiest and most comfortable position to carry someone, so why would you say otherwise?

‘Tannerman’ carry, however, is an unlikely and uncomfortable position as you cannot support a ‘nearly 4 year old’ child properly (if at all!) just in two hands or arms and personally I feel there is some confusion and subliminal input in his original statement, probably having already seen the description (and picture) which were released by the PJ the day before, on 25^th May I believe.

I can see no logical likelihood of GM carrying a body through the streets that evening, it would be far too risky, but would not dismiss entirely the ‘creation of an abductor’ scenario, as a substitute child could easily be passed to one of her parents before GM returned quickly to the Tapas Bar as the alarm was being raised. There is so much confusion as to who was or was not at the Bar at and around the time of KM’s call, I don’t think anything should be ruled out.

Similarly, I am not in a position to rule the sighting out as completely irrelevant to the case.

I feel the same way as Doug on this. Think that's a very good post.

by roy rovers 24.09.14 15:35

Yes if Smithman was real but not Gerry then good for TM to use to spread the notion of an abduction.

by Guest 24.09.14 17:52

roy rovers wrote:Yes if Smithman was real but not Gerry then good for TM to use to spread the notion of an abduction.

Precisely. So why haven't they?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.09.14 18:01

Dee Coy wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Yes if Smithman was real but not Gerry then good for TM to use to spread the notion of an abduction.

Precisely. So why haven't they?

The answer's so obvious.

'Smithman' was held in reserve until Redwood buried Tannerman.

Redwood's 'revelation moment' enabled 'Smithman' to step out of the shadows...

...and into the limelight of 6.7 million BBC CrimeWatch viewers.

But only when the time was right

by **sharonl** 24.09.14 19:09

Dee Coy wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Yes if Smithman was real but not Gerry then good for TM to use to spread the notion of an abduction.

Precisely. So why haven't they?

It is also good for them to convince us all that May 3rd was the night of Madeleines' disappearance and divert attention from the actual time. Most investigative work centred around May 3rd, perhaps more emphasis should have been placed on the McCanns movements earlier that week.

by Guest 24.09.14 19:25

sharonl wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Yes if Smithman was real but not Gerry then good for TM to use to spread the notion of an abduction.

Precisely. So why haven't they?

It is also good for them to convince us all that May 3rd was the night of Madeleines' disappearance and divert attention from the actual time. Most investigative work centred around May 3rd, perhaps more emphasis should have been placed on the McCanns movements earlier that week.

Yet another reason for them to scream about this sighting from the rooftops!

by Guest 24.09.14 21:37

Doug D today @ 10:48

I totally agree, this is all about individual perspective of the limited information available. I can however quite understand Tony's slant on the subject as well as I understand some of the more rational counter opinions. Unless of course Tony has sold his soul to the devil as I've seen suggested (said very much with tongue in cheek).

Honestly, I can't see Tony as the sort of person to be forced into becoming a quisling for any reason whatsoever. What can be gained? All that's necessary is for a compromising conversation or meeting to be surreptitiously recorded, which if produced to an appropriate authority would be extremely detrimental and embarrassing to the Macs position, along with their employees.

The things that's always niggled me is why Gerry would be carrying his dead or comatosed or drugged child around the streets. If disposing of a corpse surely the more logical method would be to conceal it in something, like a sports bag? This aspect of the subject doesn't ring true to me and I think might well be the key to the truth about Smithman. As you rightly say, there is no way of knowing so it is all open to conjecture but I can't help but think, no matter what the Smiths did or didn't see, it was not Gerry carrying his child at that time on that night.

by **tigger** 25.09.14 5:48

Gollum wrote:Doug D today @ 10:48

I totally agree, this is all about individual perspective of the limited information available. I can however quite understand Tony's slant on the subject as well as I understand some of the more rational counter opinions. Unless of course Tony has sold his soul to the devil as I've seen suggested (said very much with tongue in cheek).

Honestly, I can't see Tony as the sort of person to be forced into becoming a quisling for any reason whatsoever. What can be gained? All that's necessary is for a compromising conversation or meeting to be surreptitiously recorded, which if produced to an appropriate authority would be extremely detrimental and embarrassing to the Macs position, along with their employees.

The things that's always niggled me is why Gerry would be carrying his dead or comatosed or drugged child around the streets. If disposing of a corpse surely the more logical method would be to conceal it in something, like a sports bag? This aspect of the subject doesn't ring true to me and I think might well be the key to the truth about Smithman. As you rightly say, there is no way of knowing so it is all open to conjecture but I can't help but think, no matter what the Smiths did or didn't see, it was not Gerry carrying his child at that time on that night.

As Sharonl pointed out, TM are quite happy for anybody to go over the 3rd of May untill the end of time. it suits their agenda perfectly.
The Mobile traffic that week reveals a curious pattern of silence and intensive activity.
Over the whole week none of their statements stack up regarding their activities.

I can try and find the phone references - don't forget that they deleted all the calls from thrir mobile, except for one where Kate made a mistake, Gerry must have been ever so annoyed... Whole night was a disaster anyway as the man himself said.

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

by **tigger** 25.09.14 6:16

Reply to TB: page 47

You have explained very clearly that you are not going by the statements but by e.g. The pro-mccann Irish Times for evidence.

I do feel that if you think the statements have been badly translated that it would - for a conscientious researcher - not be too difficult to check out with a reputable translator.

Correction on the powerpoint paragraphs:
You never mentioned the powerpoint presentation in your original post, I did in my answer and took the trouble to bump up the topic on powerpoint to make it easiers to check that indeed the McCanns did not use Smithman in that work of art.

I corrected myself on the date it was produced .

The quote from the PJ about the Smith sighting being dismissed as Gerry was at the table at that time is out of date.
It has been establised by waiters and iirc the Paynes that Gerry cannot be placed at the table around that time.

As for the business information on Martin Smith:

You say of the Prospectus for Golf Net Ltd that the key issue was whether Mr Smith was honest and true in naming these three people under the heading Management and Directors.

Now you could have checked that before you ever started posting about your doubts about Mr Smith's background. The information was always available in the Companies Office at nominal cost..

regarding the addresses of his directors have you ever heard of video conferencing? Board meetings may be held very infrequently. Directors can also communicate by phone and email.

You also mention that Mr Smith has a company Gimme Golf Limited. So is it suspicious to be involved in more than one company?

i also have a copy of the registration form of M. Smith filed at Companies House but won't publish here as it lists his address and phone number. He's entitled to some privacy imo especially in view of what has been pubished here about him and his family, including his then 12 year old daughter.

I really won't go through all the rest of the two posts as it will by now have the efffect of a triple dose of temazepan on the readers and whatever is said and written won't convince you.

by Guest 25.09.14 12:20

tigger wrote:
Gollum wrote:Doug D today @ 10:48

I totally agree, this is all about individual perspective of the limited information available. I can however quite understand Tony's slant on the subject as well as I understand some of the more rational counter opinions. Unless of course Tony has sold his soul to the devil as I've seen suggested (said very much with tongue in cheek).

Honestly, I can't see Tony as the sort of person to be forced into becoming a quisling for any reason whatsoever. What can be gained? All that's necessary is for a compromising conversation or meeting to be surreptitiously recorded, which if produced to an appropriate authority would be extremely detrimental and embarrassing to the Macs position, along with their employees.

The things that's always niggled me is why Gerry would be carrying his dead or comatosed or drugged child around the streets. If disposing of a corpse surely the more logical method would be to conceal it in something, like a sports bag? This aspect of the subject doesn't ring true to me and I think might well be the key to the truth about Smithman. As you rightly say, there is no way of knowing so it is all open to conjecture but I can't help but think, no matter what the Smiths did or didn't see, it was not Gerry carrying his child at that time on that night.

As Sharonl pointed out, TM are quite happy for anybody to go over the 3rd of May untill the end of time. it suits their agenda perfectly.
The Mobile traffic that week reveals a curious pattern of silence and intensive activity.
Over the whole week none of their statements stack up regarding their activities.

I can try and find the phone references - don't forget that they deleted all the calls from thrir mobile, except for one where Kate made a mistake, Gerry must have been ever so annoyed... Whole night was a disaster anyway as the man himself said.

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

Indeed! Intriguing how TM gloss over the entire week, with platitude such as routine, but manage to recollect Thursday 3rd in great detail. The very day they all deviated from that 'routine', for the most part leaving Kate and Gerry to do their own thing.

Thanks for the link, I will read when I have more time.

by HelenMeg 25.09.14 12:30

Did she die on the 3rd May or not - it surely all boils down to that in the end?

So many things and theories convince me that she dies on the 3rd early evening and yet there are
other things that convince me she died earlier in the week - namely - the last photo / DP's visit to K seeing the kids like angels. I am torn over this. If we can discount death on the 3rd May then I think things will become clearer. If we cant then more difficult.

by **tigger** 25.09.14 12:31

Re the annual return of Martin Smith's company, I have it in PDF but haven't been able to copy and paste. I will try to do it tommorrow so that it can be seen by all.

by HelenMeg 25.09.14 12:33

HelenMeg wrote:Did she die on the 3rd May or not - it surely all boils down to that in the end?

So many things and theories convince me that she dies on the 3rd early evening and yet there are
other things that convince me she died earlier in the week - namely - the last photo / DP's visit to K seeing the kids like angels. I am torn over this. If we can discount death on the 3rd May then I think things will become clearer. If we cant then more difficult.

I always come back down to 'when did the behaviour start to deviate from normal'... but since we are being fed a load of confusion and lies from the Tapas 9 it is very difficult to tell. However - the phone records dont lie.

by HelenMeg 25.09.14 12:34

Remember the game - pin a tail on the donkey' or something like that.....

If you had to pin the Time of Death on a Calendar - and only had the mobile phone records as clues - where would you pin the time of death?
and I apologise as Ive gone off at a tangent from this thread's title. sorry.

by j.rob 25.09.14 13:36

HelenMeg wrote:Did she die on the 3rd May or not - it surely all boils down to that in the end?

So many things and theories convince me that she dies on the 3rd early evening and yet there are
other things that convince me she died earlier in the week - namely - the last photo / DP's visit to K seeing the kids like angels. I am torn over this. If we can discount death on the 3rd May then I think things will become clearer. If we cant then more difficult.

Unless Madeleine had a catastrophic accident/drug overdose or was grievously assaulted she is unlikely to have died instantly. Healthy four year olds (I know some suggest she was not healthy but even a sickly four year old is unlikely to just die suddenly) tend not to just drop down dead. The type of accident that can kill a child tends to happen in situations like road accidents where there is speed and high impact collision. Even if an adult lost their temper, say, and struck out, it would have to be a very heavy blow I would imagine to kill a four year old outright.

Horrible thoughts but I am just trying to be realistic. Four year olds very rarely just drop dead overnight. That would be extremely unusual.

Say she was overdosed on sedatives, for instance, again I think that it would not be a sudden death. If you read some of the reports on children who have been accidentally overdosed on sedatives, nearly all recover with appropriate timely medical care and treatment. (And I imagine some recover even without any treatment.)

So, to my mind, the really important time and day is the one where *something happened/something was done/something was not done* to Madeleine. I think that after this event whatever it was and whenever it was (Saturday, Sunday or Monday, imo) a sequence of events took place, a series of decisions were made which ultimately lead to her demise. I have a nagging suspicion that it is possible that the outcome could have been different (as a doctor might say) if the circumstances had been different.

But TM did not want a giant can of worms being uncovered. Which is what could have happened if it came to light what had happened to Madeleine that week. The scale of the cover-up can only be explained by the absolute necessity to keep the worm can firmly hidden, imo. And I think this may have involved making at least one sacrifice - possibly an unfortunate phrase given the speculation that has arisen around this case.

Madeleine's death could have been on the 3rd May, imo. I used to think that she could have died after 3rd May and her body brought back to the apartment while the Mcs decided what to do with it. But, as others have pointed out, the apartment was sealed off by police shortly after Madeleine's disappearance. But I guess that does not entirely rule out the scenario of Madeleine's body been brought back there while deciding what to do with it. For how long did police continue to carry out searches of OC and surrounding apartments etc after 3rd May I wonder? With all the high level support that was given to them so early on, perhaps TM thought that apartment 5A was some kind of 'safe house'.

TM were very keen to claim that Madeleine could have been whisked off thousands of miles away from Luz at the earliest opportunity, so clearly wanted the search a long way from home. Sightings from all over the world kept the spotlight far away from the scene of the crime.

And the fact that the Mcs remained near OC for so long suggests to me that Madeleine -whether dead or alive - was not that far away in the early days/weeks. This would be consistent with they (and/or their close friends) being responsible for what happened to Madeleine, imo. Criminals quite often tend to hang around the scene of the crime.

So while the media are following up sightings in Outer Mongolia, TM are attempting a damage-limitation exercise.

And I agree that the sniffer dog alerts in the apartment, in the garden near the apartment and in the car hired weeks after Madeleine's 'disappearance' provide compelling evidence. (Although I suppose it is not impossible that they are wrong or it was planted. I only mention that as this case is just so weird that practically anything is possible, imo.)

As for Smithman, it seems highly unlikely to have been Gerry carrying Madeleine unless there had been a monumental bodge-up. It could possibly have been someone carrying Madeleine to the emergency clinic down the road??

However I do think it is possible that it was staged. Someone who looked like Gerry carrying a child that could have been Madeleine just happened to conveniently walk past the Smith family of nine at a key time on a key date. (So the Smith family didn't really have to lie as such - this would be especially important in terms of keeping the story straight with the 12 year old - because they did see something.)

Something to hold back for a rainy day, perhaps. Something to keep TM on their toes?

Just a theory.

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

Why are there 17 similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?