Re: CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

by Guest 17.11.13 18:47

NSA being in the spotlight so much these days; isn't there anything they could do?

Produce telephone records/conversations; bank accounts, maybe, just maybe criminal records?

They seem to know everything, maybe here too?

by Lance De Boils 17.11.13 19:24

"Back to zero" is indeed a very vague term.

It could be taken as back to...

...when Madeleine was conceived,
...when the holiday was first suggested/booked,
...when they left home for the airport at the start of the holiday.

"Accepting nothing" is more positive in terms of the investigation, though, imo. To me, that says not taking anything anyone has said for granted. Believing nothing without evidence to back it up.

If I was running the investigation "from zero", I'd want proof of Madeleine's parentage. Proof that she even went to Portugal with them. Proof that she was alive and well on the morning of 3rd May.

I'd want proof of bloody everything.

by Mirage 17.11.13 20:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.
I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RW3nDRmu6k

A very good place!

by Mirage 17.11.13 20:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.
I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RW3nDRmu6k

by canada12 17.11.13 20:53

I posted this on the Libel trial thread in response to the beginnings of a discussion about Martin Smith, but I've realized it's likely relevant here too.

In the CW show, Martin Smith's name is never actually mentioned. He's not identified. All that Redwood says is that it was an Irish family.

The transcript is on this thread.

Now I realize the likelihood of there being two Irish families, in that same general area at the same general time spotting Smithman carrying Madeleine, is remote... but if SY can come up with an unnamed holidaymaker to who matches Tannerman's description... what's to stop them from being a bit cagey and only inferring it's the Smith family they're talking about?

And then watching what goes on behind the scenes in order to try and discredit Martin Smith.

Just a thought.
.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 21:10

canada12 wrote:I posted this on the Libel trial thread in response to the beginnings of a discussion about Martin Smith, but I've realised it's likely relevant here too.

In the CW show, Martin Smith's name is never actually mentioned. He's not identified. All that Redwood says is that it was an Irish family.

The transcript is on this thread.

Now I realise the likelihood of there being two Irish families, in that same general area at the same general time spotting Smithman carrying Madeleine, is remote...but if SY can come up with an unnamed holidaymaker who matches Tannerman's description...what's to stop them from being a bit cagey and only inferring it's the Smith family they're talking about?

And then watching what goes on behind the scenes in order to try and discredit Martin Smith.

Just a thought.

So, you are basically accusing Redwood of possibly being cagey and devious...and then 'watching behind the scenes'.

The entire thrust of Crimewatch was: 'Don't look there, look here', meaning the Smiths' sighting.

He is telling the world: "The Smiths saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach".

There are IMO so many reasons why the alleged sighting by the Smith family deserves to be put under a powerful microscope.

And, let's face it, no person who genuinely saw someone would object to their evidence being put under scrutiny.

I've written about this enough on the forum already, so would only be repeating myself, but I do have one more question about Martin Smith.

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

by Guest 17.11.13 21:18

dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?

Bingo.

by canada12 17.11.13 21:37

Tony Bennett wrote:So, you are basically accusing Redwood of possibly being cagey and devious...and then 'watching behind the scenes'.

The entire thrust of Crimewatch was: 'Don't look there, look here', meaning the Smiths' sighting.

He is telling the world: "The Smiths saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach".

There are IMO so many reasons why the alleged sighting by the Smith family deserves to be put under a powerful microscope.

And, let's face it, no person who genuinely saw someone would object to their evidence being put under scrutiny.

I've written about this enough on the forum already, so would only be repeating myself, but I do have one more question about Martin Smith.

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

Well, I think "accusing" is the wrong word to use, in this case. I think "suggesting he might be cagey and devious" might be a more appropriate phrase, without anything negative attached to it. In fact I would think, if he had used these tactics, then it would be clever of him.

He's told the world that an Irish family saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach.

Who, in the audience, would automatically assume it was the Smith family? Only those familiar enough with the case to know about the sighting in the first place, and then of those, only those who knew the Smiths had made statements to that effect.

I'm not necessarily at odds with you, Tony... I'm suggesting another tack that SY might be taking in order to suss out people who might have a vested interest in interfering with the investigation :-).

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 21:43

dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?

Many things in this world are possible.

Many are also impossible.

Whether we think JT may have seen a bloke on his own carrying a child in pyjamas past G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May would appear to depend on the degree of trust you have that Redwood is telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the bloke who went about all week in a dark jacket and light trousers.

And didn't use one of the available buggies and didn't care enough to put a blanket over his child

by russiandoll 17.11.13 23:10

Tony I never thought I would say this about you of all people..........you are beginning to sound like Textusa !

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

No bad thing but please don't start writing War and Peace like the sisters do over there !

by Gillyspot 18.11.13 8:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?
Many things in this world are possible.

Many are also impossible.

Whether we think JT may have seen a bloke on his own carrying a child in pyjamas past G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May would appear to depend on the degree of trust you have that Redwood is telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the bloke who went about all week in a dark jacket and light trousers.

And didn't use one of the available buggies and didn't care enough to put a blanket over his child

Should Jane Tanner have actually seen anyone (which I still sadly doubt) then WHY was he walking in the wrong direction if he was returning from the creche or was he late (very) in taking his child TO the creche?

murat - CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice? - Page 4 Creche

murat - CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice? - Page 4 Creche

Credit to Textusa for this image

CW seems to have forgotten their professionalism in this McCann show.

No mention of hair colour/style of Smithman
No mention of height of Smithman
No mention of clothing (particularly cream trousers - possibly with buttons).

Obviously Smithman wouldn't be wearing these clothes today but if CW really wanted to JOG someones memory then they could at least have shared these vital bits of information.

Only my opinion of course

Apologies if all this has been covered before (admin feel free to delete if this is so).

by Guest 18.11.13 8:53

From Gillyspot
"Should Jane Tanner have actually seen anyone (which I still sadly doubt) then WHY was he walking in the wrong direction if he was returning from the creche or was he late (very) in taking his child TO the creche?"

Exactly. So why did Redwood show us the photograph of "Tannerman" facing the direction away from the direction in which he should have been walking, but in the direction JT said she saw him? Did he try to mislead 6 million people, or was "Tannerman" on a little jaunt around PdL prior to going home for the night.? If this was the case it should have been stated in the program where he was going. They certainly need to clear this point up before any more great "revelation moments". Otherwise the white paint will be washed off in the first rain.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 9:09

russiandoll wrote:Tony I never thought I would say this about you of all people....you are beginning to sound like Textusa!

russiandoll, I have to hand it to you!

Your timing is impeccable!

The very next post on the thread, after the above, was Gillyspot reproducing a brilliant piece of analysis, complete with aerial photo, by...

Textusa

by russiandoll 18.11.13 9:36

well, Tony... are you going to be less cryptic and explain your q re MS forgetting the spectacles or forgetting where he had put them ? !

Intrigued . com !

by Lance De Boils 18.11.13 9:55

I think TB is referring to the part in Smith's statement where he says he'd met Murat previously, but he didn't wear his glasses then. [My paraphrasing.]

My reading is that he meant Murat didn't used to wear glasses.

TB reads it that Smith wasn't wearing his glasses. Forgive me if I've got that wrong, Tony.

by Guest 18.11.13 10:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:IMO the Smiths couldn't give detailed e-fits, they all said they wouldn't be able to regonize this person from a photograph or in person.

The strange thing is how can Martin Smith say it wasn't Robert Murat?
As I will analyse in more detail in my 16-part article on Martin Smith (see here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8527-martin-o-smith-a-short-biography-of-the-man-who-said-he-saw-a-bloke-carrying-a-young-barefoot-blonde-girl-wearing-only-pyjamas-who-didnt-look-like-a-tourist-at-about-1000pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007-and-who-invented-the-gimmee

...he seems to have been evasive about his relationship with Murat.

Take these four statements, in date order:

26 May 2007 - Martin Smith’s statement to the PJ

“He would have recognised Murat ‘instantly’. He had met him in Praia da Luz bars in May and August the previous year…”

8 August 2007 - press report, Drogheda Independent
Peter Smith: “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My Dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said Mr Smith [Peter]”.

4 January 2008 - SKYNews

“An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat…Mr Smith 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…”
10 August 2008 - Irish Mail

In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them on 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”.

++++++++++

I am not sure Martin Smith has been candid about the extent of his relationship with Robert Murat.

To this we must add the following:

He has bought an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex in Praia da Luz with his friend Liam O_____.

He appears to have bougt in back in 2005.

He admits to visiting Praia da Luz 'at least three times a year'.

He may well have met with Murat since the date Madeleine was reported missing.

Further, how unlucky was it that on the very night when he might have seen Madeleine's abductor, he wasn't wearing his glasses!

Another reason, surely, for asking searching questions about his evidence.

I'm not sure I see what's inconsistent about Martin Smith's statements highlighted here. He consistently says that he has met Murat several times. By contrast, his son states that his father met Murat only once, a year previously. Peter Smith's statement may quite easily have been a sincerely held impression that happened to be wrong - after all, one would expect the father to know better how often he had met someone than the son, who probably wasn't there.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 10:15

russiandoll wrote:well, Tony...are you going to be less cryptic and explain your question re Martin Smith forgetting the spectacles or forgetting where he had put them?!

russiandoll, it is I who am mystified by your claiming that my question about Martin Smith not wearing his glasses on the evening of 3 May was in any way 'cryptic'. It is certainly not my style.

We have these facts from the mouth of Martin Smith himself:

Fact 1: I normally wear glasses

Fact 2: I wasn't wearing glasses on the evening of 3 May (and of course he has never told us why).

So, I hope helpfully as always, I have put forward two alternative scenarios:

Scenario 1: "He forgot his glasses"

In this scenario, Martin Smith has simply forgotten, as he went out of the door, that he hadn't got his glasses on. It could have happened like this:

(a) he had had a shower before going out with his family to the Dolphin Restaurant, was a bit late, and in the rush as he put on his shirt, jacket and trousers etc., he simply forgot to put his glasses back on...

or maybe like this:

(b) he was sunbathing, had taken his glasses off and put them on a nearby table, and again in the rush to go out to the Dolphin, forgot about putting them on.

Scenario 2: "He forgot where he put his glasses"

Suppose Martin Smith had put his glasses down somewhere, for what reason, we don't know. It could have been (a) taking a shower or bath as above (b) sunbathing as above or (c) going for a swim or (d) reading close print and not having any reading glasses or (e) to clean his glasses or (f) for some other reason.

Then, he gets ready to go out the Dolphin. He then notices that he hasn't got his glasses on but can't remember where he's put them. He has a look. He can't find them. He has another search. No result. He calls his wife, Mary: "Mary, have you seen my glasses, darling?" Mary: "No dear, where were you earlier this afternoon?" Martin: "Oh well, I'll have to go out without them".

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

These are relevant facts in evaluating Martin Smith's 'sighting' that night:

1. It was dark (as the Smiths admit)

2. There was poor lighting (as the Smiths admit)

3. They couldn't see him properly because 'his head was down'

4. They couldn't see him properly because the child was said to be covering his head anyway, and

5. He didn't have his glasses on.

How any of the Smiths produced two efits, never mind one, on that basis, beats me

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 10:21

Popcorn wrote:
I'm not sure I see what's inconsistent about Martin Smith's statements highlighted here. He consistently says that he has met Murat several times. By contrast, his son states that his father met Murat only once, a year previously. Peter Smith's statement may quite easily have been a sincerely held impression that happened to be wrong - after all, one would expect the father to know better how often he had met someone than the son, who probably wasn't there.

Then why doesn't he say, when first questioned:

"I know Murat very well, in fact I've known him for two years.

"I come to Praia da Luz at least three times a year and have met him on several occasions.

"When I saw this bloke, it may have been dark, it may be I only saw him for a second or two, it may be that the lighting was poor, it may be that he had his head down, it may be that the child he was carrying covered his face, but I know Murat so well that I absolutely knew it wasn't Murat.

"I'm sorry it took me 13 days to tell you about this sighting, by the way - but my son Peter 'phoned me up on 16 May and asked me: 'Dad, Am I dreaming or something? Did we see someone carrying a child on 3 May?'

"And only then did it dawn on me. I remembered that I'd seen someone".

by Guest 18.11.13 10:26

I can't remember where I read that Robert Murat is blind in one eye, uses a contact lense instead of glasses.

Is it possible that Martin Smith actually saw Robert Murat that evening carrying a child and that's why he states it wasn't Robert Murat, so taking Murat out of the picture?

by Guest 18.11.13 10:31

Cherry Blossom wrote:I can't remember where I read that Robert Murat is blind in one eye, uses a contact lense instead of glasses.

Is it possible that Martin Smith actually saw Robert Murat that evening carrying a child and that's why he states it wasn't Robert Murat, so taking Murat out of the picture?

It would be fascinating to know the identity of Smithman if only to find out if he is known to Smith or not - whoever he might happen to be.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 10:36

Cherry Blossom wrote:I can't remember where I read that Robert Murat is blind in one eye, uses a contact lense instead of glasses.

Is it possible that Martin Smith actually saw Robert Murat that evening carrying a child and that's why he states it wasn't Robert Murat, so taking Murat out of the picture?

Extremely unlikely for a whole varierty of reasons. But this sequence of events might just be relevant:

3 May 2007

7pm-9pm approx: The Smiths say they were dining in Dolphins Restaurant, Praia da Luz with their family, who consisted of Martin and Mary Smith, his son Peter and his wife Sile [Sheila] and two children (Tadgh aged 13, and Cole, 6), his youngest child, Aoife (aged 12), and two other grandchildren (Aisling aged 10, and Eimar, 4) from his daughter Barbara.

9pm approx. to 9.55pm The Smiths say they were drinking in Kelly’s Bar, Praia da Luz.

9.55pm The Smiths say they left to return to their apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex, Praia da Luz. They say they paid for their drinks on leaving and later there are claims of a bar receipt for the drinks at 9.55pm

10.00pm The Smith say they saw a man carrying a child. They said they had just climbed some steps on the way from Kelly’s bar to the Estrela da Luz complex and saw him walk down the Rue da Escola Primaria.

4 May

The Smiths stayed in Praia da Luz but none of them thought about reporting their ‘sighting’ to the police.

5 May

The Smiths stayed in Praia da Luz but none of them thought about reporting their ‘sighting’ to the police.

6 May

The Smiths stayed in Praia da Luz but none of them thought about reporting their ‘sighting’ to the police.

7 May

The Smiths stayed in Praia da Luz but none of them thought about reporting their ‘sighting’ to the police.

8 May

The Smiths stayed in Praia da Luz but none of them thought about reporting their ‘sighting’ to the police.

9 May

The Smiths flew back to Ireland.

9 to 15 May

For a further 7 days, none of the Smiths – now back in Ireland - thought about giving details of their sighting to the Portuguese Police.

13 May

Jane Tanner tells police that when Robert Murat walks past a police van which has a two-way mirror, she is adamant that he is the person she said she saw at 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May.

14 May

Robert Murat is pulled in for questioning and made an arguido in a blaze of publicity.

15 May

Rachael Mamphilly/Oldfield, Russell O’Brien and Fiona Payne all make statements to the Portuguese Police that they are certain that they saw Robert Murat hanging around near the ocean Club on the evening of 3 May 2007.

16 May 2007

Martin Smith eventually reports his sighting to the Portuguese Police

Martin Smith says that he gets a telephone call from his son, Peter. He says: “We were home two weeks [actually 13 days] 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".

At this time, no information about the possible sighting by Jane Tanner has yet been announced.

Martin Smith claimed in one interview that it was his son, Peter, who prompted him to call the Portuguese police about the family’s claimed ‘sighting’ of a man carrying a child. He said: “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".

That statement, taken at face value, is significant for a number of reasons. If correct, Peter is reported as saying that he wasn’t sure if he was dreaming or if he really did see someone. How he and his father can then go on to (apparently) remember so many details about the man and the child raises question marks about the evidence of Martin and Peter Smith.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 10:40

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
It would be fascinating to know the identity of Smithman if only to find out if he is known to Smith or not - whoever he might happen to be.

Clay Regazzoni

Suppose there really is a 'Smithman' who is entirely innocent i.e. was not carrying Madeleine McCann, but was, at 10.00pm, really carrying a blonde girl through the streets of Praia da Luz.

The Martin Smith sighting was made public in early June 2007.

How likley is it that the man would not immediately come forward?

by Guest 18.11.13 10:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
Popcorn wrote:
I'm not sure I see what's inconsistent about Martin Smith's statements highlighted here. He consistently says that he has met Murat several times. By contrast, his son states that his father met Murat only once, a year previously. Peter Smith's statement may quite easily have been a sincerely held impression that happened to be wrong - after all, one would expect the father to know better how often he had met someone than the son, who probably wasn't there.
Then why doesn't he say, when first questioned:

"I know Murat very well, in fact I've known him for two years.

"I come to Praia da Luz at least three times a year and have met him on several occasions.

"When I saw this bloke, it may have been dark, it may be I only saw him for a second or two, it may be that the lighting was poor, it may be that he had his head down, it may be that the child he was carrying covered his face, but I know Murat so well that I absolutely knew it wasn't Murat.

"I'm sorry it took me 13 days to tell you about this sighting, by the way - but my son Peter 'phoned me up on 16 May and asked me: 'Dad, Am I dreaming or something? Did we see someone carrying a child on 3 May?'

"And only then did it dawn on me. I remembered that I'd seen someone".

I'm just pointing out that the statements you highlighted about his knowing (or not knowing) Murat are not inconsistent.
When first questioned, why would he automatically say that he knew Murat? From the examples given above, it doesn't necessarily mean they were close friends, just that he was someone he knew vaguely just from visiting the same bars on occasion in a very small town. Kate and Gerry McCann 'knew' Jez Wilkins - and they were only holidaymakers staying in PdL for a week! Wasn't Martin Smith just being asked about the man he saw rather than who he didn't see?
I think it's possible to walk past someone and not take in a great deal of detail, while still being reasonably certain it isn't somebody you know personally. I'm not trying to be argumentative here but that's what I think. I have an open mind about the Smiths and their evidence.

by Guest 18.11.13 10:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
It would be fascinating to know the identity of Smithman if only to find out if he is known to Smith or not - whoever he might happen to be.
Clay Regazzoni

Suppose there really is a 'Smithman' who is entirely innocent i.e. was not carrying Madeleine McCann, but was, at 10.00pm, really carrying a blonde girl through the streets of Praia da Luz.

The Martin Smith sighting was made public in early June 2007.

How likley is it that the man would not immediately come forward?

Only two explanations really - either he's a) not entirely innocent, or b) he never existed.

It's worth mentioning that I have in my head a set of circumstances which makes Tannerman legit, however.

I see this as a spat between two parties, being played out through the media. Smithman serves no purpose, to me, other than to put the boot into Gerry McCann. Possible reasons being, in diminishing order of likelyhood, a) It was Gerry, b) Get Murat off the hook, c) Get an actual Smithman - who also happened to be known to Smith - off the hook, or c) Smith's got it in for Gerry for some other unknown reason.

What I can't understand, if he's not entirely on the level, is how he got the whole family to go along with it.

by plebgate 18.11.13 10:57

How can anybody who is only 60-80% sure and didn't have their glasses on ever be a witness in any trial?

CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

Is DCI Andy Redwood sincere in believing the Smiths were capable of providing two efits of the man they said they saw?