Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 22:26

russiandoll wrote:When would Mr Smith have been aware from media reports that the little girl who had been abducted was dressed similarly to the child he saw, that she was age 3/4 and fair haired, making him sit up and take notice, when he had until that point of awareness seen what he thought was a father and child?

j.rob answered this up this same thread earlier this evening, as follows:

QUOTE j.rob

Ah. How interesting. Just digging around with timings here on the basis that timing is everything in life.

On 24th May 2007 the Portuguese police finally agree to an informal meeting with the McCanns at the British Consulate. 'To say that we were grateful to be given this 'special treatment (as it would be described by the Portuguese media) is a huge understatement' writes Kate on page 154 of Madeleine.

On 25th May 2007 the PJ finally release Jane's description of the man 'who in all probability carried Madeleine away'.

On 26th May 2007 Mr Smith goes to Portugal and gives a statement to police

UNQUOTE

by **sharonl** 06.06.14 22:32

Tony

Do we know at what point, Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith?

Who was present at this meeting?

Are there any other details?

by ultimaThule 06.06.14 22:33

BlueBag wrote:If Gerry was carrying Madeleine at that point, where does that leave the blue sports bag?

The blue sports bag is the key.

It is my belief it was contaminated and that's what the dog picked up in the wardrobe.

The McCanns don't like questions about the bag.

Try asking them.

Eddie's alert to cadaverine behind the sofa and by the wardrobe indicates that a dead body was at some time present in those locations, but it cannot be regarded as indication that death occurred in the apartment.

If death occurred elsewhere, the blue bag may have been used to collect the body and transport it to 5A where it was first hidden behind the sofa and then placed in the bedroom, either by the wardrobe or in it, before its onward journey to another temporary hiding place prior to being transported in the Scenic to its final destination.

by kevmack 06.06.14 22:37

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Mr Smith and his family are anything less than credible witnesses, and to be perfectly honest, this constant castigation (yes, I am using that word again)of the Smith's witness account, is just totally unfair, and in MY OPINION not based on anything, except an over analytical approach, which serves no purpose at all, except to create more confusion and detracts from what is known about the crime.

And I am already aware of the arguments for M Smith being a liar and as such have no need to have them repeated, but suffice it to say, that at this time, I have no reason to believe that Mr Smith and other members of his family did not give an honest account of what they had seen, albeit if they didn't make that report until they were all home in Ireland, and subsequently, the ID'ing of Gerry, until after the arguido status, simply because they had not seen Gerry in that particular situation until that day..well they had, but they didn't know it at the time. which I think is perfectly reasonable

And as for the whole Murat stuff, yes, Martin Smith probably had come across Murat on his visits to PdL, I come across people in my local environment all of the time..I don't know them as such, but I can say for certain, whether it was them or not, in the event of an incident, but while I could say, yes, I saw a guy, but that guy, the one currently suspected of being involved (remember Murat was made a suspect early days), Well it's definitely not him..does not mean I know him, or am trying to cover up for him in any way..just that yes, I've seen him around, and recognise him, but the guy I saw that night with the kid..defo not him...

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 22:42

sharonl wrote:Tony

Do we know at what point, Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith?

Who was present at this meeting?

Are there any other details?

The recent Sunday Times article informed us that Henri Exton, former Head of Undercover Operations at MI5, visited the Smiths in Ireland and drew up the e-fits, here's an extract:

“It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing…The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm. The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account. Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

Could the Smiths have produced these 2 e-fits? Of course not, they are e-fits of two different blokes, and in any case none of the Smiths, on their own admission, could have seen his face prroperly. It was

10.00pm
dark
poor street lighting
only saw him for a couple of seconds
admitted they would never recognise him again
etc. etc.

So although we cannot believe that the Smiths drew up these e-fits, I judge it likely that Exton is telling the truth in saying he visited the Smiths in Ireland.

We know Exton was part of a team of at least three people working under the Oakley International umbrella, Exton, Kevin Halligen, and Tom Craig-Harvey.

We know that they were hired by Brian Kennedy on behalf of the McCann Team.

So clearly this was a Brian Kennedy planned operation; what I can't recall is whether we know if Kennedy himself either spoke on the 'phone to, or visited, the Smiths.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 22:52

kevmack wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Mr Smith and his family are anything less than credible witnesses, and to be perfectly honest, this constant castigation (yes, I am using that word again) of the Smithss witness account, is just totally unfair, and in MY OPINION not based on anything, except an over analytical approach...

The whole rationale of this forum is to analyse all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and many lies have already been told surrounding this case. The success of this forum, now attracting tens of thousands of visits every day, is substantially down to the quality of the information, research, analysis and comment to be found here - thanks to the forum owner and the Mods.

All aspects of the 'Smith sighting' are being discussed here, and rightly so IMO, given that one of the Met's top police officers has told the nation unequivocally that he is the top suspect for having abducted Madeleine McCann.

Your appeal sounds a bit like: "Mr Smith said somehting. I believe him 100%. I am not even going to discuss the subject. And neither should anyone else". It is an attempt to close down free debate

Better, surely, to let a robust debate range widely, and see where the balance of the argument rests?

by kevmack 06.06.14 22:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
kevmack wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Mr Smith and his family are anything less than credible witnesses, and to be perfectly honest, this constant castigation (yes, I am using that word again) of the Smithss witness account, is just totally unfair, and in MY OPINION not based on anything, except an over analytical approach...
The whole rationale of this forum is to analyse all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and many lies have already been told surrounding this case. The success of this forum, now attracting tens of thousands of visits every day, is substantially down to the quality of the information, research, analysis and comment to be found here - thanks to the forum owner and the Mods.

All aspects of the 'Smith sighting' are being discussed here, and rightly so IMO, given that one of the Met's top police officers has told the nation unequivocally that he is the top suspect for having abducted Madeleine McCann.

Your appeal sounds a bit like: "Mr Smith said somehting. I believe him 100%. I am not even going to discuss the subject. And neither should anyone else". It is an attempt to close down free debate

Better, surely, to let a robust debate range widely, and see where the balance of the argument rests?

No Tony, I have read all of your arguments, and I disagree with you, and there is little room for debate, you have your opinion based on the way you have interpreted the information and other people, myself included have their opinion, based on their/my interpretation of the available information, and there is nothing currently to change my opinion, and the facts, over the years, have not changed, so I do not see myself, changing my opinion, any time soon.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 23:00

j.rob wrote:Just digging around with timings here on the basis that timing is everything in life.

On 24th May 2007 the Portuguese police finally agree to an informal meeting with the McCanns at the British Consulate. 'To say that we were grateful to be given this 'special treatment (as it would be described by the Portuguese media) is a huge understatement' writes Kate on page 154 of Madeleine.

On 25th May 2007 the PJ finally release Jane's description of the man 'who in all probability carried Madeleine away'.

On 26th May 2007 Mr Smith goes to Portugal and gives a statement to police

So how come, in her book, Kate writes that Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements?

'Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have influenced the other, remember - Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements.)'

You have brought a very significant factual issue to the forum, j.rob, thank you.

Clearly Kate made a bad mistake in this passage.

She got her dates wring.

Clearly, before any of the Smith family made their statements, they already knew what the description of the abductor was.

Clearly, this provides a rational explanation for why the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were near-identical, with as many has 17 similarities between them. The Smiths copied the existing description.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.14 23:02

kevmack wrote:
there is little room for debate

You must be joking!

Only now are we getting to the heart of the matter - how come the description of Smithman was near-identical to that of Tannerman?

What is the answer to that?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.06.14 23:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
kevmack wrote:
there is little room for debate
You must be joking!

Only now are we getting to the heart of the matter - how come the description of Smithman was near-identical to that of Tannerman?

What is the answer to that?

'Some other reason (what?)' it would appear.

by notlongnow 06.06.14 23:07

Find it hard to believe anyone would vouch for someone in a potential abduction of a small child.
I wouldn't do that for a good friend let alone someone who you see now and again in bars.

by kevmack 06.06.14 23:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
kevmack wrote:
there is little room for debate
You must be joking!

Only now are we getting to the heart of the matter - how come the description of Smithman was near-identical to that of Tannerman?

What is the answer to that?

Because Jane Tanner possibly did see Gerry remove Madeleine, in fact she could have been a look out, she inadvertently described, mostly Gerry, because that was what her inner mind was telling her, but she then remembered and changed it enough, longer hair, eventually morphing to full on George Harrison look a like, who of course is nothing like Gerry.

M Smith and his family, also saw Gerry carrying Madeleine, only they had no need to lie, so they described him as they remembered him..minus the long hair, mustache etc...I mean come on...comedy mustache, what the heck was Tanner thinking, talk about the archetypal bad guy

by CynicAl 06.06.14 23:16

SixMillionQuid wrote:
CynicAl wrote:Sorry, but its completely normal for witnesses to mundane events to connect them to a major incident nearby.

Smithman was out carrying a child like a father would at night in a tourist resort. He might have been rude and ignored people who spoke to him, but that's not a crime. Most people, other than busybodies, would file that away as irrelevent. And even if a kidnap had just been reported, I for one would not equate father-looking-guy and his sleepy daughter as the suspect making a getaway. Who would ever rationally conceive of kidnappers wandering through the streets with sleeping children? Kidnappers have getaway vehicles.

That's why Crimewatch even exists... To appeal to the people who were around the area at the time to jog their memories for mundane details, and the people calling in are doing EXACTLY what the Smith's did. No illogical, irrational conspiracy theory required.
If the event was so mundane why report it all?

EDIT: maybe it wasn't that mundane at all as one of the Smiths attempted to make conversation with this individual and received no response.

They're in a foreign country, in a tourist town and at 10pm in partial daylight spark up a passing conversation a guy hurrying to carry his sleeping daughter home.

Is he:

(a) not an english speaker
(b) too rushed to be bothered trying to be polite
(c) hoping his daughter doesn't get disturbed
(d) suspicious of boisterous Irish people
(e) all of the above
(f) a kidnapper forcibly stealing a child from a random tourist's apartment
(g) a murderer/sex offender carrying his victim to a piece of wasteland for disposal

I'll be honest, both at home and abroad I've been on both ends of that scenario, and received as well as given every shade of response. My mood isn't always Sunshine and Roses. I have never once associated the other person with a vile crime or dwelt on their response long enough to desire reportingthis person to the police.

Why raise it at all? Because hindsight can be a peculiar thing. Because playing something over in your mind when you don't need to can shift your perspective. Because human beings aren't predictable automatons.

by ShuBob 06.06.14 23:21

notlongnow wrote:Find it hard to believe anyone would vouch for someone in a potential abduction of a small child.
I wouldn't do that for a good friend let alone someone who you see now and again in bars.

Who vouched for who?

by notlongnow 06.06.14 23:22

If as some feel smith vouched for RM.

by CynicAl 06.06.14 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
j.rob wrote:Just digging around with timings here on the basis that timing is everything in life.

On 24th May 2007 the Portuguese police finally agree to an informal meeting with the McCanns at the British Consulate. 'To say that we were grateful to be given this 'special treatment (as it would be described by the Portuguese media) is a huge understatement' writes Kate on page 154 of Madeleine.

On 25th May 2007 the PJ finally release Jane's description of the man 'who in all probability carried Madeleine away'.

On 26th May 2007 Mr Smith goes to Portugal and gives a statement to police

So how come, in her book, Kate writes that Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements?

'Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have influenced the other, remember - Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements.)'
You have brought a very significant factual issue to the forum, j.rob, thank you.

Clearly Kate made a bad mistake in this passage.

She got her dates wring.

Clearly, before any of the Smith family made their statements, they already knew what the description of the abductor was.

Clearly, this provides a rational explanation for why the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were near-identical, with as many has 17 similarities between them. The Smiths copied the existing description.

You repeatedly assert your interpretations with the use of 'clearly'. If it was so 'clear' no one would need you to point it out, surely? Or are we all super-dense, and need to be spoonfed an irrational and illogical narrative?

by russiandoll 06.06.14 23:28

Clearly, before any of the Smith family made their statements, they already knew what the description of the abductor was.

Clearly, this provides a rational explanation for why the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were near-identical, with as many has 17 similarities between them. The Smiths copied the existing description.

That is one possibility. The other is that they then became aware that they had not seen an innocent father and child, but something linked to the abduction. So contacted the police. I find your assertions unclear and illogical.

Our views on this are irreconcilable and this is why CF said correctly the debate is pointless as it goes around in circles.

my head hurts... off to discuss elsewhere.

by ShuBob 06.06.14 23:28

notlongnow wrote:If as some feel smith vouched for RM.

As far as I know, Mr Smith said the man he and his family saw that night wasn't Murat.

I wouldn't call that vouching even using the loosest of translations for the word.

by View-from-Ireland 07.06.14 0:00

If anything the Smith sighting discredited the Tanner sighting as people always questioned why the man would be walking around with the child 45 minutes later.

I think it's quite clear from the website and everything we have seen from the McCanns over the years that the Smith sighting is something that never sat easily with them.

As for the Smiths themselves, two points.

One, if it's a fabrication they must have had a very good reason to lie. Who were they covering for, Murat? Possibly, but I personally don't see this myself as I feel Murat wasn't involved in the McCann plot and I trust the Smith version of the sighting. I can't imagine Martin Smith sat his family down and told them what they were supposed to have seen,imo they saw it.

Two. They certainly were not helpful to the McCanns, that is certain. Smith in the September of 2007 drew attention to the fact that the man he saw resembled Gerry. Surely if Smith had invented Smithman to get Murat off the hook, he wouldn't feel the need several months later to stir things up further by revealing that having seen Gerry on tv, there was a close resemblance to the man he and his family passed on the night of the disappearance.

It has been the McCanns who have confused this issue, not the Smiths. The McCanns tried to hone in on the similarities with Tannerman (alter Tannerman so that he was less Gerry like). Think about it, why would Smith have introduced the possibility Smithman was Gerry months later if he had invented the sighting to help Murat? He would have kept quiet as the job would have been done by then.

I think the Smith sighting is genuine and is something that is rightfully being focused on after years of the McCanns elevating Tannerman.

by Halfwit 07.06.14 0:47

I agree with CynicAl and View-from-Ireland.

I believe the Smiths reported what they briefly saw. I live in a small Spanish town (I call it a village) and in general at all times of day or night when you pass someone in an otherwise empty street you generally acknowledge each other. Sometimes I forget and don't because I have things on my mind.

As previous posters have said, the fact that the 12 year old girl noticed the buttons on the man's trousers is exactly the sort of detail that a girl of that age would be looking at. Smith parents in a relaxed mood would be doing the accepted thing and looking at the passer-by to give a brief acknowledgement.

I see nothing suspicious about their report.

Even if anyone ever gets to the root of this business I think it's utterly ridiculous to cast aspersions on this family who witnessed a passerby and reported their experience.

by cassius 07.06.14 1:01

Halfwit wrote:I agree with CynicAl and View-from-Ireland.

I believe the Smiths reported what they briefly saw. I live in a small Spanish town (I call it a village) and in general at all times of day or night when you pass someone in an otherwise empty street you generally acknowledge each other. Sometimes I forget and don't because I have things on my mind.

As previous posters have said, the fact that the 12 year old girl noticed the buttons on the man's trousers is exactly the sort of detail that a girl of that age would be looking at. Smith parents in a relaxed mood would be doing the accepted thing and looking at the passer-by to give a brief acknowledgement.

I see nothing suspicious about their report.

Even if anyone ever gets to the root of this business I think it's utterly ridiculous to cast aspersions on this family who witnessed a passerby and reported their experience.

Agreed.

by j.rob 07.06.14 14:16

Kate, on page 328 of her book, writes: "Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other remember - Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.

Given that everything Kate writes is there for a reason.

I think Kate's attempt to morph Tanner-man into Smith-man is patently desperate. I never found the two descriptions that similar at all. Tanner-man is of a Mediterranean appearance (very dark hair) whereas Smith-man is of a more British appearance - mid-brown hair, not very dark. That alone makes the descriptions quite different.

And the fact that she has included a sentence saying that the Irish witnesses could not have been influenced by Jane Tanner's description raises a red flag to me.

Apart from anything, Jane Tanner's 'Tanner-man' was made public on 25th May 2007 and the Smith's visited Portugal to give statements on the 26th May 2007. I presume the description was all over the papers during those two days. And given the considerable interest that the Smiths by now would have had in the case, surely it is inconceivable that they would not have seen the description of Tanner-man?

In any event, it is patently not true that Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements. Jane's 'Tanner-man' was made public on 25th May 2007. Kate's written that on page 154 of her book.

And it is on police record, in black and white, that the Smith family travelled to Portugal and spent all day being interviewed by police on 26th May 2007.

And is anyone going to tell me that during that entire day, at no time did the Smith family refer to the not public 'Tanner-man' . I imagine that the Smith family would have had considerable interest in the 'Tanner-man' sighting from the moment it was made public.

Or from the moment that they may have been made aware of Jane Tanner's description which (and I'm not sure how police investigations work but someone might know) could possibly be before Tanner-man was made public.

After all, the Smiths spoke to the Portuguese police I think around 2 weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably at the time that the Smiths first spoke to police, the police would have been very keen indeed to establish whether the Smith sighting bore any resemblance to Jane Tanners sighting.

We know that the Portuguese police did not find Jane Tanner a particularly convincing witness. And they held back publishing Jane's description for just over three weeks. Presumably because they did not have much faith in it.

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

by j.rob 07.06.14 14:21

And is anyone going to tell me that during that entire day, at no time did the Smith family refer to the not public 'Tanner-man' . I imagine that the Smith family would have had considerable interest in the 'Tanner-man' sighting from the moment it was made public.

Oops - that should read NOW public. The point being, that even if they had not been aware of Jane Tanner's description before it was made public, surely they would be aware of it AFTER it was made public?

by kevmack 08.06.14 1:56

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.

this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi. Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.

There was an altercation in the street next to where I live, a couple of months ago, someone tried to grab a handbag from an elderly woman, they failed to get the bag as the woman shouted out, and lots of people turned round, so he legged it, now I didn't see his face at all, just his clothing, height, hairstyle etc, but if the police were appealing for witnesses and had arrested one of the guys who works on the fruit and veg stand in the street, I would have contacted them, given them the bit of info that I had, but would have been categorically able to say that the fruit and veg guy was not the perp...don't know him, buy some veggies from him from time to time, but don't even know his name, yet, if I thought he had been arrested for the attempted mugging, I would definitely have to say something about what I saw, and the fact that although I didn't have very much useful information, that I could be sure that it wasn't the person who they currently had under suspicion.

I really don't understand why M Smith being able to say it wasn't Murat is that big of a deal when you put in in perspective, the example I gave above is just one of many potential scenarios, perhaps the Smiths didn't think that much about what they saw and the time and it wasn't until later, and they saw Murat being splashed across the media that they thought...well hang on, yes we did see a bloke with a kid that night, but it sure as heck wasn't Murat.

by SixMillionQuid 08.06.14 7:56

kevmack wrote:
It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.

this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi. Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.

In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

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

He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.

by kevmack 08.06.14 15:43

SixMillionQuid wrote:
kevmack wrote:
It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, the Smiths were motivated by helping Murat. Mr Smith must know him reasonably well if he could state with conviction that the man they all saw was NOT Robert Murat. You could not be that definite if it was just a slight acquaintance or if he hadn't seen him quite recently. Especially as it was dark.

this I totally disagree with, I see people on a regular day to day basis and could easily pick them out in a crowd,regardless of the lighting level, but I don't know anything about them, let alone have any desire to provide them with an alibi. Murat had already been made an arguido by the time M Smith gave his statement, and like I said previously, although he and his family did not fully see the person as he passed (or they would probably have told the PJ that is was GM at the time) they could be sure that it was not Murat...There is nothing sinister about that at all.
In Mr Smiths statement of 26th May 2007 he wasn't asked whether it was Murat.

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

He added that line in himself. If you're not asked the question why make the comment? He's obviously trying to defend Murat. But before this comment he states

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

Ok you dont know the person to identify them. But he's also saying even if you shoved a photo under his nose he would not be able to tell whether this is the person he saw or not. So it makes me wonder how was he 70%- 80% certain it was GM when he saw him getting off a plane in the BBC news. As far as I know he wasn't carrying a child in a way different to any other father would carry their two year old. So it must have been something else that made him believe it was GM and not any other father carrying their 2 year old in PdL.

I think some people on that holiday knew each other far more than they've been letting on.

He didn't need to be asked though, he would be well aware of all of the news reports by that time, naming Murat as an arguido, and like in the example I gave above, if, after witnessing an event, and knowing that someone was being accused of the crime, when the person I saw was definitely not the person I had witnessed committing the crime, then I would offer that information to the police myself.

by Guest 08.06.14 17:40

Trying to recognise a so far unknown person from photos, is quite different from recognising [60-80%] someone in a line-up [which is comparable to seeing some on television]. To be honest, I would sometimes not even recognise myself from a photo ... winkwink

by Woofer 08.06.14 18:22

"http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. "

So there are occasions when RM does not wear glasses.

by j.rob 08.06.14 19:24

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

It's quite a long time from August 2006 until May 2007. Murat's appearance could have changed.

When I first read the comment above, I assumed that 'he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time,' was referring to Martin Smith! Which could have suggested that Martin Smith hadn't been able to see Murat very well on that particular occasion.

If it is Martin Smith referring to Murat, it is a slightly odd thing to say, imo. Given that the purpose of what he is saying to police is to give an indication of how well he knew Murat, how often he had seen him, when he had seen him and so on.

In other words to indicate the degree of accuracy with which he would be able to state that the man he saw was or was not Robert Murat. Presumably, the police would be interested in finding out how well the Smith family knew Robert Murat. (And if they knew the McCanns and/or any of their friends). Because that would indicate whether their testimony was entirely unbiased.

I am not necessarily suggesting their testimony was unbiased. I am simply pointing out that it is important to try to establish whether witnesses have any other agenda.

Unless he knew Robert reasonably well, or had seen him more recently, surely he couldn't know for sure whether Murat had changed his appearance since the summer of 2006.

In which case, would it not have been a bit more realistic to introduce a slight element of uncertainty as in: 'pretty sure it was not Murat. But can't be 100% as I only met him twice and it was last year.

If it was me, I would not state with absolute conviction something like that unless

1. I knew the person well.
2. I had seem them recently so had an up-to-date picture of what they looked like in my mind.
3. Lighting and views were very good and unobscured by darkness etc.

But that's just me.