Mr Smith's evidence has remained the same throughout. Somehow an unsubstantiated rumour that he had changed his mind became, for some, the truth.
Some are arguing that Gemma O'Doherty's story is unsubstantiated also. I can think of reasons why certain people might want to suggest that Smith had changed his mind and feed that story to the media. I can think of no reason why a lone journalist, 5 years later, would want to invent a story refuting that rumour.
It doesn't actually matter anyway, because the truth is that Mr Smith made his position perfectly clear in October 2013 and there's absolutely no evidence that he ever changed it;
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Mr Smith and his son cooperated with detectives employed by Kate and Gerry McCann, in the production of efits of the man they passed in the street on the 3rd May 2007.
Why would Mr Smith waste time doing that if he was sure of his identification ... everyone by that time knew what Gerry McCann looked like in still, movie and sound. All he had to do was pick a photo ... any photo ... from that week's editions. But instead he chose to produce an efit.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof and in my opinion Mr Smith should perhaps consider doing what Angelo suggests and go public.
Just as in my opinion, the damaged Ms O'Doherty should attempt to retrieve something resembling professionalism rather than digging a deeper trench in the bog into which she has mired herself.
