Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[faithlilly]

We have had claims on this forum, most recently from ferryman, that Martin Smith has latterly changed his opinion that the man he saw on the night of the 3rd was more than likely Gerry McCann. I have been unable to find any evidence for this other than the unattributed claim below which appeared in the now discredited Sunday Times Insights article.

"Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility"

Is there any other evidence that Martin Smith has indeed changed his opinion and also if he has flip flopped so much in his identification why did SY use the efit constructed from his evidence as the centrepiece for their Crimewatch appeal ?

[ShiningInLuz]

why did SY use the efit constructed from his evidence as the centrepiece for their Crimewatch appeal ?

At the moment I am struggling on this simple point, let alone whether Martin Smith flip-flopped.

[faithlilly]

At the moment I am struggling on this simple point, let alone whether Martin Smith flip-flopped.

Not sure why you struggling. Weren't the efits constructed by the Smith family, and almost certainly Martin's, recollections ?

[stephen25000]

Then of course we have Brian Kennedy, who 'contacted' Mr. Smith.

That could be viewed as interfering with a key witness.

[jassi]

Then of course we have Brian Kennedy, who 'contacted' Mr. Smith.

That could be viewed as interfering with a key witness.

One must hope that SY have quizzed Mr Kennedy over his deep interest in this case.

[ShiningInLuz]

Not sure why you struggling. Weren't the efits constructed by the Smith family, and almost certainly Martin's, recollections ?

I am not struggling as to the source of such e-fits.  I think it is an FOI that attributes them to two members of an Irish family (without actually naming that Irish family as the Smiths).

I am not questioning the motives of the Smith family.  I would be interested in the who, when and how of the process.  On when, we have it that it was 8 months or more, possibly a year later.

E-fits made very quickly after such an event are reputed to be useful in about 20% of cases.  E-fits made 2 days after such an event are reputed to be almost worthless.

So I am struggling to understand why OG would run with e-fits made 8 to 12 months after the event.  Given they had the statements saying those Smith members would not be able to recognise the man again, why place any reliance in e-fits?

The media in Portugal were left to their own devices when reporting Crimewatch and the e-fits - they were not managed.  I have not done a comprehensive survey of every media source.  Those I have seen simplify Smithman to being OG's new suspect.  They omitted the part Redwood noted, that Smithman may well have an entirely innocent explanation.

Basically, if Smithman is an innocent local or an innocent Portuguese man, he has been highly incentivised to NOT reveal who he is.

All in all, a bit of a disaster for the effort in Portugal.

[jassi]

I am not struggling as to the source of such e-fits.  I think it is an FOI that attributes them to two members of an Irish family (without actually naming that Irish family as the Smiths).

I am not questioning the motives of the Smith family.  I would be interested in the who, when and how of the process.  On when, we have it that it was 8 months or more, possibly a year later.

E-fits made very quickly after such an event are reputed to be useful in about 20% of cases.  E-fits made 2 days after such an event are reputed to be almost worthless.

So I am struggling to understand why OG would run with e-fits made 8 to 12 months after the event.  Given they had the statements saying those Smith members would not be able to recognise the man again, why place any reliance in e-fits?

The media in Portugal were left to their own devices when reporting Crimewatch and the e-fits - they were not managed.  I have not done a comprehensive survey of every media source.  Those I have seen simplify Smithman to being OG's new suspect.  They omitted the part Redwood noted, that Smithman may well have an entirely innocent explanation.

Basically, if Smithman is an innocent local or an innocent Portuguese man, he has been highly incentivised to NOT reveal who he is.

All in all, a bit of a disaster for the effort in Portugal.

Simple - they were produced for display on a television programme and television requires something, well, visual. 

[faithlilly]

According to this direct quote from Martin Smith at the time of the Crimewatch appeal it would seem to he has certainly not change his mind with regard to his sighting.


"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.”

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

[Alfred R Jones]

If Smith was so sure the guy he saw was Gerry McCann then why didn't he hand a copy of Gerry's photo to the police and say "here - copy this for your e-fit"?  Or perhaps he did, and the guy who operates the e-fit was only partially sighted.

[G-Unit]

Redwood unveiled the e-fits on Crimewatch. He gave the impression they were produced by two of the Smiths.

Then the Oakley people spoke to the Sunday Times. The gist of what they said was that they had produced the e-fits and a report, which they gave to the McCanns in November 2008. Obviously they kept a copy which, Exton said, they were  told to keep confidential and threatened by lawyers if they didn't do that. His direct quote was;

“A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” The article went on to say 'He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund'.

The Sunday Times claimed to have seen the report which said there were serious inconsistencies in Jane Tanners evidence and “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends. It concluded that “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

So what did the McCanns deny and ask for the Sunday Times to correct? They denied that they kept the e-fits secret, saying they passed them to LP and the PJ by October 2009. They also said they passed the report and the e-fits to the Met in August 2011.

What did the McCanns not deny? They didn't deny what the report contained, they didn't deny the legal threats made and they didn't deny giving SY written permission to get the information from the PI's.

So if SY got written permission to get the report and e-fits from the Oakley investigators, why did they need to do that if they already had the e-fits which had been given to LP, and the report and the e-fits which the McCanns gave them in August 2011?

Why did the PI's decide to speak out? Did the legal threats no longer apply? Although the e-fits had now emerged into the public sphere, they also chose to give the report to the Times, with all it's ramifications.

[Mr Gray]

Redwood unveiled the e-fits on Crimewatch. He gave the impression they were produced by two of the Smiths.

Then the Oakley people spoke to the Sunday Times. The gist of what they said was that they had produced the e-fits and a report, which they gave to the McCanns in November 2008. Obviously they kept a copy which, Exton said, they were  told to keep confidential and threatened by lawyers if they didn't do that. His direct quote was;

“A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” The article went on to say 'He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund'.

The Sunday Times claimed to have seen the report which said there were serious inconsistencies in Jane Tanners evidence and “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends. It concluded that “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

So what did the McCanns deny and ask for the Sunday Times to correct? They denied that they kept the e-fits secret, saying they passed them to LP and the PJ by October 2009. They also said they passed the report and the e-fits to the Met in August 2011.

What did the McCanns not deny? They didn't deny what the report contained, they didn't deny the legal threats made and they didn't deny giving SY written permission to get the information from the PI's.

So if SY got written permission to get the report and e-fits from the Oakley investigators, why did they need to do that if they already had the e-fits which had been given to LP, and the report and the e-fits which the McCanns gave them in August 2011?

Why did the PI's decide to speak out? Did the legal threats no longer apply? Although the e-fits had now emerged into the public sphere, they also chose to give the report to the Times, with all it's ramifications.

the legal restraint is absolutely commonplace...my employees are legally forbidden to discuss anything that takes place in the workplace,,,it's a confidentiality clause

[ferryman]

It's clear as the light of day.

Martin Smith changed his mind.

In his original statement (to the Irish Gardia Police at the end of January 2008) Mr Smith was careful to reflect the opinions of all his family with him, as well as his own, and ALL his children disagreed with their father that the man was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, along with her father, the most observant witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.

What possible (other) reason (than that he changed his mind) would Mr Smith have for originally refusing to produce an efit (end of January 2008), then agreeing to produce one?

It is self-evident that Mr Smith would not produce an e-fit of a man he thought was Gerry ....

[G-Unit]

the legal restraint is absolutely commonplace...my employees are legally forbidden to discuss anything that takes place in the workplace,,,it's a confidentiality clause

ASAIK they were employed (or subcontracted) by Oakley, not by the McCanns or Kennedy. Any confidentiality clause in the Oakley contract would have been signed by Halligen. They decided to ignore the threat, too, after the Crimewatch programme. Explain that.

Now tell me why SY had to ask for the info if they already had it?

[ferryman]

What does that any of that have to do with the fact that Martin Smith changed his mind (about producing an e-fit, after initially declining to do so)?

[Mr Gray]

ASAIK they were employed (or subcontracted) by Oakley, not by the McCanns or Kennedy. Any confidentiality clause in the Oakley contract would have been signed by Halligen. They decided to ignore the threat, too, after the Crimewatch programme. Explain that.

Now tell me why SY had to ask for the info if they already had it?

Unless you have a copy of the confidentiality agreement you have no idea of its contents