Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[Alice Purjorick]

We are aware of the content of the Smith family statements only because Madeleine's case was archived and the files containing them posted illegally on the internet.

By the looks of it had Mr Smith had anything to do with it we would have heard nothing about it at all otherwise.

We have seen nothing of statements made either to SY or the PJ in the current investigations ... which is exactly as it should be.  But as has been pointed out, Mr Smith appears to be perfectly content with newspaper content to the effect that he has 'changed his mind' else there would have been litigation or at the least a printed apology made to him.

Ah! the old "it must be true because no one has sued" ploy.

[faithlilly]

We are aware of the content of the Smith family statements only because Madeleine's case was archived and the files containing them posted illegally on the internet.

By the looks of it had Mr Smith had anything to do with it we would have heard nothing about it at all otherwise.

We have seen nothing of statements made either to SY or the PJ in the current investigations ... which is exactly as it should be.  But as has been pointed out, Mr Smith appears to be perfectly content with newspaper content to the effect that he has 'changed his mind' else there would have been litigation or at the least a printed apology made to him.

If Martin Smith's evidence is front and centre of an ongoing investigation could that perhaps be the reason he has not made any comment ?

[blonk]

If Martin Smith's evidence is front and centre of an ongoing investigation could that perhaps be the reason he has not made any comment ?

Sorry, it is laughable to think that Martin Smith's evidence could be the 'front and centre' of an ongoing investigation.

What would his evidence actually amount to? What facts can he contribute?

Plainly DCI Redwood and Operation Grange didn't make the Smithman sighting 'the centre of our focus' because of his tentative identification of Gerry McCann, 4 months later, as the man he saw - based on seeing a bloke carrying a child in exactly the same way as most other parents carry an infant.

So why was that sighting the centre of Operation Grange's focus? - always remembering that DCI Redwood had those two efits (of different-looking men) in his hands as far back as mid 2011, well over two years before the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special was aired in October 2013?

It can surely only have been for the specific purpose of influencing public perception of what happened to Madeleine.

Only when his 'Crechemen' brainwave hit him, in that wondrous 'revelation moment', was he able to proceed to co-operate with the BBC in producing a £2 million publicity stunt, aired to 7 million people 

           

[G-Unit]

Sorry, it is laughable to think that Martin Smith's evidence could be the 'front and centre' of an ongoing investigation.

What would his evidence actually amount to? What facts can he contribute?

Plainly DCI Redwood and Operation Grange didn't make the Smithman sighting 'the centre of our focus' because of his tentative identification of Gerry McCann, 4 months later, as the man he saw - based on seeing a bloke carrying a child in exactly the same way as most other parents carry an infant.

So why was that sighting the centre of Operation Grange's focus? - always remembering that DCI Redwood had those two efits (of different-looking men) in his hands as far back as mid 2011, well over two years before the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special was aired in October 2013?

It can surely only have been for the specific purpose of influencing public perception of what happened to Madeleine.

Only when his 'Crechemen' brainwave hit him, in that wondrous 'revelation moment', was he able to proceed to co-operate with the BBC in producing a £2 million publicity stunt, aired to 7 million people 

         

That programme did have an air of desperation about it. The 'I think it might have been me and here's the clothes to prove it' was quite embarrassing I thought.

[misty]

Did DCI Redwood actually say that Crecheman was walking in the same direction as Tannerman was seen heading?

[G-Unit]

Did DCI Redwood actually say that Crecheman was walking in the same direction as Tannerman was seen heading?

Did DCI Redwood actually know which way Crecheman was going? Did he actually know where he was supposed to have come from? If he did he underestimated the knowledge of some of the UK public and made himself look extremely silly.

If DCI Redwood did know what he was saying made no was he trying to deceive the UK public?

Either way he did himself and the Metropolitan Police no favours.

[blonk]

Did DCI Redwood actually say that Crecheman was walking in the same direction as Tannerman was seen heading?

No he didn't.

It was in fact presenter Matthew Amroliwala who spoke these words on the broadcast:

"The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche. He had been walking near the McCanns’ apartment".

However, Jane Tanner was crystal clear about which directjon Tannerman was walking in - i.e. AWAY from the front door entrance to the McCanns' apartment.

Since DCI Redwood said Crecheman = Tannerman, we are bound to assume that Crecheman was walking in exactly the same direction as Tannerman.

If he had been walking in the opposite direction, then TWO blokes, of similar age and appearance, both without the child's mother, both with no buggy or pushchair, both carrying a blond child in white/pink pyjamas, with no covering around the child on a cold night (13C), might well have bumped into each other.

And if Martin Smith and his family are being truthful, Smithman would make THREE lookalikes, all men carrying  a barefoot infant in pyjamas from, well, somewhere to somewhere.

That might be stretching things too far, even for the most gullible   

         

[misty]

Did DCI Redwood actually know which way Crecheman was going? Did he actually know where he was supposed to have come from? If he did he underestimated the knowledge of some of the UK public and made himself look extremely silly.

If DCI Redwood did know what he was saying made no was he trying to deceive the UK public?

Either way he did himself and the Metropolitan Police no favours.

Maybe it was what Redwood didn't say that is more important. He didn't say where the wife was. He didn't say what the family saw when they were in the vicinity of 5a. By publicly placing a self-confessed Tannerman at the scene, maybe he was letting someone else know they had been seen without giving anything else away. That is the reason the timeline could be moved on, imo, and not remain focussed on 5a from 8.30pm onwards.

[ferryman]

Let's re-cast that with different emphasis, shall we?

I'm surprised given the amount of media coverage, misinformation and sensationalism attached to the case that people swallow media stories without any critical thought at all.

It's unlikely that Mrs Smith approached the Mail on Sunday to speak about the case. Her husband was determined not to speak to the press and was prepared to act against them if they wrote about his involvement. I assume, therefore, that a reporter from the Mail somehow contacted Mrs Smith. Having done so I would expect him to ask questions. The first question was probably asking to speak to Mr Smith, judging by the answer;

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.

A guess at the next question. Something like 'Do you think it was Gerry McCann that he saw?' Mrs Smith becomes defensive;

''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.

The next question probably became emotive; 'How do you think the McCanns felt when your husband said it was Gerry he saw?'

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and 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.''

Mrs Smith clearly didn't want to go on record saying she and her husband saw Gerry McCann, and I for one don't blame her. If she went a little bit further the other way who can blame her. Until you've been cornered by the press yourself you don't know what you might say to get rid of them.

I'm not saying that's what she did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Given the ways of the press I'm not prepared to accept anything they print as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It is quite clear that Mrs Smith no longer believes she and her husband saw Gerry.

And the only inference why she and her husband agreed to produce efits is that neither (now) do.

We know none of their children ever did (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge back in 2008)

[slartibartfast]

Let's re-cast that with different emphasis, shall we?

It is quite clear that Mrs Smith no longer believes she and her husband saw Gerry.

And the only inference why she and her husband agreed to produce efits is that neither (now) do.

We know none of their children ever did (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge back in 2008)

You seem very keen on stating your opinion as fact?

[ferryman]

You seem very keen on stating your opinion as fact?

What opinion?

[Brietta]

Ah! the old "it must be true because no one has sued" ploy.

Quote
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.
End Quote

It would appear that Martin Smith having form for taking successful legal action to being misquoted confirms "the old "it must be true because no one has sued" ploy."
If he hadn't said it ... he would have insisted it was withdrawn just as he did formerly.

[G-Unit]

Let's re-cast that with different emphasis, shall we?

It is quite clear that Mrs Smith no longer believes she and her husband saw Gerry.

And the only inference why she and her husband agreed to produce efits is that neither (now) do.

We know none of their children ever did (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge back in 2008)

You know the e-fits were produced by Mr and Mrs Smith and not by other members of the Irish family do you? Or is that another one of your guesses being posted as fact?

[ferryman]

You know the e-fits were produced by Mr and Mrs Smith and not by other members of the Irish family do you? Or is that another one of your guesses being posted as fact?

Of those whose statements read on line, the two most observant witnesses were Martin Smith and his daughter Aofe.

For a long time, on that basis, I took it that the second e-fit was produced on Aofe.

The press credits his wife (whose statement we don't read on line) with the second e-fit.

Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two witnesses (whom he didn't name).

I see absolutely no reason not to credit Martin and Mary Smith with the efits.

[G-Unit]

Of those whose statements read on line, the two most observant witnesses were Martin Smith and his daughter Aofe.

For a long time, on that basis, I took it that the second e-fit was produced on Aofe.

The press credits his wife (whose statement we don't read on line) with the second e-fit.

Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two witnesses (whom he didn't name).

I see absolutely no reason not to credit Martin and Mary Smith with the efits.

You are saying you don't know, but you see nothing wrong with guessing? Neither do I, but an imo would let others know you didn't have some secret source.