Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[pegasus]

(snip) He produced an e-fit (snip).

Where do SY ever state that Mr M Smith produced an efit Ferryman?

[slartibartfast]

Certain mods were at the root of it
Imo

Stirring again?

[ferryman]

Where do SY ever state that Mr M Smith produced an efit Ferryman?

Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two tourists (whom he did not name).

Martin and Mary Smith.

[pegasus]

Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two tourists (whom he did not name) ...

Thanks Ferryman for confirming that Mr Redwood did not name the two people who did those two efits.

... Martin and Mary Smith.

So, to clarify, these two names you post are just your conjecture?

[ferryman]

Thanks Ferryman for confirming that Mr Redwood did not name the two people who did those two efits.So, to clarify, these two names you post are just your conjecture?

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

(sic)

Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.

[G-Unit]

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

(sic)

Do you believe the newspapers tell the whole truth? You can see what he actually said, it's enclosed by quotation marks;

 “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

 “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

 “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

[ferryman]

We're discussing who produced the efits: Martin and Mary Smith.

It is the height of absurdity to suppose either would produce efits of a man either thought was Gerry ....

[Alice Purjorick]

Do you believe the newspapers tell the whole truth? You can see what he actually said, it's enclosed by quotation marks;

 “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

 “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

 “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

You beat me to it 
It does narrow it down a bit though. If Martin Smith changed his mind it was after October 16th 2013. "That shouldn't be too difficult to track even for a bear of very little brain" said Pooh.
The article has some interesting slants.

[Alice Purjorick]

We're discussing who produced the efits: Martin and Mary Smith.

It is the height of absurdity to suppose either would produce efits of a man either thought was Gerry ....

For whom were they producing them one year after the event?

[ferryman]

Martin Smith once believed he might have seen Gerry.

He no longer does.

His wife Mary, also, once believed she might have seen Gerry.

She no longer does.

That's why both produced efits.

In answer to AP

The investigation.

[jassi]

Martin Smith once believed he might have seen Gerry.

He no longer does.

His wife Mary, also, once believed she might have seen Gerry.

She no longer does.

That's why both produced efits.

In answer to AP

The investigation.

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic, could you explain please?

[ferryman]

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic, could you explain please?

Is Gerry in need of identification?

[jassi]

Is Gerry in need of identification?

Is that supposed to be an explanation?  How about being a little less cryptic?

[ferryman]

Is that supposed to be an explanation?  How about being a little less cryptic?

Is it not self-evident that no one would produce an efit of a someone they thought was Gerry?

[jassi]

Is it not self-evident that no one would produce an efit of a someone they thought was Gerry?

Not to me, I'm afraid.


If you can't/won't explain your thoughts clearly, how do you expect me to understand?