I think you need to accept that Smith never changed his mind, Misty. That argument is over. Someone told the media he had, but it wasn't true.
As to that e-fit are you serious suggesting that your opinion of it amounts to evidence of some sort? Secondly, do you have a cite that it was made by Martin Smith?
Two points were stressed in media reports at the time and what interests me is this. If 'numerous witnesses' were able to give Gerry McCann an alibi it didn't matter what Mr Smith thought. Whoever told the media that Mr Smith had changed his mind must have suspected that Gerry's alibi wasn't unbreakable.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim
Numerous witnesses have also given statements making clear that Mr McCann was at his holiday complex at the moment the sighting occurred – which was at the very time when he and his wife started calling for help looking for Maddie.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz56JYEp1s5
The original Sunday Times article was dated 27/08/2013. The day before this Daily Mail article.
I believe this is where the claim was first published.
......
'There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.'
The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.
The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.'
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
