Re: SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

by Verdi 19.07.15 23:06

Rob Royston wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Rob Royston wrote:
What do we believe, a man's statement to the police, on 26th May 2007, not 2008, or newspaper reports printed after he had been "visited"?

REPLY: I suspect you would agree with me if I said: "A witness statement could be a tissue of lies from start to finish, while a newspaper report could be 100% accurate". Equally, it is possible that a witness is telling the God's honest truth, and a journalist or editor has got a story wrong.

I think in all cases, and in this case especially, it is important to bring analysis to everything that has been done, said or written, by anyone. I have set out a veritable mass of contradictions in the Smiths' statements, which deal a severe blow to their collective credibility.

By contrast, the newspaper reports dated 3 and 4 January 2008 purport to quote directly from Martin Smith, don't they? IIRC at least one of the papers spoke directly to him. I am satisfied from all that I have seen that Martin Smith having 'met Murat several times' over 'many years' is accurate.

In his statement to the PJ, Martin Smith says it was his son who had telephoned him and reminded them all about the encounter. Peter Smith had never been to Portugal before and Murat had been in England until two days before he went home, so it is quite unlikely that he knew Murat. He did know the son of the developer of the complex where his father had the apartment as he says he talked with him at Faro airport, so it could be possible that he knew of Murat from others mentioning him in conversation. This may be the reason why he called his father after Murat had been made an arquido.

REPLY: I remain to be persuaded that Peter's 'Am I only dreaming?' alleged 'phone call to his father on 16 May 2007 is anything but yet another Smith family fabrication
When the Irish policeman Hogan forwarded Martin Smith's statement to the PJ, about how he felt that it was Gerry McCann that he had seen in the street on the evening of the 3rd May 2007, he added a covering note where he told of the fact that Martin Smith did not court the media and had in fact legally challenged some of what they had written previously about his family, forcing them to retract and apologise.
It would seem to me that Mr Smith had little time for newspaper reporters, yet you are telling us now that all that suddenly changed after his "visitations" and that the papers suddenly became his confidantes. Is it not more likely that the papers printed whatever they were told to print by others, it seems to me to be what they always do.
I've no doubt in my mind that the news of Murat having been brought in for questioning was the catalyst for the Smiths remembering what they had seen. That does not mean that they "fabricated" any lies to help Murat.

If that be true it makes you wonder why Martin Smith didn't legally challenge Richard D Hall, forcing him to retract and apologize - doesn't it?

by Nuala 19.07.15 23:08

@ Tony Bennett

Addressing part 2 of your replies contd:

A. Martin Smith changed his mind and told the McCanns the man was more like ’34-35’ than ‘40’, or
B. The McCann Team suggested this and asked his permission to change it, or,
C. The McCann Team did it anyway and then told him or
D. The McCann Team did it anyway and never bothered to tell him
Now, unless you have any further alternatives to suggest, I would suggest that (B) is by far the most likely alternative.

And I asked you where the information came from that MS changed the age of the man for the Find Madeleine website. Clearly there isn't any, only your belief that MS gave permission for the age of the man to be changed. That's your belief it's not evidence, so there is no contradiction and number 9 should be removed from your list.

Merging two images does NOT produce ‘the same man’ as you suggest, and what Jon Tait has to say on the matter is irrelevant.

I didn't quote anything that Jon Tait said, I referred only to the composite he provided.

We are not going to agree on this. I have pointed out a list of the many differences between the two images:
Overall size of face
Overall shape of face
Amount of hair
Style of hair
Shape of chin
Depth of chin
Length of nose
and so on.

And yet, when a composite of the two images is made it's nearly impossible to see it's made up of two images because they are so alike. The evidence is there in the composite provided by Jon Tait.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.07.15 23:15

Verdi wrote:
If that be true it makes you wonder why Martin Smith didn't legally challenge Richard D Hall, forcing him to retract and apologise - doesn't it?

It is truly extraordinary how Martin Smith reacted to Richard's 'True Story'.

All sorts of things were said about him and his family - and of course about the Madeleine McCann case in general.

He made one comment and made one request.

His comment to Richard was that he found Richard's film 'interesting'. Well, quite!

His request was simply: 'Can you remove the reference to me and Murat being 'friends'?'

Richard reacted promptly by altering his vid to include Martin Smith's e-mail.

Strange to say the very least that the reference to Murat was the ONLY thing he queried and wanted removed

by Nuala 19.07.15 23:19

@ Tony Bennett

Addressing part 2 of your replies concluded:

They were drawn up by the Smiths, I believe an FOI request confirmed this?
Yes, it was my FOI Act request. But despite the Met Police asserting that the two e-fits are allegedly of the same man, and were allegedly drawn up by the Smiths, I disbelieve them on both counts.

You're entitled to disbelieve whatever you want to disbelieve, but the FOI request confirmed they were of the same man, and the composite provided by Jon Tait shows they are of the same man, so I would suggest that any assertion in future that they are of different men should be qualified with an IMO rather than stated as fact.

Indeed the facts support that they are the same man.

This, of course, is because the e-fits released by Op Grange look exactly like Gerry McCann”.
I disagree, but concede that one of the images bears a passing resemblance to him. However, it also bears a passing resemblance to thousands of other white males

Yes, except that this particular white male is the father of the missing child, and it's more than a passing resemblance. The many images on the Internet where people have placed the e-fit next to photos of GM show very clearly that it looks just like GM.

by Nuala 19.07.15 23:22

@ Tony Bennett

His request was simply: 'Can you remove the reference to me and Murat being 'friends'?'

Hardly surprising as they are not friends and have never been friends.

Nothing suspicious about wanting an inaccuracy in a video correcting.

by Verdi 20.07.15 0:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
If that be true it makes you wonder why Martin Smith didn't legally challenge Richard D Hall, forcing him to retract and apologise - doesn't it?
It is truly extraordinary how Martin Smith reacted to Richard's 'True Story'.

All sorts of things were said about him and his family - and of course about the Madeleine McCann case in general.

He made one comment and made one request.

His comment to Richard was that he found Richard's film 'interesting'. Well, quite!

His request was simply: 'Can you remove the reference to me and Murat being 'friends'?'

Richard reacted promptly by altering his vid to include Martin Smith's e-mail.

Strange to say the very least that the reference to Murat was the ONLY thing he queried and wanted removed

Quite so! I think I briefly mentioned the one correction allegedly requested by Martin Smith in a separate post. 'Friends' being the operative word - of course that is not the same as saying he doesn't 'know' Murat.

As an aside, in a relatively small community largely inhabited by ex-patriots, it's quite usual for everyone to know everyone, even if only as passing acquaintances. I believe Martin Smith and various elements of his family frequented PdL often enough to be included as part of the community.

by tinkier 20.07.15 1:49

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

His request was simply: 'Can you remove the reference to me and Murat being 'friends'?'

Hardly surprising as they are not friends and have never been friends

Nothing suspicious about wanting an inaccuracy in a video correcting.

Naula... you state the above like you somehow know it's 100% fact?

by Nuala 20.07.15 18:41

@ Tony Bennett

Addressing part 3 of your replies:

We know that she refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement to the Portuguese Police.

Please show me the evidence that Mary Smith refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement.

We actually have no knowledge of what earlier statement she did make, if any.

There is no "if any" about it, Mary Smith made a statement that is not in the files.

We don’t know if it was verbal, or written in her own handwriting, or signed at her home or a police station - we know nothing about it.

But she made a statement nonetheless.

The plain fact is that despite this being about a missing child and a possible abductor, she refused the Portuguese Police’s request to make a formal witness statement.

No, she refused to make a further statement.

Mary Smith refused to give a formal witness statement.

That sentence should be removed from your OP because it is incorrect.

by Nuala 20.07.15 19:16

I've already shown that the "contradictions" numbers 2, 4, 9 and 10 in the OP are not contradictions at all, and I will return to the "contradictions" again, but for the moment I'm going to address the supposed similarities between Sagresman and Smithman.

MS (first statement): he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. The individual did not appear to be a tourist.

MS (second statement): He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut.

AS: Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top. His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.

PS: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour.

This is Nuno Lourenco's description of Wojcek Krokowksi: Masculine, Caucasian with Latin colouring, curly dark brown hair that ran to his neck and in a pony tail. He was between 35/40 years of age, of medium complexion, and around 170 to 175 cm in height. He did not have any particular marks or signals and did not wear rings or other jewellery. He wore a cream coloured beach hat. He also wore dark glasses. He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of the same material which was cream coloured. Almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously. His shoes were dark brown: the type that need to be shined or polished.

So what we have is two men of approximately the same height and age, one of them wearing beige-coloured cloth trousers and a dark jacket and the other wearing linen trousers of a colour not specified and a cream coloured jacket and cream beach hat.

But here's the important thing, Wojcek Krokowksi is described as having "curly dark brown hair that ran to his neck and in a pony tail" whereas the man the Smiths saw had short hair, in fact specifically described as "short at the back".

A significant difference between the two men, and certainly not the "near identical" description as has been claimed.

There would be no chance of the man the Smiths saw with his "brown hair cut short" and specifically "short at the back" being able to tie his hair in a pony tail.

Perhaps Wojcek Krokowksi was wearing a curly dark brown wig tied in a pony tail whilst in Portugal, to cover the "cut short" and "short at the back" hair?

by Nuala 20.07.15 19:24

@ Doug D

'He wasn't clarifying the position of the child, but the apparent comfort of transporting "not being habitual" i.e. he wasn't used to it.'

Martin Smith, as a father and grandfather several times over 'wasn't used to' the most frequently adopted position to carry a young child, as in the above photos.

Sorry, pull the other one.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, it was Martin Smith saying that about the man he saw, that the man he saw "did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual."

In other words, Martin Smith was suggesting the man he saw might not be used to carrying a child in that way.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.07.15 21:06

Nuala agreed with Rob Royston and said: "I agree, of course they didn't [fabricate any lies]. They didn't even know Robert Murat. Martin Smith knew him by sight only".

REPLY: Once again, you have left out statements to the contrary: 'known him for at least two years', 'known him for many years', 'met several times'. You are eliminating any statement that doesn't agree with your viewpoint, which is not fair debating

Nuala said: MS and PS see the man in two different locations separated by about 20 metres, so it cannot be expected that the man is seen the same way by both. They see him in different places, from different angles and at different times. Please read here:

Tony Bennett went to Textusa's site and read this:

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/speed.html  So the sequence is this: Smithman crosses with Peter on Peter’s right, crosses the street so that when Martin becomes aware of him he’s in the middle of the road and then crosses Martin on Martin’s left.

REPLY: I am happy to concede that (assuming these are all honest and not contrived witness statements, that it is possible that when the man crosses with Peter his head is in the air but when he crosses Martin he 'lowered his head', 'averted our gaze' etc. etc. Why Martin Smith doesn't mention this at first but only comes up with it later is also a puzzle (see also below)

Tony Bennett reminded Nuala that in the Daily Mail and other reports, Martin Smith was directly quoted as saying "He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at uch a quiet time of the year". Tony added:
There is the evidence. Contrary to your assertion, Martin Smith DID say 'he just put his head down'

Nuala replied: "No, Martin Smith didn't say "he just put his head down", the Daily Mail said it. I don't accept what the press says, and the Daily Mail at that, as being a direct quote from the Smiths.

REPLY: OK, so there we must leave it. You say the Daily Mail fabricated this quote. OK

Tony Bennett wrote: You misled forum members by missing out Peter Smith’s evidence (I hope it wasn’t deliberate).

REPLY: Nuala did not contest that she had omitted my quote from Peter Smith.

Nuala said that the reason Peter said he directly saw the girl's eyelids while Aoife insisted that the girl's face was completely hidden is because one saw the girl from in front of the man and the other from behind the man. Tony replied: "This is an INTERPRETATION you put on what happened which is NOT supported by actual evidence".

Nuala replied: "I disagree. You have no evidence that AS did NOT pass on the opposite side of the man to MS and PS".

REPLY: I am afraid the debating rules are very clear. He who asserts something must prove it. You have in effect admitted that you have no evidence at all that Peter saw the man and the girl from behind whilst Aoife did from the front. It is an inexplicable contradiction: Aoife says she couldn't see any part of the girl's face; Peter maintains that in the night-time gloom and few seconds that he had he could clearly see the girl's eyelids, and that they were closed

Tony Bennett suggested FOUR possible reasons why the age of 'Smithman' suddenly changed from 40 to '34-35' and offered these four possibilities:

A. Martin Smith changed his mind and told the McCanns the man was more like ’34-35’ than ‘40’, or
B. The McCann Team suggested this and asked his permission to change it, or,
C. The McCann Team did it anyway and then told him or
D. The McCann Team did it anyway and never bothered to tell him
Now, unless you have any further alternatives to suggest, I would suggest that (B) is by far the most likely alternative.

REPLY: Nuala declined to engage on the subject - but said it was wrong of me to suggest that Martin Smith in any way consented to this change being made

Nuala referred to a composite e-fits: "The composite provided by Jon Tait shows they are of the same man"

REPLY: This is most definitely an assertion that cannot be made from any two photos that are made into a composite. But we cannot go on debating this. What I do note is that Nuala made no attempt to engage with the obvious eight differences between the two faces hat I listed

Nuala said of the efits: "...lt's more than a passing resemblance. The many images on the Iiternet where people have placed the e-fit next to photos of GM show very clearly that it looks just like GM

REPLY: We'll agree to disagree, I stick by my view that there is a passing resemblance but the same could be said of thousands of other men

Nuala wrote of Martin Smith and Robert Murat: "Hardly surprising as they are not friends and have never been friends.
Nothing suspicious about wanting an inaccuracy in a video correcting".

But tinkler replied: "Nuala... you state the above like you somehow know it's 100% fact?"

REPLY: tinkler IMO makes a valid point, but Nuala hasn't yet answer it

Tony Bennett wrote: "We know that she refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement to the Portuguese Police".

Nuala asked: "Please show me the evidence that Mary Smith refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement".

REPLY: 1. Mary Smith did not go to Portugal to make a witness statement

2. Here is a memo from Liam Hogan, Detective Branch, Drogheda, County Lough which is in the PJ files:

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement.

Nuala referred to Martin Smith saying: "The man did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual". Nuala added her interpretation: "In other words, Martin Smith was suggesting the man he saw might not be used to carrying a child in that way".

REPLY: The first point to be made is that if it is claimed that this man was Gerry McCann, why would he possibly 'not be sued to carrying a child that way'? He had probably had to do it dozens or even hundreds of times for his three children. The second point is that it is at least possible that Martin Smith said this as part of an overall fabrication - a handy bit of detail to generate the impression that this was the abductor.

Nuala denied that there were 'many similarities' between Sagresman (Wojcek Krokowski) and Smithman. She said the descriptions of the man's hair were different.

REPLY: I concede that there are differences in the descriptions of the man's hair. But the other similarities between the two are, I suggestm striking. And of course the description of Tannerman is almost identical too, to both of them.

And let's remind ourselves of what Amaral wrote about this in his book:

QUOTE>>>   From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle....The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Nuala   - It doesn't look from the debate so far that we are moving much closer. I must abandon this debate for a while for practical reasons, but if you want to make further points I will happily respond when I can

by Nuala 20.07.15 23:18

@ Tony Bennett

It doesn't look from the debate so far that we are moving much closer.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I thought we were doing rather well.

I must abandon this debate for a while for practical reasons, but if you want to make further points I will happily respond when I can

No problem. I'll compose a reply addressing all the points you've made and when you're ready to take up the debate up again just let me know smilie

by Nuala 21.07.15 19:26

@ Tony Bennett

As you've obviously sorted out your "practical problems" we can continue our debate smilie

Nuala agreed with Rob Royston and said: "I agree, of course they didn't [fabricate any lies]. They didn't even know Robert Murat.
Martin Smith knew him by sight only".
REPLY: Once again, you have left out statements to the contrary: 'known him for at least two years', 'known him for many years',
'met several times'. You are eliminating any statement that doesn't agree with your viewpoint, which is not fair debating

I'm eliminating nothing. If you or the press choose to misrepresent MS having seen Murat a couple of times and therefore knowing
him by sight into them having "met" and MS knowing him for "many years" then you're free to do, so but I will stick to the facts.

Martin Smith was very clear, he said:

"Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was
inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was
not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately."

I know many, many people in the town where I live. Some by sight and others I've spoken to, but they're not my friends, I don't know
them, I just happen to know who they are, and if I had to attest as to whether or not I had seen them in a certain place at a certain
time I would easily be able to do so. The idea that if you happen to know who someone is means you actually know them personally
and are friends with them is frankly ridiculous.

Tony Bennett wrote: You misled forum members by missing out Peter Smith’s evidence (I hope it wasn’t deliberate).
REPLY: Nuala did not contest that she had omitted my quote from Peter Smith.

Please read my posts more carefully. I most certainly did contest that I omitted what Peter Smith said.

Nuala said that the reason Peter said he directly saw the girl's eyelids while Aoife insisted that the girl's face was completely hidden is
because one saw the girl from in front of the man and the other from behind the man. Tony replied: "This is an INTERPRETATION you
put on what happened which is NOT supported by actual evidence".
Nuala replied: "I disagree. You have no evidence that AS did NOT pass on the opposite side of the man to MS and PS".
REPLY: I am afraid the debating rules are very clear. He who asserts something must prove it. You have in effect admitted that you
have no evidence at all that Peter saw the man and the girl from behind whilst Aoife did from the front. It is an inexplicable
contradiction: Aoife says she couldn't see any part of the girl's face; Peter maintains that in the night-time gloom and few seconds
that he had he could clearly see the girl's eyelids, and that they were closed

It's not an inexplicable contradiction at all. The Smith family were spread out and saw the man at different times, at different points
in the street and from different angles. Indeed following your "debating rules" that "he who asserts something must prove it" prove to
us that MS, PS and AS all saw the man from the same side and the same angle.

Tony Bennett suggested FOUR possible reasons why the age of 'Smithman' suddenly changed from 40 to '34-35' and offered these four
possibilities:
A. Martin Smith changed his mind and told the McCanns the man was more like ’34-35’ than ‘40’, or
B. The McCann Team suggested this and asked his permission to change it, or,
C. The McCann Team did it anyway and then told him or
D. The McCann Team did it anyway and never bothered to tell him
Now, unless you have any further alternatives to suggest, I would suggest that (B) is by far the most likely alternative.
REPLY: Nuala declined to engage on the subject - but said it was wrong of me to suggest that Martin Smith in any way consented to
this change being made

I didn't decline to engage on the subject, I asked you for evidence that Martin Smith consented to the change being made.

You declined to provide it. I can only assume that's because it doesn't exist.

Nuala referred to a composite e-fits: "The composite provided by Jon Tait shows they are of the same man"
REPLY: This is most definitely an assertion that cannot be made from any two photos that are made into a composite.

It's an assertion that most definitely can be made from any two photos made into a composite. It's obvious from the composite that
it is the same man.

What I do note is that Nuala made no attempt to engage with the obvious eight differences between the two faces hat I listed

I didn't engage on that because the composite shows that your "differences" aren't valid enough to be bothering with. The composite
speaks for itself.

Nuala wrote of Martin Smith and Robert Murat: "Hardly surprising as they are not friends and have never been friends.
Nothing suspicious about wanting an inaccuracy in a video correcting".
But tinkler replied: "Nuala... you state the above like you somehow know it's 100% fact?"
REPLY: tinkler IMO makes a valid point, but Nuala hasn't yet answer it

It's a fact that Martin Smith says he and Robert Murat aren't friends and have never been friends. I don't see why it's strange that I
would sound like I am 100% sure of that.

Tony Bennett wrote: "We know that she refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement to the Portuguese Police".
Nuala asked: "Please show me the evidence that Mary Smith refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement".
REPLY: 1. Mary Smith did not go to Portugal to make a witness statement

Show me the evidence that she refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement.

2. Here is a memo from Liam Hogan, Detective Branch, Drogheda, County Lough which is in the PJ files:
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement

That is not a refusal to go to Portugal, it's a refusal to make another statement.

Show me the evidence that she refused to go to Portugal to make a witness statement.

Nuala referred to Martin Smith saying: "The man did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being
habitual". Nuala added her interpretation: "In other words, Martin Smith was suggesting the man he saw might not be used to
carrying a child in that way".
REPLY: The first point to be made is that if it is claimed that this man was Gerry McCann, why would he possibly 'not be sued to
carrying a child that way'? He had probably had to do it dozens or even hundreds of times for his three children.

Looking at the footage of GM carrying his child down the plane steps he doesn't look the least bit comfortable.

The second point is that it is at least possible that Martin Smith said this as part of an overall fabrication - a handy bit of detail to
generate the impression that this was the abductor.

It's equally possible that Martin Smith was telling the truth as he saw it. Indeed, we know him to be a decent man, as attested by
Sergeant Liam Hogan who said "my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person."

I don't think that constantly accusing a decent man of lying is either appropriate or honourable. You have no evidence whatsoever
that MS fabricated anything.

Nuala denied that there were 'many similarities' between Sagresman (Wojcek Krokowski) and Smithman. She said the descriptions of
the man's hair were different.
REPLY: I concede that there are differences in the descriptions of the man's hair. But the other similarities between the two are, I
suggestm striking.

I disagree. Any similarities could be attributed to thousands of men. Had they both been described as having a scar down their cheek
for example, then I would agree with you, that would be something that would be striking. But not similar age and build, that's not
striking at all, and the men's hair is totally different.

And of course the description of Tannerman is almost identical too, to both of them.

The description of Tannerman is similar to Wojcek Krokowski, I have no argument with that, but the description of Wojcek Krokowski
is certainly not identical to the man seen by the Smiths. There are certainly similarities that could apply to thousands of men, but the
important thing is that Wojcek Krokowski had hair long enough to tie into a pony tail and Smithman's hair was cut short. So Nuno
Lourenco and the Smiths could not have been describing the same man.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.15 19:00

@ Nuala

The points of substance and disagreement you raise on your latest post can I think be dealt with as follows:

1. Mrs.Mary Smith

We agree that at some stage, probably between 16 and 26 May 2007, and probably to an Irish police officer, Mary Smith made what has been described as a ‘statement’. We have no idea whether it was oral, or in her handwriting, or written down by the police, whether or not it was signed by her, and whether or not it was any kind of formal witness statement signed as true.

To put the next matter as neutrally as possible, Mrs Smith declined to go to Portugal with her husband, son and daughter to make a statement.

In January 2008, a police officer, Liam Hogan, from the Detective Branch, Drogheda, County Lough, said in a report: “I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement”.

2. How well Martin Smith knew Robert Murat

You have very properly quoted Martin Smith’s police witness statement, where he says of his knowledge of Robert Murat: “Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars…He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately”.

You say that this statement should be treated as reliable and true unless there is anything to contradict it.

You go further and state that this is a ‘fact’ and that, as you put it, “if you or the press choose to misrepresent Martin Smith having seen Murat a couple of times and therefore knowing him by sight into them having ‘met’ and Martin Smith knowing him for ‘many years’ then you're free to do.

This means that you dismiss this as a ‘misrepresentation’:

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008: “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

And this:

‘I’ve known him for years’ - Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”

And this:

Irish Mail on Sunday, 10 August 2008: Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

3. Did Nuala leave out - when debating the contradictions about whether the man lowered his head or not - this quote from Peter Smith: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”, when first replying to the OP?

There is a simple answer to that: Yes.

4. Why did Aoife Smith say that the child’s face was completely hidden, yet Peter Smith said he could see that her eyelids were closed?

I said it was an obvious contradiction. Nuala first claimed it could be because Aoife saw the man from in front, and Peter saw the man from behind. This time Nuala says: “The Smith family were spread out and saw the man at different times, at different points”. That is her evidence. On that basis, she says that the apparent contradiction is ‘explicable’. Nothing more to say.

5. Did Martin Smith consent to the age of the man he saw being changed from ‘about 40’ in his statement to the Irish police in January 2008 to ‘perhaps 34-35’ in an audio recording, clearly meant to represent him, which was uploaded on to the McCanns’ website in May 2009

I concede that I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin Smith did agree to that change.

Neither, for that matter, can I prove that he consented at all to his evidence being put on the McCanns’ website.

I can only suggest that it must be as plain as a pikestaff that he (a) consented to the audio recording representing on the McCanns’ website, and (b) agreed to the age of the man being lowered by 5-6 years in view the history of his co-operation with the McCann Team:
A. being willing to talk to Metodo 3 – December 2007

B. talking to Brian Kennedy – early 2008

C. thereafter making public statements in favour of the McCanns and urging the public to ‘find the abductor’

D. agreeing to Henri Exton from Halligen’s Oakley International seeing them and producing two e-fits which, to many, look like two different men

E. the use of his sighting in the May 2009 Mentorn Media documentary to advance the cause that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same

F. the uploading of an audio recorded summary of his statement to the McCanns’ website in May 2009

G. the use made of Smithman by Kate McCann in her book, ‘madeleine’, again to suggest that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same

H. being interviewed by D C I Redwood of Operation Grange in 2012

I. being interviewed by D C I Redwood of Operation Grange again in 2013

J. his e-fits becoming ‘the centre of our focus’ on the BBC Crimewatch McCann show, October 2013.

It surely cannot be realistically denied that he consented to all of this?

6. Were Nuno Lourenco and the Smiths describing the same man?

This is Nuala’s reply: “The description of Tannerman is similar to Wojcek Krokowski, I have no argument with that. But the description of Wojcek Krokowski is certainly not identical to the man seen by the Smiths. There are certainly similarities that could apply to thousands of men…Had they both been described as having a scar down their cheek, for example, then I would agree with you, that would be something that would be striking. But not similar age and build, that's not striking at all, and the men's hair is totally different. The important thing is that Wojcek Krokowski had hair long enough to tie into a pony tail and Smithman’s hair was cut short. So Nuno Lourenco and the Smiths could not have been describing the same man”.

I have already conceded that the descriptions of the hair of the two men are different. You also make a fair point that if the build is similar and the age is in the same range, that doesn’t take us very far either. Although it must be said they are near-identical for all three men: Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman.

However, there are a number of very specific similarities between all three men.

When given the description of Sagresman, Goncalo Amaral is told that he ‘doesn’t look like a tourist’. Jane tanner says: “By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very ‘warmly dressed’. And Martin Smith says the same: “He states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing”.

That leads us on to look at the similarities in the description of the man’s clothes. There is an uncanny similarity of emphasis on the ‘warm’, ‘cloth’ clothes of the man. Thus:

Sagres man: “He wore cloth trousers, of the same material as his jacket”
Tannerman: “He was wearing linen type ‘chino style’ cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, like ‘corticite’, of the same material as his jacket”
Smithman: “The man was wearing light-coloured trousers”. Aoife Smith says: “beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen…”. Martin Smith says: “He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut… The man didn’t look like a tourist - I can’t explain why - it was probably from his clothes.

7. Are the two e-fits of the same man?

Nuala said: “It is possible from any two photos made into a composite to deduce that they are the same man. It's an assertion that most definitely can be made. It's obvious from the composite [the one produced by Jon Tait) that it is the same man. I didn't engage on your eight differences [between the faces] that because the composite shows that your ‘differences’ aren't valid enough to be bothering with. The composite speaks for itself”.

SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions - Page 5 Yyyefi12

SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions - Page 5 Yyyefi12

It is hard to argue with such iron certainty, so I will just have to repeat that Jon Tait’s composite proves no such thing.

8. Is Martin Smith a decent man?

Nuala wrote: “We know him to be a decent man, as attested by Sergeant Liam Hogan who said: “My view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person”. I don't think that constantly accusing a decent man of lying is either appropriate or honourable. You have no evidence whatsoever that Martin Smith fabricated anything”.

I concede that Liam Hogan’s opinion is evidence and he goes further by saying: ‘He is known locally and is a very decent person”. I have set out on several threads the evidence which to me suggests strongly that there is major reason to doubt the authenticity of the Smiths’ statements.

by Verdi 22.07.15 22:43

Looks like a game of semantics is being played out here. I've been caught up in a similar situation when querying different aspects of the case in the past, it always comes down to quoting the PJ files as sacrosanct making no allowances for the many glaring inconsistencies and contradictions. It's not even as though the entire investigation files were released so it's ridiculous to claim that any single thing is conclusive just because it's in the files. A good example here, as you rightly point out Tony, is the mist shrouding the provenance of Mrs. Smith's witness statement.

I suggest that some are very selective as to whom they are prepared to believe, the question is why? People that insist on sticking rigidly to the PJ translated files, word by word, conveniently overlook the fact (and this is a fact) that the 'official' (if they can be termed such) Tapas9 statements are also contained in the files but they are most certainly open to individual interpretation so why not any other? I have strong reservations about Jez Wilkins and his partner, I can't prove anything but I can evaluate available information about them and try to work it in with the overall picture. IMO every aspect of this case is fair game for scrutiny - the authorities put the case details out there so no one can be blamed for questioning anything and everything.

Tony, the points you've raised about the Smith sighting and associated matters are valid, can't testify to total accuracy because I don't possess your tenacity but even if not 100%, it doesn't detract from the overall picture. I'm not entirely sure this relentless attack has any direct connection with trying to protect the Smiths good name, I feel it's more a case of trying to destroy your good name.

Question is - WHY?

by Verdi 22.07.15 22:51

Nuala said: “It is possible from any two photos made into a composite to deduce that they are the same man. It's an assertion that most definitely can be made. It's obvious from the composite [the one produced by Jon Tait) that it is the same man. I didn't engage on your eight differences [between the faces] that because the composite shows that your ‘differences’ aren't valid enough to be bothering with. The composite speaks for itself”.

I totally disagree but if your assertion be true, I must ask why you think the Met Police in association with Crimewatch, released two images of the person(s) of interest, as opposed to one composite image?

To confuse the populace maybe?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.15 23:00

Verdi wrote:Looks like a game of semantics is being played out here.

Yes, I think it could well be called 'nit-picking'. That said, I have no problem with anybody drawing attention to what they say is in inaccuracy, however minor or major, although the tone in which any challenge is made is often indicative of what kind of agenda a poster may have.

Tony, the points you've raised about the Smith sighting and associated matters are valid, can't testify to total accuracy because I don't possess your tenacity but even if not 100%, it doesn't detract from the overall picture.   I'm not entirely sure this relentless attack has any direct connection with trying to protect the Smiths good name, I feel it's more a case of trying to destroy your good name.

Question is - WHY?

I'm going to say something controversial here, and not for the first time. I am informed that Nuala has been banned from the forum (not sure of the exact reason, but most of us can probably understand why).

These things could safely be said about her (an assumption - maybe 'him'):

1. She joined very suddenly
2. She clearly had detailed knowledge about many aspects of the case
3. AFAIK she has never been a member here before.

These appeared to be her three interests and agendas:

A. To prove that the Wayback 'thingy' was an obvious error, and so put out of our minds any ludicrous theory that Jim Gamble at CEOP might have been lining up a Madeleine McCann page for when the alarm was raised on 3 May

B. To prove that the Smiths DID see someone and that it might have been Gerry McCann [even though it's pretty obvious the Smiths have been working hand-in-glove with the McCanns for over 7 years now, and

C. To prove that the 'Last Photo' was taken exactly when the McCanns say it was taken.

The phrase that instantly springs to mind about this sudden burst of activity by Nuala is 'muddying the waters'

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.15 23:08

Verdi wrote: [If the two e-fits were of the same man,] I must ask why you think the Met Police in association with Crimewatch released two images of the person(s) of interest, as opposed to one composite image?

A simple but almost unanswerable point

P.S. Complaints are made elsewhere that no-one is interested in Smithman and that I am obsessed about it.

I have two answers by way of reply:

1. DCI Redwood explicitly said two years ago that Smithman was 'now the centre of our focus'. That makes it a big subject of interest for me personally. If it is so important for him and Operation Grange, why exactly?

2. Earlier this evening I checked the forum stats. There were two original Crimewatch/Smithman threads. There have been seven more: 'SMITHMAN 2' through 'SMITHMAN 8'; nine threads in all. These have attracted over 1,400 posts and over 71,500 views to date

by Verdi 23.07.15 0:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote: [If the two e-fits were of the same man,] I must ask why you think the Met Police in association with Crimewatch released two images of the person(s) of interest, as opposed to one composite image?
A simple but almost unanswerable point

P.S. Complaints are made elsewhere that no-one is interested in Smithman and that I am obsessed about it.

I have two answers by way of reply:

1. DCI Redwood explicitly said two years ago that Smithman was 'now the centre of our focus'. That makes it a big subject of interest for me personally. If it is so important for him and Operation Grange, why exactly?

2. Earlier this evening I checked the forum stats. There were two original Crimewatch/Smithman threads. There have been seven more: 'SMITHMAN 2' through 'SMITHMAN 8'; nine threads in all. These have attracted over 1,400 posts and over 71,500 views to date

Evidence suggests that the obsession lies at someone else's door.

"Now the centre of our focus". Thanks, I said person(s) of interest, the wording here so important but I couldn't remember exactly. The centre of our focus - one man or two men or a composite of the two?

by jazega 15.09.18 22:30

mad world wrote:Sounds to me like they've been heavily leaned on rather than dishonest. But again their testimony regardless has to be dismissed purely on the basis that it is useless. Either liars or menaced by the people covering up what happened.

What reasons would members of the Smith family lie and make false statements.I cannot think of any.

by **sharonl** Yesterday at 21:28

Another interesting Smithman thread

SMITHMAN 5: The evidence of the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland: the TWELVE sets of contradictions

After looking at this list of contradictions about the 'Smithman' sighting