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

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, was nothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

I think that this latest blog from former member here, Cristobell - Rosalinda Hutton - belongs here, simply because it is a direct response to a few posts of mine about 'Smithman' here, yesterday.

In her diatribe, she refers to the Smiths, twice, thus:

"the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution" and even,

"the most important witnesses in this case".

She goes on to refer to my attempts to demonstrate that the Smiths may have fabricated their statement as "interfering in a live police investigation" and says my aim is to "destroy the witnesses for the prosecution".

To which I have this brief answer: the Smiths have evidence of what, precisely?

One of them, and only one of them, Martin Smith, once made a highly dubious claim that the man he claimed to have seen on 3 May 'might have been' Gerry McCann. He was '60% to 80% sure'.

Months later, he began co-operating with the McCanns, he urged people to 'find the abductor' and relieve the McCanns' misery, and helped the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, Henri Exton, who was employed by the McCanns, to draw up two (controversial) e-fits. Since then, he has co-operated with the McCanns in the making of the 2009 documentary on the case, supported their putting his evidence on their website by changing his statement about the age of the man he said he had seen, and of course his evidence featured in 7 pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

After that, he spoke to DCI Andy Redwood twice, in 2012 and 2103, and was a major influence on the content of the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on October 2013.

Bearing all that in mind, he plainly is absolutely not a potential witness against the McCanns. Can Hutton really not see that?  

The attacks on my views on Smithman, like this one, are often exceptionally angry and bitter. I wonder sometimes just why that is.

+++ 

One other thing: Hutton refers to my interest in 'celebrities caught in sex scandals'.

Could this by any chance refer to my assistance to Terry Lubbock, a man from my home town, Harlow, whose son Stuart Lubbock was brutally raped and murdered by two or three men, possibly including Michael Barrymore, who was arrested on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock after my book Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder, exposing Barrymore's lies and 'drowning hoax' was serialised in the News of the World? 

The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?  

Ah yes, I thought so.


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

Thursday, 16 July 2015
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHERE DO WE BEGIN?
by Cristobell

Tony Bennett is certain he is right and he is on a mission it seems to discredit an innocent family who did no more than report seeing a man on the night of May 3rd 2007 who looked like Gerry McCann.  Tony's mission is to blow their evidence out of the water and discredit them before or if, a trial ever takes  place in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Tony believes he has the right to question and interfere with anyone he chooses.  The means are available, through his computer he has access to as much private information about his victims as he likes and the will to seek and destroy them.  He is driven by hatred, probably wakes up each morning and thinks what poor fucker can I set about today, misery is my gospel, repent and ye shall be saved.

He is bored with Kate and Gerry, and he's never had much interest in the Tapas friends, or indeed any of the central characters involved in this case.  He is in the midst of a two pronged attack - destroy the witnesses for the prosecution and 2, destroy the enemies of himself.  He has worked way too hard to have his limelight stolen by manicured and coiffered bimbos.  I can imagine him weeping to 'It should have me', when the very attractive DCI Wall took over the Madeleine investigation.  He uses her picture as an avatar to keep his bile bubbling away and if Verdi is his sock, he is revealing a dark, twisted sexuality that he is blissfully unaware of.

Bennett seems to have spent the last two years (at least) attacking the enemies of the McCanns, his eye is definitely not on the ball, the ball being the questionable abduction, to focus on the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution in case members of CMoMM forgot.

Most of the people Tony now attacks weren't even in PDL at the relevant time, but it matters not to TB.  His enemies now are those who would relieve him of his imaginary crown.  Every theory, other than his own must be stamped out, his opposition to Sonia Poulton's documentary has reached epic, paranoid, proportions.  He must convince the world, that those striving to expose the truth are the bad guys.  He forgets, there is only ONE truth, and it doesn't matter one iota how anyone gets to it.  Richard Hall gave it a good shot, but he should have done his homework.  Unfortunately, TB pitches volumes of dross, and people prefer to take his word, rather than trawl through it themselves, on the assumption that he has done so much research, he can't possibly be wrong.  A shame really, because it doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest reading, it is biased with a foregone conclusion, ergo it is worthless.

Tony, for whatever reason, is desperate to prove that the most important witnesses in this case are liars.  He has been smearing this innocent family for over 2 years and becomes apoplectic if anyone opines that the Smith family saw Gerry on that fateful night.  We all have the power and/or ability to stalk our enemies, the internet, our lives are more public than they have ever been.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should and happily most of us respect each other's privacy.  For Bennett, there are no moral or social boundaries, he is without conscious or empathy, one of the witnesses he is smearing was 12 years old at the time of the incident!  Why he has never faced criminal charges for interfering in a live police investigation, I will never know.  A cynic might say, any potential trial is fucked before it begins.

Some very nasty characters have attached themselves to this case, not least Mr. Bennett, who has done as much, if not more, to keep the case of missing Madeleine on the front page of the tabloid newspapers.  This angry preacher of mob justice, has for too long been seen as the face of those who do not believe the abduction story.  His angry diatribes and physical presence in the parents home town sealed the myth that doubters were 'haters' and 'pitchforkers' - even though the majority of us were as shocked and appalled by his actions as everyone else.

I don't think he is acting with or for the McCanns, though he may have 'threats' hanging over him for other matters.  He is disingenuous, and more than willing to lie to smear his opponents or defend himself, that he may well be putty in the hands of someone who has something on him.

People like Tony are very easy to manipulate.  He is an easy target, ergo he is corruptible.  Why is he corruptible?  Simple, he has set himself up on a pedestal, he declares himself to be a man of faith with high moral values, he doesn't drink, smoke, party or do drugs.  He is a middle class professional in a suit, there is no white cider in his fridge or tracky bottoms in his wardrobe.  He sees himself as several notches above the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder and sadly, he has been able to convince several others beneath him, to look up to and admire the bleeding heart, religious zealot he has created.  Those a few rungs up however, merely see him as the twat he is.

Tony is playing the game of the many weeping television evangelists who have gone before him, though far less successfully it must be said.  Sadly for him, he has the face, if not the voice, for radio and he lacks a shapely, multi-(eye)lashed Babe and of course, Charisma.  Tony wants to lead an army of the people in a quest for justice, he wants to create a legacy.  Any 'cause' will do - from road signs to celebrities caught in sex scandals to a little girl who disappeared on her holiday - the causes Tony attaches himself to, come with newspaper headlines and precious television airtime for his loony beliefs - he wants to spread the word, the word of course, being his own.

The best that can be said of Tony, is that no-one doubts his sincerity. Anyone who can argue creationism with a straight face, takes seriously deluded off the scale.  This is a man with beliefs carved in stone, there is no room for discussion or debate, he is right. End of.  You can kind of see, why he has never achieved his goals, unwieldy people in any sphere whatsoever, workplace, domestic, etc, are impossible to work with, unless of course, they achieve the tyrannical status they desire, in which case, no-one has a choice.  Tony pretends to be open minded while taking notes to use against his correspondent later - to him, everyone is a potential enemy - it is why he has to keep such close tracks on anyone who joins his forum.  He lives in permanent fear of being 'found out' - most weeping evangelists do.  We can only guess at what it is he fears, but he sure as hell fears something.  The disingenuous always do.  

I am not knocking him entirely, anyone who wants to leave a legacy (if they are honest) will do the same, from Joan of Arc leading an army to Jim Gamble cleaning up Sin City to the humble writer trying to get a break.  I used my time in the convent to get a book deal with a major publisher, but it was too honest, it didn't contain any graphic sexual violence because I didn't see any.  I saw only the cruelty and the physical violence, I found out about the sexual abuse of others after I left.  Honesty has always been my downfall and my opinions on the McCann case was the kiss of death to my writing career.  Seriously, what (sane) writer would comment negatively about the McCanns knowing that they had a book being released by a major publisher?  In 2011 (having been delayed a year), when my book came out, Kate and Gerry were virtual Saints, no-one dared to criticise them at that time and trust me, being at the top of their dossier/blacklist did me no favours whatsoever.

By 2010 (when I got my book deal), I had been commenting on the McCanns for nearly 3 years, and yes, I'm sure they have all the screenshots, lol.  Had they left me alone, I may have dropped out and moved onto other projects but they have pursued me relentlessly.  To be honest, I don't know whether to thank them for their tenacity or curse them for distracting me from other things, but without doubt, they have driven me to pursue this case to the end.  When I get my (at the moment very sore*) teeth into a subject, I am a finisher.  

But back to Mr. Bennett.  Clean living, quasi intellectuals and zealots can and do inspire followers - people who admire devotion, sacrifice, high moral values and quasi egalitarianism - qualities essential for all leaders and wannabe despots (on the surface at least) - they must be better than us, in order to lead us.  Our leaders must not be tempted by frivolity and sins of the flesh and we prefer that they not get high during world peace summits - though some might argue, that they should    

Unfortunately for the clean living (I've never attempted it myself, lol), they must keep up the façade for evermore.  No-one can ever smell liquor on their breath or discover a bong in their filing cabinet.  As for off limits hanky panky, forget it.  For the holier than thou, it is one partner for life and sex is for procreation only. The truly zealous want bibles and cameras in the nation's bedrooms to ensure everyone adheres to the missionary position.

This case has unfortunately, attracted more than its fair share of the morally righteous, from those who would never have left their babies on their own, myself included, to those want blood.  Quite literally.  They are eschewing the natural order and the law of the land by acting as investigators, judge and jury, themselves and Bennett is chief rabble rouser.  Tony will not be the hero who solves this crime, though he believes he is, and he will not be the one issuing the punishment (his orgasmic moment), the fate of the child's aggressors, is, thank God, in the hands of a democratic, cilivised society - we hope.  

I can't normally be arsed to comment on Bennett anymore, but his latest rantings against the unfortunate Smith family, dragged into this circus through no fault of their own, happens to coincide with my recovery from major dental surgery (*I had a tooth out ) and I am a bear(ess) with a bit of a sore head.

END OF DIATRIBE

@Tony Bennett  above:

"The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?  "

Are you a solicitor ?

 I have never seen decorative buttons like that.

I have. The idea was that you could either wear the trousers full length or you could turn them up and wear them 3/4 length. There is a tab on the inside which holds up the rolled up material and fastens with the button on the outside. They were very common at the time - I had two pairs like that.

They are exactly the sort of garment you would buy for a holiday because you could wear them two ways, so ring the changes, but save on packing/weight.

Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.

nyaff wrote:@Tony Bennett  above:

"The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?"

Are you a solicitor ?

I was a practising Solicitor 1993-1999, when I accepted a non-legal post as the Political Secretary to Jeffrey Titford M.E.P.

I retained my membership of the Law Society until 2009 when I voluntarily resigned from it

Richard IV wrote:Tony -v- Cristobell
Could be a case of 'chickens' or more likely just meeting one's match.
But rather silly to bring an off-topic piece here just to fan the flames.

The 'off-topic' piece as you put it was bang on-topic - in that it was a direct response to the evidence I have brought here, repeatedly, that the Smiths fabricated their sighting*


* See also Richard Hall's film 'The Phantoms':  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, wasothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

Well, if you are "a bit older than that (chortle)", you will be aware of how your life seems to be going by a lot faster than it was when you were a pre-teen. This is likely because your brain was a lot busier back then learning and storing just about everything it could. As we get older we think we've seen it all before and ignore a lot of what we see, thus using our brains a lot less and making time pass by quicker.
Aoife Smith also said in her statement that she was 60% sure that the girl being carried could have been Madeleine.

Rob Royston wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, wasothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

Well, if you are "a bit older than that (chortle)", you will be aware of how your life seems to be going by a lot faster than it was when you were a pre-teen. This is likely because your brain was a lot busier back then learning and storing just about everything it could. As we get older we think we've seen it all before and ignore a lot of what we see, thus using our brains a lot less and making time pass by quicker.
Aoife Smith also said in her statement that she was 60% sure that the girl being carried could have been Madeleine.

What a pity she didn't think to tell that to the police directly she heard the news of a missing little girl - most likely on 4th May rather than waiting for three weeks to elapse.  The case could have been solved with such an important piece of information.

Tony Bennett wrote:I think that this latest blog from former member here, Cristobell - Rosalinda Hutton - belongs here, simply because it is a direct response to a few posts of mine about 'Smithman' here, yesterday.

In her diatribe, she refers to the Smiths, twice, thus:

"the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution" and even,

"the most important witnesses in this case".

She goes on to refer to my attempts to demonstrate that the Smiths may have fabricated their statement as "interfering in a live police investigation" and says my aim is to "destroy the witnesses for the prosecution".

To which I have this brief answer: the Smiths have evidence of what, precisely?

One of them, and only one of them, Martin Smith, once made a highly dubious claim that the man he claimed to have seen on 3 May 'might have been' Gerry McCann. He was '60% to 80% sure'.

Months later, he began co-operating with the McCanns, he urged people to 'find the abductor' and relieve the McCanns' misery, and helped the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, Henri Exton, who was employed by the McCanns, to draw up two (controversial) e-fits. Since then, he has co-operated with the McCanns in the making of the 2009 documentary on the case, supported their putting his evidence on their website by changing his statement about the age of the man he said he had seen, and of course his evidence featured in 7 pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

After that, he spoke to DCI Andy Redwood twice, in 2012 and 2103, and was a major influence on the content of the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on October 2013.

Bearing all that in mind, he plainly is absolutely not a potential witness against the McCanns. Can Hutton really not see that?  

The attacks on my views on Smithman, like this one, are often exceptionally angry and bitter. I wonder sometimes just why that is.

+++ 

One other thing: Hutton refers to my interest in 'celebrities caught in sex scandals'.

Could this by any chance refer to my assistance to Terry Lubbock, a man from my home town, Harlow, whose son Stuart Lubbock was brutally raped and murdered by two or three men, possibly including Michael Barrymore, who was arrested on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock after my book Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder, exposing Barrymore's lies and 'drowning hoax' was serialised in the News of the World? 

The case where I won full Criminal Injuries Compensation for both Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife - after his previous solicitors had failed to do so?  

Ah yes, I thought so.


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

Thursday, 16 July 2015
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHERE DO WE BEGIN?
by Cristobell

Tony Bennett is certain he is right and he is on a mission it seems to discredit an innocent family who did no more than report seeing a man on the night of May 3rd 2007 who looked like Gerry McCann.  Tony's mission is to blow their evidence out of the water and discredit them before or if, a trial ever takes  place in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Tony believes he has the right to question and interfere with anyone he chooses.  The means are available, through his computer he has access to as much private information about his victims as he likes and the will to seek and destroy them.  He is driven by hatred, probably wakes up each morning and thinks what poor fucker can I set about today, misery is my gospel, repent and ye shall be saved.

He is bored with Kate and Gerry, and he's never had much interest in the Tapas friends, or indeed any of the central characters involved in this case.  He is in the midst of a two pronged attack - destroy the witnesses for the prosecution and 2, destroy the enemies of himself.  He has worked way too hard to have his limelight stolen by manicured and coiffered bimbos.  I can imagine him weeping to 'It should have me', when the very attractive DCI Wall took over the Madeleine investigation.  He uses her picture as an avatar to keep his bile bubbling away and if Verdi is his sock, he is revealing a dark, twisted sexuality that he is blissfully unaware of.

Bennett seems to have spent the last two years (at least) attacking the enemies of the McCanns, his eye is definitely not on the ball, the ball being the questionable abduction, to focus on the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution in case members of CMoMM forgot.

Most of the people Tony now attacks weren't even in PDL at the relevant time, but it matters not to TB.  His enemies now are those who would relieve him of his imaginary crown.  Every theory, other than his own must be stamped out, his opposition to Sonia Poulton's documentary has reached epic, paranoid, proportions.  He must convince the world, that those striving to expose the truth are the bad guys.  He forgets, there is only ONE truth, and it doesn't matter one iota how anyone gets to it.  Richard Hall gave it a good shot, but he should have done his homework.  Unfortunately, TB pitches volumes of dross, and people prefer to take his word, rather than trawl through it themselves, on the assumption that he has done so much research, he can't possibly be wrong.  A shame really, because it doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest reading, it is biased with a foregone conclusion, ergo it is worthless.

Tony, for whatever reason, is desperate to prove that the most important witnesses in this case are liars.  He has been smearing this innocent family for over 2 years and becomes apoplectic if anyone opines that the Smith family saw Gerry on that fateful night.  We all have the power and/or ability to stalk our enemies, the internet, our lives are more public than they have ever been.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should and happily most of us respect each other's privacy.  For Bennett, there are no moral or social boundaries, he is without conscious or empathy, one of the witnesses he is smearing was 12 years old at the time of the incident!  Why he has never faced criminal charges for interfering in a live police investigation, I will never know.  A cynic might say, any potential trial is fucked before it begins.

Some very nasty characters have attached themselves to this case, not least Mr. Bennett, who has done as much, if not more, to keep the case of missing Madeleine on the front page of the tabloid newspapers.  This angry preacher of mob justice, has for too long been seen as the face of those who do not believe the abduction story.  His angry diatribes and physical presence in the parents home town sealed the myth that doubters were 'haters' and 'pitchforkers' - even though the majority of us were as shocked and appalled by his actions as everyone else.

I don't think he is acting with or for the McCanns, though he may have 'threats' hanging over him for other matters.  He is disingenuous, and more than willing to lie to smear his opponents or defend himself, that he may well be putty in the hands of someone who has something on him.

People like Tony are very easy to manipulate.  He is an easy target, ergo he is corruptible.  Why is he corruptible?  Simple, he has set himself up on a pedestal, he declares himself to be a man of faith with high moral values, he doesn't drink, smoke, party or do drugs.  He is a middle class professional in a suit, there is no white cider in his fridge or tracky bottoms in his wardrobe.  He sees himself as several notches above the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder and sadly, he has been able to convince several others beneath him, to look up to and admire the bleeding heart, religious zealot he has created.  Those a few rungs up however, merely see him as the twat he is.

Tony is playing the game of the many weeping television evangelists who have gone before him, though far less successfully it must be said.  Sadly for him, he has the face, if not the voice, for radio and he lacks a shapely, multi-(eye)lashed Babe and of course, Charisma.  Tony wants to lead an army of the people in a quest for justice, he wants to create a legacy.  Any 'cause' will do - from road signs to celebrities caught in sex scandals to a little girl who disappeared on her holiday - the causes Tony attaches himself to, come with newspaper headlines and precious television airtime for his loony beliefs - he wants to spread the word, the word of course, being his own.

The best that can be said of Tony, is that no-one doubts his sincerity. Anyone who can argue creationism with a straight face, takes seriously deluded off the scale.  This is a man with beliefs carved in stone, there is no room for discussion or debate, he is right. End of.  You can kind of see, why he has never achieved his goals, unwieldy people in any sphere whatsoever, workplace, domestic, etc, are impossible to work with, unless of course, they achieve the tyrannical status they desire, in which case, no-one has a choice.  Tony pretends to be open minded while taking notes to use against his correspondent later - to him, everyone is a potential enemy - it is why he has to keep such close tracks on anyone who joins his forum.  He lives in permanent fear of being 'found out' - most weeping evangelists do.  We can only guess at what it is he fears, but he sure as hell fears something.  The disingenuous always do.  

I am not knocking him entirely, anyone who wants to leave a legacy (if they are honest) will do the same, from Joan of Arc leading an army to Jim Gamble cleaning up Sin City to the humble writer trying to get a break.  I used my time in the convent to get a book deal with a major publisher, but it was too honest, it didn't contain any graphic sexual violence because I didn't see any.  I saw only the cruelty and the physical violence, I found out about the sexual abuse of others after I left.  Honesty has always been my downfall and my opinions on the McCann case was the kiss of death to my writing career.  Seriously, what (sane) writer would comment negatively about the McCanns knowing that they had a book being released by a major publisher?  In 2011 (having been delayed a year), when my book came out, Kate and Gerry were virtual Saints, no-one dared to criticise them at that time and trust me, being at the top of their dossier/blacklist did me no favours whatsoever.

By 2010 (when I got my book deal), I had been commenting on the McCanns for nearly 3 years, and yes, I'm sure they have all the screenshots, lol.  Had they left me alone, I may have dropped out and moved onto other projects but they have pursued me relentlessly.  To be honest, I don't know whether to thank them for their tenacity or curse them for distracting me from other things, but without doubt, they have driven me to pursue this case to the end.  When I get my (at the moment very sore*) teeth into a subject, I am a finisher.  

But back to Mr. Bennett.  Clean living, quasi intellectuals and zealots can and do inspire followers - people who admire devotion, sacrifice, high moral values and quasi egalitarianism - qualities essential for all leaders and wannabe despots (on the surface at least) - they must be better than us, in order to lead us.  Our leaders must not be tempted by frivolity and sins of the flesh and we prefer that they not get high during world peace summits - though some might argue, that they should    

Unfortunately for the clean living (I've never attempted it myself, lol), they must keep up the façade for evermore.  No-one can ever smell liquor on their breath or discover a bong in their filing cabinet.  As for off limits hanky panky, forget it.  For the holier than thou, it is one partner for life and sex is for procreation only. The truly zealous want bibles and cameras in the nation's bedrooms to ensure everyone adheres to the missionary position.

This case has unfortunately, attracted more than its fair share of the morally righteous, from those who would never have left their babies on their own, myself included, to those want blood.  Quite literally.  They are eschewing the natural order and the law of the land by acting as investigators, judge and jury, themselves and Bennett is chief rabble rouser.  Tony will not be the hero who solves this crime, though he believes he is, and he will not be the one issuing the punishment (his orgasmic moment), the fate of the child's aggressors, is, thank God, in the hands of a democratic, cilivised society - we hope.  

I can't normally be arsed to comment on Bennett anymore, but his latest rantings against the unfortunate Smith family, dragged into this circus through no fault of their own, happens to coincide with my recovery from major dental surgery (*I had a tooth out ) and I am a bear(ess) with a bit of a sore head.

END OF DIATRIBE

Interesting!  No counter argument, only an irrational vicious vindictive attack.  I reckon she's been on the myths!

A point that never ceases to intrigue me - why are journalists allowed to interfere with a police investigation when an ordinary 'concerned' citizen is vehemently criticized for doing much the same, minus some very unethical moves?  If you were an investigative journalist you would be applauded for daring to probe any newsworthy case yet here we are with yet another maniacal rant from the keyboard of someone with a less than credible history.  I mean, what's the middle bit all about - what the heck has her past got to do with the Smith sighting?

By some standards, it seems OK for the likes of Ms Poulton to actively interfere with a live investigation by harassing and/or doorstepping witness and key players so what gives her the divine right to steam ahead regardless?

The only consolation I see, this woman talks so much rubbish no one can possibly take her seriously unless they are a few screws short - or she is talking to herself!

Onwards and upwards!

Richard IV wrote:Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.

The woman attacks from behind the lines - hardly cricket!

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, wasothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

Well, if you are "a bit older than that (chortle)", you will be aware of how your life seems to be going by a lot faster than it was when you were a pre-teen. This is likely because your brain was a lot busier back then learning and storing just about everything it could. As we get older we think we've seen it all before and ignore a lot of what we see, thus using our brains a lot less and making time pass by quicker.
Aoife Smith also said in her statement that she was 60% sure that the girl being carried could have been Madeleine.

What a pity she didn't think to tell that to the police directly she heard the news of a missing little girl - most likely on 4th May rather than waiting for three weeks to elapse.  The case could have been solved with such an important piece of information.

Yes indeed, it was a pity. They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home. I think it was the son who phoned the father, probably triggered by hearing that Murrat had been questioned, and brought up the memory of the man with the sleeping child.

Verdi wrote:

Richard IV wrote:Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.

The woman attacks from behind the lines - hardly cricket!

Her crazy obnoxious rants don't do her any favors that's for sure. She never misses an opportunity to vent her immense dislike for TB. What's it to her what TB puts forth as a theory in the case anyway, and he's not the only one to doubt the Smith sighting. And it sure isn't as if any court case against the McCann's which is non existent btw, is gonna be affected by what bloggers on a forum say, lol. We are not that important in this criminal case,just speculating. Delusions of granduer much RH?

Rob Royston wrote:

Yes indeed, it was a pity. They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home.

This is where it's useful to look at the evidence I posted in the OP, items 6 and 7


6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)



 
7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)
 
Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

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

Your claim that: "They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home", is simply incorrect.

Moreover, day after day after day on the television and on the newspapers they would have known that the McCanns were saying that an abductor stole Madeleine late that evening.

Yet the moment they learn that someone they know well has been declared a suspect, they ring up and say: "We saw someone! And it wasn't him!"  

Tony Bennett wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Yes indeed, it was a pity. They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home.

This is where it's useful to look at the evidence I posted in the OP, items 6 and 7


6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”.

But Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual…  (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children].  They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.

 
7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)
 
Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

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

Your claim that: "They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home", is simply incorrect.

Moreover, day after day after day on the television and on the newspapers they would have known that the McCanns were saying that an abductor stole Madeleine late that evening.

Yet the moment they learn that someone they know well has been declared a suspect, they ring up and say: "We saw someone! And it wasn't him!"  

It's not my claim, it's what they told the PJ.

Martin Smith:  "It appeared to him normal, as if this was father and daughter."

Peter Smith:  " This individual was walking normally although, in quick steps as he was coming down the street. It appeared to him normal, as if this was father and daughter."

It was Peter Smith who rekindled their memories of the man with the child. Peter Smith had never been to PDL before this holiday so it was very unlikely that Murrat was someone that he knew.

Joss wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Richard IV wrote:Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.

The woman attacks from behind the lines - hardly cricket!

Her crazy obnoxious rants don't do her any favors that's for sure. She never misses an opportunity to vent her immense dislike for TB. What's it to her what TB puts forth as a theory in the case anyway, and he's not the only one to doubt the Smith sighting. And it sure isn't as if any court case against the McCann's which is non existent btw, is gonna be affected by what bloggers on a forum say, lol. We are not that important in this criminal case,just speculating. Delusions of granduer much RH?

Quite right Joss, in every respect!  It annoys me intensely when I see comments that suggest this forum or that forum are going to solve the case of MBM - that's a job for the police and no one else.  Best we can do is keep the case alive so to speak and make the authorities realise we are not all so totally stupid as to be sucked in by what we're told.  IMO the internet is a wonderful creation in many respects but it also has a massive negative effect - if nothing else but giving a platform for vicious vindictive maniacs, amongst other evils.

The McCanns and their entourage scuppered any chance of a court appearance (let alone a prosecution) way back (excuse the pun) in the spring of 2007.  Anything after that is but window dressing.

Verdi wrote:

Joss wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Richard IV wrote:Tony -v- Cristobel
Could be a case of `chickens` or more likely just meeting one`s match.
But rather silly to bring on off topic piece here just to fan the flames.

The woman attacks from behind the lines - hardly cricket!

Her crazy obnoxious rants don't do her any favors that's for sure. She never misses an opportunity to vent her immense dislike for TB. What's it to her what TB puts forth as a theory in the case anyway, and he's not the only one to doubt the Smith sighting. And it sure isn't as if any court case against the McCann's which is non existent btw, is gonna be affected by what bloggers on a forum say, lol. We are not that important in this criminal case,just speculating. Delusions of granduer much RH?

Quite right Joss, in every respect!  It annoys me intensely when I see comments that suggest this forum or that forum are going to solve the case of MBM - that's a job for the police and no one else.  Best we can do is keep the case alive so to speak and make the authorities realise we are not all so totally stupid as to be sucked in by what we're told.  IMO the internet is a wonderful creation in many respects but it also has a massive negative effect - if nothing else but giving a platform for vicious vindictive maniacs, amongst other evils.

The McCanns and their entourage scuppered any chance of a court appearance (let alone a prosecution) way back (excuse the pun) in the spring of 2007.  Anything after that is but window dressing.

I totally agree Verdi. I think most are here for Madeleine, and to try to understand and figure out what possibly happened to the poor little girl. I have personally never followed a missing child case of such proportion as this one, with all the various players who have attached themselves to the McCann's to tell everyone the parents had no culpability in their child's fate. I think for the British taxpayers they have a right to demand why so much effort by establishment and millions of pounds of taxpayer money have been spent on this one particular case. In that respect it sets itself apart from other cases, and nobody to my knowledge has ever given a satisfactory answer to the general public as to why that is so.
I also believe the McC's will never face a trial/jury, or be charged in any way for Madeleine's disappearance, but at least i would think they know that lots of people out there don't believe the story they have stuck to about an abduction.

@Tony  -  as a former solicitor maybe The Authoress should have consulted you before stating along the lines that you could be destroying the case for the prosecution!

For those who have read the Smith statement they would know that the prosecution woud not call him as a witness given that he was only 80per cent sure at the time and IIRC has since said something like he was even less sure now.   I stand to be corrected of course.

Regarding 12 year olds being able to take in x number of details in 3 seconds - that would of course depend on any individual child - would it not?

plebgate wrote:@Tony  -  as a former solicitor maybe The Authoress should have consulted you before stating along the lines that you could be destroying the case for the prosecution!

For those who have read the Smith statement they would know that the proseuction woud not call him as a witness given that he was only 80 per cent sure at the time and IIRC has since said something like he was even less sure now.  I stand to be corrected of course.

Regarding 12-year-olds being able to taken in x number of details in 3 seconds - that would of course depend on any individual child - would it not?

1. He said he was only '60% to 80%' sure

2. The basis for his identification of GM was 'the way he was carrying his child' - as if you could make such an identification on that basis alone, and based on a 3-seocnd view in the dark

3. He changed his mind months later and now (we can deduce this even if he hasn't said it on the record) he (a) doesn't believe it is GM and (b) thinks the abductor might look like one of two very different-looking men

4. I challenge anyone to give a colour picture of an adult and infant child, shown in the dark (i.e. poorly lit), to any adult or child, for exactly three seconds, and then, over three weeks later, ask them what they saw, remembering to include, e.g.:
 - what material were their clothes made of
 - whether the sleeves were long or short
 - whether the complexion was light or dark 
 - which clothes had buttons on
 - how old the infant was
(all this and much more was in Aoife's statement)

5. Do you not regard it as a most remarkable coincidence that:
 A. The Smiths described someone who looked EXACTLY like Wojcek Krokowksi, and
 B. The Smiths described a child looking EXACTLY like Madeleine McCann?

6. What are the chances that the Smiths discussed and colluded with each other on how to describe Smithman during the 10 days between Martin Smith calling the police (16 May) and making their statements (26 May)?

Tony Bennett wrote:

plebgate wrote:@Tony  -  as a former solicitor maybe The Authoress should have consulted you before stating along the lines that you could be destroying the case for the prosecution!

For those who have read the Smith statement they would know that the proseuction woud not call him as a witness given that he was only 80 per cent sure at the time and IIRC has since said something like he was even less sure now.  I stand to be corrected of course.

Regarding 12-year-olds being able to taken in x number of details in 3 seconds - that would of course depend on any individual child - would it not?

1. He said he was only '60% to 80%' sure

2. The basis for his identification of GM was 'the way he was carrying his child' - as if you could make such an identification on that basis alone, and based on a 3-seocnd view in the dark

3. He changed his mind months later and now (we can deduce this even if he hasn't said it on the record) he (a) doesn't believe it is GM and (b) thinks the abductor might look like one of two very different-looking men

4. I challenge anyone to give a colour picture of an adult and infant child, shown in the dark (i.e. poorly lit), to any adult or child, for exactly three seconds, and then, over three weeks later, ask them what they saw, remembering to include, e.g.:
 - what material were their clothes made of
 - whether the sleeves were long or short
 - whether the complexion was light or dark 
 - which clothes had buttons on
 - how old the infant was
(all this and much more was in Aoife's statement)

5. Do you not regard it as a most remarkable coincidence that:
 A. The Smiths described someone who looked EXACTLY like Wojcek Krokowksi, and
 B. The Smiths described a child looking EXACTLY like Madeleine McCann?

6. What are the chances that the Smiths discussed and colluded with each other on how to describe Smithman during the 10 days between Martin Smith calling the police (16 May) and making their statements (26 May)?

Surely The Authoress has read these points from you many times Tony?   One does have to wonder why she persists in trying to ridicule you when you put forward such logical (imo) points.  

Oooops maybe I should have stepped on to several rungs of my ladder before daring to speak to Tony, His Lordship of Forumland ha ha ha.


I believe The Authoress would never attain the level of knowledge it would take to have a remote chance of winning any argument against Tony, so I therefore take what is posted with a very great deal of disdain.

plebgate wrote:

Oooops maybe I should have stepped on to several rungs of my ladder before daring to speak to Tony, His Lordship of Forumland ha ha ha.

The Forum Dictator [TB]

     plebgate

Rob Royston wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard IV wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

No one is seeing buttons under these conditions.

Nice touch though.

IMO you would easily pick out buttons on the side of trousers if it was a full moon, and it was. The moon`s light would reflect buttons because of their plastic and/or metal texture against fabric.

Er...

1. She only said 'possibly' saw buttons
2. She only saw him for 1 second
3. It had been a cloudy day; if clouds covered the moon = no moonlight
4. None of the Smiths mention 'full moon'
5. Even if a full moon, was Smithman facing towards the moon or away
6. Did she really see all those 33 separate things in one second?

What she said was, " His trousers were beige in colour, made of cotton, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
She had just reached the top of the steps when she saw the individual two metres to her left. She then mentions that she crossed the Rua 25 de Abril towards the road leading to the school, so it could be that he crossed in front of her from left to right. This would have given her a side view that makes her seeing the buttons quite possible. Either that or she crossed the road in front of the individual probably slowing him down.
The brain of a twelve year old would have no difficulty in absorbing 33 separate pieces of information in a few seconds. I say a few seconds because the way I read what she said, he would have been in her sight for at least three seconds.

That's a very interesting remark!  Are you speaking from a psychologists angle or are you just voicing your opinion?

Whether you are right or wrong my question is - why would a 12 year old bother to take in such detail, in a few seconds, of a stranger walking the streets at around 10:00 pm at night which, at the time, wasothing remarkable and therefore of no particular interest.  Remarkable however that she was able to recall such detail of a seemingly unimportant event 3 weeks later.  Admittedly I'm a bit older than that (chortle) but I generally don't take a blind bit of notice of passing strangers encountered everyday, let alone be able to describe their physique and clothing - at that's in the broad light of day!  If whoever was doing something out of the ordinary, then I might take notice.

Well, if you are "a bit older than that (chortle)", you will be aware of how your life seems to be going by a lot faster than it was when you were a pre-teen. This is likely because your brain was a lot busier back then learning and storing just about everything it could. As we get older we think we've seen it all before and ignore a lot of what we see, thus using our brains a lot less and making time pass by quicker.
Aoife Smith also said in her statement that she was 60% sure that the girl being carried could have been Madeleine.

What a pity she didn't think to tell that to the police directly she heard the news of a missing little girl - most likely on 4th May rather than waiting for three weeks to elapse.  The case could have been solved with such an important piece of information.

Yes indeed, it was a pity. They all thought they had seen a father taking a sleeping child home. I think it was the son who phoned the father, probably triggered by hearing that Murrat had been questioned, and brought up the memory of the man with the sleeping child.

Assuming for the moment that your theory is correct, how does Martins Smith's description of the stranger square with that of his daughter?  Their individual descriptions of the strangers appearance is almost exactly the same (give or take a few minor details).  Does that suggest that Martin Smith has the mind of a 12 year old or that a 12 year old has the mind of her father?  Martin said beige classic cut, Aoife said beige possibly with buttons.  Possibly is not really very reliable is it - why possibly, with such a nubile receptive observational capacity you would think she would know whether she saw buttons on the trousers or whether she didn't?  

IIRC there were four adults in the group - Martin Smith, his wife, his son and his sons wife but only two of the family (Martin and his daughter Aoife) gave a distinct description of the stranger, Martin Smith's son was very evasive and Martin Smith's wife more so. There was also I think a family member around the same age as Aoife but that element of the family doesn't feature in the picture for some reason.   The  similarities in the descriptions given by the two main players, Martin and Aoife, suggest that they collaborated when preparing their statements otherwise, in accordance with your theory, one would expect to see conflicting observations - but there wasn't.  Never forget this was some three weeks after the event which seems extraordinary when, as you believe, they didn't pay much attention to the incident. 

Do you think that's a fair evaluation?

As an aside, in Martin Smith's witness statement taken on 26th May 2007 he said 'having already seen various photographs of Madeleine and televised images, that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her.  He can't state this as fact but is convinced that it would have been Madeleine, also the opinion shared by his family.'  This indicates to me that he and his family were aware of Madeleine's disappearance well before their joint decision to volunteer the information they had so far withheld from the police.

Quote from Verdi: 

IIRC there were four adults in the group, two of which (Martin and his daughter Aoife) gave a distinct description of the stranger, Martin Smith's son was very evasive and his wife more so. 




Are you counting then 12-year-old Aoife as one of the adults?

I'm slightly confused.
If Mr s was fed the info to come up with the description to match tannerman & sagresman,why would he then say there was a 60-80% chance of it being GM several months later?

Sorry if i'm being thick here.

@ Tony Bennett

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - 'several meetings' over 'two years'

and:

Smith is adamant that he knows Murat so well that he can be certain the man he saw wasn't Murat

I'm wondering why you say Martin Smith knew Robert Murat well.

Martin Smith has made it clear that he knew Robert Murat by sight only.

Or perhaps that's what you meant, that Martin Smith knows Robert Murat well but by sight only?