Return of the Mac

Well, folks, it has been a while since we visited Baldylocks and his three spares. however, nothing seems to have changed, judging by his latest sniping rant at innocent witness Mr Martin Smith. 
(Although he does on this occasion have the correct Mr Smith, so I suppose we should be grateful for that)

This rant was prompted by an article in an Irish publication in which it was revealed that, contrary to reports, Mr Smith has never actually rescinded his claim that he is 60-80% certain that the man he saw in PdL that night was Gerry McCann.

So here we go - Baldylocks has repeated the same core claims three times on the same page, so he clearly has a bee in his bennett.

For that matter, for anyone still believing that Martin Smith is an honest witness - who has never for a moment changed his mind about his being '60% to 80% certain' that the man he said he saw at 10pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 was Gerry McCann - explain why:

1 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by talking to Brian Kennedy and his men (Dec 2007)? 

How does this, even if it is correct, amount to co-operating with the McCanns? He was asked if he would help in the compiling of e-fits. I would love to know how the fact that one of the images looks a lot like Gerry was supposed to be ''co-operating'' with him. And don't give me all the bollocks about it not looking like Gerry. It does. 

2 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by agreeing to help ex-MI5 Head of Covert intelligence Henri Exton (employed by Brian Kennedy) draw up efits of the man he said he saw? 

See my comments above.  

3 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing them to put up an audio recording of a summary of his statement on their website (May 2009)?

Can you produce evidence that he was consulted or asked for permission? No? Then it is just another claim you have pulled from your arse 

4 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing the McCanns to change the age of the man he said he saw to 34-35 (when he  said it was '35-40', and afterwards had said it was '40') (May 2009)? 

He has made no change to his statement. Unless you can produce evidence that he was consulted and agreed to the age being quoted, it is yet another ''pulled from your arse'' claims.

5 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by not challenging Kate McCann's account of how his description of an abductor matched that of Jane Tanner's description? 

This is the most baffling. 
Mr Smith, unlike you, is not an interfering busybody, desperate to get on the telly. He is a witness in an investigation and it would be completely improper for him to make any such statement in public. No wonder they kicked you out of the Law Society  

6 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by being interviewed twice by Operation Grange, once in 2012 and once in 2013, in preparation for the joint BBC-Met Police production, the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special of 14 October 2013 - a programme which elevated his description to that of the 'No. 1 Suspect'?

How is agreeing to be interviewed by the police ''co-operating with the McCanns"?  Frankly, that is a barking mad suggestion

7 He at no time until 3 February 2018, despite countless opportunities, ever reminded any journalist that he still believed that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?   

Why should he?! 
He had to send solicitors letters to numerous newspapers so why on earth would he go blabbing to them about an active investigation? 

8. He failed for four years and four months to complain publicly that he had been thoroughly misrepresented on a BBC porgramme seen by 7 million people? 

Again, why should he? He appears to be essentially a very private man - he complained to the programme-makers but I see no reason why he would invite further intrusion by flapping his gums to the tabloids like you would. 

Finally, can anyone tell me how, given all that we know about Martin Smith, he could possibly ever be a credible witness, if Gerry McCann were ever to be charged with hiding Madeleine's body? 

I see nothing to suggest that Martin Smith would be anything other than a very credible witness, one who has not been running to the press and who has wisely kept his own counsel. What is more baffling is why you have such an issue with him and why you have targeted him for such abuse over the years.