Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?

[Lace]

It is obvious that Mr Smith was describing the man he saw when he said he was not wearing glasses and did not have a beard.

Why would he say those two things in one sentence if he meant that it was himself who was not wearing glasses?

[Brietta]

You have posed an 'either...or' question there.

To which my answer would be: neither.

There is a third alternative which I suggest must be considered: namely that Operation Grange was never intended to get to the truth from the start, and that the BBC Crimewatch McCann show on 14 October 2013 was a cynical attempt to head the British public toward an acceptable, but false, explanation for what really happened to Madeleine McCann.   

So you believe that the Home Secretary who is authorising continued financing the investigation and who is doubtless being kept up to speed with developments ... is content that it is all part of the great cover up?

Perhaps if I make a tinfoil hat and start wearing it I will be able to keep apace of such reasoning.  In the interim I shall go with the delusion that Scotland Yard are actually investigating that which was not investigated ... and having got that out of the way and arising in part from ... are investigating suggested new leads.
How the Smith sighting figures in that is as much a mystery to me as it is to you, but I am keeping my feet on the ground with it.

Wonder why the Policia Judiciaria are going along with the great "cover up" ... or are you suggesting their detectives on the case have failed to detect the alleged SY subterfuge?

[Brietta]

It's obvious they didn't think anything of it at the time because they looked like father and daughter. That is not an uncommon sight in Luz. You definitely wouldn't expect an abductor to be carrying a child openly through streets (very smart move to not stand out from the crowd). It was only later when they realised that they saw the man and child about the same time as the disappearance they thought it could be important. This case hasn't been solved for the simple reason whilst everyone is chasing shadows, Smithman is having a good laff and thinking what a load of numpties! But he won't be laughing when this case is over.

How do you know that Smithman was walking the streets on the date the Smiths thought he was?

They evidence poor recall.

One had a dream ... which they all remembered after discussion.  This was at a remove of thirteen days from Madeleine's abduction of which they were all aware the day after it happened.

Where is the evidence they saw what they saw on the date they thought they had seen it?

[G-Unit]

You have posed an 'either...or' question there.

To which my answer would be: neither.

There is a third alternative which I suggest must be considered: namely that Operation Grange was never intended to get to the truth from the start, and that the BBC Crimewatch McCann show on 14 October 2013 was a cynical attempt to head the British public toward an acceptable, but false, explanation for what really happened to Madeleine McCann.   

That could be the answer; but as a lot of people pointed out, the e-fits looked very much like someone close to the case. Did none of 'Britain's finest' police force actually notice that? Or were they so sure that the timeline was the absolute truth that they believed that person had a cast-iron alibi?

[jassi]

That could be the answer; but as a lot of people pointed out, the e-fits looked very much like someone close to the case. Did none of 'Britain's finest' police force actually notice that? Or were they so sure that the timeline was the absolute truth that they believed that person had a cast-iron alibi?

I'm sure they did, but perhaps they were told to go away and not be so silly.

[G-Unit]

How do you know that Smithman was walking the streets on the date the Smiths thought he was?

They evidence poor recall.

One had a dream ... which they all remembered after discussion.  This was at a remove of thirteen days from Madeleine's abduction of which they were all aware the day after it happened.

Where is the evidence they saw what they saw on the date they thought they had seen it?

I have seen it suggested that Jane Tanner may have seen her 'abductor' when she was on her way to relieve Russell. The only evidence that she saw what she said she saw was the dismissal of her sighting by Redwood. There is a mulitude of evidence of the poor recall of the group.

[blonk]

It is obvious that Mr Smith was describing the man he saw when he said he was not wearing glasses and did not have a beard.

Why would he say those two things in one sentence if he meant that it was himself who was not wearing glasses?

A good point, yet there are others beside myself who think that he may have been referring to himself not wearing glasses, rather than Murat - and, as I posted earlier, at least two media reports emphatically say that oy was Smith who was not wearing glasses that night.

I might add that I have seen 1,001 or more pics of Murat WITH glasses, so it's rather hard to imagine him spending an evening without them on.

We don't know anything about when and where Smith and Murat were that evening when Murat was allegedly drunk - and I suppose we never shall     

[Lace]

A good point, yet there are others beside myself who think that he may have been referring to himself not wearing glasses, rather than Murat - and, as I posted earlier, at least two media reports emphatically say that oy was Smith who was not wearing glasses that night.

I might add that I have seen 1,001 or more pics of Murat WITH glasses, so it's rather hard to imagine him spending an evening without them on.

We don't know anything about when and where Smith and Murat were that evening when Murat was allegedly drunk - and I suppose we never shall     

I would go by what Mr. Smith said in his statement to the police as to what he meant.

[blonk]

I would go by what Mr. Smith said in his statement to the police as to what he meant.

But that's where we need the help of someone like ShininInLuz because, unless I'm much mistaken, what we read in Martin Smith's statement is...

What he said in English >>> translated into Portuguese  >>>  then translated back into English by...someone or other.

It is not important to me. Clearly there is room for doubt and I hope someone can finally clear it up for us.

Preferably Martin Smith himself, and then he could also tell us how drunk Robert Murat was without his glasses on, and when and where this happened     

 

[blonk]

It's obvious they didn't think anything of it at the time because they looked like father and daughter. That is not an uncommon sight in Luz. You definitely wouldn't expect an abductor to be carrying a child openly through streets (very smart move to not stand out from the crowd). It was only later when they realised that they saw the man and child about the same time as the disappearance they thought it could be important.

But this is only ONE of FIVE different reasons given by the Smiths for their delay in reporting their sighting.

Which one are you going to choose?

I've set out the five different reasons, with references, in another place. But I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it, so here they are:

A. The Smiths’ stated reasons for their delay in reporting their claimed 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…”

Statement given to Irish newspapers:

[ NOTE: The probable date of Peter Smith’s ‘phone call to his father (if it happened at all) was 16 May, but could have been 17 or 18 May ]:

Martin Smith is quoted as saying: “We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police".

3 January 2008, Daily Mail:

“Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection. ‘We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken? We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police’, said Mr Smith”. 

‘We only remembered him after coming home’, Drogheda Independent, 9 January 2008:

Peter Smith also told the Drogheda Independent:  “…it was only after we were home two weeks that I remembered seeing him. At the time my attention was focused on looking after my wife. When I mentioned it, it jogged my father's memory and he too remembered seeing the same man’, Peter added. He went on: ‘We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy’.”

‘If only we’d remembered the next day’, Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

Martin Smith: “We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day. But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time” [ Note: When did the Portuguese police ever say that to him? ].

REASON 2: On 4 May ‘I thought it could have been Madeleine’

Statement made to PJ:

“He only became aware of Madeleine’s disappearance ‘the next morning’, from his daughter in Ireland. She had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that Madeleine could have been the child he saw with the individual”.

REASON 3: ‘We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting’ - Peter Smith: It was the coincidence of the time

Peter Smith’s statement:  “Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 21H55/22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day
— At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

We found out the exact time Madeleine disappeared

Drogheda Independent, 8 August 2007 – article based on interview with ‘a family member - possibly Peter Smith: “They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.

“As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members [Peter Smith – see above] had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory”.

“They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.

Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is’, said the family member.

Sun, 3 January 2008: The time of Maddie’s abduction was revealed

“The Smiths were leaving Kelly's Bar…between 9.50 and 10pm on May 3 last year.

“They flew home to Ireland the next day, but when the times of Maddie's abduction were revealed, the family remembered seeing a man, 5ft 7in to 5ft 9in tall and dressed in beige, carrying the child. Significantly the description matches that given by Jane Tanner, 37, a friend of the McCanns.

REASON 4: The descriptions matched

The description was similar to Tanner’s; Daily Mail, 3 January 2008

“Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner…Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: ‘Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important’."

REASON 5. ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’

[ NOTE: This story appeared in the Daily Mirror on 16 October 2013, two days after the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special. It had the hallmarks of a story facilitated by the McCann Team. It included several quotes from Martin Smith ]:

“A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.

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

“But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier”.

Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace - spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm - was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche”.

[ NOTES: 1. This is the first time that Martin Smith claims that he had contacted the Portuguese police and that they ‘failed to take his evidence seriously’ 

2. The way the article reads totally misleads readers by suggesting that the Portuguese police took details for an e-fit yet went on to ignore this 

3. It is also misleading  in suggesting that the police were ‘too busy’ chasing up the sighting of another man, ‘Tannerman’. In fact (a) the police were suspicious of Tanner’s claimed ‘sighting’ from Day One, and (b) as we know from Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book, he did take the Smiths’ sighting seriously ]   
 

[ShiningInLuz]

If I remember correctly the police statements all concurred that they had not seen Murat ... suggesting that it was a specific question.

Neither Aoife nor Peter mentions Murat, only Martin. 

It was Peter's first visit to Luz, so he was unlikely to have met Murat in question.  As Martin visited Luz about 3 times a year, it is likely that Aoife had visited on a number of previous occasions.  She makes no mention of knowing Robert Murat.

[pathfinder73]

How do you know that Smithman was walking the streets on the date the Smiths thought he was?

They evidence poor recall.

One had a dream ... which they all remembered after discussion.  This was at a remove of thirteen days from Madeleine's abduction of which they were all aware the day after it happened.

Where is the evidence they saw what they saw on the date they thought they had seen it?

It is obvious what night it was because Peter's family took a flight home in the morning.

[pathfinder73]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0552165158
174

Wednesday 6 June. Today we left on our campaign visits to Berlin and Amsterdam.

With the completion of the formal programme of events, the plan had been to relax for an hour before our departure to Amsterdam. At 3pm, however, a message was relayed to us from the British police with instructions for us to be taken immediately to the British Embassy. ‘What’s happened?’ We had barely got the words out before the reply came: ‘I’m sorry, we don’t know.’ A wave of nausea. Immediate tears. Was she dead? Had she been found? We had been here before and couldn’t believe this was happening all over again, but there we were, holding on to each other in the back of a car, crying, shaking and praying. Please God, let it be good news. Please God, let Madeleine be all right. At the Embassy, Ambassador Torry had been joined by David Connolly, an officer from SOCA (the Serious Organised Crime Agency). David told us how sorry he was we’d had to go through another twenty minutes of suffering and reassured us that nothing terrible had happened. I felt myself breathe again. He explained that the Spanish police had received a call, on an Argentinian mobile phone, from a man calling himself Walter, who told them he had information about Madeleine but would speak only to Gerry or me. The Spanish police conferred with the Portuguese police and both concluded that it might be significant. The Spanish police were going to ring Walter back and arrange for him to talk to us. David warned us that it might be a hoax, but it was equally possible it might be genuine, perhaps a ransom demand. My heartbeat quickened. I tried to keep a lid on any optimism, knowing how bad the crash would be if this amounted to nothing, but it was incredibly hard to suppress the flicker of hope it had ignited. David briefed Gerry on what would happen. Gerry and I would take the call at the police headquarters in Berlin. He talked Gerry through the questions he would need to ask and how he should respond. As we waited to hear from the Spanish authorities we were joined by two German specialist kidnap officers. The whole team oozed professionalism and experience, which sustained Gerry and me as the minutes ticked slowly by. At 5pm local time, the Spanish police rang Walter. There was no answer. I was completely gutted. We were given three options: we could return to the UK, where, it was felt, the facilities for dealing with such operations were probably the best; we could stay on in Berlin in case the authorities were able to make contact with Walter; or we could carry on to Amsterdam as planned. After some discussion, we decided that, since it now seemed that this was in all probability a crank call, we should press on to Amsterdam. The episode had caused us enough heartache already and we didn’t want it to scupper this important trip as well. If there were any further developments, we could easily be contacted there. An additional complication was that the journalists travelling with us were waiting to be told when the plane was going to leave and had already begun speculating about the reason for the delay. Clarence was being bombarded with questions and had so far managed to field them without disclosing any sensitive details, but it could only be a matter of time before the press got wind of something. The last thing we needed was another dramatic and wildly inaccurate story blowing up. In the unlikely event that Walter’s call had been genuine, who knows what effect it might have had on any negotiations? As it turned out, that was the last we ever heard of Walter. But it was a good illustration, if any were needed, of the inadvisability of allowing the media to fly with us. The Netjets plane eventually took off shortly before 7.30pm, several hours later than planned. By then I was such a nervous wreck that I accepted a restorative gin and tonic. Come to think of it, that might well have been my first drink since Madeleine was taken. It helped me relax for a few minutes, anyway. On our descent into Schipol airport, the sensations that were now becoming familiar returned: the tight throat, the stinging, wet eyes, the heavy, dragging feeling in my chest. Oh God, how could this be? Amsterdam held so many happy memories of the year we’d lived there with Madeleine. How could we be coming back without her? I’m so sorry, Madeleine. I’m so, so sorry. It was late and Gerry and I were both completely drained by the stress and seesawing emotions of the afternoon. On our arrival in Amsterdam, with profuse apologies, we cancelled a broadcast interview that had been scheduled to take place two hours earlier. Unbelievably, the producers were really quite angry. I’ve learned to accept this kind of insensitive reaction, which we have encountered from time to time over the years, mainly with the international press. Some people have become pretty belligerent when they’ve felt we haven’t given them what they wanted from us. One guy even threw his mike on the floor in a fit of pique. It’s as if news, events and ‘human-interest stories’ exist solely to serve their programmes and publications rather than the other way around; as if we, and Madeleine’s situation, are there simply as fodder for their airtime or columns. It’s disappointing but we are used to it. It would be pointless to let it get to us. We move on. We did manage a short interview that evening, in our hotel room, with a nice lady called Eleanor from The Tablet, the weekly Catholic newspaper. This was more like a chat than anything else and certainly more relaxing than any other media interviews we’d done so far. Afterwards, at 10pm, five of our Amsterdam friends came over to see us. I could hardly bear to let go when they hugged me. I knew the moment I stepped back to look at them their faces would instantly remind me of days spent together with Madeleine. A fresh surge of pain mingled with the comfort brought by these special friends. We had never expected to be seeing them without Madeleine. These were people who had shared her first birthday cake with her. This incomplete reunion made no sense. (Madeleine by KM)

[Carana]

I don't see what some people seem to find suspicious about the Smiths.

- They were strolling home after dinner, the daughter-in-law wasn't feeling well and she and Peter had a flight to catch the next morning.

- They passed passed someone who they assumed to be a father carrying his daughter; they may have also passed other people on their way.

- If it had initially been assumed that she disappeared a bit after 9pm, I expect quite a few people wouldn't make the connection that whoever had taken her out of the flat could still be wandering around PdL nearly an hour later. 

- Peter seems to have suddenly recalled the incident when Murat was on TV as a suspect.

It's a shame that no one made the connection earlier, but that's sometimes what happens in real life, particularly without a clear PJ appeal for witnesses.

- They did go back over to PT to try to help later in May.

- Martin knew Murat by sight and said he would have recognised him if it had been him.

- Then there was the bombshell that the McCanns had been made arguidos and he had a sudden doubt that it might have been him, based on a flashback memory of the similarity of a man carrying a sleeping child down steps, and felt he ought to share that doubt with the police.

I have no problem with that, IMO, he was just acting as a good citizen. It was then up to the police to check it out. What he couldn't have known was that Amaral thought he'd hit the jackpot and that sharing his doubt would end up splattered all over the Internet.

Over time, his 60-80% (a bit more than "dunno", but not "certain") then got exaggerated.

[blonk]

I don't see what some people seem to find suspicious about the Smiths.

FIVE wholly different reasons why they delayed reporting their sighting???