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

[Carana]

I and most others are persuaded that he was referring to himself i.e. 'I normally wear glasses but wasn't on this occasion'.
     

Based on what?

[ShiningInLuz]

Perhaps you could quote Martin Smith's statement on that point?

Martin Smith's statement, in the current English translation.

"He appeared to be about 34/35 years old. He had a normal complexion, rather slim. His hair was short, in a normal male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark brown or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses nor did he have a beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good."

"He says that it would not possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph."

He obviously got a look at the man's face, sufficient to be able to state definitively he was not Robert Murat.

The above, to me, says he remembers skin tone and the absence of glasses, beard or moustache, but on 26 May 2007 he was of the opinion he could not pick him out in person or from a photograph. 

Speaking personally, I would not accept that he could have produced an accurate e-fit on 26 May 2007, let alone in 2008.

The English, to me, is clear that Mr Smith is not referring to a lack of his own glasses, otherwise he would be talking about a lack of his own beard and a lack of his own moustache, which strikes me as nonsensical.  I can check the Portuguese if such a check is deemed necessary.

[Carana]

(snip)
The English, to me, is clear that Mr Smith is not referring to a lack of his own glasses, otherwise he would be talking about a lack of his own beard and a lack of his own moustache, which strikes me as nonsensical.  I can check the Portuguese if such a check is deemed necessary.

That seems logical to me as well...

[blonk]

[You said that Martin Smith was not wearing glasses that night] - Based on what?

ANS:  Based on this:

(1) The Irish Mail on Sunday article, quoted above, which says this:
 
“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. 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".

and on this >>>

2. "Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann", quoted at this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462431/Madeleine-McCann-Police-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html#ixzz3zrs0YYId

[misty]

This is one of the sources, an article dated 10 August 2008 in the Irish Mail on Sunday:

QUOTE (EXTRACTS ONLY)

“Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may.

One said: ‘'Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland. The McCanns return to England…it  was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime.

"At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry. By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what?’

''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese, who were clearly desperate to get something against them."

“As they made their way back, the [Smiths] crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.

“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. 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.

“This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward. ‘He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it. The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw…our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours. 'I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own. The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

There is at least one more source but I can't lay my hands on it at the moment.

IMO it doesn't matter which of the Smiths produced an efit for Oakley. They could have produced one looking like Tom Cruise but it would never have been admissible as evidence to the Portuguese police. Equally, they were not committing any criminal offence in the UK.
 Once they reproduce it for the Met, matters become more serious. However, no-one, as far as we know,can prove that this family didn't see Smithman who looked a bit like Tannerman, dressed rather like Tannerman & carried a child a bit like the one Tannerman carried. All SY were/are hoping for is that someone be positively identified as Smithman , as Crecheman has obviously ruled out any possibility that he was that very same person.
The Smiths weren't aiding the McCanns, they were a thorn in the side. It was a go-to sighting, should Tannerman ever be identified as someone who wasn't supposed to have been seen.

ETA I see the Met's objective as actually proving the Smiths' statements were truthful. Nothing else.

[Carana]

ANS:  Based on this:

(1) The Irish Mail on Sunday article, quoted above, which says this:
 
“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. 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".

and on this >>>

2. "Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann", quoted at this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462431/Madeleine-McCann-Police-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html#ixzz3zrs0YYId

What did Martin Smith's statement say?

[ShiningInLuz]

...

I and most others are persuaded that he was referring to himself i.e. 'I normally wear glasses but wasn't on this occasion'.

...

The statement in Portuguese is "Não usava óculos, nem barbá ou bigode."

Usava is imperfect tense, which covers habitual action (used to), or was ...ing form.

Usar, the infinitive for usava, means to use or wear when applied to glasses, and to have or wear when applied to beard or moustache.

The -ava ending is used for 1st person singular (I), and 3rd person singular (which covers lots but here can only be he).

This leads to 4 alternative translations.

I used not to wear glasses, nor a beard or moustache.
I was not wearing glasses, nor a beard or moustache.
He used not to wear glasses, nor a beard or moustache.
He was not wearing glasses, nor a beard or moustache.

This single sentence definitely cannot change from 1st person at the start to 3rd person after the comma, because of the conjunction nor, which welds the two parts together.
 
The sentence is embedded in description of Smithman, before and after.

Martin Smith was not describing himself in this sentence.  He was continuing his description of Smithman, so the first two options are out.

The 3rd option requires that Martin Smith knew the habitual actions of this man.  Clearly he did not, so this option is out.

That leaves "He was not wearing glasses, nor a beard or a moustache", a description of Smithman, as the only translation that fits Martin Smith's statement.

If anyone has used this as supporting evidence re the newspaper links you have provided, that person was in error.

[Carana]

ANS:  Based on this:

(1) The Irish Mail on Sunday article, quoted above, which says this:
 
“In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather - who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw. 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".

and on this >>>

2. "Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann", quoted at this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462431/Madeleine-McCann-Police-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html#ixzz3zrs0YYId

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: 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 cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[Mr Gray]

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: 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 cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

How much of that description was given freely or in response to leading questions

[Carana]

How much of that description was given freely or in response to leading questions

No idea. In context, the PJ may have been rushing to try to work out if it could have been Murat.

[Brietta]

No idea. In context, the PJ may have been rushing to try to work out if it could have been Murat.

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

[pathfinder73]

How much of that description was given freely or in response to leading questions

You think asking somebody if he was wearing glasses or had facial hair is leading  What do you think they are going to ask him?

[Carana]

You think asking somebody if he was wearing glasses or had facial hair is leading  What do you think they are going to ask him?

For the moment, Blonk still seems convinced that the PJ's questions regarded whether Martin Smith was wearing glasses or not... If that's the case, were the PJ also asking if Martin also had a moustache and a beard? If so, what for?

[pathfinder73]

For the moment, Blonk still seems convinced that the PJ's questions regarded whether Martin Smith was wearing glasses or not... If that's the case, were the PJ also asking if Martin also had a moustache and a beard? If so, what for?

What? They would be asking MS what the man looked like. After giving his answer they may have followed up with questions like: Did he wear glasses? Did he have a beard? Nothing strange about any of this. Blonk is trying to say MS and his whole family were saving Robert Murat. 5 children lied. They bring a 12 year old over to Portugal to lie to police? Crazy talk. Smithman's short hair is nothing like Tannerman and Photoman who he is trying to connect and they have been identified and cleared. Smithman hasn't been.

[Carana]

What? They would be asking MS what the man looked like. After giving his answer they may have followed up with questions like: Did he wear glasses? Did he have a beard? Nothing strange about any of this. Blonk is trying to say MS and his whole family were saving Robert Murat. 5 children lied. They bring a 12 year old over to Portugal to lie to police? Crazy talk. Smithman's short hair is nothing like Tannerman and Photoman who he is trying to connect and they have been identified and cleared. Smithman hasn't been.

I'll leave you to try to explain that to him. I'm still waiting for his answers to my points on the petition thread...