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

[blonk]

— 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

I am afraid that those commenting on Martin Smith's statement have obviously got badly confused, and although ShiningInLuz's little essay on Portuguese grammar is no doubt very informative, it does not help if we are looking at the wrong part of Martin Smith's statement.

And Carana, too, has extracted an irrelevant part of Martin Smith's statement. 

To recap, when asked by Carana for a source, I produced two quite separate newspaper articles which both clearly contain a statement that Martin Smith was not wearing his glasses that night.

Carana didn't quote the right bit of Martin Smith's statement in her reply.

This is the part of Martin Smith's statement that has given rise to the comments that he may not have been wearing his glasses that night:

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

This has given rise to some heated debate elsewhere. Some have interpreted this as: "Robert Murat wasn't wearing glasses on that occasion (i.e. the first occasion Smith saw Murat)".  Others say it means that Martin Smith was saying: "I wasn't wearing glasses on this occasion (i.e. on 3rd May)".

It really is of no consequence to me whether Martin Smith was or was not wearing his glasses that night - if he was, I am still left with six, rather than seven, very good reasons why Martin Smith was in no position to draw up any kind of efit for Henri Exton, a year or more after the event.

However, if ShiningInLLuz has access to what the original English-to-Portuguese version in the files says, and would like to offer her view on the likely meaning of "He did not wear glasses at this time", I am happy to be guided by that.

ONE FURTHER IMPORTANT POINT now that Carana has reproduced that interesting extract from Martin Smith's statement.

In it, he says the man he saw was 'about 35 to 40'.

But in a subsequent statement, he said the man looked about '40'.

But then in another twist, when the McCanns uploaded a 30-second summary of Martin Smith's statement on the Find Madeleine website in May 2009 (and it is still there today), Martin Smith's statement about the age of the man is changed to 'about 34 to 35'.

This is significant. Two separate changes to his original statement on the age alone (and those are not the only changes he makes in his statement.

I have two questions about this for all viewing this thread:

1. What rational explanation is there for Martin Smith to change the man's age not once, but twice? - and
2. How do these two changes in his statements affect his overall credibility as a witness of truth?                     

 

       

[pathfinder73]

I think he was referring to Robert Murat not wearing glasses when he saw him at that time not himself.

[pegasus]

Source: Daily Mail Jan 3rd 2008 paper edition
"Mr Smith said...
'We ... have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.' "

Technically true, because the Gardai and the Leicestershire Police with whom he definitely did have very important contact in Sept 2007, were not technically the "investigating police" (strictly speaking, only the PJ were the "investigating police")

In early Jan 2008, the very significant contact he had initiated with the Gardai and Leicestershire Police in Sept 2007, were not publicly known (this is long before the files were released) therefore he correctly keeps those contacts secret from the press, by stating something which kept those contacts secret, yet was indeed technically true.

[pegasus]

When did the Smith sighting first become publically known in the media anywhere in the world?
Answer = 6th June 2007

On what date in a rather official building was the option of a private international flight being re-routed to England considered?
Answer = 6th June 2007

[Brietta]

Source: Daily Mail Jan 3rd 2008 paper edition
"Mr Smith said...
'We ... have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year.' "

Technically true, because the Gardai and the Leicestershire Police with whom he definitely did have very important contact in Sept 2007, were not technically the "investigating police" (strictly speaking, only the PJ were the "investigating police")

In early Jan 2008, the very significant contact he had initiated with the Gardai and Leicestershire Police in Sept 2007, were not publicly known (this is long before the files were released) therefore he correctly keeps those contacts secret from the press, by stating something which kept those contacts secret, yet was indeed technically true.

His words to the press were carefully chosen to make his statement technically true without giving away the full story.

He would have had impressed on him the importance of Judicial secrecy just as the Drs McCann and the tapas seven had (McCanns 'are hiding a big secret', former police chief claims Last updated at 14:34 28 October 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490254/McCanns-hiding-big-secret-police-chief-claims.html#ixzz3zuZKGJAY  )

He spent a lot of time in Portugal and would not want to risk being penalised for breaking the law.  Neither would he have expected his statements to the police to end up in the public domain as they did.
I imagine that came as a surprise to a lot of people particularly those whose personal details such as addresses were plastered all over the internet.

What you have posted is also a reminder that there was a lot going on which at the time was not in the public domain and that our opinions are formed by what we think we know from reading the files and others' interpretation of them.

An example of this is that I had supposed that the chronology of events was that

• Jane tanner reported her sighting immediately the GNR arrived on the scene
• The Smith family reported their sighting as soon as they found out about the missing child, which would have been the next day

I was astounded to learn that the Smith sighting was not reported to the PJ for a fortnight after the event.  That is a very important interval at a time of greatest importance in investigating a missing child.

**Snip
"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."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

[misty]

When did the Smith sighting first become publically known in the media anywhere in the world?
Answer = 6th June 2007

On what date in a rather official building was the option of a private international flight being re-routed to England considered?
Answer = 6th June 2007

The McCanns were in Berlin then went on a delayed flight to Amsterdam. Why do you think it was to be re-routed to England?

[pegasus]

I don't know the answer to this one.
When did the fact, that an Irish witness had in Sept 2007 given additional information to Gardai and LP, first become publically known?

[Brietta]

When did the Smith sighting first become publically known in the media anywhere in the world?
Answer = 6th June 2007

On what date in a rather official building was the option of a private international flight being re-routed to England considered?
Answer = 6th June 2007

You would need to give a cite for a change in flight plan being considered.

[pegasus]

The McCanns were in Berlin then went on a delayed flight to Amsterdam. Why do you think it was to be re-routed to England?

Because that was suggested at the embassy as one of the options Misty.

[pegasus]

You would need to give a cite for a change in flight plan being considered.

page 174 of a valuable and truthful book Brietta

[misty]

Because that was suggested at the embassy as one of the options Misty.

In effect, you are saying that the McCanns may have wanted their plane re-routed to the UK because the PJ apparently gave them a piece of information they had held since 26/5 but waited until the McCanns were in Berlin on 6/6 to tell them about it?

[Brietta]

page 174 of a valuable and truthful book Brietta

Not in my copy it isn't.  Hardback or paperback?

[pegasus]

In effect, you are saying that the McCanns may have wanted their plane re-routed to the UK because the PJ apparently gave them a piece of information they had held since 26/5 but waited until the McCanns were in Berlin on 6/6 to tell them about it?

It was not a PJ leak, it was a regional irish newspaper article which had appeared that morning.

Plane rerouting was one of the 3 options suggested by the gov / soca / whatever.

[pegasus]

Not in my copy it isn't.  Hardback or paperback?

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

[misty]

It was not a PJ leak, it was a regional irish newspaper article which had appeared that morning.

Plane rerouting was one of the 3 options suggested by the gov / soca / whatever.

OK. Scrap my last comment. What has a call from Walter in Argentina got to do with the release of the Smith sighting?