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

[Brietta]

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

Only Peter's family returned home.

The others were in Luz in the middle of the media maelstrom.  We are told of the grandchildren's terror.  Yet it took thirteen days for Peter's wonderment to enable the connection to be agreed after a family discussion, that the sight of a man walking in the dark carrying a child might be of interest to the investigation of a missing child.

Given such uncertainty and the delay in making the connection in my opinion the accuracy of the recall would require provenance.
CCTV would have been a help.  Whoops! ... there was such coverage ... the Estrella da Luz camera would certainly have verified time and date; unfortunately the police did not collect it before it was erased.

[Carana]

@ Blonk


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”.

What Smith actually said may never be known. PJ police statements are a summary of whatever the officer / translator understood and is noted in reported speech.

A word in question is "então", which can mean "then". Did he mean as soon as his daughter called? Or did he mean it in the sense of a progressive dawning that it might have been the missing child, explaining his reason for coming back over to assist?

[pathfinder73]

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 ]

The fact is there were 9 of them and if they had seriously thought on the 4 May that he did it they would have called the police. They thought it wasn't unusual like normal father and daughter. Peter's family flew home the next morning. The next time he contacts his father they bring the subject up and decide because of the time they saw him they'd better inform the police just in case. Do you believe it was Robert Murat and his mother lied for him? Do you think all of them lied about his description? Murat is a heavier build than Smithman.

"Immediately at the beginning of this road he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally, with a fairly quick step because he was coming downhill. It appeared normal to him, like father and daughter." PS

"As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion." MS

"The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it." AS

Normal physical build. The child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown. AS

Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. PS

He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour.  The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. MS

[misty]

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

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’."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The description of Tannerman had not been released to the public until 25th May by the PJ, 9 days after the Smiths reported the incident locally.  How did the Smiths know their man was almost identical?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
   
Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007

Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".

The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.

[Eleanor]

I hope no one is suggesting that The Smiths were lying.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

...

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.

...

Now that we have nailed down which part of the statement you were talking about, we may be able to make progress.

I have no access to files beyond that generally available to any individual with access to the Internet.  In particular, if something started off in English and then got translated into Portuguese, but the English version is not publicly available on the Internet, I have no access to such.  In brief, I have no superior access to the files than any other person on the forum.

Let me tackle a different aspect of this.  Assuming the information is in Portuguese in the files, can I nail "He did not wear glasses at this time"?  The shortest answer is no.

'He' is third person singular.  In Portuguese, 3rd person singular covers he, she, it and one variation of you.  Since both Martin and Robert are male, we can jettison the options other than 'he'.

Neither the English version or the Portuguese translation thereof can clarify beyond what we have.

We have a paragraph concerning Robert Murat.  First meeting in 2006. The sentence about no glasses. The reason why it was not Robert Murat on 3 May 2007.  All in the same paragraph.

To conclude the sentence about no glasses is Martin speaking about himself, sandwiched between two sentences about Robert Murat in a paragraph about Robert Murat, requires considerable imagination.  If it is important, it means Martin, not wearing his glasses, couldn't tell if it was Robert or not, whereas his statement is that he could tell.

To conclude the sentence about no glasses is Martin explaining how he could tell that the man with no glasses was not Robert Murat is surely obvious?  How could Martin tell that the man with no glasses was not Robert Murat?  Because he had seen Robert Murat when Robert was not wearing glasses.

Hopefully we have got the dross sorted out and can move on to more interesting stuff.

[Carana]

Now that we have nailed down which part of the statement you were talking about, we may be able to make progress.

I have no access to files beyond that generally available to any individual with access to the Internet.  In particular, if something started off in English and then got translated into Portuguese, but the English version is not publicly available on the Internet, I have no access to such.  In brief, I have no superior access to the files than any other person on the forum.

Let me tackle a different aspect of this.  Assuming the information is in Portuguese in the files, can I nail "He did not wear glasses at this time"?  The shortest answer is no.

'He' is third person singular.  In Portuguese, 3rd person singular covers he, she, it and one variation of you.  Since both Martin and Robert are male, we can jettison the options other than 'he'.

Neither the English version or the Portuguese translation thereof can clarify beyond what we have.

We have a paragraph concerning Robert Murat.  First meeting in 2006. The sentence about no glasses. The reason why it was not Robert Murat on 3 May 2007.  All in the same paragraph.

To conclude the sentence about no glasses is Martin speaking about himself, sandwiched between two sentences about Robert Murat in a paragraph about Robert Murat, requires considerable imagination.  If it is important, it means Martin, not wearing his glasses, couldn't tell if it was Robert or not, whereas his statement is that he could tell.

To conclude the sentence about no glasses is Martin explaining how he could tell that the man with no glasses was not Robert Murat is surely obvious?  How could Martin tell that the man with no glasses was not Robert Murat?  Because he had seen Robert Murat when Robert was not wearing glasses.

Hopefully we have got the dross sorted out and can move on to more interesting stuff.

It's seem clear to me that Martin was not describing himself.

[ShiningInLuz]

It's seem clear to me that Martin was not describing himself.

I'm loving it.  I have laboured in two humungous posts to try to explain what was going on.  Even though it has already been pointed out that said point is not of importance.

So if it is not, can we move on to something that is?

My apologies, I cannot for the life of me get the Smilies to work.  Please work on the basis that if I could, you would be seeing a thumbs-up here.

[Brietta]

I hope no one is suggesting that The Smiths were lying.

Mr Smith made exactly the same mistake in identification that Mr McCluskey made after watching what was probably the same news coverage.

Why Mr Smith's mistake lives on as witnessed by the title of the thread and Mr McCluskey's is forgotten is just one of life's mysteries.

The Smith family saw someone after eating out ... but on what night?

[jassi]

SY don't seem to have doubts as to which night Smithman was seen.

[G-Unit]

I'm loving it.  I have laboured in two humungous posts to try to explain what was going on.  Even though it has already been pointed out that said point is not of importance.

So if it is not, can we move on to something that is?

My apologies, I cannot for the life of me get the Smilies to work.  Please work on the basis that if I could, you would be seeing a thumbs-up here.

Some of us explore details, some work with broader strokes. I am of the opinion that the detail is where new information can be found. I only recently discovered that all the children were located near the Tapas on Friday 4th May, rather than being split between the Tapas area and the Main Reception. It was hiding in the details of a statement.

Was it important? It doesn't seem so on the face of it until I read an article which suggested that another family who used the childcare facilities that day gazed sadly at Madeleine's peg. Then I wondered why Madeleine had a peg in the Tapas childcare facility when she never used that place. I don't know if there really was a peg there or if someone was exaggerating, but it's interesting and may become significant at some point.

Nobody here is qualified to decide what is important and what isn't. All information may be useful and help our understanding.

If Mr Smith didn't have his glasses that casts doubt on his conviction that the man he saw wasn't Murat. If he'd previously seen Murat without his glasses that suggests he was confident about what Murat looked like without his glasses and he was more likely to be correct when he said it wasn't him. That makes the point about the glasses important.

[Eleanor]

Mr Smith made exactly the same mistake in identification that Mr McCluskey made after watching what was probably the same news coverage.

Why Mr Smith's mistake lives on as witnessed by the title of the thread and Mr McCluskey's is forgotten is just one of life's mysteries.

The Smith family saw someone after eating out ... but on what night?

Who knows.  It was all such a mess, Brietta.  I was gobsmacked most of the time in the early days.

[Eleanor]

Some of us explore details, some work with broader strokes. I am of the opinion that the detail is where new information can be found. I only recently discovered that all the children were located near the Tapas on Friday 4th May, rather than being split between the Tapas area and the Main Reception. It was hiding in the details of a statement.

Was it important? It doesn't seem so on the face of it until I read an article which suggested that another family who used the childcare facilities that day gazed sadly at Madeleine's peg. Then I wondered why Madeleine had a peg in the Tapas childcare facility when she never used that place. I don't know if there really was a peg there or if someone was exaggerating, but it's interesting and may become significant at some point.

Nobody here is qualified to decide what is important and what isn't. All information may be useful and help our understanding.

If Mr Smith didn't have his glasses that casts doubt on his conviction that the man he saw wasn't Murat. If he'd previously seen Murat without his glasses that suggests he was confident about what Murat looked like without his glasses and he was more likely to be correct when he said it wasn't him. That makes the point about the glasses important.

The Peg Quote was to do with Madeleine's first School in England.  They kept a peg for her in the hope she would be found.

So many misunderstandings.  Although even 80% wouldn't have been good enough for a Court of Law,

[ShiningInLuz]

Some of us explore details, some work with broader strokes. I am of the opinion that the detail is where new information can be found. I only recently discovered that all the children were located near the Tapas on Friday 4th May, rather than being split between the Tapas area and the Main Reception. It was hiding in the details of a statement.

Was it important? It doesn't seem so on the face of it until I read an article which suggested that another family who used the childcare facilities that day gazed sadly at Madeleine's peg. Then I wondered why Madeleine had a peg in the Tapas childcare facility when she never used that place. I don't know if there really was a peg there or if someone was exaggerating, but it's interesting and may become significant at some point.

Nobody here is qualified to decide what is important and what isn't. All information may be useful and help our understanding.

If Mr Smith didn't have his glasses that casts doubt on his conviction that the man he saw wasn't Murat. If he'd previously seen Murat without his glasses that suggests he was confident about what Murat looked like without his glasses and he was more likely to be correct when he said it wasn't him. That makes the point about the glasses important.

Blonk posted articles from the newspapers to the effect that Martin Smith did not have his glasses that night.

Grinding through statements to debate whether they say Mr Smith was pointing out he did not have his glasses, which rendered him incapable of recognising Mr Murat, when Mr Smith was very clear that it was not Mr Murat, is the bit that is unimportant.

Blonk has explicitly stated that his understanding of the situation does not depend on whether Martin Smith had his glasses or not.

We have no idea whether Mr Smith needed his glasses to recognise Mr Murat at that distance or not.

We do have Martin Smith's statement.  He rated the lighting as poor, insufficient to gather much detailed information about Smithman's face.  But he is very clear that Smithman is not Robert Murat.

So, what have we got thus far?  It appears, from the newspaper articles that Martin Smith did not have his glasses that night.  It appears, from the statement, that Martin Smith is saying Smithman did not have glasses.  It appears, from the statement, that Martin Smith was able to recognise Robert Murat whether Robert was wearing glasses or not, or, alternatively, that Martin Smith could recognise Robert when he, Martin, did not have his glasses.  Mr Smith is on record that the person was not Robert Murat.  No one is on record suggesting that it was Robert Murat.

Mr Murat has been through the mill twice, once as an arguido, once as a witness.  Both times he appears to have emerged unscathed.

There is nothing here to suggest that the state of Mr Smith's glasses is important.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, assuming they are not legally constrained as I am, could of course get in touch with Mr Smith to clarify whether he was capable of recognising Mr Murat in the 4 options of glasses/none and Smith/Murat.

[G-Unit]

Mr Smith made exactly the same mistake in identification that Mr McCluskey made after watching what was probably the same news coverage.

Why Mr Smith's mistake lives on as witnessed by the title of the thread and Mr McCluskey's is forgotten is just one of life's mysteries.

The Smith family saw someone after eating out ... but on what night?

Just one important difference;

It has already been checked! They are Ukrainians from Alvor with a blonde daughter who attends the “A Flor” crèche in Portimao.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm