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

[Alice Purjorick]

http://www.madeleinefilms.net/page4.php

PLEASE NOTE: We have been contacted by Martin Smith who is mentioned towards the end of this programme. Mr. Smith reported seeing a man carriying a child on the night in question. Mr Smith stated the following ...

Dear Mr. Hall,
I have just watched the 4 parts of your new film "Buried by Mainstream Media etc" which I found very interesting. I would like to point out a major inaccuracy near the end of part 4 of the film where it was stated that I was "friends with Robert Murat". This statement is untrue and I would like it corrected. I had come across Mr.Murat twice in the previous 12 months, had never been introduced to him and merely knew him by sight.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Smith.

Twisting this issue on its head - how sure was MS that the RM whose picture was being shown on the TV & in the newspapers was the same person he knew by sight only from 2 previous encounters (one of them viewed not sporting glasses & appearing drunk) in a 12 month period? I wonder what specific reason MS had for learning a name. without being introduced?

Whatever it was it stands a chance it was:
a) Sinister.
or
b) Unremarkable.
Depending upon the scuttlebutt one wishes to promote.

[Alfred R Jones]

Mine was a tale of a peg where a peg should not have been.

&%+((£ What could it possibly mean other than the McCanns dunnit, eh...?  &%+((£

[Carana]

http://www.madeleinefilms.net/page4.php

PLEASE NOTE: We have been contacted by Martin Smith who is mentioned towards the end of this programme. Mr. Smith reported seeing a man carriying a child on the night in question. Mr Smith stated the following ...

Dear Mr. Hall,
I have just watched the 4 parts of your new film "Buried by Mainstream Media etc" which I found very interesting. I would like to point out a major inaccuracy near the end of part 4 of the film where it was stated that I was "friends with Robert Murat". This statement is untrue and I would like it corrected. I had come across Mr.Murat twice in the previous 12 months, had never been introduced to him and merely knew him by sight.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Smith.

Twisting this issue on its head - how sure was MS that the RM whose picture was being shown on the TV & in the newspapers was the same person he knew by sight only from 2 previous encounters (one of them viewed not sporting glasses & appearing drunk) in a 12 month period? I wonder what specific reason MS had for learning a name. without being introduced?

It could simply be the fact of having seen someone he recognised from the village appearing on TV as a suspect. Thought a bit more about who'd he'd seen and decided that it wasn't him.

Later, he then stopped to think about Gerry, who was indeed seen carrying a child, and chose to share his doubt as to whether it could have been him.

I don't see anything more in it than anyone else might do in the same circumstances of having potentially been a witness to a child's disappearance.

[misty]

It could simply be the fact of having seen someone he recognised from the village appearing on TV as a suspect. Thought a bit more about who'd he'd seen and decided that it wasn't him.

Later, he then stopped to think about Gerry, who was indeed seen carrying a child, and chose to share his doubt as to whether it could have been him.

I don't see anything more in it than anyone else might do in the same circumstances of having potentially been a witness to a child's disappearance.

OK. Take it a step further.
 Who was it who introduced Smithman in the first place? Who provided the description?
More importantly - did anyone ever suggest at the point of the statements being taken that the man MS introduced into the equation could have been RM?
AS wasn't asked about him. PS wasn't asked.
Why did MS rule RM out before he'd even been ruled in?

[pathfinder73]

OK. Take it a step further.
 Who was it who introduced Smithman in the first place? Who provided the description?
More importantly - did anyone ever suggest at the point of the statements being taken that the man MS introduced into the equation could have been RM?
AS wasn't asked about him. PS wasn't asked.
Why did MS rule RM out before he'd even been ruled in?

MS was a regular visitor to Luz so maybe that's why he was asked if he knew RM and was it him. RM was probably known to a lot locally but Smithman wasn't .

[misty]

MS was a regular visitor to Luz so maybe that's why he was asked if he knew RM and was it him. RM was probably known to a lot locally but Smithman wasn't .

You're totally missing the point. Why would the PJ ask MS if RM was the man he saw, when MS was the person who had just introduced Smithman? What relevance did RM have to this fresh sighting?

[Mr Gray]

Mine was a tale of a peg where a peg should not have been.

like everything else you question there will be a simple explanation

[jassi]

Maybe, maybe not. Can you supply one?

[pathfinder73]

You're totally missing the point. Why would the PJ ask MS if RM was the man he saw, when MS was the person who had just introduced Smithman? What relevance did RM have to this fresh sighting?

Because Jane Tanner said he was the one in the surveillance.

[misty]

Because Jane Tanner said he was the one in the surveillance.

No. she didn't.
What possible connection did MS believe the man he was introducing had to RM?

[Alfred R Jones]

Maybe, maybe not. Can you supply one?

Whatever it is it won't have anything whatsoever to do with Martin Smith and whether or not he was mistaken about his sighting, that I can guarantee.

[pathfinder73]

No. she didn't.
What possible connection did MS believe the man he was introducing had to RM?

Are you kidding me? JT pointed out it was him. That turned out to be RM. So they asked MS about RM in the later sighting in case he was seen again. This is elementary detective work.

[misty]

Are you kidding me? JT pointed out it was him. That turned out to be RM. So they asked MS about RM in the later sighting in case he was seen again. This is elementary detective work.

JT did NOT identify RM. That was confirmed by the  contents of the AG final report.
The PJ are not supposed to ask witnesses leading questions. The statement suggests the information was volunteered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
*snipped*
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— 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 that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately

[jassi]

Whatever it is it won't have anything whatsoever to do with Martin Smith and whether or not he was mistaken about his sighting, that I can guarantee.

Quite right. How these topics do drift.

[pathfinder73]

JT did NOT identify RM. That was confirmed by the  contents of the AG final report.
The PJ are not supposed to ask witnesses leading questions. The statement suggests the information was volunteered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
*snipped*
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— 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 that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately

Various men walked across the road and JT thought he was the one she saw on the night. She didn't know that was RM crossing the road but the police did. So they later ask MS was it him. What is the problem? It's no big mystery.