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

[blonk]

Are you suggesting he made it all up?

Do you have a more persuasive explanation?

[slartibartfast]

Do you have a more persuasive explanation?

How about he is an honest independent witness?

[pegasus]

Do you have a more persuasive explanation?

Hi blonk, in your opinion can we at least agree that the group did see a man who was wearing white or cream trousers and a black jacket?

[pegasus]

Jun 6th was a doubly good day for the search of Europe by the family
They did a TV interview in Berlin on June 6th which very successfully reached millions of potential witnesses worldwide.
And through their carry-on FO media monitoring expert, they would on Jun 6th have learned of a very important sighting, in PDL itself, of a man carrying a motionless child, at the very time the child disappeared.

[pathfinder73]

Jun 6th was a doubly good day for the search of Europe by the family
They did a TV interview in Berlin on June 6th which very successfully reached millions of potential witnesses worldwide.
And through their carry-on FO media monitoring expert, they would on Jun 6th have learned of a very important sighting, in PDL itself, of a man carrying a motionless child, at the very time the child disappeared.

Didn't they reveal the pyjamas at this time? Berlin?

[Carana]

Didn't they reveal the pyjamas at this time? Berlin?

The significance being?

From what I can find, a photo of the same pyjamas were first revealed by the Algarve Resident on 8 May. The PJ then announced the same description two days later.

[pegasus]

Didn't they reveal the pyjamas at this time? Berlin?

They did display some pyjamas in Berlin on 6th June however this had been done already by the PJ on approx 26th May, and before that as Misty says by a newspaper in Portugal on 8th May.

The couple's PR man must have been so disappointed when following the huge publicity success of the 6th June Berlin TV interview, the next two TV interviews in Amsterdam on 7th May had to be so unfortunately cancelled.

[misty]

They did display some pyjamas in Berlin on 6th June however this had been done already by the PJ on approx 26th May, and before that as Misty says by a newspaper in Portugal on 8th May.

The couple's PR man must have been so disappointed when following the huge publicity success of the 6th June Berlin TV interview, the next two TV interviews in Amsterdam on 7th May had to be so unfortunately cancelled.

It was 2 interviews late on the 6th which had to be cancelled. They did do one in Amsterdam on the 7th June.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id13.html

07 Jun 07
35
Gerry's original posting showed: Date: 06 June 2007, Day: 35
 *snipped*
The press conference, meetings and appeal on TV today in Amsterdam all seemed to go well. I doubt there are many people left in Europe who do not know of Madeleine’s disappearance and hopefully everyone who has information will have come forward to the police. Today was particularly difficult for Kate and I because of the year we spent in Amsterdam with Madeleine.

[blonk]

Hi blonk, in your opinion can we at least agree that the group did see a man who was wearing white or cream trousers and a black jacket?

I am hoping that Slartibartfast when s/he returns to the thread will be able to give me a simple answer to my question:  "Do you have a more persuasive explanation?"

S/he merely wrote: "How about he is an honest independent witness?"

By no means does that answer why the Smith family, between them, came up with five wholly different explanations for the unaccountable delay of 13 days in reporting their sighting. I consider that misty, a few posts back, completely nailed the unacceptability of the Smiths delaying their report for 13 days.

I further suggest that no-one will be able either (a) to offer a plausible explanation for their 13-delay nor be able to give a persuasive explanation for all those different explanations. 

jassi offered this: "If you have 5 people who are not conferring, you might reasonably [sp.] expect to get different answers".  Maybe. But this is a husband and wife - Martin and Mary - and their children, and their wives/husbands. They were all except a couple of them in Praia da Luz until Wednesday 9 May - amidst a sea of police officers and searchers, posters of Madeleine in every window, door and wall, and villagers crawling over town and countryside! This was a family 'conferring' every minute of the waking day!

Minute after minute, hour after hour, is it suggested that they all saw a young blonde child clad only in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold dark night being taken around the streets by a man on his own - and no-one in the family ever mentioned it??

Until four days after they got back to England, Peter suddenly 'remembered that he had a recollection', and made his "Am I dreaming" quote.

I don't buy it for one moment.

I am truly open to anyone who can put forward a reasonable explanation for the Smiths' actions, delay, and contradictory reasons for the delay - but I've not seen it yet on this forum or anywhere else.

So, finally to answer your question:  "Can we at least agree that the group did see a man who was wearing white or cream trousers and a black jacket?", no we cannot agree.     

And here's yet one more reason why I cannot agree.

Look at Martin Smith's first statement. He is asked about the colour of the man's jacket. He cannot recall it.

Yet when he makes a second statement (the one on 30 January IIRC), he says it was 'dark'. Why does he change his evidence?

For that matter, why does he change the age of the man he saw from '35 to 40', then in his next statement to 40, and then yet another change to '34-35' when his statement is put up on the McCanns' website?

Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

The questions about the Smiths' evidence just pile up, and up, and up           

[pegasus]

It was 2 interviews late on the 6th which had to be cancelled. They did do one in Amsterdam on the 7th June.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id13.html

07 Jun 07
35
Gerry's original posting showed: Date: 06 June 2007, Day: 35
 *snipped*
The press conference, meetings and appeal on TV today in Amsterdam all seemed to go well. I doubt there are many people left in Europe who do not know of Madeleine’s disappearance and hopefully everyone who has information will have come forward to the police. Today was particularly difficult for Kate and I because of the year we spent in Amsterdam with Madeleine.

@Misty oh yes you are right, one of cancelled TV interviews was due to take place after arrival at Schipol airport on the 6th, and the broadcaster was rather upset at the sudden cancellation.

[pathfinder73]

I am hoping that Slartibartfast when s/he returns to the thread will be able to give me a simple answer to my question:  "Do you have a more persuasive explanation?"

S/he merely wrote: "How about he is an honest independent witness?"

By no means does that answer why the Smith family, between them, came up with five wholly different explanations for the unaccountable delay of 13 days in reporting their sighting. I consider that misty, a few posts back, completely nailed the unacceptability of the Smiths delaying their report for 13 days.

I further suggest that no-one will be able either (a) to offer a plausible explanation for their 13-delay nor be able to give a persuasive explanation for all those different explanations. 

jassi offered this: "If you have 5 people who are not conferring, you might reasonably [sp.] expect to get different answers".  Maybe. But this is a husband and wife - Martin and Mary - and their children, and their wives/husbands. They were all except a couple of them in Praia da Luz until Wednesday 9 May - amidst a sea of police officers and searchers, posters of Madeleine in every window, door and wall, and villagers crawling over town and countryside! This was a family 'conferring' every minute of the waking day!

Minute after minute, hour after hour, is it suggested that they all saw a young blonde child clad only in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold dark night being taken around the streets by a man on his own - and no-one in the family ever mentioned it??

Until four days after they got back to England, Peter suddenly 'remembered that he had a recollection', and made his "Am I dreaming" quote.

I don't buy it for one moment.

I am truly open to anyone who can put forward a reasonable explanation for the Smiths' actions, delay, and contradictory reasons for the delay - but I've not seen it yet on this forum or anywhere else.

So, finally to answer your question:  "Can we at least agree that the group did see a man who was wearing white or cream trousers and a black jacket?", no we cannot agree.     

And here's yet one more reason why I cannot agree.

Look at Martin Smith's first statement. He is asked about the colour of the man's jacket. He cannot recall it.

Yet when he makes a second statement (the one on 30 January IIRC), he says it was 'dark'. Why does he change his evidence?

For that matter, why does he change the age of the man he saw from '35 to 40', then in his next statement to 40, and then yet another change to '34-35' when his statement is put up on the McCanns' website?

Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

The questions about the Smiths' evidence just pile up, and up, and up           

You do know there were 9 eye witnesses in total. Peter didn't notice that jacket but his son did and said it was black like the one seen on the sofa in crime scene pics.

"Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot." PS

[ShiningInLuz]

I am hoping that Slartibartfast when s/he returns to the thread will be able to give me a simple answer to my question:  "Do you have a more persuasive explanation?"

S/he merely wrote: "How about he is an honest independent witness?"

By no means does that answer why the Smith family, between them, came up with five wholly different explanations for the unaccountable delay of 13 days in reporting their sighting. I consider that misty, a few posts back, completely nailed the unacceptability of the Smiths delaying their report for 13 days.

I further suggest that no-one will be able either (a) to offer a plausible explanation for their 13-delay nor be able to give a persuasive explanation for all those different explanations. 

jassi offered this: "If you have 5 people who are not conferring, you might reasonably [sp.] expect to get different answers".  Maybe. But this is a husband and wife - Martin and Mary - and their children, and their wives/husbands. They were all except a couple of them in Praia da Luz until Wednesday 9 May - amidst a sea of police officers and searchers, posters of Madeleine in every window, door and wall, and villagers crawling over town and countryside! This was a family 'conferring' every minute of the waking day!

Minute after minute, hour after hour, is it suggested that they all saw a young blonde child clad only in pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold dark night being taken around the streets by a man on his own - and no-one in the family ever mentioned it??

Until four days after they got back to England, Peter suddenly 'remembered that he had a recollection', and made his "Am I dreaming" quote.

I don't buy it for one moment.

I am truly open to anyone who can put forward a reasonable explanation for the Smiths' actions, delay, and contradictory reasons for the delay - but I've not seen it yet on this forum or anywhere else.

So, finally to answer your question:  "Can we at least agree that the group did see a man who was wearing white or cream trousers and a black jacket?", no we cannot agree.     

And here's yet one more reason why I cannot agree.

Look at Martin Smith's first statement. He is asked about the colour of the man's jacket. He cannot recall it.

Yet when he makes a second statement (the one on 30 January IIRC), he says it was 'dark'. Why does he change his evidence?

For that matter, why does he change the age of the man he saw from '35 to 40', then in his next statement to 40, and then yet another change to '34-35' when his statement is put up on the McCanns' website?

Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

The questions about the Smiths' evidence just pile up, and up, and up           

How does memory work, Blonk?  This happens to be crucial as to whether the Smiths could recall the sighting, why they might recall the sighting, and what they might recall about the sighting.

As it happens, I have studied how memory works in great detail.  But I have no interest whatsoever in a challenge on how memory works.

The question for the members of this forum, who have not studied in detail how memory works, is a fairly simple question.  How does memory work?

First, your brain is designed to disregard trivia.  If it is not important, your brain is engineered to toss out dross.  There are exceptions, who can hang onto the most unuseful facts known to the history of man.  I enjoy The Chase, then swap over to Pointless, then over to the Eggheads. All the sort of stuff your brain is designed to dump.

Second, the memory has to go from 1st store (forefront of brain, working memory) to second store (hippocampus) then to permanent store, when your brain gets a physical makeover.  There are lots of points in between these stages.  It is not 1-2-3.  If it was, we would all be infinite fonts of knowledge.

The Smith trio have given precise information about WHY they could remember the encounter.  It was the last night in Luz for Peter and co.  Not any night, but the last night.  All 3 witnesses are clear about the why.

After that, the options are open about when the passing was on that night, and whether they could have produced any reasonable description of Smithman.

[blonk]

You do know there were 9 eye witnesses in total. Peter didn't notice that jacket but his son did and said it was black like the one seen on the sofa in crime scene pics.

"Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot." PS

Yes, but that was in Martin Smith's first statement.

I was referring to his second, or actually his third statement, dated 30 January 2008, in which he says this:

QUOTE

I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer.

UNQUOTE

1. He doesn't say here that his son said the jacket was dark; he now gives it as his own evidence - a change.
.

2. He gives the age of the man as '40', not '35-40' as before - another change.

3. Then when his evidence is uploaded to the McCanns' website in May 2009, he gives the age of the man as '34-35' - yet another change.

[misty]

Yes, but that was in Martin Smith's first statement.

I was referring to his second, or actually his third statement, dated 30 January 2008, in which he says this:

QUOTE

I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer.

UNQUOTE

1. He doesn't say here that his son said the jacket was dark; he now gives it as his own evidence - a change.
.

2. He gives the age of the man as '40', not '35-40' as before - another change.

3. Then when his evidence is uploaded to the McCanns' website in May 2009, he gives the age of the man as '34-35' - yet another change.

The Smith family's first statements were to the Gardai. They also spoke to the PJ on the telephone before arrangements were made to take them to Portugal. It would be interesting to compare what was said in Ireland originally to what they told the PJ some 10 days later.

[blonk]

How does memory work, Blonk?  This happens to be crucial as to whether the Smiths could recall the sighting, why they might recall the sighting, and what they might recall about the sighting.

As it happens, I have studied how memory works in great detail.  But I have no interest whatsoever in a challenge on how memory works.

The question for the members of this forum, who have not studied in detail how memory works, is a fairly simple question.  How does memory work?

First, your brain is designed to disregard trivia.  If it is not important, your brain is engineered to toss out dross.  There are exceptions, who can hang onto the most unuseful facts known to the history of man.  I enjoy The Chase, then swap over to Pointless, then over to the Eggheads. All the sort of stuff your brain is designed to dump.

Second, the memory has to go from 1st store (forefront of brain, working memory) to second store (hippocampus) then to permanent store, when your brain gets a physical makeover.  There are lots of points in between these stages.  It is not 1-2-3.  If it was, we would all be infinite fonts of knowledge.

The Smith trio have given precise information about WHY they could remember the encounter.  It was the last night in Luz for Peter and co.  Not any night, but the last night.  All 3 witnesses are clear about the why.

After that, the options are open about when the passing was on that night, and whether they could have produced any reasonable description of Smithman.

Well, you might have added a rather more important aspect of memory - and it's in all the textbooks - namely that memory of an event fades over time.

Which makes the notion that any of the Smiths were in a position, a whole year later, to draw up an efit of a bloke they saw, face partially hidden, for a few seconds, in the dark, improbable in the extreme.

As for remembering (to quote you) "WHY they could remember the encounter" - it seems, if Peter and Martin Smith are to be believed, that they had all but forgotten about it - until the moment when Peter picked up the 'phoned, dialled his Dad's number, and began: "Dad, am I dreaming..."

What had happened to HIS (Peter's) memory of the incident? He had all but forgotten it. He even had to check with his Dad whether he'd dreamt it or not.

And the others had forgotten about it as well - for it was only when Martin Smith 'phoned them all that they (quote) "remembered they all had the same recollection".

I love that quote! It could so easily be reversed:

"We all recollected that we had the same memory".

I am at a loss to understand why so many on here continue to defend such an evidently shaky story