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

[pegasus]

As a contact lens wearer myself, I'd be interested to know how that particular conclusion is reached.

By looking at one of the 2 efitted men Misty

[misty]

She was seen with long sleeves not short ones so covered up. His jacket would have been.

Are you saying cadaver odour doesn't permeate long-sleeved pyjamas?

[pathfinder73]

Are you saying cadaver odour doesn't permeate long-sleeved pyjamas?

Did you see the dogs go and sniff any suspects in PDL?

[misty]

By looking at one of the 2 efitted men Misty

Please continue because I have no idea what you're driving at. People who usually wear glasses have much paler skin around/under their eyes.  Neither efit appears to show that.

[misty]

Did you see the dogs go and sniff any suspects in PDL?

Did the phone never get placed on any surface in 5a, 5H, 4G or the rented villa?

[pegasus]

Please continue because I have no idea what you're driving at. People who usually wear glasses have much paler skin around/under their eyes.  Neither efit appears to show that.

IMO these are two different men seen in two different places.
Man on left may be lens/glasses wearer?
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/10/14/1226739/463446-74425980-345b-11e3-aed2-69a48370ac25.jpg

[misty]

IMO these are two different men seen in two different places.
Man on left may be lens/glasses wearer?
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/10/14/1226739/463446-74425980-345b-11e3-aed2-69a48370ac25.jpg

I agree that the efits appear to be of 2 different men. Certainly the one on the right was intended to portray GM.
I don't quite know why you think the one on the left would be wearing lenses. Many contact lenses are the same size as the iris of the eye and you really cannot tell a person is wearing them. Certainly in poor street lighting it would be impossible to tell from a distance unless they were green or blue coloured lenses.
I just see Jurgen Klinsmann every time I look at the l/h efit - but the image does alter significantly when you tilt your screen.

[pegasus]

I agree that the efits appear to be of 2 different men. Certainly the one on the right was intended to portray GM.
I don't quite know why you think the one on the left would be wearing lenses. Many contact lenses are the same size as the iris of the eye and you really cannot tell a person is wearing them. Certainly in poor street lighting it would be impossible to tell from a distance unless they were green or blue coloured lenses.
I just see Jurgen Klinsmann every time I look at the l/h efit - but the image does alter significantly when you tilt your screen.

IMO neither man resembles GM.
Left man has larger eyes than right man

[G-Unit]

IMO these are two different men seen in two different places.
Man on left may be lens/glasses wearer?
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/10/14/1226739/463446-74425980-345b-11e3-aed2-69a48370ac25.jpg

I believe Operation Grange have said they are of the same man.

[ShiningInLuz]

Yep, I wondered about that.  But it's beginning to sound a bit Libellous to me.  So be sure that I will be watching.

For the avoidance of doubt.  Nothing that I have said so far comes remotely close to libellous.

Let me step through the Smith sighting, as I know it.

1)  The family had a meal in the Dolphin.  This is proved by the meal receipt on file.  The meal in the Dolphin happened.

2)  There was then a trip to Kelly's.  This can be haggled over for all sorts of reasons.  There is a bar maid who does not, months down the line, remembers the Smiths.  The till log looks remarkably bare for a group of 9.  And more.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the sparse till record and the bar maid tale are 100% consistent with the Smith statements.  But this is definitely open to debate.

3)  The family headed home and encountered Smithman.  I will leave it to the mods to decide whether debate is permitted on this or not.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the family headed home from Kelly's that night, that the route is correct, that the timing is correct and that their description of the location is correct. Lots of good quality info so far, IMO. 

I also am of the opinion that on 3 May 2007 they saw a man carrying a child.  This is despite the fact that the brain/memory work by dumping trivia, and at the time the encounter happened, it was trivia.

One needs to get into media reports to make it significant.  The statements have no mention of 'head down', of the man zig-zagging, or of anyone talking talking to the man and the man not responding.

So, over to the mods as to whether debate is permitted on such points.  Personally, I am not going there.

4)  Description of the man, as at 1st statements, on 26 May 2007.  Personally, I am of the opinion, based on how memory works, that the descriptions of Smithman are close to useless.  I am not questioning the integrity of the Smiths.  Try is for yourself.  Take someone you passed in the street around a fortnight ago, in a quite unremarkable incident, and that you saw for a few seconds in lighting that was not the best.  Are you going to get as far as gender, rough age, build and ethnic group?  Probably not.  Are you going to get details beyond that?  Even large details, like whether the man was clean shaven?  I, for one, would not rely on your memory.

I trust this point will be allowed to be debated.  It is core to the importance of Smithman.  It is core to the identification of Smithman.  It is core to finding out what happened the night Madeleine disappeared.

5)  E-fits of Smithman.  Try Wikipedia and e-fits and you will find out that e-fits made 2 days after an incident almost never produce a result.  I have zero problem with 2 e-fits, stated by OG to be the same man, looking like 2 completely different men.  That is 100% consistent with the way 2 memories work.  If the 2 e-fits looked similar, I would suspect the 2 sources had got together and worked out a common image for Smithman.  We have 2 quite different images, clearly produced by 2 quite different pieces of software.  So, IMO, we can be confident there was no common effort, but rather two individuals working alone.

6)  Changes in story over time.  Memory changes over time.  Stories change over time.  That's how real life works.

In summary, most IMO.

The meal in the Dolphin happened.  The trip to Kelly's happened.  The encounter on the way back happened.  The descriptions of the man are close to useless.  The e-fits are definitely useless.  All of this and I have not come close to libelling the Smiths.

[Carana]

So far, my impression is that there seems to be four main lines of thinking on this within two categories, as far as I can work out.

1. Some appear convinced that the Smiths invented the sighting
a. (from reading around) because some are of the view that M disappeared sometime before that evening and their sighting doesn't fit with the theory
b. as a red herring to detract from Murat / Tannerman (it's not clear to me why they would do that)

2. Some appear convinced that the Smiths did indeed see a man with a child when and where they said they did
a. because it was Gerry (the sudden doubt that it could have been got morphed over time into a certainty)
b. but were simply a bit slow to realise they'd witnessed a potentially significant incident

[Carana]

For the avoidance of doubt.  Nothing that I have said so far comes remotely close to libellous.

Let me step through the Smith sighting, as I know it.

1)  The family had a meal in the Dolphin.  This is proved by the meal receipt on file.  The meal in the Dolphin happened.

2)  There was then a trip to Kelly's.  This can be haggled over for all sorts of reasons.  There is a bar maid who does not, months down the line, remembers the Smiths.  The till log looks remarkably bare for a group of 9.  And more.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the sparse till record and the bar maid tale are 100% consistent with the Smith statements.  But this is definitely open to debate.

3)  The family headed home and encountered Smithman.  I will leave it to the mods to decide whether debate is permitted on this or not.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the family headed home from Kelly's that night, that the route is correct, that the timing is correct and that their description of the location is correct. Lots of good quality info so far, IMO. 

I also am of the opinion that on 3 May 2007 they saw a man carrying a child.  This is despite the fact that the brain/memory work by dumping trivia, and at the time the encounter happened, it was trivia.

One needs to get into media reports to make it significant.  The statements have no mention of 'head down', of the man zig-zagging, or of anyone talking talking to the man and the man not responding.

So, over to the mods as to whether debate is permitted on such points.  Personally, I am not going there.

4)  Description of the man, as at 1st statements, on 26 May 2007.  Personally, I am of the opinion, based on how memory works, that the descriptions of Smithman are close to useless.  I am not questioning the integrity of the Smiths.  Try is for yourself.  Take someone you passed in the street around a fortnight ago, in a quite unremarkable incident, and that you saw for a few seconds in lighting that was not the best.  Are you going to get as far as gender, rough age, build and ethnic group?  Probably not.  Are you going to get details beyond that?  Even large details, like whether the man was clean shaven?  I, for one, would not rely on your memory.

I trust this point will be allowed to be debated.  It is core to the importance of Smithman.  It is core to the identification of Smithman.  It is core to finding out what happened the night Madeleine disappeared.

5)  E-fits of Smithman.  Try Wikipedia and e-fits and you will find out that e-fits made 2 days after an incident almost never produce a result.  I have zero problem with 2 e-fits, stated by OG to be the same man, looking like 2 completely different men.  That is 100% consistent with the way 2 memories work.  If the 2 e-fits looked similar, I would suspect the 2 sources had got together and worked out a common image for Smithman.  We have 2 quite different images, clearly produced by 2 quite different pieces of software.  So, IMO, we can be confident there was no common effort, but rather two individuals working alone.

6)  Changes in story over time.  Memory changes over time.  Stories change over time.  That's how real life works.

In summary, most IMO.

The meal in the Dolphin happened.  The trip to Kelly's happened.  The encounter on the way back happened.  The descriptions of the man are close to useless.  The e-fits are definitely useless.  All of this and I have not come close to libelling the Smiths.

I agree with that.

[Mr Gray]

For the avoidance of doubt.  Nothing that I have said so far comes remotely close to libellous.

Let me step through the Smith sighting, as I know it.

1)  The family had a meal in the Dolphin.  This is proved by the meal receipt on file.  The meal in the Dolphin happened.

2)  There was then a trip to Kelly's.  This can be haggled over for all sorts of reasons.  There is a bar maid who does not, months down the line, remembers the Smiths.  The till log looks remarkably bare for a group of 9.  And more.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the sparse till record and the bar maid tale are 100% consistent with the Smith statements.  But this is definitely open to debate.

3)  The family headed home and encountered Smithman.  I will leave it to the mods to decide whether debate is permitted on this or not.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the family headed home from Kelly's that night, that the route is correct, that the timing is correct and that their description of the location is correct. Lots of good quality info so far, IMO. 

I also am of the opinion that on 3 May 2007 they saw a man carrying a child.  This is despite the fact that the brain/memory work by dumping trivia, and at the time the encounter happened, it was trivia.

One needs to get into media reports to make it significant.  The statements have no mention of 'head down', of the man zig-zagging, or of anyone talking talking to the man and the man not responding.

So, over to the mods as to whether debate is permitted on such points.  Personally, I am not going there.

4)  Description of the man, as at 1st statements, on 26 May 2007.  Personally, I am of the opinion, based on how memory works, that the descriptions of Smithman are close to useless.  I am not questioning the integrity of the Smiths.  Try is for yourself.  Take someone you passed in the street around a fortnight ago, in a quite unremarkable incident, and that you saw for a few seconds in lighting that was not the best.  Are you going to get as far as gender, rough age, build and ethnic group?  Probably not.  Are you going to get details beyond that?  Even large details, like whether the man was clean shaven?  I, for one, would not rely on your memory.

I trust this point will be allowed to be debated.  It is core to the importance of Smithman.  It is core to the identification of Smithman.  It is core to finding out what happened the night Madeleine disappeared.

5)  E-fits of Smithman.  Try Wikipedia and e-fits and you will find out that e-fits made 2 days after an incident almost never produce a result.  I have zero problem with 2 e-fits, stated by OG to be the same man, looking like 2 completely different men.  That is 100% consistent with the way 2 memories work.  If the 2 e-fits looked similar, I would suspect the 2 sources had got together and worked out a common image for Smithman.  We have 2 quite different images, clearly produced by 2 quite different pieces of software.  So, IMO, we can be confident there was no common effort, but rather two individuals working alone.

6)  Changes in story over time.  Memory changes over time.  Stories change over time.  That's how real life works.

In summary, most IMO.

The meal in the Dolphin happened.  The trip to Kelly's happened.  The encounter on the way back happened.  The descriptions of the man are close to useless.  The e-fits are definitely useless.  All of this and I have not come close to libelling the Smiths.

absolutely agree with what is in red

[jassi]

For the avoidance of doubt.  Nothing that I have said so far comes remotely close to libellous.

Let me step through the Smith sighting, as I know it.

1)  The family had a meal in the Dolphin.  This is proved by the meal receipt on file.  The meal in the Dolphin happened.

2)  There was then a trip to Kelly's.  This can be haggled over for all sorts of reasons.  There is a bar maid who does not, months down the line, remembers the Smiths.  The till log looks remarkably bare for a group of 9.  And more.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the sparse till record and the bar maid tale are 100% consistent with the Smith statements.  But this is definitely open to debate.

3)  The family headed home and encountered Smithman.  I will leave it to the mods to decide whether debate is permitted on this or not.  Personally, I am of the opinion that the family headed home from Kelly's that night, that the route is correct, that the timing is correct and that their description of the location is correct. Lots of good quality info so far, IMO. 

I also am of the opinion that on 3 May 2007 they saw a man carrying a child.  This is despite the fact that the brain/memory work by dumping trivia, and at the time the encounter happened, it was trivia.

One needs to get into media reports to make it significant.  The statements have no mention of 'head down', of the man zig-zagging, or of anyone talking talking to the man and the man not responding.

So, over to the mods as to whether debate is permitted on such points.  Personally, I am not going there.

4)  Description of the man, as at 1st statements, on 26 May 2007.  Personally, I am of the opinion, based on how memory works, that the descriptions of Smithman are close to useless.  I am not questioning the integrity of the Smiths.  Try is for yourself.  Take someone you passed in the street around a fortnight ago, in a quite unremarkable incident, and that you saw for a few seconds in lighting that was not the best.  Are you going to get as far as gender, rough age, build and ethnic group?  Probably not.  Are you going to get details beyond that?  Even large details, like whether the man was clean shaven?  I, for one, would not rely on your memory.

I trust this point will be allowed to be debated.  It is core to the importance of Smithman.  It is core to the identification of Smithman.  It is core to finding out what happened the night Madeleine disappeared.

5)  E-fits of Smithman.  Try Wikipedia and e-fits and you will find out that e-fits made 2 days after an incident almost never produce a result.  I have zero problem with 2 e-fits, stated by OG to be the same man, looking like 2 completely different men.  That is 100% consistent with the way 2 memories work.  If the 2 e-fits looked similar, I would suspect the 2 sources had got together and worked out a common image for Smithman.  We have 2 quite different images, clearly produced by 2 quite different pieces of software.  So, IMO, we can be confident there was no common effort, but rather two individuals working alone.

6)  Changes in story over time.  Memory changes over time.  Stories change over time.  That's how real life works.

In summary, most IMO.

The meal in the Dolphin happened.  The trip to Kelly's happened.  The encounter on the way back happened.  The descriptions of the man are close to useless.  The e-fits are definitely useless.  All of this and I have not come close to libelling the Smiths.

Would you say, therefore that they got an equally poor view of the child that Smithman was carrying ?

[pathfinder73]

Did the phone never get placed on any surface in 5a, 5H, 4G or the rented villa?

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. MG

That would include soft cuddly toys but not mobile phones.

Eddie arrived 3 months later.