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

[faithlilly]

" The Yard announced it was looking into possible links between Madeleine’s disappearance and bogus charity collectors who were knocking on doors in Praia da Luz at the time. Between 3.30pm and 5.30pm on the day in question there were four separate sightings of men who said they were collecting money for an orphanage. British detectives believe men whose photofits they released in 2013 may have been engaged in reconnaissance for a pre-planned abduction or for burglaries, in keeping with the theory that Madeleine may have been killed by a burglar she disturbed. "

Sometimes a pic is better than 10,000 words ... http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/03/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-charity.html

I have missed two more sightings of May 3, according to SY. Do you have a source to locate them? Many thanks.

I very much doubt any self-respecting burglar would make himself easily identifiable by engaging with the individuals he intended to burgle. What exactly could he find out by standing at someone's apartment door anyhow ?

[ShiningInLuz]

" The Yard announced it was looking into possible links between Madeleine’s disappearance and bogus charity collectors who were knocking on doors in Praia da Luz at the time. Between 3.30pm and 5.30pm on the day in question there were four separate sightings of men who said they were collecting money for an orphanage. British detectives believe men whose photofits they released in 2013 may have been engaged in reconnaissance for a pre-planned abduction or for burglaries, in keeping with the theory that Madeleine may have been killed by a burglar she disturbed. "

Sometimes a pic is better than 10,000 words ... http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/03/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-charity.html

I have missed two more sightings of May 3, according to SY. Do you have a source to locate them? Many thanks.

MOD NOTE

Heri,

Perhaps you should start a new topic on the subject of charity collectors.  It does not appear to be a fit with Martin Smith, unless I am missing the point.

Thanks,
SIL

[ferryman]

So 41 pages on and the subject of the opening post (and thread title) is settled.

Martin Smith was mistaken about his (initial) "60-80% certainty" (that the man he and his family saw that night might have been Gerry).

[stephen25000]

So 41 pages on and the subject of the opening post (and thread title) is settled.

Martin Smith was mistaken about his (initial) "60-80% certainty" (that the man he and his family saw that night might have been Gerry).

You do not know whether Mr. Smith was mistaken.

Crime, if any remains unknown.

Likewise, any party or parties involved.

[pegasus]

So 41 pages on and the subject of the opening post (and thread title) is settled.

Martin Smith was mistaken about his (initial) "60-80% certainty" (that the man he and his family saw that night might have been Gerry).

Is there any possibility you might change your opinion that MS changed his opinion Ferryman?

[ChloeR]

I have always found this identification to be a bit suspect tbh. How on earth can one base an identification on the way someone holds/carries a child? Its so strange. Having said that, what would be the reasons for a false ID..what would the Smiths stand to gain by that? Just another part of the puzzle that I can find no logical answer for.

[Brietta]

I have always found this identification to be a bit suspect tbh. How on earth can one base an identification on the way someone holds/carries a child? Its so strange. Having said that, what would be the reasons for a false ID..what would the Smiths stand to gain by that? Just another part of the puzzle that I can find no logical answer for.

I don't think there is any suggestion that Mr Smith deliberately falsified his statement when he altered it. 

He was simply mistaken.

It is hardly surprising his memory played tricks on him ... don't forget exactly the same thing happened to Mr McCluskey ... caused by exactly the same trigger ~ which was the exit from the plane carrying one of the twins.

Memory can play weird tricks sometimes. 

[mercury]

I don't think there is any suggestion that Mr Smith deliberately falsified his statement when he altered it. 

He was simply mistaken.

It is hardly surprising his memory played tricks on him ... don't forget exactly the same thing happened to Mr McCluskey ... caused by exactly the same trigger ~ which was the exit from the plane carrying one of the twins.

Memory can play weird tricks sometimes.

IYO
You dont know that he actually was.

[Brietta]

IYO
You dont know that he actually was.

Oh ... so Mr McCluskey's addition to his statement in which he identified Madeleine's father as the man he had seen because of the way in which he carried his son off the plane is actually correct?

I don't know what it was about that particular video clip which triggered exactly the same false memory in two witnesses, but it did.  Identical.

So either both are correct or both are wrong ... and we know for sure Mr McCluskey was wrong ... which is probably why his statement is totally ignored and Mr Smith's repeated so often.

[mercury]

Oh ... so Mr McCluskey's addition to his statement in which he identified Madeleine's father as the man he had seen because of the way in which he carried his son off the plane is actually correct?

I don't know what it was about that particular video clip which triggered exactly the same false memory in two witnesses, but it did.  Identical.

So either both are correct or both are wrong ... and we know for sure Mr McCluskey was wrong ... which is probably why his statement is totally ignored and Mr Smith's repeated so often.

One wrong doesnt make necessarily two wrong...

[Brietta]

One wrong doesnt make necessarily two wrong...

In the circumstances I think it a reasonable conclusion to reach ~ which is probably why it was never mentioned again once the PJ had checked both out as the Rebelo investigation did.

[mercury]

In the circumstances I think it a reasonable conclusion to reach ~ which is probably why it was never mentioned again once the PJ had checked both out as the Rebelo investigation did.

reasonable opinion to form, but the fact remains no one knows...smithman is still missing

Infact no one knows what happened to the chld between 5.30 onwards,  6.30 onwards if you believe the visit an hour after,which some dont

[Brietta]

reasonable opinion to form, but the fact remains no one knows...smithman is still missing

Infact no one knows what happened to the chld between 5.30 onwards,  6.30 onwards if you believe the visit an hour after,which some dont

Madeleine's father saw her in bed on his last check ... from thereon-in we do not know what may have happened to her.

Whether she was the child described by Jane Tanner or whether she was the child seen by the Smiths is a matter of conjecture.

It is possible she was the child seen by both.  We don't know.

[mercury]

Madeleine's father saw her in bed on his last check ... from thereon-in we do not know what may have happened to her.

Whether she was the child described by Jane Tanner or whether she was the child seen by the Smiths is a matter of conjecture.

It is possible she was the child seen by both.  We don't know.

Your first sentence is an assumption based on an arguidos statement.......fact remans no one KNOWS

[pegasus]

Madeleine's father saw her in bed on his last check ... from thereon-in we do not know what may have happened to her.

Whether she was the child described by Jane Tanner or whether she was the child seen by the Smiths is a matter of conjecture.

It is possible she was the child seen by both.  We don't know.

At about 8.30pm just before going out there was no visual check, it was only a listen for silence.

The last two stated sightings of the child by the parents were at about 7.15pm by both, then at about 9.05pm by one.