Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[slartibartfast]

I am not 'suggesting' anything, just commenting.   

They may have been taller than a metre high; we dont know, do we? 
Where was the photo taken ?
How old are the railings ... over 30 Y.O.?
How far in front of the railings are they standing, for this photograph taken from a low level?


Not enough definite information there to make anything other than a guess.

If the photo had been taken from below the height of the railing, it would have appeared to point downwards from front to back. As it appears to point upwards from front to back the photo must have been taken from above railing height. Assuming they are not in front of a trompe l'oeil.

[Alice Purjorick]

I am not 'suggesting' anything, just commenting.   

They may have been taller than a metre high; we dont know, do we?  Eurocodes  0,1 & 3 will apply
Where was the photo taken ? Doesn't matter see above
How old are the railings ... over 30 Y.O.? No look at the construction
How far in front of the railings are they standing, for this photograph taken from a low level? Doesn't matter


Not enough definite information there to make anything other than a guess. I'll stick with 1000 datum to centre line of top rail as a fairly accurate sense check. You could use 150mm width of treads as a sense check too. Or of course you can use anthropometry norms to assess the height of the big guys dactylion above datum to give a sense check. Plenty of stuff there to do better than guess

[pegasus]

...You could use 150mm width of treads as a sense check ...

Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?

It's absurd to base the investigation on a sighting of a child being carried visibly. When the Met solve cases in London involving transportation by a pedestrian, they never even consider such a ludicrously visible method.

[Alice Purjorick]

Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?

It's absurd to base the investigation on a sighting of a child being carried visibly. When the Met solve cases in London involving transportation by a pedestrian, they never even consider such a ludicrously visible method.

I doubt you would do it with any degree of accuracy. Shoe sizes seem to advance in small units per half size.
I was only suggesting there are enough clues in the pic to get a sense check on whether Gerry is 5'9"/5'10" or 6'1/6'2".

[mercury]

Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?

It's absurd to base the investigation on a sighting of a child being carried visibly. When the Met solve cases in London involving transportation by a pedestrian, they never even consider such a ludicrously visible method.

So what is the difference between the hiding in plain sight carrying a child home from creche, where it was a normal sight in PDL at night, and hiding in plain sight when someone abducts a baby from hospital?Why is it ludicrous?

As for GMs height, he tells us Jez Wilkins was 6 ' 3" and he had to look up at him, when he crossed the road to chat, so he cant be 6'1 -6'2 can he?
I suppose one can take the pavement height and add it on to 6'3" and then, well, speculate on how much one tilts their head upwards lol

Have a looky here at just before 2 mins in

[Alfred R Jones]

So what is the difference between the hiding in plain sight carrying a child home from creche, where it was a normal sight in PDL at night, and hiding in plain sight when someone abducts a baby from hospital?Why is it ludicrous?

As for GMs height, he tells us Jez Wilkins was 6 ' 3" and he had to look up at him, when he crossed the road to chat, so he cant be 6'1 -6'2 can he?
I suppose one can take the pavement height and add it on to 6'3" and then, well, speculate on how much one tilts their head upwards lol

Have a looky here at just before 2 mins in

why is it ludicrous?  I'll tell you why it's ludicrous.  Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction".  The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time.  Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?

[pathfinder73]

He is definitely under 6 ft.

[mercury]

why is it ludicrous?  I'll tell you why it's ludicrous.  Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction".  The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time.  Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?

I rather thnk you missed the point, it was the how, not the who, never mind though

[mercury]

Going from being unable either to describe the man or pick him out from photographs to a few months later when usually memory has faded even more to being able to identify a particular individual is something indeed.

For a start when first encountered it was after darkness on an ill lit street.

The misidentification took place in daylight in very good lighting conditions.

Almost identical circumstances to the McCluskey misidentification.

The common factor was in my opinion the fact that both of Madeleine's parents had been made arguidos in her disappearance and both men would have been exposed to the propaganda being put about against them in the Portuguese press and picked up by the world's press.

I think they were simply brainwashed and when they witnessed a man carrying a child down steps it was sufficient to trigger a false memory turning the man both already believed to have been carrying Madeleine into her father.

There is provenance in Mr McCluskey's case that he actually saw a man and child - reported his suspicions to the police - who investigated - and who without Mr McCluskey's knowledge was exonerated - subsequently saw Madeleine's father carrying a twin - and recalled the event he had witnessed but this time transposing and misidentifying the innocent man he had seen as someone else.

The man seen and subsequently misidentified by Mr Smith has not been similarly eliminated from the inquiry ... but I would assume that Martin Smith will have changed his mind about his identity, given that he hasn't taken time out to rectify the Sunday Times definitive statement that he has done just that.

It is not a fact Smith misidentified GM, it is likely, possible, arguable but NOT probable or definite...

[ferryman]

It is not a fact Smith misidentified GM, it is likely, possible, arguable but NOT probable or definite...

Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Isn't that the clincher?

[faithlilly]

why is it ludicrous?  I'll tell you why it's ludicrous.  Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction".  The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time.  Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?

He had eight people who would swear he was in the tapas bar or at the least wouldn't contradict his claim and a friend who was willing to put him and the abductor in the same street at the same time. Certainly seems to have worked as the doubt surrounding the sighting testifies to.

[mercury]

Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Isn't that the clincher?

It might be if it were possible to prove it

[sadie]

It might be if it were possible to prove it

Eight other rersponsible people witnessed him there and almost certainly they would all be prepared to confirm.

Most people would think that proof enough !!!

[G-Unit]

Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Isn't that the clincher?

Not proven, as they say.

[ferryman]

Not proven, as they say.

Who says?

Not Joao Carlos.

He wrote the final PJ report.