Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Why the e-fits in the first place then? (not done by the police by the way). What were Oakley's men trying to achieve?

doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry.  It's glaringly obvious, surely?!

[faithlilly]

doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry.  It's glaringly obvious, surely?!

There was always at least a 20% doubt in Matin Smith's identification. I assume it was this small doubt that made the efits necessary.

[Alfred R Jones]

There was always at least a 20% doubt in Matin Smith's identification. I assume it was this small doubt that made the efits necessary.

LOL, so he really wasn't certain about it right from the get-go, is that what you're saying?  That coupled with the fact that he never saw the guy's face anyway and that none of the rest of his family thought it was Gerry, and yet people like you consider his claim of utmost importance and have built your wobbly theories around it -

[faithlilly]

LOL, so he really wasn't certain about it right from the get-go, is that what you're saying?  That coupled with the fact that he never saw the guy's face anyway and that none of the rest of his family thought it was Gerry, and yet people like you consider his claim of utmost importance and have built your wobbly theories around it -

Where have I ever said Martin Smith was any more than 80% sure that the nan he saw was Gerry and BTW I know you supporters don't like it but Martin's wife Mary also agreed with his feeling that the man they had seen was Madeleine's father. It is interesting that you are willing to endorse a theory that hangs on an individual who has been ruled out of the case yet scoff at a theory involves the almost certainty of two eyewitness's identification.

[ferryman]

Washup of 9 pages.

Answer to the opening post:

                              YES!

[faithlilly]

Washup of 9 pages.

Answer to the opening post:

                              YES!

Has John got back to you yet with that quote ?

[ferryman]

Has John got back to you yet with that quote ?

I found it myself.

[faithlilly]

I found it myself.

Care to share ?

[ferryman]

Care to share ?

No point.

It was posted (and removed) once by the owner of the board.

I'm sure he had his reasons for removing it ....

[faithlilly]

No point.

It was posted (and removed) once by the owner of the board.

I'm sure he had his reasons for removing it ....

Then PM me it.

[Alfred R Jones]

Where have I ever said Martin Smith was any more than 80% sure that the nan he saw was Gerry and BTW I know you supporters don't like it but Martin's wife Mary also agreed with his feeling that the man they had seen was Madeleine's father. It is interesting that you are willing to endorse a theory that hangs on an individual who has been ruled out of the case yet scoff at a theory involves the almost certainty of two eyewitness's identification.

If they were "almost certain" then e-fits were unnecessary.  The end.

[mercury]

Washup of 9 pages.

Answer to the opening post:

                              YES!

NOPE

Thinking or wishing never makes it so

[faithlilly]

If they were "almost certain" then e-fits were unnecessary.  The end.

Of course they weren't. There was still a small chance they were wrong.

[faithlilly]

NOPE

Thinking or wishing never makes it so

Not to worry Mercury I'm sure ferryman will prove us all wrong in a moment by furnishing us with that direct quote from Martin Smith.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course they weren't. There was still a small chance they were wrong.

It's like trying to reason with mud.  I give up.