Is it possible to assess how accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry McCann?
Here is a video of a classic misidentification case. Are any parts of that repeated in the McCann case?
https://youtu.be/DZsckuKiH94 "Eyewitness Identification - Getting it Right"
Are there other studies showing what could have gone wrong in this particular case?
Is it possible to assess how accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry McCann?
Here is a video of a classic misidentification case. Are any parts of that repeated in the McCann case?
https://youtu.be/DZsckuKiH94 "Eyewitness Identification - Getting it Right"
Are there other studies showing what could have gone wrong in this particular case?
As it didn't happen, points e-k aren't really relevant. We should concentrate on what did happen. IMO.
The whole thread is hypothetical as presumably Martin never came over for the ID anyway.
Point e (Gerry made arguido & negative coverage, including full DNA match) certainly happened, unless you're disputing that.
Point f (The PJ's intention - or at least a preliminary enquiry as to availabilty - that only extended to bringing over Martin is recorded in the files.)
In his book, Amaral mentions "Smiths" (plural):
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up.
However, according to the files, this intention appears to have only extended to Martin.
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Point g (see above).
Points h-k are questions on my part based on the preceding points and the video clip that we've been invited to consider, plus the UK clips on the subject that I've posted several times.
I (re)posted several links on UK research into eyewitness ID a couple of weeks ago. Although both present a number of caveat concerning bad practice to avoid, the UK ones had a few other pointers to avoid.
IMO, I could imagine several issues in the case of MS:
a. His 60-80% suspicion was based on how the man held the child while walking downwards.
b. His wife apparently agreed that Smithman was of a similar stature.
c. Smithman wasn't wearing glasses.
d. The child was of a similar age and general description (aside from whoever noticed that the sleeves were long).
e. Gerry had just been made arguido, with all the negative tabloid (and ill-informed broadcast) coverage leading up to that, including "full DNA match" in the boot, etc.
f. Amaral was apparently only intending to get Martin over. Martin may not have wondered why that may be.
g. Amaral also said that it wouldn't be a physical line-up, so what would he have been shown, if anything? A rerun of Gerry walking down the plane steps?
h. How could it possibly be double-blind?
i. Would Martin have been sufficiently aware of the significance of any wording in the statement taken? I.e., would the fact that his impression was based solely on the way the man carried the child... or would that have been fudged over?
j. What would the PJ instructions have been? Would the PJ, at that stage, to be able to avoid conveying a sense of expectation of a positive ID, or positive feedback?
k. Would the fact of travelling all the way over have any subconscious influence (a sense of accomplishment / not wasting his / PJ time)?
That is what I meant by 'it didn't happen'
Gerry being made arguido isn't relevant to the identification as the visit didn't happen
That is what I meant by 'it didn't happen'But Martin Smith still has not changed his mind about identifying Gerry. What GA was planning to do is anyone's guess.
Gerry being made arguido isn't relevant to the identification as the visit didn't happen
(snip)
"g. Amaral also said that it wouldn't be a physical line-up, so what would he have been shown, if anything? A rerun of Gerry walking down the plane steps?" Not relevant to the actual Smithman situation.
But Martin Smith still has not changed his mind about identifying Gerry. What GA was planning to do is anyone's guess.
Absolutely, but he was removed before he could implement his plan.That is crucial point but the investigation could still carry on the lines it was going prior to his removal. I'm going to have to look aback over the previous thread for I think we covered their intentions. for the reconstruction.
But Martin Smith still has not changed his mind about identifying Gerry. What GA was planning to do is anyone's guess.
IMO, point G is potentially relevant:Surely "televised images" is a translation error. I thought that he meant something like a photographic image in the form of a life sized cardboard cut out.
"We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible.."
Televised images of what?
I know. Dreadful. Even basic science was out to conspire against him.
And his biggest fan club even asserts that, although he's a genius, he hadn't worked out that a) she'd died almost as soon as she arrived or b) she never existed anyway.
Could have meant CCTV. At its most basic it might just have been an observation camera plugged into a computer
I can't how that could be called a reconstruction. But the whole thing was a mystery.
Probably just one of these translation errors that the case seems strewn with 8(0(*And it showed my tiredness too what was I trying to say? It should have said:
Surely "televised images" is a translation error. I thought that he meant something like a photographic image in the form of a life sized cardboard cut out.
You can buy them off E-bay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Life-Size-Celebrity-Cardboard-Cutouts-Standees-Various-ones-/322834075021
Is asserting that one stands by what one said to the police and the media at the time the same as one's current thinking? The bone of contention (on the other thread) was that it had been alleged that Martinn had retracted his statement.
Russell expressed doubts as to whether he could have been mistaken about seeing RM that night, but in the end also chose to stand by his original recollection.
In both cases, the perceived implications of arguido status may (or may not) have influenced recollections.
Just as some may argue that changing one's mind, now, that Murat / Gerry may not have been the people in question after all could be interpreted as potential media influence in the opposite direction.
IMO.
Snip
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
(signed).......R McCluskey
Snip
He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police. He is acutely aware of the possibly implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would , in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."
Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.
Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
The media coverage quite obviously had an impact on Mr and Mrs McCluskey's recollection of events which in my opinion reflects uncannily in Mr Smith's addition to his statement.
I don't see anything malicious in making a statement, per se. How often are we told to contact the police, however insignificant we may find a potential detail to be? 99% may well be totally irrelevant, but there may always be that tiny nugget out there.
It's up to the police to check it all out and retain only what may stay on the back or front burner.
Someone has yet to explain to me, in words of one syllable or less, why the only document in the files about getting the Smiths over yet again, only concerns Paiva's record of asking if Martin would be willing to go back to PT.
Why not the kids who didn't agree?
I don't see anything malicious in making a statement, per se. How often are we told to contact the police, however insignificant we may find a potential detail to be? 99% may well be totally irrelevant, but there may always be that tiny nugget out there.
It's up to the police to check it all out and retain only what may stay on the back or front burner.
Someone has yet to explain to me, in words of one syllable or less, why the only document in the files about getting the Smiths over yet again, only concerns Paiva's record of asking if Martin would be willing to go back to PT.
Why not the kids who didn't agree?
I have never known a witness who 'thinks' they maybe saw [named person] ever making a witness stand- A lawyer just wouldn't allow it. As Martin was 60-80% certain then his testimony would be taken seriously. I am only surmising this is why it was only him, however as you point out, there may have been other requests on paper to invite others in the party, which have disappeared or got lost?
I personally, wholly understand Mr Smiths anxiety, no one wants to get people into serious trouble and he feared his information may do just that-the thought of a missing child must have outweighed that and he let his conscience guide him there fore he came forward.
Possibly loaded onto a moving robot van with the missing child in an elusive blue tennis bag, inside a fridge in a backpack along with a spade in the event of a "reconstruction"... ;)Other than the spade, I find your post a bit OTT.
Other than the spade, I find your post a bit OTT.
Ok, ok. I could take out the spade if you prefer.No, no, I accept the fact that fathers taking their kids to the beach could have easily have taken a spade with them.
Another person trying to be helpful being torn down...There is NO logic in supporters arguments!Would I be right in identifying you as someone who obviously has not viewed the video in the OP? "https://youtu.be/DZsckuKiH94 "Eyewitness Identification - Getting it Right""
Mr Smith gave a statement - the SY and PJ when they got wind of this looked at it and felt it warranted enough to say this was a person of interest.
As the supporters are 100%sure the McCanns are innocent of everything and any thing then why do they bother with challenging people who gave statements. When the statements of the Tapas (some plain ridiculous- and appear to be made up) are challenged the person posting is a troll! and has posts swiped for no valid reason on some occasions.
"In words of 1 syllable or less" would be writing it out one letter at a time. S T A C K I N G the D E C K.
I don't see anything malicious in making a statement, per se. How often are we told to contact the police, however insignificant we may find a potential detail to be? 99% may well be totally irrelevant, but there may always be that tiny nugget out there.
It's up to the police to check it all out and retain only what may stay on the back or front burner.
Someone has yet to explain to me, in words of one syllable or less, why the only document in the files about getting the Smiths over yet again, only concerns Paiva's record of asking if Martin would be willing to go back to PT.
Why not the kids who didn't agree?
"In words of 1 syllable or less" would be writing it out one letter at a time. S T A C K I N G the D E C K.
"In words of 1 syllable or less" would be writing it out one letter at a time. S T A C K I N G the D E C K.
More likely that they had the rest of the family statements and it really was they wouldn’t recognise who they saw rather than they recognised it wasn’t GM.One of the Smiths saw Smithman walking down the stairs. If that person didn't agree I think S T A C K I N G the D E C K is a good description IMO.
More likely that they had the rest of the family statements and it really was they wouldn’t recognise who they saw rather than they recognised it wasn’t GM.
Which statements would those be?The ones they hadn't taken at the time.
The ones they hadn't taken at the time.
Would I be right in identifying you as someone who obviously has not viewed the video in the OP? "https://youtu.be/DZsckuKiH94 "Eyewitness Identification - Getting it Right""
What you describe is a repetition of the situation that lead to the incorrect identification of the rapist in that video.
So on what basis did Amaral make his decision to only bring over Martin?Wasn't it from verbal discussions with Martin at the time? That was my impression (depends what the following means). "After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later."
I have not viewed said video I have no need to do so. Mr Smith claimed to be 60/80% sure. That is a high mark- I do not know if Smith-man is Gerry or not. There are a lot of cases of mistaken Identity you just need to look at my tag name. yeah happened to me.Correct on one point.
So your post offers nothing but a moot point, if I have to say you had a point.
There are other mitigating circumstances which OG will have added to the smith sighting of which we are not privy to. we just have to live with that I'm afraid.
Correct on one point.
I have made a moot point (Small victory)
And thirdly a guess. This is nothing more than an unfounded guess on your part: "There are other mitigating circumstances which OG will have added to the smith sighting of which we are not privy to."
I didn't think you would be such a defeatist: "we just have to live with that I'm afraid."
Interesting that you say your username reflects a reality. OK so you should have some good insights.
"a. His 60-80% suspicion was based on how the man held the child while walking downwards." Did Martin Smith see Smithman carrying a child down steps in PdL?
"b. His wife apparently agreed that Smithman was of a similar stature." Studies have shown that confirmation even if wrong boost confidence but not reliability.
"c. Smithman wasn't wearing glasses." OK what was the point?
"d. The child was of a similar age and general description (aside from whoever noticed that the sleeves were long)." So is Martin Smith adding up all his family's recollections and adding them to his own memory - reconstructed memory.
"e. Gerry had just been made arguido, with all the negative tabloid (and ill-informed broadcast) coverage leading up to that, including "full DNA match" in the boot, etc." A know factor in inaccurate identifications. Nodding at the suspect.
"f. Amaral was apparently only intending to get Martin over. Martin may not have wondered why that may be." Possible source of error.
"g. Amaral also said that it wouldn't be a physical line-up, so what would he have been shown, if anything? A rerun of Gerry walking down the plane steps?" Not relevant to the actual Smithman situation.
"j. What would the PJ instructions have been? Would the PJ, at that stage, to be able to avoid conveying a sense of expectation of a positive ID, or positive feedback? " Probably not.
"
"h. How could it possibly be double-blind?" Whatever they did to Gerry and could do with 5 others, Get some PJ not involved with the case to run the reconstruction.
"i. Would Martin have been sufficiently aware of the significance of any wording in the statement taken? I.e., would the fact that his impression was based solely on the way the man carried the child... or would that have been fudged over?" Who knows!
"k. Would the fact of travelling all the way over have any subconscious influence (a sense of accomplishment / not wasting his / PJ time)?" Could be a factor. There were studies that emphasised the importance and that result in errors.
A bit of L.B.T.R for one and all:
Read thoroughly inwardly digest and then form an opinion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253831/pace-code-d-2011.pdf
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/facial-identification-guidance-2009.pdf
https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/
Note
There are over 100 pages all together. I'd read a bit more than the cover sheets before saddling up [were I you ?{)(**]
Correct on one point.
I have made a moot point (Small victory)
And thirdly a guess. This is nothing more than an unfounded guess on your part: "There are other mitigating circumstances which OG will have added to the smith sighting of which we are not privy to."
I didn't think you would be such a defeatist: "we just have to live with that I'm afraid."
Interesting that you say your username reflects a reality. OK so you should have some good insights.
A moot point;How accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry McCann? If that is the debatable question, then the question about the e-fits is a separate matter altogether IMO. For if Martin ID'd Gerry McCann they don't need to produce any e-fits. So even if Emma O'Doherty claims Martin Smith never wavered I'd say she is wrong. Only the people producing the e-fits can confirm whether he stuck to his guns.
A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance.
How accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry McCann? If that is the debatable question, then the question about the e-fits is a separate matter altogether IMO. For if Martin ID'd Gerry McCann they don't need to produce any e-fits. So even if Emma O'Doherty claims Martin Smith never wavered I'd say she is wrong. Only the people producing the e-fits can confirm whether he stuck to his guns.
I don't understand the point of wondering if Smith's opinion was accurate. Why does it matter?Do some people really believe Martin Smith saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine through the streets of PdL at around 10:00 PM?
Do some people really believe Martin Smith saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine through the streets of PdL at around 10:00 PM?
If they really do, knowing how accurate his sighting is likely to be is vital.
It won't change their minds whatever you say. Efforts to prove Smith wrong are more likely to be seen as a sign that he was right, in my opinion.where do you stand?
where do you stand?
I see the Smiths as reliable witnesses, so I think they did see a man carrying a child. I think Mr Smith was sincere when he says he was reminded of that man when he saw Gerry McCann on TV. I'm not convinced that Gerry McCann had an unbreakable alibi during the period of the Smith's sighting.
I see the Smiths as reliable witnesses, so I think they did see a man carrying a child. I think Mr Smith was sincere when he says he was reminded of that man when he saw Gerry McCann on TV. I'm not convinced that Gerry McCann had an unbreakable alibi during the period of the Smith's sighting.
I see the Smiths as reliable witnesses too, but the only thing that reminded Mr Smith of the person he saw with the child was the way Gerry carried his child off the plane, not his features or anything else.
Apparently my opinions aren't allowed to be posted.
I see the Smiths as reliable witnesses too, but the only thing that reminded Mr Smith of the person he saw with the child was the way Gerry carried his child off the plane, not his features or anything else.
Wasn't that what Jane Tanner also apparently said about her identification of the man she saw, she claimed it was the way he walked.
Exactly neither JT nor the Smiths are able to positively identify the child nor its carrier,its not beyond the realms of possibility therefore neither saw an alleged abductor.
Wasn't that what Jane Tanner also apparently said about her identification of the man she saw, she claimed it was the way he walked.
I see the Smiths as reliable witnesses too, but the only thing that reminded Mr Smith of the person he saw with the child was the way Gerry carried his child off the plane, not his features or anything else.
Mr Smith gave two reasonably good descriptions of the man he saw. I expect he had also stored a moving image in his brain on the night. Seeing photos and videos of Gerry McCann had no effect. It was only when he saw him in a very similar situation that the moving image was recalled.
he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache.
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. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut.
He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night.... It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Sorry John don't know what you mean.
I know that we can recognise familiar people from a distance because I've done it just by seeing someone turn their head and shoulders. I've no experience of recognising strangers though.
When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Aoife did not agree with her fathers' opinion ... that surely tells one something particularly as she had a clear view of his manner of walking and it was that manner and the manner in which the child was carried which clinched it for her father.
Mr Smith gave two reasonably good descriptions of the man he saw. I expect he had also stored a moving image in his brain on the night. Seeing photos and videos of Gerry McCann had no effect. It was only when he saw him in a very similar situation that the moving image was recalled.
he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache.
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. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut.
He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night.... It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Aoife did not agree with her fathers' opinion ... that surely tells one something particularly as she had a clear view of his manner of walking and it was that manner and the manner in which the child was carried which clinched it for her father.
Different perceptions. She saw the beige trousers with buttons. Did others mention that?
I think she saw him from a totally different angle and she was much closer to him.
So no need for any concern over his statement, then ?
Precisely ... as well as having watched his approach for longer than anyone else. So better lighting, longer look at his downhill approach ... and she disagreed with her father's later vision.What makes you think anyone watched his approach?
Wasn't that what Jane Tanner also apparently said about her identification of the man she saw, she claimed it was the way he walked.
Precisely ... as well as having watched his approach for longer than anyone else. So better lighting, longer look at his downhill approach ... and she disagreed with her father's later vision.
Precisely ... as well as having watched his approach for longer than anyone else. So better lighting, longer look at his downhill approach ... and she disagreed with her father's later vision.
What makes you think anyone watched his approach?
There is nothing from Peter Smith about where this man came from, but he does mention paying attention to his wife.
Martin Smith was probably with his wife, but I cannot be certain of even that.
Aoife brought up the rear of this entourage, but I have no clue as to who she was with.
Any idea where the other 4 children were? It's extremely important. It is a major unturned stone.
I'm afraid not. She didn't see him approach at all, he was on the same level as she was and she saw him for the least time of the three imo.
upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Obviously he went private ?{)(**And not following the police standard procedures (IMO) so how valuable could the E-fits ever be?
And not following the police standard procedures (IMO) so how valuable could the E-fits ever be?
In what way?
If you mean as evidence, then none at all.
However if a culprit is ever brought to court, it will be on the strength of much more damning evidence than an e-fit image.
In what way?The procedures said unless you saw the person face to face there is no point in doing an E-fit. Do the Smiths say they had a clear face to face encounter with that person? No they don't! Therefore there is no value in the E-fit unless they were not telling the full story in Portugal.
If you mean as evidence, then none at all.
However if a culprit is ever brought to court, it will be on the strength of much more damning evidence than an e-fit image.
The procedures said unless you saw the person face to face there is no point in doing an E-fit. Do the Smiths say they had a clear face to face encounter with that person? No they don't! Therefore there is no value in the E-fit unless they were not telling the full story in Portugal.
It is either the e-fits or the statements in error, you can't have them both being valuable. OK SY said the e-fits were valuable therefore they must have altered their statements too IMO.
I assumed that Peter Smith, his wife and four children formed the first group.Smithman saw something as he walked down Rua da Escola Primaria on 3 May 2007, did he not? But what.
I assumed that Martin and Mary were together with Aoife bringing up the rear on her own and from what little consideration I have given to the matter that is something I have always thought strange.
Not that it matters and they were very familiar with the locale, but in similar circumstances it would have been (and was) my preference to have sight of the teen members of the family and most certainly one walking on her own.
It could have been different; Aoife and the young boy could have walked together; a couple of the grandchildren could have been with Martin and Mary.
I'd not given it any thought. Why do you think it important?
Smithman saw something as he walked down Rua da Escola Primaria on 3 May 2007, did he not? But what.What do you mean by this? "It changes Smithman's point of view radically." What are you able to go inside the mind of Smithman?
I don't know what Smithman saw. I do know this aspect has not been well-advertised in Portugal, so there has been no reason for it to jog his memory, thus far.
It's interesting you think Aoife was on her own. I suspect, but cannot prove, she was with one or more of the other children.
It changes Smithman's point of view radically.
Smithman saw something as he walked down Rua da Escola Primaria on 3 May 2007, did he not? But what.I must agree with SIL here.
I don't know what Smithman saw. I do know this aspect has not been well-advertised in Portugal, so there has been no reason for it to jog his memory, thus far.
It's interesting you think Aoife was on her own. I suspect, but cannot prove, she was with one or more of the other children.
It changes Smithman's point of view radically.
What do you mean by this? "It changes Smithman's point of view radically." What are you able to go inside the mind of Smithman?The view that is widely discussed is the Smith's view. Specifically that 3 Smiths - Martin, Peter, and Aoife.
Smithman saw something as he walked down Rua da Escola Primaria on 3 May 2007, did he not? But what.
I don't know what Smithman saw. I do know this aspect has not been well-advertised in Portugal, so there has been no reason for it to jog his memory, thus far.
It's interesting you think Aoife was on her own. I suspect, but cannot prove, she was with one or more of the other children.
It changes Smithman's point of view radically.
The view that is widely discussed is the Smith's view. Specifically that 3 Smiths - Martin, Peter, and Aoife.
It's as if Smithman passed 3 people that night.
Except he didn't. He passed 9 people.
So what did it look like from Smithman's point of view?
For example, if all 5 children were together in a gaggle with Aoife, he would have seen a group of 5. Further, there is a slim chance that one of the parents would have looked back to check on the children, and in so doing would have seen where Smithman went next.
Brietta has suggested a layout that makes it Peter + Wife + 4 children, then Martin and Mary, then Aoife on her own. That is a very different layout.
Personally, I'd go with Aoife, the 13 year old and the 10 year old in one group, but I have no evidence to support this.
Where the 4 year old and the 6 year old were is equally unknown.
That of necessity relies on The MPS being convinced of the e-fit's provenance and generation methodology.
Then on the other hand The MPS may have gone forward on the basis "this is all we have to go on it's better than nothing".
Back in the realms of speculation.
Absolutely. If it helps identify the guilty party all well and good. If it doesn't then nothing lost.How can you produce an e-fit if you didn't see the person's face. It must be some sort of hoax IMO. And that seems to be the evidence, as they clearly stated they could not recognise the person, for a number of reasons and yet they produced two different looking e-fits. That is impossible yet the E-fits are there, so I can only propose it is a hoax.
How can you produce an e-fit if you didn't see the person's face. It must be some sort of hoax IMO. And that seems to be the evidence, as they clearly stated they could not recognise the person, for a number of reasons and yet they produced two different looking e-fits. That is impossible yet the E-fits are there, so it can only propose it is a hoax.
Why would SY promote an hoax,unless of course, as many suspect SY are any thing but genuine? some how £11 million doesn't convince me of that.Am I the first to claim it is a hoax? Maybe SY missed the signs? I don't know. You might not realise but even though I say it is "a hoax" I still hold out hope that the Smiths are still pointing us in the right direction. As I said before there is nothing stopping a person drawing the faces of those they suspect rather than those they saw. The E-fits are not alongside a statement are they?
Am I the first to claim it is a hoax? Maybe SY missed the signs? I don't know. You might not realise but even thought I say it is a hoax I still hold out hope that the Smiths are still pointing us in the right direction. As I said before there is nothing stopping a person drawing the faces of those they suspect rather than those they saw. The E-fits are not alongside a statement are they?
How can you produce an e-fit if you didn't see the person's face. It must be some sort of hoax IMO. And that seems to be the evidence, as they clearly stated they could not recognise the person, for a number of reasons and yet they produced two different looking e-fits. That is impossible yet the E-fits are there, so it can only propose it is a hoax.
It simply doesn't matter.A hoax wouldn't be for the purposes of making people laugh,
If it help identify the bad guy, all to the good. If it doesn't so what ?
Where's the hoax ? OG seem content to promote it - are they having a laugh? I don't think so.
A few people seem to be getting too wound up about this. Could that be to do with reputation management ?
Am I the first to claim it is a hoax? Maybe SY missed the signs? I don't know. You might not realise but even though I say it is "a hoax" I still hold out hope that the Smiths are still pointing us in the right direction. As I said before there is nothing stopping a person drawing the faces of those they suspect rather than those they saw. The E-fits are not alongside a statement are they?
Absolutely. If it helps identify the guilty party all well and good. If it doesn't then nothing lost.That depends.
How can you produce an e-fit if you didn't see the person's face. It must be some sort of hoax IMO. And that seems to be the evidence, as they clearly stated they could not recognise the person, for a number of reasons and yet they produced two different looking e-fits. That is impossible yet the E-fits are there, so it can only propose it is a hoax.
I have never known a witness who 'thinks' they maybe saw [named person] ever making a witness stand- A lawyer just wouldn't allow it. As Martin was 60-80% certain then his testimony would be taken seriously. I am only surmising this is why it was only him, however as you point out, there may have been other requests on paper to invite others in the party, which have disappeared or got lost?
I personally, wholly understand Mr Smiths anxiety, no one wants to get people into serious trouble and he feared his information may do just that-the thought of a missing child must have outweighed that and he let his conscience guide him there fore he came forward.
Methinks two threads are getting a bit jumbled.
This one is entitled: How accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry MaCann?
Once it had been clarified that his "60-80%" moment was based on how newly-arguidoed Gerry carried Sean, I don't see how a positive ID could have been made without a wee bit of browbeating.
The other thread (currently at dozens of pages and counting) is about the Efits: The Smithman e-fits.
MS must have been pretty certain that it was Gerry to go against his children IF they all thought it wasn’t him ( which I don’t believe they did ).
MS must have been pretty certain that it was Gerry to go against his children IF they all thought it wasn’t him ( which I don’t believe they did ).
MS must have been pretty certain that it was Gerry to go against his children IF they all thought it wasn’t him ( which I don’t believe they did ).Doesn't matter how sure he was according to the statements by both sets of investigators he was mistaken... Strange how you dismiss the ID evidence of the many people who have seen Maddie but you seem to think the one suspected... But not sure sighting of Gerry is somehow significant
I think you're letting your imagination run away with you. Also, e-fits aren't 'drawn' by anyone. As two people took part and only one thought he saw Gerry McCann then your proposal about 'those they suspect' can't be true.You missed the point, and I think I can explain it better now. Crimestoppers allows a person to give an anonymous statement. How can you give an anonymous e-fit? Smiths - maybe not a hoax but struggled to give an anonymous e-fit. It can't be Gerry for Gerry has an alibi. So who is it. And if it was given in an anonymous context how do they feel now that it is blown out in the open on Crimewatch?
You missed the point, and I think I can explain it better now. Crimestoppers allows a person to give an anonymous statement. How can you give an anonymous e-fit? Smiths - maybe not a hoax but struggled to give an anonymous e-fit. It can't be Gerry for Gerry has an alibi. So who is it. And if it was given in an anonymous context how does he feel now that it is blown out in the open on Crimewatch?
Not following, Rob, beyond:
Crimestoppers allows a person to give an anonymous statement.
Not following, Rob, beyond:I think you nearly got it too "Aoife:
Crimestoppers allows a person to give an anonymous statement.
I think you nearly got it too "Aoife:
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location. " So she must have seen his face to be sure she had never seen him before. So why was she not the one to compose the e-fit? Could that be forbidden by the family for family safety reasons?
I'm struggling to say it properly.
But if the Smiths are in fear of the people involved are they going to let Aoife to compose an e-fit? No IMO no. So the family helps out with composing an e-fit, but the ones who take the risk are the ones who didn't get a good look. So how do they do that? IMO it is from memories of the person they know.
So which agency do you suppose held still for that contravention of police procedures?I thought it was well known that these were made by PIs. I lose track as to who it was, but was it Oakley International?
I think you nearly got it too "Aoife:Interesting thought Rob.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location. " So she must have seen his face to be sure she had never seen him before. So why was she not the one to compose the e-fit? Could that be forbidden by the family for family safety reasons?
I'm struggling to say it properly.
But if the Smiths are in fear of the people involved are they going to let Aoife to compose an e-fit? No IMO no. So the family helps out with composing an e-fit, but the ones who take the risk are the ones who didn't get a good look. So how do they do that? IMO it is from memories of the person they know.
Interesting thought Rob.It was war as far as I was concerned. I was lucky not murder some of them.
Sorry that you had the drug dealers come after you. I am expectingt the same to happen to me, if I am correct with my big theory, but The Police have some names, so hopefully that will prevent it
It was war as far as I was concerned. I was lucky not murder some of them.Aw, that must have been terrifying,
One of them drove alongside my vehicle on a motorbike, and it looked like he had a sawn-off shotgun tucked under his long coat, so a swerved toward him making him dodge me.
Aw, that must have been terrifying,What year? My troubles were back in 1986 That guy died in bike accident in the end.
In 2019, driving north on the M5 we were shot at from a passing car. We were about a mile or so short of the Bromsgrove junction.
...snip ...
What year? My troubles were back in 1986 That guy died in bike accident in the end.Soz
Martin had just seen Gerry on TV (probably several times), and he had heard that he had been made Arguido.
Carana, or maybe Rob, pointed out that having seen Gerry on TV and just learned that he had been made arguido, would very likely influence his memory perception of what Smithman looked like. The lighting was so bad that he didn't see Smithman very well anyway.
It was an action replay of the night that triggered it. In his opinion that was the man he had seen and he couldn't sleep well for days worrying over it.
It was an action replay of the night that triggered it. In his opinion that was the man he had seen and he couldn't sleep well for days worrying over it.In the experience of those who study memory those issues are not correlated to a correct memory. There are other factors causing this sleeplessness IMO.
And what about all the people who have seen Maddie... She must have been everywhere
Well if we discount all those sightings that were distant in time and space or have been proved false alarms...Why should we discount sightings that were distant in time or space ?
Doesn't matter how sure he was according to the statements by both sets of investigators he was mistaken... Strange how you dismiss the ID evidence of the many people who have seen Maddie but you seem to think the one suspected... But not sure sighting of Gerry is somehow significant
It’s not me who thinks this sighting, along with the efits produced, is significant, OG do.
It’s not me who thinks this sighting, along with the efits produced, is significant, OG do.As misty said... The sighting is significant and could well be Maddie being abducted... But as Gerry is not a, suspect OG obviously don't think it's gerry
Well if we discount all those sightings that were distant in time and space or have been proved false alarms...
As misty said... The sighting is significant and could well be Maddie being abducted... But as Gerry is not a, suspect OG obviously don't think it's gerry
And as I have said, in the first Portuguese investigation, the McCanns were not suspects right up until they were.All the evidence that was used to make the McCann's suspects was not consolidated... Ie they should never have been made arguidis... They were because amaral and his team misunderstood the evidence... I don't see the present team making the, same mistake
All the evidence that was used to make the McCann's suspects was not consolidated... Ie they should never have been made arguidis... They were because amaral and his team misunderstood the evidence... I don't see the present team making the, same mistake
All the evidence that was used to make the McCann's suspects was not consolidated... Ie they should never have been made arguidis... They were because amaral and his team misunderstood the evidence... I don't see the present team making the, same mistake
Police don't forewarn suspects as you will find out.
Re: How accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry MaCann?
Nothing more than what he already clarified, AFAIK.
There, is, absolutely no way of knowing how, accurate the I'd was... Simple, as thatBut we can tell it broke all the rules under the standard operating procedures. So that must give us a clue. IMO.
But we can tell it broke all the rules under the standard operating procedures. So that must give us a clue. IMO.
But we can tell it broke all the rules under the standard operating procedures. So that must give us a clue. IMO.
What are we discussing? His statements to the police or an efit (if he was one of the people to assist with one)? Even if he had, it doesn't constitute an ID.I was thinking of the production of the e-fit. But the eyewitness identification of Gerry from seeing the arguido coming off the plane, probably can't be a reliable identification either.
I was thinking of the production of the e-fit. But the eyewitness identification of Gerry from seeing the arguido coming off the plane, probably can't be a reliable identification either.
I think many, including the courts, would probably agree, so what is your point?But is it included in the arsenal of reasons to believe the McCanns that done it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Gerry should be strung up on the strength of these e-fits or coming off the plane.
But is it included in the arsenal of reasons to believe the McCanns that done it.
Is it really?Is there one sceptic that makes it clear they don't add it in their point of view. Well what about you? Do you include the identification in your assessment of the McCanns?
Can you name one sceptic who has said that ?
I mean one who posts on here.
Is there one sceptic that makes it clear they don't add it in their point of view. Well what about you? Do you include the identification in your assessment of the McCanns?
No, I came to my conclusions much earlier than that.
Smithman, however, is still a sighting that has not been satisfactorily explained.
Redwood wasn't exactly crystal clear about tannerman.
Has OG really been crystal clear about anything?
It all seems to be down to opinions and 'we think this' or 'we think that' They don't even have a definitive answer as to whether Madeleine is alive or not.
Scotland Yard aren't asking for any help from any where,Smithman is known imo.Well go the next step, is he innocent or involved with the McCann case?
Well go the next step, is he innocent or involved with the McCann case?
Well go the next step, is he innocent or involved with the McCann case?
As armchair detectives we don't have the information to make a valid judgement on that.No if someone reckons they can tell OG know who Smithman is they must also know whether SM is involved or not.
To use police jargon, he is a person of interest - or jolly well should be.
No if someone reckons they can tell OG know who Smithman is they must also know whether SM is involved or not.
Barrier "Scotland Yard aren't asking for any help from any where, Smithman is known imo."
Well OG did say after they put out the appeal that one name kept cropping up.Cite please?
No if someone reckons they can tell OG know who Smithman is they must also know whether SM is involved or not.
Barrier "Scotland Yard aren't asking for any help from any where, Smithman is known imo."
Cite please?
IMO being the key,go looksee on the met site,type in Operation grange it will not bring up any kind of appeal,it brings up the update back in 2015 and the blog from Rowley back in May of last year.
(https://i.imgur.com/5ZDiLTs.png) (https://lunapic.com)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vu1J2Ph.png) (https://lunapic.com)
What were you wanting there images or URLs?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-sees-2372664"Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said several callers had given the same name for the man in the new e-fits which were released."
"Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said several callers had given the same name for the man in the new e-fits which were released."
Well it can't have been Gerry McCann then could it?
"Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said several callers had given the same name for the man in the new e-fits which were released."
Well it can't have been Gerry McCann then could it?
No it couldn't have been Gerry McCann and it could be that OG know who it was.Would they have released the E-fits if they knew who it was? Or did they want to know more about him?
Would they have released the E-fits if they knew who it was? Or did they want to know more about him?
Kate McCann said;
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related.......To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.......I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. [madeleine]
Why then, when they were given e-fits of this man's face, did they fail to publicise them? It seems that they had the chance to find this fiend who committed the heinous crime of stealing their child from her bed and carrying her off, but they didn't take it.
Kate McCann said;Instead of using words like "they" or "their" would you insert the names of those you are levelling you accusations at please?
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related.......To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.......I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. [madeleine]
Why then, when they were given e-fits of this man's face, did they fail to publicise them? It seems that they had the chance to find this fiend who committed the heinous crime of stealing their child from her bed and carrying her off, but they didn't take it.
Instead of using words like "they" or "their" would you insert the names of those you are levelling you accusations at please?
Instead of using words like "they" or "their" would you insert the names of those you are levelling you accusations at please?
It's fairly obvious from the context who 'they' are.It is unfair that we are left to make guesses.
It is unfair that we are left to make guesses.
Is it ? Are readers so lacking in comprehension skills ?Prove to me you are skillful then and do it for G-unit.
Kate McCann said;
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related.......To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.......I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. [madeleine]
Why then, when they were given e-fits of this man's face, did they fail to publicise them? It seems that they had the chance to find this fiend who committed the heinous crime of stealing their child from her bed and carrying her off, but they didn't take it.
The first part is an extract from Kate's book, so is fact, is it not ?Why then, when they were given e-fits of this man's face, did they fail to publicise them? It seems that they had the chance to find this fiend who committed the heinous crime of stealing their child from her bed and carrying her off, but they didn't take it. That is bit is an un-cited fact disguised as an opinion.
The second paragraph is framed in the form of a question.
Which bit is 'opinion' ?
Prove to me you are skillful then and do it for G-unit.
Are you, as a Mod, suggesting that I alter or modify someone else's post &%%6Who has the problem with comprehension skills now? Quote rule you are thinking of? Did I ask you to break that rule?
Kate McCann said;
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related.......To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.......I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. [madeleine]
Why then, when they were given e-fits of this man's face, did they fail to publicise them? It seems that they had the chance to find this fiend who committed the heinous crime of stealing their child from her bed and carrying her off, but they didn't take it.
Is it ? Are readers so lacking in comprehension skills ?
Had they released the efits & identified the man, who would have questioned him?
They would have had new evidence to get the case reopened.It would not be guaranteed.
They would have had new evidence to get the case reopened.
It would not be guaranteed.
They employed that chap Edgar. He could have pretended he was a police officer.You must feel better now that you have that off your chest.
You must feel better now that you have that off your chest.
With which police force to chase up any leads, or get search warrants, at the time?
As we are told, all the PJ needed was new evidence.
I do. I do @)(++(*In Dave Edgar's opinion it would be possible to work out why you said "I do" twice?
Had they released the efits & identified the man, who would have questioned him?
This is Opinion as Fact. Please don't force me to Delete this.
When they released the e-fit of the Victoria Beckham look-alike who would have questioned her, had she been identified?I suppose the PI's would or would they take it to SY for assistance?
I suppose the PI's would or would they take it to SY for assistance?
The problem I also see is one maybe in Portugal and other one out of Portugal anywhere in the World.
There was no active investigation by any police force at the time of the 'Victoria Beckham' appeal. In my opinion their chances of anyone identifying her were extremely slim anyway. The sighting was two years old, it took place at 2am, and there was nothing memorable about it; just a man and a woman having a short conversation. A lot of fuss about nothing much imo.They did get some suspects nominated I read but the people identified just denied it, They weren't there or they were too old to have been her. So they must have followed up some leads themselves.
Didn't amaral claim all it needed was a stamp on a letter .. But what did he know
There are articles in the penal process code governing the conditions for re-opening an investigation... Why he made it sound so simple is beyond me... or perhaps not.
Much the same as an application to the ECHR,it only needs a stamped letter to start a process,so simple in reality.
But this was to get the Portuguese case reopened... Amaral was talking rubbish imo.
Much the same as an application to the ECHR,it only needs a stamped letter to start a process,so simple in reality.
You know this to be true,why? the longest journey always starts with a small step,why should not this be the same,one simple letter to peak some ones interest.
You know this to be true,why? the longest journey always starts with a small step,why should not this be the same,one simple letter to peak some ones interest.
Yes I know it to be true... The process could only be opened if new evidence came to light... A letter from the McCann's would not do it
If that letter contained a confession, it would.
That may well have been the meaning of GA's comment, IMO.
However, some choose to interpret that as "proof" that the McCanns never wanted a review of available evidence at all, and certainly not for the investigation to be reopened, and that they are therefore necessarily "guilty", because GA said that all they needed to do was put a stamp on a letter.
A few may feel that it was some kind of double-bluff, and never say never to a first instance, going on the offensive is the best form of defence and all that (possible), but that idea doesn't seem to have materialised despite two currently open investigations.
Didn't amaral claim all it needed was a stamp on a letter .. But what did he know
Can you prove him wrong?
Why go to the bother?
I doubt any identification evidence unless there was unequivocal proof would be admissible in court for the simple reason that the McCanns had had so much media exposure that it would have been unsafe.
Mr McCluskey's recollection was certainly muddied by such http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm and who is to say the same phenomenon didn't affect Mr Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm whose family did not back up his opinion.
They didn't have to keep Madeleine in the public eye ... but they did.
They didn't have to raise funds to do that and to keep looking for her using PIs ... but they did.
They didn't have to write a book to boost the funds, they could have put all the income from their best seller into their own bank account as Amaral did ... but they did not.
They could have moved back home and dropped off the radar ... they loved their daughter too much not to continue looking for her ... but they kept her name to the fore despite the social media attacks they took as a result.
If that was all done as part of a double bluff ... in my opinion there would have been far easier and less expensive options both in money and emotion to do that ... and with a lot less effort.
I don't find the idea of some kind of double-bluff to be high on my list of probabilities, either, but I can accept it as a hypothetical possibility. For the moment, there doesn't appear to be anything to substantiate it.I wonder if Amaral couldn't write the letter and just jet the McCanns to return it in a self addressed and prepaid envelope and make it even easier and less onerous on the McCanns?
I wonder if Amaral couldn't write the letter and just get the McCanns to return it in a self addressed and prepaid envelope and make it even easier and less onerous on the McCanns?
Do you think I am wrong
Some pals tried, or said they did, or were going to. Or something.... you'd have to google the pink blanket as "shroud" saga.I find invitations to google a subject frustrating as I never know if the result I find was the one intended.
Why go to the bother?
I doubt any identification evidence unless there was unequivocal proof would be admissible in court for the simple reason that the McCanns had had so much media exposure that it would have been unsafe.
Mr McCluskey's recollection was certainly muddied by such http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm and who is to say the same phenomenon didn't affect Mr Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm whose family did not back up his opinion.
They didn't have to keep Madeleine in the public eye ... but they did.
They didn't have to raise funds to do that and to keep looking for her using PIs ... but they did.
They didn't have to write a book to boost the funds, they could have put all the income from their best seller into their own bank account as Amaral did ... but they did not.
They could have moved back home and dropped off the radar ... they loved their daughter too much not to continue looking for her ... but they kept her name to the fore despite the social media attacks they took as a result.
If that was all done as part of a double bluff ... in my opinion there would have been far easier and less expensive options both in money and emotion to do that ... and with a lot less effort.
You don't know what motivated the McCanns to do the things they did, you just think you do.If it seems logical at least that is a start.
If it seems logical at least that is a start.
It is also first step on the road to libel...
If it seems logical at least that is a start.
In y opinion the poster is saying that guilty people would fade into obscurity, innocent people would take all the actions listed. Can the poster prove that's true? I think not.I'm sure Brietta would have a fair crack at it.
It is also first step on the road to libel...In what way?
In y opinion the poster is saying that guilty people would fade into obscurity, innocent people would take all the actions listed. Can the poster prove that's true? I think not.
In what way?
I can't imagine a guilty person wanting a review of the case, and then wanting the investigation.
A review which identified and publicised shortcomings in the original investigation might have been seen as desirable.