How accurate would be Martin Smith's ID of Gerry MaCann?

[G-Unit]

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;

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance.

Why some posters spend time trying to prove Smith wrong escapes me. We have been told that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant when the Smiths saw the man with the child. If people believe that then obviously Smith was wrong.

[Robittybob1]

A moot point;

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.

[G-Unit]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?
If they really do, knowing how accurate his sighting is likely to be is vital.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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 agree with all of that... It sums up the, situation  perfectly

[Lace]

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.

[jassi]

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.

I'm sure police would take that into account.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Apparently my opinions aren't allowed to be posted.

IN MY VERY HONEST OPINION:

You may need to ask permission to offer an opinion on this forum,especially as mods may not like you or your opinion especially if it could upset  the supporters in anyway.

I agree with what Mr Martin said. SY and PJ ,SY THE EXPERTS, according to the mods on this forum, certainly found that to be important to be bothered to mention it on crime watch.

I also trust an independent witness to those who had an interest in protecting themselves from accusations of being 'bad parents' or such.  Just another opinion from lil ole me.... though not old...

[John]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[jassi]

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.

THat's true and in the case of Tanner, OG are almost certain that she didn't.

[Lace]

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.

Sorry John don't know what you mean.