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

[misty]

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.

Ascending the flight of steps to Rua 25 de Abril would logically make me think that the 4 year old would have been close to one of the adults, probably Mary or Martin. Possibly the 6 year old was, too.
It would really be helpful to know if the roadwork signs shown in the photos taken on 26/5/07 of the Smiths'  route were in situ on 3/5/07. The ones placed close to the top of the flight of steps restricted the available space for Smithman to easily continue down that route if Aoife was in a group of 3 or 4 children, unless Aoife was straggling at the back.

[misty]

Martin, Peter & Aoife in picture during reconstruction. Who's the 4th person, wearing the hat?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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? 

[barrier]

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?

Scotland Yard officers gullible Rob?

[jassi]

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.
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 ?

[Robittybob1]

It simply doesn't matter.
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 ?

A hoax wouldn't be for the purposes of making people laugh,
"hoax
noun
1.
a humorous or malicious deception.
"the evidence had been planted as part of an elaborate hoax"

Hoax may not be the right word.

[G-Unit]

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?

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

Absolutely. If it helps  identify the guilty party all well and good. If it doesn't then nothing lost.

That depends.

In the Panorama 10th special, Paulo Ribeiro said the PJ had talked to him, on the basis that someone had identified him from a drawing, which the programme took to mean e-fit as per Crimewatch 2013.

If the Porto investigation closes, I hope to talk to Senhor Ribeiro, to ask him if it was the Smithman e-fits, and if there was any other reason to make him an arguido.

[Carana]

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.

Not following, Rob.

There's a difference between recall and recognition.

All three recalled different details, some of which I presume to be related to a glimpse of his face: Martin noticed that he didn't wear glasses, didn't have a beard or moustache. Aoife didn't remember seeing him before (based on what?). She said that she did see his face but couldn't now remember it. She also thought he was clean-shaven. Peter recalled that he appeared tanned (which parts of his body would have been exposed to the wind besides a face? Arms possibly, but those don't appear to be mentioned).

Martin:
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 did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Aoife:
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.

...

— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.


Peter:

— The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.



ETA: My point being is that various people had different recollections of details.

[Carana]

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.

[Carana]

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.

Sorry, I've only just seen your post.

I have no problem whatsoever that he decided to report his sudden doubt. My problem is the fuss made over it and how, once clarified, some people still have a selective memory syndrome... and that includes a certain someone of the "we policemen, experts..." variety.   

At that point, it wasn't a question of taking the stand. A new witness statement would have served the purpose at the time to have something to hand over with a bow to the prosecution.

[faithlilly]

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 ).