Gonçalo Amaral claimed that so-called Smithman e-fits were simply a ruse!

[Alfie]

Could you elucidate please?

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to work it out yourself.

[G-Unit]

Sigh! 

How many more times?

Spain is another country from Portugal.

And no where near PdL.

Where Madeleine was abducted from.

Different timing (the Spanish) sighting also (from the time Madeleine was abducted).

Absolutely no comparison (between the Victoria Beckham look-alike sighting) and the Smith sighting.

The Smith sighting (might have been) of Madeleine being abducted.

That's why it could only ever be released publicly in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

I have (genuine) sympathy with our Portuguese friends on this board, themselves not used to the concept of efits and their proper use (because the Portuguese national police don't use them) who don't quite see the concept.

But English posters (who don't see it) bloody well should know better.  English police have been using efits long enough.

And The Times 'insight' team was a bloody disgrace ....

Don't take that tone with me. Who made you the expert?

The Gail Cooper efit was of someone in Portugal, and that was released to the press without the permission or involvement of the live PJ investigation or of their collaborators, Leicestershire Police;

McCanns employ rhetoric and methodology of authorities as they unveil drawing of suspect, writes Martyn McLaughlin
 
It had all the features of an official police press conference: a solemn appeal for sightings, delivered with detective-speak phrases such as "eliminating suspects in the investigation".

However, the man standing behind the lectern was not a senior policeman but a PR consultant hired by a family determined to find answers even if it means going it alone.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id67.html

[G-Unit]

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to work it out yourself.

Clearly you can't back up what you said. OK

[Angelo222]

Wouldn't that be a fault of Goncalo's. He had the sightings but just because of a phone call (supposedly) he identifies Gerry, when in fact Gerry had a watertight alibi (organising the search for Madeleine, but it was nothing for him just to declare all the McCann's friends were lying.

Sorry Bob but he never organised any search other than himself and Mat.  It was the nannies who organised the search as they were trained to do by virtue of Warners standing orders.

[Angelo222]

Well in some respect I agree that Tanner sighting and Smith sighting are of different people and carrying two different children. The sightings don't dovetail.  Age of person doing the carrying, age and sex of child,  colour of pyjamas are similar purely coincidental.  But the Smith sighting is the significant one.

What are the odds of this happening a few hundred metres and 45 minutes apart in a quiet rural village?

I suggest extremely small.

[Angelo222]

Sigh! 

How many more times?

Spain is another country from Portugal.

And no where near PdL.

Where Madeleine was abducted from.

Different timing (the Spanish) sighting also (from the time Madeleine was abducted).

Absolutely no comparison (between the Victoria Beckham look-alike sighting) and the Smith sighting.

The Smith sighting (might have been) of Madeleine being abducted.

That's why it could only ever be released publicly in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

I have (genuine) sympathy with our Portuguese friends on this board, themselves not used to the concept of efits and their proper use (because the Portuguese national police don't use them) who don't quite see the concept.

But English posters (who don't see it) bloody well should know better.  English police have been using efits long enough.

And The Times 'insight' team was a bloody disgrace ....

You have most of that right except for the abduction claim.  Still unsupported by actual evidence.

As for the release of the e-fits it is fact that they were withheld and not released to the public. A strange thing to do imo when the claim was no stone unturned?

[Mr Gray]

You have most of that right except for the abduction claim.  Still unsupported by actual evidence.

As for the release of the e-fits it is fact that they were withheld and not released to the public. A strange thing to do imo when the claim was no stone unturned?

there is evidence to support abduction

[Brietta]

You have most of that right except for the abduction claim.  Still unsupported by actual evidence.

As for the release of the e-fits it is fact that they were withheld and not released to the public. A strange thing to do imo when the claim was no stone unturned?

There must be many things which we as laymen would find strange or even illogical in an ongoing criminal investigation.
When tested in the courts it would appear that it was the version of events printed in the Sunday Times which failed the test of probity.

[jassi]

Was it tested in the courts, or was it another of those things that didn't get that far? I genuinely can't remember.

[ferryman]

An interesting side-line is that Gail Coooper's sighting classically illustrates the difference between intelligence and evidence.

Gail Cooper's sighting came before Madeleine's abduction, so we can state, certainly, that she did not witness Madeleine's abduction.

But (conceivably, not necessarily) she might have witnessed Madeleine's abductor.

So, in the light of Madeleine's abduction (and very properly!)  she offered the efit.

That is intelligence, which subsequent information and developments may (or may not!) make, also, evidence.

(Incidentally, full justification in the efit being published when it was).

The Smith sighting (by contrast) is actual evidence, potentially, Madeleine's abduction.

Hence the reason the two sightings were treated very differently.

[Robittybob1]

What are the odds of this happening a few hundred metres and 45 minutes apart in a quiet rural village?

I suggest extremely small.

True it is rare, but it is still one of the options that can't be ruled out unfortunately.

[Robittybob1]

there is evidence to support abduction

Define abduction as you use the term please?

[pegasus]

An interesting side-line is that Gail Coooper's sighting classically illustrates the difference between intelligence and evidence.

Gail Cooper's sighting came before Madeleine's abduction, so we can state, certainly, that she did not witness Madeleine's abduction.

But (conceivably, not necessarily) she might have witnessed Madeleine's abductor.

So, in the light of Madeleine's abduction (and very properly!)  she offered the efit.

That is intelligence, which subsequent information and developments may (or may not!) make, also, evidence.

(Incidentally, full justification in the efit being published when it was).

The Smith sighting (by contrast) is actual evidence, potentially, Madeleine's abduction.

Hence the reason the two sightings were treated very differently.

@Ferryman
The intelligence about Cooperman is:

He did a charity collection.
He was seen walking while it was raining.

That's it.

[Brietta]

Was it tested in the courts, or was it another of those things that didn't get that far? I genuinely can't remember.

Yes - it was.

quote:
5. The McCanns were forced to make a legal claim in the High Court because of the Sunday Times' refusal to accept responsibility.
6. Only after the newspaper was sued did the it accept liability and offer to settle the case.
end quote.


Date 3 October 2014

Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages

Carter-Ruc k Solicitor s
6 St Andre w Stree t
Londo n EC4 A 3 A E

The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).

Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October 2013.

The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.

The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false.

As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.

The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a copy of which is attached.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF

[Brietta]

@Ferryman
The intelligence about Cooperman is:

He did a charity collection.
He was seen walking while it was raining.

That's it.

Were the police able to trace him for elimination purposes?