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

[ShiningInLuz]

Wasn't there an answer in one of the two houses of Parliament that the e-fits had been drawn up by two members of an Irish family?

And hasn't the debate focussed on which two members of said Irish family?

This doesn't invalidate that a woman claimed she saw a man on phone conversing whilst carrying a child.  It does seem to imply this info surfaced post-CrimeWatch 2013, but why would an innocent witness wait until then to help the police with their enquiries?

[pegasus]

Wasn't there an answer in one of the two houses of Parliament that the e-fits had been drawn up by two members of an Irish family?

And hasn't the debate focussed on which two members of said Irish family?

This doesn't invalidate that a woman claimed she saw a man on phone conversing whilst carrying a child.  It does seem to imply this info surfaced post-CrimeWatch 2013, but why would an innocent witness wait until then to help the police with their enquiries?

Up until Crimewatch 2013, the British public had been told that the main suspect was a man walking east from 5A. Therefore this witness who reportedly saw a man carrying a child while talking on mobile in the southwest corner of town completely irrelevant and not of interest because it was in the opposite direction.

[ShiningInLuz]

Up until Crimewatch 2013, the British public had been told that the main suspect was a man walking east from 5A. Therefore this witness who reportedly saw a man carrying a child while talking on mobile in the southwest corner of town completely irrelevant and not of interest because it was in the opposite direction.

Was the GB public ignorant of Smithman until CW 2013?  Surely that is the connection?  Smithman on 25 de Abril around 10pm.  And that came out years earlier, AFAIK.

[pegasus]

Was the GB public ignorant of Smithman until CW 2013?  Surely that is the connection?  Smithman on 25 de Abril around 10pm.  And that came out years earlier, AFAIK.

Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.

[Robittybob1]

Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

Gerry McCann had no watertight alibi. According to his friends he left the Tapas with them just after 10pm. He himself put the time at 10.13pm. The problem is that the nine statements only count as one statement because the group agreed the timeline together. On another thread there are five statements which cast doubt on the time of the alarm by Kate McCann.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0

[Brietta]

Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.

Kate McCann believes the Smith sighting is highly significant

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

The McCanns have never dismissed the Smith sighting as an irrelevance.

However, when does the opinion of the parents of a missing child override that of the investigating authorities who paid scant attention in the period between the first report and the BBC Crimewatch programme?
There must have been a reason for that.
Wonder what it was?

Focusing opprobrium on the McCanns for any perceived omission in the investigation is, in my opinion, misplaced.
It is a police job to investigate and if necessary publicise information ... not the victim's or the victim's family.

[G-Unit]

Kate McCann believes the Smith sighting is highly significant

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

The McCanns have never dismissed the Smith sighting as an irrelevance.

However, when does the opinion of the parents of a missing child override that of the investigating authorities who paid scant attention in the period between the first report and the BBC Crimewatch programme?
There must have been a reason for that.
Wonder what it was?

Focusing opprobrium on the McCanns for any perceived omission in the investigation is, in my opinion, misplaced.
It is a police job to investigate and if necessary publicise information ... not the victim's or the victim's family.

It wasn't the victims family's job to obtain and publicise efits of the 'Beckham' sighting, but they did it. If they had behaved logically they should also have publicised the 'Smithman efits in October 2008, but, illogically, they didn't. That stone was left unturned until SY did it.

[Robittybob1]

Kate McCann believes the Smith sighting is highly significant

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

The McCanns have never dismissed the Smith sighting as an irrelevance.

However, when does the opinion of the parents of a missing child override that of the investigating authorities who paid scant attention in the period between the first report and the BBC Crimewatch programme?
There must have been a reason for that.
Wonder what it was?

Focusing opprobrium on the McCanns for any perceived omission in the investigation is, in my opinion, misplaced.
It is a police job to investigate and if necessary publicise information ... not the victim's or the victim's family.

It is interesting what Kate is quoted to say. 

Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" (hardback):-
Kate McCann devotes no fewer than 4 pages in her book to the significance of the Smith sighting – pp 98, 328-329 & 365
 
She says:-
Quote:
“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 Primaria were related.  They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all).  The only reason for their skepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings.  They didn’t dovetail perfectly.  To me, the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing”.

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.

[ferryman]

Surely we are not still banging on out the timing of the publication of the Smith sighting?

Are we?

Seriously?

Scotland Yard (themselves, in possession of the efit for some considerable time before they chose to release it) did so on the crimewatch programme to support a live and on-going police investigation.

That's how English police use efits (to support live and on-going police investigations).  They always have.

There's no mystery; nothing invented to fit the McCanns, just plain, ordinary, standard English policing.

Don't ask the PJ about that; they don't use e-fits (or they haven't; times may be a-changing; I hope they are).

[Alfie]

Gerry McCann had no watertight alibi. According to his friends he left the Tapas with them just after 10pm. He himself put the time at 10.13pm. The problem is that the nine statements only count as one statement because the group agreed the timeline together. On another thread there are five statements which cast doubt on the time of the alarm by Kate McCann.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0

Your post above completely contradicts itself in 4 short sentences. 

[misty]

Wasn't there an answer in one of the two houses of Parliament that the e-fits had been drawn up by two members of an Irish family?

And hasn't the debate focussed on which two members of said Irish family?

This doesn't invalidate that a woman claimed she saw a man on phone conversing whilst carrying a child.  It does seem to imply this info surfaced post-CrimeWatch 2013, but why would an innocent witness wait until then to help the police with their enquiries?

There was a Freedom of Information request regarding the efits.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_two_e_fits_of_a?unfold=1#incoming-574640

Here is the MPS reply, which leaves you in no doubt that the 2 efits relate only to the Smith sighting & were prepared with the assistance of 2 family members.

*snipped*
At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

[misty]

Gerry McCann had no watertight alibi. According to his friends he left the Tapas with them just after 10pm. He himself put the time at 10.13pm. The problem is that the nine statements only count as one statement because the group agreed the timeline together. On another thread there are five statements which cast doubt on the time of the alarm by Kate McCann.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0

Yet you choose to totally ignore the timing discrepancies in the Smith family statements. Fascinating.

[G-Unit]

Your post above completely contradicts itself in 4 short sentences.

Could you elucidate please?

[ferryman]

It wasn't the victims family's job to obtain and publicise efits of the 'Beckham' sighting, but they did it. If they had behaved logically they should also have publicised the 'Smithman efits in October 2008, but, illogically, they didn't. That stone was left unturned until SY did it.

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 ....