The Smithman e-fits

[misty]

Wouldn't you then have to have doubts about his claim and the E-fits which were drawn up after the claim  If there was a date for the production of the Smith E-fits.

The efits were produced 4th September 2008, according to a journalist who has apparently seen Oakley's report - 16 months after the alleged sighting.

[Brietta]

The MPS released the efits & asked for the public's opinion of the man's identity. IMO that implies they did not believe the efits were of Gerry.

DCI Redwood:-
"This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward."

For all we know it is possible that a positive identification has been confirmed and we don't know about it because it was not an innocent dad coming forward.

[Brietta]

Wouldn't you then have to have doubts about his claim and the E-fits which were drawn up after the claim  If there was a date for the production of the Smith E-fits.

In my opinion the efits are not worth the paper they are printed on. 
See Misty's post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg447043#msg447043

[G-Unit]

In my opinion the efits are not worth the paper they are printed on. 
See Misty's post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg447043#msg447043

An opinion not shared by DCI Redwood, it seems. Perhaps you would care to share your opinion as to what he was up to publicising them all over Europe?

[Mr Gray]

An opinion not shared by DCI Redwood, it seems. Perhaps you would care to share your opinion as to what he was up to publicising them all over Europe?

Redwood thinks the Smith sighting is important... But it's clear from his, statement  he does not believe  it was, Gerry

[G-Unit]

Redwood thinks the Smith sighting is important... But it's clear from his, statement  he does not believe  it was, Gerry

He clearly saw them as important, regardless of what others think. I don't know who the Smiths saw and neither do you or Redwood, whatever our respective 'beliefs' are. Although Redwood may have known or strongly suspected and was just looking for confirmation, I suppose.

[Mr Gray]

He clearly saw them as important, regardless of what others think. I don't know who the Smiths saw and neither do you or Redwood, whatever our respective 'beliefs' are. Although Redwood may have known or strongly suspected and was just looking for confirmation, I suppose.

I agree the sighting is important... I don't know who Smith saw... Neither do you redwood or anyone... Most importantly Smith does not know who he saw...

As Gerry is not a, suspect then it is, reasonable to believe that neither investigation believes it was Gerry.. Imo

[G-Unit]

I agree the sighting is important... I don't know who Smith saw... Neither do you redwood or anyone... Most importantly Smith does not know who he saw...

As Gerry is not a, suspect then it is, reasonable to believe that neither investigation believes it was Gerry.. Imo

I know what has been said, but in my opinion you're placing too much value on it.

[Mr Gray]

I know what has been said, but in my opinion you're placing too much value on it.

It isn't just what has been said it's, everything  else in the equation.. And IMO you are in denial of what is patently a fact ... Ie the mccanns are not suspects.. All my opinion

[Mr Gray]

I don't see that SY would need to apply for funding to investigate British subjects living in the uk for any perceived  crime

[G-Unit]

I don't see that SY would need to apply for funding to investigate British subjects living in the uk for any perceived  crime

The funding is there in order to allow the MPS to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If the investigation includes British subjects it is still part of the same investigation and is therefore legitimately funded by the Home Office. It's not the who, it's the why.

[Mr Gray]

The funding is there in order to allow the MPS to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If the investigation includes British subjects it is still part of the same investigation and is therefore legitimately funded by the Home Office. It's not the who, it's the why.

SY would not... IMO... Have to ask for funds to investigate a crime committed by uk nationals... It surely would come out if the normal budget
There is simply no evidence the mccanns are suspects and all the evidence suggests  they are not suspects... Unless both police forces are lying which IMO is totally unrealistic

[Brietta]

An opinion not shared by DCI Redwood, it seems. Perhaps you would care to share your opinion as to what he was up to publicising them all over Europe?

I am allowed an opinion.

Not only is DCI Redwood allowed his opinion I think it would be safe to say that his is more educated and better informed than mine is ever likely to be.
Possibly something to do with his years of police training and leading a team of experts with access to all the available information.  He most certainly did not operate in a time warp governed by

• the opinion of a failed cop and arguido in a torture case which convicted him of perjury by falsifying documents
• the ineptitude shown in understanding the lack of significance of the dogs while totally misinterpreting the forensic results
• the premature conclusions of the interim report put together by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida -subsequently found guilty of torture http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061 in another case, which formed the basis of the enduring misconceptions of Kate and Gerry McCann nurtured by the Amaral book and the media career he based thereon

Bearing in mind that the DCI was embarked on a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a little girl I think it would be safe to consider him to be a man playing his cards pretty close to his chest.

The incontrovertible information he took great pains to impart was that Madeleine's parents and their friends had no locus in her disappearance either as suspects or persons of interest. Which in my opinion puts the accusation at the time and since by two criminally convicted cops firmly in the file marked "NOT RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION"

[G-Unit]

SY would not... IMO... Have to ask for funds to investigate a crime committed by uk nationals... It surely would come out if the normal budget
There is simply no evidence the mccanns are suspects and all the evidence suggests  they are not suspects... Unless both police forces are lying which IMO is totally unrealistic

The 'normal budget' of the police is for investigating crime within a certain geographical area. The nationality of the criminal is irrelevant.

Why you assume the police are lying escapes me. An investigation is a process and things change. A new witness or a new piece of evidence can change the direction of an investigation in a trice. Read up on George Oldfield if you don't believe me.

[Mr Gray]

The 'normal budget' of the police is for investigating crime within a certain geographical area. The nationality of the criminal is irrelevant.

Why you assume the police are lying escapes me. An investigation is a process and things change. A new witness or a new piece of evidence can change the direction of an investigation in a trice. Read up on George Oldfield if you don't believe me.

I'm well aware of what happens  if new evidence emerges... But  at present they are not suspects according to both investigations...