Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.

[pegasus]

Is this about just the 2 efits or the whole report?

[Mr Gray]

Is this about just the 2 efits or the whole report?

The thread...although Im not sure that the efits are of any significance...but sy has to check them out

[icabodcrane]

Redblossom raised an interesting point earlier in the thread,  when she refered to the documentary/reconstruction commissioned by the McCanns

Just to recap,  the McCanns  believed that the man the Smith family saw was the  same  man Jane Tanner had seen 45 minutes earlier

In her book,  reiterates that belief

In their documentary/reconstruction that belief was reinforced by the use of the same actor playing the part of  'abductor'  in both the Tanner and Smith sightings  ...  indeed,  the reconstruction went as far as to alter the Smith family witness statements in order to show the man they had seen to be carrying a child in the manner Jane Tanner had discribed   (  rather than in the way the Smiths themselves had recalled  ) 

Now here's the thing

If the McCanns were so convinced that Jane had seen  'the abductor'  ....   and if they were equally convinced that the Smiths had seen the  same  man  ( the abductor )  then they believed they  KNEW  what the abductor looked like, didn't they  ?   ....   they were in possession of the Smiths' e fits at the time,  afterall 

Why didn't they show them in that documentary  ?

Why didn't they say that whilst Jane did not have a view of the man's face,  the Smiths  (  who they believe also saw the man   )  DID  see his face  ....   and then show the efits they had  ? 

Why didn't they do that  ?   

[Mr Gray]

Redblossom raised an interesting point earlier in the thread,  when she refered to the documentary/reconstruction commissioned by the McCanns

Just to recap,  the McCanns  believed that the man the Smith family saw was the  same  man Jane Tanner had seen 45 minutes earlier

In her book,  reiterates that belief

In their documentary/reconstruction that belief was reinforced by the use of the same actor playing the part of  'abductor'  in both the Tanner and Smith sightings  ...  indeed,  the reconstruction went as far as to alter the Smith family witness statements in order to show the man they had seen to be carrying a child in the manner Jane Tanner had discribed   (  rather than in the way the Smiths themselves had recalled  ) 

Now here's the thing

If the McCanns were so convinced that Jane had seen  'the abductor'  ....   and if they were equally convinced that the Smiths had seen the  same  man  ( the abductor )  then they believed they  KNEW  what the abductor looked like, didn't they  ?   ....   they were in possession of the Smiths' e fits at the time,  afterall 

Why didn't they show them in that documentary  ?

Why didn't they say that whilst Jane did not have a view of the man's face,  the Smiths  (  who they believe also saw the man   )  DID  see his face  ....   and then show the efits they had  ? 

Why didn't they do that  ?

 could you point me to where in her book Kate says it was the same amn

[Mr Gray]

Redblossom raised an interesting point earlier in the thread,  when she refered to the documentary/reconstruction commissioned by the McCanns

Just to recap,  the McCanns  believed that the man the Smith family saw was the  same  man Jane Tanner had seen 45 minutes earlier

In her book,  reiterates that belief

In their documentary/reconstruction that belief was reinforced by the use of the same actor playing the part of  'abductor'  in both the Tanner and Smith sightings  ...  indeed,  the reconstruction went as far as to alter the Smith family witness statements in order to show the man they had seen to be carrying a child in the manner Jane Tanner had discribed   (  rather than in the way the Smiths themselves had recalled  ) 

Now here's the thing

If the McCanns were so convinced that Jane had seen  'the abductor'  ....   and if they were equally convinced that the Smiths had seen the  same  man  ( the abductor )  then they believed they  KNEW  what the abductor looked like, didn't they  ?   ....   they were in possession of the Smiths' e fits at the time,  afterall 

Why didn't they show them in that documentary  ?

Why didn't they say that whilst Jane did not have a view of the man's face,  the Smiths  (  who they believe also saw the man   )  DID  see his face  ....   and then show the efits they had  ? 

Why didn't they do that  ?

 Wheres the confirmation they thought it was the same man

[pegasus]

could you point me to where in her book Kate says it was the same man

"the similarities speak for themselves"
"the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing"
"staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts"

P.S. these are 3 actual quotes from the book

[Mr Gray]

"the similarities speak for themselves"

No icad has made a claim...the question is ...is there any truth in the claim..looks like the answers no

[Redblossom]

Smithman is back, though you wouldnt know it...no differentiation vis a vis where spotted and when for all efits there lumped together.....

Www.findmadeleine.com


@Icabeven without havng these efits, they still portrayed smithman as having the long hair, carryng same way as Tanner.....when the files showed the opposite was true in both regards! of course they were tryng to link the two sightngs as the same person.......that is after statng on the programme that Tanner saw Maddie being abducted, somethng she never ever said or was ever proven

[AnneGuedes]

I know for a fact that they read these comments so maybe we can have an answer. How about it Gerry and Kate?

If they read or if someone does it for them, here is a funny piece I came upon out of serendipity.
Jeanne d'Arc wrote this to David James Smith (Times) in July 2011 (concerning an article published in December 2007) :
The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect "proof" for an abduction. A man carrying a "sleeping" girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press. No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never mentioned. Why?
She got an answer that would delight DCI Redwood :
I can't remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id379.html

[John]

Please restrict posts to the subject of the title, TY

Posts which were off topic being removed to relevant threads.

[AnneGuedes]

You do if you claim it was said ...but dont provide back up

She said it outside for the media to spin it as much as they could... Some understood that she saw an astonishing number of little victims of paedophiles, but she said that the likeliness of some with Madeleine was astonishing.
You remember BOD ? All blond, all pink, all beautiful ?

[Luz]

Have we forgotten the suppressed e-fits now that the discussion around Tannerghost is back?

[Lyall]

Yes, but why promote it now, just when they finally have SY involved, against what SY are looking at?

What evidence is there that SY are still bothered about those efits?

[Sherlock Holmes]

What evidence is there that SY are still bothered about those efits?

I have wondered about this.

We have had no updates for a while, so we don't know what SY's official focus is.

Having said that, SY were appealing to the public for any information they may have had on Smithman. If Smithman is no longer a person of interest, it would be courteous to the public to inform them that their help in this area is no longer needed..  If SY have changed their focus away from SY without informing the public, the public are effectively being led on a wild goose chase.

[VIXTE]

Yes, but why promote it now, just when they finally have SY involved, against what SY are looking at?

I don't know.. it would be hard to read their minds.. they either don't trust the current strongest line of the inquiry ( being stubborn in their own beliefs..maybe their PIs already investigated the Tannerman lookalike in past and decided it wasn't him) or they might have been advised by SY to publish it the way they did.. or something third.. maybe even the SY made an U-turn and informed them and did not inform the public because they don't have to..