I don't think they're expected to be an exact likeness.I suppose the first thing to do is to put the two faces side by side so you don't need to scroll up and down.
Amazing Criminal Sketch Artist That Solved Over 1,000 Crimes
You may not be on camera now, but if Lois Gibson is on the job, you might as well be. In 34 years of work, Gibson has helped police solve well over 1,000 crimes. According to Guinness World Records, that makes her The World’s Most Successful Police Sketch Artist. A title that, once her facial composites are seen, is incredibly difficult to argue with.
http://memolition.com/2014/06/19/amazing-criminal-sketch-artist-that-solved-over-1000-crimes/
I have every confidence that the police will use their expertise with these e-fits and with that in mind have no anxiety over the reliability of them, nor the need to rubbish them.
The MPS seemed quite keen to publicise the Smith e-fits, so I assume they were satisfied with them.
With the reliance on DNA you could get to a situation where as a criminal you take a mixture of DNA samples to the crime scene to really put the investigators off track.
No doubt it has already happened ... I bet CSI is the top programme for criminals ... all it takes is a little planning.That would make a great movie.
Is it a myth or did I read somewhere that Lizzie Borden of axe infamy stripped off before doing the deed to avoid getting blood on her clothes?
I have every confidence that the police will use their expertise with these e-fits and with that in mind have no anxiety over the reliability of them, nor the need to rubbish them.
So one person is, totally convinced she saw Maddie at a camp site and another person is, 60 /80 he saw gerry
Sceptics, are convinced by one and discard the other
My opinion is they both should, be treated with caution
If anyone is convinced by the Smith sighting it's Operation Grange, who ditched the Tanner sighting for it. As far as I know they've shown no interest whatsoever in the campsite in question.
But not that it's Gerryif it was not Gerry could it have been the guy at the camp? The logistics of the 3 incidences seems rather (opinion) impossible especially if we think the Barcelona incident has anything to do with it.
But not that it's Gerry
It was Mr Smith who said he saw Gerry McCann. Have the MPS given an opinion?Did he use those words? Did he say he saw Gerry McCann.?
Did he use those words? Did he say he saw Gerry McCann.?
It was Mr Smith who said he saw Gerry McCann. Have the MPS given an opinion?
Yes, they have ... and most of us with an interest in Madeleine's case heard it being given in the Crimewatch programme which heralded the launch of a fresh appeal for information.To me it seems more a matter of two opinions and the likes of ourselves choosing who to side with.
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
~DCI Andy Redwood
I think that is plain enough ... it also makes milking Mr Smith's obvious error in identification as affirmed in the Final Report from the Policia Judiciaria ... rather akin to innuendo in my opinion and is nodding towards libel.
I suppose the first thing to do is to put the two faces side by side so you don't need to scroll up and down.(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9168.0;attach=12872;image)
That would make a great movie.Trust a bloke to say that !!! (&^&
It was Mr Smith who said he saw Gerry McCann. Have the MPS given an opinion?
To me it seems more a matter of two opinions and the likes of ourselves choosing who to side with.
I personally don't like all the aspects of the Final Report and I don't trust the Smiths so I am very non committed on this issue. It could be someone who looks 90% like Gerry, and I was pointed out to a photo of a guy today who fitted the bill (which I have to keep confidential) so there are people out there who look very much like Gerry.
Possibly. But the Smiths continued to follow the case as did the McCluskeys and became very familiar with the images of Kate and Gerry McCann. Kate and Gerry were made arguidos. Mr McCluskey and Mr Smith both 'recognised' Gerry from the same news broadcast.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.
I would place no reliance on identifications made in such circumstances. One from a man who only saw a back view and one from a man who as near to the time as possible, could not identify who he had seen except that it wasn't Robert Murat.
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.
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 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."
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
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
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
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
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.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
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?
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.
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 byBearing 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 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
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"
I'm well aware of what happens if new evidence emerges... But at present they are not suspects according to both investigations...
I am allowed an opinion.He must have had rubbish cards then.
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 byBearing 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 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
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"
He must have had rubbish cards then.
Let me see. Dig up central Luz? Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest? Make a hash of the Smith sighting? Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal? Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese, DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.
They may be woefully adequate in your opinion but you are, an amateur armchair detective whilst Redwood is an experienced professional... I know whose opinion I find more valuableWoefully adequate? Is that English?
Can you tell us precisely why crime watch wasn't aired in Portugal and precisely why you blame Redwood for this
And how did he make a hash of the Smith sighting... That is not a fact... Just your opinion and should carry a caveat
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options," he said.
"In my opinion the efits are not worth the paper they are printed on" you said. How strange that you then heap praise on the man who clearly disagreed with you.
Woefully adequate? Is that English?The speculation is, why it was, not, aired
Precisely why Crimewatch was not aired in Portugal is speculation. It is a fact it was not.
A hash of the Smith sighting is fact, not IMO.
He must have had rubbish cards then.
Let me see. Dig up central Luz? Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest? Make a hash of the Smith sighting? Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal? Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese, DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.
The speculation is, why it was, not, airedIf the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The hash of the Smith sighting is your opinion... If you claim otherwise explain why... That's the forum rules which you have to abide by
If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not. Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision. Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.
I think you refer to a factoid, Robitty. Doesn't make the wrong information a fact though ... it remains exactly what it always was and that is misinformation."factoid
Madeleine's case has suffered immeasurably from factoids in my opinion; not one of which has assisted her recovery in any way whatsoever.
I think you refer to a factoid, Robitty. Doesn't make the wrong information a fact though ... it remains exactly what it always was and that is misinformation.
Madeleine's case has suffered immeasurably from factoids in my opinion; not one of which has assisted her recovery in any way whatsoever.
If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not. Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision. Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.
"Heap praise" ... hardly. Merely an acknowledgement of the expertise of a professional doing a professional job.
My opinion of the efits is mine and very possibly mine alone.
Although there is a substantial argument in support of the fact it is highly unlikely that a man who only had a back view (Mr McCluskey) and another who could eliminate a beard, glasses, Murat but due to the "not very good" lighting, nothing else about the features ... would be capable of producing photofits of the man more than a year later.
There is absolutely nothing to worry you or me for that matter if individuals disagree with my opinion. Nothing at all bad or questionable about that ... although I do rather expect a cogent case to be made for which the DCI very likely won't give me or you the time of day for.
But you are here and seem to have concerns on his behalf ... and we are members of a discussion forum.
Sil claims redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting.... That is opinion not fact.. And against forum rulesYou ask SIL "And how did he make a hash of the Smith sighting..?" So lets see if we get an answer to that? Do you think "hash" has a meaning something like bad or wrong? It could mean something like finely analysed and put together correctly. Just because it is described as a hash doesn't mean it is incorrect.
You ask SIL "And how did he make a hash of the Smith sighting..?" So lets see if we get an answer to that? Do you think "hash" has a meaning something like bad or wrong?
It's, an English word which means, a mess... So sil has, said redwood made, a mess of the Smith sighting... Which is not trueI gave the dictionary definition and it was "come to agreement on something after lengthy and vigorous discussion."
I gave the dictionary definition and it was "come to agreement on something after lengthy and vigorous discussion."You obviously don't understand english... Google
You and I might have used the word incorrectly.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why Mitchell was ever employed.
Sil claims redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting.... That is opinion not fact.. And against forum rulesAs I read the original SIL claims it is a fact in his opinion. You also claim things as fact in your opinion. I have to take it as opinion even if the opinion claims it is a fact.
As I read the original SIL claims it is a fact in his opinion. You also claim things as fact in your opinion. I have to take it as opinion even if the opinion claims it is a fact.
Woefully adequate? Is that English?..
Precisely why Crimewatch was not aired in Portugal is speculation. It is a fact it was not.
A hash of the Smith sighting is fact, not IMO.
Do you think those in the Operation Grange Team failed to consider the points you have raised? If so, their professionalism can't be taken for granted in my opinion.
I gave the dictionary definition and it was "come to agreement on something after lengthy and vigorous discussion."
You and I might have used the word incorrectly.
Robitty, 'hash' is a colloquialism which means mess. If one says, "I made a right hash of that!" it just means you've made a right pig's ear or a mess of something.I took that sentence to mean it was opinion "DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine", means in his opinion.
Dig up central Luz?
Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest?
Make a hash of the Smith sighting?
Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal?
Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese,
DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.
In my opinion each and every one of the above sentences, some of which refer to actual events without knowledge of the why or wherefores or the outcomes ... are all opinion ... and should have been referred to as such.
I took that sentence to mean it was opinion "DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine", means in his opinion.
But later he says "A hash of the Smith sighting is fact" and I think he is right about that too.
Can anyone show that it is not a fact?
He at the least never claimed to have an Ace in the hole ... maybe he had heard there was one missing and was helping out ?
Robitty, 'hash' is a colloquialism which means mess. If one says, "I made a right hash of that!" it just means you've made a right pig's ear or a mess of something.Absolutely not. There are but 2 points in question.
Dig up central Luz? FACT
Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest? FACT
Make a hash of the Smith sighting? * see below
Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal? FACT
Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese, FACT
DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine. FACT
In my opinion each and every one of the above sentences, some of which refer to actual events without knowledge of the why or wherefores or the outcomes ... are all opinion ... and should have been referred to as such.
Absolutely not. There are but 2 points in question.
DCI Redwood's actions may pass your standard - that is for you to tell 'us', not me. Are they woefully inadequate in mine? Yes. FACT.
That takes us to the Smith sighting. You said something along the lines of the e-fits not being worth the paper they were written on. Basically I agree. What they tell us is minuscule. FACT.
That's not how the forum works and you should know that
So if I say maddie was, abducted.. It's a fact... Others have to prove me wrong
If you say 'Madeleine was abducted' that's your opinion.
Given that the release of the Policia Judiciaria files have revealed that the PJ dismissed Mr Smith's later identification and we know that HOLMES was programmed to collate all the available information on the case inclusive of the files I am afraid I do not understand why you ask that particular question.
Just a device to question the professionalism of the professionals perhaps? As it certainly cannot be implied by anything I have posted.
You really have lost me on this one ... in relation to my post, what is it you consider they have failed to do?
Yes and if sil days redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting that's her opinion
I thought we, had rules on the forum
That's not how the forum works and you should know thatYou would end up with two facts - 1. She was abducted and
So if I say maddie was, abducted.. It's a fact... Others have to prove me wrong
I agree.It might sound easy but it is difficult sorting out fact from opinion. If you say Madeleine was abducted, you agreed that was opinion but what about "Madeleine was abducted, that is a fact, in my opinion". Is that fact or opinion?
Absolutely not. There are but 2 points in question.
DCI Redwood's actions may pass your standard - that is for you to tell 'us', not me. Are they woefully inadequate in mine? Yes. FACT.
That takes us to the Smith sighting. You said something along the lines of the e-fits not being worth the paper they were written on. Basically I agree. What they tell us is minuscule. FACT.
Firstly I would like to know why you think the PJ dismissed Smith's evidence.
Secondly, you have chosen to reject the Smith e-fits. OG have chosen to publicise them. Assuming they had access to the same information as you did, one of you interpreted it incorrectly.
You would end up with two facts - 1. She was abducted and
2. she was not abducted
and neither can be proven wrong at the moment.
Just as sils has given her opinion on redwood on the Smith sighting but stated it as fact... Which just about everyone can see apart from youIn coding logic you would have to express that as - 1. She was abducted or she was not abducted so that is basically one or the other. I don't know but it might be possible to have both being true at the same time, in some sort of quantum state. If you think some later event negates one of them then tell me please.
In coding logic you would have to express that as - 1. She was abducted or she was not abducted so that is basically one or the other. I don't know but it might be possible to have both being true at the same time, in some sort of quantum state. If you think some later event negates one of them then tell me please.
An example of that could be this exchange
Sadie: ""I happen to have information that CONVINCES me that Madeleine was alive and healthy in 2012. No-body else has that info, although a very few have seen it"
MTI: "just because you sent this to SY doesn't mean they took it seriously."
From that Sadie in her case has opened the box and determined Madeleine was abducted, the other state is closed for her.
Whereas MTI feels it is open or closed because of another quantum state of whether they took Sadie seriously or not.
Just as sils has given her opinion on redwood on the Smith sighting but stated it as fact... Which just about everyone can see apart from youI see it alright, but SiL's answers are too complex for me. Brietta has attempted to rebut her arguments. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg447113#msg447113
Given that the release of the Policia Judiciaria files have revealed that the PJ dismissed Mr Smith's later identification and we know that HOLMES was programmed to collate all the available information on the case inclusive of the files I am afraid I do not understand why you ask that particular question.
Just a device to question the professionalism of the professionals perhaps? As it certainly cannot be implied by anything I have posted.
You really have lost me on this one ... in relation to my post, what is it you consider they have failed to do?
I see it alright, but SiL's answers are too complex for me. Brietta has attempted to rebut her arguments. I wonder if it is correct. I don't know the full history behind SiL's post.
Do you not realise I was simply stating opinionI was hoping it was more than that.
Even G has agreed sil is posting opinion as, fact
I thought you were, an expert on the, case... And sil thinks, she's, a, world expert... All in your inflated opinions.. Imo
Are you seriously suggesting that I am privy to the same information the investigating authorities hold? Oh dear!
NB: Do not attempt to put words into my mouth ... that will not be tolerated ... which is why your incorrect implication is removed. Do not do that again either to me or any other member.
Let's keep comments aimiable and above all constructive please.
I was hoping it was more than that.
Even G has agreed sil is posting opinion as, factWell I certainly hope that all my effort is going to good use. Getting bogged down in these sorts of arguments is honing my debating but not much else.
I thought you were, an expert on the, case... And sil thinks, she's, a, world expert... All in your inflated opinions.. Imo
It cant be.. Opinion is opinion... Fact is factSo you say but I gave examples where opinion is claimed to be fact and then covered by IMO at the end. To me that is not clearly defined opinion.
That's not how the forum works and you should know that
So if I say maddie was, abducted.. It's a fact... Others have to prove me wrong
Actually no. Only an abductor, if one exists, could claim this to be a fact. Everyone else is simply speculating.
Well I certainly hope that all my effort is going to good use. Getting bogged down in these sorts of arguments is honing my debating but not much else.
So you say but I gave examples where opinion is claimed to be fact and then covered by IMO at the end. To me that is not clearly defined opinion.
Well I certainly hope that all my effort is going to good use. Getting bogged down in these sorts of arguments is honing my debating but not much else.
So you say but I gave examples where opinion is claimed to be fact and then covered by IMO at the end. To me that is not clearly defined opinion.
We know what HOLMES will do provided the data is entered correctly in the first place. If the info has not been entered up it cannot be retrieved or utilised...simples . When instructed the system will spew out options based on the info that is in the data base, those options then require analysis and interrogation by an expert.
http://www.opkenova.co.uk/intelligence-and-analysis
One does wonder just where you believe yourself to be and why you feel your being bombastic will have
any effect ?
It is good for a laugh if nothing else.
If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?So when has it gained so much support ? It is most certainly NOT like an unanimous Jury decision, IMO.
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not. Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision. Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.
I would be interested to know why people think SY made a hash of presenting Smithman's efit on Crimewatch. DCI Redwood expressed the same interest in this sighting as in the two people seen near the apartment on the day Madeleine went missing and 2 charity collectors. All efits were shown.Nail on the head, as usual, misty
Nail on the head, as usual, misty
I would be interested to know why people think SY made a hash of presenting Smithman's efit on Crimewatch. DCI Redwood expressed the same interest in this sighting as in the two people seen near the apartment on the day Madeleine went missing and 2 charity collectors. All efits were shown.On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.
ETA link to DCI Redwood on Crimewatch https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=1740
On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.
On best scientific evidence, efits made 3 days after a sighting are useless. The Smith efits appear to have been made 17 months after the events.
Cites are on my blog for anyone interested.
Moving on to charity collectors, the ones mentioned were probably bogus, but probably only looking to pick up a few euros. There are rules re charity collections. The genuine ones work the busy public places in Luz. The bogus ones do opportunistic visits to quiet properties, then scamper off if they make €5 or €10. I know people who make €4-€5 per hour working in cafés these days, so a tenner in 2007 was a fat fish.
If the two people you refer to are those on 5C, I have no light to shed.
Do you understand the importance of Smithman in any potential prosecution case?Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.
Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.
1. He's innocent, so no case to answer.
2. He's guilty, so he got away with it. No case.
Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.There could be more options than that.
1. He's innocent, so no case to answer.
2. He's guilty, so he got away with it. No case.
How could prosecution of A N Other ever be successful if an innocent or guilty Smithman is never identified? Smithman introduces the "reasonable doubt" element because he was allegedly carrying a child loosely fitting Madeleine's description around the appropriate time.IMO Smithman does not introduce reasonable doubt. Therein lies the problem. Until excluded, he is but a major distraction.
How would someone who came forward/was identified be able to demonstrate their(Smithman's) innocence sufficiently to remove any element of reasonable doubt, given that the eye witness was pretty sure the man was Gerry McCann?
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9168.0;attach=12872;image)
Dunno how to make the images come larger !
PLEASE COULD SOMEONE (John or Rob or ...?) MODIFY THIS POST TO SHOW THE OPTIONAL LARGER IMAGE WE HAVE ON A PREVIOUS PAGE? TY
When comparing, I look for widely differing features, similar features and proportions or unusual features.
1) the dimpled chin on the third image is the most outstanding feature, but that alone would not completely convince me because Smithman kept his head down much of the way and apart from when he was near Aoife and maybe Peter the lighting was not good. Even when near them it was a very directional light from above and the lower part of his face might have been largely in shadow, but he might have looked up on seeing Aoife.
I think Aoife compiled the LH picture cos there is direct eye contact and a slight smile on his face. Pretty girl? Did he look up and take a good look at her?
2) The bald head of the third image also appears to exclude the third man. However over ten years have passesd and it is just possible that Smithman is now bald
I think that probably Martin and his wife compiled the RH image cos with the face looking fat, it means that it could be foreshortened due to Smithman holding his face somewhat down ... and the blurred image indicates poor light IMO.
That foreshortening could explain the difference in apparent width of the face. It is more likely that Smithman was slimmer faced as in the LH image IMO
3) Another thing that i notice is the very unusual bulge above Smithmans eyes.
Those bulges IMO point to two things:
i) That Smithmans eyes were NOT deeply recessed, but almost "surface" mounted
ii) That the light was catching the bulges, so therefore he was lit from above. This reinforces the fact that the LH. drawing was compiled by Aoife; She and he were lit by a VERY tall and it appears powerful lamp from above
Now likeness.
1) Both Smithman images show a fairly strong 5 o'clock shadow on the upper lip
2) Both Smithmen have similarly shaped eyebrows, altho the RH mans are less well groomed than those of the LH man. Could this be because of the difference in lighting and angle the head was seen at by Martin Smith??
3) Both Smithmen have down sloping eyes. The third mans eyes are level with each other and NOT sloping
There are other obvious differences between the three, but I think I have the main ones, except I haven't mentioned
a) the Jaw line. If looked at with his head tucked down, then the RH mans jaw line might well have bulged out ... and would be partly out of sight in any case, whilst if seen full face by Aoife it is likely to be more correct .... but perhaps some uncertainty.
I wonder, was the little girls head and shoulders close to Smithmans face and partially blocking ?Aoifes view of his jaw. Better to leave the image woolley / unfinished rather than
draw in a definite line and give out potentially incorrect info?
If I were given the task of deciding which image was likely to be most correct, I would go for the LH. one (?Aoifes image?), because it appears well lit, clear and full face rather than bent down as the RH one appears, which distorts the image.
I personally would put the third image on the back burner, but not trash it. Why? Becauwe if there were three images I had to choose from, this third image was less like the other two IMO. Two out of three is some confirmation IMO
Sorry this is so late and out of phase with the thread.
Are you seriously suggesting that I am privy to the same information the investigating authorities hold? Oh dear!
NB: Do not attempt to put words into my mouth ... that will not be tolerated ... which is why your incorrect implication is removed. Do not do that again either to me or any other member.
On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.
On best scientific evidence, efits made 3 days after a sighting are useless. The Smith efits appear to have been made 17 months after the events.
Cites are on my blog for anyone interested.
Moving on to charity collectors, the ones mentioned were probably bogus, but probably only looking to pick up a few euros. There are rules re charity collections. The genuine ones work the busy public places in Luz. The bogus ones do opportunistic visits to quiet properties, then scamper off if they make €5 or €10. I know people who make €4-€5 per hour working in cafés these days, so a tenner in 2007 was a fat fish.
If the two people you refer to are those on 5C, I have no light to shed.
I'm sorry if I 'put words into your mouth'. If you chose to answer my question below I will have no need to speculate.
You chose to post your opinion of the Smith e-fits.
Your opinion doesn't appear to be shared by OG or, as far as I know, the PJ.
You appear to believe that they are the expert professionals who probably know a lot more than you do.
Do you think they got it wrong by publicising e-fits which, in your words, 'are not worth the paper they are printed on'? (post 32)
Do you think the OG professionals spoke to the Smiths again before publishing the e-fits?
I would not know the value and how would a professional know what their value was? They could be from one extreme to the other. We are all allowed our opinions, but my opinion of the Smith e-fits has just changed tonight as I have sent 2 matches of the Smith e-fits to OG. We tend to think they represent one person but we don't know as we were not there, but if I'm right the two images are of two different but possibly related people.
Do you think the OG professionals spoke to the Smiths again before publishing the e-fits?
I would not know the value and how would a professional know what their value was? They could be from one extreme to the other. We are all allowed our opinions, but my opinion of the Smith e-fits has just changed tonight as I have sent 2 matches of the Smith e-fits to OG. We tend to think they represent one person but we don't know as we were not there, but if I'm right the two images are of two different but possibly related people.
We don't actually know who they are supposed to be. But neither of them look like Gerry. In my opinion.We had looked Cristavao before and he definitely looks like one of them too.
However, Cristovao is another matter.
We had looked Cristavao before and he definitely looks like one of them too.
This is a Fact, Rob.I didn't realise before but their complexion does look quite at odds.
I didn't realise before but their complexion does look quite at odds.
Lighting.Yes in that photo he was in a shadow with light on the wall behind him. (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VBoOuOIBFiM/SP3Qdvy5SDI/AAAAAAAAAl4/5e-AyAIpCTE/s320/paulo+pereira+cristovao.jpg)
We had looked Cristavao before and he definitely looks like one of them too.
It's not just the facial features though, is it?When I put these two photos side by side the shapes of the head looks too different. Maybe they have been distorted in copying process.
He had an average build, a bit on the thin side.
Average build, in good shape.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Cristavao seems quite bulky to me.
This is a Fact, Rob.
Pretty sure it is an opinion.
One of the e-fits looks like Cristovao. That is a fact.
I'm sorry if I 'put words into your mouth'. If you choose to answer my question below using your own words that will clarify the matter.
You chose to post your opinion of the Smith e-fits.
Your opinion doesn't appear to be shared by OG or, as far as I know, the PJ.
You appear to believe that they are the expert professionals who probably know a lot more than you do.
Do you think they got it wrong by publicising e-fits which, in your words, 'are not worth the paper they are printed on'? (post 32)
One of the e-fits looks like Cristovao. That is a fact.
No it looks like Gerry. That is a fact.
No it looks like Gerry. That is a fact.Probably looks like a lot of people... That's a fact too
Probably looks like a lot of people... That's a fact too
It's also a fact that he drew up the e fit after, seeing Gerry's face on tv... It's also a fact that he didn't get a good look at the suspects face... It's also a fact that both investigations have stated Gerry is not a, suspect
Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I have searched it, but can't find an answer to my question. Never mind, I have copied your post in full and inserted my replies in bold beneath each point you made.
In my opinion the debate has moved way beyond your invitation to me regarding your questioning:
In my opinion I asked a you question and the answer is relevant both to the thread title and to your expressed opinion of those e-fits.
for example did you miss Shining and Misty's excellent posts on the matter, one of which illustrates that more efits than the one I described as "not worth etc ... ..." were shown by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch which was broadcast way back at the reopening of Madeleine's case when all the bases neglected or otherwise were being checked out?
No, I read all the posts. This thread is about the Smithman e-fits, no others.
Based on the fact that no-one other than the police who are privy to all available information in Madeleine's case, has the slightest inkling of what prompted the information imparted during the programme including various efits.
Without being privy to what was going on at the heart of the investigation criticism of what was imparted and why would in my opinion be plain silly.
Precisely. They obviously felt that the Smith e-fits were worth showing.
Made doubly so that as well as ignorance of what the police knew, what they wanted to know and the reasons behind their mode of procedure to get it, taken in conjunction with the lack of knowledge of what the result of their information seeking exercise was ... apart from information about more assaults on the children of holidaymakers than had been known about ... makes ill informed conjecture futile.
Whatever their motives were dismissing the e-fits as of no use is a bit harsh and unhelpful in my opinion.
Not to mention the sick campaign encouraging time wasters to phone in to a programme broadcast with the intention of gathering information to help a missing child, to name the child's father as the man in the Smith efits.
People were asked if they recognised the man and if they thought they did they had a right to respond imo.
So given that we are privy to little of the information gleaned from the Crimewatch programme ... the Smith efits could have relevance and could have been worth pursuing or they may indeed have been found "not worth etc ... "
If Redwood had dismissed them as you did he would never have included them in the programme, would never have moved the time of the abduction to 30 minutes later and never have received whatever information came in, would he?
Who knows? Maybe time will tell and in my opinion there is an excellent chance of that
That's funny, a few weeks ago you were saying he didn't see his face.....now you're saying he didn't get a good look...
Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I have searched it, but can't find an answer to my question. Never mind, I have copied your post in full and inserted my replies in bold beneath each point you made.
In my opinion the debate has moved way beyond your invitation to me regarding your questioning:
In my opinion I asked a you question and the answer is relevant both to the thread title and to your expressed opinion of those e-fits.
for example did you miss Shining and Misty's excellent posts on the matter, one of which illustrates that more efits than the one I described as "not worth etc ... ..." were shown by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch which was broadcast way back at the reopening of Madeleine's case when all the bases neglected or otherwise were being checked out?
No, I read all the posts. This thread is about the Smithman e-fits, no others.
Based on the fact that no-one other than the police who are privy to all available information in Madeleine's case, has the slightest inkling of what prompted the information imparted during the programme including various efits.
Without being privy to what was going on at the heart of the investigation criticism of what was imparted and why would in my opinion be plain silly.
Precisely. They obviously felt that the Smith e-fits were worth showing.
Made doubly so that as well as ignorance of what the police knew, what they wanted to know and the reasons behind their mode of procedure to get it, taken in conjunction with the lack of knowledge of what the result of their information seeking exercise was ... apart from information about more assaults on the children of holidaymakers than had been known about ... makes ill informed conjecture futile.
Whatever their motives were dismissing the e-fits as of no use is a bit harsh and unhelpful in my opinion.
Not to mention the sick campaign encouraging time wasters to phone in to a programme broadcast with the intention of gathering information to help a missing child, to name the child's father as the man in the Smith efits.
People were asked if they recognised the man and if they thought they did they had a right to respond imo.
So given that we are privy to little of the information gleaned from the Crimewatch programme ... the Smith efits could have relevance and could have been worth pursuing or they may indeed have been found "not worth etc ... "
If Redwood had dismissed them as you did he would never have included them in the programme, would never have moved the time of the abduction to 30 minutes later and never have received whatever information came in, would he?
Who knows? Maybe time will tell and in my opinion there is an excellent chance of that
Did DCI Redwood receive information either positive or negative from any of the efits he promoted using the Crimewatch programme to do so?
You don't know, do you?
Nor do you know what was in his mind when he promoted the Smith efit. The saying about more ways than one to skin a cat springs readily to mind.
Good to see you approve the investigative technique used though whatever the intended aim, making two of us.
However it does not change my opinion regarding the Smith sighting one iota nor does it change my opinion on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange.
One of the e-fits looks like Cristovao. That is a fact.That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing. It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts off as an opinion.
That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing. It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts of as an opinion.So is the existence of God a fact because so many people believe it.. Is evolution a fact because so many believe it
Did DCI Redwood receive information either positive or negative from any of the efits he promoted using the Crimewatch programme to do so?
You don't know, do you?
Nor do you know what was in his mind when he promoted the Smith efit. The saying about more ways than one to skin a cat springs readily to mind.
Good to see you approve the investigative technique used though whatever the intended aim, making two of us.
However it does not change my opinion regarding the Smith sighting one iota nor does it change my opinion on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange.
That's funny, a few weeks ago you were saying he didn't see his face.....now you're saying he didn't get a good look...It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place. Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew. So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing. It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts of as an opinion.
It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place. Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew. So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.
It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place. Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew. So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.
Isn't that a comprehension problem?Yet he is able to draw an E-fit! Does that mean it was from previous memories of a person whom he thought it was. Like if Smithman had spoken to them and they recognised his voice could they then draw a visual image of a man whom they recognised aurally? Like I'm am very good with voices, if someone rang me up and I thought I recognised the voice I then could draw an image of the person who spoke to me from memory as long as it was a person I had met in the past.
In my opinion ... "didn't get a good look ..." and "didn't see his face" amounts to very much the same thing, even if one is really hung up on semantics.
For example ... Mr Smith didn't see the man's face because he didn't get a good look at it, which is why he was unable to describe it to the PJ.
How many different ways of carrying a child are there?
How can he produce an accurate likeness if he did not see the persons face clearly
He admits he thought it was Gerry.... Not from the face but from the way he carried the child... That's why I don't feel his assertion it was Gerry to have any value
I don't think e-fits like that are drawn.They might not be usually drawn that way, but what would stop it? You can go onto the internet and download an image generator and draw anyone you want to.
No Rob. The fact is that many people share the same opinion, not that the opinion is a fact.
So is the existence of God a fact because so many people believe it.. Is evolution a fact because so many believe it
You and G-Unt appear to be agreeing for once. LOL
And I agree with you both on that point.
We could say Martin Smith has a tendency to recognise people by the way they move, as I do by the sound of their voice, but you can't drawn the sound of their voice or the way they move but you can draw the person you thought it was from memory.
I could imagine a situation of a completely dark room and you hear the sound of a voice and you obviously recognise it, it was someone you know and then it all goes blank, they've knocked you out, but later the police want to create an E-fit of the person they want to speak to. Could you not produce an e-fit of the person you knew but you absolutely never saw on the night?
No Rob. The fact is that many people share the same opinion, not that the opinion is a fact.I very nearly agreed with you, but tell me are you saying that the concept of "similarity" can never be a fact, it is always going to be just an opinion?
I very nearly agreed with you, but tell me are you saying that the concept of "similarity" can never be a fact, it is always going to be just an opinion?
In geometry "similar" has a definition "Two triangles are congruent if they have the same three sides and exactly the same three angles. ... Thus, two triangles with the same sides will be congruent. (Note: If two triangles have three equal angles, they need not be congruent. All that we know is these triangles are similar.)"
You wouldn't produce an e fit you would give the persons name ...You might have forgotten the name. It is an example they could publish an e-fit and a name in some cases. They do here . "If you see this person don't approach him as he could be dangerous, ring the police."
You might have forgotten the name. It is an example they could publish an e-fit and a name in some cases. They do here . "If you see this person don't approach him as he could be dangerous, ring the police."But Smith hadn't seen this man before... But he, saw Gerry after and that could be argued is where the face came from
But Smith hadn't seen this man before... But he, saw Gerry after and that could be argued is where the face came fromIs that what he said,he had "never seen him before"? We don't know the conversation that preceded the making of these Smithman e-fits. They were done away from the PJ who took the statements. Can we be sure the statements and the e-fits are connected?
Is that what he said,he had "never seen him before"? We don't know the conversation that preceded the making of these Smithman e-fits. They were done away from the PJ who took the statements. Can we be sure the statements and the e-fits are connected?
That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing. It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts off as an opinion.The classic example related to the McCann is the issue over whether Angus Symington is similar to Robert Murat.
But Smith hadn't seen this man before... But he, saw Gerry after and that could be argued is where the face came from
Are you suggesting MS had seen this man before... He didn't mention this in his statement... And there's, nothing to suggest he hadBecause he doesn't deny it, it makes it possible to suggest it, without the need to call him a liar. He doesn't explain why it is "not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."
Are you suggesting MS had seen this man before... He didn't mention this in his statement... And there's, nothing to suggest he hadThe biggest mystery is why it took them 2 weeks before they reported it. I would suggest that could happen if there was some connection.
Has anyone ever wondered why Oakley International appear to have had access to what appears to have been facial composite software?
Not only that, but a trained operator would have been needed to work with the witnesses.
The company which makes the software and provides the training in the UK is here;
http://www.visionmetric.com/testimonials/
Their customers appear to be law enforcement bodies, including the Metropolitan Police. I can find no price for purchasing the system, but I wouldn't think it was cheap.
The biggest mystery is why it took them 2 weeks before they reported it. I would suggest that could happen if there was some connection.
Wasn't it the walking down the aircraft steps moment which spurred Martin Smith into action.Well I looked at that aspect too and there was an even longer delay there.
I think that's twice Davel and I have agreed on this thread. It's surely a record. @)(++(*
Perhaps it's a sign that neither of us is as biased as some would think and are open to reasoned argument ...very positive
I think we just mostly know the difference between facts and opinions.
Uh huh ... so Scotland Yard has a huge very expensive state of the art thingy ... no one capable of entering data ?? ... no one capable of retrieving and collating the data when it spews out ?? that no one had the skill to enter in the first instance ... and no one expert enough to work out what the machine is on about when it does.
Hmmm ... know what, Alice, that all seems highly unlikely to me.
One of the efits bears more that a passing resemblance to the actor David Ellison *%87
It's good that some if us do... And it's a pretty sorry state that some dontThat is good to know so you shouldn't have any more trouble adding IMO when it is opinion then!
Does he have an alibi
When I put these two photos side by side the shapes of the head looks too different. Maybe they have been distorted in copying process.Imo, Smithmans image (RH Image) has been foreshortened, probably because he was holding his head down. This would make his face look wider.
Nope. That's an opinion.No, you are wrong spammie. One of Cristovaos photos looks very much like the RH Smithman photo. That is a fact
It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place. Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew. So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.
The classic example related to the McCann is the issue over whether Angus Symington is similar to Robert Murat.They are not really similar at all, IMO
Now I saw a statement from Robert Murat expressing how similar they both looked yet others on the forum say they are not similar.
when you do a post click on the link below "+ Attachments and other options and then select
choose file and select a photo from you own computer, open it and then post it.
so how far did you get? Is the photo on your computer or on the internet?Well I aint taking anything from my computer cos I am reliably told that is a way in for viruses, hackers etc. My last 4 computers were hacked and full of viruses. They gave up the ghost because of it.
Well I aint taking anything from my computer cos I am reliably told that is a way in for viruses, hackers etc. My last 4 computers were hacked and full of viruses. They gave up the ghost because of it.Those ones are from my computer. that is why they are small.
I think this new one (since Christmas) is also being got at and i am not going to do anything to help the destructive process. Apart from destroying info, it is almost bankrupting us ! Well not quite, but it is a significant extra expence that we cannot afford.
Maybe if I try and do an analysis for you, but without the pictures, you would add the enlargeable pictures in the very next post to keep them close. That would be good
I cant think why they do not copy through in the quotes. Other images do generally.
You wouldn't produce an e fit you would give the persons name ...
They are not really similar at all, IMOThat is what you always say yet Robert Murat was amazed how alike Angus was to him.
No, you are wrong spammie. One of Cristovaos photos looks very much like the RH Smithman photo. That is a fact
However it is not a fact, despite this likeness, that Cristovao is actually Smithman.
Eleanor never said that Cristovao was Smithman. Just that he was like Smithman, which is fact.
The fact is that you and Eleanor think Cristovao looks like Smithman. It isn't a fact that he does look like Smithman, it's an opinion. If it were a fact I would agree with you and I don't.
No, you are wrong spammie. One of Cristovaos photos looks very much like the RH Smithman photo. That is a fact
However it is not a fact, despite this likeness, that Cristovao is actually Smithman.
Eleanor never said that Cristovao was Smithman. Just that he was like Smithman, which is fact.
The fact is that you and Eleanor think Cristovao looks like Smithman. It isn't a fact that he does look like Smithman, it's an opinion. If it were a fact I would agree with you and I don't.
So it's, an opinion Gerry looks like Smith man too
No it looks like Gerry. That is a fact.
Well I aint taking anything from my computer cos I am reliably told that is a way in for viruses, hackers etc. My last 4 computers were hacked and full of viruses. They gave up the ghost because of it.
I think this new one (since Christmas) is also being got at and i am not going to do anything to help the destructive process. Apart from destroying info, it is almost bankrupting us ! Well not quite, but it is a significant extra expence that we cannot afford.
Maybe if I try and do an analysis for you, but without the pictures, you would add the enlargeable pictures in the very next post to keep them close. That would be good
I cant think why they do not copy through in the quotes. Other images do generally.
No it's opinion
What would happen if you had an actual photo and you created an e-fit from that so that it was the best fit that the program could ever produce, would the similarity then be accepted as a fact?
I was pointing out the weakness of other’s arguments that A looking like B was a fact. But I guess you missed that.
*%^^&It is obvious it is an opinion.
The weakness.. In your opinion
It is obvious it is an opinion.
There are moderators & a member here who can't tell the difference between fact & opinion.That might be your opinion.
That is a fact.
Probably ?{)(**Would you be more than 60-80% certain?
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10277866.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/PROD-1044490jpeg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Sq4u2JA.jpg?1)
Are they the same person fact or opinion?
Would you be more than 60-80% certain?
It depends what the person viewing the photos knows. If they've never seen the photos before and have no idea who is in them then whatever they say they are giving their opinion.or was it a fact that they are similar?
or was it a fact that they are similar?
I would say that if there is a difference of opinion it is opinion.
I would say that if there is a difference of opinion it is opinion.This discussion to some might seem pointless but to me it has been educational, and it has made me wonder if the statements with are based on perceptions of events, people, times and places are not opinions too. No two people remember seeing the same thing. When there are differences you "would say that if there is a difference of opinion it is opinion".
or was it a fact that they are similar?
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10277866.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/PROD-1044490jpeg.jpg)If in your opinion you thought there were similar you would in fact be correct as I chose two pics of Cristavao.
(http://i.imgur.com/Sq4u2JA.jpg?1)
Are they the same person fact or opinion?
Similarity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One person says 'Those photos look very similar to me' another person says 'Those photos don't look very similar to me'. They are giving their opinions.
This discussion to some might seem pointless but to me it has been educational, and it has made me wonder if the statements with are based on perceptions of events, people, times and places are not opinions too. No two people remember seeing the same thing. When there are differences you "would say that if there is a difference of opinion it is opinion".
If in your opinion you thought there were similar you would in fact be correct as I chose two pics of Cristavao.
Facial recognition software..
What about it?Takes the guesswork out of identifying a face
It's all opinion unless it can be verified. Opinions on calls to the GNR abounded, but the fact was that the first call was at 10.41 pm.
That is what you always say yet Robert Murat was amazed how alike Angus was to him.That's rubbish IMO Rob. As if he didn't know Angus ... a cousin ... but several removed, both in Estate Agency work and more or less the same age in the same village.
That's rubbish IMO Rob. As if he didn't know Angus ... a cousin ... but several removed, both in Estate Agency work and more or less the same age in the same village.Robert was a young man and IMO his most striking feature was his premature forehead frown marks. He has at least one youngish relative that also has premature forehead frown marks.
Angus was a get out of trouble person IMO. Please do not interpret that as meaning that Robert had done any wrong, but he certainly would not like the Worlds media following him.
You were in possession of the facts. Others who didn't know the facts were giving their opinions.What I found I was still relying on someone else for the facts, and did they have their facts correct.
Correction. The first call to the GNR was shown as 10.41pm on a spreadsheet produced for the files, which may or may not be correct.
(I understand that the GNR also has a mobile contact number but don't know if it was in service in 2007)
That's rubbish IMO Rob. As if he didn't know Angus ... a cousin ... but several removed, both in Estate Agency work and more or less the same age in the same village.I'd be careful about making claims about what someone knows.
Angus was a get out of trouble person IMO. Please do not interpret that as meaning that Robert had done any wrong, but he certainly would not like the Worlds media following him.
Takes the guesswork out of identifying a face
The list of calls was provided by Portugal Telecom to Judge Dos Santos FrÃas in response to a request from him. Are you casting aspersions on them or the judge?Any list could be incomplete. I didn't see any sign that Misty was casting aspersions.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CALLS_TO_GNR.htm
The list of calls was provided by Portugal Telecom to Judge Dos Santos FrÃas in response to a request from him. Are you casting aspersions on them or the judge?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CALLS_TO_GNR.htm
I have no idea what was contained in the lists provided by Portugal Telecom as the originals are not in the public files. Therefore, it is not factual to say that the first call to the GNR was at 2241hrs, given that the spreadsheet does not list the calls in chronological order.
I have no idea what was contained in the lists provided by Portugal Telecom as the originals are not in the public files. Therefore, it is not factual to say that the first call to the GNR was at 2241hrs, given that the spreadsheet does not list the calls in chronological order.
I have a vague recollection of an earlier call via a mobile, which I remember thinking might have been an OC staff or security person to a GNR officer. I can't now remember if I was sure of that or not. I'll post it if I come across it again.Perhaps you are thinking of Matthew Oldfield, who went to reception around 10.14 or 10.15 pm, to request a call to the police? However, he left without enforcing a call, thinking Madeleine had woken and wandered, and would soon be found.
How do you know they're not the originals? They look in chronological order to me. They also look like information provided by a telephone company to me.There is no company logo at the top each sheet.
Perhaps you are thinking of Matthew Oldfield, who went to reception around 10.14 or 10.15 pm, to request a call to the police? However, he left without enforcing a call, thinking Madeleine had woken and wandered, and would soon be found.
This non-call was reported by the Times and the Telegraph, and it seems to run on the Telegraph to this day.
From memory, it was at around that time. It was something that appeared on one of the sheets. I'd have to go back and check - I could be mistaken and it may not have been from OC security after all or it could have been in connection with something totally different.I have seen lists which show Silvia Batista made a call too.
I'd be careful about making claims about what someone knows.Well it is only IMO, but in such a small place, I would have expected all the young people to have known of each other by sight, if not actually know each other. Especially as they are cousins, (albeit several removed) and both estate agents.
Well it is only IMO, but in such a small place, I would have expected all the young people to have known of each other by sight, if not actually know each other. Especially as they are cousins, (albeit several removed) and both estate agents.I found it odd but without proof to the contrary we just have to accept it.
There is no company logo at the top each sheet.
Your link does not include the calls received by GNR Lagos, merely the ones made by them. The other spreadsheets are the calls made by OC.
The calls received by the GNR are not in chronological order. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7777.msg364541#msg364541
It seems we're back to opinion again. I think the telephone lists are facts and you don't. I used the time that the police were called as an example of a fact. It seems the only undeniable fact in this case is that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Ten years, after the event both investigating police forces have, stated the parents, are not suspects in the investigation... That's an indisputable fact
The fact, of course, being that it was said.
That's right it's, an undeniable, fact that they have, stated this... And there are more undeniable facts
The existence of the Smithman e-fits is a fact.
Of course it is.... As is the unreliability of edits, drawn up so long after event... As is the unreliability of this sort of sighting in general... You only have to look at how many sightings if maddie there have beenSo what are we saying now, is a sighting that has been proven not to be Madeleine McCann still being claimed as an "undeniable fact"?
So lots of undeniable fact
Ten years, after the event both investigating police forces have, stated the parents, are not suspects in the investigation... That's an indisputable fact
So what are we saying now, is a sighting that has been proven not to be Madeleine McCann still being claimed as an "undeniable fact"?Which sighting is that Rob? .... or is it an imaginary situation ?
Which sighting is that Rob? .... or is it an imaginary situation ?No the sighting of the girl thought to be MM in NZ was confirmed by DNA analysis not to be Madeleine McCann.
I believe the PJ said that once before.......to cover that they were investigating them.
They we're not suspects until the PJ completely misunderstood the evidence.... This, was confirmed by the archiving dispatch.... As the present investigation understand the evidence the situation is, different
No the sighting of the girl thought to be MM in NZ was confirmed by DNA analysis not to be Madeleine McCann.
Ten years, after the event both investigating police forces have, stated the parents, are not suspects in the investigation... That's an indisputable fact
That's because the investigation isn't wide enough. A senior Met officer has already stated publicly that investigators do not have a free hand in who to investigate.I don't take that, as, fact... What about the Portuguese... Have they been ordered not to investigate the mccanns... I don't think so
The achiving despatch stated no such thing. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to come to any legal conclusion regarding the parents. The AG stated that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.
I don't believe the PJ misunderstood any of the evidence and were entirely within their rights to designate the parents as arguidos. Kate McCanns refusal to answer the most innocuous of questions was not consistent with a parent prepared to give police their full cooperation.
I don't take that, as, fact... What about the Portuguese... Have they been ordered not to investigate the mccanns... I don't think so
In my opinion only a very foolish policeman would publicly name a suspect and warn them.
I don't take that, as, fact... What about the Portuguese... Have they been ordered not to investigate the mccanns... I don't think so
In my opinion only a very foolish policeman would publicly name a suspect and warn them.
The, archiving dispatch stated that none of the evidence used to make the mccanns, arguidos could be consolidated... That's.. None... They also stated there, was NO evidence... That's NO.... Evidence of any crime by the arguidos... All this is in the files, and can be cited
There is, no cite for... Not enough evidence.. In the, archiving report... It does not say that
Kate, was quite right to stop cooperating with the pj because for reasons discussed many times
That's because the investigation isn't wide enough. A senior Met officer has already stated publicly that investigators do not have a free hand in who to investigate.
An inability to find sufficient evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.l
A C Rowley had difficulties with this in my opinion. Although he thinks they understand all the evidence he seems to have unearthed only one fact (in bold). How the investigation verified that fact he doesn't explain. It seems to be a case of 'trust me, I'm a policeman'.
So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, [the evidence]
there is no definitive evidence [whether Madeleine is alive or not]
there is still a lot of unknown on this case.
Until we get to the point where we have solved it, we’re unlikely to have definitive evidence as to exactly what happened at the time
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted.
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
An inability to find sufficient evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster... The Yeti... God... All those things people believe exist but there is not sufficient evidence for.. I don't believe in any of themThere are photographs of the Loch Ness Monster! I've seen them.
We don't know what the current PJ investigators really think.
We don't know what the current PJ investigators really think.We know what they have told us... That is an undeniable fact... And that was, what was under discussion. If you want to believe the mccanns, are, still suspects that's up to you... Doesn't really matter
No the sighting of the girl thought to be MM in NZ was confirmed by DNA analysis not to be Madeleine McCann.
And the one in Morocco and the one in Belgium.
And the one in Morocco and the one in Belgium.
And the one in Morocco and the one in Belgium.Cites please for the DNA evidence in the Rif Mountains of Morocco and Molenbeek St John in Brussels.
Indeed, in my opinion not one of these sightings proved to be anything other than the product of an over-active imagination.And how did you come to that conclusion, jassi ? What precipitated that thought ?
Indeed, in my opinion not one of these sightings proved to be anything other than the product of an over-active imagination.Have you followed the thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9133.0? The sighting by Karen Sisson was never proven. No, it was just accepted that Karsten Mayer was telling the truth. I never saw any evidence other than police in Switzerland taking someone's word for it.
Have you followed the thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9133.0? The sighting by Karen Sisson was never proven. No, it was just accepted that Karsten Mayer was telling the truth. I never saw any evidence other than police in Switzerland taking someone's word for it.
I have asked OG to follow that up and complete the proof.
In my opinion you should keep your 'investigative suggestions' to yourself.OK but do you see the point that the incident is not proven negative?
In my opinion you should keep your 'investigative suggestions' to yourself.
OK but do you see the point that the incident is not proven negative?
It has been said that OG were informed of this matter in 2012 and if they thought it was of interest I expect they made the appropriate inquiries at the time. You appear to be assuming they didn't, based on something you read in the press. If I was working in OG I'm not sure I would appreciate people assuming that something hadn't been dealt with.Well I should write to them suggesting a policy change then. When they clear an incident they should explain what they did to prove the case was negative so the very people who reported the incident aren't left forever wondering whether they were right or wrong.
Well I should write to them suggesting a policy change then. When they clear an incident they should explain what they did to prove the case was negative so the very people who reported the incident aren't left forever wondering whether they were right or wrong.
"and if they thought it was of interest I expect they made the appropriate inquiries at the time. You appear to be assuming they didn't, based on something you read in the press" It sounds like you would be better off knowing too and it was not only what I read but also following communication with Karen Sisson. (Who may have joined the forum, I've certainly suggested it.)
It's quite simple really. The police will never report back to any informant because whatever they said would amount to releasing information relating to a live investigation. My opinion is that any informant should content themselves with having done their duty and leave it at that.I was just reading a comment about the Smiths leaving things alone. " Ridiculous isn't it that THE two e-fits attempt to be the same man can be so different?
Mrs Sisson could, in my opinion, learn from the example of the Smiths. They have avoided the press as much as possible and gave their evidence to the authorities. I don't suppose OG have reported back to them and I don't suppose they expected them to.
I was just reading a comment about the Smiths leaving things alone. " Ridiculous isn't it that THE two e-fits attempt to be the same man can be so different?
BUT just WHO described the face that no one saw?
if they were made without the direction of witnesses but rather from their statements the operator is likelier to have influenced the end result, they are not sketches I don't know what software was used to produce them but have some idea of the process was used, they have GERRY's features factored in the obvious one a pronounced flat hairline....".
A new definition of "leaving things alone" don't you agree?
I don't know quite what your point is. I'm sure we all have opinions about the Smiths, their evidence and those e-fits, but they aren't important.I listen to opinions as well.
The only opinion that counts is OG's opinion and they thought the e-fits were worth publicising. The Smiths have kept out of the limelight as much as possible and are to be commended for that in my opinion.
I listen to opinions as well.
Criticising the Smith sighting or the e-fits achieves nothing because the fact remains that OG found them and their e-fits credible. They're the experts and what they say goes.They certainly put the emphasis on a later abduction. The Smith's sighting was their only lead at that stage, so It was worth a try.
They certainly put the emphasis on a later abduction. The Smith's sighting was their only lead at that stage, so It was worth a try.
It was more significant than that. They made the Tanner sighting and the Gerry/Jes meeting irrelevant, along with all those moving doors and discussions about the level of light in the bedroom.IMO.
IMO.
All that still aligns with my current theory so I'm not concerned by those changes.
It was more significant than that. They made the Tanner sighting and the Gerry/Jes meeting irrelevant, along with all those moving doors and discussions about the level of light in the bedroom.
I don't have a theory because I don't think there's enough evidence on which to build one. For six years people assumed that Madeleine was carried off between 9 and 9.30 although all that was based on was a pair of legs. Another sighting which described a child very similar to Madeleine was ignored;
the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.....the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown. She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old, in that she appeared to him to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. She was a child of normal build. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids.....Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child that was carried by the individual may have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, an opinion shared by his family
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
So a pair of legs and a man with no face get world-wide publicity and three quite detailed descriptions of a child of the right age with the right hair colour and length get none. It's interesting that one of the Smiths thought she was a bit small, which the McCanns confirmed; Madeleine was small for her age.
Jane Tanner reported her sighting immediately the police arrived on the scene of Madeleine's disappearance ... still in my opinion when timeous recovery might still have been effected.
The Smith sighting was not reported to the police for a fortnight after the event.
Take from that what you will.
Speed or quality? A pair of legs or a whole child? One witness or at least three? OG made their choice, anyone else's is irrelevant.
Like you I believe OG are the professionals and support them in what they are doing...we agree again
They have looked, at all the evidence against the mccanns
And stated they are not suspects
I don't have a firm opinion on Operation Grange. The Metropolitan Police make mistakes and get things wrong just like any other police force.
Others, however, have repeatedly praised them and shown great faith in their expertise and professionalism. When it comes to the Smithman e-fits, however, there's a noticeable lack of enthusiasm.
My posts are more to do with highlighting that apparent lack of faith in Operation Grange's judgement than in conveying my own opinion.
Just imagine! If OG are wrong about the e-fits they could be wrong about a lot more too. Did Redwood deliberately allow himself to look ignorant of the layout of the resort on purpose?
Smithman is, a lead that needs, to be ruled in or out. The fact that he had not been promoted in Portugal is the biggest stumbling block for me
I don't have a theory because I don't think there's enough evidence on which to build one. For six years people assumed that Madeleine was carried off between 9 and 9.30 although all that was based on was a pair of legs. Another sighting which described a child very similar to Madeleine was ignored;They should have reported their suspicions the next day, then I'd believe them.
the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.....the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown. She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old, in that she appeared to him to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. She was a child of normal build. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids.....Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child that was carried by the individual may have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, an opinion shared by his family
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
So a pair of legs and a man with no face get world-wide publicity and three quite detailed descriptions of a child of the right age with the right hair colour and length get none. It's interesting that one of the Smiths thought she was a bit small, which the McCanns confirmed; Madeleine was small for her age.
Perhaps OG didn't think he was Portuguese? Although the e-fits were seen in Portugal, of course, as they were seen world-wide.Why aren't they in the PJ files? How come Amaral didn't ask the Smiths to do e-fits at the beginning?
They should have reported their suspicions the next day, then I'd believe them.
Why?That might be so but then the day after but anything but 2 weeks later.
Maybe they had more important things on their minds. The world doesn't stop just because a child goes missing.
People's priorities differ, What might be important to one person can be much less so to another.
They should have reported their suspicions the next day, then I'd believe them.
What is the priority in a missing child investigation? Surely the missing child irrespective of who he or she may be?
It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. It's whether OG believe them that matters.I would say OG believe they saw, a man carrying a child... Which is obviously important... But I don't think OG thought the man was, Gerry
Jane Tanner reported her sighting immediately the police arrived on the scene of Madeleine's disappearance ... still in my opinion when timeous recovery might still have been effected.AFAIK, Jane Tanner's sighting was not reported 'immediately' to the police. The GNR were talking to Kate and Gerry, neither of whom knew about the sighting at that time.
The Smith sighting was not reported to the police for a fortnight after the event.
Take from that what you will.
AFAIK, Jane Tanner's sighting was not reported 'immediately' to the police. The GNR were talking to Kate and Gerry, neither of whom knew about the sighting at that time.I don't think anyone really criticizes the initial response... They aren't the police who deal with serious crime and cannot be blamed for believing maddie simply wandered off... It's the pj who have come in for criticism and quite rightly so imo
Jane became aware of Madeleine's disappearance when Kate et al were at the front of block 5. A prudent course of action would have been to inform the menfolk, so that they could search in the direction Jane saw the man walking.
I can't remember when Jane got around to informing the menfolk, but I would guesstimate it was an hour or more after she saw Tannerman, and an hour is one heck of a headstart. Personally, I would still have had a stab at searching in that direction, but that is just me.
At around 10.15 pm, Gerry seemed to be under the mistaken impression that Matthew had got the police called. Perhaps he felt it more prudent to wait with Kate for the police to arrive.
Have you any idea of when the GNR turned up at 5A? My best estimate at the moment is around 11.20 pm. Since policemen were engaged on working out the basics, I don't see how the Tannerman information could have been imparted to them before 11.30 pm. That would give Tannerman a headstart of 2 hours and 15 minutes.
I can walk from Luz to Lagos in less than this.
Precisely how 2 GNR officers could search this radius is beyond me.
IIRC, more GNR officers were called to Luz, and the incident was escalated to the PJ.
I can see nothing to criticise those first officers, but that of course is IMO.
I would say OG believe they saw, a man carrying a child... Which is obviously important... But I don't think OG thought the man was, Gerry
Well the jury seems to be out on whether Redwood was pretending to be stupid (crecheman's walking direction) or not. Perhaps he didn't read Mr Smiths statement or take a good look at the e-fits either.
AFAIK, Jane Tanner's sighting was not reported 'immediately' to the police. The GNR were talking to Kate and Gerry, neither of whom knew about the sighting at that time.
Jane became aware of Madeleine's disappearance when Kate et al were at the front of block 5. A prudent course of action would have been to inform the menfolk, so that they could search in the direction Jane saw the man walking.
I can't remember when Jane got around to informing the menfolk, but I would guesstimate it was an hour or more after she saw Tannerman, and an hour is one heck of a headstart. Personally, I would still have had a stab at searching in that direction, but that is just me.
At around 10.15 pm, Gerry seemed to be under the mistaken impression that Matthew had got the police called. Perhaps he felt it more prudent to wait with Kate for the police to arrive.
Have you any idea of when the GNR turned up at 5A? My best estimate at the moment is around 11.20 pm. Since policemen were engaged on working out the basics, I don't see how the Tannerman information could have been imparted to them before 11.30 pm. That would give Tannerman a headstart of 2 hours and 15 minutes.
I can walk from Luz to Lagos in less than this.
Precisely how 2 GNR officers could search this radius is beyond me.
IIRC, more GNR officers were called to Luz, and the incident was escalated to the PJ.
I can see nothing to criticise those first officers, but that of course is IMO.
In my opinion one of the more salient points about the Smith sighting was that it took a fortnight for it to be reported to the Gardai in the first instance, a fortnight into the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance
People's priorities differ, What might be important to one person can be much less so to another.IMO that seems to be the problem.
It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. It's whether OG believe them that matters.If I don't believe them and OG do I'll see if I can change their POV, especially if I feel strongly about it.. Martin Smith says he still thinks it was Gerry yet he didn't draw an e-fit with an extreme likeness to Gerry. That in itself is weird IMO.
If I don't believe them and OG do I'll see if I can change their POV, especially if I feel strongly about it.. Martin Smith says he still thinks it was Gerry yet he didn't draw an e-fit with an extreme likeness to Gerry. That in itself is weird IMO.
If I don't believe them and OG do I'll see if I can change their POV, especially if I feel strongly about it.. Martin Smith says he still thinks it was Gerry yet he didn't draw an e-fit with an extreme likeness to Gerry. That in itself is weird IMO.
Why aren't they in the PJ files? How come Amaral didn't ask the Smiths to do e-fits at the beginning?They are not in the PJ Files because they were produced AFTER the Portuguese investigation was archived.
He doesn't say he thinks it was GerryWell forgive me but that is the impression I get. If someone says he is 60 -80% sure it was Gerry I think we are allowed to have the Opinion "he thinks it was Gerry".
They are not in the PJ Files because they were produced AFTER the Portuguese investigation was archived.My question related more to the issue as to why GA had not asked the Smiths for e-fits while the case was active.
If you can provide any support for efits being used in Portugal for public appeals around 2007, I would be most interested. But if you can't ....
Well forgive me but that is the impression I get. If someone says he is 60 -80% sure it was Gerry I think we are allowed to have the Opinion "he thinks it was Gerry".
OG seemed content to publicise their evidence so it seems it wasn't a problem in their opinion.
We don't really know exactly what the OG opinion is on anything. Their investigation may have taken some consideration of the protocols involved in missing child cases, possibly even the golden hours.
He is a low as 60 percent... Not much more than 50/50There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.
More true would be he thinks it might be gerry
There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.
I'm not that great on the maths but if there were 10,000 people it could possibly be or 0.0001% if a person was nominated randomly, so even if Martin Smith dropped his certainty ratio to 50:50 or 50 in 1 hundred which is a whopping 5,000 times more likely than any other randomly chosen possible.
All said and done, he must have been pretty convinced to have made that call to the Irish Garda given the consequences of being mistaken, not to mention the embarrassment of it all.
There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.Smith claimed he recognised Gerry by the way he walked down the stairs so he would have to see how all 10000 walk down the stairs before your argument had, any validity
I'm not that great on the maths but if there were 10,000 people it could possibly be or 0.0001% if a person was nominated randomly, so even if Martin Smith dropped his certainty ratio to 50:50 or 50 in 1 hundred which is a whopping 5,000 times more likely than any other randomly chosen possible.
All said and done, he must have been pretty convinced to have made that call to the Irish Garda given the consequences of being mistaken, not to mention the embarrassment of it all.
But he wasn't convinced... He wasn't sure... And what consequences has he faced... None
Are you suggesting that SY and the PJ are totally ignoring his, evidence... More like they have looked at it and think he was mistaken
It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.
I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was thus stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?
It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.
I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was this stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?
When did the McCann's actually find out about the Smith's sighting?The Smith's talk of being contacted by Brian Kennedy before the case is archived. You'd think if the McCann supporters knew the McCanns would also.
It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.
I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was this stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?
Could that be because the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann?Whatever the reason it will be interesting to work it out.
When did the McCann's actually find out about the Smith's sighting?
Could that be because the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann?
Could that be because the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann?
You and others have got it wrong... Smith never said the man they saw, looked like Gerry
You and others have got it wrong... Smith never said the man they saw, looked like GerryRemind us what he did say then?
The Smith's talk of being contacted by Brian Kennedy before the case is archived. You'd think if the McCann supporters knew the McCanns would also.
That is quite interesting when you think about it. There was apoplexy in fora land about Brian Kennedy's visit to try to get Mr Smith to provide information for an efit of the man whose face he could not describe for the PJ.
The end of the hate campaign mounted against him for his efforts in helping Madeleine was marked by Carter Ruck and a public apology from the main man.
In the first instance ... why should it have been the responsibility of the victims to do a police job? We are told Madeleine's case was never closed in Portugal ... so why weren't they pursuing the leads provided by Mr Smith et al and not the McCann detectives?
In the second ... where is the logic in criticising the victims when the professionals of Leicestershire and Portugal did nothing with the efits when they were finally obtained?
Remind us what he did say then?
I never said he did, try reading the post before commenting.
Remind us what he did say then?
Or their friends. Just why was Mr Kennedy so hands on?
That doesn't explain why he, a businessman, felt the need to be interviewing witnesses.
So who says he looked liked Gerry... No one it seems
That doesn't explain why he, a businessman, felt the need to be interviewing witnesses.
That doesn't explain why he, a businessman, felt the need to be interviewing witnesses.
Martin Smith said that watching Gerry carrying his child down the airport steps reminded him of the man they encountered in Praia da Luz on the night of the 3rd May 2007. Make of that what you may but Smith was sufficiently convinced that he immediately contacted his local Garda station.
Martin Smith said that watching Gerry carrying his child down the airport steps reminded him of the man they encountered in Praia da Luz on the night of the 3rd May 2007. Make of that what you may but Smith was sufficiently convinced that he immediately contacted his local Garda station.
More like alienating witnesses according to some reports.
That is quite interesting when you think about it. There was apoplexy in fora land about Brian Kennedy's visit to try to get Mr Smith to provide information for an efit of the man whose face he could not describe for the PJ.
The end of the hate campaign mounted against him for his efforts in helping Madeleine was marked by Carter Ruck and a public apology from the main man.
In the first instance ... why should it have been the responsibility of the victims to do a police job? We are told Madeleine's case was never closed in Portugal ... so why weren't they pursuing the leads provided by Mr Smith et al and not the McCann detectives?
In the second ... where is the logic in criticising the victims when the professionals of Leicestershire and Portugal did nothing with the efits when they were finally obtained?
He never said he looked like Gerry
There have been many sightings of maddie with people convinced they have seen her... Doesn't mean a thing... As the smith sighting doesn't as regards identifying gerry.. Imo
Wrong.
''I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann that I met that night carrying a child," Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.
''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''
Martin Smith statement
So where does he day he looked like Gerry... He doesn't..
You are the one who is clearly wrong and your cite proves it
He said he thought it was gerry based on the way he carried the child... That is clearly not saying he looked like gerry
Can someone please tell me just how many ways there are in which to carry a child.
Well the e-fits taken together certainly look like Gerry McCann. Another big coincidence to add to the many?
Can someone please tell me just how many ways there are in which to carry a child.
It sure doesn't even get close to explaining the opprobrium directed to those doing something positive for Madeleine while ignoring the total lack of action by the forces of law and order in making any attempt to locate her or find out what happened to her.
To the extent of ignoring and filing every item of information sent to them since the archiving of the case in 2008 until it was discovered during the libel trial in 2010.
Snip
Copies of the files would now be passed to the McCanns to be followed up by private investigators hired to search for their daughter.
"But I am angry because it is the Portuguese investigative police who should be doing this job,” Mrs Duarte, added.
"They have the power and capability to do it. It is they who should be doing it not and not my clients."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Why didn't that exposure of years of incompetence and neglect not cause as much as a ripple in fora land?
Ask Aoife.
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/news/young-louth-scientists-put-projects-on-show-at-rds-27129916.html
It never was the 'responsibility of the victims to do a police job', it was something they chose to do. Consequently it's legitimate to wonder why they chose to publicise certain leads and not others.
IYO
FACT
It sure doesn't even get close to explaining the opprobrium directed to those doing something positive for Madeleine while ignoring the total lack of action by the forces of law and order in making any attempt to locate her or find out what happened to her.
To the extent of ignoring and filing every item of information sent to them since the archiving of the case in 2008 until it was discovered during the libel trial in 2010.
Snip
Copies of the files would now be passed to the McCanns to be followed up by private investigators hired to search for their daughter.
"But I am angry because it is the Portuguese investigative police who should be doing this job,” Mrs Duarte, added.
"They have the power and capability to do it. It is they who should be doing it not and not my clients."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Why didn't that exposure of years of incompetence and neglect not cause as much as a ripple in fora land?
Out of interest Brietta, how many times in the last ten years have any of Maddie's family gone to Portugal to 'look' for her?
Five or more
Less than five
Zero
How many times have posters been asked what form this looking for would take... Perhaps you can
Tell us how you think they could go about searching for her in portugal
It's embarrassing for them poor dears.I think it's, a ridiculous suggestion so you tell us how they could search....
I think it's, a ridiculous suggestion so you tell us how they could search....
I think it's, a ridiculous suggestion so you tell us how they could search....
They can't, and never could beyond those first few hours. And it shouldn't be encouraged. Any Police Officer will tell you that.
Rubbish!!!
That's only an excuse and a pretty thin one at that. They got on with their lives after making Maddie a promise but then they have promised lots of things but delivered nothing imho.
Why do Police Officers tell parents of missing children to stay at home? I suppose they've got it wrong, Have they?
As it is, the parents have no right of entry and no right to question anyone, so all they can do is look in drains and wells and bins, in the hope of finding a dead body.
As for now, they can't even assume that it is their daughter without a DNA match, which they themselves can't get.
So, sad to say, it is you who is talking rubbish. Without a scrap of logic to your comments.
I'm sure the Needhams could offer them a few tips.
So would you agree that they are not searching ?
No, I wouldn't. They have other means available to them, apart from physically crawling around. Even you should know that by now.
Or would you prefer a bit more wailing and breast beating in public? Fat lot of good that would do.
Ok, what are these other means ? Trying to persuade the public to search instead?
Wherever you like
Wherever you like
I personally, can't be everywhere. Where would you like to start?
I leave the choice to you. You're the one supposedly with the knowledge.
Why did they "choose" to keep on investigating their daughter's disappearance in the hope of finding her ... for the very simple reason that no-one else was.
Not the people with the contacts the power and the duty ... only Madeleine's family and well wishers.
In my opinion utterly indefensible conduct by the forces of law and order.
It was still a choice, as was their decision to refrain from publicising the Smith sighting. Only in 2013 was the extent of their mistake revealed. They had been publicising the sighting of the wrong man and child for six years!
Why do Police Officers tell parents of missing children to stay at home? I suppose they've got it wrong, Have they?
As it is, the parents have no right of entry and no right to question anyone, so all they can do is look in drains and wells and bins, in the hope of finding a dead body.
As for now, they can't even assume that it is their daughter without a DNA match, which they themselves can't get.
So, sad to say, it is you who is talking rubbish. Without a scrap of logic to your comments.
So you still can't tell us how they could search... That's why I said it's, a ridiculous suggestion
Searching includes much more than knocking on doors and I don't mean that literally. The problem for the McCanns however in my opinion is that they are seen as hate figures by many in the Luz area and no doubt have been warned by the police that their presence in the area is not recommended or their safety guaranteed. That must be a first for the loving parents of any missing child surely?
Searching includes much more than knocking on doors and I don't mean that literally. The problem for the McCanns however in my opinion is that they are seen as hate figures by many in the Luz area and no doubt have been warned by the police that their presence in the area is not recommended or their safety guaranteed. That must be a first for the loving parents of any missing child surely?
Searching includes much more than knocking on doors and I don't mean that literally. The problem for the McCanns however in my opinion is that they are seen as hate figures by many in the Luz area and no doubt have been warned by the police that their presence in the area is not recommended or their safety guaranteed. That must be a first for the loving parents of any missing child surely?
It never was the 'responsibility of the victims to do a police job', it was something they chose to do. Consequently it's legitimate to wonder why they chose to publicise certain leads and not others.
I take this part to be Martin Smith's second statement even though his name is not mentioned
"I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct."
He does not mention whether the individual was alone. He does not answer the question: "Was this individual alone?"
Why didn't he answer that simple question?
I take this part to be Martin Smith's second statement even though his name is not mentioned
"I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct."
He does not mention whether the individual was alone. He does not answer the question: "Was this individual alone?"
Why didn't he answer that simple question?
It was still a choice, as was their decision to refrain from publicising the Smith sighting. Only in 2013 was the extent of their mistake revealed. They had been publicising the sighting of the wrong man and child for six years!
He did... He said the individual was, aloneIt does too, not even given a separate paragraph or anything. OK if there were two people involved he only saw one at that moment.
Why would the McCanns have wanted to promote a sighting of a girl wearing long-sleeved pyjamas?Maybe they didn't want to have to explain where the long-sleeved pyjamas came from. Between 9:15 and 10:00 PM there is plenty of time to change the girl's pyjamas.
Maybe they didn't want to have to explain where the long-sleeved pyjamas came from. Between 9:15 and 10:00 PM there is plenty of time to change the girl's pyjamas.
And there was also plenty of time to put outdoor clothing, socks & shoes on the little girl.True, but what was the person intending to do? Were they going to have a sleep or going for a trek?
True, but what was the person intending to do? Were they going to have a sleep or going for a trek?
In my opinion you are apportioning blame in entirely the wrong direction. Why didn't the Portuguese police prioritise any leads at all ... particularly the Smith efits forwarded to them ... which when you think about it must have ended up in the file marked "Not Relevant to the Investigation" which was compiled between 2008 and 2010.
Therefore did Paiva look at them before deciding they were irrelevant?
1. Why change the pyjamas if the child was dead?Can you see anything in the Q&A above that suggests the child is dead? The previous pyjamas may have been soiled or urinated on if the girl had had a fright.
2. Why change the pyjamas at all?
Can you see anything in the Q&A above that suggests the child is dead? The previous pyjamas may have been soiled or urinated on if the girl had had a fright.
So where were the dirty clothes? Where had he got the clean clothes? He'd come from somewhere & he was going somewhere else but carried no baggage for the child.If we knew who he was we might be able to answer questions like that.
Why would the McCanns have wanted to promote a sighting of a girl wearing long-sleeved pyjamas?
That was a minor detail. mentioned by only one of the three witnesses. Everything else about the child matched Madeleine's description.
It was a major detail as the Smiths did not see the child's face - just as Jane Tanner did not see the top worn by the child she witnessed being carried.
Are you suggesting that they expected the PJ to investigate those e-fits in 2009? Given their opinion of the PJ that's hardly likely. They had every opportunity to publicise the e-fits themselves but chose not to.
In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence. What did the PJ do with that evidence? In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.
It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.
I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case. To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission.
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.
I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.
When did the archiving occur? The PJ file heading is "It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law" Is this the date of the archiving process?
In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence. What did the PJ do with that evidence? In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.
It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.
I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case. To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission.
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.
I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.
I wonder what the Smith family hoped to achieve by suddenly being able to help produce efits less than 2 months after the case was archived?Once the case is archived I have the feeling the Judicial Secrecy laws no longer apply. Pressure comes off.
I suppose they could have visited those lawless villages that Edgar identified.And they probably did, but they just haven't bothered to tell us.
And they probably did, but they just haven't bothered to tell us.Didn't Kate say she goes to Portugal every year.
And why should they ?
Once the case is archived I have the feeling the Judicial Secrecy laws no longer apply. Pressure comes off.
Didn't Kate say she goes to Portugal every year.She was certainly there when we were last there. Hubby spotted her getting into a car on the newish car park behind the church
If the McCanns had been relying on the PJ to search for their daughter in 2009 your argument might hold water, but they weren't. We know they weren't because they told us so. We know that they took a decision in 2007 to hire private investigators to gather information and follow up leads.
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.
Pressure comes off who? If the Smiths really wanted to help the McCanns/find Madeleine, why didn't they do so while the case was still open, e.g., when Brian Kennedy contacted him sometime prior to 30/1/08? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpgI just keep feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. IMO.
I just keep feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. IMO.
It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.I wonder if Martin could do better than this concerned citizen. https://youtu.be/V69MsVbI9GA
It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.
In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence. What did the PJ do with that evidence? In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.
It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.
I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case. To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission.
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.
I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.
Madeleine's case was archived not closed. The Portuguese were not looking for a live child from the minute "the badly told story" was leaked to the press. Madeleine's case remains the property of the Portuguese State.
You are libelling yet again ... may I remind you that particular libel cost the Sunday Times dear ... please desist!
Could be the PJ know who Smithman is but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest him YET.How did you define the word "know" in that sentence?
It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.
How did you define the word "know" in that sentence?
M Smith seems to have changed his mind so the question arises as to why?
Was he persuaded by what he subsequently read in the media?
or
Was pressure put on him to retract his identification?
or
Has he genuinely realised he made a mistake?
Except we are told he didn’t change his mind.
Except we are told he didn’t change his mind.
I know that the case was archived. I have seen no evidence that the PJ stopped looking for a live child on 5th May. I also know that the case comes under Portuguese jurisdiction. Have I suggested otherwise?
I can see nothing libellous in my posts. It would help if you were more specific so I could avoid making the same mistake again.
Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
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.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
You posted:
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.
In my opinion you chose your wording with great care ... but in my opinion you are repeating the lie which cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.
Your previous posting history gives me absolutely no hesitation in saying you will never make the same mistake again because as far as I am concerned you didn't make a mistake in the first instance.
So what was the point of the complaint if you agree G-Unit didn’t libel?
Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
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.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
You posted:
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.
In my opinion you chose your wording with great care ... but in my opinion you are repeating the lie which cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.
Your previous posting history gives me absolutely no hesitation in saying you will never make the same mistake again because as far as I am concerned you didn't make a mistake in the first instance.
That isn't what Brietta said.
What is she saying, in your opinion?
Repeated Libel is still Libel.
So what was the point of the complaint if you agree G-Unit didn’t libel?
The Sunday Times libel related to the claim that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits and so obstructed the investigation. I edited the original post to remove any potential libel.
It should be noted however that there was a delay in forwarding the e-fits. It should also be noted that there is a secret Report which Oakley did and which is being withheld from the public.
For the parents of a missing child who promised total transparency and formed a company called "Madeleine's Fund - Leaving no stone unturned limited", these things must be a constant embarrassment.
Repeated Libel is still Libel.
Could be the PJ know who Smithman is but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest him YET.I agree,
For the benefit of those who still don't understand it, the libel related to the allegation that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits from the authorities. The Sunday Time later retracted this allegation and apologised.The efits were created 4th September 2008. Oakley's final report was delivered to MFLNSU in November 2008.
The continued difficulty with all of this is that we still don't have defined dates as to when the e-fits were created or when they were passed to a police force. Given what we do know, I suspect there was a delay in doing so. However, the reason for that delay is anyone's guess.
The efits were created 4th September 2008. Oakley's final report was delivered to MFLNSU in November 2008.what does MFLNSU stand for please?
Isn't the libel really the insinuation that the McCanns were responsible for if & how all the information received from their PI's was dealt with?
The McCanns may well have been acting on legal advice not to release those efits into the public domain. Equally there may have been copyright issues of the efits due to non-payment of production fee.`
All IMO.
what does MFLNSU stand for please?
The efits were created 4th September 2008. Oakley's final report was delivered to MFLNSU in November 2008.
Isn't the libel really the insinuation that the McCanns were responsible for if & how all the information received from their PI's was dealt with?
The McCanns may well have been acting on legal advice not to release those efits into the public domain. Equally there may have been copyright issues of the efits due to non-payment of production fee.`
All IMO.
The PIs were working for the fund and indirectly for the McCanns. It is only natural that the fund decides what to do with information provided by companies it employs. Not libel just a business relationship. If information of a critical nature were passed to the fund they would of course immediately pass it on to the relevant police force...
For the benefit of those who still don't understand it, the libel related to the allegation that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits from the authorities. The Sunday Times later retracted this allegation and apologised.
The continued difficulty with all of this is that we still don't have defined dates as to when the e-fits were created or when they were passed to a police force. Given what we do know, I suspect there was a delay in doing so. However, the reason for that delay is anyone's guess.
So would you therefore agree any insinuation that the McCanns, rather than the Company, were responsible for what happened to information collected by the PI's is libellous?
We do not know why the Portuguese and Leicestershire police sat on the Smith efits. I do not know if LP had a file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" ... but I do know the Portuguese did.
The press release from Carter Ruck detailing the settlement made by the Sunday Times in respect of libel damages to Kate and Gerry McCann is as you have said unequivocal in its wording:
Notes to editors------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann 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 it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
In my opinion this discussion should never have arisen.
There is no-one posting here who does not know of the High Court decision concerning the lies printed by the Sunday Times.
Therefore there is no reason why any member should feel free to reiterate it ... it is libel plain and simple.
The McCann's have enough experience of these matters to recognise that there is a rampant expertise in finding a big cesspit, jumping in with both feet to tread and keep it smelling before grabbing handfuls of the resultant muck and chucking it in their direction ad infinitum.
They weren't being psychic in recognising the Sunday Times libel as such a cesspit ... they were just stating the facts of their lives when they said ...
"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings - before it behaved reasonably.
But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse" Kate and Gerry McCann
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
The directors of the fund are responsible collectively for what happened to the information.
Or as the paper said..."We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."
Kate & Gerry were not directors when either Oakley were appointed or the contract was terminated.
Halligen was CEO of private investigators Oakley International when he was hired by the McCanns.
Kate recalled: “Oakley’s proposal and overall strategy were streets ahead of all the others we’d considered and the company came highly recommended.”
Kate & Gerry were not directors when either Oakley were appointed or the contract was terminated.
We do not know why the Portuguese and Leicestershire police sat on the Smith efits. I do not know if LP had a file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" ... but I do know the Portuguese did.
The press release from Carter Ruck detailing the settlement made by the Sunday Times in respect of libel damages to Kate and Gerry McCann is as you have said unequivocal in its wording:
Notes to editors------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann 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 it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
In my opinion this discussion should never have arisen.
There is no-one posting here who does not know of the High Court decision concerning the lies printed by the Sunday Times.
Therefore there is no reason why any member should feel free to reiterate it ... it is libel plain and simple.
The McCann's have enough experience of these matters to recognise that there is a rampant expertise in finding a big cesspit, jumping in with both feet to tread and keep it smelling before grabbing handfuls of the resultant muck and chucking it in their direction ad infinitum.
They weren't being psychic in recognising the Sunday Times libel as such a cesspit ... they were just stating the facts of their lives when they said ...
"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings - before it behaved reasonably.
But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse" Kate and Gerry McCann
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
Did you miss the involvement of the Fund director Brian Kennedy in the appointment of Oakley?
Did you miss the involvement of the Fund director Brian Kennedy in the appointment of Oakley?
Which Kennedy are you talking about - uncle or benefactor?Was this the uncle? "Fund director Brian Kennedy"
I know that the High Court didn't hand down a decision in the case of the McCanns v The Sunday Times because the case never got to court.
Yeah ... the Sunday Times coughed up "libel damages" out of the goodness of their hearts, issued an apology for libel and paid all the legal fees.
They had no case to defend ... just as you don't.
They settled out of court. The McCanns have never been awarded a victory in a defamation trial in the UK in my opinion.
Whoever made the decisions about the Smith e-fits it's a fact that they weren't publicised. Posters have suggested there were problems with the evidence because;
The Smiths didn't report their sighting right away.
The e-fits weren't made until over a year after the event.
An e-fit which was publicised in 2009 had even bigger problems;
The man waited two years before reporting his evidence.
His e-fit was done two years after the event.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204605/The-Victoria-Beckham-lookalike-hunt-Madeleine-McCann-asked-tourist-new-daughter.html
All very suspicious imo and in no way conducive of what one would expect in what was supposed to be an abduction. All these delays, secret hidden reports and dodgy private detectives. 😎
.a genuine couple whose child has gone missing and that is exactly what both investigations...UK and portuguese seem to think
in your opinion...in my opinion...a genuine couple whose child has gone missing and that is exactly what both investigations...UK and portuguese seem to think
in your opinion...in my opinion...a genuine couple whose child has gone missing and that is exactly what both investigations...UK and portuguese seem to think
They must have been very relieved when the experts got involved and publicised the really important e-fits.
Didn't Redwood only find out about the withheld items after the Spanish National Police raided Metodo 3's offices in Barcelona with SY officers (in suits below) tagging along?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N2xhBveYeP0/TuxWqwdFEqI/AAAAAAAAI_k/TjSoibXnbts/s1600/El%2BPeriodico%2BCataluna%2B14%2BDec%2B2011.png)
Yeah ... the Sunday Times coughed up "libel damages" out of the goodness of their hearts, issued an apology for libel and paid all the legal fees.
They had no case to defend ... just as you don't.
Didn't Redwood only find out about the withheld items after the Spanish National Police raided Metodo 3's offices in Barcelona with SY officers (in suits below) tagging along?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N2xhBveYeP0/TuxWqwdFEqI/AAAAAAAAI_k/TjSoibXnbts/s1600/El%2BPeriodico%2BCataluna%2B14%2BDec%2B2011.png)
Was that info parted voluntary or was an ilor issued?
I always found it odd that Metodo 3 had to be raided in order to give up their secrets about their involvement in the McCann case. In my opinion, the whole story hasn't yet been revealed because M3 are Spanish while the investigation is Portuguese led with input from the British in the form of the Metropolitan Police. This cross border complication has added to the complexity of the case imo.
Without wishing to take this thread way off topic, you have no idea what the police really think unless you are a SY or PJ insider. I found it extremely interesting that when the Portuguese Supreme Court made their decision and drew special attention to the question of innocence, not one of the police investigating authorities spoke up.
So would you therefore agree any insinuation that the McCanns, rather than the Company, were responsible for what happened to information collected by the PI's is libellous?
ETA Kate & Gerry were not part of the business until 12/11/08 when they became directors.
They settled out of court. The McCanns have never been awarded a victory in a defamation trial in the UK in my opinion.
Whoever made the decisions about the Smith e-fits it's a fact that they weren't publicised. Posters have suggested there were problems with the evidence because;
The Smiths didn't report their sighting right away.
The e-fits weren't made until over a year after the event.
An e-fit which was publicised in 2009 had even bigger problems;
The man waited two years before reporting his evidence.
His e-fit was done two years after the event.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204605/The-Victoria-Beckham-lookalike-hunt-Madeleine-McCann-asked-tourist-new-daughter.html
Is there a correlation between the report being presented to the fund and the McCanns becoming directors ? The dates certainly suggest so. Was the McCanns becoming directors an attempt by them to control more fully how the report was used ?
Not libelling anyone, simply asking questions.
All very suspicious imo and in no way conducive of what one would expect in what was supposed to be an abduction. All these delays, secret hidden reports and dodgy private detectives. 😎
None dodgier - in my opinion - than Oakley International.
Irish conman to be deported over $2m fraud
A judge has ordered Kevin Richard Halligen to be deported, likely to Ireland as US officials are working off an Irish passport, though the man himself insists he is an Englishman.
If sent to Britain, he could find himself being questioned over vast sums of money handed to him by a fund set up to search for Madeleine McCann and for which little work appeared to be done.
Halligen, from a working class south Dublin family who spoke with a high-class English accent and told people he was a spy, pleaded guilty last month to one count of fraud, stealing $2.1m (€1.6m) from a Dutch firm that hired him to help release two missing executives.
It was only a fraction of the $12m total Halligen’s firm was paid to find the pair,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of the Madeleine McCann fund believe some of the £300,000 (€350,000) funnelled to Halligen after he was hired to help find the girl paid for those boozy days in DC.
Associates who worked on the McCann case cannot recall Halligen coming up with any idea of note, citing one in which he proposed hiring a man dressed as a priest to go angling for confessions on a pub crawl around the bars of the resort where she disappeared.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-conman-to-be-deported-over-2m-fraud-235553.html
Without wishing to take this thread way off topic, you have no idea what the police really think unless you are a SY or PJ insider. I found it extremely interesting that when the Portuguese Supreme Court made their decision and drew special attention to the question of innocence, not one of the police investigating authorities spoke up.
Why would they? A civil libel case was none of their concern just as interference in a criminal case was no concern - in my opinion - of appeal court judges ruling in a civil case. Just the fact that you and others view the civil appeal court judges' pronouncement on the status of an innocent couple in a criminal case as pejorative to them ... rather reinforces the decision to seek redress in the ECHR.
Good question, they were made directors in November 2008 around the passing of the efits to LP and PJ.
What is it you fail to comprehend about the the fact that the Sunday Times libelled Kate and Gerry McCann?https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
- Faced with the grotesque and utterly false suggestion that they had, in effect, deliberately hindered the search for their daughter and thereby let the trail go cold, Mr and Mrs McCann had no alternative but to bring a libel complaint in order to correct falsehoods which could only serve to damage the search fortheir daughter
- Eventually, two months later, the Sunday Times acknowledged that its article had been completely false and published a full retraction and apology. But even then the apology was tucked away on an inside page. The newspaper even refused to include the word "apology" in its headline.
Repetition of the original false statement in relation to Kate and Gerry McCann is therefore libellous. Please desist; or is there to be one law for you on the forum while everyone else observes the law on libel?
Why would they? It was a civil case, related to assertions and conclusions by the initial coordinator of the first few months, apparenntly in exchange for substantial sums of money and who had been whisked off the case.
Didn't Redwood only find out about the withheld items after the Spanish National Police raided Metodo 3's offices in Barcelona with SY officers (in suits below) tagging along?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N2xhBveYeP0/TuxWqwdFEqI/AAAAAAAAI_k/TjSoibXnbts/s1600/El%2BPeriodico%2BCataluna%2B14%2BDec%2B2011.png)
Or more accurately, as it was settled out of court, Yeah ... the Sunday Times coughed up “damages" out of the goodness of their hearts, issued an apology and paid all the legal fees.
They had no case to defend ... just as you don't.
You do understand that the Sunday Times admitted to printing lies about Kate and Gerry McCann thus libelling them, don't you?
It was Exton who compiled the report and had the efits commissioned. Are you saying a man who had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police, who successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980’s and who worked with MI5 on undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for ‘outstanding bravery’ ‘dodgy ‘ ?
What lies was this then?
I am saying that Oakley International were proven in the courts of the USA to be a reprehensible organisation responsible for fraud on an international scale.
Didn't the Judge in the SC comment because the McCann's lawyer brought it up.
Not sure. They were a bit careless in their wording and printed something that they couldn't substantiate.
I am saying that Oakley International were proven in the courts of the USA to be a reprehensible organisation responsible for fraud on an international scale.
I think you’ll find that that was Halligen personally.You shouldn't be allowed to ask questions like that. What proof do we have that Kevin Halligen is dead and hasn't actually just faked his own death?
I think you’ll find that that was Halligen personally.
Halligen was sole proprietor of Oakley International.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2809.0
So he takes sole blame for any frauds perpetrated on his clients. Exton was sub-contracted. Exton compiled the final report and commissioned the efits. Therefore the report and efits are not tainted by Halligen’s dishonestly as Brietta suggested.
You shouldn't be allowed to ask questions like that. What proof do we have that Kevin Halligen is dead and hasn't actually just faked his own death?
I am saying that Oakley International were proven in the courts of the USA to be a reprehensible organisation responsible for fraud on an international scale.
So he takes sole blame for any frauds perpetrated on his clients. Exton was sub-contracted. Exton compiled the final report and commissioned the efits. Therefore the report and efits are not tainted by Halligen’s dishonestly as Brietta suggested.
IMO the final report would need to be analysed to see if there was any input by Halligen which could have tainted it (we have seen images of the mad cardinal prancing around Luz for starters). IMO it is unfair to suggest any of the subcontractors were dishonest without knowing what they were contracted to do.
It occurred to me that the Smiths could not tell the PI's that the man they saw was Gerry without committing slander/libel, even if that's what they believed privately.
The Sunday Times are guilty of libelling Kate and Gerry McCann ... I am afraid that is a fact you are just going to have to accept.
By the way ... a cite is demanded for "... as Brietta suggested" any direct quote will be fine.
But AS IT STANDS NOW there is no reason to doubt Exton’s honesty or the veracity of the final report. Agreed ?
IMO the final report would need to be analysed to see if there was any input by Halligen which could have tainted it (we have seen images of the mad cardinal prancing around Luz for starters). IMO it is unfair to suggest any of the subcontractors were dishonest without knowing what they were contracted to do.
It occurred to me that the Smiths could not tell the PI's that the man they saw was Gerry without committing slander/libel, even if that's what they believed privately.
Mr Smith famously is said not to court publicity. Davel has pointed out that police statements made in good faith are not actionable.
Your comment gels both together Misty, giving one food for thought.
The Times were indeed guilty of libelling the McCanns, I have never disputed that but only of suggesting that they had withheld the efits, nothing else.
It's also worth bearing in mind that, had the McCanns authorised media publication of efits produced by a family who told the PJ that they could neither produce efits or would recognise the man again, they could have opened themselves up to a libel claim. Should the efit have turned out to be named as an innocent citizen, the McCanns & the press would have been liable for making him appear as the prime suspect in a shelved foreign investigation which had not even sought his identity. It's almost ingenious in the manner it's been played out.
ETA IMO.
an appeal to identify someone is not libel. As long as it only in a person they are keen to talk to.
an appeal to identify someone is not libel. As long as it only in a person they are keen to talk to.
I don’t think you could produce the court verdict so not actually true.
What would the legal position be if a member of the public released an e fit and a person suffered severe harassment as a result of it...or at worse committed suicide
The same as if they had compiled a dossier I suspect.
I have no reason to doubt Exton's honesty but cannot comment on the veracity of the content in the final report. Two separate issues IMO.
no...an e fit that was publiced by the member of the public
It would appear that Adrian Gratton, who produced the documentary The McCanns and the Conman, will be revealing the contents of the report soon. That should clarify things.
It would appear that Adrian Gratton, who produced the documentary The McCanns and the Conman, will be revealing the contents of the report soon. That should clarify things.
excellent.......weve had poulton and o'doherty
You think he won't be gagged if CR get wind of that?
O’Doherty’s article gave welcome clarification. Gratton certainly has access to the report. Interesting times ahead.interesting times ahead....I would imagine those keys are well worn on your computer....
Gagged ? Why ? Do you think the report libels the McCanns ?
Oh Dear *&^^&
What would the legal position be if a member of the public released an e fit and a person suffered severe harassment as a result of it...or at worse committed suicide
IMO you got the wrong end of the stick when Gatton said the documentary was only the beginning of the story........
You think he won't be gagged if CR get wind of that?
When asked if we would be hearing the end Gatton said yes.
Gagged it what you do when you don’t want someone making a noise.
Was he referring to Halligen rather than the McCanns?
The report is not his property & was subject to a confidentiality clause. Do you really think he would blow his reputation out of the water by revealing the contents, some of which may be detrimental to other POI's in the investigation - because I don't.
The confidentiality clause had already been breached when Halligen gave Gatton sight of it. Gatton did not sign a confidentiality clause.
I think you are going to be very disappointed...again
The confidentiality clause had already been breached when Halligen gave Gatton sight of it. Gatton did not sign a confidentiality clause.
Why do you think Gatton hasn't divulged the contents since making the documentary about the Con-man?
Saving it for his new documentary?
Or fearing prosecution?
For what ?
Well it seems you can name and publish pictures with impunity.It was only personal opinion definitely.
For what ?http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/privacy-confidence-and-data-protection/legal-protection-of-confidential-information
http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/privacy-confidence-and-data-protection/legal-protection-of-confidential-information
snippedd
How Confidential Information is Protected
If a broadcaster publishes confidential information without authorisation, then the individual or organisation whose confidence has been betrayed may be able to sue the broadcaster for damages. In addition, if the individual or organisation becomes aware of the intention to divulge the confidential information before broadcast, they will often apply to the court for an interim injunction i.e. a temporary order preventing broadcast until the matter can properly be decided at a later trial. Note: a pre-transmission injunction based on the law of confidence is one of the easiest ways for an individual or organisation to stop programmes being broadcast.
If an interim injunction is granted, even against some other media organisation, all media organisations who are aware of the injunction will be similarly bound by it. To breach an injunction is to commit contempt - a criminal offence.
Broadcast?
You wonder how wiki leaks keeps going.
Gatton states his occupation as a director/producer/journalist. Would he risk his credibility in a FOC venture to expose a report prepared back in 2008 by a con-man?
Gatton states his occupation as a director/producer/journalist. Would he risk his credibility in a FOC venture to expose a report prepared back in 2008 by a con-man?
Don’t worry about me Davel I still get plenty of joy from the SC judgement 8(0(*really...is that what brings joy into your life...nothing in this case brings me any sort of joy
It was compiled by Exton.
A NDA would usually only cover information provided by the parties involved.
Can you produce the court verdict?
Doesn't that somewhat defeat the argument Gatton has seen the report in its entirety?
A NDA would usually only cover information provided by the parties involved.a non-disclosure agreement.
Just wee reminder the McCanns broke the law by asking a company to investigate something - and report to them not the police I wonder why that would be? I also wonder why they were not arrested for doing this.
Employing a Spanish company to investigate while the case is still live is a really strange get up. Two laws broken!
And of course there were very good reasons for not employing a Portuguese company.
I believe the PJ knew the private investigators were in Portugal. The private investigators had to hand everything they found out to the PJ, that included the Smith's e-fits, it was up to the PJ what they did with them.
IMO
Trying to demonstrate your innocence by employing PI's to find your missing daughter is considered a criminal offence in Portugal? Rhetorical question.
I believe the PJ knew the private investigators were in Portugal. The private investigators had to hand everything they found out to the PJ, that included the Smith's e-fits, it was up to the PJ what they did with them.
IMO
Trying to demonstrate your innocence by employing PI's to find your missing daughter is considered a criminal offence in Portugal? Rhetorical question.
I don't know where you got that [bolded] idea from. Where are the statements of these two in the PJ files?
The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz58E7rK5BX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Private investigators are constrained by many limitations.On Sunday 27 October 2013, just 13 days after that BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which brought the Smithman e-fits of two quite different-looking people to the notice of 7 million British TV viewers, the Sunday Times pointed out (correctly as it happens) that these two efits (despite the apparently crucial significance now attributed to them) had remained under wraps for five-and-a-half years.
I remember reading something from one of the private investigators saying that they were watched and they had to hand any information to the PJ. I'll try and find it.
On Sunday 27 October 2013, just 13 days after that BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which brought the Smithman e-fits of two quite different-looking people to the notice of 7 million British TV viewers, the Sunday Times pointed out (correctly as it happens) that these two efits (despite the apparently crucial significance now attributed to them) had remained under wraps for five-and-a-half years.
Although no date has ever been given for exactly when they were produced, the consensus of opinion is that they were produced - by Henri Exton - in the spring of 2008.
Unfortunately for the Sunday Times, their report carried the implication that the McCanns were responsible for this delay of over five years.
Not for the first time, the McCanns reached for their lawyers.
A few weeks later, the Sunday Times printed a grovelling apology, conceding that the McCanns had passed the efits 'to the PJ and Leicestershire police' - 'by' October 2008.
This raised a number of questions, e.g.
1. On what actual date were these efits passed by the McCanns to the PJ and Leicestershire Police?,
2. Why did the McCanns not immediately hand these two efits to the PJ and Lesicestershire Police, instead of waiting for several months?, and
3. Why did the PJ and Leicestershire Police sit on these oh-so-crucial efits for a whole five years (October 2008 to October 2013)?
[ IIRC the Sunday Times had to pay out £35,000 plus costs to the McCanns for their error, in addition to a prominent publication of their apology in their newspaper ]
Maybe Gemma O'Doherty can ask for confirmation from Martin and Peter Smith when the E-fits were made.
Try asking her via twitter but don't be surprised if she fails to respond & blocks you.Done.
Private investigators are constrained by many limitations.
I remember reading something from one of the private investigators saying that they were watched and they had to hand any information to the PJ. I'll try and find it.
I don't care what they said, they clearly didn't do it in the example I quoted.
I think there should be no limitation on the use of PIs.Well it wasn't illegal in the Scott Watson case in NZ, but the question becomes how much they have to share with the Police, and I'm not sure about that.
Everyone involved in a major police investigation should have the right to employ their own PIs if they don't like what Old Bill is doing..... *%87
Well it wasn't illegal in the Scott Watson case in NZ, but the question becomes how much they have to share with the Police, and I'm not sure about that.
But there was a comment on the video about Kevin Halligen that it was illegal to have PIs working on an active case in Portugal. I can see good reason why that should be limited as you could get people intimidating witnesses under the disguise of a private investigation.
The contract with Oakley ended in September 2008. In it's apology The Times acknowledged that the e-fits had been
provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police by October 2009.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-and-madeleines-fund-jwbq0c7wdj8
What 'by October 2009' means is anyone's guess.
The McCanns met with Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 to request a review of the case. Do you know when that meeting took place or when Johnson commissioned Gamble to prepare a report?
The report, ordered by the then Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson in late 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeliene-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-british-portuguese-police-fell-out-daughter-missing-operation-a7714736.html
Thanks for that. So the "late 2009" & "by October 2009" may well have been the stage at which the McCanns handed over the efits to a more trusted recipient in Alan Johnson/UK Govt with a view to progress the case.
By that time, the McCanns would have been more aware of someof the information which LP should have forwarded to the PJ but appeared not to have been actioned.
I think it was an incredibly busy period for Kate and Gerry as they worked to get officialdom to reopen the investigation into what had happened to Madeleine.When you think about the logic of trying to get the investigation reopened, why do that if they were guilty in any other way other than for child neglect?
There was just so much going on at the time in which the Smith efit was just one of the very many cogs in the wheel and may even have been one of the many studiously ignored by the Portuguese.
Snip
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
When you think about the logic of trying to get the investigation reopened, why do that if they were guilty in any other way other than for child neglect?
I don't think they ever asked for the investigation to be reopened.
I don't think they ever asked for the investigation to be reopened.Maybe not the PJ investigation but there was the open letter in the papers that was going to carry on till the British did their investigation (I've just listened to the BBC documentary and that was the impression I got. Was that not roughly correct?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gerry McCann mention they wanted the investigation reopened in the Leveson inquiry?
Thanks for that. So the "late 2009" & "by October 2009" may well have been the stage at which the McCanns handed over the efits to a more trusted recipient in Alan Johnson/UK Govt with a view to progress the case.
By that time, the McCanns would have been more aware of someof the information which LP should have forwarded to the PJ but appeared not to have been actioned.
Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened. That's why they asked for a review which led to the investigation being reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of evidence which shows their innocence... Imo
Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened. That's why they asked for a review which led to the investigation being reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of evidence which shows their innocence... Imo
Scraping the barrel a bit there, classing that as evidence. imo
Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened. That's why they asked for a review which led to the investigation being reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of evidence which shows their innocence... Imo
IMO they asked for a review of the investigation for unknown reasons (anyone stating reasons is giving an opinion).
It would be a very odd situation where someone who was guilty of a crime.... Had gotten away with it... And then press to have the evidence looked at again...
IMO posters, are just in total denial
Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened. That's why they asked for a review which led to the investigation being reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of evidence which shows their innocence... Imo
You don't know how it came about to reopen the case, or who did what in the first place, imo the mccanns have to move forward with things whether they want to or not.
Its like saying it is evidence that the book G A wrote was the truth, of the lie. imo
Perhaps you have evidence of the McCann's fight to get the investigation reopened? I assume that they wanted what they asked Cameron for;
we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8511093/Madeleine-McCann-text-of-parents-letter-to-David-Cameron.html
What they got was not a joint review, just a UK investigative review and it certainly hasn't been transparent in my opinion.
They fought for a review which led to the case being reopenedHow many guilty people would do that? Any got an example?
It would be a very odd situation where someone who was guilty of a crime.... Had gotten away with it... And then press to have the evidence looked at again...
IMO posters, are just in total denial
How many guilty people would do that? Any got an example?
What like all those that go on camera appealing for witnesses etc.
When they have done it themselves.
Some people are railroaded into things, as its the only thing they can do to prove there innocence.
Even though, they are the ones that are guilty. imo
For two or three weeks... Not ten years
What like all those that go on camera appealing for witnesses etc.
When they have done it themselves.
Some people are railroaded into things, as its the only thing they can do to prove there innocence.
Even though, they are the ones that are guilty. imo
The case was archived in 2008 and they were never even arrested, let alone charged.
What do you suppose would have led them to subsequently press for at least a review of available evidence?
Because in the eye of the public they are not squeaky clean.
They expected that pressing for a review would demonstrate their" innocence"
This has not happened, so they don't dare let go of the tiger's tail.
IMO
How many guilty people would do that? Any got an example?
The case was archived in 2008 and they were never even arrested, let alone charged.
What do you suppose would have led them to subsequently press for at least a review of available evidence?
Ridiculous... Imo
How many guilty people would do that? Any got an example?
Because in the eye of the public they are not squeaky clean.
They expected that pressing for a review would demonstrate their" innocence"
This has not happened, so they don't dare let go of the tiger's tail.
IMO
Because in the eye of the public they are not squeaky clean.
They expected that pressing for a review would demonstrate their" innocence"
This has not happened, so they don't dare let go of the tiger's tail.
IMO
Wouldn't fading into obscurity have been an easier option?
Wouldn't fading into obscurity have been an easier option?
Wouldn't fading into obscurity have been an easier option?
Just because something has never been known to have happened before doesn't mean it didn't happen. No British child had ever been reported as abducted from it's bed when on holiday in Portugal before. Does that mean it didn't happen?
Perhaps you have evidence of the McCann's fight to get the investigation reopened? I assume that they wanted what they asked Cameron for;
we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8511093/Madeleine-McCann-text-of-parents-letter-to-David-Cameron.html
What they got was not a joint review, just a UK investigative review and it certainly hasn't been transparent in my opinion.
What is proven if there is no previous example?If there was an argument against it by way of an example my argument would fail.
Wouldn't fading into obscurity have been an easier option?
snipped - "If people want to find Madeleine, we need the case to be reopened," said Mrs McCann. The Met last week released a manipulated photograph to show what Madeleine might look like five years on from the day she vanished while sleeping with her two siblings in the family's holiday apartment in the resort town of Praia da Luz.
I believe that was said in 2012. Was it mentioned before the review was agreed?
If there was an argument against it by way of an example my argument would fail.
It fails anyway as does any argument that relies on the premise "well it has never happened before".I heard Pedro Carmo (Deputy head of the PJ) use the exact same argument. I'm in good company.
I heard Pedro Carmo (Deputy head of the PJ) use the exact same argument. I'm in good company.So that makes two of you wrong to use that argument.
He actually said;Studies have shown there is no correlation between certainty and accuracy. (these were from Tex Talks on the topic).
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
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.http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/facial-identification-guidance-2009.pdf An important section regarding Martin Smith was this part: Witness Contamination. If Martin Smith had seen a image of Gerry McCann and he felt he had identified GM he should not have drawn e-fits according to the guidance document.
No matter what Smith said, saw, or did, the fact remains that the 'experts' in Operation Grange used those e-fits. As far as they're concerned any abduction took place after 9.30 pm and Smithman needs identifying. None of the arguments trying to discredit the sighting will change that.No we won't be able to change what has been done, but what do we do about it in the future?
No we won't be able to change what has been done, but what do we do about it in the future?
Nothing you have done or may do in the future will make any difference in my opinion. You're not in control.I beg to differ. I feel we can make a difference to this case. It is my full time occupation ATM - I'm trying as hard as I can to find the solution. Why can't it be done via the power of social media?
I beg to differ. I feel we can make a difference to this case. It is my full time occupation ATM - I'm trying as hard as I can to find the solution. Why can't it be done via the power of social media?
Two police forces have spent years looking at the evidence, a lot of which you can't access. They don't seem to have solved the case, so why you think you can I can't imagine.I have my moments too of feeling defeated.
I have my moments too of feeling defeated.
If this is all you do, I'm surprised you're not clinically depressed.I have my chores etc, but this is my main focus. Not sure where it will end up. I have done this type of research before and I was able to come to a conclusion but I didn't have the ability to make a change. It is not easy and at times I am overwhelmed.
I have my chores etc, but this is my main focus. Not sure where it will end up. I have done this type of research before and I was able to come to a conclusion but I didn't have the ability to make a change. It is not easy and at times I am overwhelmed.
Perhaps you've set your sights too high.What I find is the likes of you, Carana and Misty quite helpful for you all have been studying the case much longer than I have. I appreciate the team effort. I'm not on my own. The other moderators guide us in their ways too. This site is a great resource too.
I have my moments too of feeling defeated.
Don't give up Rob.
Lifes like that on these forums, up one minute and down the next.
Anything that you find might be the key to what actually happened. Pls keep the methodical questioning and analysis going. If you manage your trip to PdL in May, you will be able to check everything out yourself with a fresh mind.
Good sleuthing and good luck. Someone did it, let's find him / them.
And hopefully get Madeleine back. Atta boy!
Well spoken Kizzy
Good sleuthing and good luck. Someone did it, let's find him / them.
Yes, and eventually - get the proof that is needed.
So near - yet so far.
Well spoken Kizzy
Yes let's find the ba...rds who took her. I wonder, are they locals?
I think SY know who they are looking for, it's just finding suffient evidence to prosecute and be assured of success against world class lawyers IMO
As you say ......So near, yet so far
Lawyers for the defence if the case is ever prosecuted.
So why do SY...need to get past world class lawyers, do you mean Carter Ruck.etc etc
So why do SY...need to get past world class lawyers, do you mean Carter Ruck.etc etc
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
All in my honest opinion
Madeleine who?
No, No .... You have got te wrong idea, completely
What have Carter-Ruck to do with it?
After considerable searching and analysis, it is my profound belief that a major very influential and wealthy organisation is behind this abduction. I am thinking that they make their money from trafficking (of all sorts). It is a mega trade and has been going for centuries making some people incredibly rich.
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
All in my honest opinion
PS. I am wondering what one of the moderators will find to delete on this post? He usually manages to delete all or something in so many of my posts
This remark is entirely unnecessary, and entirely unkind.
Matter of opinion,its why I'm here and the inability of £11 million of british tax payers money to find out what happened to the poor girl.
What Poor Girl?
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, they were abandoned - not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
Apart from only - the word of the mccanns.
What Poor Girl?
Have you forgot about her completely - maddie
I haven't. Her name is Madeleine McCann. You were the one who said, "Madeleine Who."
Please stop suggesting that the likes of me don't care. It is insulting.
It was I who said Madeleine who,not kizzy.
There is a misconception amongst sceptics that supporters care about the McCann's and not Maddie... It's patently false... The fact is as long as the misguided conception of parental involvement us taking the blame away from where it lies... The abductor... So support for justice fir madddie depends in support for the innocence of her parents.. IMO... Thank God both investigating police forces understand this
Snort. Sorry about that. I sometimes don't pay attention to who says the nastier of things.
Well you should, your a mod.
Apology accepted anyway.
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, they were abandoned - not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
Apart from only - the word of the mccanns.
There is a misconception amongst sceptics that supporters care about the McCann's and not Maddie... It's patently false... The fact is as long as the misguided conception of parental involvement us taking the blame away from where it lies... The abductor... So support for justice fir madddie depends in support for the innocence of her parents.. IMO... Thank God both investigating police forces understand this
There is a misconception amongst sceptics that supporters care about the McCann's and not Maddie... It's patently false... The fact is as long as the misguided conception of parental involvement us taking the blame away from where it lies... The abductor... So support for justice fir madddie depends in support for the innocence of her parents.. IMO... Thank God both investigating police forces understand this
There is a misconception amongst sceptics that supporters care about the McCann's and not Maddie... It's patently false... The fact is as long as the misguided conception of parental involvement us taking the blame away from where it lies... The abductor... So support for justice fir madddie depends in support for the innocence of her parents.. IMO... Thank God both investigating police forces understand this
The McCann children were Not Abandoned. Even the Portuguese Judiciary conceded that.
No more Libel on that score, if you please.
Madeleine who?Oh, now you surprise me. I thought that you knew who this forum was about. 8(>((
It’s not a misconception, it is a perception. Justice for Madeleine and support for the parents are not dependent on each other.
Matter of opinion,its why I'm here and the inability of £11 million of british tax payers money to find out what happened to the poor girl.
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, they were abandoned - not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
Apart from only - the word of the mccanns.
Patience is a virtue ... but we are all anxious for it to be over
Personally it seems entirely right to me that the police should persue the perps of this dreadful crime ... and i believe a raft of others .... right until the end . Hopefully they will be able to remove these awful people and Madeleine will reappear.
It is my opinion that a good many people have been enslaved by these people. Hopefully other children and people affected with be brought home too
AIMHO
How is it lible
three under age children left on there own - with no - adult supervision.
abandon
əˈband(ə)n/Submit
verb
1.
cease to support or look after (someone); desert.
"her natural mother had abandoned her at an early age"
synonyms: desert, leave, leave high and dry, turn one's back on, cast aside, break (up) with;
Very factualI am surprised that as a moderator so hot on correcting others, you didn't notice the libel against me in Kizzys post
It’s not a misconception, it is a perception. Justice for Madeleine and support for the parents are not dependent on each other.As far as i am concerned they are the same.
No, No .... You have got te wrong idea, completely
What have Carter-Ruck to do with it?
After considerable searching and analysis, it is my profound belief that a major very influential and wealthy organisation is behind this abduction. I am thinking that they make their money from trafficking (of all sorts). It is a mega trade and has been going for centuries making some people incredibly rich.
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
All in my honest opinion
PS. I am wondering what one of the moderators will find to delete on this post? He usually manages to delete all or something in so many of my posts
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
SY have said based on the, evidence they believe maddie was abducted... Something I've been saying for some years
Thank you for at least partly sorting the libel out at this later stage.
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
SY have said based on the, evidence they believe maddie was abducted... Something I've been saying for some yearsAnd me. I have been convinced that Madeleine was abducted for years.
And me. I have been convinced that Madeleine was abducted for years.
Most logical people agree.
Most logical people agree.
And me. I have been convinced that Madeleine was abducted for years.
Most logical people agree.
"Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory."Doesnt leave a lot does it?
By who,according to M brunt back in September Doesnt leave a lot does it?
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-set-to-be-extended-as-police-ask-for-more-funds-11024595
And AIMHO Madeleine met a tragic end on the 3rd of May, that that end was covered up and the threads of that deception are being unravelled as we speak.
That posters think that that OG would make the public privy to exactly who they are investigating is ridiculous in the extreme.
At least you realise if there was evidence against the McCann's SY would act on it and there isn't sone ridiculous cover up...
Just remember that if the case is closed without charges being brought against them
At least you realise if there was evidence against the McCann's SY would act on it and there isn't sone ridiculous cover up...
Just remember that if the case is closed without charges being brought against them
SY have said based on the, evidence they believe maddie was abducted... Something I've been saying for some years
This evidence could have come in handy during the appeal to the SC, any idea why it wasn't presented?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/madeleine-mccanns-parents-attack-portuguese-judges-acting-frivolously/
This evidence could have come in handy during the appeal to the SC, any idea why it wasn't presented?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/madeleine-mccanns-parents-attack-portuguese-judges-acting-frivolously/
This evidence could have come in handy during the appeal to the SC, any idea why it wasn't presented?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/madeleine-mccanns-parents-attack-portuguese-judges-acting-frivolously/
The ongoing criminal case notwithstanding:
1) At worst it does not exist.
2) At best it does but is extremely weak.
The timescale is a bit of a giveaway.
Probably because there is a criminal investigation going on
Would it really have damaged the investigation?
All Redwood or Rowley needed to do was stand up in court & say 'however she left the apartment, it was an abduction, a criminal act by a stranger, this is a fact, your honour'
Would it really have damaged the investigation?
All Redwood or Rowley needed to do was stand up in court & say 'however she left the apartment, it was an abduction, a criminal act by a stranger, this is a fact, your honour'
They can afford the worlds best Criminal lawyers and have influence at the highest levels, I am thinking .... but who knows for certain?
What i am almost 100% certian of, is that the Mccanns have no criminal involvement of any type in Madeleines present position. Seems that SY agrees with me on this.
The Mccanns made a simple mistake, which they will sadly regret for the rest of their lives, imo.
The mccanns had the best lawyers - money could buy.
Of course the mccanns had involvement - they left their children alone,
It wasn't a simple mistake, they were abandoned - not able to look after themselves.
As we know maddie could freely walk round that apartment - knowing she was alone and unprotected.
Left to all the dangers in the dark - you cannot call that a simple mistake.
this simple mistake caused maddie - god knows unnecessary suffering.
It was tragic the minute they closed that door - and walked away from there children.
Their decision , their responsibility.
What ever SY say, there is none - there is no evidence of abduction,
Apart from only - the word of the mccanns.
Nice recovery Carana "Anyway... to get back on topic, I find this link from Alice particularly interesting:I cannot find Alice's original post on this, which is a shame, because the document has lots of food for thought with regard to the Smithman e-fits.
https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/"
Well can you comment on the link?
I cannot find Alice's original post on this, which is a shame, because the document has lots of food for thought with regard to the Smithman e-fits.
I need to read it 2 or 3 times more, but it appears to illustrate the Smithman and Tannerman sightings perfectly.
A gem of a source. Many thanks, Alice.
There is no food for thought... Smith claimed the person he daw based on how the child was carried.. Not on his face... End ofThat is not evidenced in the file. You have made that mistake because there is not statement taken or at least available at the time of doing the E-fit, so we don't know what it is he is drawing/composing.
That is not evidenced in the file. You have made that mistake because there is not statement taken or at least available at the time of doing the E-fit, so we don't know what it is he is drawing/composing.
There is no food for thought... Smith claimed the person he daw based on how the child was carried.. Not on his face... End ofI would rank this post as priceless i.e. without price.
I cannot find Alice's original post on this, which is a shame, because the document has lots of food for thought with regard to the Smithman e-fits.
I need to read it 2 or 3 times more, but it appears to illustrate the Smithman and Tannerman sightings perfectly.
A gem of a source. Many thanks, Alice.
I would rank this post as priceless i.e. without price.
Here you go then:
A bit of L.B.T.R for one and all:
Read thoroughly inwardly digest and then form an opinion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253831/pace-code-d-2011.pdf
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/facial-identification-guidance-2009.pdf
https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/
Note
There are over 100 pages all together. I'd read a bit more than the cover sheets before saddling up [were I you ?{)(**]
Priceless? Martin Smith's identification was based on posture as far as I recall.That would mean you are the second person who has either not read the document or simply not understood its importance.
Alice ... was your original post deleted?
No!
SiL said she couldn't find it so I just reposted it being a helpful chappie 'n' all that, in full cognizance it trangresses forum rules. But having always tested high in insubordination and maverick tendencies I can't say I care much...... ?{)(**
That's fine, thank you.
As you are obviously aware if you feel a post has been unfairly removed it is against forum rules for you to reinstate it, John or one of the senior mods will make that decision.
Just makes for the smooth operation of the forum, which is why I was checking with you.
No problem.
I am not precious about having my posts whooshed anyway. Some of them are fit for little else.... ?>)()<
The original post was on another thread & has not been whooshed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9195.msg448626#msg448626
I thought I already said it had not been deleted?
I know I am bleedin' clever but even I can't cut and paste from a post that isn't there....... ?{)(**
I thought I already said it had not been deleted?Don't underrate yourself.
I know I am bleedin' clever but even I can't cut and paste from a post that isn't there....... ?{)(**
What - you mean you don't type all your posts on Word first, take a screenshot as back-up then keep copies on a memory stick? 8)--))
In my opinion only a paranoid person with an added dollop of OCD would go to those lengths. I don't see it as Alice's style at all.Alice is very possessive of her posts. If she did a backup, it would help her overcome the sense of loss.
In my opinion only a paranoid person with an added dollop of OCD would go to those lengths. I don't see it as Alice's style at all.
Perhaps I should do that. Sometimes I have to read back just to remind myself what my last post was.
Perhaps I should do that. Sometimes I have to read back just to remind myself what my last post was.
Only sometimes?
What - you mean you don't type all your posts on Word first, take a screenshot as back-up then keep copies on a memory stick? 8)--))
This is playtime not contract management.
(actually I have 30 Roneo'd copies screwed to the underside of my desk, fitted there using the previously mentioned Brummagem Screwdriver.). ?{)(**
Alice is very possessive of her posts. If she did a backup, it would help her overcome the sense of loss.
Now that's more my style baby 8(0(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiYIGsZMm4
Now that's more my style baby 8(0(*That is an old (ancient even)style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiYIGsZMm4
Here you go then:Each of the 3 links is relevant and interesting, so muito obrigado for these. You are also correct, that the total number of pages comes to well over 100 pages, and much of it is as convoluted as only a bureaucrat can be, so it was tough going at times.
A bit of L.B.T.R for one and all:
Read thoroughly inwardly digest and then form an opinion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253831/pace-code-d-2011.pdf
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/facial-identification-guidance-2009.pdf
https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/
Note
There are over 100 pages all together. I'd read a bit more than the cover sheets before saddling up [were I you ?{)(**]
Each of the 3 links is relevant and interesting, so muito obrigado for these. You are also correct, that the total number of pages comes to well over 100 pages, and much of it is as convoluted as only a bureaucrat can be, so it was tough going at times.
For those posters responding that Gerry was 'identified' by Martin Smith by the way he was carrying Sean when he landed in Britain, please note the topic title is 'The Smithman e-fits', not how Martin 'clocked' Gerry.
The 3 links provided by Alice have nothing to do with 'carrying arrangements', as far as I can see. They are about police procedures, and of particular interest, how e-fits should be constructed.
The 3rd link is the shortest, the most relevant, and the easiest to read. Any Supporter worth his or her salt should be expending the energy to read that one at least.
Once again, many thanks Alice.
That is an old (ancient even)style.
The efits weren't requested by or made to UK police therefore UK procedures were inapplicable.Even if that was so, the fact that SY used them puts their procedures under scrutiny. If they accept E-fits produced under conditions that they themselves would deem unacceptable means they have double standards.
Even if that was so, the fact that SY used them puts their procedures under scrutiny. If they accept E-fits produced under conditions that they themselves would deem unacceptable means they have double standards.
The efits weren't requested by or made to UK police therefore UK procedures were inapplicable.The e-fits were used by SY, who should have known how far the e-fits exceeded UK standards. So why did they use e-fits they knew to be so defective?
The e-fits were used by SY, who should have known how far the e-fits exceeded UK standards. So why did they use e-fits they knew to be so defective?
It sheds an insight into the capacity of OG.
Would you rather SY had just ignored the efits altogether, just as the PJ may have done? The Portuguese & wider public had long since been given a description of Smithman's appearance, location & clothing both in the media & Amaral's book. That had not produced any result, so what did SY have to lose?What did have SY to lose? Where should I start?
What did have SY to lose? Where should I start?
Roughly speaking, absolutely everything.
There is a part of me that hopes this farce shuts down sooner, rather than later, so that I can go and talk to some of those who got flame-griddled over this nonsense, so they can have their say, without breaking the law in Portugal.
I could do you a nice line in Bizzitt which is older still.you can't go wrong.
My version is a 1967 storyline involving Sharon and Tracey one of whom works in Rothmans Fag factory in Basildon and pulls a young squaddie from Colchester Barracks also featuring sundry didikais, smugglers, and dodgy cops from Southend on Sea. Bizzitt has his lot on the Iberian Peninsula but they were much the same in line up if not location.
Quite apposite in some respects.
The music's good too.
Or if you prefer something a little less cultured and more recent try "The Moonshiner's Daughter" by Hayseed Dixie 8(>((
Each of the 3 links is relevant and interesting, so muito obrigado for these. You are also correct, that the total number of pages comes to well over 100 pages, and much of it is as convoluted as only a bureaucrat can be, so it was tough going at times.https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/
For those posters responding that Gerry was 'identified' by Martin Smith by the way he was carrying Sean when he landed in Britain, please note the topic title is 'The Smithman e-fits', not how Martin 'clocked' Gerry.
The 3 links provided by Alice have nothing to do with 'carrying arrangements', as far as I can see. They are about police procedures, and of particular interest, how e-fits should be constructed.
The 3rd link is the shortest, the most relevant, and the easiest to read. Any Supporter worth his or her salt should be expending the energy to read that one at least.
Once again, many thanks Alice.
In my opinion it is not possible for amateur detectives to outguess those professionals from Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria who have been working on Madeleine's case.
They are privy to all the available information and we are not.
I rather suspect though that Smithman has hit the back burner ... unless he is the justification for the police request to the Home Office for further revenues to continue searching for Madeleine?
I rather hope that the police are allowed the funds to continue their work to its conclusion and if the right perpetrators are uncovered and 'flame grilled' whoever they are ... I will derive great satisfaction from that ... particularly if it leads to Madeleine's recovery or at the least to find out what may have happened to her.
What did have SY to lose? Where should I start?
Roughly speaking, absolutely everything.
There is a part of me that hopes this farce shuts down sooner, rather than later, so that I can go and talk to some of those who got flame-griddled over this nonsense, so they can have their say, without breaking the law in Portugal.
Even if that was so, the fact that SY used them puts their procedures under scrutiny. If they accept E-fits produced under conditions that they themselves would deem unacceptable means they have double standards.
I don't see what you mean by "double standards", Rob.I think the thing that annoys me is that people praise the Smiths for coming forward, when in fact they appear only to come forward to assist clearing RM rather than to report the man carrying the child in the attempt to find out who took Madeleine.
... snip ....
TBH, I don't quite get what the issue is on this rather long thread.
The whole thing smacks of corruption IMO.
I think the thing that annoys me is that people praise the Smiths for coming forward, when in fact they appear only to come forward to assist clearing RM rather than to report the man carrying the child in the attempt to find out who took Madeleine.
Then SY praises the E-fits when going by other standard operating procedures of British police the value of the e-fits must be considered worthless. Especially so now that Gemma O'Doherty say Martin Smith never changed his mind about identifying Gerry McCann. You can not legally draw a composite of someone already known by way of a photo or video.
The whole thing smacks of corruption IMO.
I think the thing that annoys me is that people praise the Smiths for coming forward, when in fact they appear only to come forward to assist clearing RM rather than to report the man carrying the child in the attempt to find out who took Madeleine.
Then SY praises the E-fits when going by other standard operating procedures of British police the value of the e-fits must be considered worthless. Especially so now that Gemma O'Doherty say Martin Smith never changed his mind about identifying Gerry McCann. You can not legally draw a composite of someone already known by way of a photo or video.
The whole thing smacks of corruption IMO.
I'm not following, Rob.
Was the only purpose of the Oakley efits to clear / eliminate RM?
Martin had stated ages ago that he didn't think it was him as he'd have recognised him.
If they help to make any potential witnesses think back to someone they may have seen at that time in that vicinity... even if the composite doesn't ring any bells, but the approximate time does... what's worthless about it?
Aside from those spamming police phone lines to insist that it was necessarily Gerry for the "fun" of it.
With out incriminating yourself Rob,on whose part?I have only tonight found enough courage to say "corruption" but to define who is involved might take another year of figuring things out, it is definitely complicated.
I'm not following, Rob.I feel a bit out on a limb, but Brietta said at some stage "the E-fits weren't worth the paper they were printed on". I found that quite radical, for now I'm in two mind as to whether the Smiths are pointing the finger at someone or not, and was it based on a face to face encounter with the target. For it doesn't say that in their original PJ statements. Did they make other statements for Oakley International?
Was the only purpose of the Oakley efits to clear / eliminate RM?
Martin had stated ages ago that he didn't think it was him as he'd have recognised him.
If they help to make any potential witnesses think back to someone they may have seen at that time in that vicinity... even if the composite doesn't ring any bells, but the approximate time does... what's worthless about it?
Aside from those spamming police phone lines to insist that it was necessarily Gerry for the "fun" of it.
I thought that the bone of contention was that he had 'retracted his statement'? Not quite the same thing.Well we would have to read it again. Never "retracted his statement" or "Martin Smith never changed his mind about identifying Gerry McCann." To me it is the second option from memory. But it is too late for me to sort it now.
Each of the 3 links is relevant and interesting, so muito obrigado for these. You are also correct, that the total number of pages comes to well over 100 pages, and much of it is as convoluted as only a bureaucrat can be, so it was tough going at times.
For those posters responding that Gerry was 'identified' by Martin Smith by the way he was carrying Sean when he landed in Britain, please note the topic title is 'The Smithman e-fits', not how Martin 'clocked' Gerry.
The 3 links provided by Alice have nothing to do with 'carrying arrangements', as far as I can see. They are about police procedures, and of particular interest, how e-fits should be constructed.
The 3rd link is the shortest, the most relevant, and the easiest to read. Any Supporter worth his or her salt should be expending the energy to read that one at least.
Once again, many thanks Alice.
No problem.
Despite my caveat not many have arrived at the FACIAL ID / recognition definition by the police... *%87. The clue, for those who fancy themselves as super sleuths, being FACIAL.
We still seem to be looking at "was he Henry Higgins the Matador rather than Ray Dorset of Mungo Gerry".
For those having led sheltered lives of blissful ignorance that is being more worried about who can be ID'd from buttons up the seams of his kecks rather than does have mutton chop sideboards.
[there is no suitable emoji to convey my thoughts on that!]
Where does it say that Martin or Peter Smith were able to describe facial features?
I find that last paragraph appalling, you are hoping a search for a missing child is shut down soon, so that you can talk to those who were mixed up in the investigation!! Why? so that you will have some news for your blog, to bring a lot of hits?Kindly see Robbity's posts regarding the reports. It is clear he has worked through them to extract many of the salient details.
Kindly see Robbity's posts regarding the reports. It is clear he has worked through them to extract many of the salient details.
Please do not misrepresent my posts. 'Sooner rather than later' is quite different to 'soon'.
Alice appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why. Robbity appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why.
This level of incompetence is duplicated in other actions by Operation Grange.
I knew before Alice's post that the e-fits were flaky, because I have seen the original scientific research papers to prove it. But I could only assume that OG knew they were flaky. With Alice's paper showing that Surrey police knew such e-fits would be flaky, I am now confident that OG knew they were flaky, before they published them.
So Crimewatch 2013 becomes a farce. Crecheman going the wrong way. Dodgy e-fits. £11 million and counting.
The only wise decision I can think of is that DCI Nicola Wall rapidly moved to other investigations.
Please do not attribute motive to my posts in future, otherwise I will report such a post as being in breach of the forum rules, and let the mods decide.
What did have SY to lose? Where should I start?
Roughly speaking, absolutely everything.
There is a part of me that hopes this farce shuts down sooner, rather than later, so that I can go and talk to some of those who got flame-griddled over this nonsense, so they can have their say, without breaking the law in Portugal.
Not sure what you mean by flaky. In terms of what?Perhaps you are unable to understand that Surrey Police guidelines are that e-fits are made within 72 hours, while the Smitman e-fits are dated to September 2008, some 16 months out of date.
Perhaps you are unable to understand that Surrey Police guidelines are that e-fits are made within 72 hours, while the Smitman e-fits are dated to September 2008, some 16 months out of date.
That's flaky, and OG knew it.
Oddly enough, we have just been discussing BBE dates on the Algarve, as a product we purchased from Baptistas was 6 moths past its BBE date. That went straight in the bin.
That's where the e-fits should have gone, except they were publicised in Portugal with the narrative that this was SY's new main suspect.
&%%6
I have wondered about Crimewatch 2013 a few times. One thing I noticed was that the PJ announced the reopening of their investigation immediately after the programme was shown.
Where did I say it did?Have Martin Smith or Peter Smith ever admitted they were the authors of the E-fits?
If they couldn't then by definition they were not the "authors" of what are being passed of as "e-fits".
There is a tendency furthermore to conflate "identification" and "e-fit".
But then I suspect you read the content of the links I posted, are well aware of the point I am making and trying one of your customary body swerves in response...................[he said in gthe nicest kindest politest way possible].
Have Martin Smith or Peter Smith ever admitted they were the authors of the E-fits?
I am wondering if we aren't all being scammed by Richard Halligen.
The Crimewatch programme did indeed concentrate minds wonderfullyMaybe that is the 'double blind' we armchair detectives should have been paying attention to as opposed to any other.
- deflecting attention from the person Jane Tanner saw
- and altering the timeline to encompass the Smith sighting
Added to the mix was the Sunday Times revelation about the efits which have now been classed as 'flaky' by some of our members.
Now the thought about that is ... was that by accident as some seem to think ... or was it by design as those of us who pointed out that important caveat of 'almost'.
Was the expensive (for the Sunday times) Oakley revelation opportune in extending the charade whether by accident or design?
It all rather kept internet minds concentrated wonderfully in a variety of ways while Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria may very well have been doing the day job and tracking Madeleine and investigating suspects who may have had their eye taken off the ball as they contentedly posted morphing images of Smithman and a significant other.
What was painted on the wall in Luz? Maybe the English cops aren't as stupid as seemed to be believed.
It all rather kept internet minds concentrated wonderfully in a variety of ways while Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria may very well have been doing the day job and tracking Madeleine and investigating suspects who may have had their eye taken off the ball as they contentedly posted morphing images of Smithman and a significant other.
Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory.
You mean the "English Police Are Stupid" graffiti?
(https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1387511/praia-da-luz-locals-have-daubed-graffiti-against-police-searching-for-madeleine-mccann.jpg?w=720)
You mean the "English Police Are Stupid" graffiti?
(https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1387511/praia-da-luz-locals-have-daubed-graffiti-against-police-searching-for-madeleine-mccann.jpg?w=720)
What tracking,remember what Martin Brunt had to say,
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-set-to-be-extended-as-police-ask-for-more-funds-11024595
I have wondered about Crimewatch 2013 a few times. One thing I noticed was that the PJ announced the reopening of their investigation immediately after the programme was shown.I am not au fait with the Porto investigation, so if you can fill in some details I would be most grateful.
I am not au fait with the Porto investigation, so if you can fill in some details I would be most grateful.
Perchance a new thread for Robbity to start up?
Perhaps you are unable to understand that Surrey Police guidelines are that e-fits are made within 72 hours, while the Smitman e-fits are dated to September 2008, some 16 months out of date.
That's flaky, and OG knew it.
Oddly enough, we have just been discussing BBE dates on the Algarve, as a product we purchased from Baptistas was 6 moths past its BBE date. That went straight in the bin.
That's where the e-fits should have gone, except they were publicised in Portugal with the narrative that this was SY's new main suspect.
&%%6
What did Scotland Yard have to say?
Exactly so.
Most I've heard of the Portuguese investigation is 'McCanns not suspects' & something about a dead black guy.The dead black guy is Euclides Monteiro, and I am now living in his neck of the woods.
Perhaps I am totally thick, as you seem to be suggesting, but perhaps you could explain why the PJ didn't organise efits back in May 2007. Do you have any idea as to why they didn't?I am not suggesting that you are totally thick.
The dead black guy is Euclides Monteiro, and I am now living in his neck of the woods.
Perhaps I need to pop out for a cerveja grande at his local and have a friendly chat.
But that would need to go in another thread, as the Smithman e-fits look nothing like Senhor Monteiro.
I think it would be a great idea to pop I to what was, his local... I'm sure you'll get a, warm welcomeOff topic.
Off topic.
Plus could you learn to soletrar?
I am not suggesting that you are totally thick.
However, the fact remains that OG thought that e-fits which clearly do not conform to UK guidelines should be publicised.
As to the PJ, if best practice is that e-fits should be constructed within 72 hours, then trying it 23 days later (Smiths return to Luz) also seems a waste of time. Plus I don't know if the PJ did e-fits back in 2007 (in general), nor do I know if they made public appeals based on e-fits. IMO, I suspect not. But I am happy to look at anything that suggests otherwise.
It astounds how Redwood managed to maintain a straight face when he introduced 5-year-old e-fits as some revelation?
Do you think he made them up?It is possible isn't it? Could you produce an e-fit of someone you only saw for a few seconds on a darkened street after you had been drinking over a year later. I know I couldn't. But I might be able to do that from memory of someone I knew. But originally they answered questions that they didn't know this person but in the meantime there would have been conversations etc. You don't know what is going on. Too much time has intervened.
Perhaps I am totally thick, as you seem to be suggesting, but perhaps you could explain why the PJ didn't organise efits back in May 2007. Do you have any idea as to why they didn't?Go one step further back and ask why the Smiths didn't report their sightings the very next day? So the e-fits being produced on the 4th would have been the most ideal time. Speak to Martin Smith, Aoife Smith and most importantly Peter Smith while his dad could not interfere with his recollection.
Go one step further back and ask why the Smiths didn't report their sightings the very next day? So the e-fits being produced on the 4th would have been the most ideal time. Speak to Martin Smith, Aoife Smith and most importantly Peter Smith while his dad could not interfere with his recollection.
But once we have a family get together and a conference about what they are going to tell, its over IMO.
Do you hold the same view regarding the Rothley meeting prior to the rogatory statements ?That is another topic, but we did discuss the possibility of a "big secret" the other day.
It is possible isn't it? Could you produce an e-fit of someone you only saw for a few seconds on a darkened street after you had been drinking over a year later. I know I couldn't. But I might be able to do that from memory of someone I knew. But originally they answered questions that they didn't know this person but in the meantime there would have been conversations etc. You don't know what is going on. Too much time has intervened.
That is another topic, but we did discuss the possibility of a "big secret" the other day.
But do you hold to the same principal?It has been a theme running through the case, from the sticker book timelines (2 variations) then the agreed timeline which the witnesses didn't stick to, to this meeting where there was nothing produced to say what was talked about. So you can't but wonder what is going on. With the Smiths I see Martin as the leader, dominating the family, but with the T9 group who is the driving force?
Wasn't that long ago you were impressed with Brunt.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.3345
If you are getting badgered to produce an efit, perhaps you eventually give in to get the asker off your back.Even if a person pointed a gun to my head I could never play a musical instrument. Either you can do it or you can't, but an e-fit can just be made up IMO. If they followed police based procedures and used different operators to do each e-fit then it might be that they were both producing someone they knew, for they were relatively alike.
Even if a person pointed a gun to my head I could never play a musical instrument. Either you can do it or you can't, but an e-fit can just be made up IMO. If they followed police based procedures and used different operators to do each e-fit then it might be that they were both producing someone they knew, for they were relatively alike.
Kindly see Robbity's posts regarding the reports. It is clear he has worked through them to extract many of the salient details.
Please do not misrepresent my posts. 'Sooner rather than later' is quite different to 'soon'.
Alice appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why. Robbity appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why.
This level of incompetence is duplicated in other actions by Operation Grange.
I knew before Alice's post that the e-fits were flaky, because I have seen the original scientific research papers to prove it. But I could only assume that OG knew they were flaky. With Alice's paper showing that Surrey police knew such e-fits would be flaky, I am now confident that OG knew they were flaky, before they published them.
So Crimewatch 2013 becomes a farce. Crecheman going the wrong way. Dodgy e-fits. £11 million and counting.
The only wise decision I can think of is that DCI Nicola Wall rapidly moved to other investigations.
Please do not attribute motive to my posts in future, otherwise I will report such a post as being in breach of the forum rules, and let the mods decide.
It astounds how Redwood managed to maintain a straight face when he introduced 5-year-old e-fits as some revelation?
You DID attribute motive - that it was to increase hits on my blog. Offensive!
So, you believe the e fits to be 'flaky' yet the same name cropped up in the Crime Watch appeal by SY.
I think it would be up to SY to decide whether they were flaky or not.
I didn't have to attribute motive, you give your motive for wanting the investigation closed 'sooner' rather than later, you want to speak to the people caught up in it, why?
You DID attribute motive - that it was to increase hits on my blog. Offensive!
It is NOT up to SY to decide whether the e-fits are flaky. Research science proves those e-fits are flaky. Alice's link proves that Surrey police knew such e-fits to be flaky.
SY knew they were flaky, and punted them out anyway.
As for your final question, I would like to find out if Paulo Ribeiro was flame-roasted over just a flaky e-fit, or whether there was more to it. SY should have disclosed what they thought might have incriminated him.
You DID attribute motive - that it was to increase hits on my blog. Offensive!
It is NOT up to SY to decide whether the e-fits are flaky. Research science proves those e-fits are flaky. Alice's link proves that Surrey police knew such e-fits to be flaky.
SY knew they were flaky, and punted them out anyway.
As for your final question, I would like to find out if Paulo Ribeiro was flame-roasted over just a flaky e-fit, or whether there was more to it. SY should have disclosed what they thought might have incriminated him.
Ribeiro was part of a group with burglary convictions, whose phone records placed them in contact with each other around the time Madeleine went missing.Senhor Ribeiro appears to have known Ricardo Rodrigues, judging by the Panorama 10th special. Though I cannot confirm this until the case closes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/
Senhor Ribeiro appears to have known Ricardo Rodrigues, judging by the Panorama 10th special. Though I cannot confirm this until the case closes.
Here is the issue.
From memory, Senhor Ribeiro was in contact with Ricardo Rodrigues on 2 May, not 3 May. From Panorama, Senhor Rodrigues claimed he was at home alone on the night of 3 May.
His place of residence can be phone-located to the west part of Luz, unless he was on the same operator as Kate - Optimus.
SY should have presented any suspect phone traffic data to Senhor Ribeiro, in accordance with his arguido status. I cannot ascertain this legally until the investigations stop. If he was in his home and made or received a phone call or SMS on the evening of 3 May, it does not incriminate him. Quite the opposite.
I don't know Ricardo Rodrigues' address in 2007. His current address puts him in the west of Luz. If that is where he was in 2007, any phone traffic would also tend to clear him, unless he was on Optimus, when it proves nothing.
The driver is quite different. He was living in a place where his phone traffic might or might not have shown up in east Luz. It proves only that he used his phone whilst living in Luz.
What is your objection to SY attempting to clarify the obvious gaps in your knowledge of the group's activities around the relevant period?My objection is that they do not appear to have done the basics. And I object to hauling a man who clearly does not have the required mental facilities down to Faro for 2 days. And I object to the entirely stupid idea of digging up central Luz. And I object to the idea that when one police force issues guidelines that say e-fits should be constructed within 3 days, OG used ones constructed 16 months later. And I object when OG cannot handle press releases, so Smithman becomes SY's chief suspect, in Portugal.
My objection is that they do not appear to have done the basics. And I object to hauling a man who clearly does not have the required mental facilities down to Faro for 2 days. And I object to the entirely stupid idea of digging up central Luz. And I object to the idea that when one police force issues guidelines that say e-fits should be constructed within 3 days, OG used ones constructed 16 months later. And I object when OG cannot handle press releases, so Smithman becomes SY's chief suspect, in Portugal.
There is a lot more I object to in OG's approach to this, but I will spare you the angst.
This thread is about the Smithman e-fits.
If you wish to open a thread about OG's handling of this case, I will be happy to join in.
For the moment, I would prefer to stick to the thread topic, namely the Smithman e-fits.
Digging up Luz was carried out on the basis of geoforensics, the same science used by Mark Harrison upon request by the PJ in 2007 when contemplating the death/murder scenario. I do not see why anyone would have an issue with that, other than the short-term disruption to locals.Short-term disruption to locals? 7 years on? Are you having a laugh?
Would you please provide a link to substantiate your comment that OG have indicated that Smithman was/is the prime suspect in Portugal?
ETA I will not criticise OG or the current PJ team as there is no basis for criticisim of their conduct or actions at this stage.
Short-term disruption to locals? 7 years on? Are you having a laugh?
The Smithman e-fits were reported in Portugal as SY's new chief suspect. I believe they were reported similarly in UK media.
If you wish to be pedantic, I will look up cites for both.
I am happy to criticise OG for those points they obviously got entirely wrong.
Do you think this disruption was warranted 57 years after a child went missing?Did they find the child?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1370907.stm
Crimewatch 2013 did not only focus of the Smith family efits. DCI Redwood said he was particularly interested in the people seen near 5A on 3/5 & their efits were also shown.
My objection is that they do not appear to have done the basics. And I object to hauling a man who clearly does not have the required mental facilities down to Faro for 2 days. And I object to the entirely stupid idea of digging up central Luz. And I object to the idea that when one police force issues guidelines that say e-fits should be constructed within 3 days, OG used ones constructed 16 months later. And I object when OG cannot handle press releases, so Smithman becomes SY's chief suspect, in Portugal.
There is a lot more I object to in OG's approach to this, but I will spare you the angst.
This thread is about the Smithman e-fits.
If you wish to open a thread about OG's handling of this case, I will be happy to join in.
For the moment, I would prefer to stick to the thread topic, namely the Smithman e-fits.
Are you suggesting that:The former, not the latter.
- conducting ground searches in part of PdL was useless excercise with no intelligence to warrant it?
- that OG was responsible for the fact that efits weren't organised back in May 07?
The latter bugs me.
The mere fact that those of the sceptic persuasion were absolutely delighted Gemma O'Doherty reinforced the importance of the Smithman sighting & the efits demonstrates their importance. The cries of "cover-up" had OG never released them would have been unrelenting. Lawful procedures are suspended for all things which may help to convict the McCanns. IMO.That is a pretty strong opinion Misty.
The mere fact that those of the sceptic persuasion were absolutely delighted Gemma O'Doherty reinforced the importance of the Smithman sighting & the efits demonstrates their importance. The cries of "cover-up" had OG never released them would have been unrelenting. Lawful procedures are suspended for all things which may help to convict the McCanns. IMO.
Nobody forced OG to feature these e-fits.IMO only the Smiths can explain it.
Whether you like it or not, Smithman is an important sighting that has yet to be explained.
Did they find the child?
Crimewatch et al shoveled lots of sh*t at Luz in particular and the Algarve in general.
To repeat, if you want to discuss if OG have covered themselves in glory, please start a new thread and I will be happy to participate.
But this thread is about the Smithman e-fits. Scientific research and Surrey Police agree they were a lot of cobblers.
Nobody forced OG to feature these e-fits.
Whether you like it or not, Smithman is an important sighting that has yet to be explained.
IMO only the Smiths can explain it.
Did they find the child?
Crimewatch et al shoveled lots of sh*t at Luz in particular and the Algarve in general.
To repeat, if you want to discuss if OG have covered themselves in glory, please start a new thread and I will be happy to participate.
But this thread is about the Smithman e-fits. Scientific research and Surrey Police agree they were a lot of cobblers.
The former, not the latter.
On the contrary, the Smiths don't have to explain anything. They described what they saw. It is for the police to identify the man - if they can.What I meant is how they can do an E-fit without seeing the man's face.
No they didn't. They were acting on a tip-off decades later. Would it have been good policing if the detectives hadn't acted to try to solve a cold case simply because of any disruption to the latest occupants of the house?I'm not prepared to discuss a case about which I know nothing.
How do you know that there wasn't specific intelligence that warranted a search?Which search? If you mean the dig in central Luz, intelligence suggests that Barrington Godfrey Norton was camped on the mound that night. See Kirsty Louise Maryan.
I'm not prepared to discuss a case about which I know nothing.
Especially because I cannot evaluate said tip off, other than it appears to be bogus.
Perhaps you might like to consider what it is like to live in a place that has had constant smears thrown at it for 11 years. With no evidence to support them.
If you consider that fair so be it. I don't.
I'm not prepared to discuss a case about which I know nothing.
Especially because I cannot evaluate said tip off, other than it appears to be bogus.
Perhaps you might like to consider what it is like to live in a place that has had constant smears thrown at it for 11 years. With no evidence to support them.
If you consider that fair so be it. I don't.
I can no more relate to that than I can to living a life facing constant accusations of committing a crime with no evidence to support that. Which is the lesser of the 2 evils IYO & why denigrate the very police force who are trying to alleviate both sets of circumstances?Denigrate what? OG?
Denigrate what? OG?
The very police force that has constantly been slinging muck at Luz?
In order to alleviate what? Surely not life in Luz?
May I ask, are you afraid to start a thread about OG? Then we could stop dancing around the outside and get to the heart of that particular matter.
Until then, the e-fits were flaky, and OG knew they were flaky. They did s*d all for Madeleine, s*d all for the McCanns, and s*d all for Luz.
Can we possibly move on?
I have no desire to start a thread on OG, preferring to think that they have worked their socks off to try & solve this case - but perhaps you do?I take it your first sentence was meant to be 'don't', but it it is of little import.
IMO SY did what they needed to do with the efits - promote them to a wider audience in the vain hope that the alleged sighting could be ruled out & not left as a thorn in the side of the investigation.
Perhaps some of the blame for whatever the people of Luz see as their suffering should be directed towards the secrecy which is at the heart of the Portuguese justice system.
I take it your first sentence was meant to be 'don't', but it it is of little import.
There is a difference between activity and achievement. I don't doubt OG have been active. I have seen them being active, including in the flesh. What I haven't seen is intelligence or achievement. For £11m+ one is entitled to both.
Please don't give me the Portuguese judicial secrecy angle. The McCanns were told no media, yet they (or their entourage) had the story on GMTV early morning news on 4 May.
The McCanns could have published the Smithman e-fits in Portugal, in Portuguese, in 2008. At a time when they were not arguidos. They chose not to.
I take it your first sentence was meant to be 'don't', but it it is of little import.If they had who would have handled the responses?
There is a difference between activity and achievement. I don't doubt OG have been active. I have seen them being active, including in the flesh. What I haven't seen is intelligence or achievement. For £11m+ one is entitled to both.
Please don't give me the Portuguese judicial secrecy angle. The McCanns were told no media, yet they (or their entourage) had the story on GMTV early morning news on 4 May.
The McCanns could have published the Smithman e-fits in Portugal, in Portuguese, in 2008. At a time when they were not arguidos. They chose not to.
Why would it have to have been through a Portuguese MSM outlet? Though I don't see that as much of a challenge.
Do you really believe CdM or any other Portuguese media outlet would have published the efits in 2008 on the back of the launch of Goncalo Amaral's book & the documentary which was in the pipeline - because I sure don't. The Smith family were intrinsic to Amaral's narrative & they would have been left suitably discredited & embarrassed by the whole affair.
Why would it have to have been through a Portuguese MSM outlet? Though I don't see that as much of a challenge.
If they had who would have handled the responses?How did the McCanns handle responses to their website?
How did the McCanns handle responses to their website?
They also published an 0800 number.
They could have published umpty options, but they didn't publish the Smithman e-fits, so what is the point?
What method would you have suggested the McCanns used to publish the efits in the shadow of Goncalo's book?If you mean Gonçalo got in first, so what?
What difference did the publishing of Sr. Amaral's book make?
Either the "e-fits" were worth publishing or they weren't. Either way Sr. Amaral's book is/was irrelevant ..... or is it a case of "what excuse can I dream up for them not being published?"
The "wait and see-ers" will always find 99 ways to stop a job or never start it.
The "trail blazer" finds the one reason to start and progress the job.
If you mean Gonçalo got in first, so what?
The McCanns could have arranged a news 'conference' in Spain, invited the Portuguese press, and the next day it would have been front page in Portugal. It still would.
What difference did the publishing of Sr. Amaral's book make?
Either the "e-fits" were worth publishing or they weren't. Either way Sr. Amaral's book is/was irrelevant ..... or is it a case of "what excuse can I dream up for them not being published?"
The "wait and see-ers" will always find 99 ways to stop a job or never start it.
The "trail blazer" finds the one reason to start and progress the job.
The bit that has always intrigued me regarding the withheld e-fits was why bother to have them commissioned in the first place if they weren't going to bother to promote them. The unmasking and publication of the secret Oakley Report as revealed by the late Kevin Halligen might answer that question.
I've already explained elsewhere that IMO the McCanns would be opening themselves up to a potential libel claim from an innocent member of the public if they published those efits. With or without an active police investigation, they were powerless because the PJ legally couldn't accept efits from PI's & MS would have been shown to have deviated from his original statement.
The McCanns published the efits of the Victoria Beckham lookalike with no such qualms. Why were the Smith efits any different ?
The Smith efits placed the unidentified man + child in Luz within an hour of Madeleine's disappearance, making him a strong contender as Madeleine's abductor. The VB lookalike was in Spain with no child.
But was thought to be part of a conspiracy to abduct a child to sell. Every individual involved in a conspiracy will receive the same jail sentence if convicted.
The McCanns published the efits of the Victoria Beckham lookalike with no such qualms. Why were the Smith efits any different ?Trustworthiness must come into it.
I wouldn't argue that point. However, that particular efit wasn't released to the press until August 2009 when the PI's were Alphaig rather than Oakley International.
http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/06/revealed-face-of-the-new-madeleine-mccann-suspect-321630/
I can only speculate that the Smiths' efits met with short shrift after being sent to the PJ (date unknown) & due to their perceived importance, formed the basis of discussions with Home Sec Alan Johnson who launched the scoping exercise in October 2009. IMO the Smiths' efits required the involvement of a police force to carry out follow-up work following publication.
So, back to the question - why would the Portuguese press have published the efits which directly conflicted the Smith family's identification of Gerry as per Amaral's book & the files? If the Smith family were ever needed in the future to testify against Gerry McCann, how could that happen if their testimonies were discredited by efits which were in direct opposition to what they'd originally told the PJ?That is the dilemma perfectly expressed.
The Smith efits placed the unidentified man + child in Luz within an hour of Madeleine's disappearance, making him a strong contender to have been Madeleine's abductor. The VB lookalike was in Spain with no child.
You appear to be saying it was OK to release efits of those unlikely to be suspect but not those who were more likely...What about when you say such and such a person looks like the e-fit? Is that libel?
As I said before, publicising an efit would be done for identifying and ruling out someone in the area. No libel involved.
The McCanns published the efits of the Victoria Beckham lookalike with no such qualms. Why were the Smith efits any different ?
I've already explained elsewhere that IMO the McCanns would be opening themselves up to a potential libel claim from an innocent member of the public if they published those efits. With or without an active police investigation, they were powerless because the PJ legally couldn't accept efits from PI's & MS would have been shown to have deviated from his original statement.
I wouldn't argue that point. However, that particular efit wasn't released to the press until August 2009 when the PI's were Alphaig rather than Oakley International.
http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/06/revealed-face-of-the-new-madeleine-mccann-suspect-321630/
I can only speculate that the Smiths' efits met with short shrift after being sent to the PJ (date unknown) & due to their perceived importance, formed the basis of discussions with Home Sec Alan Johnson who launched the scoping exercise in October 2009. IMO the Smiths' efits required the involvement of a police force to carry out follow-up work following publication.
Do you really believe CdM or any other Portuguese media outlet would have published the efits in 2008 on the back of the launch of Goncalo Amaral's book & the documentary which was in the pipeline - because I sure don't. The Smith family were intrinsic to Amaral's narrative & they would have been left suitably discredited & embarrassed by the whole affair.
I don't thinks so, either, Misty.
Not when GA also had an arrangement for a regular column in CdaM. The one that looks vaguely like Gerry would have been ridiculed and forever disregarded.
A different potential issue is who had the copyright to actually publicise them at the time (if there were legal issues over payment)?
Yet another is which police force would have been responsible for following up leads? There was no active investigation at the time. It could have ended up with severe media invasion, vigilante action, and no active investigation to grant a search warrant in the event of a serious lead.
You do twist yourself into all kinds of shapes to explain the unexplainable Misty. There is nothing from newspaper reports to interviews to Kate’s book which even suggests the McCanns were stopped from publicising the Smith efits. Don’t you think that if there had been a genuine investigative reason we would have been told it at the time of the Times article ? After all the journalist did seem to have a contact within the fund.
The whole situation was designed to tie everyone up in knots, Faithlilly and what a cracking job someone did.
I have no idea what was behind the real decision not to publish the efits before 2013 but here's my take on the situation (Libelling & harassing an innocent person aside)
We know in January 2008 that Martin told the police he had been approached by Kennedy to produce efits.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg
"He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment."
Why not produce them at that time? Answer - because that would have invalidated his testimony given to the PJ in May 2007. He would therefore have not been able to testify against Gerry should the need have arisen.
Fast forward to August 2008.
The case was shelved. Murat was off the hook. The McCanns were off the hook despite the dog alerts, their failure to take part in the requisite reconstruction & Martin's identification of Gerry.
The McCanns appeared to be firmly of the belief that Tannerman was the abductor. What better way to throw a team of PI's off track than by suddenly producing efits of another man seen carrying a child who definitely wasn't Murat or Gerry, both of whom had alibis which seemed to satisfy the PJ at the time?
However, producing those efits at that time served a dual purpose for the Smiths . It meant not only that MS could not testify against Gerry but also against any person subsequently named as the person in the efits (who MS had said was probably Gerry). All the Smith family members who gave statements in May 2007 said they wouldn't recognise the man again, so an ID parade would have been pointless. Much more evidence than eye witness testimony would have been required & how would that have been acquired?
I think that by releasing the efits on Crimewatch in 2013, SY have effectively removed any chance of the Smiths ever testifying against the McCanns.
If the McCanns had published the efits, the Portuguese would have ridiculed the Smith family for a)not producing the efits for the PJ when the investigation was open and b)for conspiring with the McCanns to divert attention away from Gerry, towards another potential abductor. That would have been of no benefit to either the PJ/Amaral & his book or any other team trying to progress the case. The status quo definitely worked in favour of certain people - at least, until SY found Crecheman.
All IMO.
The Victoria Beckham lookalike was all over the media, obviously the police had allowed the e.fit to be broadcast.Which police? Spanish , UK or the PJ?
My and they call sceptics conspiracy nuts !
Apart from the fact that the efits weren’t publicised have you one iota of evidence for any of the above ?
Interesting article about e.fits -Was there something about it that you found particularly interesting?
https://www.surrey.police.uk/policies-and-procedures/e-fit-procedure/
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-star/20180224/281917363564918Why present that Faithlilly? Martin Smith had years prior to ask for corrections but hadn't.
My and they call sceptics conspiracy nuts !
Apart from the fact that the efits weren’t publicised have you one iota of evidence for any of the above ?
My and they call sceptics conspiracy nuts !It was all opinion and no one has to prove an opinion.
Apart from the fact that the efits weren’t publicised have you one iota of evidence for any of the above ?
Neither Martin or Peter Smith saw the man's face for any length of time or clearly but they helped construct efits many months after the event. The efits have been received with a remarkable amount of credulity.
There have been many witnesses who had a clear and studied view of individuals and who have provided information which helped efits to be constructed at the earliest opportunity. Those efits almost without exception have been met with varying degrees of ridicule.
Therefore in my opinion had the McCanns promoted the Smith efits it is highly likely they would have been treated with the same contempt others were ...
It was all opinion and no one has to prove an opinion.
It's not all opinion. There are facts in there too, including those of MS choosing not to help produce efits for either the PJ or the PI's whilst the Portuguese investigation was still open. Surely that is even more relevant than why the efits were not published for 5 years, thus lending weight to any conspiracy theory. What a pity Gemma O'Doherty didn't address & report on the issue during her own journalistic investigation.It is not too late to address the Irish Connection.
It is not too late to address the Irish Connection.
I'm sure the police have already dealt with it, Rob. One day maybe we will know the whole story.Any clues?
Any clues?
Not really.I was wondering if there was not an element of an old school reunion (high school reunion) ? Where did Jez and Gerry go to high school? Did Smithman go to the same school? How old was Peter Smith? Did he go to the same school in Ireland?
I was wondering if there was not an element of an old school reunion (high school reunion) ? Where did Jez and Gerry go to high school? Did Smithman go to the same school? How old was Peter Smith? Did he go to the same school in Ireland?
Gerry went to school in Glasgow, Scotland. Peter's family seem to hail from Drogheda in Eire. No idea where JW was raised, so I don't see any connection between the 3 men.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/parents-of-madeline-mccann-make-first-trip-back-to-donegal-since-her-disappearance-28823741.html
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/parents-of-madeline-mccann-make-first-trip-back-to-donegal-since-her-disappearance-28823741.html
Gerry's father was from the province of Donegal.
"Gerry McCann's father John was from the village of St Johnston, where the family owned a pub. Maddie posed for pictures outside the premises during the April 2007 holiday.
Mr McCann also has a large number of relatives in the Dungloe area.
The family have rented a cottage there and are said to have been overwhelmed by the warm reception during their trip.
"People here know Gerry and Kate well and we're just letting him get on with their holiday without any fuss," said one local resident last night. "They're one of us.""
They are just words to me, I don't know the area.
Opposite sides of Ireland.Both places are in the province of Donegal.
Both places are in the province of Donegal.
The McCanns could have used the money in the fund to buy advertising space in the Portuguese newspapers to publicise the efits. As to Amaral, do you really think he had any control of editorial decisions just because he wrote a column for the paper ? Besides he always thought that Smithman was a very important lead.
As to copyright that belonged to the fund or they would not legally have been allowed to pass the efits on to the PJ and Leicestershire police.
Your last paragraph makes you wonder why the McCanns even employed PIs if there was such an issue with any evidence they uncovered.
There's no way of knowing whether they could legally do so or not, or if they could, but made a conscious decision not to, and if so, why. Were they advised not to? If so, by whom?
I never said that Amaral had any control over editiorial decisions. However, CdaM is (or certainly was) about as neutral as Julia's pink couch. Why would it haved wished to a) upset a cosy relationship or b) potentially confuse readers?
Yes, he did think Smithman was an important lead. With numerous hints over time (by various people) as to whom he was thought to have been. If there had been a conscious decision not to publicise them at the time, it might have been to avoid the similar ridicule that Jane had been subjected to.
Aside from that, there is still the issue that there was no active investigation to follow up on leads and to request any action that would have required a court order.
I'm not sure about that as copyright law is complicated. If whoever was involved in producing those efits hadn't been paid, who owns the copyright? What were the terms of the contract? Was the contract drawn up under UK or US law?
I don't know who passed the efits to the PJ / LP. Was it someone from Oakley? From the Fund? Was a court order issued to obtain them? If so, at whose instigation?
If PIs were never of any use, I don't see the point of the profession. We don't know at the moment whether any of the leads have been helpful to the review or not, so hard to tell.
Firstly there was no active investigation but are you actually saying that if information was forwarded either to Leceister police or the PJ as a result of the efits that that wouldn’t have been followed up ? Further if the McCanns weren’t going to publicise the efits why go to the expense of having them done in the first place ?
As to your second paragraph you’ll agree that the fund could have paid for advertising space to publicise the efits if not in CdM then certainly the other Portuguese newspapers ?
We were told at the time of the Times Insight article that it was the McCanns who passed the efits to the LP and PJ so no mystery there and, it would appear, no problem over copyright.
As to the PIs it is you who claimed that even if they dug up any information there was no active investigation to take that information forward so my question was why then have PIs in the first place ?
...and as legal expertise had been obtained, you would assume legal issues could have been sorted out.
Was there something about it that you found particularly interesting?
Yes this part -
14.1 All unidentified E-Fits will be stored in a central folder named “Unidentified E-Fits”. Once identification has been made the OIC will update the occurrence to that effect, and inform the E-Fit operator responsible for creating the E-Fit. It will then be the responsibility of this member of staff to move the E-Fit into the separate file entitled “Identified E-Fits” in order that it can be searched and the E-Fit disposed of in line with the requirements of MOPI.
It seems to me that unidentified e.fits are stored, so I don't see anything wrong with SY bringing out Smithman e.fit after so many years. Once he is identified they dispose of it.
You seem to be misunderstanding “stored”.
It’s clutching at straws. The truth is there is no legal reason why the efits weren’t publicised. The McCanns, bizarrely, simply chose not to.
Yes this part -I take that to mean if he is innocent. Like if Smithman came forward and he is obviously innocent would they then dispose of the e-fit?
14.1 All unidentified E-Fits will be stored in a central folder named “Unidentified E-Fits”. Once identification has been made the OIC will update the occurrence to that effect, and inform the E-Fit operator responsible for creating the E-Fit. It will then be the responsibility of this member of staff to move the E-Fit into the separate file entitled “Identified E-Fits” in order that it can be searched and the E-Fit disposed of in line with the requirements of MOPI.
It seems to me that unidentified e.fits are stored, so I don't see anything wrong with SY bringing out Smithman e.fit after so many years. Once he is identified they dispose of it.
I don't think they were allowed to publicise the e.fits, it's up to the police IMO
I don't think they were allowed to publicise the e.fits, it's up to the police IMO
The McCanns publicised a myriad of efits, not least Tannerman. What made those different from Smithman ?
In what way?
I take that to mean if he is innocent. Like if Smithman came forward and he is obviously innocent would they then dispose of the e-fit?
You appear to imply it means put out of the way rather than just an area on a system for processing.
The Police produced tannerman first.
Well stored could just mean being put in a file in a drawer, until they reopen a case then they can get it out and use it again.
There was something about SY not being able to use e fits after so many years on this thread. SIL said the e fits were 'flaky' becasue they hadn't been publisised for so long. I don't think that is the case IMO
(snip)
Firstly there was no active investigation but are you actually saying that if information was forwarded either to Leceister police or the PJ as a result of the efits that that wouldn’t have been followed up ? Further if the McCanns weren’t going to publicise the efits why go to the expense of having them done in the first place ?
Which police? When?Good question - who produced the sketch of Tannerman. It wasn't a E-fit that is for certain.
Which police? When?
Well stored could just mean being put in a file in a drawer, until they reopen a case then they can get it out and use it again.I didn't. I said they were flaky because of the time they were constructed. Surrey police recommended a maximum delay of 3 days. The e-fits were constructed after 16 months delay.
There was something about SY not being able to use e fits after so many years on this thread. SIL said the e fits were 'flaky' becasue they hadn't been publisised for so long. I don't think that is the case IMO
I didn't. I said they were flaky because of the time they were constructed. Surrey police recommended a maximum delay of 3 days. The e-fits were constructed after 16 months delay.
Mind you, publication in 2013 after a delay of 6.5 years is also flaky, but that's another matter.
I didn't. I said they were flaky because of the time they were constructed. Surrey police recommended a maximum delay of 3 days. The e-fits were constructed after 16 months delay.
Mind you, publication in 2013 after a delay of 6.5 years is also flaky, but that's another matter.
It was a PJ-led investigation. Post-archival, the desk officer was Paiva, from memory. Did he receive them? If not, why not? If he did, what action, if any, did he take?
But I'm still left wondering why they weren't organised by the PJ in May 07. Even three weeks later might have had more of an edge on recall than 15-18 months or whatever it was.The construction of e-fits is highly skilled - by that it requires several different skill sets, not just the mechanics of operating the software.
The Portuguese police give a tacit approval.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Drogheda?
Drogheda?I hadn't considered Drogheda yet. That was where Martin Smith was living. OK got my bearings.
The Portuguese police give a tacit approval.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
They certainly didn't produce the Tannerman sketch, and neither did the UK police. It was done by the McCanns.Have you checked what Jane says about that process. Was she involved?
Have you checked what Jane says about that process. Was she involved?She mentions the sketch with hair:
They certainly didn't produce the Tannerman sketch, and neither did the UK police. It was done by the McCanns.Are you sure about that?
Are you sure about that?It said the McCann's PIs with the help of a "FBI trained artist". => if that equals the McCanns then it was the McCanns.
I'm not challenging, but could we have a cite, please?
*&(+(+
It said the McCann's PIs with the help of a "FBI trained artist". => if that equals the McCanns then it was the McCanns.
"The images, drawn by an FBI-trained forensic artist,"
"The release of the images, commissioned by private detectives working for the McCanns"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
It said the McCann's PIs with the help of a "FBI trained artist". => if that equals the McCanns then it was the McCanns.
"The images, drawn by an FBI-trained forensic artist,"
"The release of the images, commissioned by private detectives working for the McCanns"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
He actually said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I could quite easily answer these questions- I didn't read them all - too boring. however, who decides what is satisfactorily. who be da judge?
"Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of these questions":
Skimming through the questions it would appear that several of them are prompted by the fact that erroneous tabloid reports do not match up with the files.
Poor Martin Smith. All he tried to do was the right thing.
The right thing for who?I think of an alibi as being where a person was rather than where he wasn't. I'll have to recheck my definition of alibi.
He can't now testify against anyone in Portugal or anywhere else.
He can't identify someone who may come forward as an innocent holidaymaker.
He can't prove he/the family saw the man they described any more than anyone can prove he didn't.
He didn't provide efits for the police so he hasn't attempted to pervert the course of justice.
He can, however, testify that the man he saw wasn't Murat, despite the fact that no-one had ever suggested the man he saw was in any way connected to the person suspected of being Tannerman. He provided an alibi for RM, for the earliest possible time he was able, on 3/5/07.
All IMO.
I think the first 4 questions are excellent, perhaps we could start debating them, or would we be transgressing libel rules?
Who judges what's satisfactory or not?What made you say this? "I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him."
Anyway, reading through them bit by bit - I happen to agree with points 1-4:
"1. Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
2. Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
3. Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?
4. How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?"
I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him.
The right thing for who?
He can't now testify against anyone in Portugal or anywhere else.
He can't identify someone who may come forward as an innocent holidaymaker.
He can't prove he/the family saw the man they described any more than anyone can prove he didn't.
He didn't provide efits for the police so he hasn't attempted to pervert the course of justice.
He can, however, testify that the man he saw wasn't Murat, despite the fact that no-one had ever suggested the man he saw was in any way connected to the person suspected of being Tannerman. He provided an alibi for RM, for the earliest possible time he was able, on 3/5/07.
All IMO.
Are we doing anything else? ... so why not give it a bash if it is within the libel laws and forum protocols?
In my opinion questions one and two might as well be rhetorical ... once you overcome the very obvious about why your immediate action on finding an injured child would not have been to seek immediate assistance and why your companions some of whom hardly knew you would join in an elaborate and I would think doomed attempt at a coverup.Quite frankly I don't think such a scenario either did or would have happened; I think anyone who would have must have known the streets well enough to negotiate them in the dark; I don't think they would have been openly carrying either ... I think they would have had access to a vehicle much closer to the point where Madeleine vanished.
- Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
- Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
I’m sorry you’ll lost me. In what way did he provide an alibi for Murat ? He said the man he saw wasn’t Murat. How did that provide Murat with an alibi ?By saying Murat was not there is providing an alibi, of a sort.
"5. Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’ "
In which of the Smiths' PJ statements was it described as a "disturbing encounter"?
Who judges what's satisfactory or not?
Anyway, reading through them bit by bit - I happen to agree with points 1-4:
"1. Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
2. Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?
3. Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?
4. How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?"
I never did understand why Amaral appeared so convinced that Smithman was Gerry. Perhaps someone could ask him.
13. Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?
Is there something suspicious about going for a nightcap?
17. Aoife Smith said she thought she saw buttons on the man’s trousers. Can it be ruled out that Aoife Smith had, before 26 May, seen a photograph of Gerry McCann wearing trousers with buttons?
No way of knowing. She said possibly with buttons.
perhaps she was asked the question...did thetrousers have buttons...to whih she replied..possibly
While you're around, Blonk, any idea why Martin was the only one asked by Paiva if he'd be willing to come over?
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Do you think Blonk has any kind of communication with Paiva ? If not then how in Dickens would he know why Paiva did anything ?
I just wondered if he had a logical explanation as to why Paiva, presumably at Amaral's behest, only got in touch with Martin.I was always thinking Martin was controlling that. No one talked unless he approved it IMO.
I just wondered if he had a logical explanation as to why Paiva, presumably at Amaral's behest, only got in touch with Martin.
We were told by Gerry himself that PDL was very quiet and he hadn’t seen anyone else throughout the week while checking so not sure it being a popular tourist resort is relevant. As to Smithman knowing the streets well, the streets are well lit and the way Smithman was proceeding is one of the main ways to the beach. Any tourist who had stayed in the resort for even a few days would know the route.When Gerry was checking through the week did he do so by walking down the main street to the beach? I think not, so the point stands. PdL was and is a popular tourist destination, there were dozens of holiday makers there at the time, not to mention locals, so even though it was (by high holiday season) "quiet", anyone walking down the well-lit main street to the sea would know that they would have run a serious risk of passing others en route, as indeed they did. This is a man who, in your opinion was able to carry a body though town, uncovered and having made no attempt to disguise or hide his own features. Did he not pass any bins before he reached the point of the Smiths sighting? Wouldn't taking a street out of town and away from the main drag looking for a bin make more sense?
I just wondered if he had a logical explanation as to why Paiva, presumably at Amaral's behest, only got in touch with Martin.
He was the only one who thought it was Gerry McCann.
1. It was quiet as Gerry testified and how can you cry abduction if you don’t move the body ?
2. We don’t know exactly when the alarm was raised. Estimates range between 9.30 and 10.13pm.
3. In a municipal bin, in an abandoned building etc etc
4. If Smithman had come from the Ocean Club it wouldn’t have taken him many minutes to find a hiding place, deposit the body and return there.
I think we had covered most of the questions asked by Blonk. OK we can not answer them as we don't know enough, but since we can ask so many questions about them it does raise issues as to their reliability.
I think we had covered most of the questions asked by Blonk. OK we can not answer them as we don't know enough, but since we can ask so many questions about them it does raise issues as to their reliability.
I think we had covered most of the questions asked by Blonk. OK we can not answer them as we don't know enough, but since we can ask so many questions about them it does raise issues as to their reliability.
In my opinion the questions can't be answered because most of them are based on opinion and unconfirmed rumours, not on facts.Questions are questions and they can be answered any way possible.
I hope to have some answers from the horses mouth very soon.
I hope to have some answers from the horses mouth very soon.https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/from+the+horse%27s+mouth
It would have to have been a very cunning hiding place with all the people out looking for her the next day. So then what? Her body was quickly moved early in the morning? But where to, and how?
Distance from apartment 5a was all that was needed. The body was meant to be found. Unfortunately the bins were emptied.
Staff and volunteers poked around in bins that night. Ok, presumably not thoroughly. The dump was eventually inspected, although I doubt that that was very thorough, either.
Irrespective of who may have dumped it in one, if it was meant to be found, wouldn't simply leaving the body on top of the heap have had a greater chance of success?
I can understand how Martin Smith could say it wasn't Murat, the person he saw didn't wear glasses, has anyone ever seen a photo of Murat without his glasses?Most of the photos I've seen were taken during the day. Whether he wears glasses at night is not established.
As you say the staff and volunteers may have performed a perfunctory search of the bins but by the early hours of the 4th the bins had been collected and emptied. Further the landfill that rubbish from PDL goes to was never searched.
Remember if my hypothesis is correct this had to look like the abductor had dumped the body.
Questions are questions and they can be answered any way possible.
As you say the staff and volunteers may have performed a perfunctory search of the bins but by the early hours of the 4th the bins had been collected and emptied. Further the landfill that rubbish from PDL goes to was never searched.
Remember if my hypothesis is correct this had to look like the abductor had dumped the body.
It was more than that, but no, my mistake, I thought they'd also checked the landfill, which doesn't appear to be the case.
12-Processos Vol XII Page 3183
TRANSLATION BY INES
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3183
Service Information
2007/05/07
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: J. C. Franco, Inspector
Subject: Verification of Rubbish Containers
I hereby bring to your notice, that on this date, I the undersigned, together with Inspector Luis Piedade as well as three employees from the Lagos Municipal Chamber, responsible for rubbish collection from Praia da Luz, went to P da L and carried out a detailed check of all the rubbish containers in the area, including the underground containers, as well as in surrounding areas, a total of 188 containers were checked, nothing was found of interest to the NUIPC 201.07 OGALGS investigation.
Signed
Inspector J.C. Franco
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUBBISH.htm#r3183
I can understand how Martin Smith could say it wasn't Murat, the person he saw didn't wear glasses, has anyone ever seen a photo of Murat without his glasses?
Questions are much more than that. Behind every question is a purpose. It's that purpose which matters because it shapes which questions are asked and how they are presented.
Reading the 60 questions their purpose is clear; to cast doubt on the Smiths and their evidence. In order to achieve that purpose most of the questions reveal the questioner's opinion and ask for agreement. They are presented in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees look stupid. Take question No 1;
Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort
The questioner is telling you that in their opinion only a 'bone-head' would carry his dead daughter's body openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort. It's a statement of their own opinion rather than an attempt to discover what the responer thinks. A more valid wording might have been;
Do you think it's possible that someone openly carried a dead body through the streets of Luz?
That question contains nothing to reveal the questioner's opinions, and nothing to suggest which answer would be seen as valid. It's much more neutral and objective.
By the 5th the bins would have been emptied twice, once in the early hours of the 4th and once on the 5th so its not surprising that they found nothing.
Distance from apartment 5a was all that was needed. The body was meant to be found. Unfortunately the bins were emptied.
If there was a body ... bearing in mind there is not a single indication there was one ... and it was the intention that it be found ... that would surely have been the simplest thing in the world to achieve.
Agreed about the phrasing: if you agree, you're implicitly acknowledging that you're also a "bonehead".
As it happens, I also very much doubt that it was Gerry, but that's neither here nor there.
What I find disturbing is what I perceive as an unnecessary attack on a family in the process.
Exactly. We may disagree on the case, but we agree on other matters such as 'loaded' questions. I also agree that attacking a family to uphold a particular opinion is disturbing. Opinions can and will be formed by examining evidence, but they shouldn't be used as if they were evidence.
Who has attacked the family... The smiths told the truth as they saw it....
Exactly. We may disagree on the case, but we agree on other matters such as 'loaded' questions. I also agree that attacking a family to uphold a particular opinion is disturbing. Opinions can and will be formed by examining evidence, but they shouldn't be used as if they were evidence.
If finding the body quickly was the intention, something must have gone very wrong. What could that have been, and what evidence points to it?
I think attacking the mccanns to support a certain opinion is disturbing
I think G-Unit and I were discussing the overall "tone" of the latest "60 questions".
Davel read it correctly. When I was reading the posts I interpreted it as a discussion regarding the McCann family.
Goes to show how easily things can be misconstrued.
Doesn't that mean you both misunderstood what was being discussed?
My fault, I should have specified which family. 8()-000(
I didn't think it necessary as the thread is about the questions raised over the Smith sighting.
I don't know if bins are emptied every night or not. It's possible, but I haven't found confirmation of it.
If so, why wasn't the dump checked in the early days?
If there was a body ... bearing in mind there is not a single indication there was one ... and it was the intention that it be found ... that would surely have been the simplest thing in the world to achieve.
If there was a body ... bearing in mind there is not a single indication there was one ... and it was the intention that it be found ... that would surely have been the simplest thing in the world to achieve.
There was definitely a body somewhere, whether living or dead is another matter.
You are stating your opinion as fact.... It is not a fact there was a body... It is not a fact the alert was to cadaver.... You seem not to understand the alerts
It would and I'm sure at the time it seemed simple.
Staff and volunteers poked around in bins that night. Ok, presumably not thoroughly. The dump was eventually inspected, although I doubt that that was very thorough, either.AFAIK, the one and only dump in the western Algarve was never inspected. If you have something that says otherwise, I would be most grateful if you would correct me. TY.
Irrespective of who may have dumped it in one, if it was meant to be found, wouldn't simply leaving the body on top of the heap have had a greater chance of success?
Our bins here get emptied roughly every three days.
By the 5th the bins would have been emptied twice, once in the early hours of the 4th and once on the 5th so its not surprising that they found nothing.
Our bins here get emptied roughly every three days.
While I cannot remember bin emptying frequency across everywhere we have lived in Luz, it was roughly once every 3 days in the last place we lived in. Perhaps central Luz gets more frequent emptying.
AFAIK, the one and only dump in the western Algarve was never inspected. If you have something that says otherwise, I would be most grateful if you would correct me. TY.
No, I stated further up that I'd made a mistake - the search with the 3 GNR officers was just the bins.
Were there two different searches?
I the undersigned, together with Inspector Luis Piedade as well as three employees from the Lagos Municipal Chamber, responsible for rubbish collection from Praia da Luz, went to P da L and carried out a detailed check of all the rubbish containers in the area, including the underground containers, as well as in surrounding areas, a total of 188 containers were checked, nothing was found of interest to the NUIPC 201.07 OGALGS investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUBBISH.htm
As you say the staff and volunteers may have performed a perfunctory search of the bins but by the early hours of the 4th the bins had been collected and emptied. Further the landfill that rubbish from PDL goes to was never searched.why in a bin?
Remember if my hypothesis is correct this had to look like the abductor had dumped the body.
Why not? What would you do with a body you wanted to get rid of?A body I wanted to get rid of but also wanted it be found quickly? Hmm...
A body I wanted to get rid of but also wanted it be found quickly? Hmm...Are you thinking bins only make sense if the person knew the bins were going to be emptied the next morning?
Who says the body had to be found quickly?
Who says the body had to be found quickly?If you want a body to be found then you would put it somewhere it would be quickly discovered, not still missing 11 years later.
Are you thinking bins only make sense if the person knew the bins were going to be emptied the next morning?If I wanted to be certain that the body would be found and not taken to the tip and buried under 10 tons of garbage I would leave it somewhere a bit more obvious. I also would not carry a body through a holiday resort, making no attempt at disguising myself and if I had decided a bin was the best bet I would probably have found one without the need for walking down the well-lit main street.
If you want a body to be found then you would put it somewhere it would be quickly discovered, not still missing 11 years later.
Maybe that's where the plan went wrong.
If I wanted to be certain that the body would be found and not taken to the tip and buried under 10 tons of garbage I would leave it somewhere a bit more obvious. I also would not carry a body through a holiday resort, making no attempt at disguising myself and if I had decided a bin was the best bet I would probably have found one without the need for walking down the well-lit main street.Where I've lost the argument is why do they want it found? Was it they wanted it found but well away from the apartment, to make it look like an abduction?
Maybe that's where the plan went wrong.It was a dumb plan, far more cunning to make the body disappear forever. Perhaps they knew that putting it in a bin would achieve this ultimate aim, eh?
Where I've lost the argument is why do they want it found? Was it want it found but well away from the apartment, to make it look like an abduction?I can't tell you why they would want it found, it makes no sense to me at all.
The bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning and I agree the landfill site should have been checked in the early days but unfortunately it wasn't.
One former poster on here (who doesn't live there) stated they were emptied every night, but I've never been able to find any confirmation of that.
If that were the case, they'd have been emptied 4 times by the time they were checked.
And the employees who searched would have pointed out that they had been emptied. The search would have moved on to the sites the rubbish was taken to.It should have, but we're told it didn't happen.
And the employees who searched would have pointed out that they had been emptied. The search would have moved on to the sites the rubbish was taken to.
SOME MORE CITES
It was dark - 10pm
snipped
.
........Moreover, he frankly admitted (all three of them did) that if he saw this man again he would never be able to recognise him, and
He was asked to do the efits probably a whole year later.
I am a complete loss as to how he could possibly draw up any efit
The PJ investigation had been shelved. RM had been cleared. The efits were subsequently produced in conjunction with PI's working only for the McCanns. What would be the motivation for 2 (crucial) witnesses suddenly being able to produce efits at that late stage?Would there be a word starting with M?
The PJ investigation had been shelved. RM had been cleared. The efits were subsequently produced in conjunction with PI's working only for the McCanns. What would be the motivation for 2 (crucial) witnesses suddenly being able to produce efits at that late stage?
First, let's examine a few dates: We know from the multiple news reports on 3 January 2008 that Martin Smith had already been contacted by Brian Kennedy and had agreed to work with and help his dodgy Metodo 3 team (this was just after Metodo boss had been promising that his man 'knew where Madeleine was', were 'closing in on the kidnappers' and that Madeleine would be 'home by Christmas').
We also know, or rather we have been told, that Henri Exton drew up the efits. Henri Exton, we are told, was appointed by that rogue and convicted criminal Kevin Halligen. According to media sources (I don't think there are any others), Halligen's Oakley International (founded after Madeleine was reported missing) was hired by the McCanns/Brian Kennedy some time in April 2008. So April would be the earliest date that the efits could have been drawn up.
As to other dates:
When Robert Murat was cleared - I believe February 2008
When the PJ report was archived - July 2008.
It seems likely therefore that the efits may have been drawn up before the PJ archiving report in July 2008.
'misty' asked: "What would be the motivation for 2 (crucial) witnesses suddenly being able to produce efits at that late stage?"
ANSWER: The Oakley International - Kevin Halligen - Henri Exton team was hired by the McCanns with one express purpose: "To look for and find Madeleine".
To this end, the investigators would naturally want to talk to the Smiths who, to put it bluntly, were telling the PJ loud and clear that they had all seen a man hasting towards the beach carrying Madeleine who was 'in a deep sleep'.
First of all, however, they had to clear away one obstacle - namely that Martin Smith had told the PJ back on 20 September 2007 that he was up to 80% sure that the man they had all seen was Madeleine McCann (though seven of the nine members of his family disagreed with him). When Martin Smith had his change of mind and began working for the McCanns instead of against them is one of those things we will perhaps never know.
Of course, if you believe Irish journalist Gemma O'Doherty, she will tell you that Martin Smith told her recently: "I have never changed my mind. I still say I am 60% to 80% sure it was Gerry McCann I saw that night".
the date I see (partially) is 2008-09-02 that would be their production date surely.
Enlarged .Correction 2008-09-04 4th of September 2008 is when the e-fits were made based on the date on the e-fit.
blonk
"It seems likely therefore that the efits may have been drawn up before the PJ archiving report in July 2008."
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
Feb 4
More
Operation Omega: Smiths first interviewed by team 02/08/08. E-fits done 4th Sept 2008. Omega memo 08/09/08: "the SMITH family are now (and should always have been treated as) the investigation’s most important witnesses". Met release e-fits 2013 #OperationOmega #McCann #Halligen
Did the belated production of the efits by Martin & Peter Smith help or hinder the McCanns' search for Madeleine?
I've never understood why Amaral didn't organise it in May 2007.IMO the whole Smith family episode stinks.
Did the belated production of the efits by Martin & Peter Smith help or hinder the McCanns' search for Madeleine?
IMO they did neither. OG must have known how unreliable efits made so long after the event would be and yet they still put Smithman forward as the most important piece of the puzzle still be found. I can’t believe it was simply incompetence so why publicise pictures the drawing up of which went against every police guideline on efits there is ?
I'm not sure DCI Redwood said Smithman was the most important piece of the puzzle; rather SY would really like to eliminate the sighting as an innocent holidaymaker. IMO it's important to listen to what DCI Redwood actually said.
Why do you think he used efits that he knew flew in the face of all police efit guidelines Misty ?
What other option did SY have if they wished to make a public appeal to identify/eliminate Smithman?
Any good defence lawyer would drive a horse and cart through any identification based upon those efits so why did Redwood take that chance ?
Why would an innocent holidaymaker have needed a defence lawyer? If he could prove he was in Luz on the night in question, was walking past LuzDoc at around 10pm & had a 3 or 4 yr old blonde daughter wearing her pj's with him then the sighting could be eliminated.Why is he a holidaymaker?
If he was named as someone who was in Luz that night but had no given reason to be carrying a child then I'm sure he'd have been made an arguido by now.
Rather like the dog alerts, the efits are intelligence not evidence as both MS & PS categorically stated they would not recognise the man again.
All IMO.
ETA Amaral was prepared to take a chance based on the sighting of a man, without the benefit of any efits. Why else would he have asked for MS to return to Portugal?
Why would an innocent holidaymaker have needed a defence lawyer? If he could prove he was in Luz on the night in question, was walking past LuzDoc at around 10pm & had a 3 or 4 yr old blonde daughter wearing her pj's with him then the sighting could be eliminated.
If he was named as someone who was in Luz that night but had no given reason to be carrying a child then I'm sure he'd have been made an arguido by now.
Rather like the dog alerts, the efits are intelligence not evidence as both MS & PS categorically stated they would not recognise the man again.
All IMO.
It would appear that after 5 years of publicity an innocent bystander hasn’t come forward so I th8nk we can all but eliminate him.
On your second point IMO it would be all but impossible to arrest a man or make him an arguido based on efits which did not follow police guidelines and were created nearly a year and a half after the man was seen.
So why use them, that’s the question.
An innocent bystander may well have been totally unaware of the Smith family sighting if he hadn't followed the case over the intervening years.
It would not be impossible to arrest any person identified as resembling the efits if there were additional grounds for doing so.
Would you rather SY had ignored the efits altogether?
I think OG know exactly why they used them and I trust their judgement.
I agree but probably for a different reason to you. Whatever the reason, MS can never be called upon as a witness in any future criminal case bar one against Murat.
IMO.
That reminds me Misty you said Martin Smith gave Murat an alibi. You never said how.
MS placed Murat at a location somewhere other than where Smithman was seen carrying a child, just as many GNR officers stated that they did not see Murat in the vicinity of 5A on the night of their arrival.
alibi
noun
1.
a claim or piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when an act, typically a criminal one, is alleged to have taken place
MS & the GNR officers provided eye-witness evidence.
So do you now think that Smithman isn’t an innocent bystander then ?
So do you now think that Smithman isn’t an innocent bystander then ?If he is going past LuzDoc at 09:47 PM perfect timing to be Madeleine's abductor. IMO.
I think OG know exactly why they used them and I trust their judgement.Why do you think they used them?
If he is going past LuzDoc at 09:47 PM perfect timing to be Madeleine's abductor. IMO.
Or not as the case maybe,imo.I find it remarkable that there is perfect timing. Was it coincidence? That is the question but it is not often that you get to feel we are making some progress in this case.
I will begin my replies by trying to find as many as I can of the cites, references or sources members have asked for.
In my list of questions, I made these references:
(1) Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual… (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008), and
(2) Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children]. They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.
I have traced three media reports dated 3 January 2008. One was in the Sun, one in the Daily Mirror, and one in the Daily Mail. The Mail report was by far the longest, here it is:
3 January 2008 in the Daily Mail
Maddie: Irishman provides dramatic new clues Daily Mail (appeared in paper edition only)
EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished - by Sandra Murphy, Vanessa Allen - January 3, 2008
The following is extra information supplied by the Daily Mail:
AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.
“Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.
“…the sighting…is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.
“Martin Smith said: ‘The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year".
“Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner…Though the Smith family believe they met an almost identical man closer to 10pm, the coincidence prompted them to contact police after they returned to Ireland. Mr Smith said: ‘Luz is such a small place and so quiet, we felt a duty to tell police and let them decide if it was important’."
“Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said detectives from the Spanish agency Metodo 3 now hoped to speak to the family…”
“On the night of the disappearance, Mr Smith was dining with his wife in the Dolphin restaurant in Praia Da Luz, where they are frequent visitors. The couple were with [the Mail names all members of the party]…All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
"The family added: “…Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small. Our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm…I don’t know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in what’s going on but we tried to avoid the limelight”.
“Martin Smith added: ‘We have not been contacted by the private detective hired by the McCanns, and have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year’.
"Mr Smith said it was some time before the family realised they could be star witnesses: ‘We were out the night it happened…We went home about 9.50pm and we heard nothing at all about Madeleine McCann until the next day. I was taking my son Peter to the airport and on my way back, I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz”. [NOTE: Peter Smith says he found out about Madeleine’s disappearance at the airport: QUOTE: “He didn’t find out about Madeleine’s disappearance until the morning of 4 May through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport, as he (Peter Smith) was waiting for his return flight to Ireland”.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time, aged four and five, and it had a terrible effect on them. They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection. I felt we should report it to the police. I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the ‘phone. Then they asked me to make a statement to Gardai, which I did in Drogheda two weeks after the disappearance. Two days later, Leicestershire police got on to us and said they wanted to speak to all nine of us. But we felt there was no point dragging grandchildren and the whole lot out to Portugal so just my eldest son, Peter, and youngest daughter, Aoife, and I flew to Luz to make a statement.
"The police were fairly busy and the station was pretty typical. They didn’t seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across but they are probably no different to police anywhere else. We were interviewed separately and told them what we saw, and showed them on the map where we met the man and child. We spent the whole day there from 10.30am to 7pm with an interpreter. That day, May 26 last year, was the last time we had any contact with the investigation. I remember clearly because it was my wedding anniversary.
"As we made our way back to our apartment in Estrella da Luz, we met a guy with a child that appeared to be asleep….it was getting dark and he was looking downward so I couldn’t tell you exactly what he looked like.
"None of us was 100 per cent sure what he was wearing but we all told police he was wearing beige trousers and a darker top”.
“We all put him in his early 40s.
“I didn’t think he was Portuguese".
“Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him. I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat. I think I would have definitely recognised him".
========
8 August 2007 - The Drogheda Independent runs a story headed: ‘Drogheda family hit out over Madeleine case clue coverage’.
Extracts from the long article ran as follows:
“A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police. Maple Drive man Martin Smith, his wife and his children had just left the Kelly bar…400 metres from the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club between 9.50-10.00pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.
“They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.
“As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members [Peter Smith – see above] had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory.
“They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.
Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that. 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is’, said the family member.
“The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence. However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted. 'He definitely didn't see him on the night in question,' said a family member.
“The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. 'They met once in a bar about two years ago. My Dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,' said the family member. 'However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat”.
NOTE, I have been invited by one member, I think Carana, to supply a copy of the article to which Martin Smith objected and felt constrained to consult a solicitor. My belief is that this article was removed from the internet by the paper after Martin Smith's complaint. I also believe that a photograph of him was removed by the paper also. There is a reference to this dispute in the article above, namely this: hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police.
I do not have to hand the name of the newspaper Martin Smith complained about nor the date of publication. I am looking
That is the question but it is not often that you get to feel we are making some progress in this case.
There was a flurry of media reports about the Smiths in early January 2008. On 30th January 2008 Martin Smith told the Garda that;
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories......He has given no stories
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I have learned that media reports are often misleading or downright false. Consequently I'm very reluctant to use or accept most of them as evidence of anything.
OMG, G-Unit, we must stop agreeing on various points. @)(++(*
NB: I AM joking, I agree or disagree with anyone of whatever persuasion if I happen to have reached the same conclusion.
There was a flurry of media reports about the Smiths in early January 2008. On 30th January 2008 Martin Smith told the Garda that;
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories......He has given no stories
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I have learned that media reports are often misleading or downright false. Consequently I'm very reluctant to use or accept most of them as evidence of anything.
Especially since we learned that the McCanns were paying to have constant news coverage . These were the media shy victims of a crime apparently.I don't think you can prove that.
Pathetic.
If he is going past LuzDoc at 09:47 PM perfect timing to be Madeleine's abductor. IMO.
Where did you get that time from, Rob ? Have I missed something or is it in your opinion only ?Good to see you Sadie. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg453059#msg453059 was where I did the calculations.
Good to see you Sadie. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg453059#msg453059 was where I did the calculations.There was 1 payment at 21H39 for 13.75 euros. How many drinks would that buy? Do you pay at the time of getting the drinks and then you got to drink them before getting back out on the road. All seems a bit of a rush. Could be done in 10 minutes I suppose.
Good to see you Sadie. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg453059#msg453059 was where I did the calculations.
I would be interested in any reason Mr Smith would have for saying 60/80% was not true, who would benefit?
His reason? ... Because he believed it to be true?
I would be interested in any reason Mr Smith would have for saying 60/80% was not true, who would benefit?Has anyone considered a connection to the IRA? Gerry being one of the Irish now being involved with the British Government. Could there be a connection?
Yes indeed. So what reason would he have for telling lies and making it up?
Has anyone considered a connection to the IRA? Gerry being one of the Irish now being involved with the British Government. Could there be a connection?
I would be interested in any reason Mr Smith would have for saying 60/80% was not true, who would benefit?
What do you mean?
I mean there doesn't seem to be a reason for MR Smith to make this story up.We would have no idea who Martin Smith knows and what he does in PdL.
ANSWER: These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.
Taken from a post today on YouKnowWhere
From the Metropolitan Police
Dear Mr Bxxxxx
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000241
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.
snipped
QUESTION
4 Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
A On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
B From whom?
C Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?
ANSWER: These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
David Edwards
Information Rights Unit
Operation Grange was set up in 2011 was it not so what are they on about with 2008?
Posts crossed @)(++(*
Time travellers?
So Oakley were axed in August 2008 then handed over their files tout de suite to the MPS, who at that stage were steering well clear of the case, rather than hand it to the Portuguese on whose soil the crime if any was committed ?.
One wonders what Oakley found that prompted them to contact the MPS ?
Curiouser and curiouser
The e-fits were also sent to the PJ, I seem to recall from the statement rebutting the ST article.
Indeed they did but it also says that the dossier was handed to the mps in 2011 which is completely at odds with what the met say in a FOI reply.
It obviously couldn't have been Op Grange, but whoever answered may have simply seen a receipt date stamp on checking their files.
They might even have been sent initially to LP, who passed them on.
Taken from a post today on YouKnowWhere
From the Metropolitan Police
Dear Mr Bxxxxx
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000241
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.
snipped
QUESTION
4 Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
A On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
B From whom?
C Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?
ANSWER: These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
David Edwards
Information Rights Unit
Wouldn't it mean they are looking at some line of inquiry which doesn't involve the Smithman e-fits?
In red bold... sooooo this means? SMith man has come forward OR they know or suspect they know who Smithman is... hmmmm Oooh I say...
Wouldn't it mean they are looking at some line of inquiry which doesn't involve the Smithman e-fits?
Time travellers?
So Oakley were axed in August 2008 then handed over their files tout de suite to the MPS, who at that stage were steering well clear of the case, rather than hand it to the Portuguese on whose soil the crime if any was committed ?.
One wonders what Oakley found that prompted them to contact the MPS ?
Curiouser and curiouser
Taken from a post today on YouKnowWhere
From the Metropolitan Police
Dear Mr Bxxxxx
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000241
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.
snipped
QUESTION
4 Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
A On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
B From whom?
C Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?
ANSWER: These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
David Edwards
Information Rights Unit
I notice some daring posters are disagreeing with the official line about the Smiths. It must be allowed after all.???
Time travellers?I trust that the person who wrote the FOI request in the first place will be on the phone to David Edwards first thing Tuesday morning to clear up this vitally important issue.
So Oakley were axed in August 2008 then handed over their files tout de suite to the MPS, who at that stage were steering well clear of the case, rather than hand it to the Portuguese on whose soil the crime if any was committed ?.
One wonders what Oakley found that prompted them to contact the MPS ?
Curiouser and curiouser
If that's true the information was given to the MPS immediately it was produced. According to the Fund/McCanns it wasn't given to the PJ and LP until 2009, and to OG in 2011.
As yet, however, I have been unable to find this request and reply on any official MPS websites.
When did Operation Grange commence? Is that the question?
This one G?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/madeleine_mccann_case_operation#incoming-1135160
I wonder if the recipient is notified before its published on the met site.
Thanks, Barrier. The plot thickens. So some unnamed private investigators gave the Met some information about a case they weren't investigating?
Thanks, Barrier. The plot thickens. So some unnamed private investigators gave the Met some information about a case they weren't investigating?
Was CEOP part of the Met at that time ? What else was in the dossier?
It isn't the plot that is thickening it's, the confusion amongst armchair sleuths
It's the first time that anyone has suggested that the information was handed to anyone except the directors of Madeleine's Fund/the McCanns before 2009.Does that mean people can stop accusing the McCanns of witholding so-called vital evidence, as has been done in the past?
The MPS were involved from the get go,it didn't need a name just under the umbrella of Operation Task.
Does that mean people can stop accusing the McCanns of witholding so-called vital evidence, as has been done in the past?
Does that mean people can stop accusing the McCanns of witholding so-called vital evidence, as has been done in the past?
Just seen this, Vertigo.I can't help but think that this latest "news" (if it can be called that) is nothing but a grave disappointment to some.
Snap.
Didn't that stop when the Times were taken to task?Not that I'd noticed, to be honest.
It's the first time that anyone has suggested that the information was handed to anyone except the directors of Madeleine's Fund/the McCanns before 2009.
I can't help but think that this latest "news" (if it can be called that) is nothing but a grave disappointment to some.
Thanks, Barrier. The plot thickens. So some unnamed private investigators gave the Met some information about a case they weren't investigating?
Nah, an opportunity to fine tune the consipracy theories...
Not that I'd noticed, to be honest.
The private investigators were working in double quick time or were working away before the archiving in July 2008 to be able to get a file produced by September 2008.
The FOI response mentions the efits, not the entire dossier.
Yeh some one will come up with an abduction before long.
From the FoI reply
"These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008
as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private
investigators that had been working on the case. "
It might not be the whole dossier, but clearly more than just the e-fits . The text is quite clear
Or that the UK forces "knew" that it was Gerry all along and buried it due to pressure from the top due to Gerry's VIP status in the nuclear / cloning / pharmaceutical industry and / or to simply thwart Amaral's career. It may also be why the NSA refused to acknowledge that they had satellites trained on the path towards the beach in PdL that night...
Read again,part of a dossier.
Its best if you don't ingest this guff.
Cites?Cites for me not noticing?
From the FoI reply
"These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008
as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private
investigators that had been working on the case. "
It might not be the whole dossier, but clearly more than just the e-fits . The text is quite clear
The private investigators were working in double quick time or were working away before the archiving in July 2008 to be able to get a file produced by September 2008.
If that's the case, do you find something suspicious about that? If so, what?
Observations of what is written down,why does one need to be suspicious of it? One a FOI reply the other the Archiving date.
Not sure what you're getting at.
If that's the case, do you find something suspicious about that? If so, what?
Observations of what is written down,why does one need to be suspicious of it? One a FOI reply the other the Archiving date.
I was just thinking that.
The Op Task debrief was published some time in 2009. I find it unlikely that the operation shut down overnight when the case was archived. Unless that's the case, the efits would presumably have been fed into the database.
Grange inherited the work already done by Task, so I don't see the issue, beyond referring to the later op name as opposed to the earlier one.
Nitpicking re the name is less important, IMO, than the accusation that the McCanns had sat on them until years later, with insinuations of having deliberately done so for some nefarious reason.
The information was given to the Met in 2008 by the PI's. The e-fits were given to LP and the PJ in 2009.by the Fund/McCanns. The e-fits and dossier were given to OG in 2011 by ? or they were requested from Exton by OG in 2011?
Could be that in 2011, OG were checking that there wasn't anything else that they should know about.Classic question for a policeman - is there anything else that they should know about?
IIRC scuttlebutt had it that Oakley had to receive permission from their client, whichever legal person that was, before handing over the files (?) to the MPS. The permission bit suggests the there was a no divulgence to third parties clause in the contract. That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files.
ORLY?
So “rumour informs” us that Oakley “needed permission” from “someone legal” (their client), before “maybe” handing over the files to “maybe” the MPS.
So “according to rumour”, “IYO”, this “suggests” there was a no divulgence clause to third parties.
So accordingly, “based on rumour”, and “IYO”, this paradoxically “suggests” that there was nothing new, or of serious nature to interest the police, within said files
OH REALLY?
Try putting that to the Courts
BTW, I added the IYO's. Seems that you are privileged and that for YOU they dont matter 8)-)))
Try coming at it from a different angle.
What is a contract?
Can two parties enter into an illegal contract?
What is an accessory after the fact?
Now work from that.
The interesting bit in the contract with Oakley is that we only know one party for sure.
Unless someone on here has had sight of or a copy of said contract.
IIRC scuttlebutt had it that Oakley had to receive permission from their client, whichever legal person that was, before handing over the files (?) to the MPS. The permission bit suggests the there was a no divulgence to third parties clause in the contract. That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files.
IIRC scuttlebutt had it that Oakley had to receive permission from their client, whichever legal person that was, before handing over the files (?) to the MPS. The permission bit suggests the there was a no divulgence to third parties clause in the contract. That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files.
Whether passing on the e-fits had to be techically approved to pass onto the Met or not, even the Sunday Times "correction" about the "Insight" supposed investigative piece doesn't appear to be accurate.
According to the Press Gazette piece ( September 19, 2014), the offending "Insight" article was published on 27 October of the previous year, i.e., 2013.
According to the "correction":
In articles dated October 27 ( "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
Unless basic arithmetic has changed goalposts, 2013 - 5 = 2008.
So why did the "correction" say 2009? Was it to make it seem as if the "hidden for 5 years" allegation was only out by 1 year (i.e., only hidden for 4 and therefore a mere detail?)
Credit where it's due, it's thanks to the FOI response to Tony that the efits were not in fact "hidden" for 5 years.
I'm not sure how that will affect those who have been crowing that the McCanns had "hidden" them because of a potential likeness to Gerry as regards one of them will weave that into a newly fine-tuned conspiracy narrative, but I expect someone will soon find an "explanation".
As regards the last bit of your post: "That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files"...
I'm not sure that it wasn't of interest to the police, but rather that there was no interest in PT in reopening the investigation for a further round and the UK only had a supporting role.
I can't see any mention that the PJ got more than the e-fits in 2009. Is it known when or if they ever got the full dossier?
If the Sunday Times "correction" got the wrong year (2009 as opposed to 2008), there's no way of knowing.
The PJ did apparently get the efits. Hopefully, there was an accompanying report on the process that culminated in that (notes taken on the recollection of features, and by whom, and any cognitive process leading up to them).
If some of the "full dossier" was critical of the PJ, then I could understand that it might not have been very "delicate" to forward the totality at the time.
Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009... what action was taken?
If the Sunday Times "correction" got the wrong year (2009 as opposed to 2008), there's no way of knowing.
The PJ did apparently get the efits. Hopefully, there was an accompanying report on the process that culminated in that (notes taken on the recollection of features, and by whom, and any cognitive process leading up to them).
If some of the "full dossier" was critical of the PJ, then I could understand that it might not have been very "delicate" to forward the totality at the time.
Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009... what action was taken?
I find events in the UK much more interesting.
September 2008;
The dossier and e-fits are handed to the Metropolitan Police.
The Fund and Oakley part company.
November 2008;
The dossier and e=fits are given to the Fund.
Why hand evidence to a police force which wasn't involved?
Why hand evidence to the client after the contract had ended?
Oakley may have had the full support from the Mccanns in sending information to SYThey may very well have.
I find events in the UK much more interesting.
September 2008;
The dossier and e-fits are handed to the Metropolitan Police.
The Fund and Oakley part company.
November 2008;
The dossier and e=fits are given to the Fund.
Why hand evidence to a police force which wasn't involved?
Why hand evidence to the client after the contract had ended?
Wishful thinking?
Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?
Wishful thinking?
Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?
Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?
Looking at the process and ignoring names. Well mentioning names does detract from the principle around here.
1)Party A makes a contract with Party B. The whole point of a contract being that it is enforceable at law (fact).
2)Party A includes includes a "no divulgence to third parties" clause in the contract (hypothetically)
3)Two parties may not enter into an illegal contract as no court will uphold an illegal act (fact).
4)So the hypothetical no divulgence clause only works to a point. That point being where Party B ignores it so he may report to the police what he is duty bound to in order to avoid the potential of being considered an accessory after. In that case Party A has no comeback against Party B wrt to the "no divulgence" clause (fact:see the wholepoint of a contract is that it is enforceable at law)..
5) If Party B had to seek permission from Party A then what is being divulged is probably of little or no more significance than the neighbours cat just having had kittens. (imo).
Once Exton became suspicious about Halligen he investigated him. He then approached the FBI with a dossier of the evidence he had gathered. That led to the FBI beginning their own investigation.It is something that needs to be explained. Who sat on the Smithman e-fits for at least 4 years or was it 5 years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HRCWfPn_k4
Just suggesting causes for the anomalies above.Yet the only causes you can think of involve the finger of suspicion being pointed at the parents, can you genuinely not think of any others?
I was wondering as well if an NDA would apply to the police... I don't see how it could be enforceable, either, even if that were technically the case.
I'm not sure about your point 5 though. I can see it both ways: either, as you suggest, that the dossier wasn't crucial after all or that part of it (including the efits) was indeed considered to be important enough to Oakley to avoid potential charges (if ever) of withholding evidence in a missing child case.
Whether the McCannns / Fund got hold of the full dossier prior to 2009 might be a different issue.
There was apparently a legal saga over the aborted contract, with some disgruntled people that Halligen hadn't paid, so I find it feasible that some of the dosceier may have been withheld pending the outcome of that.... Then, of course, Halligen got nabbed for other offences.
In this instance we know who Party B is but not Party A.
Under most contractual arrangements title of "goods" does not transfer until the appropriate quantum of coin of the realm has been handed over. It can become a bit messy if Party B is subletting to Party C if such subletting is not allowed under the contract. It is normal in most contractual arrangements to have a clause which precludes subletting without prior permission of Party A.
Point 5 was slightly but only slightly tongue in cheek. I am sure you follow the drift.
Not much has been made public about the legal gripes, aside from the fact that Halligen seemingly swanned off with the cash, and didn't pay his disgruntled employees / sub-contractors.
Could some parts of the dossier have been withheld pending sub-contractors getting paid? I find that possible. What, if any, sub-contracting contract actually say? Was it even officially a sub-contract?
A bit of a mess, methinks.
One blown up out of proportion, I would say.
The information contained in this 'ere dossier has been in the hands of the investigating authorities since at least 2011. As Redwood didn't see fit to bring forth the e-fits until 2013, it would suggest to me at least that the dossier contained little of value.
Don't know about that. Smithman may have been the focal point of the programme, but some of the people in the dossier that the PIs thought to be of potential interest were interviewed, I believe, even though they seem to have ended up being crossed off.
One blown up out of proportion, I would say.
The information contained in this 'ere dossier has been in the hands of the investigating authorities since at least 2011. As Redwood didn't see fit to bring forth the e-fits until 2013, it would suggest to me at least that the dossier contained little of value.
One blown up out of proportion, I would say.
The information contained in this 'ere dossier has been in the hands of the investigating authorities since at least 2011. As Redwood didn't see fit to bring forth the e-fits until 2013, it would suggest to me at least that the dossier contained little of value.
Possibly, but not necessarily, IMO.
What problems could have been created if a public appeal by the UK to help identify Smithman had been made before PT reopened its own investigation?
Is it really a coincidence that Crimewatch and the PT reopening both happened in October 2013? Or did both forces need to come to some kind of agreement on how to handle it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24530186
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/missing-madeleine-mccann-investigation-reopened-portuguese-police
My bolded,given it's essentially a Portuguese investigation(Hogan Howe) and the MET are there to assist,its not too far of a stretch to suggest that the MET needed the Portuguese.
Possibly, but not necessarily, IMO.
What problems could have been created if a public appeal by the UK to help identify Smithman had been made before PT reopened its own investigation?
Is it really a coincidence that Crimewatch and the PT reopening both happened in October 2013? Or did both forces need to come to some kind of agreement on how to handle it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24530186
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/missing-madeleine-mccann-investigation-reopened-portuguese-police
I've noticed that coincidence also, and wondered about a possible connection.
I was thinking more like someone of dual nationality actually ... and I have reasons for thinking that, but I could be wrong. I always know that.
I suspected that new information had been offered to either police force, which would have been a reason for the PJ to reopen the archived files. I also suspected a UK person/s was of interest. Just a guess on my part.
I suspected that new information had been offered to either police force, which would have been a reason for the PJ to reopen the archived files. I also suspected a UK person/s was of interest. Just a guess on my part.
Glad to say that I am with you on that.
I think that at least two lots of new info have been passed to SY and Porto Special Force.
I am only guessing on this though.You enjoy guessing, dont you?
You enjoy guessing, dont you?
Better to base your opinion on some solid facts IMO
Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?Why are you deflecting from the course of the thread Alice?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2798.0
A fairly ironic post.If only you knew how many solid facts I have discovered, all your hair would drop out !
If only you knew how many solid facts I have discovered, all your hair would drop out !You don't want Slarty to go bald?
But I aint sharing them with you.
You don't want Slarty to go bald?
Why are you deflecting from the course of the thread Alice?I am not!
You don't want Slarty to go bald?
Let me take a guessMaybe they do.
He probably already is @)(++(*. Some men look very good bald.
I suspected that new information had been offered to either police force, which would have been a reason for the PJ to reopen the archived files. I also suspected a UK person/s was of interest. Just a guess on my part.
Normally, reopening a case requires new, relevant and credible information. However, that is presumably based on the assumption that all the potential leads / evidence had been thoroughly investigated. If that is not the case, then what may be considered to be "new" might be somewhat relative, IMO...
Beyond the T9 / Murat, etc., whose phone usage appears to have been throughly examined, I can't see much in the files of a broader analysis of pings that night, even less a cross-examination between where some people interviewed said they'd been that evening with phone info, for example.
Indeed Carana my sentiments, however there must have been something. What started of as a 'review' became an investigation something must have flipped up ears.' They' not sure who 'they' are, gave a view that the investigation was dealing with 'sensitive' issues or people. ????
I trust that the person who wrote the FOI request in the first place will be on the phone to David Edwards first thing Tuesday morning to clear up this vitally important issue.
@Blonk
What do you hope to achieve (for Madeleine) by addressing all those questions to the Met, many of which they will be unable to answer without compromising the current investigation?
8@??)(
Exactly. What is it all about Blonk?
What is your agenda? Are you hoping to help Madeleine, because it doesn't seem like that.
I would [have] thought if, as some think, that OG is a complete farce, then asking those questions is exactly helping Madeleine imo. Whether the answers will be forthcoming is a different matter. Or even the answers that he would like.
I'm aware that some people subscribe to a variety of conspiracy theories, none of which make much sense to me aside from the value of self-publicity.
My (more mundane) take is that "sensitive" is meant in a diplomatic sense - avoiding overt criticism of any particular foreign-led investigation. I'm not sure that I could easily find what Baggott (?) tried to explain in the Leveson inquiry, but at least my recollection was that the need to maintain a level of mutual cooperation extended way beyond the experience of trying to work together on an individual case.
That made sense to me, as I find it logical that there is still a need for cooperation on a number of major criminal investigations with an international dimension (drug rings, pedophiles, human trafficking, potential terrorists...).
8@??)(
Exactly. What is it all about Blonk?
What is your agenda? Are you hoping to help Madeleine, because it doesn't seem like that.
Thank you @ 'barrier' for (more or less) answering 'misty's question for me.
As everyone on this forum will be aware, the Metropolitan Police has given two wholly contradictory answers as to when Operation Grange first received these two highly controversial efits:
(a) August 2011 and
(b) September 2008.
This is probably the most infamous 'missing child' case in the history of the world, yet it seems that a police force, allegedly the finest in the world, cannot give us straight and honest answers to the simplest of questions.
Let us recall that these efits were the centerpiece of a Crimewatch programme that took over six months to prepare, cost over £2 million. and was watched by an estimated 7 million viewers. The head honcho on this case, DCI Redwood, said on that programme that these efits were, quote: "The centre of our focus".[/b] Now, it seems, they have been quietly discarded.
The public has invested a lot in this case. Thousands have given money, probably totaling millions, to the McCanns to 'find Madeleine'. British taxpayers have shelled out £13 million on this case (Met & Leics police) although I think the real figure is a lot higher. The Portuguese police together with dozens of police forces around the world following up alleged 'sightings' have spent millions more.
'barrier' referred to 'the answers I would like'. All I want is the truth about these efits, given what appears to be a series of evasions about their provenance and when they were passed to various police forces.
Don't forget the public was asked to look for 'Smithman'. At the same time we were asked to believe by the Met that a bloke had just come forward after six years who was the man actually seen by Jane Tanner.
Remarkably, he was walking completely the wrong way from the night crèche, he was carrying his toddler home on a cold early May night at 10pm dressed only in pyjamas, he had actually and very conveniently preserved these pyjamas for six years in a drawer somewhere, and he was wearing, well, exactly the same sort of clothes that Wojcek Krokowski was wearing on his holiday (Krokowski clearly being the 'template' for the 'sightings' of both Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco - a device which fooled Goncalo Amaral and his team on Day Two of the investigation (Saturday 5 May) - see Amaral's book).
The Met Police will not release any information that compromises their investigation - the FoI Act clearly allows them to withhold information.
But I do not see that honest answers to these questions can possibly now hinder the investigation:
On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two efits released and to whom?
On what date (if any) were these efits handed to \Leicestershire Police?
On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and by whom?
On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and from whom?
If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department of the MPS were they received?
The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to the ‘final’ version of the private investigators’ report. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the public interest and (b) assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police that the investigations into Madeleine’s disappearance would be conducted with maximum openness and transparency, please state:
(i) On what date was the ‘final’ private investigators’ report compiled.
(ii) How many interim reports were there before the ‘final report’ and when was each of them compiled?
Has the man in the efits been identified?
If Yes, has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine’s abductor?
If No, is the Met Policer still searching for him?
If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the likely abductor?
The efits still appear on the McCanns’ ‘Find Madeleine’ website despite the MPS ‘no longer using them as part of its appeal’.
Has the MPS advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their website?
If Yes, on what date please.
Will the answers to these questions help Madeleine?
ANSWER: YES. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about ANY aspect of this case will ALWAYS help Madeleine.
That's not what DCI Redwood said, though. His exact words were "But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus".
The significance of the Met identifying Crecheman & speaking to him cannot be underestimated, in my opinion. Whatever was disclosed in that conversation was pivotal to the course of the investigation & in all likelihood the reason for the PJ re-opening their own investigation. Had Crecheman been identified as Tannerman (never confirmed by DCI Redwood), then the clock would have been turned back again to the last time Madeleine was seen.
IMO you have chosen to ignore the fundamental point of when the Smiths' efits were first passed to the PJ team & what the PJ did when they received them - which appears to have been absolutely nothing. Why try to undermine the UK powers-that-be by requesting answers from the Met which are, quite frankly, none of our business until the justified expenditure ceases & the investigation concluded?
All IMO.
That's not what DCI Redwood said, though. His exact words were "But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus".
The significance of the Met identifying Crecheman & speaking to him cannot be underestimated, in my opinion. Whatever was disclosed in that conversation was pivotal to the course of the investigation & in all likelihood the reason for the PJ re-opening their own investigation. Had Crecheman been identified as Tannerman (never confirmed by DCI Redwood), then the clock would have been turned back again to the last time Madeleine was seen.
IMO you have chosen to ignore the fundamental point of when the Smiths' efits were first passed to the PJ team & what the PJ did when they received them - which appears to have been absolutely nothing. Why try to undermine the UK powers-that-be by requesting answers from the Met which are, quite frankly, none of our business until the justified expenditure ceases & the investigation concluded?
All IMO.
@BlonkBeyond satisfying curiosity I really can't see any real point to the exercise, and certainly nothing that will benefit the investigation. It will however cost the taxpayer more money to furnish the (non) answers this letter is likely to receive. Still, it helps pass the time I guess.
What do you hope to achieve (for Madeleine) by addressing all those questions to the Met, many of which they will be unable to answer without compromising the current investigation?
I would of thought if as some think that OG is a complete farce then asking those questions is exactly helping Madeleine imo.Whether the answers will be forthcoming is a different matter.Perhaps you could explain exactly how answering those questions even with complet full and honest disclosure would help Madeleine?
Or even the answers that he would like.
@Blonk
What do you hope to achieve (for Madeleine) by addressing all those questions to the Met, many of which they will be unable to answer without compromising the current investigation?
But they are making a difference. The case gets more funding, when other cases don't.
At a rough guess the same as all those other [insert suitable adjective here] folk who compile dossiers and send in FOI requests relating to this case, in the naive belief they are "making a difference".
What mechanism would the PJ have for publishing the pics as the case was closed?They said they would reopen the case if new evidence came along.
They said they would reopen the case if new evidence came along.
But they are making a difference. The case gets more funding, when other cases don't.
To which "they" do you refer ?The request is to whom? I'm not sure who makes the final decision to approve the funding but if there are politics involved the fact that the general public are still debating the case might influence the decision.
The case receives more funding as a result of requests to the H.O by The M.P.S not as a result of the activities of on line anoraks.
The request is to whom? I'm not sure who makes the final decision to approve the funding but if there are politics involved the fact that the general public are still debating the case might influence the decision.
Are you saying they approve their own funding? When you say "receives more funding as a result of requests to the H.O by The M.P.S", are you implying they are making the request to another part of the same organisation? I didn't realise this.
The request is to whom? I'm not sure who makes the final decision to approve the funding but if there are politics involved the fact that the general public are still debating the case might influence the decision.Sorry it was my mistake I didn't understand HO thinking it was "head office" rather than the UK term "Home Office". In NZ we don't have a "Home Office".
Are you saying they approve their own funding? When you say "receives more funding as a result of requests to the H.O by The M.P.S", are you implying they are making the request to another part of the same organisation? I didn't realise this.
"IMO you have chosen to ignore the fundamental point of when the Smiths' efits were first passed to the PJ team ..."
REPLY: On the contrary. That's one of the things I'm trying to find out! The McCanns stated in a response to the Sunday Times apology that the PJ received them "by October 2009". That's about as vague as you can get. Why did the McCanns not give us a date? More to the point, WHO actually supplied these efits to the PJ? Was it the McCanns? Was it the private investigators? Furthermore, we are given to understand that Henri Exton compiled these efits from the Smiths in the spring of 2008. You have to ask: "Why did not the McCanns and their advisers IMMEDIATELY raise merry hell with the PJ, Leics Police or whoever and shout: "This could be the bloke who stole Madeleine. Get these efits into the media NOW!" Yet we had to wait over five years before being allowed to see them. Maybe it was actually Operation Grange who handed the efits to the PJ 'by October 2009'.
After all 8(0(* they already had them in September 2008 according to the Information Rights Unit of the Metropolitan Police.
" ... & what the PJ did when they received them - which appears to have been absolutely nothing."
REPLY: As far as we know, if they did receive them (and we don't know that for sure), maybe they had already ruled out these efits as of no interest. So far as I can see, their only use to man and beast so far has been to be the focal point of a £2million TV show, and to carry on promoting the abduction narrative.
"Why try to undermine the UK powers-that-be by requesting answers from the Met which are, quite frankly, none of our business until the justified expenditure ceases & the investigation concluded?"
REPLY: Please explain in what possible way asking proper questions about the provenance, history and use of these two mysterious efits can possibly undermine this investigation?
Sorry it was my mistake I didn't understand HO thinking it was "head office" rather than the UK term "Home Office". In NZ we don't have a "Home Office".
We don't have an official called "Home Secretary".
What is "Home Office"? It could be similar to what we call "Internal Affairs"
You appear to be expecting the Met to publicly validate their acceptance of the efits as evidence worthy of inclusion in the investigation's TV appeal, while that may not be in keeping with their true intention. The provenance & history of the images are not issues for which the Met are accountable.
...folk who compile dossiers and send in FOI requests relating to this case, in the naive belief they are "making a difference".
Blonk have you wondered that the reason the efits weren't shown before SY had opened the case, was because the case had been closed?
Blonk have you wondered that the reason the efits weren't shown before SY had opened the case, was because the case had been closed?
Well, yes, actually, I have...
...but then I have also wondered why these efits were produced in early 2008 but not used for five-and-a-half years after they were produced...
...and in particular I have wondered why:
1 The McCanns didn't immediately make them public in early 2008
2 The McCanns didn't show them to the PJ before they archived the case in July 2008
3 The McCanns did not make sure they were shown in the May 2009 C4/Mentorn documentary
4 The McCanns never put the efits on their website, along with the Smithman audio recording, in May 2009
5 The McCanns never made them public themselves (despite going public with other sightings and their own efits e.g. the Victoria Beckham-lookalike, Barcelona, August 2009)
6 The McCanns never put the efits in their book, 'madeleine', which emphasised that Tannerman was probably Smithman
7 Operation Grange gets mixed up over when they received the efits
8 It took Operation Grange two years and five months (May 2011 to October 2013) to get round to showing us the efits, and
9 Instead of showing us the efits at the first available opportunity, Operation Grange wasted over six months' time and over £1 million preparing TV show.
Nothing stopping the McCanns form doing it as they were outside the jurisdiction of the PJ
Whatever their excuse was, they simply chose not to. IMO
So how do you know that for sure?
I don't think the McCann's were in a position to show the e-fits.
Well, yes, actually, I have...
...but then I have also wondered why these efits were produced in early 2008 but not used for five-and-a-half years after they were produced...
...and in particular I have wondered why:
1 The McCanns didn't immediately make them public in early 2008
2 The McCanns didn't show them to the PJ before they archived the case in July 2008
3 The McCanns did not make sure they were shown in the May 2009 C4/Mentorn documentary
4 The McCanns never put the efits on their website, along with the Smithman audio recording, in May 2009
5 The McCanns never made them public themselves (despite going public with other sightings and their own efits e.g. the Victoria Beckham-lookalike, Barcelona, August 2009)
6 The McCanns never put the efits in their book, 'madeleine', which emphasised that Tannerman was probably Smithman
7 Operation Grange gets mixed up over when they received the efits
8 It took Operation Grange two years and five months (May 2011 to October 2013) to get round to showing us the efits, and
9 Instead of showing us the efits at the first available opportunity, Operation Grange wasted over six months' time and over £1 million preparing TV show.
Oh yes they were, as I said in my post (it seems you overlooked point 5 of my post).
In August 2009, the McCanns called a press conference.
They had a new 'suspect' - a young Australian woman said to look like Victoria Beckham. She was suspected of having abducted Madeleine on a yacht bound for Australia. At that press conference Clarence Mitchell held up an efit/photofit of the suspect - someone on here will perhaps help me out with a photograph of that press conference. The efit was drawn up by the McCanns and their Team and presented by the McCann Team.
They needed no authority from the PJ, or Operation Grange, or Leics Police, or anyone else, to display their efits, and develop their story.
Just like they needed no permission from anyone to release the Smithman efits - certainly they didn't need any permission after July 2008 when the PJ investigation was archived.
AND BY THE WAY
1 At the above press conference, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman carrying Madeleine on 3 May, not a man
2 The McCann Team was savagely criticised by several people and organisations in Barcelona in a subsequent Mail on Sunday article - for not having made the most basic checks on the claims they were making about this alleged suspect and the yacht in question
3 A week after that the Mail on Sunday ran another article based on information supplied by the owner of iJet, a company based in Virginia. He said that Brian Kennedy had not followed up one single call made to the McCann Team Investigation Hotline, which he had operated on behalf of the McCanns
Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation? I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw, the sighting that was reported to the PJ.From what you ask and say I would say your understanding of the situation needs improvement.
From what you ask and say I would say your understanding of the situation needs improvement.
In what way Rob?"Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?" - Yes 2 weeks later
"Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?" - Yes 2 weeks later
"I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw" - NO because the McCanns PI's got the e-fits done.
"the sighting that was reported to the PJ" - YES but then why was the E-fits not done by the PJ?
The private detectives had to hand their findings over to the PJ, the Smith e-fits were handed to the PJ, why was that? In my opinion, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PJ had to give permission for the e-fits to be released.I started this thread to discover answers about the e-fits and it has been a total surprise the way the thread continues to come up with new information. I don't know the answers to your question sorry.
Your three-year-old child disappears while on holiday and a year later you secure two e-fits (possibly others too) of a person who might have been involved and you do very little about it? $65*What is that reason, in your opinion?
There's only one reason I can think of for not promoting the images immediately.
The private detectives had to hand their findings over to the PJ, the Smith e-fits were handed to the PJ, why was that? In my opinion, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PJ had to give permission for the e-fits to be released.
Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation? I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw, the sighting that was reported to the PJ.
That is my opinion, too. The Smith family sighting formed part of a Portuguese police criminal investigation, whereas the VB lookalike sighting was reported to & dealt with by a private investigation. The McCanns could not authorise the release of the Smithman efits without compromising witnesses in the PJ case.
That is my opinion, too. The Smith family sighting formed part of a Portuguese police criminal investigation, whereas the VB lookalike sighting was reported to & dealt with by a private investigation. The McCanns could not authorise the release of the Smithman efits without compromising witnesses in the PJ case.Which witnesses would they be compromising? Once the case is archived judicial secrecy would ceased then surely?
Which witnesses would they be compromising? Once the case is archived judicial secrecy would ceased then surely?
It doesn't matter that judicial secrecy ceased in August 2008. What mattered is that 2 of the Smith family would have been shown as unreliable witnesses, based on their original statements, if the McCanns had allowed the efits to enter the public domain. That could have proved to any future prosecution in Portugal.....but as SY have subsequently released the efits, presumably with the blessing of the PJ....then IMO the witnesses were never as important as some people believe.
It doesn't matter that judicial secrecy ceased in August 2008. What mattered is that 2 of the Smith family would have been shown as unreliable witnesses, based on their original statements, if the McCanns had allowed the efits to enter the public domain. That could have proved to any future prosecution in Portugal.....but as SY have subsequently released the efits, presumably with the blessing of the PJ....then IMO the witnesses were never as important as some people believe.
The only people the PI's had to answer to was their clients.
The PI's had to hand their findings to the PJ.
Was the publication of the Tannerman efit authorised by the PJ ?
I posted this before but here it is again -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
I posted this before but here it is again -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Tacit approval. Meaning not stated. I don't think the PJ were asked for their approval, were they?
Perhaps they just gave a metaphorical shrug of the shoulder and ignored it.
Releasing the artist's impression of Tannerman did not undermine the credibility of Jane's witness statement.
True, her sighting had already been dismissed as unreliable by the PJ, I think.
Cite, please.
Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
snipped
Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.
Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm
How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?
Sorry, I thought it was general knowledge;
10th September 2007
The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
The question wasn't whether the PJ were correct to dismiss Tanner's sighting, it was whether they did so before the sketch was released. According to my cite they had.
Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07Was Jane involved with these artist's impression of Tannerman?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
snipped
Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.
Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm
How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?
I was aware of that. It's just curious that so many dismiss Jane Tanner's description as unreliable, despite the image's consistency with her original statement yet fail to notice the glaring deficiencies in the Smiths' statements used to produce efits.
MOO.
Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
snipped
Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.
Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm
How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?
Sorry, I thought it was general knowledge;
10th September 2007
The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Had to ? Do you have a cite for that?
The detective has been quoted as saying they did. So, if the PI's only had to answer to the McCann's, why do you think they had to hand in the e-fits to the PJ?
snipped - In articles dated October 27 [..] we referred to e-fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the e-fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershite police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the e-fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011 [..] we apologise for the distress caused.' unquote
Neither the PI's, the McCanns or the directors of Madeleine's Fund were required to pass any information to anyone unless they chose to do so.Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?
The detective has been quoted as saying they did. So, if the PI's only had to answer to the McCann's, why do you think they had to hand in the e-fits to the PJ?
snipped - In articles dated October 27 [..] we referred to e-fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the e-fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershite police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the e-fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011 [..] we apologise for the distress caused.' unquote
Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?
Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?
Is it? Did they have potential evidence of a crime? What crime? Were 'the authorities' investigating a crime? What was the crime? Were the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fits handed to the authorities? If not, why not?
Your cite doesn't state that the detectives HAD to do anything. There is no mention of coercion on the part of LP or PJ
And yet they did for almost a year if the Times apology is to be believed.Who did?
Neither the PI's, the McCanns or the directors of Madeleine's Fund were required to pass any information to anyone unless they chose to do so.
Is it? Did they have potential evidence of a crime? What crime? Were 'the authorities' investigating a crime? What was the crime? Were the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fits handed to the authorities? If not, why not?Sorry, I thought the police in Portugal and the PIs were treating Madeleine's disappearance as a crime, sorry if I am mistaken.
So why would they pass them to the PJ?
The Victoria Beckham e-fits weren't part of Amaral's investigation.
Cite please
Neither were the Irish family's e-fits.
No, but the Smith's sighting was part of Amaral's investigation.
No, but the Smith's sighting was part of Amaral's investigation.
Who did?
The Portuguese investigation had been archived. It was no longer active.
Then why did they pass the e-fits to the PJ?
Then why did they pass the e-fits to the PJ?
When is an e-fit not an e-fit?When it is not fitting to call it an e-fit?
No one really knows anything much about this e-fit business do they? Still it's fun guessing.
When is an e-fit not an e-fit?
Yes, I Certainly laughed out loud with he many descriptions fro efits from Jane Tanner of a non abductor...
Jane Tanner's sighting was validated by the Met.
When the witness has made an identification from other photographic evidence.
How about when the witness has not seen the face?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1149925/Essex-Police-explain-create-e-fit-images-suspects.html
Several of the Smith family allegedly saw his face, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Certainly, if identified from the efits, the "chief suspect" has not suffered the Cheshire Cat treatment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5603419/Cheshire-Cat-burglar-lookalike-forced-deny-friends-point-resemblance.html
Jane Tanner NEVER saw her boogy mans face.. we moved on from Smith...
Several of the Smith family allegedly saw his face, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Certainly, if identified from the efits, the "chief suspect" has not suffered the Cheshire Cat treatment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5603419/Cheshire-Cat-burglar-lookalike-forced-deny-friends-point-resemblance.html
I see over on cmomm T Bennett has received from the MET clarification on when they received the e-fits,October 2011.
Something seems wrong with that story.
Which bit Rob?I recalled we were being told the photo fits were passed on earlier than that by someone else. The two stories did not align IMO.
I recalled we were being told the photo fits were passed on earlier than that by someone else. The two stories did not align IMO.
According to the Madeleine Fund the e-fits were given to the PJ and LP in 2009. The report and the e-fits were given to OG in 2011. They never said who by.So do we have to think that the LP could have had the e-fits in 2009 but they were not passed on to Operation Grange until 2011.
So do we have to think that the LP could have had the e-fits in 2009 but they were not passed on to Operation Grange until 2011.
So do we have to think that the LP could have had the e-fits in 2009 but they were not passed on to Operation Grange until 2011.When did Operation Grange start?
So do we have to think that the LP could have had the e-fits in 2009 but they were not passed on to Operation Grange until 2011.
Alternatively, as there had been some legal wrangling over the fact that Halligen had swanned off leaving a number of disgruntled sub-contractors, his outfit may have handed over part of the dossier in 2009, but the Met didn't get the full dossier in 2011.
Wouldn't that have been rather petty behaviour for a group of highly trained professionals?
When did Operation Grange start?Here is an exact date and time:
Not necessarily if they'd expected Halligen to pay them and weren't.
Alternatively, as there had been some legal wrangling over the fact that Halligen had swanned off leaving a number of disgruntled sub-contractors, his outfit may have handed over part of the dossier in 2009, but the Met didn't get the full dossier in 2011.
Here is an exact date and time:Thank you, Rob ....so Operation Grange wasn't even there in 2009 ?
"At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation GRANGE."
Thank you, Rob ....so Operation Grange wasn't even there in 2009 ?Apparently not. SY would have to refer people to the LP if they had information about the case up to that hour.
It has been claimed that the e-fits were given to the PJ and LP in 2009. We don't know who by. There was no mention of a report or dossier being handed over at that time. The report and e-fits were both given to OG in 2011.So that allows for at least two parties being able to supply OG with the e-fits:
So that allows for at least two parties being able to supply OG with the e-fits:
1. LP
2. the PIs
The MET in its reply to T Bennett say it was the PI's.
Which confirms what Exton said in 2013.Still doesn't explain why the LP didn't pass on the e-fit in May 2011. IMO this information should have been handed over immediately.
Still doesn't explain why the LP didn't pass on the e-fit in May 2011. IMO this information should have been handed over immediately.
Perhaps LP put them into HOLMES. I expect OG were given access to that information when they took over. I can't see why LP would flag the e-fits up as a matter of urgency though.
snipped from where please?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/panorama-maddie.html
4 SEP 2008 is the firm date for the production of the e-fits. I.e close to a year after the McCanns were declared arguidos.16 months after the sighting.
From the Met Police reply to some FOIAct questions re OPERATION GRANGE:
QUOTE
7. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
REPLY: The efits were drawn up on 04/09/08. The request "by whom" seeks access to personal data – Refused.
11. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and by whom?
REPLY: The efits were supplied to Operation Grange on 24th October 2011. The request "by whom" seeks access to personal data - Refused.
UNQUOTE
COMMENT: The question asks when the efitswere 'drawn up'. The answer is that they were 'drawn up' ON (and not 'by') 4 September 2008. As has been pointed out, that was 16 months after the alleged 'sighting'.
In view of the highly controversial nature of these sightings, we might want to ask:
- Who contributed to the efits? Mainly Martin Smith? Mainly Aoife Smith? Mainly Peter Smith? All three of them equally? Were the other six Smiths who allegedly also his man also consulted wen the efits were 'drws up'?
- Were sketches drawn?
- Were alternative sketches done?
- Why on earth were two very DIFFERENT efits produced - with several noticeable differences between the two efits?
- Were they drawn up by Henri Exton - or not?
Then there are some other questions:
- If they were drawn up on 4 September 2008, when were they given to the McCanns?
- Why did the McCanns not give these efits to the police straightaway? [NOTE: In their statement to the Sunday Times, they would only state on the record that they had given them to Leicestershire Police and the Portuguese Police 'by' October 2009 - over a year later]
- Why the vague 'by' October 2009. Why not give the actual dates? - there will surely be a record of when they did so
- What did Leicestershire Police do with the efits?
- What did the Portuguese Police do with the efits?
- Why were the efits not handed to Operation Grange until 24 October 2011, by which time they had been up and running for 5 months?
- Why did it take until 14 October 2013 - two years later - for the efits to be shown to the public?
- And why is Operation Grange no longer looking for the 'man of the Smithman efits'? Has he been traced? Has he been eliminated?
- If so, who is the 'man of the Smithman efits'?
When you consider these and many other questions about the Smithman efits, it becomes very clear that we still know remarkably little about them.
2 different efits might have been the work of two different witnesses, rather than composite images.
The vague date of 'by October' might be due to the 2 forces receiving them on different dates.
Did LC hand them onto PJ, or vice versa ?