How likely is it that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the 'same' man ?

[AnneGuedes]

It could serve to trigger the memory of someone who saw her in 2007. So in my opinion not ludicrous at all.

She wasn't a toddler in 2007. There were photographs made in PDL, I wonder why they didn't stick to them instead of showing pictures of a Madeleine as she wasn't any more. The public couldn't but be confused. Really counterproductive.

[Redblossom]

Think about what you just posted Redblossom.

Hypothetically speaking - When (God forbid) your child goes missing. You are the last person to have seen her/him and you will be asked by the police for the description of the clothing the child was in when you last saw him/her. That would go into the description of the sketch. You would be the last witness to have witnesses what the child was wearing.

Nope

The last thing worn should NOT be injected artificially into a sighting when the sighter never saw it, and if it was unknown if the sighting WAS of that child  hello????

[Mo Stache]

If the purpose of the sketch was to identify if it was the missing child being carried then the artist should not add anything that is not escribed to her. Besides if the child was not carried at an angle where Tanner could see her top, why is the children being drawn in a way that you can ? Rather misleading to say the least.

The clothing would have been ascribed to her by the police/police report or the parents. And the sketch's aim is to emphasis the child; what the child looked like and what the child wore. It was not important to get the angle at which she was being carried correct.

[Mrs. B]

No reason for police to think that the top would have been different, they were looking for a missing child who they knew was wearing that particular pajama when she disappeared. They weren't looking for any other missing child, as no other child had been reported missing.

[Mo Stache]

Nope

The last thing worn should NOT be injected artificially into a sighting when the sighter never saw it, hello????

So in your opinion the child should be sketched naked.

[Mo Stache]

She wasn't a toddler in 2007. There were photographs made in PDL, I wonder why they didn't stick to them instead of showing pictures of a Madeleine as she wasn't any more. The public couldn't but be confused. Really counterproductive.

Could you please clarify "as she wasn't any more", thank you.

[Redblossom]

So in your opinion the child should be sketched naked.

What a totally pathetic response, the POINT is not what the child was wearing when she went alledgedly  missing,  the point is what the WITNESSES saw DOH!! And no there is no proof what  Tanner saw was Madeleine, YOU think about it see YA!!!!!!!

[AnneGuedes]

LOL No, police sketch artists can use the impressions of several witnesses to draw a sketch of a potential suspects for example, what matters is to draw a picture representing an impression that is as close to reality as possible. All information is taken into account when doing this. It's for the benefit of the PUBLIC, not police.

Mrs. B, I'm glad you're laughing again, this time may be for the same reason as I do. I really find these sketches, this gallery of freaks, totally implausible. When John pinpointed the George Harrison lookalike, I laughed even more.
This is not serious and the public surely felt manipulated.

[faithlilly]

The clothing would have been ascribed to her by the police/police report or the parents. And the sketch's aim is to emphasis the child; what the child looked like and what the child wore. It was not important to get the angle at which she was being carried correct.

The sketch artist sketches exactly what the witness tells them, nothing else or else the sketch would be of no value. Surely even you can see that ?

[Mrs. B]

No, I'm not laughing at that at all. People saw different people & there were several different people of interest to the investigation. That doesn't mean that every person seen on the sketches were supposed "abductors" or even involved, some of them could simply have been witnesses who were seen at a particular place at a particular time & could have information that could be of interest to police.

[AnneGuedes]

Could you please clarify "as she wasn't any more", thank you.

Mo Stache, there was a time you were a little girl of 2/3, you don't remember but then you were said to be a toddler. You're not 2 any more, for sure, at least you are 7 now, and very likely more.

[faithlilly]

No reason for police to think that the top would have been different, they were looking for a missing child who they knew was wearing that particular pajama when she disappeared. They weren't looking for any other missing child, as no other child had been reported missing.

But the police had no way of knowing that the child being carried was Madeleine. That was what they were trying to find out.

[AnneGuedes]

No, I'm not laughing at that at all. People saw different people & there were several different people of interest to the investigation. That doesn't mean that every person seen on the sketches were supposed "abductors" or even involved, some of them could simply have been witnesses who were seen at a particular place at a particular time & could have information that could be of interest to police.

I guess you wouldn't laugh if a survey had been done among the public after the publication of one of this grotesque sketches.

[AnneGuedes]

But the police had no way of knowing that the child being carried was Madeleine. That was what they were trying to find out.

Yes of course. And the worst is that the public feels considered like mentally retarded. With a certain reason. Who will believe that the search for Madeleine is behind this ?

[Redblossom]

I guess you wouldn't laugh if a survey had been done among the public after the publication of one of this grotesque sketches.

Anne,  when mr spottyman was put on the news here on sky the presenter tried hard to hide his laughter
!!!!