The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits

[Carana]

What do you mean exactly by isolation, Anne?

Personally I feel that the two recent efits are more likely to have created confusion in the public rather than anything else.

Have we ever seen a case where two entirely different looking efits of the same person have been presented side by side, and always published as a pair?

What is the logic to this?

Wouldn't it have been an idea to release the efits one at a time, the second one to be released after a few months if there was insufficient response from the first?

Not necessarily... They were apparently different impressions of the same person, and no one knows whose impression may be more accurate. There doesn't appear to have been any CCTV to be able to double-check, so that's all there is to go on, presumably.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not necessarily... They were apparently different impressions of the same person, and no one knows whose impression may be more accurate. There doesn't appear to have been any CCTV to be able to double-check, so that's all there is to go on, presumably.

Well that's true, Carana, but you're looking at it from the angle of someone who is following the case very closely and has a lot of background information in mind when viewing the programme.

I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the average viewer, who will of course be very aware of the case but probably won't know a lot of detail. (I didn't pay very close attention to it until about 12 months ago. Before then, I had read only headlines. Only when I started reading more did I learn of the existence of so-called 'Smithman', for example, and other things that we on this site take for granted).

The fact that we and SY know the reason why two e-fits were composed - different impressions resulting from descriptions given by members of a group - does not make the interpretation or recognition of those images any easier for the public. They are being faced with visual information that is essentially quite contradictory.

If you are going to get a strong message across to the public it has to be done clearly and simply. In advertising for example, the message has to be strongly made and relatively simple. That is not to insult the audience, who have a sophisticated relationship with the media today. You can be sophisticated  -with graphics; with a certain selling point or interesting angle that you are going to take. But you still have to be clear in your message, and, especially in a short bit, that normally means sticking to one point and elaborating on it, and leaving out the rest.

Perhaps SY thought they were doubling their chances of finding Smithman by releasing a 'double' image - but in effect they were just clouding people's minds. IMO.

[AnneGuedes]

What do you mean exactly by isolation, Anne?

Personally I feel that the two recent efits are more likely to have created confusion in the public rather than anything else.

Have we ever seen a case where two entirely different looking efits of the same person have been presented side by side, and always published as a pair?

What is the logic to this?

Wouldn't it have been an idea to release the efits one at a time, the second one to be released after a few months if there was insufficient response from the first?

By "isolated" I meant "not exhibited side by side".
I find it hard to understand why DCI RW presented those e-fits without even explaining that they had been drawn according to two witnesses sighting the same person and illustrated how testimonies are relative data.
I therefore agree that the way those e-fits were mentioned in CW was counterproductive.
Why didn't DCI RW try to get new e-fits ? Martin Smith and his wife should be excluded because they could hardly abstract themselves from the feeling they had in sept 2007.
But why not asking Aoife, Peter, possibly his wife and his wife's son ?
I suppose that would imply a rogatory letter to the Irish justice authorities.
What I suggested was that the McCanns might have concluded (or used as a pretext) it was better to publish no e-fit than two antinomic ones.

[AnneGuedes]

If 2 people made an e-fit of the same person then I'd imagine they would both be different but have obvious similarities such as hair length, colour, skin colour.

Once those 2 e-fits have been created then it would be logical to me to show the other witness to see if one is better than the other. If no agreement can be reached then not knowing which had the better likeness would force both e-fits to be released.

Hope that makes sense  >@@(*&)

If there were 2 witnesses of the same scene, yes. But if there were 6 ?

[AnneGuedes]

There doesn't appear to have been any CCTV to be able to double-check,

There has been better than what a CCTV could do in matter of shape of a chin in the darkness.
Why not double checking with the Gerrylookalike description ?

[AnneGuedes]

(I didn't pay very close attention to it until about 12 months ago. Before then, I had read only headlines. Only when I started reading more did I learn of the existence of so-called 'Smithman', for example, and other things that we on this site take for granted).

Very interesting information, SH !
If we suppose that not many people "started reading more"...

[AnneGuedes]

Perhaps SY thought they were doubling their chances of finding Smithman by releasing a 'double' image

If you're right here, SH, what does it mean ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you're right here, SH, what does it mean ?

Well it's hard to articulate because the whole idea of the two pictures is so non-sensical.

I think what I was trying to say was that SY may have thought that in releasing two pictures to the public there was a greater chance of someone's memory being jogged. Different people see different aspects of a person, and there might be something in one of the pictures that would jog someone's memory. If only one picture had been selected by SY and released, and the second one happened to contain a better likeness to Smithman (or an element that a certain witness might recognised) then perhaps an opportunity for a certain witness coming forward would have been diminished.

I don't know if that makes sense. I'm just trying to think of a reason why SY did what they did - and I can't think of a good one. Certainly the decision they made here is plain confusing.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If 2 people made an e-fit of the same person then I'd imagine they would both be different but have obvious similarities such as hair length, colour, skin colour.

Once those 2 e-fits have been created then it would be logical to me to show the other witness to see if one is better than the other. If no agreement can be reached then not knowing which had the better likeness would force both e-fits to be released.

Hope that makes sense  >@@(*&)

Well that would explain why they were both published certainly.

But it doesn't alter the fact that for the viewing public the whole thing just looks odd.

When are we ever presented with pictures of a person with a different face in each case? It's just not something we see! We might see a face from different angles, or with different hair /make-up, or the image of a whole person wearing different clothes. These things alter the overall effect drastically. But to be presented with two different heads apparently belonging to the same body - it's surreal.

From the view of cognition and perception, it's something that's very hard for us - because we never see it in reality.

[Sherlock Holmes]

By "isolated" I meant "not exhibited side by side".
I find it hard to understand why DCI RW presented those e-fits without even explaining that they had been drawn according to two witnesses sighting the same person and illustrated how testimonies are relative data.
I therefore agree that the way those e-fits were mentioned in CW was counterproductive.
Why didn't DCI RW try to get new e-fits ? Martin Smith and his wife should be excluded because they could hardly abstract themselves from the feeling they had in sept 2007.
But why not asking Aoife, Peter, possibly his wife and his wife's son ?
I suppose that would imply a rogatory letter to the Irish justice authorities.
What I suggested was that the McCanns might have concluded (or used as a pretext) it was better to publish no e-fit than two antinomic ones.

Very interesting points.

Regarding new e-fits, is this something that is done after a length of time? Would the family even remember how the person looked? A stranger walking quickly whom they only glimpsed for only a few seconds?

[AnneGuedes]

Very interesting points.

Regarding new e-fits, is this something that is done after a length of time? Would the family even remember how the person looked? A stranger walking quickly whom they only glimpsed for only a few seconds?

One thing is not being able to describe the face of someone you hardly saw in the dark and had no reason to recall, another perhaps is being able to eliminate faces.

[AnneGuedes]

We might see a face from different angles, or with different hair /make-up, or the image of a whole person wearing different clothes. These things alter the overall effect drastically. But to be presented with two different heads apparently belonging to the same body - it's surreal.

From the view of cognition and perception, it's something that's very hard for us - because we never see it in reality.

More than "very hard", in fact "surreal" is the right word !

[AnneGuedes]

I'm just trying to think of a reason why SY did what they did - and I can't think of a good one.

Neither can I. Despair perhaps ?
The trouble with those e-fits is the emptiness of the eyes and the lack of expression that you can't neglect because there's only a face.
Then none of the Smith can have seen Smithman like this. They should have sketched Smithman's figure with the little girl on his shoulder. Then they could have corrected the sketch asking each member of the family his/her opinion.

[Redblossom]

Very interesting points.

Regarding new e-fits, is this something that is done after a length of time? Would the family even remember how the person looked? A stranger walking quickly whom they only glimpsed for only a few seconds?

Apparently the efits were done about a year and a half after the events, c Sept 2008

Now to throw another spanner in the works, Carlos Anjos, I dont know his exact title, but he is or was head or spokesman of the policemans union, dont quote me on that though....suggested one of the faces was an age progression of the other...Andy Redwood never mentioned this in CW, so Im not sure if CA was speculating or not....but as with your example in the previous posts, an age progression would surely have similarities to the younger face, these two do look like two separate people....or the same person seen by different people who have come up with a different face....why does nothing much in this case make sense? Could it be too many chefs in the kitchen?

Anyway, here is a link to CAs tv interview and translation....around paragraph six or so


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/carlos-anjos-release-of-e-fits-is-very.html

Eta
Seems the video link on JMs blog is not working, here is an alternative

http://cmtv.sapo.pt/opiniao/detalhe/carlos-anjos-divulgacao-de-retrato-robo-e-muito-pouco-profissional.html

[Sherlock Holmes]

Neither can I. Despair perhaps ?
The trouble with those e-fits is the emptiness of the eyes and the lack of expression that you can't neglect because there's only a face.
Then none of the Smith can have seen Smithman like this. They should have sketched Smithman's figure with the little girl on his shoulder. Then they could have corrected the sketch asking each member of the family his/her opinion.

I agree. The overall picture is important when it comes to jogging the memory.

The face is vital of course, but form, stance, clothing, etc., are very important too. All things that could trigger recognition.

I'm not a big fan of mugshots because they're abstract. When do we ever see a floating head in reality?

These matters are basics in the psychology of perception. We assimilate things into our minds in context. And we normally only recover the memories of those things from the framework through which they were assimilated, especially with visual imagery. Methinks the Yard could have done with a few more advisors in this area.