Author Topic: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits  (Read 90535 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #210 on: December 22, 2013, 08:36:12 PM »
I can understand that to a certain extent (if it had been respected, which it wasn't),  but what did the PJ have in place to alert the public to phone in about potential sightings with relevant details in the early days? 

How would that have been efficient if no distinguishing features had been made public?
I've always found laughable the obsession in spreading photos of Madeleine among the GNR/PJ, as if many 3/4 yrs would be walking around on their own.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #211 on: December 22, 2013, 08:38:12 PM »
No they wouldn't.

At least not if they were obeying their own rules.
Why don't you inform yourself about those rules ?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #212 on: December 22, 2013, 08:43:34 PM »
Why don't you inform yourself about those rules ?

I am informed ....

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #213 on: December 22, 2013, 08:48:27 PM »
So-called 'Evolutionary systems', a very recent technique (not apparently used here), produce vastly better results.

The images are composed differently (rather than making a composite of facial features, the witness responds to various pictures they are shown, and a 'holistic' picture is created consisting of a composite of the images they select).

The resulting picture is also in 3-D giving a far more realistic aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_composite
Are you sure it was not used in the Smithman e-fits ?

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #214 on: December 22, 2013, 08:48:57 PM »
I am informed ....
You don't seem so.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #215 on: December 22, 2013, 08:54:42 PM »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #216 on: December 22, 2013, 08:57:29 PM »
The e-fit system seems to be standard police procedure in a lot of countries, doesn't it.

Just found this fascinating tidbit regarding the success of e-fits. I looked this up because I remember hearing on a crimewatch episode a long time ago the claim that e-fits had assisted the police on many occasions.

The E-FIT and Pro-fit systems used in the UK have been subjected to a number of formal academic examinations. In these studies, composites were correctly named,[clarification needed] either immediately or a few hours after construction, approximately 20% of the time.[1][2][3] In one study in which witnesses were required to wait two days before constructing a composite, which matches real use more closely, naming rates fell to only a few percent.[4][/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-FIT
That's very interesting.
I suppose that it's difficult to generalize. We all know that some faces are characteristic, most aren't.
I've recently seen a picture of one of the disguises used by Ernesto Guevara (actually the one the Che used to enter in Bolivia). He changed his hair totally and was shaved... His so singular way of looking, his nose, his mouth, all this is there, but we're cheated by the hair and lack of beard.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #217 on: December 22, 2013, 09:00:41 PM »
Fully so ...
Back up your claims, please.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #218 on: December 22, 2013, 09:09:05 PM »
Back up your claims, please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569668/McCann-friend-saw-Madeleines-abductor.html

sic:

A spokesman for Portugal's Policia Judiciaria said: "To speak out like this while an investigation is ongoing is illegal.

"It is a breach of the secrecy of justice laws and as such is punishable by up two years in prison. These laws are in place to protect evidence and for anyone connected with an investigation - be it a witness, arguido or police officer - to discuss the case publicly is not permitted.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 09:10:55 PM by ferryman »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #219 on: December 22, 2013, 09:14:31 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569668/McCann-friend-saw-Madeleines-abductor.html

sic:

A spokesman for Portugal's Policia Judiciaria said: "To speak out like this while an investigation is ongoing is illegal.

"It is a breach of the secrecy of justice laws and as such is punishable by up two years in prison. These laws are in place to protect evidence and for anyone connected with an investigation - be it a witness, arguido or police officer - to discuss the case publicly is not permitted.

This is no backing up.
Btw Ms Tanner at best saw a man carrying a child, not an abductor. She shouldn't take her terrors for reality.
Why were people calling her a liar ?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 09:16:31 PM by AnneGuedes »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #220 on: December 22, 2013, 09:15:32 PM »
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #221 on: December 22, 2013, 09:16:06 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569668/McCann-friend-saw-Madeleines-abductor.html

sic:

A spokesman for Portugal's Policia Judiciaria said: "To speak out like this while an investigation is ongoing is illegal.

"It is a breach of the secrecy of justice laws and as such is punishable by up two years in prison. These laws are in place to protect evidence and for anyone connected with an investigation - be it a witness, arguido or police officer - to discuss the case publicly is not permitted.

"I just saw a person walk along the top of the road with what could have been a child in his arms." >@@(*&)

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #222 on: December 22, 2013, 09:18:15 PM »
This is no backing up.
Btw Ms Tanner at best saw a man carrying a child, not an abductor. She shouldn't take her terrors for reality.
Why were people calling her a liar ?

It is the incontrovertible proof of my assertion ...

Offline sadie

Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #223 on: December 22, 2013, 09:20:21 PM »
If Tannerman was the abductor then he had to be hiding in the apartment when Gerry did his check and then left by way of the front door at 9.10pm. The same time that Jane leaves the tapas bar and walks up the road and spots him. He wouldn't have time to abduct Madeleine unless it happened that way. But that doesn't explain the Smithman sighting 45 minutes later or the open window. If this was a case of a pre-planned abduction then it must be the worst plan ever! You don't go walking the streets with an abducted child in your arms. That is a last resort and probably the only solution to a disaster that has happened!
He did not have to be hiding in the apartment, although it is possible.  If the apartment was watched then a an aduction with a key could have been accomplished in less than a minute ... and no finger prints on the door.  The time is continually being stretched I notice .... so it happened at 9.10 now, did it?  It could have been any time between 9.10 and 9 22 imo.

With a key via the front door and a watcher, it is perfectly possible.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits
« Reply #224 on: December 22, 2013, 09:22:08 PM »
It is the incontrovertible proof of my assertion ...
@)(++(*