Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?

[Brietta]

We know from his statement that Mr Smith did not have a clear view of the man’s face, so if this is efit is indeed from the Smith sighting I think the only possible candidate for its source must be Aoife - although uncertain, interviewed properly she could have remembered - or one of the others in the party whose statements we have not seen.
 
Do you think the depiction is of the same person, Sadie? Hairline, nose, shape of face and eyebrows etc: certainly do mirror each other.  The L/H one does indeed resemble quite a few people (accusing no one) while the R/H one is much more polished and more specific to a particular individual. Easily recogniseable imo.

Maybe an updated version using top notch software?   

Martin Smith
He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

Aoife Smith
Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.

PETER DANIEL SMITH
Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
— States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.

[misty]

My own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality.
The abduction was one issue. The cover-up was a separate matter and also facilitated a money-making scheme.
I also believe Almeida's role in all this has been largely ignored. It's just a shame Guilhermino Encarnacao died before the Met opened Op. Grange.

[Brietta]

My own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality.
The abduction was one issue. The cover-up was a separate matter and also facilitated a money-making scheme.
I also believe Almeida's role in all this has been largely ignored. It's just a shame Guilhermino Encarnacao died before the Met opened Op. Grange.

I have watched the Crimewatch footage again and it seems clear the DCI refers to the man seen by the Smiths in the context of the efits.

I am not sure that such detailed images could have been produced by folk who did not see the man's face and who said in their statements that they would be unable to recognise him.

So I am still not convinced these efits are anything to do with the Smiths.

 - snipped -
Now, the Irish couple who were interviewed by police following the girl's disappearance are bracing themselves to be re-interviewed.
Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect.

Mary Smith told the Herald today that the family still sees Madeleine story as a "terrible tragedy" and that they will co-operate fully with investigators.

"At this point we just don't know whether we will be called but of course we will cooperate fully. Madeleine's disappearance was just a terrible tragedy," she added.

"We have not been contacted by police yet and we will wait for their instructions," she added.

http://www.herald.ie/news/irish-couple-to-help-new-maddie-probe-28003417.html

[Wonderfulspam]

'However, my own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality.'


WTF?

The Smith family all trippin were they?

[stephen25000]

'However, my own opinion is that Smithman does not actually exist in reality.'


WTF?

The Smith family all trippin were they?

How dare we think otherwise.

[pathfinder73]

I know who was very pleased when Martin said 9:50. He didn't have a clue about the correct times as the Dolphin receipt proves. 9:50 was the time used in the McCanns reconstruction and that time has been discarded by the yard.

[Brietta]

SY traced the ‘innocent’ father who may have been Tannerman by the expediency of checking the evidence in the form of the crèche records.

If Smithman and 'Madeleine look alike daughter' could not be traced from the crèche records and has not yet come forward; it suggests either that he may well be the abductor or that he may not exist.
It is a matter of record that none of the Smith family had a good enough look at this man’s face to say he looked like anyone: so categorically he did not “look a bit like Gerry” and your constant repetition of the lie tends only to highlight your agenda based on ignorance of the facts.

You add nothing to the discussion except to illustrate exactly the perfidy of the cause you endorse and the tactics used to promote it.

[pathfinder73]

The evidence is the time 10:03 connects to the sighting time. Aoife said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm and she was the only one correct on the Dolphin time. Somebody will have to explain 10:03 and then further questions will be asked about it. Why that exact time was said and why it was claimed Kate took 10 minutes before returning. That contradicts other witness statements. Why was 10:03 to 10:13 so important?

[misty]

There is no physical evidence to support the cadaver odour or existence of Smithman either. -

[pathfinder73]

There is no physical evidence to support the cadaver odour or existence of Smithman either. -

There's 9 eye witnesses who passed Smithman and the child who matched Madeleine's description in a deep sleep.

[misty]

The evidence is the time 10:03 connects to the sighting time. Aoife said they left Kelly's Bar at 10pm and she was the only one correct on the Dolphin time. Somebody will have to explain 10:03 and then further questions will be asked about it. Why that exact time was said and why it was claimed Kate took 10 minutes before returning. That contradicts other witness statements. Why was 10:03 to 10:13 so important?

How many witnesses have to be incorrect for Aoife to be correct?
There is one witness who said searching was going on at around 2145 hrs - http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm

[faithlilly]

Brietta I know you're not too keen on being asked questions but could you please explain this part of your post to me ?

'or that he ( Smithman ) may not exist.'

Have I got it wrong or have Bennett and yourself at last found something you both agree on ?

[Brietta]

There's 9 eye witnesses who passed Smithman and the child who matched Madeleine's description in a deep sleep.

There were children in the party who would not have been expected to corroborate a sighting to which the adults hardly paid attention.

There are three witness statements in the files.

[Wonderfulspam]

Smithman?

Scotch mist innit.

That's what DCI Brain Cells & SY's +140 I.Q club have concluded.

[faithlilly]

Smithman?

Scotch mist innit.

That's what DCI Brain Cells & SY's +140 I.Q club have concluded.

You can almost smell the desperation.