Who was the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking?

[Miss Taken Identity]

The police had had those efits since 2009. The PJ chose not to publicise any efits (not even those based on other witnesses of lurkers). LP had them as well, but until the UK launched their own investigation, they couldn't take any initiative.

The Madeleine Fund was in a legal battle with Oakley and even though Oakley had been paid, Halligen hadn't paid numerous people who had been subcontracted.

I find it quite likely that one of the issues was the legal right for the Madeleine Fund to publicise them until the legal wrangles had been settled. As we know, in the middle of all that, Halligen had disappeared, was then found, arrested, tried and ended up in jail for owing rather a lot of money in a different saga.

Once the Met had opened their own investigation, as a police force they probably had - or managed to obtain - the legal authority necessary, which the Madeleine Fund may never have had.

And the book publisher would not use copyrighted material without permission.

That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.

For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.

If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce.  The fund owned the pictures.

[pathfinder73]

That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.

For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.

If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce.  The fund owned the pictures.

Agreed. One day we may find out what really happened and why.

[misty]

That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.

For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.

If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce.  The fund owned the pictures.

The fund only owns the pictures if the sub-contractor has paid the photographer for producing them.

[G-Unit]

The efits weren't hidden at all.

I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.

We haven't actually been told where the efits came from. Rumour says that Oakley International included them in a dossier handed to the McCanns in 2008, and the Smith family helped to produce them. The Smith's denied this in a statement 30th Jan 2008. They may have changed their minds later, of course;

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

In the same statement he said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.

 The archiving of the case in Portugal occurred around August 2008. Oakley International are supposed to have been threatened with legal action by the McCanns if they made their dossier public because it was critical of the parents. The efits didn't appear in Kate McCann's book published May 2011, and they don't appear on their website now. If the McCanns had the efits in 2008 they could have released them to the media but they choose not to, allegedly because Jane Tanner's sighting was being promoted and releasing more efits would have confused the issue.

[Brietta]

Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.

So what momentous conclusions have we reached?

Did or did she not exist?

If she did ... who was she?

If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?

[Miss Taken Identity]

The fund only owns the pictures if the sub-contractor has paid the photographer for producing them.

No, that is not the case. There would have been a consultation, with a remit, this would have included all relevent material which was in the file would belong  to the fund. If that wasn't the case then a photographer can remove his bits and so on until there is no file, so what was purchased?

I believe the McCANNS fought to stop Oakley from publishing the file, and support them for that because, McCANNS were the owners of the material.

The material, was requested by NSY as part of their 'investigation'.

[misty]

No, that is not the case. There would have been a consultation, with a remit, this would have included all relevent material which was in the file would belong  to the fund. If that wasn't the case then a photographer can remove his bits and so on until there is no file, so what was purchased?

I believe the McCANNS fought to stop Oakley from publishing the file, and support them for that because, McCANNS were the owners of the material.

The material, was requested by NSY as part of their 'investigation'.

If the efits had not been paid for by Oakley, then Oakley did not own them and they could not form part of Oakley's case file.
Scotland Yard, however, would have been able to acquire them once they had opened OG, as was their legal right.

[misty]

Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.

So what momentous conclusions have we reached?

Did or did she not exist?

If she did ... who was she?

If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?

I find the fact that she was apparently Irish fascinating.....

[Brietta]

I find the fact that she was apparently Irish fascinating.....

Well ... there were a lot of Irish out and about who seemed to be in particular places at particular times ... what would have been unusual about one hanging about on a balcony if required?

[DCI]

We haven't actually been told where the efits came from. Rumour says that Oakley International included them in a dossier handed to the McCanns in 2008, and the Smith family helped to produce them. The Smith's denied this in a statement 30th Jan 2008. They may have changed their minds later, of course;

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

In the same statement he said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.

 The archiving of the case in Portugal occurred around August 2008. Oakley International are supposed to have been threatened with legal action by the McCanns if they made their dossier public because it was critical of the parents. The efits didn't appear in Kate McCann's book published May 2011, and they don't appear on their website now. If the McCanns had the efits in 2008 they could have released them to the media but they choose not to, allegedly because Jane Tanner's sighting was being promoted and releasing more efits would have confused the issue.

Why didn't Martin Smith recognise Gerry, when he gave his statement on the 26th May. He had seen Gerry on TV for 3 weeks before he gave it. He could identify his clothing

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. 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.
Yet 4 months later he suddenly recognises him. Odd these statements have different spellings for Gerry's name,

[Miss Taken Identity]

If the efits had not been paid for by Oakley, then Oakley did not own them and they could not form part of Oakley's case file.
Scotland Yard, however, would have been able to acquire them once they had opened OG, as was their legal right.

Oh right, yes , sorry that would be correct. I never thought that was the case. However, they could have been acquired by warrant by police as part of an investigation anyway.

[Brietta]

Why didn't Martin Smith recognise Gerry, when he gave his statement on the 26th May. He had seen Gerry on TV for 3 weeks before he gave it. He could identify his clothing

Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. 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.
Yet 4 months later he suddenly recognises him. Odd these statements have different spellings for Gerry's name,

Given the media exposure at the time, some photographic and some video quite a few of which portrayed the twins being carried, I find it surprising that Peter Smith had to jog his family's collective memories of their sighting a fortnight after the event.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Given the media exposure at the time, some photographic and some video quite a few of which portrayed the twins being carried, I find it surprising that Peter Smith had to jog his family's collective memories of their sighting a fortnight after the event.

If you were surprised by that you must have been shocked beyond belief that the parents and the Tapas forgot a lot of things about that week and day and they were there with Madeleine the whole time...well apart from..


Witness statement>   errm um yeah you know like .. you know  errr um yeah I um ...I don't remember...

Duh!

[G-Unit]

Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.

So what momentous conclusions have we reached?

Did or did she not exist?

If she did ... who was she?

If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?

She is not included in the files, but neither are other witnesses, so we don't know if she exists, and we don't know who she was; although she wasn't a Smith. I can't find any girls of that age in Block 6, but some apartments may have been occupied but not included in the Ocean Club records. The newspaper article suggests this was the case.

We have no evidence that Graham McKenzie mentioned the cigarette butts to the police on 5th May when he saw them. He doesn't mention this in his statement, only in a newspaper interview ages after. He mentioned them first in a statement made in December 2007 when he was interviewed by Leicester Police at the request of the PJ.

The newspaper article was written in October 2007 when no-one knew that McKenzie had seen the cigarette butts, so she was not invented to discount his story, which could suggest a hidden watcher.

Maybe the PJ invented her to dismiss Jane Tanner's story, which supported the abduction thesis. I can't think of another reason; anyone?

If the McCann's invented her. We know Gerry left the Tapas followed by Jane at about 9.15pm. We know that Kate mentioned Gerry was being a long time. We know Gerry came back followed by Jane. Without Jane Tanner's evidence we have only Jeremy Wilkins saying Gerry was there. Jane's evidence is suspect as Gerry and Jeremy didn't see her. Jeremy Wilkins refused to be tied to an exact time. He said he spoke to Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm. On the timeline on Madeleine's book cover Jeremy is not mentioned, but Gerry wasn't very involved in doing it I don't think.

[misty]

Well ... there were a lot of Irish out and about who seemed to be in particular places at particular times ... what would have been unusual about one hanging about on a balcony if required?

The 14 year old girl & her father weren't on the OC guest list according to the press report.
It makes me chuckle (sorry) to think that the PJ could have used 2 Irish girls of 12 & 14 yrs as prime witnesses in a case against the McCanns. What were they thinking?