The Smith sighting revisited.

[pegasus]

@Sadie Yes I did sharpen the one face with some scissors and he still looks absolutely nothing like the other one from any angle.
Therefore it is likely one efit is of smithman and the other efit is of a different man,  probably englishphonecallman.

[sadie]

@Sadie Yes I did sharpen the one face with some scissors and he still looks absolutely nothing like the other one from any angle.
Therefore it is likely one efit is of smithman and the other efit is of a different man,  probably englishphonecallman.

It wasn't just "sharpening it, but also making the chgin the same length.

TBH, I am really surprised that you cant see so many likenesses, even to the ten oclock shadow only on the upper lip and to the quirky little lift at the corner of the mouth... on both of them

Too many things are alike imo for the two images to be of different men ..... brothers excepted maybe.

[pegasus]

It wasn't just "sharpening it, but also making the chgin the same length.

TBH, I am really surprised that you cant see so many likenesses, even to the ten oclock shadow only on the upper lip and to the quirky little lift at the corner of the mouth... on both of them

Too many things are alike imo for the two images to be of different men ..... brothers excepted maybe.

Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.

[sadie]

Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.

I understand what you are saying, but it is not impossible that Smithman had stopped off somewhere [especially if JT's sighting is still on ther books 40 minutes earlier] and put another layer on a cold Madeleine..... and maybe drugged her some more.


Only suggestions.

[Anna]

Admittedly in your support SY did state that both efits are of the same man. I think they are two different men. IMO smithman is of no relevance as the child sleeves are too long. I wonder what the child sleeve length associated with the supposed phonechattingcarrier sighting is - unfortunately the newspaper report does not say.

Apart from a press report, there is no details of this sighting anywhere, unless, of course it is one of the missing pages or it was binned.

[pegasus]

Apart from a press report, there is no details of this sighting anywhere, unless, of course it is one of the missing pages or it was binned.

IMO it was not probably not known to the original investigation, but was discovered by a PI company.

The pair of efits are so different IMO they are two different men. So one efit is by someone in Smith party and other efit is by a witness of a seperate sighting in same quarter of town but a bit later than smith sighting. The only candidate IMO is the chattingonphoneman sighting. Both efits were done by a PI company, therefore it was that PI company which discovered the witness who saw chattingonphoneman, SY eventually getting the info from them. JIMO

[Anna]

IMO it was not probably not known to the original investigation, but was discovered by a PI company.

The pair of efits are so different IMO they are two different men. So one efit is by someone in Smith party and other efit is by a witness of a seperate sighting in same quarter of town but a bit later than smith sighting. The only candidate IMO is the chattingonphoneman sighting. Both efits were done by a PI company, therefore it was that PI company which discovered the witness who saw chattingonphoneman, SY eventually getting the info from them. JIMO

I still believe it is the same man and the identikit was done by two of the smith family... only one saw his face properly though, he looked down when two approached him, and another only seen him from the back, so that leaves Mum Dad and daughter= Dad and daughter

[pegasus]

Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them.
IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy.
(If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).

[Brietta]

Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them.
IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy.
(If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).

Perhaps one completed using software on a portable device ... the other as a result of a 'clean up' using more sophisticated imagary based on the same information back at base??

[sadie]

Just noticed the two efits seem to differ in the method used to produce them.
IMO one is a smooth picture and the other is grainy.
(If both were by smith group I would expect to see same technology in both).

There were several adults or older kids that saw this man.  Just cos only three, Martin, Peter and Aoife gave statements, doesn't mean that several others didn't contribute to the images.  I think that the LH image is by Aoife and the RH image an overlay of several images ....hence its woolleyness. 

... and possibly its graininess?


There is no chin on the RH image; the face just vanishes into the neck.  Probably because he had his head down as far as possible, with his chin in his neck + poor lighting.


The LH image however was constructed by someone in good light.
Where Aoife stood was very well lit with a powerful tall streetlight to illuminate this main crossing across R 25 Abril.  I think that the LH image was Aoifes .... or someone with her.


I think he was a good looking youngish bloke, who took a liking to the looks of Aoife, hence the slight smile stretching his mouth and bright eyes.




THe very fact tht the RH image shows that Smithman had his head really low, indicates to me that he did not want anyone seeing his face .. and that he was up to no good .  I think that Smithman was carrying a living but drugged Madeleine ... and I think he was the abductor

[pegasus]

The difference in graininess of the two efits indicates IMO they were done by two different efit experts, using different drawingmaterials/software.

If both efits are by smith group it's likely they would have been done both by the same efit expert/materials/software.
Therefore IMO one of the efits is not by the smith group.

[John]

The difference in graininess of the two efits indicates IMO they were done by two different efit experts, using different drawingmaterials/software.

If both efits are by smith group it's likely they would have been done both by the same efit expert/materials/software.
Therefore IMO one of the efits is not by the smith group.

Evening all.  I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to.  How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group?  But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?

[Anna]

Evening all.  I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to.  How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group?  But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?

Prhaps one was done in portugal, or by PIs and the others were done by police
in Ireland. They haven't been done by the same identikit programme.

[pegasus]

Evening all.  I must admit pegasus, I have often wondered about that to.  How could they come up with such different e-fits if this person was seen by the same group?  But more importantly, why did Redwood pass them off as the Smith's sighting in that BBC Crimewatch prog if they both aren't?

In crimewatch he clearly associates the pair of efits with the sighting by the irish group.
So one of the efits at least must be by someone in irish group.
The other efit IMO could be by another witness who saw a man carrying a girl in the same area of town.
Does Mr R ever specifically say "both these efits are by members of the irish group" ?

[John]

In crimewatch he clearly associates the pair of efits with the sighting by the irish group.
So one of the efits at least must be by someone in irish group.
The other efit IMO could be by another witness who saw a man carrying a girl in the same area of town.
Does Mr R ever specifically say "both these efits are by members of the irish group" ?

I cant be sure without watching it again but wasn't there another sighting of a guy on the beach that night too?