The Smith sighting revisited.

[Brietta]

Only that the article leaves the reader to work out the e-fits were compiled in May or later 2008 and it does not say by whom they were commissioned. It would be interesting to know.

There definitely is a muddying of the waters as far as these efits are concerned; the grounds for the settlement of the claim were never clarified; maybe one day all will be revealed.
I, for one, am taking Halligan's word for nothing.

[Alice Purjorick]

There definitely is a muddying of the waters as far as these efits are concerned; the grounds for the settlement of the claim were never clarified; maybe one day all will be revealed.
I, for one, am taking Halligan's word for nothing.

Well the dear old Romans had a nice expression cui bono.
So who did bono (not the geezer in U2 you understand)

[faithlilly]

Well the dear old Romans had a nice expression cui bono.
So who did bono (not the geezer in U2 you understand)

One thing we do know, it certainly won't have been Madeleine !

[Alice Purjorick]

One thing we do know, it certainly won't have been Madeleine !

As I recall there is rather interesting bit in Summer's and Swann's book about the hiring of Oakley.
Here I paraphrase of course, mainly to head of the professional nitpickers at the pass, but fundamentally they [Oakley] are alleged to have said "well we employ all these ex spies and Feds but can't tell you what we really do cos it's all so secret and national security may be jeopardised if we tell you".
My view is one doesn't need to have been around the block too many times to see what is coming around the corner at you there.

[ferryman]

I’m very unsure about the Smith family sighting and I am certainly at a loss to see how they could give such an accurate description of a man they saw fleetingly in the dark.
I don’t know if admin will allow the attachment to stand … but I think the efit may be a generic representation which resembles a number of people … I can think of at least four well known faces connected to the case and I’m sure we could come up with others if we tried.

I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.

What I do believe is this.

Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse.  Gerry does not need identification.

I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

The second e-fit mystifies me slightly.  I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.

Not seen confirmation of that, though ...

[Brietta]

I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.

What I do believe is this.

Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse.  Gerry does not need identification.

I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

The second e-fit mystifies me slightly.  I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.

Not seen confirmation of that, though ...

Logic tells me you are correct regarding SY and I think Sadie concurs with you on Aoife. 

Maybe I have been reading too many conspiracy theories and it is rubbing off. 

This time last year my teething pack on Madeleine’s case included the “dogs don’t lie” mantra and the Smith sighting. 

I have always wondered at the convenience for one and the inconvenience for another of that … and the similarities of Tanner and Smith. 

It is only very recently that I reread the McKluskey mistaken identifications that I became aware of the same coincidence of similarity ... Tanner predated Smith … McCluskey predated Smith.

The efits may be a true representation, I don’t know but they do have a story to tell I am sure, just as I think SY know exactly what they are doing.

[faithlilly]

I don't think Scotland Yard would have made the e-fit a cenrepiece of the Crimewatch programme if it wasn't genuine.

What I do believe is this.

Martin Smith said in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008 that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

Indeed, it is common sense that all the time he was of the view that the Smiths might have seen Gerry, he would refuse.  Gerry does not need identification.

I think it was after the investigation was archived and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the man might have been Gerry that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

The second e-fit mystifies me slightly.  I tend to think that might be his daughter Aofe's, simply because she and her father were the two most observant witnesses of what the Smiths all saw that night.

Not seen confirmation of that, though ...

Firstly ferryman Martin Smith made his identification of Gerry after Gerry was made an arguido and not after the archiving of the case.

Secondly if, as we were told in the part of the Times article that wasn't disputed by the McCanns, that Exton had produced a report that was unfavourable to the tapas group perhaps it was on that basis that Martin Smith provided the efit.

[ferryman]

Interesting ... particularly the date ... Oct 16, 2013 07:59
   
If this article is accurate ... it gets even more curious … and begs the question why there was such a furore over the Drs McCann and the release of these efits.

If the Smiths returned to Portugal to assist the PJ with efits which were not released … why was that anything to do with the Drs McCann.

Am I missing something here?

I think it might have been slightly longer than a year later, some point after August 2008, when the investigation was shelved.

That would explain perfectly why the efits were not immediately released.

You simply cannot release an efit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted other than in the context of a live, on-going enquiry.

And yes, we know about all the other releases of sightings, but none of someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted ...

ETA: a further point worth noting is that police (British and Portuguese) were of exactly the same view.

At least at the time, the e-fits were not considered sufficiently significant to warrant continuation of the investigation, and neither the Portuguese nor British police released them.

Even if they were in a position to (which isn't clear to me) why should the McCanns have gainsaid the police?

[Eleanor]

This is the thing.  The McCanns were hardly hiding these E-Fits on purpose, or for their own protection.

[ferryman]

Firstly ferryman Martin Smith made his identification of Gerry after Gerry was made an arguido and not after the archiving of the case.

Secondly if, as we were told in the part of the Times article that wasn't disputed by the McCanns, that Exton had produced a report that was unfavourable to the tapas group perhaps it was on that basis that Martin Smith provided the efit.

Identification, yes, but not the e-fit.

And Elenor makes a vital point.

Kate devotes copious space in her book to discussion of the Smith e-fit.

She tended to the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but that was Kate's opinion.

Exton's report is neither here nor there ...

[lordpookles]

That is strange indeed.

[Eleanor]

Identification, yes, but not the e-fit.

And Elenor makes a vital point.

Kate devotes copious space in her book to discussion of the Smith e-fit.

She tended to the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but that was Kate's opinion.

Exton's report is neither here nor there ...

I agree with Kate.  I am very unsure that the man Jane Tanner saw was some innocent party.

[Wonderfulspam]

I agree with Kate.  I am very unsure that the man Jane Tanner saw was some innocent party.

Clearly, Jane Tanner is sure she saw Innocent Man, or she would have said something by now, wouldn't she.

[Eleanor]

Clearly, Jane Tanner is sure she saw Innocent Man, or she would have said something by now, wouldn't she.

Why would she do that?  It is an ongoing investigation.

[Wonderfulspam]

Clearly, Jane Tanner is sure she saw Innocent Man, or she would have said something by now, wouldn't she.

But then, Kate knows better than Jane, what Jane saw, doesn't she.

She knew the child Jane had seen had bare arms, even though Jane never mentioned seeing the childs arms.....


McCanns on Oprah (4th May 2009)

Gerry : "Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo.. she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.."

Kate: "The child was barefoot and bare armed..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=820