The Smithman e-fits - are the McCanns less than happy with them?

[Brietta]

That would be wrong but it wouldn't be wrong to say their friend/ally did.

Channel 4 were happy to give it airtime and that's their business, but it can't be argued it's anything other than a longer version of a party political broadcast. Like her film 12 months earlier it's a personal tribute.

Just as Channel 4 were happy to up their ratings ... Madeleine McCann's parents were equally as happy to use the programme to up the profile of their continuing search for her.

To that end Dr Kate McCann uses the opportunity to publicise the sighting of the man the Smith family said they saw.


Voice over: The most likely sighting of Madeleine and her abductor was by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns.

In the files, Kate believes another witness statement from an Irish family, describes a very similar sighting to Jane’s. Less than a mile from the McCann’s apartment.

Kate: The reason why this is significant is.... both sightings were given independently.

So, when this family gave their statement they weren’t aware of Jane's description and there’s actually quite a lot of similarities ... and it does beg the question... I mean, how many people carry their children on a cold night, not covered, you know? 

Nothing on their arms, or their feet - no blanket.

Now, either there’s been two people carrying children that way who haven’t come forward to eliminate themselves, or potentially they’re related.

Voice of Interviewer: But, you think that child is Madeleine?

Kate: I think there's a good chance it could be Madeleine.

                    Certainly the description there sounds to me like Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

[mercury]

Just as Channel 4 were happy to up their ratings ... Madeleine McCann's parents were equally as happy to use the programme to up the profile of their continuing search for her.

To that end Dr Kate McCann uses the opportunity to publicise the sighting of the man the Smith family said they saw.


Voice over: The most likely sighting of Madeleine and her abductor was by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns.

In the files, Kate believes another witness statement from an Irish family, describes a very similar sighting to Jane’s. Less than a mile from the McCann’s apartment.

Kate: The reason why this is significant is.... both sightings were given independently.

So, when this family gave their statement they weren’t aware of Jane's description and there’s actually quite a lot of similarities ... and it does beg the question... I mean, how many people carry their children on a cold night, not covered, you know? 

Nothing on their arms, or their feet - no blanket.

Now, either there’s been two people carrying children that way who haven’t come forward to eliminate themselves, or potentially they’re related.

Voice of Interviewer: But, you think that child is Madeleine?

Kate: I think there's a good chance it could be Madeleine.

                    Certainly the description there sounds to me like Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

Whilst SITTING on the  efits at the time and not putting them in, ok

[misty]

Just as Channel 4 were happy to up their ratings ... Madeleine McCann's parents were equally as happy to use the programme to up the profile of their continuing search for her.

To that end Dr Kate McCann uses the opportunity to publicise the sighting of the man the Smith family said they saw.


Voice over: The most likely sighting of Madeleine and her abductor was by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns.

In the files, Kate believes another witness statement from an Irish family, describes a very similar sighting to Jane’s. Less than a mile from the McCann’s apartment.

Kate: The reason why this is significant is.... both sightings were given independently.

So, when this family gave their statement they weren’t aware of Jane's description and there’s actually quite a lot of similarities ... and it does beg the question... I mean, how many people carry their children on a cold night, not covered, you know? 

Nothing on their arms, or their feet - no blanket.

Now, either there’s been two people carrying children that way who haven’t come forward to eliminate themselves, or potentially they’re related.

Voice of Interviewer: But, you think that child is Madeleine?

Kate: I think there's a good chance it could be Madeleine.

                    Certainly the description there sounds to me like Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

The description of Tannerman was made public by the PJ the day before the Smiths made their statements.
No-one previously in the know could therefore have been accused of leaking information to the Smiths.

[Brietta]

The description of Tannerman was made public by the PJ the day before the Smiths made their statements.
No-one previously in the know could therefore have been accused of leaking information to the Smiths.

Don't know about that, Misty.

Jane Tanner gave her description of the man she saw on the 4th ... so it was there on file in some form or other from that date.

[Brietta]

Whilst SITTING on the  efits at the time and not putting them in, ok

You don't know that and can only speculate.

Rather extraordinary Dr McCann would publicise the Smith family carrier in Madeleine Was Here and in her book ... and at the same time try to hide his existence.

[mercury]

You don't know that and can only speculate.

Rather extraordinary Dr McCann would publicise the Smith family carrier in Madeleine Was Here and in her book ... and at the same time try to hide his existence.

yes extraordinary...are you saying Oakley/Exton gave them a report in November 2008 which included the efits which the Mccanns say they forward to the Leicester and Portuguese police a year later LOL and never saw the efits in it? But which their fund spokesman said they decided not to release cos they could only give so much money to concentrate on one sighting? IE the Tanner one?

[Lyall]

I'm almost feeling sorry for you, Brietta. Defending the impossible-to-defend isn't easy.

You should just agree you don't know why they behaved as they did.

[Brietta]

I'm almost feeling sorry for you, Brietta. Defending the impossible-to-defend isn't easy.

You should just agree you don't know why they behaved as they did.

I'm defending nothing for the simple reason I don't have to ... simple logic tells me that the Sunday Times did not hand over fifty five grand and apologise because their report was spot on ... it was obviously very seriously flawed.  Which, if you are using it as the basis of your criticism makes your criticism just as seriously flawed.

[Lyall]

I'm defending nothing for the simple reason I don't have to ... simple logic tells me that the Sunday Times did not hand over fifty five grand and apologise because their report was spot on ... it was obviously very seriously flawed.  Which, if you are using it as the basis of your criticism makes your criticism just as seriously flawed.

We know what was wrong with the facts in that article because the correction told us. It wasn't very seriously flawed at all. In fact just one aspect was changed.

At least that's as far as we know. If more was wrong with it we haven't been told, so you have nothing to support your claim it was "very seriously flawed". You're simply guessing, and isn't that what you're always telling us not to do?

[mercury]

I'm defending nothing for the simple reason I don't have to ... simple logic tells me that the Sunday Times did not hand over fifty five grand and apologise because their report was spot on ... it was obviously very seriously flawed.  Which, if you are using it as the basis of your criticism makes your criticism just as seriously flawed.

it was only slightly wrong in the dates the MCCANNS GAVE THE EFITS to police all else is kosha as has been explained before....you should actually be thinking about why the Mccanns thought they had any jurisdiction over evidence...!!!! And chose to do what they wanted with its.. It's a seriously wtf moment but I'm sure you will explain it all away... any police person/ lawyer worth their salt might call it perverting the course of justice /withholding information??? give your grey cells an exercise Brietta ...THE MINUTE the Mccanns  got their report and efits they should have forwarded them to police not wait for a year, what ARE YOU ON??? You'd think the Mccanns were trying to control the investigation...surely not

[G-Unit]

Just as Channel 4 were happy to up their ratings ... Madeleine McCann's parents were equally as happy to use the programme to up the profile of their continuing search for her.

To that end Dr Kate McCann uses the opportunity to publicise the sighting of the man the Smith family said they saw.


Voice over: The most likely sighting of Madeleine and her abductor was by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns.

In the files, Kate believes another witness statement from an Irish family, describes a very similar sighting to Jane’s. Less than a mile from the McCann’s apartment.

Kate: The reason why this is significant is.... both sightings were given independently.

So, when this family gave their statement they weren’t aware of Jane's description and there’s actually quite a lot of similarities ... and it does beg the question... I mean, how many people carry their children on a cold night, not covered, you know? 

Nothing on their arms, or their feet - no blanket.

Now, either there’s been two people carrying children that way who haven’t come forward to eliminate themselves, or potentially they’re related.

Voice of Interviewer: But, you think that child is Madeleine?

Kate: I think there's a good chance it could be Madeleine.

                    Certainly the description there sounds to me like Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting

The Smith's sighting was in the PJ Files. The McCanns seem to have decided to link the two sightings together in the documentary and the book. The suggestion being that they were the same man. Had they shown the e-fits which (allegedly) they had in their possession at the time it would have been clear that it wasn't the same man. Unless it took him 45 minutes to reach the Smiths because he stopped for a late-night haircut.

[ferryman]

We know what was wrong with the facts in that article because the correction told us. It wasn't very seriously flawed at all. In fact just one aspect was changed.

At least that's as far as we know. If more was wrong with it we haven't been told, so you have nothing to support your claim it was "very seriously flawed". You're simply guessing, and isn't that what you're always telling us not to do?

When was the e-fit produced?  By the end of January 2008, it hadn't been, because in his statement to the Irish Gardia police at that date, Mr Smith says he had been approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

It was surely produced after the case was archived after early August 2008, when the files were released and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the person the Smiths all saw was Gerry.

Very shortly thereafter, the e-fits were with British police who, themselves, chose the moment of their public release.

[stephen25000]

When was the e-fit produced?  By the end of January 2008, it hadn't been, because in his statement to the Irish Gardia police at that date, Mr Smith says he had been approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

It was surely produced after the case was archived after early August 2008, when the files were released and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the person the Smiths all saw was Gerry.

Very shortly thereafter, the e-fits were with British police who, themselves, chose the moment of their public release.

Where is the signed (and verified) statement from Mr. Smith saying this ?

[ferryman]

Where is the signed (and verified) statement from Mr. Smith saying this ?

Who, in their right minds, would produce an e-fit of a man they thought was Gerry?

[stephen25000]

Who, in their right minds, would produce an e-fit of a man they thought was Gerry?

So the answer is NO, to my question.

As to being in their right minds, go back to what happened on 5 successive nights in Portugal.