SY Crimewatch Smithman Efits

[ferryman]

Regardless of the dogs dinner article by the Sunday Times, the bottom line was that the e-fits were indeed withheld from public scrutiny for over 5 years.  They were created by Halligen and Exton of Oakley in 2008 and not publicly released until October 2013.

Who withheld them and why should be the question?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.msg95381#msg95381
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3147.msg115737#msg115737

Answered, over and over.

They were produced right at the end of the shelved enquiry when it was considered (including the efits) that there was not enough material to continue investigating any leads.

You always needed the context and background of a live and on-going enquiry to investigate a sighting of a man carrying a child, in close proximity to apartment 5a, at just about the time Madeleine was abducted.

It really is that simple.

[G-Unit]

Answered, over and over.

They were produced right at the end of the shelved enquiry when it was considered (including the efits) that there was not enough material to continue investigating any leads.

You always needed the context and background of a live and on-going enquiry to investigate a sighting of a man carrying a child, in close proximity to apartment 5a, at just about the time Madeleine was abducted.

It really is that simple.

1. That is your opinion only.
2. This excuse was never offered by the McCanns.
3. It didn't stop them releasing other efits.

[John]

The bit which doesn't fit for me is this.

Your young daughter disappears and two men are seen 45 minutes and 200 metres apart carrying a young female child clad similarly to the missing child.  E-fits are provided for both men yet the e-fit with no facial detail (eggman) is released while two detailed  e-fits relating to the second man are intentionally withheld.

One could be forgiven for thinking that they had no desire to find this man?

[ferryman]

The bit which doesn't fit for me is this.

Your young daughter disappears and two men are seen 45 minutes and 200 metres apart carrying a young female child clad similarly to the missing child.  E-fits are provided for both men yet the e-fit with no facial detail (eggman) is released while two detailed  e-fits relating to the second man are intentionally withheld.

Put those questions to Scotland Yard.

Scotland Yard chose the moment to release the efits, not the McCanns.

[John]

Put those questions to Scotland Yard.

Scotland Yard chose the moment to release the efits, not the McCanns.

Yes, five years too late!

[Brietta]

The bit which doesn't fit for me is this.

Your young daughter disappears and two men are seen 45 minutes and 200 metres apart carrying a young female child clad similarly to the missing child.  E-fits are provided for both men yet the e-fit with no facial detail (eggman) is released while two detailed  e-fits relating to the second man are intentionally withheld.

One could be forgiven for thinking that they had no desire to find this man?

The egg efit was produced by the PJ from the information given by Jane Tanner very soon after she had seen the man but not his face. 2007.

The very detailed efits were produced by private detectives working for and paid for by Madeleine's fund from a collective? recollection of a sighting a year previously; when the sources had assured the PJ they could not recognise the facial features of the man they had seen. 2008.

In theory, those efits should also have been eggs.

[Alice Purjorick]

                 Isn't hindsight a really exact science ...  %£&)**#

You mean hindsight like in the brigade who follow Nostradamus and Old Mother Shipton ?.
Whether my comment is hindsight or not you can't have your bun and your ha'penny. They [MPS and Oakley] were either both right or both wrong. Time don't alter it though there are those I am sure will argue black's white it do.

[Robittybob1]

The egg efit was produced by the PJ from the information given by Jane Tanner very soon after she had seen the man but not his face. 2007.

The very detailed efits were produced by private detectives working for and paid for by Madeleine's fund from a collective? recollection of a sighting a year previously; when the sources had assured the PJ they could not recognise the facial features of the man they had seen. 2008.

In theory, those efits should also have been eggs.

Not if the theory states they are different people.

[mercury]

The egg efit was produced by the PJ from the information given by Jane Tanner very soon after she had seen the man but not his face. 2007.

The very detailed efits were produced by private detectives working for and paid for by Madeleine's fund from a collective? recollection of a sighting a year previously; when the sources had assured the PJ they could not recognise the facial features of the man they had seen. 2008.

In theory, those efits should also have been eggs.

The smiths described his hair facial skin tone height whether he had a beard or glasses or not so HARDLY contenders for another eggman BRIETTA

[Brietta]

The smiths described his hair facial skin tone height whether he  had a bear or glasses or not so HARDLY contenders for another eggman BRIETTA

Suggest you have another read at the statements, Mercury.

[mercury]

Suggest you have another read at the statements, Mercury.

What for?

[Brietta]

What for?

She thinks that ...
She does not remember seeing ...
She did not notice ...

Nor could one of the witnesses provide a description or recognise from a photograph.

Mr Smith's description is not so much of who was there but who wasn't ... so in my opinion the Smith descriptions of facial features are indeed as much use as the egg drawing.

[mercury]

She thinks that ...
She does not remember seeing ...
She did not notice ...

Nor could one of the witnesses provide a description or recognise from a photograph.

Mr Smith's description is not so much of who was there but who wasn't ... so in my opinion the Smith descriptions of facial features are indeed as much use as the egg drawing.

No youre cherry picking, that really isnt allowed

[Brietta]

No youre cherry picking, that really isnt allowed

C'mon Mercury ... they were unable to describe facial features.  Hardly surprising a fortnight down the line.  Even Mr Smith's 'revelation' moment did not rely on recognition of features but on the 'way' and 'look'.

[mercury]

C'mon Mercury ... they were unable to describe facial features.  Hardly surprising a fortnight down the line.  Even Mr Smith's 'revelation' moment did not rely on recognition of features but on the 'way' and 'look'.

Im just sayng there was more in their statements than an eggman

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

Catch up tomorrow