SY Crimewatch Smithman Efits

[Robittybob1]

That hadn't occurred to me before.

But it's right.

That was a great observation by Brietta, and I can see the reasoning.  Up till now GA had been thinking Kate and gerry had done the abduction themselves but at this stage he has found he was going in the wrong direction.

[G-Unit]

Only just come across this.

The opening sentence of the article answers your question:

(Key words highlighted):

Again, you have efits of men who (conceivably, not necessarily) may have had something to do with Madeleine's abduction, the difference (yet again) between intelligence and evidence and (yet again) full justification in publishing that efit (when it was published).

The Smith sighting was (potentially) actually of Madeleine's abduction.

You need the context of a live and on-going police enquiry to publish such an efit.

simple as that.

Ah yes, the work of 'rising star' Dave Edgar. That's how his career in the Ulster Constabulary was described by The Mirror. He spent 22 years in the Royal Ulster Constabulary with one promotion; to Sergeant. He didn't rise very fast, did he? He did better in eight years with Cheshire Police; two promotions, retiring as a Detective Inspector; a 'middle management position. An OK CV but not outstanding.

Mr Edgar, who now runs the Alpha Investigations Group with business partner Arthur Cowley, was asked by Gerry and Kate McCann to find their daughter after failures other investigators.
The Mirror, 14th May 2009

Not true, but mot corrected until the fuss over the lack of investigation surrounding the 'Beckham' e-fit;

Mr Cowley, 57, is sole director of Alpha Investigation Group, based in Flintshire, North Wales.

Asked last night why Mr Cowley and his colleague had not spoken to the port authorities, Mr Edgar said: 'My instructions were that they couldn't get through security at the marina at the time. I've got to take that at face value. We are a small team. We are dealing with finite resources and will have to manage with that.'
 
He said Mr Cowley's company had no connection with the Madeleine investigation. 'I am employed by the McCann family and I pick my staff,' he added.
Mail on Sunday August 2009

Cowley's company (Alphaig Limited) was registered in 2009 by Andrew Dickman whose address was Latium Group, Brian Kennedy's company. There's a clear connection with the Madeleine investigation right there. Andrew Dickman was the Managing Director of Patrick Properties, owned by Latiium.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id362.html

[pathfinder73]

I've read their statements. Police get lots of reports/statements to go through so it's not unusual at all like the sightings people claim are Madeleine but are not. The McClusky lead was investigated and it was not the McCanns. A large group of witnesses saw a man carrying a lookalike child near to the crime scene at the relevant time. That man has not come forward. The Smiths sighting is still on-going so IMO is the one remaining line of inquiry.

[Brietta]

I've read their statements. Police get lots of reports/statements to go through so it's not unusual at all like the sightings people claim are Madeleine but are not. The McClusky lead was investigated and it was not the McCanns. A large group of witnesses saw a man carrying a lookalike child near to the crime scene at the relevant time. That man has not come forward. The Smiths sighting is still on-going so IMO is the one remaining line of inquiry.

The point is PF that the Polícia Judiciária managed to trace and eliminate Mr and Mrs McClusky's sighting from the inquiry.

They didn't pass that information back to the witnesses.
With the result that when the witness saw Dr Gerald McCann exiting the plane carrying his son it brought back the sighting of the man he had seen staggering up a grassy slope carrying a child over his left shoulder who was neither moving or making any distress noises.

If the PJ had been unable to trace and eliminate the man described by Mr McCluskey ... he would have been an unknown entity.  Just as the man described by Mr Smith is unknown.

Over the past ten years you and many others would have been using information supplied in good faith ... by two different witnesses ... but the wrong information.

The PJ dismissed the McCluskey mistaken identity ... because they had already investigated and eliminated it.

The PJ dismissed the same wrong claim from Smith ... because they had investigated it and eliminated it having established that it is not possible for the same person to be in two places at one and the same time.
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pj_report_english_translation.pdf

[pathfinder73]

The point is PF that the Polícia Judiciária managed to trace and eliminate Mr and Mrs McClusky's sighting from the inquiry.

They didn't pass that information back to the witnesses.
With the result that when the witness saw Dr Gerald McCann exiting the plane carrying his son it brought back the sighting of the man he had seen staggering up a grassy slope carrying a child over his left shoulder who was neither moving or making any distress noises.

If the PJ had been unable to trace and eliminate the man described by Mr McCluskey ... he would have been an unknown entity.  Just as the man described by Mr Smith is unknown.

Over the past ten years you and many others would have been using information supplied in good faith ... by two different witnesses ... but the wrong information.

The PJ dismissed the McCluskey mistaken identity ... because they had already investigated and eliminated it.

The PJ dismissed the same wrong claim from Smith ... because they had investigated it and eliminated it having established that it is not possible for the same person to be in two places at one and the same time.
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pj_report_english_translation.pdf

Oh yes the timeline is crucial nevermind two places at once fiasco. Only one thought they were still at the table as late as 10:13. I'm sure you can work out who that is.

"That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her."

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

That timeline connects to important witness statements i.e. alarm raised before 10 not after.

"When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45. (time confirmed by ROB - PF)

He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.

Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm

[ShiningInLuz]

The topic is SY Crimewatch Smithman efits.

[mercury]

Only just come across this.

The opening sentence of the article answers your question:

(Key words highlighted):

Again, you have efits of men who (conceivably, not necessarily) may have had something to do with Madeleine's abduction, the difference (yet again) between intelligence and evidence and (yet again) full justification in publishing that efit (when it was published).

The Smith sighting was (potentially) actually of Madeleine's abduction.

You need the context of a live and on-going police enquiry to publish such an efit.

simple as that.

So are you saying any and all efits of potential suspects can be released by whoever wants to release them at any time, whether there is an ongoing open police investigation or not, but any that show a face of someone seen carrying a child are not? Do you have a cite for this ongoing assertion of yours?

Also why didnt the republished Madeleine title with updates include the smithman efits?

[ferryman]

So are you saying any and all efits of potential suspects can be released by whoever wants to release them at any time, whether there is an ongoing open police investigation or not, but any that show a face of someone seen carrying a child are not? Do you have a cite for this ongoing assertion of yours?

Also why didnt the republished Madeleine title with updates include the smithman efits?

Time and geography are the two crucial factors.

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 need a live and on-going police investigation to publish them.

[Robittybob1]

So are you saying any and all efits of potential suspects can be released by whoever wants to release them at any time, whether there is an ongoing open police investigation or not, but any that show a face of someone seen carrying a child are not? Do you have a cite for this ongoing assertion of yours?

Also why didnt the republished Madeleine title with updates include the smithman efits?

There are many questions of that genre that come out of Kate's book.  It makes me wonder who she wrote it for.

[G-Unit]

Time and geography are the two crucial factors.

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 need a live and on-going police investigation to publish them.

I wouldn't describe Smithman as being seen in close proximity to G6A. I am under the impression that no-one 'knows' the time of the alleged abduction. Are you referring to the 2007-2012 alleged time or the 2013-present alleged time?

Who released the Tannerman e-fits for publication? The PJ?  LP?  The McCanns?  Someone else? When were they released?

[ferryman]

I wouldn't describe Smithman as being seen in close proximity to G6A. I am under the impression that no-one 'knows' the time of the alleged abduction. Are you referring to the 2007-2012 alleged time or the 2013-present alleged time?

Who released the Tannerman e-fits for publication? The PJ?  LP?  The McCanns?  Someone else? When were they released?

Tannerman?

We are talking about the Smith efits.

[Brietta]

Tannerman?

We are talking about the Smith efits.

OUCH!
So we are Ferryman  %£&)**#
I'll get the sack ... it's me who should be telling that to members  ... not the other way around.  Sorry.

[G-Unit]

Tannerman?

We are talking about the Smith efits.

You seem to have missed some points. Please define 'close proximity' and 'the known time of the abduction'. 

My other point is also relevant as per your points below.

You have posted;

"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 need a live and on-going police investigation to publish them."

"The Smith sighting was (potentially) actually of Madeleine's abduction.

You need the context of a live and on-going police enquiry to publish such an efit"

"To have published an efit of (potentially!) Madeleine's abductor -- apart from a live and ongoing criminal enquiry -- would have been crass, bordering on criminal, irresponsibility"


If, as I understand it, you are saying that it was the job of a live and on-going police investigation to publish the Smithman e-fits, then the same standard should apply to the Tanner e-fits.

[ferryman]

You seem to have missed some points. Please define 'close proximity' and 'the known time of the abduction'. 

My other point is also relevant as per your points below.

You have posted;

"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 need a live and on-going police investigation to publish them."

"The Smith sighting was (potentially) actually of Madeleine's abduction.

You need the context of a live and on-going police enquiry to publish such an efit"

"To have published an efit of (potentially!) Madeleine's abductor -- apart from a live and ongoing criminal enquiry -- would have been crass, bordering on criminal, irresponsibility"


If, as I understand it, you are saying that it was the job of a live and on-going police investigation to publish the Smithman e-fits, then the same standard should apply to the Tanner e-fits.

At the time of the Smith sighting when (it was established by the shelved enquiry and recorded in the final PJ report written by Joao Carlos that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant) the Smith family saw a man carrying a child who, conceivably, might have been Madeleine's abductor, carrying Madeleine.

[G-Unit]

At the time of the Smith sighting when (it was established by the shelved enquiry and recorded in the final PJ report written by Joao Carlos that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant) the Smith family saw a man carrying a child who, conceivably, might have been Madeleine's abductor, carrying Madeleine.

If you can't support your assertions just say so.

Two men were seen carrying a child. Team McCann released an e-fit for one of them but not the other. End of.