Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Mr Gray]

The salient points would be: 1) was I carrying a child through the streets that night, 2)did I pass the spot where the Smiths say they saw me, 3) do I remember passing a big group of tourists.  If the answer was yes to two or more of those and I was not an abductor then I can think of no reason why I should fear coming forward to be eliminated, and minor errors in the reconstruction would not deter me from doing so.  However, I'm wondering if Smithman might have been a tourist from a country where maybe there was not so much coverage of the case after the initial few days, maybe Russia perhaps?  He may still to this day have no inkling that he is a "wanted" man.  Do you get many Russians holidaying in PdL?

Total agreement..... So neither error was important

[G-Unit]

That was obviously a misprint, it should probably have said slide.   Madeleine wasn't dressed to go in the pool,  Mrs. Boyd give the description of what Madeleine was wearing,  a top and skirt,  hardly clothes she would wear to go down a water slide.

No Boyds in the arrivals lists for that week either.

[Carana]

There is a slight difference in the above statement and the one made by Lace. ie full on face with no obstruction was NOT a mandatory requirement as suggested in Lace's post.
I am sure if the only pic to be had was a oblique view the cops would have run with it.

If a profile pic had been the only one available, then there wouldn't have been much choice.

[Lace]

There is a slight difference in the above statement and the one made by Lace. ie full on face with no obstruction was NOT a mandatory requirement as suggested in Lace's post.
I am sure if the only pic to be had was a oblique view the cops would have run with it.

So would you say the last photo where Madeleine is pulling a face or the one with the tennis balls would have been ok?

[ShiningInLuz]

The salient points would be: 1) was I carrying a child through the streets that night, 2)did I pass the spot where the Smiths say they saw me, 3) do I remember passing a big group of tourists.  If the answer was yes to two or more of those and I was not an abductor then I can think of no reason why I should fear coming forward to be eliminated, and minor errors in the reconstruction would not deter me from doing so.  However, I'm wondering if Smithman might have been a tourist from a country where maybe there was not so much coverage of the case after the initial few days, maybe Russia perhaps?  He may still to this day have no inkling that he is a "wanted" man.  Do you get many Russians holidaying in PdL?

At last, a fairly intelligent post on how to crack this particular nut.  Do it the 'wrong' way round.  Stop worrying about what the Smiths saw, which has produced nothing, and start role playing Smithman.


I have never yet met a Russian holidaying in Luz, though I have met more than one Russian person working here (and presumably living here).

So, let me be Smithman in this version, (and let me be Portuguese,) and let me be innocent.  The last bit is obvious. I am not coming forward if I am guilty, after all.

What do I get for coming forward?  A very, very large pile of poo.  Given that I am innocent, do I wish to endure such torment?  Why?  Do you think for a moment that whatever-his-name is, the guy with a partner and a young child, but labelled the pig-farmer-rapist, enjoyed being hauled to Faro in Dec 14, and exposed to the media, at the behest of OG?

Roughly speaking, there is the right to forget here i.e. go straight and after a certain length of time previous crimes are supposed to be forgotten.  The pig farmer committed a crime which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Madeleine case, other than it occurred in Luz.

So if that is what he got first time round (PJ/media), and that is what he got second time round (OG/media), are you actually telling me you would hand yourself on a plate to gutter media?

Honestly?

You would decide it was your civic duty to be grilled by the Portuguese police, grilled by OG, then grilled by the media?

Would you really put your family through that?

I'm not Smithman, but let me answer my own question.  As it happens, I have no criminal record.  However, I would not subject myself to such an ordeal, given that this trial by fire does not solve the case.  I certainly would not expose my family to the poking and prying of the media.

To suggest Smithman has nothing to fear by coming forward is naïve.  The Smiths supposedly had nothing to fear; they came forward; and it would appear that at least Mr Smith considered they suffered greatly.  If they had known in advance what they would go through, would the Smiths have come forward anyway?  Only they can answer that.

[Carana]

At last, a fairly intelligent post on how to crack this particular nut.  Do it the 'wrong' way round.  Stop worrying about what the Smiths saw, which has produced nothing, and start role playing Smithman.


I have never yet met a Russian holidaying in Luz, though I have met more than one Russian person working here (and presumably living here).

So, let me be Smithman in this version, (and let me be Portuguese,) and let me be innocent.  The last bit is obvious. I am not coming forward if I am guilty, after all.

What do I get for coming forward?  A very, very large pile of poo.  Given that I am innocent, do I wish to endure such torment?  Why?  Do you think for a moment that whatever-his-name is, the guy with a partner and a young child, but labelled the pig-farmer-rapist, enjoyed being hauled to Faro in Dec 14, and exposed to the media, at the behest of OG?

Roughly speaking, there is the right to forget here i.e. go straight and after a certain length of time previous crimes are supposed to be forgotten.  The pig farmer committed a crime which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Madeleine case, other than it occurred in Luz.

So if that is what he got first time round (PJ/media), and that is what he got second time round (OG/media), are you actually telling me you would hand yourself on a plate to gutter media?

Honestly?

You would decide it was your civic duty to be grilled by the Portuguese police, grilled by OG, then grilled by the media?

Would you really put your family through that?

I'm not Smithman, but let me answer my own question.  As it happens, I have no criminal record.  However, I would not subject myself to such an ordeal, given that this trial by fire does not solve the case.  I certainly would not expose my family to the poking and prying of the media.

To suggest Smithman has nothing to fear by coming forward is naïve.  The Smiths supposedly had nothing to fear; they came forward; and it would appear that at least Mr Smith considered they suffered greatly.  If they had known in advance what they would go through, would the Smiths have come forward anyway?  Only they can answer that.

Where do you situate PJ leaks in all this?

[Lace]

No Boyds in the arrivals lists for that week either.

So,  when did the Boyd's arrive in Pra De Luz exactly?

[Mr Gray]

At last, a fairly intelligent post on how to crack this particular nut.  Do it the 'wrong' way round.  Stop worrying about what the Smiths saw, which has produced nothing, and start role playing Smithman.


I have never yet met a Russian holidaying in Luz, though I have met more than one Russian person working here (and presumably living here).

So, let me be Smithman in this version, (and let me be Portuguese,) and let me be innocent.  The last bit is obvious. I am not coming forward if I am guilty, after all.

What do I get for coming forward?  A very, very large pile of poo.  Given that I am innocent, do I wish to endure such torment?  Why?  Do you think for a moment that whatever-his-name is, the guy with a partner and a young child, but labelled the pig-farmer-rapist, enjoyed being hauled to Faro in Dec 14, and exposed to the media, at the behest of OG?

Roughly speaking, there is the right to forget here i.e. go straight and after a certain length of time previous crimes are supposed to be forgotten.  The pig farmer committed a crime which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Madeleine case, other than it occurred in Luz.

So if that is what he got first time round (PJ/media), and that is what he got second time round (OG/media), are you actually telling me you would hand yourself on a plate to gutter media?

Honestly?

You would decide it was your civic duty to be grilled by the Portuguese police, grilled by OG, then grilled by the media?

Would you really put your family through that?

I'm not Smithman, but let me answer my own question.  As it happens, I have no criminal record.  However, I would not subject myself to such an ordeal, given that this trial by fire does not solve the case.  I certainly would not expose my family to the poking and prying of the media.

To suggest Smithman has nothing to fear by coming forward is naïve.  The Smiths supposedly had nothing to fear; they came forward; and it would appear that at least Mr Smith considered they suffered greatly.  If they had known in advance what they would go through, would the Smiths have come forward anyway?  Only they can answer that.

I have already posted taht a portuguese smithman might be unlikely to come forward.....from previous articles the portuguese level of trust in the pj is low

[Alice Purjorick]

So would you say the last photo where Madeleine is pulling a face or the one with the tennis balls would have been ok?

Any pic which will help with:  "We are trying to find a little girl who looks likes this". The key thing being "looks like this".

[Carana]

Any pic which will help with:  "We are trying to find a little girl who looks likes this". The key thing being "looks like this".

Agreed. That's the whole point. However, a little face scrunched up in laughter and / or in profile would look like any other.

[Alfred R Jones]

At last, a fairly intelligent post on how to crack this particular nut.  Do it the 'wrong' way round.  Stop worrying about what the Smiths saw, which has produced nothing, and start role playing Smithman.


I have never yet met a Russian holidaying in Luz, though I have met more than one Russian person working here (and presumably living here).

So, let me be Smithman in this version, (and let me be Portuguese,) and let me be innocent.  The last bit is obvious. I am not coming forward if I am guilty, after all.

What do I get for coming forward?  A very, very large pile of poo.  Given that I am innocent, do I wish to endure such torment?  Why?  Do you think for a moment that whatever-his-name is, the guy with a partner and a young child, but labelled the pig-farmer-rapist, enjoyed being hauled to Faro in Dec 14, and exposed to the media, at the behest of OG?

Roughly speaking, there is the right to forget here i.e. go straight and after a certain length of time previous crimes are supposed to be forgotten.  The pig farmer committed a crime which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Madeleine case, other than it occurred in Luz.

So if that is what he got first time round (PJ/media), and that is what he got second time round (OG/media), are you actually telling me you would hand yourself on a plate to gutter media?

Honestly?

You would decide it was your civic duty to be grilled by the Portuguese police, grilled by OG, then grilled by the media?

Would you really put your family through that?

I'm not Smithman, but let me answer my own question.  As it happens, I have no criminal record.  However, I would not subject myself to such an ordeal, given that this trial by fire does not solve the case.  I certainly would not expose my family to the poking and prying of the media.

To suggest Smithman has nothing to fear by coming forward is naïve.  The Smiths supposedly had nothing to fear; they came forward; and it would appear that at least Mr Smith considered they suffered greatly.  If they had known in advance what they would go through, would the Smiths have come forward anyway?  Only they can answer that.

Woo hoo @ "fairly intelligent" - nothing like being damned with faint praise and patronised at the same time I feel quite honoured, many thanks.

As for the rest, it's a sad indictment on the law enforcement and justice system in Portugal if an innocent man cannot feel himself safe from harm if he chooses to come forward to be eliminated from a criminal enquiry, but given that you say he has every good reason to be pooping his pants well then that explains why we've not heard a peep out of Smithman once.  Given that this man exists and that clearly the police would have liked to eliminate (or otherwise) him from their enquiries how would you suggest the best way for them to have gone about this, without the publicity such as Crimewatch which you seem to deplore? 

[ShiningInLuz]

There is a slight difference in the above statement and the one made by Lace. ie full on face with no obstruction was NOT a mandatory requirement as suggested in Lace's post.
I am sure if the only pic to be had was a oblique view the cops would have run with it.

There seems to have been a discussion of the police requirements of a photo running for a while on this thread, which I am finding somewhat baffling.

AFAIK the police never requested photos, nor specified the requirements thereof.  It was not pull (request by police), it was push (T9 getting publicity out).

Have I got this wrong?

If I've got it right, any debate should be about T9 criteria, rather than police criteria.

[ShiningInLuz]

Woo hoo @ "fairly intelligent" - nothing like being damned with faint praise and patronised at the same time I feel quite honoured, many thanks.

As for the rest, it's a sad indictment on the law enforcement and justice system in Portugal if an innocent man cannot feel himself safe from harm if he chooses to come forward to be eliminated from a criminal enquiry, but given that you say he has every good reason to be pooping his pants well then that explains why we've not heard a peep out of Smithman once.  Given that this man exists and that clearly the police would have liked to eliminate (or otherwise) him from their enquiries how would you suggest the best way for them to have gone about this, without the publicity such as Crimewatch which you seem to deplore?

It wasn't faint praise.  In my time on the forum I have seen umpteen opinions on why the Smiths evidence should nail Smithman, and why it shouldn't.

I can't remember it being turned the other way round.  My apologies in advance to anyone who has already done so.

I think what I would like to do (after dinner) is find an appropriate Smithman thread and take this line of thought over to there.

We wouldn't like to be told off by the mods for breaking the forum rules, would we?

[xtina]

Agreed. That's the whole point. However, a little face scrunched up in laughter and / or in profile would look like any other.

there is nothing wrong with this picture.......the one you would have thought they would have gave the police


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/L/03_volume_III_o_apenso_VIII_Page_588_mbm.jpg


not this one

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/14/38/83/10/mbm10.jpg

i have just noticed maddie seems to have a lazy eye also on the pic ...one centr ..one in the corner.


[for some reason i canot copy paste pictures on this form]

[Alice Purjorick]

Agreed. That's the whole point. However, a little face scrunched up in laughter and / or in profile would look like any other.

You are becoming hung up in detail where the value of that detail is minimal, for the purposes of achieving the objective.
You have a point if someone is holding the photo against the child's face for comparison but they will not be. You will be relying on someone having a passing view at anything up to 15 metres or so away.

Edit
Agree with xtina. That pic is more useful as it gives better GISS.