Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[faithlilly]

The efits (one produced by Martin Smith) is credible proof.

No one would seriously believe Mr Smith would produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry, for obvious reasons.

Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborative evidence that Martin Smith was correct.

[Eleanor]

Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborate evidence that Martin Smith was correct.

It doesn't even look like Gerry.

[ferryman]

Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborative evidence that Martin Smith was correct.

The purpose (of an efit) is to try to identify someone unknown.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborative evidence that Martin Smith was correct.

Can you explain to me why someone would need to produce an e-fit on someone who is internationally famous, with pictures all over the internet?  If I was 60-80% certain I saw Ant and Dec shoplifting from Morrisons would I have to create an e-fit that looked a bit like them, or simply tell the police who I think I saw and let them get on with it?

[G-Unit]

Can you explain to me why someone would need to produce an e-fit on someone who is internationally famous, with pictures all over the internet?  If I was 60-80% certain I saw Ant and Dec shoplifting from Morrisons would I have to create an e-fit that looked a bit like them, or simply tell the police who I think I saw and let them get on with it?

Whatever you think Redwood went with it.

[Alfred R Jones]

Whatever you think Redwood went with it.

Only if you have convinced yourself that Redwood and the police believe that Martin Smith was describing Gerry McCann to them!

[pathfinder73]

It doesn't even look like Gerry.

Much better than this one.

[G-Unit]

Only if you have convinced yourself that Redwood and the police believe that Martin Smith was describing Gerry McCann to them!

As he was 80-80% certain it was Gerry McCann he saw it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that the e-fits were similar.

[Alfred R Jones]

As he was 80-80% certain it was Gerry McCann he saw it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that the e-fits were similar.

the e-fits should have been virtually identical, not vaguely similar.

[G-Unit]

the e-fits should have been virtually identical, not vaguely similar.

Depends how they do them, full face or feature by feature. They're near enough for lots of people to have recognised someone. Particularly two people who never bothered to book a press conference to publicise the exciting new e-fits.

[Benice]

As he was 80-80% certain it was Gerry McCann he saw it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that the e-fits were similar.

IIRC It was the way Gerry was holding Sean and walking down the steps of the airplane which reminded Mr Smith of the man he'd  seen.    It was nothing to do with Gerry's face - which he would have seen loads of times before - but which never sparked any memory of the man he'd seen on any of those occasions. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Depends how they do them, full face or feature by feature. They're near enough for lots of people to have recognised someone. Particularly two people who never bothered to book a press conference to publicise the exciting new e-fits.

you've missed the point, repeatedly.  Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit.  But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?!  What rubbish.

[mercury]

The efits (one produced by Martin Smith) is credible proof.

No one would seriously believe Mr Smith would produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry, for obvious reasons.

What you call proof or even evidence is just your take on things, so not the same.

Proof (as far as is mostly acceptable from newspapers)  is a statement in quotes, which you and others have alluded to but not produced.....I'm not worried, just wanting to make sure what are claimed as facts, actually are.

[G-Unit]

you've missed the point, repeatedly.  Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit.  But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?!  What rubbish.

Why the e-fits in the first place then? (not done by the police by the way). What were Oakley's men trying to achieve?

[mercury]

you've missed the point, repeatedly.  Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit.  But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?!  What rubbish.

Smith did not say the man he saw WAS Gerry McCann, let alone repeatedly! Steady on.

Being roughly 60-80% sure, means exactly that, he was not totally sure and all that uncertainty entails, ergo, an efit of what he thought he saw was in the bounds of responsible detective work. No stone unturned etc etc? If an abductor was found via these efits you wouldn't be so derogatory and sarcastic would you?