The Smithman e-fits

[G-Unit]

I am allowed an opinion.

Not only is DCI Redwood allowed his opinion I think it would be safe to say that his is more educated and better informed than mine is ever likely to be.
Possibly something to do with his years of police training and leading a team of experts with access to all the available information.  He most certainly did not operate in a time warp governed by

• the opinion of a failed cop and arguido in a torture case which convicted him of perjury by falsifying documents
• the ineptitude shown in understanding the lack of significance of the dogs while totally misinterpreting the forensic results
• the premature conclusions of the interim report put together by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida -subsequently found guilty of torture http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061 in another case, which formed the basis of the enduring misconceptions of Kate and Gerry McCann nurtured by the Amaral book and the media career he based thereon

Bearing in mind that the DCI was embarked on a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a little girl I think it would be safe to consider him to be a man playing his cards pretty close to his chest.

The incontrovertible information he took great pains to impart was that Madeleine's parents and their friends had no locus in her disappearance either as suspects or persons of interest. Which in my opinion puts the accusation at the time and since by two criminally convicted cops firmly in the file marked "NOT RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION"

"In my opinion the efits are not worth the paper they are printed on" you said. How strange that you then heap praise on the man who clearly disagreed with you.

[G-Unit]

I'm well aware of what happens  if new evidence emerges... But  at present they are not suspects according to both investigations...

Just so long as you realise that it's not necessarily an irrefutable fact, merely an opinion which could change.

[ShiningInLuz]

I am allowed an opinion.

Not only is DCI Redwood allowed his opinion I think it would be safe to say that his is more educated and better informed than mine is ever likely to be.
Possibly something to do with his years of police training and leading a team of experts with access to all the available information.  He most certainly did not operate in a time warp governed by

• the opinion of a failed cop and arguido in a torture case which convicted him of perjury by falsifying documents
• the ineptitude shown in understanding the lack of significance of the dogs while totally misinterpreting the forensic results
• the premature conclusions of the interim report put together by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida -subsequently found guilty of torture http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061 in another case, which formed the basis of the enduring misconceptions of Kate and Gerry McCann nurtured by the Amaral book and the media career he based thereon

Bearing in mind that the DCI was embarked on a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a little girl I think it would be safe to consider him to be a man playing his cards pretty close to his chest.

The incontrovertible information he took great pains to impart was that Madeleine's parents and their friends had no locus in her disappearance either as suspects or persons of interest. Which in my opinion puts the accusation at the time and since by two criminally convicted cops firmly in the file marked "NOT RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION"

He must have had rubbish cards then.

Let me see.  Dig up central Luz?  Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest?    Make a hash of the Smith sighting?  Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal?  Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese,  DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.

[Mr Gray]

He must have had rubbish cards then.

Let me see.  Dig up central Luz?  Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest?    Make a hash of the Smith sighting?  Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal?  Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese,  DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.

They may be woefully  adequate in your opinion but you are, an amateur  armchair detective whilst  Redwood is an experienced professional... I know whose opinion I find more valuable

Can you tell us precisely why crime watch wasn't aired in Portugal  and precisely why you blame Redwood for this

And how did he make a hash of the Smith sighting... That is not a fact... Just your opinion and should carry a caveat

[ShiningInLuz]

They may be woefully  adequate in your opinion but you are, an amateur  armchair detective whilst  Redwood is an experienced professional... I know whose opinion I find more valuable

Can you tell us precisely why crime watch wasn't aired in Portugal  and precisely why you blame Redwood for this

And how did he make a hash of the Smith sighting... That is not a fact... Just your opinion and should carry a caveat

Woefully adequate?  Is that English?

Precisely why Crimewatch was not aired in Portugal is speculation.  It is a fact it was not.

A hash of the Smith sighting is fact, not IMO.

[barrier]

The much vaunted ex DCI had this to say in 2014,still nothing to indicate one way or tother,Smithman or no Smithman.

"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options," he said.

The way you have used the quote cancels it out from being seen in a reply:  I have pointed this problem out to you before:  please amend your post.  Thank you

[Brietta]

"In my opinion the efits are not worth the paper they are printed on" you said. How strange that you then heap praise on the man who clearly disagreed with you.

"Heap praise" ... hardly.  Merely an acknowledgement of the expertise of a professional doing a professional job.

My opinion of the efits is mine and very possibly mine alone.
Although there is a substantial argument in support of the fact it is highly unlikely that a man who only had a back view (Mr McCluskey) and another who could eliminate a beard, glasses, Murat but due to the "not very good" lighting, nothing else about the features ... would be capable of producing photofits of the man more than a year later.

There is absolutely nothing to worry you or me for that matter if individuals disagree with my opinion.  Nothing at all bad or questionable about that ... although I do rather expect a cogent case to be made for which the DCI very likely won't give me or you the time of day for.

But you are here and seem to have concerns on his behalf ... and we are members of a discussion forum.

[Mr Gray]

Woefully adequate?  Is that English?

Precisely why Crimewatch was not aired in Portugal is speculation.  It is a fact it was not.

A hash of the Smith sighting is fact, not IMO.

The speculation is, why it was, not, aired
The hash of the Smith sighting is your opinion... If you claim otherwise explain why... That's the forum rules which you have to abide by

[Brietta]

He must have had rubbish cards then.

Let me see.  Dig up central Luz?  Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest?    Make a hash of the Smith sighting?  Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal?  Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese,  DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine.

He at the least never claimed to have an Ace in the hole ... maybe he had heard there was one missing and was helping out ?

[Robittybob1]

The speculation is, why it was, not, aired
The hash of the Smith sighting is your opinion... If you claim otherwise explain why... That's the forum rules which you have to abide by

If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not.  Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision.  Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.

[Brietta]

If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not.  Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision.  Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.

I think you refer to a factoid, Robitty.  Doesn't make the wrong information a fact though ... it remains exactly what it always was and that is misinformation.
Madeleine's case has suffered immeasurably from factoids in my opinion; not one of which has assisted her recovery in any way whatsoever.

[Robittybob1]

I think you refer to a factoid, Robitty.  Doesn't make the wrong information a fact though ... it remains exactly what it always was and that is misinformation.
Madeleine's case has suffered immeasurably from factoids in my opinion; not one of which has assisted her recovery in any way whatsoever.

"factoid

noun
an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."  First problem is that definition is different than what I thought factoid meant.  I see I'm not the only one "Due to the confusion surrounding this word, I can absolutely see where they are coming from as “Factoid” has two somewhat distinct definitions, one being more or less a subset of “Fact”, the other not meaning the same thing at all as “Fact”. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/the-difference-between-a-fact-and-a-factoid/

So if it is a factoid then what is the unreliable bit of information?  The claim that Martin Smith saw Gerry is definitely an unreliable bit of information for it is more than what he said in his statement.  But that is not the reason I would say the Smith sighting is a hash, Fact.  Well it could be that I interpret the word hash differently!  What does "hash" mean to the rest of you?
What does the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" mean to you?

"hash

noun
1.
a dish of cooked meat cut into small pieces and cooked again, usually with potatoes.
verb
1.
make (meat or other food) into a hash.
2.
come to agreement on something after lengthy and vigorous discussion.
"they met during the day to hash out the campaign's reaction to the controversy""

Well I have a different meaning again like hash means something like balls-up (is that a word?).  Balls-up is more like the cooking use of the word but applied to an outcome. The result of a total mix up.

"balls-up

noun BRITISH vulgar slang
a bungled or badly carried out task or action; a mess."

Another Urban dictionary gives the reason we call it a balls up "The term dates from the days of wooden sailing ships when the existence of a shipboard disaster, such as plague, lack of food or water, mutiny, etc. was communicated to the outside world by hoisting large-ish, brightly painted wooden balls up into the rigging. Balls of different colours represented different disasters ...."

You live and learn. 

[jassi]

I think you refer to a factoid, Robitty.  Doesn't make the wrong information a fact though ... it remains exactly what it always was and that is misinformation.
Madeleine's case has suffered immeasurably from factoids in my opinion; not one of which has assisted her recovery in any way whatsoever.

Yeah, it makes you wonder why Mitchell was ever employed.

[Mr Gray]

If the phrase "the hash of the Smith sighting" aligned with your own opinion would you be still wanting a cite?
The question as you rightly pointed out is that opinion or not, is it a fact or not.  Is there such a thing as an opinion that gains so much support it becomes a fact like an unanimous jury decision.  Each jury member has his opinion but the verdict is treated as a fact.

Sil claims redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting.... That is opinion not fact.. And against forum rules

[G-Unit]

"Heap praise" ... hardly.  Merely an acknowledgement of the expertise of a professional doing a professional job.

My opinion of the efits is mine and very possibly mine alone.
Although there is a substantial argument in support of the fact it is highly unlikely that a man who only had a back view (Mr McCluskey) and another who could eliminate a beard, glasses, Murat but due to the "not very good" lighting, nothing else about the features ... would be capable of producing photofits of the man more than a year later.

There is absolutely nothing to worry you or me for that matter if individuals disagree with my opinion.  Nothing at all bad or questionable about that ... although I do rather expect a cogent case to be made for which the DCI very likely won't give me or you the time of day for.

But you are here and seem to have concerns on his behalf ... and we are members of a discussion forum.

Do you think those in the Operation Grange Team failed to consider the points you have raised?  If so, their professionalism can't be taken for granted in my opinion.