The Smithman e-fits

[Robittybob1]

He doesn't say he thinks it was Gerry

Well forgive me but that is the impression I get.  If someone says he is 60 -80% sure it was Gerry I think we are allowed to have the Opinion "he thinks it was Gerry".

[Robittybob1]

They are not in the PJ Files because they were produced AFTER the Portuguese investigation was archived.

If you can provide any support for efits being used in Portugal for public appeals around 2007, I would be most interested.  But if you can't ....

My question related more to the issue as to why GA had not asked the Smiths for e-fits while the case was active.

[Mr Gray]

Well forgive me but that is the impression I get.  If someone says he is 60 -80% sure it was Gerry I think we are allowed to have the Opinion "he thinks it was Gerry".

He is a low as 60 percent... Not much more than 50/50

More true would be he thinks it might be gerry

[Brietta]

OG seemed content to publicise their evidence so it seems it wasn't a problem in their opinion.

We don't really know exactly what the OG opinion is on anything.  Their investigation may have taken  some consideration of the protocols involved in missing child cases, possibly even the golden hours.

[G-Unit]

We don't really know exactly what the OG opinion is on anything.  Their investigation may have taken  some consideration of the protocols involved in missing child cases, possibly even the golden hours.

True. We can only observe what they have done, and that is to publicise the e-fits. In my opinion they wouldn't have done that if they thought they were of no use.

[Robittybob1]

He is a low as 60 percent... Not much more than 50/50

More true would be he thinks it might be gerry

There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.
I'm not that great on the maths but if there were 10,000 people it could possibly be or 0.0001% if a person was nominated randomly, so even if Martin Smith dropped his certainty ratio to 50:50  or 50 in 1 hundred which is a whopping 5,000 times more likely than any other randomly chosen possible.

[John]

There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.
I'm not that great on the maths but if there were 10,000 people it could possibly be or 0.0001% if a person was nominated randomly, so even if Martin Smith dropped his certainty ratio to 50:50  or 50 in 1 hundred which is a whopping 5,000 times more likely than any other randomly chosen possible.

All said and done, he must have been pretty convinced to have made that call to the Irish Garda given the consequences of being mistaken, not to mention the embarrassment of it all.

[Eleanor]

All said and done, he must have been pretty convinced to have made that call to the Irish Garda given the consequences of being mistaken, not to mention the embarrassment of it all.

Like others, he didn't know that it would be released to all and sundry.

[Mr Gray]

There are thousands of people who are not Gerry so any % suggesting it is one particular person is significant.
I'm not that great on the maths but if there were 10,000 people it could possibly be or 0.0001% if a person was nominated randomly, so even if Martin Smith dropped his certainty ratio to 50:50  or 50 in 1 hundred which is a whopping 5,000 times more likely than any other randomly chosen possible.

Smith claimed he recognised Gerry by the way he walked down the stairs so he would have to see how all 10000 walk down the stairs before your argument  had, any validity

ID evidence is notoriously unreliable ....what of all the sightings of maddie... They are all mistaken but Smith is judged to be right...
Can anyone give a logical reason  for that

[Mr Gray]

All said and done, he must have been pretty convinced to have made that call to the Irish Garda given the consequences of being mistaken, not to mention the embarrassment of it all.

But he wasn't convinced... He wasn't sure... And what consequences has he faced... None

Are you suggesting that SY and the PJ are totally ignoring his, evidence... More like they have looked at it and think he was mistaken

[G-Unit]

But he wasn't convinced... He wasn't sure... And what consequences has he faced... None

Are you suggesting that SY and the PJ are totally ignoring his, evidence... More like they have looked at it and think he was mistaken

It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.

I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was this stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?

[Mr Gray]

It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.

I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was thus stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?

I have no idea... We would need to ask the mccanns... There may well be a very good reason... You are, speculating there is not...

[Lace]

It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.

I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was this stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?

When did the McCann's actually find out about the Smith's sighting?

[Robittybob1]

When did the McCann's actually find out about the Smith's sighting?

The Smith's talk of being contacted by Brian Kennedy before the case is archived.  You'd think if the McCann supporters knew the McCanns would also.

[Angelo222]

It's interesting that there were two sightings of men carrying a child in PdL on 3rd May 2007. The Smith sighting included a description of a child very like Madeleine, while the Tanner sighting included just a pair of legs and feet.

I can think of no reason why both sightings weren't publicised by Madeleine's parents. Why was this stone left unturned if there was even the slightest possibility that this man was carrying their daughter away?

Could that be because the man the Smiths saw looked like Gerry McCann?