The Smithman e-fits

[Robittybob1]

So where were the dirty clothes? Where had he got the clean clothes? He'd come from somewhere & he was going somewhere else but carried no baggage for the child.

If we knew who he was we might be able to answer questions like that. 

[G-Unit]

Why would the McCanns have wanted to promote a sighting of a girl wearing long-sleeved pyjamas?

That was a minor detail. mentioned by only one of the three witnesses. Everything else about the child matched  Madeleine's description.

[misty]

That was a minor detail. mentioned by only one of the three witnesses. Everything else about the child matched  Madeleine's description.

It was a major detail as the Smiths did not see the child's face - just as Jane Tanner did not see the top worn by the child she witnessed being carried.

[G-Unit]

It was a major detail as the Smiths did not see the child's face - just as Jane Tanner did not see the top worn by the child she witnessed being carried.

It was mentioned by one witness, so not unanimous. The child was the correct age and size and had the correct hairstyle and colour. Far more to go on than a pair of legs.

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[Brietta]

Are you suggesting that they expected the PJ to investigate those e-fits in 2009? Given their opinion of the PJ that's hardly likely. They had every opportunity to publicise the e-fits themselves but chose not to.

In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence.  What did the PJ do with that evidence?  In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.

It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.

I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case.  To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission. 
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.

I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.

[Robittybob1]

When did the archiving occur?  The PJ file heading is "It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law"  Is this the date of the archiving process?

[Robittybob1]

  Is the first image of the archiving report but the translation does not seem match this document.  Date in it 21/07/08  Which I take to be 21st July 2008 as a possible Archiving date.

The translation in the PJ file starts halfway down the page at the word "introducao"

[Alice Purjorick]

In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence.  What did the PJ do with that evidence?  In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.

It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.

I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case.  To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission. 
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.

I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.

One presumes that is a typo or careless error rather than a deliberate attempt to misdirect?

[Brietta]

When did the archiving occur?  The PJ file heading is "It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law"  Is this the date of the archiving process?

Madeleine's case was archived in 2008, Robitty.  I made a typo.

[G-Unit]

In 2009 the Smith efits were sent to Portugal as evidence.  What did the PJ do with that evidence?  In 2010, it became evident that between the archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 and the libel trial in 2010, all the evidence which had been sent to the police in Portugal had been ignored.

It was revealed that all the evidence sent to the PJ had been filed as being "not relevant to the investigation" which resulted in the trial judge instructing that copies were to be given to the McCanns.

I take it you are aware that the PJ have always played the lead authority in Madeleine's case.  To progress any investigation into Madeleine's disappearance can only be proceeded with their full knowledge and permission. 
A situation which as we have seen causes delay when no JIT is in operation.

I am astounded that you transfer the responsibility for the conduct of Madeleine's case to civilians who are victims and away from the legally constituted authority who, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for releasing any significant evidence into the public domain.
I thought that all such rights are usually guarded jealously ... even if just to be treated as an irrelevance.

If the McCanns had been relying on the PJ to search for their daughter in 2009 your argument might hold water, but they weren't. We know they weren't because they told us so. We know that they took a decision in 2007 to hire private investigators to gather information and follow up leads.

By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.

[Robittybob1]

I wonder what the Smith family hoped to achieve by suddenly being able to help produce efits less than 2 months after the case was archived?

Once the case is archived I have the feeling the Judicial Secrecy laws no longer apply.  Pressure comes off.

[sadie]

I suppose they could have visited those lawless villages that Edgar identified.

And they probably did, but they just haven't bothered to tell us.

And why should they ?

[Robittybob1]

And they probably did, but they just haven't bothered to tell us.

And why should they ?

Didn't Kate say she goes to Portugal every year.

[misty]

Once the case is archived I have the feeling the Judicial Secrecy laws no longer apply.  Pressure comes off.

Pressure comes off who? If the Smiths really wanted to help the McCanns/find Madeleine, why didn't they do so while the case was still open, e.g., when Brian Kennedy contacted him sometime prior to 30/1/08? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg

[sadie]

Didn't Kate say she goes to Portugal every year.

She was certainly there when we were last there.  Hubby spotted her getting into a car on the newish car park behind the church