The Smithman e-fits

[Brietta]

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.

Madeleine's case was archived not closed.  The Portuguese were not looking for a live child from the minute "the badly told story" was leaked to the press.  Madeleine's case remains the property of the Portuguese State.

[Robittybob1]

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

I just keep feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. IMO.

[John]

I just keep feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. IMO.

It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.

[Robittybob1]

It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.

I wonder if Martin could do better than this concerned citizen.  https://youtu.be/V69MsVbI9GA

[Robittybob1]

Listening to the lecture on the pitfalls of the identification process I think we would not have any trouble pointing out 5 major errors in the Martin Smith identification of Gerry McCann.  https://youtu.be/RTvzNCxewQI

[Robittybob1]

Some more pitfalls are examined here https://youtu.be/mN-FmAgxTGA

[Mr Gray]

It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.

Any statement given to the police in good faith cannot be the basis of a libel claim.... So the ramifications  are zero

From what  I can see MS has not repeated his claim outside the police interview

[Angelo222]

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.

Could be the PJ know who Smithman is but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest him YET.

[G-Unit]

Madeleine's case was archived not closed.  The Portuguese were not looking for a live child from the minute "the badly told story" was leaked to the press.  Madeleine's case remains the property of the Portuguese State.

You are libelling yet again ... may I remind you that particular libel cost the Sunday Times dear ... please desist!

I know that the case was archived. I have seen no evidence that the PJ stopped looking for a live child on 5th May. I also know that the case comes under Portuguese jurisdiction. Have I suggested otherwise?

I can see nothing libellous in my posts. It would help if you were more specific so I could avoid making the same mistake again.

[Robittybob1]

Could be the PJ know who Smithman is but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest him YET.

How did you define the word "know" in that sentence?

[Angelo222]

It goes without saying that someone somewhere along the line would have pointed out to Mr Smith the legal and costly ramifications of wrongly accusing Gerry McCann.

M Smith seems to have changed his mind so the question arises as to why?

Was he persuaded by what he subsequently read in the media?
or
Was pressure put on him to retract his identification?
or
Has he genuinely realised he made a mistake?

[Angelo222]

How did you define the word "know" in that sentence?

Know >  be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

[slartibartfast]

M Smith seems to have changed his mind so the question arises as to why?

Was he persuaded by what he subsequently read in the media?
or
Was pressure put on him to retract his identification?
or
Has he genuinely realised he made a mistake?

Except we are told he didn’t change his mind.

[Brietta]

Except we are told he didn’t change his mind.

Yeah ... bit of a damp squib that one as it has turned out to be, in my opinion.

[G-Unit]

Except we are told he didn’t change his mind.

I was never convinced that he had because there was never any evidence offered in support of that assertion.