The Smithman e-fits - are the McCanns less than happy with them?

[Alfred R Jones]

Who, in their right minds, would produce an e-fit of a man they thought was Gerry?

Exactly right.  Because neither e-fit closely resembles Gerry, when shown the e-fits by the artist, the Smiths would have said, "no that's not quite accurate" and simply given the artists a picture of Gerry and said "more like that please".

[stephen25000]

Exactly right.  Because neither e-fit closely resembles Gerry, when shown the e-fits by the artist, the Smiths would have said, "no that's not quite accurate" and simply given the artists a picture of Gerry and said "more like that please".

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

The man's face could not been clearly seen.

What Mr. Smith'  'recognized' was the way the child was being held.

[Brietta]

We know what was wrong with the facts in that article because the correction told us. It wasn't very seriously flawed at all. In fact just one aspect was changed.

At least that's as far as we know. If more was wrong with it we haven't been told, so you have nothing to support your claim it was "very seriously flawed". You're simply guessing, and isn't that what you're always telling us not to do?

If you wish to "guess" Lyall ~ be my guest ~ I neither have nor would dictate your actions or how you do things ~ that is entirely a matter for you and "us".

However it must be remembered ...

• the Sunday Times printed an article featuring the Drs McCann
• said article made accusation against them
• the Drs McCann sued the Sunday Times for libel because the accusation was false
• as a result, the Sunday Times paid damages of £55,000 to the Drs McCann which they donated to two charities
• the Sunday times issued an apology to the Drs McCann

That seems remarkably clear cut to me.

[stephen25000]

If you wish to "guess" Lyall ~ be my guest ~ I neither have nor would dictate your actions or how you do things ~ that is entirely a matter for you and "us".

However it must be remembered ...

• the Sunday Times printed an article featuring the Drs McCann
• said article made accusation against them
• the Drs McCann sued the Sunday Times for libel because the accusation was false
• as a result, the Sunday Times paid damages of £55,000 to the Drs McCann which they donated to two charities
• the Sunday times issued an apology to the Drs McCann

That seems remarkably clear cut to me.

Who commissioned the e-fits ?

Who then didn't release them ?

[jassi]

A couple of Freedom of Information requests to find out exactly when LP & SY were provided with the e-fits  could go a long way to resolving this issue - provided that they were not rejected.

[G-Unit]

Just to recap. The Sunday Times apologised because it wrote two articles;

 We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

So instead of publicising the e-fits in 2009, the McCanns passed them to two police forces, neither of whom were actively investigating the case at the time. Not the report, just the e-fits? Only in 2011 did the report come into the hands of the authorities, according to the wording of the apology.

Still no explanation of why they chose not to publicise the e-fits as they did with the 'Victria Beckham' e-fit.

[Brietta]

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

The man's face could not been clearly seen.

What Mr. Smith'  'recognized' was the way the child was being held.

There is at least one other mistaken identification in the files of the carrier and it is my opinion that both statements should be read together.  When they are ... it becomes patently obvious that neither witness saw Dr McCann at the time and as recorded in their original witness statement.

An easy enough mistake to make given the saturation media coverage ... when one thinks of the CrimeWatch actor who was "identified" by separate witnesses as the murderer he had portrayed: but one which when it has been identified as being entirely wrong as in Mr McCluskey and Mr Smith's additional statements ... just should not be reiterated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/confused-viewers-accuse-crimewatch-actor-of-murder-he-helped-to-reconstruct-21-years-ago-10496322.html

Statement made 12th September 2007

I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm



Email from John Hughes to DIC Portimao, C.C. to Stuart Prior

20th September 2007

after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick.



4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise.

A clip I have seen before on the Internet.

In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person.

It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him.

It may have been the way he was carrying the child either.

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.

I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[stephen25000]

There is at least one other mistaken identification in the files of the carrier and it is my opinion that both statements should be read together.  When they are ... it becomes patently obvious that neither witness saw Dr McCann at the time and as recorded in their original witness statement.

An easy enough mistake to make given the saturation media coverage ... when one thinks of the CrimeWatch actor who was "identified" by separate witnesses as the murderer he had portrayed: but one which when it has been identified as being entirely wrong as in Mr McCluskey and Mr Smith's additional statements ... just should not be reiterated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/confused-viewers-accuse-crimewatch-actor-of-murder-he-helped-to-reconstruct-21-years-ago-10496322.html

Statement made 12th September 2007

I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm



Email from John Hughes to DIC Portimao, C.C. to Stuart Prior

20th September 2007

after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick.



4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise.

A clip I have seen before on the Internet.

In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person.

It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him.

It may have been the way he was carrying the child either.

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.

I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Do you have signed and verified statements from Mr. Smith ?

[Mr Gray]

as  I have pointed out before...there is often a very simple answer to things that appear strange...and when you have the answer you can see how simple the explanation was

[Brietta]

Do you have signed and verified statements from Mr. Smith ?

The Smith statement and the McCluskey statement which was given in good faith ... portray the same mistaken identification.  The wording of both shows great similarities.

If you have a problem with working out the significance of that ... it is entirely your concern.

However it remains my opinion that based on his original statement of being unable to provide a detailed description of the man he said he saw and based on his later wholly erroneous identification ...is that Mr Smith played no part in constructing the efits under discussion.

[faithlilly]

A couple of Freedom of Information requests to find out exactly when LP & SY were provided with the e-fits  could go a long way to resolving this issue - provided that they were not rejected.

Perhaps ferryman with his extensive experience of submitting FOI requests could take on the task ? Oh no wait a minute.............!!

[ferryman]

The Smith statement and the McCluskey statement which was given in good faith ... portray the same mistaken identification.  The wording of both shows great similarities.

If you have a problem with working out the significance of that ... it is entirely your concern.

However it remains my opinion that based on his original statement of being unable to provide a detailed description of the man he said he saw and based on his later wholly erroneous identification ...is that Mr Smith played no part in constructing the efits under discussion.

This is what Martin Smith said:

It's really very difficult to get a gauge of how detailed his description was from a statement taken in reported speech

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— 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.

(Martin Smith)

[Brietta]

This is what Martin Smith said:

It's really very difficult to get a gauge of how detailed his description was from a statement taken in reported speech

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— 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.

(Martin Smith)

He also stated that he was unable to identify the individual in person or from photographs (wonder if he was shown photographs) ... if he couldn't identify anyone at the time, I believe it would be an impossibility to provide detailed facial details to enable the construction of efits many, many months after the event.

Of the three Smith statements we have seen ... not one could give a detailed description of the face ... I really think that whoever constructed the efits ... it was none of these.

[stephen25000]

The Smith statement and the McCluskey statement which was given in good faith ... portray the same mistaken identification.  The wording of both shows great similarities.

If you have a problem with working out the significance of that ... it is entirely your concern.

However it remains my opinion that based on his original statement of being unable to provide a detailed description of the man he said he saw and based on his later wholly erroneous identification ...is that Mr Smith played no part in constructing the efits under discussion.

So there are signed statements by him retracting his original view then.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps ferryman with his extensive experience of submitting FOI requests could take on the task ? Oh no wait a minute.............!!

So ferryman actually tried to get some actual facts rather than spending all day spouting irrelevant opinion
On that basis he should definitely be congratulated