The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[Benice]

Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described?  Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.

If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.

Kate lists the similarities on pages 371/2 of her book - in the 'Key Sightings' chapter.

Sorry haven't got time to type them out at the moment.

[pathfinder73]

Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described?  Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.

If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.

The way they dressed were similar e.g. dark jacket, beige trousers.

Obvious differences:

Tannerman: Long hair
Smithman: Short hair
Around 45 minutes between sightings

Carrying styles as follows:

Tannerman carrying style - crecheman's clothes were seen under an orange light by Jane Tanner


2008 efits released by SY in 2013 - not seen in 2011 Madeleine leaving no stone unturned book


Smithman carrying style

[Benice]

The way they dressed were similar e.g. dark jacket, beige trousers.

Obvious differences:

Tannerman: Long thick hair
Smithman: Short hair
Around 45 minutes between the sightings

Carrying styles as follows:



Tannerman carrying style - crecheman's clothes were seen under an orange light by Jane Tanner


2008 efits released by SY in 2013 - not seen in 2011 Madeleine leaving no stone unturned book


Smithman carrying style

IMO discrepancies re the hair are minimal in the scheme of things and still qualify as 'similarities'      It would be different if one was thin on top and the other one had hair down his back - or if one was blonde and the other one dark - or if one had a hat on and the other one didn't.     Those are what I would call discrepancies which could not be ignored in this particular context. 

IMO

[G-Unit]

In your opinion.   

IMO - it's not unusual for certain employment contracts to include a 'non-disclosure' requirement in order to prevent ex employees from taking advantage of their former positions by selling their stories to the press etc.

In this case it could be that unauthorised disclosure could damage ongoing investigations.
IMO

In this case it could well have changed how people perceived the search for an abductor.

 
IMO

[Benice]

In this case it could well have changed how people perceived the search for an abductor.
IMO

Sorry - you've lost me G.    Care to elaborate?

[slartibartfast]

Sorry - you've lost me G.    Care to elaborate?

People question why the e-fits remained out of public view for so long.

[pathfinder73]

IMO discrepancies re the hair are minimal in the scheme of things and still qualify as 'similarities'      It would be different if one was thin on top and the other one had hair down his back - or if one was blonde and the other one dark - or if one had a hat on and the other one didn't.     Those are what I would call discrepancies which could not be ignored in this particular context. 

IMO

None of the Smiths said his hair was long - Jane Tanner is the only one who said it so that suggests she saw a different man. SY say YES she did he is found. Unless you believe Jane is the only one who got it wrong about his hair because that has to be the reason for it to be the same guy?

[G-Unit]

Sorry - you've lost me G.    Care to elaborate?

I think there's quite a difference between;



and;

[sadie]

Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 

Oh do they?   
Cite please that SY KNOW that Tannerman and Smithman aren't the same man

[sadie]

Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators. As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.

Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ?   Anyone know ?

[Robittybob1]

Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ?   Anyone know ?

A countries law would only apply to its citizens and people within its borders surely.

[pathfinder73]

Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ?   Anyone know ?

Of course they could release the efits if they wanted when their investigators produced them. Release the efits and try to find Smithman and prove Amaral is wrong/crazy but that didn't happen -  the following year they released posh spice instead  . There has to be a very good reason why you wouldn't urgently release efits of somebody that nine eye witnesses believe was carrying your daughter on the night she disappeared. The McCanns have never answered it &%+((£

[misty]

Of course they could release the efits if they wanted when their investigators produced them. Release the efits and try to find Smithman and prove Amaral is wrong/crazy but that didn't happen -  the following year they released posh spice instead  . There has to be a very good reason why you wouldn't release efits of somebody that nine eye witnesses believe was carrying your daughter on the night she disappeared. The McCanns have never answered it &%+((£

Do you think the McCanns/their PI's were in a position to accuse the Smiths of fabricating the efits?

[pathfinder73]

The McCanns urgently need to find that man - he could have their daughter. Nothing else matters! We want Madeleine home - we will leave no stone unturned to find her........You think? You find Smithman and prove Amaral wrong as an added bonus    The sighting is very credible. You don't bring young children into it when Smithman was the only one seen on their journey back. That's why it stood out to all i.e. they are telling the truth. The sighting area was dark as proven in reconstruction. A 12 year old got the times right. The two adults didn't. Of course it was a set up masterminded by the 12 year old child LOL.

[Brietta]

The McCanns urgently need to find that man - he could have their daughter. Nothing else matters! We want Madeleine home - we will leave no stone unturned to find her........You think? You find Smithman and prove Amaral wrong as an added bonus    The sighting is very credible. You don't bring young children into it when Smithman was the only one seen on their journey back. That's why it stood out to all i.e. they are telling the truth. The sighting area was dark as proven in reconstruction. A 12 year old got the times right. The two adults didn't. Of course it was a set up masterminded by the 12 year old child LOL.

The McCanns knew nothing about that man at the time when locating him might have been more of a possibility: the Smith's statements were the property of the Policia Judiciaria who had the responsibility of finding him when they were told about him: exactly what steps did they take to locate him?