The Smithman e-fits

[misty]

Nail on the head, as usual, misty

The hammer has been known to go wildly wide of the mark, Sadie.

[sadie]

deleted

[ShiningInLuz]

I would be interested to know why people think SY made a hash of presenting Smithman's efit on Crimewatch. DCI Redwood expressed the same interest in this sighting as in the two people seen near the apartment on the day Madeleine went missing and 2 charity collectors. All efits were shown.

ETA link to DCI Redwood on Crimewatch https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=1740

On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.

On best scientific evidence, efits made 3 days after a sighting are useless.  The Smith efits appear to have been made 17 months after the events.

Cites are on my blog for anyone interested.

Moving on to charity collectors, the ones mentioned were probably bogus, but probably only looking to pick up a few euros.  There are rules re charity collections.  The genuine ones work the busy public places in Luz.  The bogus ones do opportunistic visits to quiet properties, then scamper off if they make €5 or €10.  I know people who make €4-€5 per hour working in cafés these days, so a tenner in 2007 was a fat fish.

If the two people you refer to are those on 5C, I have no light to shed.

[misty]

On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.

On best scientific evidence, efits made 3 days after a sighting are useless.  The Smith efits appear to have been made 17 months after the events.

Cites are on my blog for anyone interested.

Moving on to charity collectors, the ones mentioned were probably bogus, but probably only looking to pick up a few euros.  There are rules re charity collections.  The genuine ones work the busy public places in Luz.  The bogus ones do opportunistic visits to quiet properties, then scamper off if they make €5 or €10.  I know people who make €4-€5 per hour working in cafés these days, so a tenner in 2007 was a fat fish.

If the two people you refer to are those on 5C, I have no light to shed.

Do you understand the importance of Smithman in any potential prosecution case?

[ShiningInLuz]

Do you understand the importance of Smithman in any potential prosecution case?

Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.

1.  He's innocent, so no case to answer.

2.  He's guilty, so he got away with it.  No case.

[misty]

Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.

1.  He's innocent, so no case to answer.

2.  He's guilty, so he got away with it.  No case.

How could prosecution of A N Other ever be successful if an innocent or guilty Smithman is never identified? Smithman introduces the "reasonable doubt" element because he was allegedly carrying a child loosely fitting Madeleine's description around the appropriate time.
How would someone who came forward/was identified be able to demonstrate their(Smithman's) innocence sufficiently to remove any element of reasonable doubt, given that the eye witness was pretty sure the man was Gerry McCann?

[Robittybob1]

Basically speaking, I cannot see Smithman as having any relevance in a prosecution case.

1.  He's innocent, so no case to answer.

2.  He's guilty, so he got away with it.  No case.

There could be more options than that.

[ShiningInLuz]

How could prosecution of A N Other ever be successful if an innocent or guilty Smithman is never identified? Smithman introduces the "reasonable doubt" element because he was allegedly carrying a child loosely fitting Madeleine's description around the appropriate time.
How would someone who came forward/was identified be able to demonstrate their(Smithman's) innocence sufficiently to remove any element of reasonable doubt, given that the eye witness was pretty sure the man was Gerry McCann?

IMO Smithman does not introduce reasonable doubt.  Therein lies the problem.  Until excluded, he is but a major distraction.

If he's guilty, he got away with it.

[Robittybob1]

Dunno how to make the images come larger ! 

PLEASE COULD SOMEONE (John or Rob or ...?) MODIFY THIS POST TO SHOW THE OPTIONAL LARGER IMAGE WE HAVE ON A PREVIOUS PAGE?  TY

When comparing, I look for widely differing features, similar features and proportions or unusual features.

1)  the dimpled chin on the third image is the most outstanding feature, but that alone would not completely convince me because Smithman kept his head down much of the way and apart from when he was near Aoife and maybe Peter the lighting was not good.   Even when near them it was a very directional light from above and the lower part of his face might have been largely in shadow, but he might have looked up on seeing Aoife.

I think Aoife compiled the LH picture cos there is direct eye contact and a slight smile on his face.  Pretty girl?  Did he look up and take a good look at her? 

2)  The bald head of the third image also appears to exclude the third man.  However over ten years have passesd and it is just possible that Smithman is now bald

I think that probably Martin and his wife compiled the RH image cos with the face looking fat, it means that it could be foreshortened due to Smithman holding his face somewhat down ... and the blurred image indicates poor light IMO.
That foreshortening could explain the difference in apparent width of the face.   It is more likely that Smithman was slimmer faced as in the LH image IMO

3)  Another thing that i notice is the very unusual bulge above Smithmans eyes. 

Those bulges IMO point to two things:
i)  That Smithmans eyes were NOT deeply recessed, but almost "surface" mounted
ii)  That the light was catching the bulges, so therefore he was lit from above.  This reinforces the fact that the LH. drawing was compiled by Aoife;  She and he were lit by a VERY tall and it appears powerful lamp from above

Now likeness.
1)  Both Smithman images show a fairly strong 5 o'clock shadow on the upper lip

2)  Both Smithmen have similarly shaped eyebrows, altho the RH mans are less well groomed than those of the LH man.  Could this be because of the difference in lighting and angle the head was seen at by Martin Smith??

3)   Both Smithmen have down sloping eyes.  The third mans eyes are level with each other and NOT sloping

There are other obvious differences between the three, but I think I have the main ones, except I haven't mentioned
a) the Jaw line.  If looked at with his head tucked down, then the RH mans jaw line might well have bulged out ... and would be partly out of sight in any case, whilst if seen full face by Aoife it is likely to be more correct .... but perhaps some uncertainty. 

I wonder, was the little girls head and shoulders close to Smithmans face and partially blocking ?Aoifes view of his jaw.  Better to leave the image woolley / unfinished rather than
draw in a definite line and give out potentially incorrect info?


If I were given the task of deciding which image was likely to be most correct, I would go for the LH. one (?Aoifes image?), because it appears well lit, clear and full face rather than bent down as the RH one appears, which distorts the image.

I personally would put the third image on the back burner, but not trash it.  Why?  Becauwe if there were three images I had to choose from, this third image was less like the other two IMO.  Two out of three is some confirmation IMO

Sorry this is so late and out of phase with the thread.

There is an image with the authors of the Smithman e-fits on them and from memory it was Martin and Peter who provide the e-fits, not Aoife as you suspect.

[Robittybob1]

Sadie - I've just discovered how to make the images larger  - click on the small images.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Robittybob1]

Trying again.  Use scroll bar to move it across to see the ears of the 2nd person.
It has been nearly 11 years since it happened and we don't know when any comparison photo was taken so issues of baldness and weight could have varied over an 11 year period.
Hair colour, eyebrows eye colour, nose, upper lip and ears all similar.

[G-Unit]

Are you seriously suggesting that I am privy to the same information the investigating authorities hold?  Oh dear!

NB: Do not attempt to put words into my mouth ... that will not be tolerated ... which is why your incorrect implication is removed.  Do not do that again either to me or any other member.

I'm sorry if I 'put words into your mouth'. If you choose to answer my question below using your own words that will clarify the matter.

You chose to post your opinion of the Smith e-fits.

Your opinion doesn't appear to be shared by OG or, as far as I know, the PJ.

You appear to believe that they are the expert professionals who probably know a lot more than you do.

Do you think they got it wrong by publicising e-fits which, in your words, 'are not worth the paper they are printed on'? (post 32)





 

[Mr Gray]

On best evidence the Smith efits were constructed around 4 Sep 2008.

On best scientific evidence, efits made 3 days after a sighting are useless.  The Smith efits appear to have been made 17 months after the events.

Cites are on my blog for anyone interested.

Moving on to charity collectors, the ones mentioned were probably bogus, but probably only looking to pick up a few euros.  There are rules re charity collections.  The genuine ones work the busy public places in Luz.  The bogus ones do opportunistic visits to quiet properties, then scamper off if they make €5 or €10.  I know people who make €4-€5 per hour working in cafés these days, so a tenner in 2007 was a fat fish.

If the two people you refer to are those on 5C, I have no light to shed.

On the best scientific  evidence you say re e fits.... Do you have any cite for this or is it once again just your opinion..
Smithman is not a distraction.... He is a sighting that needs to be ruled out... Have the pj ever promoted the sighting in Portugal... Therein lies, the problem

[Robittybob1]

I'm sorry if I 'put words into your mouth'. If you chose to answer my question below I will have no need to speculate.

You chose to post your opinion of the Smith e-fits.

Your opinion doesn't appear to be shared by OG or, as far as I know, the PJ.

You appear to believe that they are the expert professionals who probably know a lot more than you do.

Do you think they got it wrong by publicising e-fits which, in your words, 'are not worth the paper they are printed on'? (post 32)

Do you think the OG professionals spoke to the Smiths again before publishing the e-fits?

I would not know the value and how would a professional know what their value was?  They could be from one extreme to the other.  We are all allowed our opinions, but my opinion of the Smith e-fits has just changed tonight as I have sent 2 matches of the Smith e-fits to OG.  We tend to think they represent one person but we don't know as we were not there, but if I'm right the two images are of two different but possibly related people.

[Eleanor]

Do you think the OG professionals spoke to the Smiths again before publishing the e-fits?

I would not know the value and how would a professional know what their value was?  They could be from one extreme to the other.  We are all allowed our opinions, but my opinion of the Smith e-fits has just changed tonight as I have sent 2 matches of the Smith e-fits to OG.  We tend to think they represent one person but we don't know as we were not there, but if I'm right the two images are of two different but possibly related people.

We don't actually know who they are supposed to be.  But neither of them look like Gerry.  In my opinion.

However, Cristovao  is another matter.