The Smithman e-fits

[Wonderfulspam]

Probably looks like a lot of people... That's a fact too
It's also a fact that he drew up the e fit after, seeing Gerry's face on tv... It's also a fact that he didn't get a good look at the suspects face... It's also a fact that both investigations have stated Gerry is not a, suspect

That's funny, a few weeks ago you were saying he didn't see his face.....now you're saying he didn't get a good look...

[G-Unit]

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I have searched it, but can't find an answer to my question. Never mind, I have copied your post in full and inserted my replies in bold beneath each point you made.

In my opinion the debate has moved way beyond your invitation to me regarding your questioning:

In my opinion I asked a you question and the answer is relevant both to the thread title and to your expressed opinion of those e-fits.

 for example did you miss Shining and Misty's excellent posts on the matter, one of which illustrates that more efits than the one I described as "not worth etc ... ..." were shown by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch which was broadcast way back at the reopening of Madeleine's case when all the bases neglected or otherwise were being checked out?

No, I read all the posts. This thread is about the Smithman e-fits, no others.

Based on the fact that no-one other than the police who are privy to all available information in Madeleine's case, has the slightest inkling of what prompted the information imparted during the programme including various efits.
Without being privy to what was going on at the heart of the investigation criticism of what was imparted and why would in my opinion be plain silly.

Precisely. They obviously felt that the Smith e-fits were worth showing.

Made doubly so that as well as ignorance of what the police knew, what they wanted to know and the reasons behind their mode of procedure to get it, taken in conjunction with the lack of knowledge of what the result of their information seeking exercise was ... apart from information about more assaults on the children of holidaymakers than had been known about ... makes ill informed conjecture futile.

Whatever their motives were dismissing the e-fits as of no use is a bit harsh and unhelpful in my opinion.

Not to mention the sick campaign encouraging time wasters to phone in to a programme broadcast with the intention of gathering information to help a missing child, to name the child's father as the man in the Smith efits.

People were asked if they recognised the man and if they thought they did they had a right to respond imo.

So given that we are privy to little of the information gleaned from the Crimewatch programme ... the Smith efits could have relevance and could have been worth pursuing or they may indeed have been found "not worth etc ... "

If Redwood had dismissed them as you did he would never have included them in the programme, would never have moved the time of the abduction to 30 minutes later and never have received whatever information came in, would he?

Who knows?  Maybe time will tell and in my opinion there is an excellent chance of that

[Brietta]

That's funny, a few weeks ago you were saying he didn't see his face.....now you're saying he didn't get a good look...

Isn't that a comprehension problem?

In my opinion ... "didn't get a good look ..." and "didn't see his face" amounts to very much the same thing, even if one is really hung up on semantics.

For example ... Mr Smith didn't see the man's face because he didn't get a good look at it, which is why he was unable to describe it to the PJ.

[Brietta]

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I have searched it, but can't find an answer to my question. Never mind, I have copied your post in full and inserted my replies in bold beneath each point you made.

In my opinion the debate has moved way beyond your invitation to me regarding your questioning:

In my opinion I asked a you question and the answer is relevant both to the thread title and to your expressed opinion of those e-fits.

 for example did you miss Shining and Misty's excellent posts on the matter, one of which illustrates that more efits than the one I described as "not worth etc ... ..." were shown by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch which was broadcast way back at the reopening of Madeleine's case when all the bases neglected or otherwise were being checked out?

No, I read all the posts. This thread is about the Smithman e-fits, no others.

Based on the fact that no-one other than the police who are privy to all available information in Madeleine's case, has the slightest inkling of what prompted the information imparted during the programme including various efits.
Without being privy to what was going on at the heart of the investigation criticism of what was imparted and why would in my opinion be plain silly.

Precisely. They obviously felt that the Smith e-fits were worth showing.

Made doubly so that as well as ignorance of what the police knew, what they wanted to know and the reasons behind their mode of procedure to get it, taken in conjunction with the lack of knowledge of what the result of their information seeking exercise was ... apart from information about more assaults on the children of holidaymakers than had been known about ... makes ill informed conjecture futile.

Whatever their motives were dismissing the e-fits as of no use is a bit harsh and unhelpful in my opinion.

Not to mention the sick campaign encouraging time wasters to phone in to a programme broadcast with the intention of gathering information to help a missing child, to name the child's father as the man in the Smith efits.

People were asked if they recognised the man and if they thought they did they had a right to respond imo.

So given that we are privy to little of the information gleaned from the Crimewatch programme ... the Smith efits could have relevance and could have been worth pursuing or they may indeed have been found "not worth etc ... "

If Redwood had dismissed them as you did he would never have included them in the programme, would never have moved the time of the abduction to 30 minutes later and never have received whatever information came in, would he?

Who knows?  Maybe time will tell and in my opinion there is an excellent chance of that

Did DCI Redwood receive information either positive or negative from any of the efits he promoted using the Crimewatch programme to do so?

You don't know, do you?

Nor do you know what was in his mind when he promoted the Smith efit.  The saying about more ways than one to skin a cat springs readily to mind.

Good to see you approve the investigative technique used though whatever the intended aim, making two of us.

However it does not change my opinion regarding the Smith sighting one iota nor does it change my opinion on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange.

[jassi]

Did DCI Redwood receive information either positive or negative from any of the efits he promoted using the Crimewatch programme to do so?

You don't know, do you?

Nor do you know what was in his mind when he promoted the Smith efit.  The saying about more ways than one to skin a cat springs readily to mind.

Good to see you approve the investigative technique used though whatever the intended aim, making two of us.

However it does not change my opinion regarding the Smith sighting one iota nor does it change my opinion on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange.

Likely to be positive, don't you think, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered featuring them as he did.

[Robittybob1]

One of the e-fits looks like Cristovao.  That is a fact.

That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing.  It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts off as an opinion.

[Mr Gray]

That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing.  It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts of as an opinion.

So is the existence of God a fact because so many people believe it.. Is evolution a fact because so many believe it

[G-Unit]

Did DCI Redwood receive information either positive or negative from any of the efits he promoted using the Crimewatch programme to do so?

You don't know, do you?

Nor do you know what was in his mind when he promoted the Smith efit.  The saying about more ways than one to skin a cat springs readily to mind.

Good to see you approve the investigative technique used though whatever the intended aim, making two of us.

However it does not change my opinion regarding the Smith sighting one iota nor does it change my opinion on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange.

What is this 'investigative technique' and when did I say I approved of it?

Your last paragraph is most interesting. You still think the Smith e-fits aren't worth the paper they're printed on, I take it? So what is your opinion 'on the conduct of the case being worked on Madeleine's behalf by Operation Grange' I wonder? Good, bad, so-so or wasting time and resources showing people useless e-fits?

[Robittybob1]

That's funny, a few weeks ago you were saying he didn't see his face.....now you're saying he didn't get a good look...

It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place.  Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew.  So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.

[G-Unit]

That is a classic example of when an opinion and a fact are the same thing.  It is a fact the many people would have the same opinion, so it becomes a fact that there is a similarity even though it starts of as an opinion.

No Rob. The fact is that many people share the same opinion, not that the opinion is a fact.

[Mr Gray]

It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place.  Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew.  So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.

How can he produce an accurate likeness  if he did not see the persons face clearly
He admits he thought it was Gerry.... Not from the face but from the way he carried the child... That's why I don't feel his assertion it was Gerry to have any value

[G-Unit]

It is mysterious how they were able to draw the faces in the first place.  Martin knew for certain it wasn't Robert Murat so that gives us a clue that IMO he was concerned it was someone he knew.  So even though he knew it wasn't RM even without seeing the face, he might have been able to draw a likeness to the person he thought he saw.
Like if the E-fit operator asked Martin Smith to draw Robert Murat would he have been able?
If the E-fit operator asked Martin to draw Gerry McCann would he have been able?
So I don't see why it isn't possible to draw an image of a person they knew, purely from memory, but not necessarily the person they saw.

I don't think e-fits like that are drawn.

[Robittybob1]

Isn't that a comprehension problem?

In my opinion ... "didn't get a good look ..." and "didn't see his face" amounts to very much the same thing, even if one is really hung up on semantics.

For example ... Mr Smith didn't see the man's face because he didn't get a good look at it, which is why he was unable to describe it to the PJ.

Yet he is able to draw an E-fit!  Does that mean it was from previous memories of a person whom he thought it was.  Like if Smithman had spoken to them and they recognised his voice could they then draw a visual image of a man whom they recognised aurally?  Like I'm am very good with voices, if someone rang me up and I thought I recognised the voice I then could draw an image of the person who spoke to me from memory as long as it was a person I had met in the past.

I can't see how e-fit gets around this issue.

How can he produce an accurate likeness  if he did not see the persons face clearly
He admits he thought it was Gerry.... Not from the face but from the way he carried the child... That's why I don't feel his assertion it was Gerry to have any value

How many different ways of carrying a child are there?

[Robittybob1]

I don't think e-fits like that are drawn.

They might not be usually drawn that way, but what would stop it?  You can go onto the internet and download an image generator and draw anyone you want to.

[Carana]

No Rob. The fact is that many people share the same opinion, not that the opinion is a fact.

I agree with you on that point. The fact that many people apparently believe that the Earth is flat doesn't make it a fact that the Earth is actually flat.