The Smithman e-fits

[G-Unit]

It astounds how Redwood managed to maintain a straight face when he introduced 5-year-old e-fits as some revelation?

He achieved his goal, though. He changed the story, got rid of Tannerman and focused attention on Smithman.

Redwood said: "Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/14/british-detectives-efits-madeleine-mccann-suspect

Then the plot thickens when the Sunday Times get involved. Apparently the e-fits were produced by the Oakley investigators along with a report which was critical of the group! Henri Exton told them all about it. How he had been silenced by legal threats and had even had to get written permission from the Fund to hand his evidence to OG.

I doubt if he was given permission to reveal the existence and contents of the report to the Sunday Times, so the question is why they were pursued and punished when he, seemingly, was not?

[Robittybob1]

Do you think he made them up?

It is possible isn't it?  Could you produce an e-fit of someone you only saw for a few seconds on a darkened street after you had been drinking over a year later.  I know I couldn't.  But I might be able to do that from memory of someone I knew.  But originally they answered questions that they didn't know this person but in the meantime there would have been conversations etc.  You don't know what is going on.  Too much time has intervened.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps I am totally thick, as you seem to be suggesting, but perhaps you could explain why the PJ didn't organise efits back in May 2007. Do you have any idea as to why they didn't?

Go one step further back and ask why the Smiths didn't report their sightings the very next day?  So the e-fits being produced on the 4th would have been the most ideal time.  Speak to Martin Smith, Aoife Smith and most importantly Peter Smith while his dad could not interfere with his recollection.

But once we have a family get together and a conference about what they are going to tell, its over IMO.

[jassi]

Go one step further back and ask why the Smiths didn't report their sightings the very next day?  So the e-fits being produced on the 4th would have been the most ideal time.  Speak to Martin Smith, Aoife Smith and most importantly Peter Smith while his dad could not interfere with his recollection.

But once we have a family get together and a conference about what they are going to tell, its over IMO.

Do you hold the same view regarding the Rothley meeting prior to the rogatory statements ?

[Robittybob1]

Do you hold the same view regarding the Rothley meeting prior to the rogatory statements ?

That is another topic, but we did discuss the possibility of a "big secret" the other day.

[slartibartfast]

It is possible isn't it?  Could you produce an e-fit of someone you only saw for a few seconds on a darkened street after you had been drinking over a year later.  I know I couldn't.  But I might be able to do that from memory of someone I knew.  But originally they answered questions that they didn't know this person but in the meantime there would have been conversations etc.  You don't know what is going on.  Too much time has intervened.

If you are getting badgered to produce an efit, perhaps you eventually give in to get the asker off your back.

[jassi]

That is another topic, but we did discuss the possibility of a "big secret" the other day.

But do you hold to the same principal?

[Robittybob1]

But do you hold to the same principal?

It has been a theme running through the case, from the sticker book timelines (2 variations) then the agreed timeline which the witnesses didn't stick to, to this meeting where there was nothing produced to say what was talked about.  So you can't but wonder what is going on.  With the Smiths I see Martin as the leader, dominating the family, but with the T9 group who is the driving force?
Sticker book - ROB
Agreed time line  - ROB
Meeting?  ????  I don't know enough about the meeting TBH.

[Brietta]

Wasn't that long ago you were impressed with Brunt.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.3345

Hmmm ... you class that as being 'impressed'?

What would really be impressive would be for you to answer my question ... "What did Scotland Yard have to say?"

[Robittybob1]

If you are getting badgered to produce an efit, perhaps you eventually give in to get the asker off your back.

Even if a person pointed a gun to my head I could never play a musical instrument.  Either you can do it or you can't, but an e-fit can just be made up IMO.  If they followed police  based procedures and used different operators to do each e-fit  then it might be that they were both producing someone they knew, for they were relatively alike.

[slartibartfast]

Even if a person pointed a gun to my head I could never play a musical instrument.  Either you can do it or you can't, but an e-fit can just be made up IMO.  If they followed police  based procedures and used different operators to do each e-fit  then it might be that they were both producing someone they knew, for they were relatively alike.

Yup.

[Lace]

Kindly see Robbity's posts regarding the reports.  It is clear he has worked through them to extract many of the salient details.

Please do not misrepresent my posts.  'Sooner rather than later' is quite different to 'soon'.

Alice appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why.  Robbity appears to have worked out that the e-fits are flaky, and why.

This level of incompetence is duplicated in other actions by Operation Grange.

I knew before Alice's post that the e-fits were flaky, because I have seen the original scientific research papers to prove it.  But I could only assume that OG knew they were flaky.  With Alice's paper showing that Surrey police knew such e-fits would be flaky, I am now confident that OG knew they were flaky, before they published them.

So Crimewatch 2013 becomes a farce.  Crecheman going the wrong way.  Dodgy e-fits.  £11 million and counting.

The only wise decision I can think of is that DCI Nicola Wall rapidly moved to other investigations.

Please do not attribute motive to my posts in future, otherwise I will report such a post as being in breach of the forum rules, and let the mods decide.

So,  you believe the e fits to be 'flaky'  yet the same name cropped up in the Crime Watch appeal by SY.

I think it would be up to SY to decide  whether they were flaky or not.

I didn't have to attribute motive,  you give your motive for wanting the investigation closed 'sooner'  rather than later,  you want to speak to the people caught up in it,  why?

[Lace]

It astounds how Redwood managed to maintain a straight face when he introduced 5-year-old e-fits as some revelation?

Why John?   do you think the man may have altered his appearance?   After all the e.fits were for 2007 when the man carrying the child was seen.

[ShiningInLuz]

So,  you believe the e fits to be 'flaky'  yet the same name cropped up in the Crime Watch appeal by SY.

I think it would be up to SY to decide  whether they were flaky or not.

I didn't have to attribute motive,  you give your motive for wanting the investigation closed 'sooner'  rather than later,  you want to speak to the people caught up in it,  why?

You DID attribute motive - that it was to increase hits on my blog.  Offensive!

It is NOT up to SY to decide whether the e-fits are flaky.  Research science proves those e-fits are flaky.  Alice's link proves that Surrey police knew such e-fits to be flaky.

SY knew they were flaky, and punted them out anyway.

As for your final question, I would like to find out if Paulo Ribeiro was flame-roasted over just a flaky e-fit, or whether there was more to it.  SY should have disclosed what they thought might have incriminated him.

[misty]

You DID attribute motive - that it was to increase hits on my blog.  Offensive!

It is NOT up to SY to decide whether the e-fits are flaky.  Research science proves those e-fits are flaky.  Alice's link proves that Surrey police knew such e-fits to be flaky.

SY knew they were flaky, and punted them out anyway.

As for your final question, I would like to find out if Paulo Ribeiro was flame-roasted over just a flaky e-fit, or whether there was more to it.  SY should have disclosed what they thought might have incriminated him.

Ribeiro was part of a group with burglary convictions, whose phone records placed them in contact with each other around the time Madeleine went missing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/