The Smithman e-fits

[G-Unit]

Cite, please.

Sorry, I thought it was general knowledge;

10th September 2007
The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

[misty]

Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

snipped


Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.


Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?

[G-Unit]

Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

snipped


Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.


Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?

The question wasn't whether the PJ were correct to dismiss Tanner's sighting, it was whether they did so before the sketch was released. According to my cite they had.

[Brietta]

Sorry, I thought it was general knowledge;

10th September 2007
The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

Thank you.

[misty]

The question wasn't whether the PJ were correct to dismiss Tanner's sighting, it was whether they did so before the sketch was released. According to my cite they had.

I was aware of that. It's just curious that so many dismiss Jane Tanner's description as unreliable, despite the image's consistency with her original statement yet fail to notice the glaring deficiencies in the Smiths' statements used to produce efits.

IMO

[Robittybob1]

Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

snipped


Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.


Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?

Was Jane involved with these artist's impression of Tannerman?

[G-Unit]

I was aware of that. It's just curious that so many dismiss Jane Tanner's description as unreliable, despite the image's consistency with her original statement yet fail to notice the glaring deficiencies in the Smiths' statements used to produce efits.

MOO.

I expect the PJ had their reasons, and OG seemed happy to display the Irish family's e-fits.

[Robittybob1]

Jane's description of Tannerman 4/5/07

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

snipped


Personal description:
( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.


Artist's impression of Tannerman released 25/10/07
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

How much at variance with the original description is the artist's impression?

That page on GerryMccannsblogs had a major error.

it said "Sylvia Batista (Ocean Club Manager/Translator) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

No mention of Tanner's sighting; '... she also was not told of any abnormal situation which happened.'

- 1st witness statement from the PJ files, 07 May 2007"

Yet if you look at Silvia's statement from the 7th of May there is a whole 2 paragraphs about Jan's sighting.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
"At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.

This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.

[Lace]

Sorry, I thought it was general knowledge;

10th September 2007
The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

How was Jane supposed to know that the man she saw could have been someone taking Madeleine?   Jane has just seen Gerry talking to Jeremy,   she knew Gerry had just looked in on his children.   

[Lace]

Had to ?                Do you have a cite for that?

The detective has been quoted as saying they did.   So,   if the PI's only had to answer to the McCann's,  why do you think they had to hand in the e-fits to the PJ?   

snipped -  In articles dated October 27 [..] we referred to e-fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. 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 e-fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershite police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the e-fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011 [..] we apologise for the distress caused.' unquote

[G-Unit]

The detective has been quoted as saying they did.   So,   if the PI's only had to answer to the McCann's,  why do you think they had to hand in the e-fits to the PJ?   

snipped -  In articles dated October 27 [..] we referred to e-fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. 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 e-fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershite police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the e-fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011 [..] we apologise for the distress caused.' unquote

Neither the PI's, the McCanns or the directors of Madeleine's Fund were required to pass any information to anyone unless they chose to do so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Neither the PI's, the McCanns or the directors of Madeleine's Fund were required to pass any information to anyone unless they chose to do so.

Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?

[jassi]

The detective has been quoted as saying they did.   So,   if the PI's only had to answer to the McCann's,  why do you think they had to hand in the e-fits to the PJ?   

snipped -  In articles dated October 27 [..] we referred to e-fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. 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 e-fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershite police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the e-fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011 [..] we apologise for the distress caused.' unquote

Your cite doesn't state that the detectives HAD to do anything. There is no mention of coercion on the part of LP or PJ

[faithlilly]

Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?

And yet they did for almost a year if the Times apology is to be believed.

[G-Unit]

Is it not an offence to deliberately withhold potential evidence of a crime from the authorities?

Is it? Did they have potential evidence of a crime? What crime? Were 'the authorities' investigating a crime? What was the crime? Were the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fits handed to the authorities? If not, why not?