NEW E-Fits?- Express Maddy: Pictures of new suspect

I just wondered why she is working for Sky then? 
Edited to add: Not sure from the posts if she was making comments on Sky tonight or whether the comments are from the Crimewatch trailer?

plebgate wrote:I just wondered why she is working for Sky then?

She is an ex Crimewatch presenter

Can I remind everyone that according to Redwood himself, this information and the e-fits are 'new and substantive', and the press has variously described them as;

significant
very significant
breakthrough
shattering

etc. etc.

Not convinced this is the Smith sighting they are talking about yet - if it is, clearly none of those words above apply.

But with 27 minutes of reconstruction to view, who knows, there may be a lot more, which will justify the extravagant claims of the past two weeks.

I think that Tony and 'Peewit' (welcome by the way) suggested that the only way they could obtain extra time for the abduction would be to knock Jane Tanner out of the equation - thereby creating a window for the alleged abductor not of 3-5 minutes but of 45-50 minutes.

But this would cause problems for the investigation and those who relied on Tanner's statement.

The search would have to go on for 'Tanner Man'.

After all, Tanner gave a detailed description of the child's pyjamas which exactly matched what Madeleine was wearing.

Gerry and Kate would have to explain why they talked to the world on 25 May giving out Jane Tanner's description.

Russell O'Brien and the group would have to explain why they gave a misleading set of timelines written out on the ripped-out cover of Madeleine's book.

The Tapas 9 would have to explain why they retained Jane's sighting in their composite statement of 10 May.

Kate's book would have to be changed to remove Tanner Man and explain how Jane Tanner got it wrong.

The images that Melissa Little drew up for Brian Kennedy would have to be discarded.

And so on...

Searcgforthetruth wrote:

plebgate wrote:I just wondered why she is working for Sky then?

She is an ex Crimewatch presenter

So ex-crimewatch presenter now working for Sky?

plebgate wrote:I just wondered why she is working for Sky then? 
Edited to add: Not sure from the posts if she was making comments on Sky tonight or whether the comments are from the Crimewatch trailer?

She's a guest on Sky News for their paper review slot. She was interviewed separately on the 11 o'clock news programme. The quote was from that news bulletin.

Maybe, just maybe Tanner has changed her statement.

What I'd like to know is if the timings have changed significantly and one or more Tapas witness doesn't agree with the changes (Kate and Gerry perhaps), do they protest and insist on their original versions?

Interesting times ahead methinks!

She is a guest on the Press Review. She has said these 2 pictures are of the same man . A man seen carrying a child down a side street by a witness called Smith. This is the Smith statement and he was up to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann. This is fantastic news imo.

I'm not buying wrote:

plebgate wrote:I just wondered why she is working for Sky then? 
Edited to add: Not sure from the posts if she was making comments on Sky tonight or whether the comments are from the Crimewatch trailer?

She's a guest on Sky News for their paper review slot. She was interviewed separately on the 11 o'clock news programme. The quote was from that news bulletin.

Thanks for info.  

She was treated very badly by News International it seems.

How ironic eh?  So the bungling sardine muncher wanted to take the Smiths' sighting further.  But when he was pulled off the job, it sort of went belly up.

I'm watching the Sky News 11.30 p.m. press review, I can't believe what I'm hearing coming out of the mouth of the brainless moron who is presenting the programme.  He actually said "the Portuguese police got the timelines wrong"!!!   

I'm so mad, I feel like throwing a brick through the TV screen.

I've sat through the programme for 30 minutes now trying to catch the name of this brainless moron so I can email Sky News and complain but I don't know who he is.

He also had the audacity to say that the PJ passed over the sighting of a child being carried off.

It is truly offensive to right minded people that these so called presenters are paid hundreds of thousands of £s a year to spout such rubbish, and they are too damn lazy or can't be bothered to do any research themselves and just put their hands out for their wages every month, no matter that they are libelling innocent people and putting out false information.

I am really, really angry. 

Name: Aoife Smith

Nationality: Irish

Profession: Student

The witness states: 

She comes to the process as a witness.
Being of Irish nationality, she does not understand Portuguese in its written or oral form and is accompanied by an interpreter, Filipa Maria da Conçeição Silva.

On 30th April 2007 she travelled to Portugal on holiday, specifically to the Algarve. She came with her parents Martin and Mary Smith and her two nieces.

They stayed in the Estrela Da Luz complex in Praia da Luz where her parents have an apartment. 

Her brother Peter was already in the apartment when they arrived as was her sister-in-law, her nephew (six years old), CO** and the son of her sister-in-law, TA*** (13 years old). 

They came with the intention of holidaying for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on May 9, 2007 (she is not absolutely certain of the date). 

She spent the holiday in the complex pool, in Praia da Luz and in the shopping centre. Normally, they spent Praia da Luz.

They would dine between 19.00 and 20.00, in the apartment or in the Dolphin, Cavaleiro da Luz, Chaplin or Marujo restaurants - all situated in the Praia da Luz area.

When dining in the apartment, it was normal for them not to go out. When they did go to restaurants, they would pass by Kelly's Bar, situated – she thinks - on Calheta Street in Praia da Luz.

Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, together with the whole family, to dine at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. 

At around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.

When asked, she responds that she knows the time they left because her brother and father decided to go home earlier that night.
 
There were two reasons for this: her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law, were catching a flight to Ireland the following morning.

Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres.
 
At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with steps which lead to Rua 25 de Abril.
 
As it was a large group (four adults and five children) they walked in a spaced out manner along the street some walking ahead, some further behind.
 
She does not remember how they were divided.

The witness remembers that upon reaching the top of the steps, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a girl (2) in his arms, walking along the path Rua 25 de Abril.
 
 He was walking in their direction at a distance of, more or less, two metres.

The witness crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária, in the direction of the Estrela da Luz complex.

She did not see if the individual in question carrying the child descended the Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.

It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him before at any time anywhere.

She has now seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been the missing girl. When asked she says that she is about 60% certain.

The description made below of the individual that the witness saw was at around 22H00, when the lighting was tenuous. 

When asked, she says that she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child.


Personal Description:

(1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 1.70/1.75 metres in height.
 
At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember.
 
 She believes that he had a clean-shaven face.
 
She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings.
 
She did not look at his ears.
 
His hair was thick, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top. 

The trousers he was wearing were smooth straight-legged trousers, light beige in colour, of a cotton type material, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons and without any patterns.
She did not see what he was wearing on his top half as the child covered almost completely what he was wearing and she had no idea of what it could have been.

As regards his shoes she cannot say anything because she did not see them.

The individual's gait was normal, being able to distinguish it between walking quickly and running. He did not appear tired and walked normally while carrying the child.


(2) As regards the child the witness says she was female because she had long smooth hair, neck length, fair/brown in colour.

She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height. 

She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position on the front of the individual’s body.
 
She appeared to be sleeping.
 
Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual who was carrying her.
 
She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin, having the feeling that it was white.

There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but because of the girl’s position, she only saw her from the back.

She was wearing light coloured trousers, white or light pink-coloured that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was fine and could have been cotton.

She also had a light coloured top, with long sleeves.
 

She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was light in colour.

When questioned regarding her shoes, she responds that she did not remember seeing any, not knowing if she was wearing shoes or not.

When asked to tell the truth, she states that what she has just stated is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge. 

And nothing more was said. Having read the statement and finding it in conformity, she ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.

Newintown wrote:I'm watching the Sky News 11.30 p.m. press review, I can't believe what I'm hearing coming out of the mouth of the brainless moron who is presenting the programme.  He actually said "the Portuguese police got the timelines wrong"!!!   

I'm so mad, I feel like throwing a brick through the TV screen.

I've sat through the programme for 30 minutes now trying to catch the name of this brainless moron so I can email Sky News and complain but I don't know who he is.

He also had the audacity to say that the PJ passed over the sighting of a child being carried off.

It is truly offensive to right minded people that these so called presenters are paid hundreds of thousands of £s a year to spout such rubbish, and they are too damn lazy or can't be bothered to do any research themselves and just put their hands out for their wages every month, no matter that they are libelling innocent people and putting out false information.

I am really, really angry. 

I'm pretty fuming too, but I am resigned that these 'front men' are just there to look pretty and spout out the propaganda

MoonGoddess wrote:

Newintown wrote:I'm watching the Sky News 11.30 p.m. press review, I can't believe what I'm hearing coming out of the mouth of the brainless moron who is presenting the programme.  He actually said "the Portuguese police got the timelines wrong"!!!   

I'm so mad, I feel like throwing a brick through the TV screen.

I've sat through the programme for 30 minutes now trying to catch the name of this brainless moron so I can email Sky News and complain but I don't know who he is.

He also had the audacity to say that the PJ passed over the sighting of a child being carried off.

It is truly offensive to right minded people that these so called presenters are paid hundreds of thousands of £s a year to spout such rubbish, and they are too damn lazy or can't be bothered to do any research themselves and just put their hands out for their wages every month, no matter that they are libelling innocent people and putting out false information.

I am really, really angry. 

I'm pretty fuming too, but I am resigned that these 'front men' are just there to look pretty and spout out the propaganda

The presenter's name is Mark Longhurst. I usually enjoy his news reviews  

MoonGoddess wrote:

Newintown wrote:I'm watching the Sky News 11.30 p.m. press review, I can't believe what I'm hearing coming out of the mouth of the brainless moron who is presenting the programme.  He actually said "the Portuguese police got the timelines wrong"!!!   

I'm so mad, I feel like throwing a brick through the TV screen.

I've sat through the programme for 30 minutes now trying to catch the name of this brainless moron so I can email Sky News and complain but I don't know who he is.

He also had the audacity to say that the PJ passed over the sighting of a child being carried off.

It is truly offensive to right minded people that these so called presenters are paid hundreds of thousands of £s a year to spout such rubbish, and they are too damn lazy or can't be bothered to do any research themselves and just put their hands out for their wages every month, no matter that they are libelling innocent people and putting out false information.

I am really, really angry. 

I'm pretty fuming too, but I am resigned that these 'front men' are just there to look pretty and spout out the propaganda

It must be galling for the Portuguese to listen to these downright lies. I recommend they read Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth Of The Lie' to see what he has to say about the Smith sighting. It's very clear.

On Twitter

Sean O'Neill ‏@TimesCrime 1h
Yard on alert for social media trolls as Madeleine suspect e-fits are issued

MoonGoddess wrote:On Twitter

Sean O'Neill ‏@TimesCrime 1h
Yard on alert for social media trolls as Madeleine suspect e-fits are issued

The efits are people of interest, not suspects. It has been said they may not have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine.

sharonl wrote:Can I remind everyone that according to Redwood himself, this information and the e-fits are 'new and substantive', and the press has variously described them as;

significant
very significant
breakthrough
shattering

etc. etc.

Not convinced this is the Smith sighting they are talking about yet - if it is, clearly none of those words above apply.

But with 27 minutes of reconstruction to view, who knows, there may be a lot more, which will justify the extravagant claims of the past two weeks.

I think that Tony and 'Peewit' (welcome by the way) suggested that the only way they could obtain extra time for the abduction would be to knock Jane Tanner out of the equation - thereby creating a window for the alleged abductor not of 3-5 minutes but of 45-50 minutes.

But this would cause problems for the investigation and those who relied on Tanner's statement.

The search would have to go on for 'Tanner Man'.

After all, Tanner gave a detailed description of the child's pyjamas which exactly matched what Madeleine was wearing.

Gerry and Kate would have to explain why they talked to the world on 25 May giving out Jane Tanner's description.

Russell O'Brien and the group would have to explain why they gave a misleading set of timelines written out on the ripped-out cover of Madeleine's book.

The Tapas 9 would have to explain why they retained Jane's sighting in their composite statement of 10 May.

Kate's book would have to be changed to remove Tanner Man and explain how Jane Tanner got it wrong.

The images that Melissa Little drew up for Brian Kennedy would have to be discarded.

And so on...  

 

McCanns have no problem with glaring anomalies and lying through their teeth, I refer you to Kate's 'we never made much of her eye'.  However, writing Jane Tanner out of the equation will, as you say, open further cans of worms.  That detailed description of the pyjama bottoms nails her, nothing vague about it.  Apart from all the other problems you have already highlighted Sharon, how will she feel about being labelled as a liar?  She has always been dispensable to the mccanns, especially from the moment Gerry said he was on the opposite side of the road and never saw her.

Yard on alert for social media trolls! So is this how they are spending some of the £6million!

Generating those e-fits must have cost a few million too, because that is all they have come up with thus far!

I am visiting my 71 year old father at the mo, and I showed him the e-fits, he absolutely wet himself for a few minutes!! I've not seen him laugh so hard in many a year! So, thank you Scotland Yard for a seriously good laugh tonight! It was worth the £6million you've spent!

They have got to be the most shocking, low-budget e-fits I've ever seen! The person who created them for the McCanns, certainly has a sense of humour!  

ShuBob wrote:Someone on Twitter has posted two e-fits which they allege are from a local newspaper:

https://twitter.com/ad_mills/status/389465949843124225

I kid you  not  one of the CW presenters is a family friend - should i say something? Feel free to move mod...

Could someone clarify for me please as I am now getting confused! Is the e-fits supposed to be two men or is it of one man who might have a fat or thin face, maybe the light was bad and the witnesses weren't sure.

So let me get this right...

The Smith family saw Gerry carrying a child near the sea, and they also saw some 'persons of interest' near to the McCann's apartment?!

If they supposedly saw people near the apartment, why was it not in their statement?!

How can they accurately create an e-fit from a 6 year old memory?!

Also, if the people in the e-fits were real, they would have aged 6 years!

What a shambles!

I think they are supposed to be one man Ollie, compilations from different witnesses.  However, what strikes me, is Gerry could easily be added alongside, as he's caucasian, has short neat brown hair, is clean shaven, same age range, and has beady eyes!

Thank you Cristobell!

tasprin wrote:

melisande wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Someone on Twitter has posted two e-fits which they allege are from a local newspaper:

https://twitter.com/ad_mills/status/389465949843124225

As I commented on the other thread, the guy on the right is a dead ringer for Martin Brunt.  

Perhaps someone could tweet Martin Brunt urgently and let him know Scotland Yard wants to talk to him

 

Newintown wrote:I'm watching the Sky News 11.30 p.m. press review, I can't believe what I'm hearing ........... 

they are too damn lazy or can't be bothered to do any research themselves and just put their hands out for their wages every month, no matter that they are libelling innocent people and putting out false information.

I am really, really angry. 

Yes I agree with you Newintown