Re: SMITHMAN 3 - The e-fits - two different people, or the same man?

by palm tree 19.09.14 22:35

pennylane wrote:
palm tree wrote:
j.rob wrote:
palm tree wrote:I wonder what would've happened if he'd carried an awake Amelie?
IMO

I wonder if, for whatever reason, it was important that Amelie was asleep when being photographed being carried off the plane? Sean was awake and looking forwards so he is captured by the press photographers.

Whereas Amelie seemed to have been in a deep sleep, judging by how she was carried over Gerry's shoulder. So you cannot see her face at all.

Perhaps of interest that Gerry was carrying Madeleine's sister (rather than her brother who was being carried by Kate) on the family return from the fateful holiday during which one of their children apparently mysteriously vanished.
Shit sorry j rob, I thought gm was carrying a sleeping Sean! Hope I haven't confused anyone
GM was definitely carrying a sleeping Sean off the plane and KM was carrying Amelie behind him.

I thought I'd had it wrong but I did go back to check, thank you pennylane.

by Markus 2 19.09.14 23:18

This man has gained some weight now by the looks of it, very possible ,hmm the same man.

by Markus 2 20.09.14 23:26

Almost 1,000 people have now contacted Scotland Yard and BBC Crimewatch with information regarding Madeleine's abduction from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
More than 730 calls were made and 212 emails received as a result of the appeal shown on Monday night.
Among them were two independent callers who phoned police on Monday night with the same name for the man shown on the e-fit picture.
Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said the response was "truly unprecedented" and there were lots of calls from British people who were in Praia da Luz at the time but had not previously contacted police.

What became of these two identified by callers ,wonder who they were, or if they were followed up.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 1:05

nglfi wrote:Similarities -

1. Eyebrow shape and thickness

OK, I concede that

2. Hair of both appears to be cut short but it would be curly if they let it grow

The man on the right appears to have slightly longer hair, curly, and combed or blown backwards and up. I don't see these features on the man on the left

3. Similar moustache area

OK, maybe

4. To me the noses appear the same length, with both having a downward tipped nose and similar size/shape nostrils

The facts are against you on that one. Taking a measurement from the level of the top of the eyes to the tip of the nose, the man on the right's nose is just 16mm, while the one on the left is 20mm - 25% longer

5. To me the hairline shape looks the same.

OK, very similar, but then so it is for millions of men

Having said that, the two face shapes are different but I believe Dee Coy has provided a good explanation for that!

Here are some more significant differences:

Width of the face at the lips: left man, 31mm, right man 38mm (23% broader)

Depth of chin: left man 10mm, right man 14mm (40% deeper)

Distance between eyeballs: left man 14mm, right man 11mm.

I do not agree that Dee Coy has provided anything like a good explanation for all these differences

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable (although Ii hate to use that phrase now!). People's ability to recall varies wildly

Recall of a man seen fleetingly in the dark 12 to 17 months previously would be bound to be so seriously unreliable as to be useless, unless he had a significant distinguishing feature

and I believe these could be two individuals recollection of the same person.

OK, we disagree on that. But could you ask yourself another question, why on earth would ANY police force issue two separate efits that DO look to many as quite different people? If, as claimed, these e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths, surely a police officer would go back and forth and say, e.g. do you think he really had such a long nose? was his hair definitely blown back, or not? do you distinctly remember a large chin? - and would then go back again and again until they had just ONE clear image to put to the public.

And another thing. What, really, is the value of these images after six-and-a-half years? If anyone else had seen a man carrying a child around Praia da Luz, they would have reported it a long time ago.

Nothing adds up about these two e-fits, so I remain of the same view as Wendy Murphy on Fox News.

I'm not buying it


Former U.S. prosecutor Wendy Murphy: 'This is more PR than anything'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Seek truth 21.09.14 2:55

Same nose length and nostrils?
hysterical

Walking down the street one day
Saw a man who walked my way
Instead of looking at his eyes and hair
Noticed his nose because it was all that was there!

Yes that's it THE NOSE. liar

That's how you recognise people.

by pennylane 21.09.14 7:45

Has anyone here had to describe a person to the police? I have, and I think it's ill-advised to believe that because there are differences in the e-fits, that it cannot be the same person! Try describing your postman or neighbor, for example, especially his hairstyle, eyes and chin. Then get your spouse to do the same.

by pennylane 21.09.14 8:03

palm tree wrote:
pennylane wrote:
palm tree wrote:
j.rob wrote:
palm tree wrote:I wonder what would've happened if he'd carried an awake Amelie?
IMO

I wonder if, for whatever reason, it was important that Amelie was asleep when being photographed being carried off the plane? Sean was awake and looking forwards so he is captured by the press photographers.

Whereas Amelie seemed to have been in a deep sleep, judging by how she was carried over Gerry's shoulder. So you cannot see her face at all.

Perhaps of interest that Gerry was carrying Madeleine's sister (rather than her brother who was being carried by Kate) on the family return from the fateful holiday during which one of their children apparently mysteriously vanished.
Shit sorry j rob, I thought gm was carrying a sleeping Sean! Hope I haven't confused anyone
GM was definitely carrying a sleeping Sean off the plane and KM was carrying Amelie behind him.
I thought I'd had it wrong but I did go back to check, thank you pennylane.

You're welcome palm tree x

by nglfi 21.09.14 9:01

Seek truth wrote:Same nose length and nostrils?

Walking down the street one day
Saw a man who walked my way
Instead of looking at his eyes and hair
Noticed his nose because it was all that was there!

Yes that's it THE NOSE.

That's how you recognise people.

Yes, same nose length and nostrils. The nose is normally the biggest feature on the face and the part that protrudes furthest. It's an important one to get right. Did someone have a big or small nose? Was it snub or hooked? Etc.

@Tony, I appreciate your reply, and I don't have an answer for why two e fits have been shown, when I will agree that many people think they are of different people. The only thing I can think is that they were drawn up by two different witnesses, those witnesses are quite definite about what they saw and will not be swayed. Redwood might get in trouble if he went back to them as you say and tried to persuade them to change it. There's certainly something odd about them. I did see a post on here somewhere comparing them to a picture of Martin Brunt and another journalist who I can't remember, and the likeness of both was so similar it was scary. However my brain won't let me think about that because it get's far too complicated and I can't even begin to think why that would be the case!

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 9:30

nglfi wrote:
@Tony, I appreciate your reply, and I don't have an answer for why two e-fits have been shown, when I will agree that many people think they are of different people. The only thing I can think is that they were drawn up by two different witnesses, those witnesses are quite definite about what they saw and will not be swayed. Redwood might get in trouble if he went back to them as you say and tried to persuade them to change it. There's certainly something odd about them. I did see a post on here somewhere comparing them to a picture of Martin Brunt and another journalist who I can't remember, and the likeness of both was so similar it was scary. However my brain won't let me think about that because it get's far too complicated and I can't even begin to think why that would be the case!

My hypothesis on this, just to make it very clear to all here, is that these two images were created by the dishonest team of Kevin Halligen and former head of Covert Operations for MI5, Henri Exton, and are manipulated images of photographs of two actual individuals, both living in the south of England.

These two individuals, I would suggest, have a remote connection with the Madeleine McCann mystery but have nothing to do with events in Praia da Luz. I have two actual names in view. This fully explains why these images are indeed of two quite different people.

I would further suggest that after the three phantom abductors we have had so far (Tannerman, Sagres man and Crecheman), for Operation Grange to claim that these two images of different men are one man is a desperate 'last throw' of DCI Redwood and his team to try to convince a British public, who largely swallow what the mainstream media have told us about this case, that there really was an abductor seen carrying away a child on 3 May.

I further suggest that Martin Smith has been interviewed by Operation Grange twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013, as we know on the record, to see if he would endorse these two e-fits as being made by him and members of his family.

My further hypothesis is that he has NOT endorsed these two e-fits, as he knows they were not created by himself and members of his family. That in my view perfectly explains why BBC CrimeWatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala did NOT say that these images were created by 'members of the Irish family' but very deliberately said they were created 'by two of the witnesses'. Remember that every single word of that broadcast would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked before being approved by the top brass in the BBC and also Redwood's masters in the Met. The choice of 'two of the witnesses' rather than 'two members of the Irish family' was IMO deliberate and a deception.

Another issue falls into place if my hypothesis right.

Why, according to the Sunday Times publishd apology, were these 2-efits...

...not used by the McCanns?

...not used by Leicestershire Police?

...not used by the Portuguese Police?

...handed to DCI Redwood in August 2011 but not used by him until October 2013, two years and two months after he first got them?

I suggest the answer is because all of the above knew, or suspected that, the claim that these images were produced by the Smiths was false.

So, final point, why is DCI Redwood using these images now?

My hypotheses on this is that Operation Grange has been given a brief to find 'closure' in this case in the near future, and that despite knowing fine well that these images were NOT produced by the Smiths, Redwood has knowingly, and in desperation, used them as part of the ongoing deception to 'prove' that an abductor was really seen carrying a child around Praia da Luz that night.

I am only putting forward a hypothesis based on all that we know about these e-fits and my hypothesis may be incorrect.

by Markus 2 21.09.14 9:59

I am only putting forward a hypothesis based on all that we know about these e-fits and my hypothesis may be incorrect.

Not necessarily, they may know who it is. They, the mccanns, dont want to be associated with them . Also you have to consider these images representing, one close up and the other at a distance. The only difference I can see is around the chin area and that could all be to do with the angle, same receding hairline, similar mouth ,nose beady eyes.

Definitely not false imo, We dont know what the Police might be looking into. Redwood said it was not the McCann's. If it is a dud then why release it if they think it is fake, would not make sense after all these years, more to this then we know, I suspect.
But one thing I do agree on I can see this case tied up soon with no agreeable outcome ,just in time when Redwood retires.

by palm tree 21.09.14 11:42

For some reason, I don't think AR can use pretend efits now, and expect the world to believe him. There's just too much of this case known for it to end this way. Ah, yes it was that man there, but he's gone now and so is the child. Oh, and just forget about the scent of death in the villa, on km clothes, cuddlecat, child's top, hire car and key fob, there's perfect explainations for all of that! Who's gonna sit back and watch AR tell us, this person took her somewhere, but both are long gone now, and if I was MS, well I wouldn't need to draw any efit.
IMO only.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 12:00

palm tree wrote:For some reason, I don't think AR can use pretend efits now, and expect the world to believe him.

Pretend smelly bin-man

Pretend six cleaners in a van

Pretend search with pickaxes

Pretend Monteiro

Pretend burglar man

Pretend crecheman

Pretend 'Smithman' e-fits

Pretend suspcious-looking blonde men

Pretend Smithman

Pretend helicopter rides

Pretend co-operation with Portuguese police

Pretend interviews with named suspects

Pretend 'hundreds of leads'

Pretend '60 suspects'

Pretend 'arrests soon'

Pretend visit of CPS lawyers to Portugal

Pretend 'breakthrough'

Charade

Performance

Show

Fake

False

Mockery

Farce

Deception

WRONG REMIT

by palm tree 21.09.14 12:26

I think there's a lot who didn't believe all of that either, they're trying their best though, I'll give them that. I also think that OG are getting the mcs into a very tight corner for when the time is right, keep on going OG. If it's a whitewash, then they're trapping themselves also.
IMO

by Markus 2 21.09.14 12:48

Charade

Performance

Show

Fake

False

Mockery

Farce

Deception

WRONG REMIT

Possibly but still not convinced the Smiths sightings are a sham

by Guest 21.09.14 12:51

If I'm reading Tony right, he's saying the e-fits have nothing to do with the Smith sighting at all?

In which case, to whom do they relate? I know you've said they are of photos of 2 men down South, Tony, but to whom in the case are they supposed to be representative of, if not Smithman? Which unidentified person in the mystery were the witnesses asked to reproduce?

by Markus 2 21.09.14 12:54

Pat Brown claims that the McCanns are dismissive of the Smith sighting

surely not all a scam , do them more good to believe he existed , they know who it is .

by Markus 2 21.09.14 13:22

2 men down South, I doubt it, one man but not down south imo. Not Gerry.

For someone so involved with this case I would have thought you would have been more clued up than most of us ,but?

Then you also have the scenario if the Smiths are genuine ,they would be questioning why their statement was not released. So what better a time even thought the McCann's don't think it relevant. No, imo the McCann's did not want that e-fit released for a reason..

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 14:07

Dee Coy wrote:If I'm reading Tony right, he's saying the e-fits have nothing to do with the Smith sighting at all?

Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear. These e-fits IMO have EVERYTHING to do with the Madeleine McCann case - and are purported to come from the Smith family. I don't think, however, that either of these e-fits was created by any member of the Smith family.

In which case, to whom do they relate? I know you've said they are of photos of 2 men down South, Tony, but to whom in the case are they supposed to be representative of, if not Smithman? Which unidentified person in the mystery were the witnesses asked to reproduce?

Until I am more certain of the identity of the two men whose photos I think have been used to create these 2 e-fits, I am not going to identify them.

I am prepared, however, to say this.

These e-fits have been drawn up, so we are told, by the Oakley International Team of Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton, who were employed by the McCann Team. IMO neither of these men can be trusted.

Given that Martin Smith on 20 September 2007 said that he was '60% to 80%' certain that the man he claimed to have seen on 3 May was Gerry McCann, it is indeed a remarkable turnaround that the two e-fits said to have been created by him and another member of his family are now being used in an attempt to identify the abductor. No doubt when Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith this would have had an influence on Smith.

My information is that Kevin Halligen and/or Henri Exton based their e-fits on two men known personally by one or both of them - but who had nothing to do with events in Praia da Luz.

They are, then, just a couple of handy e-fits which can be used to pretend that they originated from the Smith family. As I suggest they have been by DCI Andy Redwood.

Now I am prepared to make this offer to any geniune researcher on this forum who would like to see the photos I have - and can offer an opinion on the likeness of the efits to the two persons I have in view. Ideally I would like to hear from anyone who has any degree of expertise or experience in the science or art of facial recognition.

Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted.

by Markus 2 21.09.14 14:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Madeleine McCann: Key witness accuses Portuguese police of not taking his vital prime suspect evidence seriously. Cannot see the whole family making this up, even thought the Mccanns dont believe it. INTERESTING IT IS JUST THIS ONE PICTURE IN THE PAPER

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Markus 2 21.09.14 14:54

Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

by Newintown 21.09.14 15:32

Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.

Welcome to the members' "to be banned" list if you ever overstep the mark again after a good telling off.

People can insult others on the forum as much as they want but it won't change their opinion whether it's the McCanns or others who are trying to dissuade them from the obvious facts that are staring everyone in the face.

by Guest 21.09.14 15:35

Thank you for the reply, Tony. So you believe the e-fits to be a mischievous portrayal of two people vaguely connected to the case but not in PdL at the time.

I get that, but why did Exton and Halligan produce them? Were they always intended to represent the man seen by the Smiths, falsely? Or was they originally produced by them for another purpose and it is Redwood that has hijacked them and decided they will be the 'face' of Smithman?

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 15:56

Markus 2 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Madeleine McCann: Key witness accuses Portuguese police of not taking his vital prime suspect evidence seriously. Cannot see the whole family making this up, even thought the McCanns don;t believe it.

INTERESTING IT IS JUST THIS ONE PICTURE IN THE PAPER

REPLY: Yes, fascinating in fact given that DCI Redwood and the BBC CrimeWatch team took great trouble to give us TWO e-fits of different-looking blokes and assure us that IT WAS THE SAME MAN. Extracts from the Mirror article and my comments below

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Extracts from the Mirror artice, my comments in blue

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Retired businessman Martin Smith provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man close to where Maddie vanished

PA[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
E-fit: New image released by police

A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.

COMMENT: The Mirror aticle was published on 16 October 2013. So he is alleged to have said this the day before, i.e. 15 October 2013. There is absolutely no record of his ever having made this claim at any time during the 6 years and 5 months before he allegedly spoke to the Mirror (I say allegedly because these quotes of his may well have been supplied to the Mirror via an agent of the McCann Team).

Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.

COMMENT: This implies that Martin Smith drew up triangular-face man (above) while maybe another member of his family drew up rectangular-face man.

But he said his information was virtually ignored by local officers because they were too busy chasing up another sighting of a man near Kate and Gerry McCann’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 45 minutes earlier.

COMMENT: See above. But Smith - or whoever submitted these comments to the Mirror - has mae something of a blunder here. The PJ were NOT 'busy chasing up another sighting'. On the contrary, they knew from Day One that Jane Tanner's story wholly lacked credibility - and that's why only with the greatest reluctance, and after some arm-twisting by Gordon Brown, did the PJ agree to release the Tanner description to the public

Scotland Yard detectives reinvestigating the case after six years have now established that the suspect Portuguese police were so keen to trace – spotted by holidaymaker Jane Tanner at 9.20pm – was just an innocent British tourist returning his own child from a crèche.

COMMENT: Yeah, right!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I
Innocent tourist: Tracing this man distracted Portuguese detectives, said Mr Smith

Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive,

COMMENT: First time we've ever heard that one, as well. Last time he was 'a retired senior Army officer'.

made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

COMMENT: THIRTEEN days later, and only after his son Peter's 'Am I only dreaming?' quote

He helped compile e-fits a year later

COMMENT: He helped to compile one e-fit, or both?

– but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.

He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting,

COMMENT: See above. The PJ placed NO credence on the Tanner sighting whatsover. It was the McCann Team who elevated the importance of the Tanner `sighting` at every opportunity. Martin Smith and the Mirror are trying to re-write - to falsify - history.

maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

COMMENT: How can he help? - other than to say `Yes, I drew up those e-fits`? What other `help` is he capable of giving?

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

Mr Smith was with his wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren on the night that the three year old vanished.

The family described the man they saw as white, with short brown hair and of average build and height, aged between 20 and 40.

Video loading

Commenting on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:05

Newintown wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.

This very thread, and every other 'Smithman' thread on here, is sufficient to disprove all your unpleasant and untrue words above.

I am clearly in a substantial minority in my views on the claimed 'Smithman' sighting and the provenance of the two e-fits.

Who on here is not free to disagree with me? - loads of members are doing so, and in a dignified way on both sides.

But of course you have 'form', Newintown, for such outbursts in the past

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:11

Dee Coy wrote:Thank you for the reply, Tony. So you believe the e-fits to be a mischievous portrayal of two people vaguely connected to the case but not in PdL at the time.

REPLY: Yes, that's absolutely my contention.

I get that, but why did Exton and Halligen produce them? Were they always intended to represent the man seen by the Smiths, falsely? Or were they originally produced by them for another purpose and it is Redwood that has hijacked them and decided they will be the 'face' of Smithman?

REPLY: These are excellent and relevant questions. I can take an educated guess at the answers, but I don't know. It's like so many other questions about Brian Kennedy's private investigations for the McCann Team.

For example, Gary Hagland's main experience was in 'financial compliance', better known as anti-monwy laundering legislation. Can you tell me (rhetorical question) why the McCann Team immediately (Sep 2007) appointed him to work full-time on the search for a missing child?

by Guest 21.09.14 16:19

So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

by Newintown 21.09.14 16:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:Send me a 'pm'. Please don't be offended if I say no to anyone as I am only willing to share this with people who can demonstrate that they can be trusted. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PM YOU TONY CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE THOUGH, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED.

Thank you for that comment regarding Tony Bennett.

I stopped posting on this forum as I felt like a leper, I was also insulted by members of the forum because I didn't bow down to Bennett's witterings and didn't believe his every word where as everyone else on the forum seemed to believe what he was spouting or didn't dare confront him if they didn't.
This very thread, and every other 'Smithman' thread on here, is sufficient to disprove all your unpleasant and untrue words above.

I am clearly in a substantial minority in my views on the claimed 'Smithman' sighting and the provenance of the two e-fits.

Who on here is not free to disagree with me? - loads of members are doing so, and in a dignified way on both sides.

But of course you have 'form', Newintown, for such outbursts in the past

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve?

There are many who disagree with you but unfortunately they've been banned. I don't know why there are many agreeing with you, perhaps they have been brought under your spell and believe everything you say as you can talk the talk but whether it's all 100% believable is anyone's guess. May be they don't want to be seen as been taken in by you as they can't think for themselves.

I see you haven't mentioned the post by Markus 2 asking for people to contact you by PM, which was the first line of my comment, was that deliberate?

by Guest 21.09.14 16:25

WMD wrote:So if I read this right,the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit,that is the one which as never seen the light of day,because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by some one who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

Pressed send when I wanted to preview,I was going to add,the Tannerman supposed sighting as also been discounted,so no one saw any one on the night Madeleine was reported missing.All IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:26

WMD wrote:So if I read this right, the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit, that is the one which as never seen the light of day, because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by someone who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.

I am not convinced that any of the Smiths ever produced any e-fit - nor, 12-17 months after seeing a man fleetingly in the dark with his face partly hidden, do I think they were capable of doing so.

To know exactly what happened when Brian Kennedy first nobbled Smith, and then Exton paid him a visit, you would need to have had a bugging device, or be a fly on the wall.

Only the Smiths, Brian Kennedy, Henri Exton and the computer/e-fit expert who drew up the e-fits can tell us - so far as we know - what went on in those meetings.

And none of them are talking

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 16:29

WMD wrote:
WMD wrote:So if I read this right, the Smiths might well have produced an e-fit, that is the one which as never seen the light of day, because the ones from crime watch are e-fits of two completely different people produced from descriptions by someone who wasn't even in Portugal at the time.
Pressed send when I wanted to preview, I was going to add, the Tannerman supposed sighting as also been discounted, so no one saw any one on the night Madeleine was reported missing. All IMO.

That's my view based on the available evidence.

Tannerman (3 May 2007)

Sagres man (5 May 2007)

Smithman (16 May 2007)

Crecheman (14 October 2013)...

...all fabrications, with the date of fabrication given in brackets above