Operation Grange broke ACPO police guidelines - by not issuing just ONE composite efit of 'Smithman' - PLUS new article: 'Major problems with those efits'

Today someone called Jon Tait, who I believe is an active poster on one or more of the FB Madeleine McCann discussion groups, has posted up a claim that the Met Police's Operation Grange broke police guidelines by issuing TWO efits, not one, of Smithman:

Jon Tait @jontait42 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2 witnesses = 2 efits.
ACPO guidance in these cases is to use composite.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jon Tait has then gone on to compose his own composite efit of these two now-famous e-fits, here:

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

NOTE This image is photoshopped and is NOT the actual image used by Scotland Yard - T.B.

---------------------------------

When you stop to think about it, it makes no sense to issue two efits of a man you really want to trace. You just need ONE good efit.

What's more, in this case, to many people these two efits look like quite different males; there are obvious differences of face shape, hair style, nose length, lips and so on.

This is a good opportunity to post extracts from an article on the 'whathappenedtoMadeleineMcCann' blog. I can't post all of it becuase it's two long:

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

E. The new suspect - a man said to have been seen by an Irish family

Now we come to what DCI Redwood and Matthew Amroliwala, one of the Crime Watch presenters, said about the man ‘seen by an Irish family’. Here are extracts from the programme transcript. The actual broadcast can be viewed here:

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

TRANSCRIPT

REDWOOD: “We’re almost certain, now, that the sighting [by Jane Tanner] is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock [A TICKING CLOCK IS HEARD] to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus”.

AMROLIWALA: “This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years. Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here [FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA IS SHOWN] at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?”

REDWOOD: “He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas - a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann”.

AMROLIWALA:  “Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images”.

REDWOOD: “This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward”.

F.  Problems about the e-fits

If we think about the e-fits briefly, a number of serious problems about them arise straightaway.

Problem 1: We are given two e-fits by Redwood. He tells us that the e-fits are of ‘the man they [the Irish family] saw’. But, in the opinion of a majority of people who have been asked, these two e-fits reveal two quite different men. Apart from the obvious visual differences, these are the main contrasts:

(a)  The man in Image A looks older than the man in Image B

(b)  The man in Image A has a fatter face than the thinner-looking man in Image B

(c)  The man in Image A has a rectangular-shaped profile, in contrast with the man in Image B, whose face is more triangular in shape, with a narrow chin

(d)  The man in Image B has a nose much longer-looking than that of the man in Image A

Why would members of this Irish family draw up two e-fits of quite different-looking men, if in fact they are the same man? 

Just as relevant, how often does any police force invite the public to look at two quite      different e-fits when trying to trace just one man?  

Problem 2:  Those with expert knowledge of computer-imaging techniques have noticed a further difference. The two images appear to have been produced using entirely different computer programs. Image A is blurred and ‘grainy’. Image B is sharp. There is no obvious explanation for why, if these images were produced by the Irish family, the e-fits should have been produced on two different computer programs.

Problem 3:  A third very serious problem about these e-fits is the circumstances under which the Irish family made their claimed sighting. Let’s look at this in a bit more detail. The family are the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland. Nine of them - adults and children - were apparently walking back to the Estrela da Luz holiday apartment owned by the senior member of the Smith family, grandfather Martin Smith. He, his son Peter, and his grand-daughter Aoife, all made statements to the Irish and Portuguese Police (on 16 amd 26 May respectively) about what they say was a man carrying a child, at about 10.00pm on the evening of 3 May.

Each one of the three says the same thing about this sighting:

(a)  they each only saw the man for a second or two

(b)  it was dark at the time

(c)  the street lighting was ‘weak’

(d)  the man had his head down and the child he was carrying was covering his face, and

(e)  all three of them said that they could not possibly recognise the man if they saw him again.

How could anybody possibly draw up an e-fit, never mind two, if none of them had seen his face properly?     

Problem 4: The e-fits were drawn up, as far as can be established, in the spring or summer of 2008, a year after the day Madeleine was reported missing. Again it is hardly likely that any of the Smiths could remember anything sufficiently well by then to be able to draw up the e-fits, especially bearing in mind what we have already said under ‘Problem 3’.

Problem 5:  The e-fits were not drawn up by any police force. They were drawn up by members of the McCanns’ private investigation team. The McCanns’ private investigation team, however, has been discredited several times over. Here is some relevant background detail on this:

(a)  In September 2007, the McCanns appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency. Metodo 3, as their main private investigators. They also appointed successful Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy to oversee their private investigation.

(b)  They lied many times claiming that they knew where Madeleine was and that she would be ‘home by Christmas’.

(c)  The McCanns’ lead Metodo 3 investigator, Metodo 3 man Antonio Giminez Raso, was arrested in February 2008, charged with multiple offences, including theft of a large quantity of drugs, and corruption (he was an inspector in the Catalonian Regional Drug Squad at  the time). He spent four years in prison

(d)  Later, two other Metodo 3 men who worked closely on the Madeleine McCann case, boss Francisco Marco and his assistant, Julian Peribanez, also spent time in prison in a case of illegal ‘phone-tapping

(e)   Following the work of this disreputable agency, the McCann Team appointed Irishman Kevin Halligen to be the lead private investigator. He had founded a company called ‘Oakley International’ in July 2007, two months after Madeleine McCann was reported missing. The McCann Team falsely claimed in the British press that Oakley was a major international detective agency. It was nothing of the sort. It was a one-man band founded by Halligen, who used a number of aliases, had a reputation as a con-man, and had committed a major fraud in the U.S. ($1.2 million), for which he was jailed for four years (2009 to 2013).

(f)    Furthermore, Halligen’s role in the McCann private investigation was exposed by an article in the Evening Standard by Mark Hollingsworth in August 2009. While supposed to be finding Madeleine, he and his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis spent much of the time on a wild spending spree in the U.S., Britain and Italy. Most of the rest of the time, Halligen was seen drinking heavily in the Hey-Jo bar of one of London’s clubs.

(g)  Halligen was sacked by the McCann Team after fulfilling only 4 months of his 6-month contract, for which he was paid around £6e00,000, including expenses.

(h)  In Hollingsworth’s article, he accused Halligen and his colleagues of intimidating witnesses in the Madeleine McCann case into silence. If proved true, this would amount to the serious criminal offence of perverting the course of justice.       

(i)    Halligen employed two men alongside him, Henri Exton, and Tim Craig-Harvey. According to the McCann Team themselves, all three men had worked for MI5. In addition, Exton had formerly been the Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Department. How three ex-MI5 men could help to find Madeleine McCann has never been explained. MI5 agents are more usually concerned to protect the government’s interests.

(j)    In an article published in the Sunday Times on 27 October 2013, Exton claimed that he and ‘his men’ drew up the two e-fits during the spring or summer of 2008, a claim that is probably true. He added that the McCann Team suppressed them, deciding not to release them to the general public.

(k)  If we look at the whole history of the McCanns’ private investigations during 2007 and 2008, therefore, we are entitled to query the precise provenance of these e-fits. A major issue is whether we can trust what Henri Exton, the former Head of MI5's Covert Intelligence Department, says about those e-fits. We might also ask: is their origin as claimed by DCI Andy Redwood and the BBC true - or false?

Problem 6: On top of all those 5 major problems about the provenance of these e-fits is a further issue. And that is whether the Smiths really did see a man carrying a child, as they claim. That is a very important matter which needs to be examined separately, and in depth. We’ll do that now.

G.   Did the Smiths actually see anyone at all?

On the face of it, why would anybody, still less three members of the same family, make up a story about seeing a man carrying a child? - in the case, moreover, of the most famous missing child case ever. Even to suggest this possibility seems offensive.

However, in this case more than in perhaps any other, this principle applies: “Accept nothing, question everything”. So, applying this principle, let us first put together what we know about ‘the Irish family’, the Smiths.

SNIPPED







 

Hi Tony, very interesting, and for me still all very confusing. 

Just a remark (maybe I am reading it wrong): in point j you mentioned the Sunday Times art being published in 2007. That's almost prophetic if they talk about e fits made in 2008. Must have been another year?


That aside:

if the McCanns had trouble publishing the efits because one of them looks like Gerry, why didn't they only release the Martin Brunt likeness?

Perhaps they needed MB for some other errands yet?

Tony yesterday @ 4:44 pm says:

However, in this case more than in perhaps any other, this principle applies: “Accept nothing, question everything”. So, applying this principle, let us first put together what we know about ‘the Irish family’, the Smiths.

SNIPPED

Nothing visible to me, only two blank boxes.

Verdi wrote:Tony yesterday @ 4:44 pm says:

However, in this case more than in perhaps any other, this principle applies: “Accept nothing, question everything”. So, applying this principle, let us first put together what we know about ‘the Irish family’, the Smiths.

SNIPPED

Nothing visible to me, only two blank boxes.

Let me explain.

In the OP, I quoted from a long article on the whathappenedtomadeleinemcann blogspot

It ws ttiled, I think:

Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s e-fits of a man said to have been seen by the Smith family from Drogehda, & Operation Grange’s identification of ‘the family from the creche’



It began:

Summary of article

 
There are these 10 good reasons for doubting (as was claimed by the Met Police and the BBC):  

(1)  whether the 2 e-fits below, first shown on the BBC Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013, were drawn up by an Irish family (the Smiths);

(2)  whether they are even of the same man, as also claimed, and

(3)  whether the Irish family (the Smiths) ever saw anyone at all.


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

@ Verdi

In the original article are 10 sections, A to J.

In the OP, only Sections E and F were relevant, so I snipped the long article after the beginning of Section G.

I can go back and find the rest of the article if you wish, and maybe post it on one of the 'Smithman' threads  

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:Tony yesterday @ 4:44 pm says:

However, in this case more than in perhaps any other, this principle applies: “Accept nothing, question everything”. So, applying this principle, let us first put together what we know about ‘the Irish family’, the Smiths.

SNIPPED

Nothing visible to me, only two blank boxes.

Let me explain.

In the OP, I quoted from a long article on the whathappenedtomadeleinemcann blogspot

It ws ttiled, I think:

Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s e-fits of a man said to have been seen by the Smith family from Drogehda, & Operation Grange’s identification of ‘the family from the creche’



It began:

Summary of article

 
There are these 10 good reasons for doubting (as was claimed by the Met Police and the BBC):  

(1)  whether the 2 e-fits below, first shown on the BBC Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013, were drawn up by an Irish family (the Smiths);

(2)  whether they are even of the same man, as also claimed, and

(3)  whether the Irish family (the Smiths) ever saw anyone at all.


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

@ Verdi

In the original article are 10 sections, A to J.

In the OP, only Sections E and F were relevant, so I snipped the long article after the beginning of Section G.

I can go back and find the rest of the article if you wish, and maybe post it on one of the 'Smithman' threads  

No, please don't trouble yourself I will read your post again when I have more time, I'm sure all will become clear.  Thanks for replying.

I have some memory of all the conversations at the time these e fits were released. I know I had felt the smiths had admitted they could barely see face of man carrying child . So I doubt if they were daft enough to compile those 2 pictures ,one person that was discussing it happened to say if you lay one picture over the other ,it looks like same person ,sorry cant recall where I was reading at the time ,maybe here.  Why 2 pics were put out ,beats me . I have not come to conclsion smits were lying ,I must say we do have to alter minds from time to time . I just don't think it matters much all the stuff been put out by you know who,timelines are all a shambles and were meant to be so I think . Sadly with littlte truth to go by ,I cant see this ever drawn to a decent conclusion,poor child may stay an unsolved case forever  joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:I have some memory of all the conversations at the time these e fits were released. I know I had felt the smiths had admitted they could barely see face of man carrying child . So I doubt if they were daft enough to compile those 2 pictures ,one person that was discussing it happened to say if you lay one picture over the other ,it looks like same person ,sorry cant recall where I was reading at the time ,maybe here.  Why 2 pics were put out ,beats me . I have not come to conclsion smits were lying ,I must say we do have to alter minds from time to time . I just don't think it matters much all the stuff been put out by you know who,timelines are all a shambles and were meant to be so I think . Sadly with littlte truth to go by ,I cant see this ever drawn to a decent conclusion,poor child may stay an unsolved case forever  joyce1938

The timing for the release of the e-fits appears to have a great deal of relevance.  If they were composed during the spring/summer of 2008 (coincidently the same period that the Portuguese authorities archived the investigation) why were they withheld until October 2013, during DCI Redwood's moment of revelation.

Any supposed likeness to Gerry McCann in one image or both when superimposed, is but an irrelevance as Operation Grange who are reviewing and/or investigating the case have clearly not taken it seriously so I think we can safely conclude that it is for another reason that at least one e-fit may or may not resemble Gerry McCann.  It is in the McCanns interest, I think, for a Smithman to exist because it adds substance to their abduction theory, so why was the strangers identity hidden from the time of the alleged Smith family sighting until the Crimewatch production shown in October 2013?

The simplest explanation might be that the mystery stranger known as Smithman, hitherto unknown to the world at large, in 2013 was but an instrument for DCI Redwood to conveniently dispose of the fictitious potential abductor created by Jane Tanner's somewhat vivid imagination, suitably embellished over a period of time by other members of the group abduction and thus add credence to the parents abduction claim.   It should also be noted here that, despite Tanner's claim that she didn't mention the man she saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd/4th May because she didn't wish to compound the parents distress.  Trouble is that doesn't accord with the time-line drawn up by the group on 3rd May, written on the cover of Madeleine's sticker book, which both version clearly state that J Tanner saw a man carrying a child at a named time.

Why else conceal such a vital piece of information and why would Operation Grange wait until the Crimewatch production to reveal the e-fits rather than release them into the public domain directly they were handed over?

VerdiIf 
Using your example, JT/Creche Dad,Smithman, that JT's character she saw was Fiction and DCI Andy Redwood had found creche Dad to be Smithman who was taking his child home from a night creche facility?
This leaves a scenario still for an Abductor but no Evidence of an Abduction, is DCI Andy Redwoods creche Dad a work of Fiction?
Perhaps the BBC be reimbursed for production costs of Crime Watch based on an inaccuracy?

willowthewisp wrote:VerdiIf 
Using your example, JT/Creche Dad,Smithman, that JT's character she saw was Fiction and DCI Andy Redwood had found creche Dad to be Smithman who was taking his child home from a night creche facility?
This leaves a scenario still for an Abductor but no Evidence of an Abduction, is DCI Andy Redwoods creche Dad a work of Fiction?
Perhaps the BBC be reimbursed for production costs of Crime Watch based on an inaccuracy?

Sorry willowthewisp, you've totally lost me!  It is Monday after all.

ETA:  Probably a good idea to read Tony's OP - far more explicit than anything I can churn out.