The efits produced by the Smiths, has the man been found yet?

I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Ray_Sneek wrote:I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Would that be the 'e-fits' of 'faces' NOBODY 'saw'?

The 'Smiths', ALL of them, have admitted, on record, that they would NOT 'recognise' the 'face' of 'e-fit' man/men', if that 'person' was STANDING NEXT TO THEM!

SO, where and how, did 'those' e-fits come into exsistence?

NOT from the Smiths, obviously!

As has been stated was it Henri Exton and associates had the E-fits drawn up of the burgalators?
Someone could have left some crayon's out at Belgravia Headquarters, have to have the crayons finger printed now.

Ray_Sneek wrote:I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Welcome

Has anyone ever told you that you look like one of the efits?

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Ray_Sneek wrote:I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Welcome

Has anyone ever told you that you look like one of the efits?

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

LUV the name "Ray-Sneek

sallypelt wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Ray_Sneek wrote:I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Welcome

Has anyone ever told you that you look like one of the efits?

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

LUV the name "Ray-Sneek

You are obviously on the ball!

My avatar is not of me, but of someone who I think looks very like one of the efits, but not the other efit.

I am going to post up some photos of people who I think look like one or other of the efits and I would like to see what you all think about them.

Ray_Sneek wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Ray_Sneek wrote:I have registered to ask if anyone knows what the latest position is on the two efits shown on Crimewatch two years ago.

Are they still looking for him?

I think I should really ask - 'Are they still looking for them', as in my opinion the efits represent two different people.

Welcome

Has anyone ever told you that you look like one of the efits?

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

LUV the name "Ray-Sneek

You are obviously on the ball!

My avatar is not of me, but of someone who I think looks very like one of the efits, but not the other efit.

I am going to post up some photos of people who I think look like one or other of the efits and I would like to see what you all think about them.

Thank goodness for that cos I did wonder when you registered whether DCI Wall would be registering next, having found her man!

"I am going to post up some photos of people who I think look like one or other of the efits and I would like to see what you all think about them".
-----------------------------------------------------

This forum is not a 'have a look at these mug shots' forum.

Little bit 'weird'.

Now WHY would you do 'that'?

Not 'working' at Operation Strange, are you?

'phishing'?

'someone' you'd like 'us' to recognise?

Hmmmmmmm.

"Oh yeah, that 'looks' like a 'guy' i 'know', down my 'street', around town"

Six 'o'clock 'knock'?

VERY 'ODD'!

All, imo, obviously.

jta: Why your 'interest' now? Weren't you 'interested' in the 'e-fits' six months, a year, or almost two years ago?

'cynical' ain't i?

jeanmonroe, I can assure you that I am absolutely nothing to do with Operation Grange.

I can also tell you that I have been mulling over these efits ever since I first saw them.

I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it.

I am going to put up two images now and just want to ask members whether the photograph looks similar to one of the efits or not. I am aware that some have said in the past that this efit looks like Martin Brunt

PHOTO (grabbed from the internet):

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


ONE OF THE EFITS:

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

Ray_Sneek wrote:jeanmonroe, I can assure you that I am absolutely nothing to do with Operation Grange.

I can also tell you that I have been mulling over these efits ever since I first saw them.

I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it.

I am going to put up two images now and just want to ask members whether the photograph looks similar to one of the efits or not. I am aware that some have said in the past that this efit looks like Martin Brunt

PHOTO (grabbed from the internet):

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


ONE OF THE EFITS:

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

Nah, looks nothing like him.

But I'll tell you what. If you give her a number 2 all over, stick a couple of Noel Gallagher eye brows on her, and draw on a bit of 5 o'clock shadow, that e-fit would be a dead ringer for Kate McCann!!!!

@ Ray_Sneek, you didn't need to grab the picture from the internet as it has previously been posted and discussed on this forum.

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

"I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it."
---------------------------

OK

A 'bit' of 'research'?

Not a 'lot' of 'research'?

What 'research' exactly would that be, then?

It would be very 'strange', to me, if you were ONLY 'interested' in the 'e-fits' and NOTHING else about Madeleine's mysterious 'disappearance', imo.

If you can't tell us, about the 'research' you are doing, how can we possibly 'help' you?

Anyway, because it's publicly available, here's your 'starter for 10' (re: 'E-Fits' 'from' Irish 'family', supposedly)

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

Re: Martin Smith.

4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

"He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits"
-------------------------------------------

So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your 'list' as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood 'produced' for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

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

"I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it."
---------------------------

OK

A 'bit' of 'research'?

Not a 'lot' of 'research'?

What 'research' exactly would that be, then?

It would be very 'strange', to me, if you were ONLY 'interested' in the 'e-fits' and NOTHING else about Madeleine's mysterious 'disappearance', imo.

If you can't tell us, about the 'research' you are doing, how can we possibly 'help' you?

Anyway, because it's publicly available, here's your 'starter for 10'  (re: 'E-Fits' 'from' Irish 'family', supposedly)

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

Re: Martin Smith.

4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

"He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits"
-------------------------------------------

So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your 'list' as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood 'produced' for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

I'm not getting that Jean.  All that categorically tells me is that Martin Smith refused to take part in a photo fit exercise with Brian Kennedy!

Sorry if i seem 'miffed'

Did i not make it clear that MS had 'not helped with any photo fits'?

Either WITH the 'window washer' BK or, indeed, anybody 'else'.

MS did not 'help' with ANY 'photofits'

Jeanmonroe,  I don't think it means that he had nothing at all to do with the e-fits/photo-fits- I took it that he just did not assist BK.

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

"I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it."
---------------------------

OK

A 'bit' of 'research'?

Not a 'lot' of 'research'?

What 'research' exactly would that be, then?

It would be very 'strange', to me, if you were ONLY 'interested' in the 'e-fits' and NOTHING else about Madeleine's mysterious 'disappearance', imo.

If you can't tell us, about the 'research' you are doing, how can we possibly 'help' you?

Anyway, because it's publicly available, here's your 'starter for 10'  (re: 'E-Fits' 'from' Irish 'family', supposedly)

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

Re: Martin Smith.

4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

"He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits"
-------------------------------------------

So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your 'list' as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood 'produced' for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

Funny how the two e-fits disclosed by DCI Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013, ostensibly produced with the help of witnesses (implication = Smith family) just happen to be the same e-fits that the Time's report claimed had been concealed by clan McCann for five years.  Funny how Smith's claim that 'he has given no stories or helped in any photo fits' was reported in 2008 which just happens to coincide with a difference of five years between that and the 2013 Crimewatch production when Redwood had that rather unfortunate 'revelation moment' - his career legacy, or retirement plan if you prefer !

The question that needs to be asked - no, second thoughts answered - if Smith was involved with these two e-fits with Exton or anybody else for that matter and they hadn't been made public,  why didn't he tell the Portuguese police or failing that at least the UK police?

Britains most wanted..

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

jeanmonroe wrote:
So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your list as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood produced for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

Indeed.

Let us think for a moment in terms of pegs.

Coat pegs. Like this one:

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

Let us compare the abduction story with heavy coat.

This needs to be strong, because the weight it must bear is very heavy. The claim is that Madeleine was abducted in the space of a few minutes, between (alleged) checks, with no sight or sound of an abductor, no forensic trace, nothing.

This is where a strong peg is needed.

And so the 'Tannerman' peg is firmly screwed in place on the wall.

It serves its purpose well. On 25 May, Gerry McCann tells the world about a man seen carrying a child. Months later, we learn that the person who saw this man carrying a child is the McCanns' old pal, Jane Tanner. After nearly 6 months, we finally get an artist's sketch of the probable abductor, drawn up by Brian Kennedy's little helper, Melissa Little. An FBI-trained forensic artist, no less. Then in January, Murdoch's News of the World runs with a sketch of 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man'. Even though Jane Tanner never saw the face of a man on 3 May, she was able to say she was 60% to 80% sure that Tannerman and Monsterman were one and the same. And so the story moved on.

Over the years, Melissa Little's sketch of Tannerman was recycled by a thousand newspaper articles.

But the peg was getting unable to bear its weight.

Jane Tanner's shifting descriptions of Tannerman were unconvincing. She identified Murat as the man she had seen. Then changed her mind. Scores of internet articles poured scorn on the idea of an abductor who could noiselessly enter and leave an apartment in 3 minutes or less, seen by no-one. This didn't leave enough time for an abduction.

So let's think in terms of another sighting that might one day come in useful. A sort of 'reserve' peg, if you like. One that could be firmly fixed to the wall and bear that heavy weight of the abduction claim. 

As DCI Redwood mulled over his task, an idea grew in his mind. A sort of 'revelation moment', if you will.

The Tannerman peg was groaning under its weight.

But handily lurking in the background for over five years was that Smithman sighting. A nice, really strong peg. Manufactured by a decent, honest, Irish family, who included a 12-year-old child. Who could possibly challenge that?

And what a tremendous advantage this reserve peg had! It could now accommodate an abduction more or less any time from 9.10pm to 10.00pm. At a stroke, he could multiply the time frame for the abduction more than 10-fold - from less than 5 minutes to as many as 50.

In order to hang the abduction coat as firmly as possible on his brand new peg, all Redwood needed was a big audience to swallow his new theory.

And that's where the BBC came in.

Nearly 7 million viewers switched on to watch the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013. The Smithman 'sighting' was very carefully packaged and presented. Who on earth would think that the BBC - and Crimewatch of all programmes - could possibly be telling the public anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

And so it was, just after 9pm that night, that we got a glimpse - well, two separate glimpses actually - of the man who was now 'the centre of our focus'.

But how long would this brand new peg last?

The story of how those two e-fits of two different-looking men were produced is only just beginning to unravel...

...and for a start, Wendy Murphy, one-time U.S. prosecutor and now child protection expert, wasn't buying this new peg for one moment...
             
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Initially, didn't Smith back up the tanner sighting by giving a description almost identical to hers?

If this is correct, how on earth can Redwood get away with dismissing the one sighting and exploiting the other? 

The idea of Creche man turning up after 6 years just in time for an episode of Crimewatch, complete with the clothing that both he and the child were wearing that night,  is hilarious.

Smith said in his statement that this man with a child was nothing out of the ordinary and that he would not be able to identify him again.  Then suddenly he develops a photographic memory.

Sorry Redwood but you have two faulty pegs there, the second one has more flaws than the first.

But, what now for Operation Grange?  Where do they go from here?  They have destroyed the only piece of evidence that Madeleine was abducted and created a scenario that doesn't add up.  How long will the public swallow this for?

More to the point, if Team McCann were confident that the public were buying the abduction story, would there be a need for this nonsense?

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

More to the point, if Team McCann were confident that the public were buying the abduction story, would there be a need for this nonsense?
-------------------------------------------

Imagine, if you will, how nonsensical the 'abduction' fable would have been IF McCann erm 'friend' JT had not 'seen from FIFTY (50) METRES'** Madeleine 'being carried off' by Tannerman.

(One would have to 'come up with' something like 'jemmied shutter, smashed shutter' as to how burglator 'boy' got in and out of apartment G5A without leaving a trace and nobody 'seeing' anything).

** BOTH G McCann's and K McCann's first 'statement' 4th May 2007.

FIFTY METRES is just further DOWN the road PASS THE OC 'entrance' looking back to the 'top' road where JT 'saw'  Tannerman 'cross'.

Oh, and GM/JW were totally 'blocking' JT's 'view' (from 50 metres) by way of standing on the pavement right outside the 'gateway' to the steps, leading to apartment G5A.

But, BUT, even from 50 metres JT could 'see' the 'type' of shoes and the FRONT 'zippered up' jacket Tannerman was 'wearing'!

She even 'saw' his 'very good head of collar length hair' which 'magically' became 'short hair', on 'Smithman' by the time the Smiths 'saw' him, according to ex DCI Redwood's portrayal of Irish 'family' E-Fit man/men.

It only took TWO YEARS FIVE MONTHS, under 'call me Andy' 'tenure' at OG, for OG's 'top think tank' to come up with 'that'!

'nonsensical' i know,........ JT is NOT 'a fantasist or liar'

(She just happens to have better 'vision' than a hungry 'falcon' seeing a miniscule field mouse 'meal' from 499 feet)

sharonl wrote:Smith said in his statement that this man with a child was nothing out of the ordinary and that he would not be able to identify him again.  Then suddenly he develops a photographic memory.

Sorry Redwood but you have two faulty pegs there, the second one has more flaws than the first.

Exactly so - and Martin Smith saying his 'sighting' was nothing out of the ordinary reveals just one set of holes in the Smiths' claims.

For we have:


1. Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’

In the Sun, 3 January 2008, Mary Smith is asked about the claimed ‘sighting’ and says “We didn’t think anything of it”.

2. Mary Smith approached the man

In the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008, Smith claims that, without warning, she approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’ He is said to have ignored her. But she never went to Portugal to make a statement about this.

3. Martin Smith said it was a ‘disturbing encounter’

In the same Daily Mail article, 3 January 2008, Martin Smith is quoted as saying that “It was a disturbing encounter”.

4. 'Very unusual'

In the same Daily Mail report, 3 January 2008, we read:

“AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.

“…the sighting…is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

“Martin Smith said: ‘The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year".

5. Apparently Martin Smith was able to help drawing up two detailed e-fits, despite seeing the man for a second or two in the dark with his head down:

Martin Smith: "He just put his head down and averted his eyes".

worriedmum wrote:Jeanmonroe,  I don't think it means that he had nothing at all to do with the e-fits/photo-fits- I took it that he just did not assist BK.

Here you are: 

I will answer your questions in turn.

At Question 1 you asked:

On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers
& Robbyn Swan?

The MPS response is:

15/02/2013

At Question 2 you asked:

Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

The MPS response is:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below. [see for further information: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] = 15th October, page 3]

At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program[me - sp.] was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

At Questions 3, 6 & 7 you asked:

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

The MPS response is:
REASONS FOR DECISION

The information you have requested is exempt in part by the virtue of
Section 30(1)(a) and Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) of the Act.

To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.

Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption 

pennylane wrote:

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

"I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it."
---------------------------

OK

A 'bit' of 'research'?

Not a 'lot' of 'research'?

What 'research' exactly would that be, then?

It would be very 'strange', to me, if you were ONLY 'interested' in the 'e-fits' and NOTHING else about Madeleine's mysterious 'disappearance', imo.

If you can't tell us, about the 'research' you are doing, how can we possibly 'help' you?

Anyway, because it's publicly available, here's your 'starter for 10'  (re: 'E-Fits' 'from' Irish 'family', supposedly)

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

Re: Martin Smith.

4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

"He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits"
-------------------------------------------

So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your 'list' as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood 'produced' for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

I'm not getting that Jean.  All that categorically tells me is that Martin Smith refused to take part in a photo fit exercise with Brian Kennedy!

Exactly. 

Imo only someone with an exceptional superiority complex and a certain contempt for ordinary people  would do a decoy run in order to establish a storyline. 

O! wait a minute.....

3. Martin Smith said it was a ‘disturbing encounter’

In the same Daily Mail article, 3 January 2008, Martin Smith is quoted as saying that “It was a disturbing encounter”.
----------------------------------------------

M Smith 'statement'

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10H40
Location: DIC Portimao

Name: MARTIN SMITH

The witness states:
— That he comes to the process as a witness.

"He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, NOT RAISING ANY SUSPICION".

(so hardly a 'disturbing encounter' then!)

States that "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RECOGNISE the individual in person or by photograph."

(so he could not 'produce' an 'photo/e-fit', i'd imagine, of 'someone/anyone' M Smith could NOT possibly 'recognise')

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10h45
Location: This Department
Name: Aoife Smith

The witness states:

Questioned, states that 'probably she would NOT BE ABLE TO RECOGNISE (the 'individual'/'man') or the child.'

At the time she saw his face but 'now CANNOT REMEMBER it'

(so she could NOT possibly 'produce' an 'photo/e-fit', of a 'face' she can NOT 'remember' or RECOGNISE)

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 15H30
Location: DIC Portimao
Name: PETER DANIEL SMITH

The witness states:

— That he comes to the process as a witness.

"at the beginning of this road he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally, with a fairly quick step because he was coming downhill. IT APPEARED NORMAL TO HIM, like father and daughter. He adds that this individual was coming down the street, opposite to the direction of the deponent and his family. He does not know what direction the individual took as he only saw him as they passed each other."

(So hardly a 'disturbing encounter' then!)

He, (PDS) adds also that the individual 'did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange'.

— States that 'IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO RECOGNISE THE INDIVIDUAL IN PERSON or via photograph.'
-------------------------------------------

So we 'have' M Smith, P D Smith and A Smith, ALL being 'unable' to 'recognise' the 'individual's face'.

So, remind me again, with who's 'help', from the Irish 'family', were the 'e-fits' (of 'Smithman') paraded by ex DCI Redwood, on Crimewatch, October, 2013,  'enabled' FROM to have been 'produced',?

Certainly NOT 'from' MS, PDS and AS, afaik.

jta: Has anyone 'seen' Mr Ray_Sneak since his OP 'question'?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - Has anyone 'seen' Mr Ray_Sneak since his OP 'question'?

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

Tony Bennett wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:
So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your list as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood produced for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

Indeed.

Let us think for a moment in terms of pegs.

Coat pegs. Like this one:

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

Let us compare the abduction story with heavy coat.

This needs to be strong, because the weight it must bear is very heavy. The claim is that Madeleine was abducted in the space of a few minutes, between (alleged) checks, with no sight or sound of an abductor, no forensic trace, nothing.

This is where a strong peg is needed.

And so the 'Tannerman' peg is firmly screwed in place on the wall.

It serves its purpose well. On 25 May, Gerry McCann tells the world about a man seen carrying a child. Months later, we learn that the person who saw this man carrying a child is the McCanns' old pal, Jane Tanner. After nearly 6 months, we finally get an artist's sketch of the probable abductor, drawn up by Brian Kennedy's little helper, Melissa Little. An FBI-trained forensic artist, no less. Then in January, Murdoch's News of the World runs with a sketch of 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man'. Even though Jane Tanner never saw the face of a man on 3 May, she was able to say she was 60% to 80% sure that Tannerman and Monsterman were one and the same. And so the story moved on.

Over the years, Melissa Little's sketch of Tannerman was recycled by a thousand newspaper articles.

But the peg was getting unable to bear its weight.

Jane Tanner's shifting descriptions of Tannerman were unconvincing. She identified Murat as the man she had seen. Then changed her mind. Scores of internet articles poured scorn on the idea of an abductor who could noiselessly enter and leave an apartment in 3 minutes or less, seen by no-one. This didn't leave enough time for an abduction.

So let's think in terms of another sighting that might one day come in useful. A sort of 'reserve' peg, if you like. One that could be firmly fixed to the wall and bear that heavy weight of the abduction claim. 

As DCI Redwood mulled over his task, an idea grew in his mind. A sort of 'revelation moment', if you will.

The Tannerman peg was groaning under its weight.

But handily lurking in the background for over five years was that Smithman sighting. A nice, really strong peg. Manufactured by a decent, honest, Irish family, who included a 12-year-old child. Who could possibly challenge that?

And what a tremendous advantage this reserve peg had! It could now accommodate an abduction more or less any time from 9.10pm to 10.00pm. At a stroke, he could multiply the time frame for the abduction more than 10-fold - from less than 5 minutes to as many as 50.

In order to hang the abduction coat as firmly as possible on his brand new peg, all Redwood needed was a big audience to swallow his new theory.

And that's where the BBC came in.

Nearly 7 million viewers switched on to watch the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013. The Smithman 'sighting' was very carefully packaged and presented. Who on earth would think that the BBC - and Crimewatch of all programmes - could possibly be telling the public anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

And so it was, just after 9pm that night, that we got a glimpse - well, two separate glimpses actually - of the man who was now 'the centre of our focus'.

But how long would this brand new peg last?

The story of how those two e-fits of two different-looking men were produced is only just beginning to unravel...

...and for a start, Wendy Murphy, one-time U.S. prosecutor and now child protection expert, wasn't buying this new peg for one moment...
             
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Excellent analogy!

Redwood's legacy to Operation Grange now vamped-up under the auspices of DCI Nicola 'I always get my man' Wall, appears to have hit on a bum note. 

Nigh on two years down the line since Redwood's 'revelation moment', when the 2013 Crimewatch production was aired featuring the questionable two e-fits as the focal point of renewed vigour.   The two armless, legless, no-bodies remain as much of a mystery today as the Tannerman - here today gone tomorrow.  As far as I'm aware, no one has yet managed an explanation as to why the important person/s of interest are lacking in any anatomical feature below the head.  Given the description initially given by the Smith family, I would expect to have some indication of the stature and style of the person/s I'm looking for.

So who/where are this pair that dominated the Crimewatch theme in 2013 and caused ex-DCI Redwood so much excitement, changing the course of the UK investigation?  What did this elaborate PR exercise achieve - and extension of time maybe? 

Bang goes another theory!  I truly believe the name McCann would have disappeared as fast as it appeared if not for the 'incident' occurring on foreign soil and the dogged determination of Dr Amaral in quest of the truth.

Mr. Smith would be telling the truth in January 2008  when he said he had not made any e-fits. This clearly pertained to the Kennedy visit. 

So imo it cannot be used to state he was lying  or anyone else was doing so as the McCanns didn't hire Oakley International untill July/August 2008, some seven months after the DM article.

Hi Verdi,
Ref; E-fits.

Quite a few people were on TB's back over the E-fits and clearly stating that his interpretation could damage future Court proceedings?

With this in mind has anyone given any thought about the "Support given by BK" and the Metodo 3 fraudulent funding they received from Madeleines Fund - and the close involvement with an arguido, through lawyers (job offer, my **se) - and his involvement to the Smith Family, [and whether or not this has]damaged the whole case?


Edited for clarity by a Mod

tigger wrote:Mr. Smith would be telling the truth in January 2008  when he said he had not made any e-fits. This clearly pertained to the Kennedy visit. 

So imo it cannot be used to state he was lying  or anyone else was doing so as the McCanns didn't hire Oakley International untill July/August 2008, some seven months after the DM article.

Absolutely agree with you, tigger!

tigger wrote:

pennylane wrote:

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

"I am engaged in a bit of research, yes, people here can choose whether or not to help me with it."
---------------------------

OK

A 'bit' of 'research'?

Not a 'lot' of 'research'?

What 'research' exactly would that be, then?

It would be very 'strange', to me, if you were ONLY 'interested' in the 'e-fits' and NOTHING else about Madeleine's mysterious 'disappearance', imo.

If you can't tell us, about the 'research' you are doing, how can we possibly 'help' you?

Anyway, because it's publicly available, here's your 'starter for 10'  (re: 'E-Fits' 'from' Irish 'family', supposedly)

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

Re: Martin Smith.

4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

"He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits"
-------------------------------------------

So, Martin Smith did NOT, catergorically, 'help' with ANY 'photo/e-fits'

So you can cross him off your 'list' as a 'compiler/helper' of the E-fits, of the one/two 'man/men', ex DCI Redwood 'produced' for Crimewatch 2013.

AKA 'Smithman/men'

I'm not getting that Jean.  All that categorically tells me is that Martin Smith refused to take part in a photo fit exercise with Brian Kennedy!

Exactly. 

Imo only someone with an exceptional superiority complex and a certain contempt for ordinary people  would do a decoy run in order to establish a storyline. 

O! wait a minute.....

There's a common legal term for what TM did (imo) and it's called 'witness tampering.'

pennylane wrote:

tigger wrote:Mr. Smith would be telling the truth in January 2008 when he said he had not made any e-fits. This clearly pertained to the Kennedy visit. 

So imo it cannot be used to state he was lying or anyone else was doing so as the McCanns didn't hire Oakley International untill July/August 2008, some seven months after the DM article.

Absolutely agree with you, tigger!

Let's just pause a moment to separate truth from fiction here.

Was Martin Smith telling the truth in January 2008 when he said he had not made any e-fits yet? Yes he was; there is no evidence to the contrary.

Was Oakley International hired in July or August 2008 as tigger suggests?

Absolutely not. The dates given by most authorities (no-one can be certain) are from February to April 2008. In fact, it was in August 2008 that a major row apparently erupted amongst the Directors of the Find Madeleine Fund about the employment of Oakley and Halligen - and that is when, by all accounts, Halligen was sacked. And indeed all of that was reported in many of the British papers in August 2008 (google 'McCann' 'Oakley' 'August' '2008' or check on mccannfiles.com).

Nothing can be absolutely certain about when exactly Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team first contacted Martin Smith. Nothing is certain about when and where and by whom the Smithman efits were drawn up, as none of those involved will say a thing about it.

If we are to believe what we are told, and going by the various accounts we have available, we can be reasonably certain that:

1. Metodo 3 and/or Brian Kennedy first contacted the Smiths around December 2007/January 2008 (AFAIK we don't know if Kennedy actually visited the Smiths), and

2. Henri Exton, a sidekick of Kevin Halligen and the former head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, probably drew up the efits in the spring of 2008.   

We also know that in effect Martin Smith had aligned himself with the McCann Team by the spring of 2008 and by early 2009 had even agreed to change his witness statement to suit the McCann Team - by altering the age of the man he claimed to have seen from '40' to '34 to 35', for the benefit of the 30-second audio message summarising his evidence that the McCanns posted on their website in May 2009.

The evidence that Martin Smith had aligned himself with the McCann Team since the spring of 2008 - thus making all that he said about 'recognising' Gerry McCann as the man he saw redundant and worthless - is all on the SMITHMAN 8 thread, here:

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