EFITS in the Oxford schoolgirl rape case - and the Smithman efits - compared

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.16 22:09

Tonight the BBC has published police efits of the two men who, in a horrific crime, abducted and raped an Oxford schoolgirl a couple of weeks ago:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And here they are:

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

TWO MEN: One with fair hair, and one with dark hair. In colour.

AND ONE EFIT for each man.

And that is how it is done.

Just ONE efit - to offer the best chance of each man being identified.

NOW COMPARE THAT WITH THE HENRI EXTON 'SMITHMAN' EFITS:

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

Two very different faces - but one suspect!

I'll ask this question once again: why issue two e-fits of one man?

It is just never done. It cannot help identify the right person. It just confuses people.

Some people claim the two men in the Exton e-fits 'look similar'. But they don't. The hairstyle is different. The overall shape of the face is quite different. One has a huge chin, One has a nose much shorter than the other. And so on.

Some people have said: 'Ah, but maybe two of the Smiths saw him from different angles, or they have different recollections'. These suggestions have been made here on CMOMM.

Sorry - like a lot of other things in this case - that argument just doesn't wash.

IF the Smiths had really seen someone, then it was the job of Exton to put together the Smiths' recollections into ONE efit. I am confident most members and guests here will understand and agree with the validity of this point.

I stand by my allegation a couple of years back that Henri Exton did NOT derive his efits from the Smiths, but instead used adapted, but real photographs of two real individuals to produce them.

In the not-too-distant future I hope we will be able to bring to the forum more detailed evidence on which my allegation is based.

by **sharonl** 11.10.16 22:25

From Martin Smiths statement 26 May 2007

As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph

by MayMuse 11.10.16 22:54

I have thought the same thing, why 2 different efits of what's supposed to be the same person; can't fathom it ?

As an aside albeit the uncanny resemblance to GM, they look a bit like Martin Brunt (a) and Phillip Edmonds (b) in my opinion.

by **sharonl** 11.10.16 23:03

MayMuse wrote:I have thought the same thing, why 2 different efits of what's supposed to be the same person; can't fathom it ?

As an aside albeit the uncanny resemblance to GM, they look a bit like Martin Brunt (a) and Phillip Edmonds (b) in my opinion.

LOL, to me they look like Adrian Oldfield and that guy who registered here, Ray Sneek big grin