NEW PHOTO CLUE TO MADELEINE MCCANN CASE

NEW PHOTO CLUE TO MADELEINE MCCANN CASE


Detectives are still trying to work out who was involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance


Sunday March 11,2012

By James Murray


DETECTIVES are using the latest computer technology to try to create a new image of a “prime suspect” who might have been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

They are also working on a “computerised reconstruction” of the night she disappeared by putting thousands of pieces of information into the police Holmes computer.

The developments come at a ­significant time with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal announcing it has a cold case team working on the investigation in Porto, north Portugal.

The Portuguese officers will work closely with the Scotland Yard detectives and will have “primacy” in the investigation.

The Sunday Express understands the Yard team have been examining all photofits, e-fits and drawings of people suspected of being involved in the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine from an apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007. One of the best known drawings was based on a description given by a friend of Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate. Jane Tanner claimed she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but did not get a good look at his face.

The Porto team is very experienced in these cases


PJ deputy chief Pedro do Carmo

Other images were created from witnesses who saw people acting suspiciously in the vicinity around the time of the crime.

Irishman Martin Smith and members of his family saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10pm, about 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting. However, he was not asked to help produce a photofit. The Met refuses to discuss the details but it is expected that officers will approach Mr Smith and his family for help. Yard experts are looking at ways of improving the images to end with one pristine likeness of the “suspect”.

Officers are using the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System for computer logging of all relevant information and have tailored it to help create what is described as a “computer reconstruction” of the key events of the night of May 3.


It is hoped that eventually there will be an almost minute by minute account, which will assist officers.

The Yard launched its review last year after Kate and Gerry McCann appealed directly to David Cameron. Officers have visited Portugal several times and are said to have a good relationship with their Portuguese counterparts.

PJ deputy chief Pedro do Carmo said: ‘‘The Porto team is very experienced in these cases.”

Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, hope the review will lead to a full scale reopening of the case.


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

Now that is a photofit I would love to see! Should be pretty simple to produce a picture of the man Mr Smith saw... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Interesting!!

Briohazard wrote:Interesting!!

Inbloodydeedy it is....
If it has to be a pristine looking efit, then the one that looks like Gerry is not the one they produced....(As in the Smiths)
So......

ChillyHeat wrote:

Briohazard wrote:Interesting!!

Inbloodydeedy it is....
If it has to be a pristine looking efit, then the one that looks like Gerry is not the one they produced....(As in the Smiths)
So......

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? There's another witness...?

Briohazard wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

Briohazard wrote:Interesting!!

Inbloodydeedy it is....
If it has to be a pristine looking efit, then the one that looks like Gerry is not the one they produced....(As in the Smiths)
So......

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? There's another witness...?

Yes I am....The Gerry efit looks a lot older. Its not a "Pristine" finish.
It must mean someone else produced it.

You are all much more intelligent than I am.
 
I don't understand it at all. Could you help me, please?

Its very likely that the Gerry lookalike efit was in the file. It does not look like a pristine efit. Therefore SY have approached the Smiths to make a pristine efit. Mary is the only person of the family to not have a statement in the files. Its possible she has come up with the "Brunty" lookalike.
That means that there is possibly another witness.....The Smiths were approached to back up the other witness, but the efits don't match.

who knows this news is not true at all.

bellum wrote:who knows this news is not true at all.

Im not sure what you mean ?

I mean that perhaps no pristine efit at all.  No new photo.

bellum wrote:I mean that perhaps no pristine efit at all.  No new photo.

This is how Im reading it.....I will try and explain it the best I can.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the link :
Irishman Martin Smith and members of his family saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10pm, about 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting. However, he was not asked to help produce a photofit. The Met refuses to discuss the details but it is expected that officers will approach Mr Smith and his family for help. Yard experts are looking at ways of improving the images to end with one pristine likeness of the “suspect”.

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

From this link :
Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect.


Tragedy
Mary Smith told the Herald today that the family still sees Madeleine story as a "terrible tragedy" and that they will co-operate fully with investigators.
"At this point we just don't know whether we will be called but of course we will cooperate fully. Madeleine's disappearance was just a terrible tragedy," she added.
"We have not been contacted by police yet and we will wait for their instructions," she added.
Police reports state that Mary and Martin left Kelly's Bar in the resort at approximately 10pm when they passed a male they said was carrying a young girl who was barefoot.


Now if you were to look at both Efits, it reasonable to see which one looks more "Pristine". Remember, there are no Mary Smith statements in the files. Its very possible SY found the Gerry lookalike photo in the file, possibly with an attached statement. They therefore have approached the Smith family, and its possible Mary came up with the newer looking efit of the two.
I therefore believe there may be another witness and SY were trying to get another eye witness. Both articles are from March 2012.

I hope I have explained it correctly. To me the Gerry efit looks like it could have been made before March 2012. And the Smiths already said they have done no efits.

When both these e-fits were first published late on the Sunday before the Monday broadcast of Crimewatch, I was quite puzzled as to why SY had released two e-fits of, what appeared to be two different guys.  I thought that would be confusing for the public in an appeal.  I'm quite good at sketching so produced my own 'e-fit' merging the two images together to produce the one image and there's no doubt in mind that it did indeed resemble Gerry McCann.  

I presumed that these two e-fits were compiled using descriptions given from two different members of the Smith family, but I have wondered where SY would go from this as it could  be entirely dismissed that the Smith family had subconsciously projected a mental image of GM from the many photo's of GM since, which had then manifested themselves into their description of the person they saw carrying a child that night.

But, if one of these e-fits was composed from a description provided from a witness completely independent of the Smith family, then that would be significant.

'Bare foot' I have never really thought much about this before other than how dreadful carrying a child late in the evening in the chill early May night air and without either shoes or socks.
It couldn't have been a crèche child in either the Smith or Tanner sighting as the child wouldn't have been carried there to the crèche, she would have walked so would need shoes, so it isn't a crèche child.
I have read it could have been a substitute child, maybe even the eldest daughter of Jane Tanner, but she had had foot surgery and was wearing special slippers, so it wasn't her.
The cool of the air, didn't only chill bare feet or hands it would chill the whole body and this child was wearing only thin pjs, so there was no worry that the child would feel cold.
I think it was Madeleine.

jim nasium wrote:When both these e-fits were first published late on the Sunday before the Monday broadcast of Crimewatch, I was quite puzzled as to why SY had released two e-fits of, what appeared to be two different guys.  I thought that would be confusing for the public in an appeal.  I'm quite good at sketching so produced my own 'e-fit' merging the two images together to produce the one image and there's no doubt in mind that it did indeed resemble Gerry McCann.  

I presumed that these two e-fits were compiled using descriptions given from two different members of the Smith family, but I have wondered where SY would go from this as it could  be entirely dismissed that the Smith family had subconsciously projected a mental image of GM from the many photo's of GM since, which had then manifested themselves into their description of the person they saw carrying a child that night.

But, if one of these e-fits was composed from a description provided from a witness completely independent of the Smith family, then that would be significant.

Im just going on the basis that SY approached the Smiths after March 2012 with better technology to produce the "Brunty" lookalike. I keep going on about this because the Smiths have said they have never done any efits before SY approach. The "Gerry" one looks like it was produced on different software etc. Im not saying it was not Gerry or Madeleine who were witnessed, but the difference in the efits is not a close likeness for me to say both pics are Gerry. 
Theres a reason why Mary is not in the original files....

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

Am I in a strange way being told to drop this line of thought ?

worriedmum wrote:

Just not sure if this reply is to Peters post or mine...

Just another McMystery !

Best I just shut up then....

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



Irishman Martin Smith and members of his family saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10pm, about 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting. However, he was not asked to help produce a photofit. The Met refuses to discuss the details but it is expected that officers will approach Mr Smith and his family for help. Yard experts are looking at ways of improving the images to end with one pristine likeness of the “suspect”.

The more I ponder this, the more I think the Smiths have not given any efits to anyone, police included, at anytime. In the above links the mirror says "an" efit, then "efits" ???
I believe, and I don't care if some want to put me down...that the Smiths couldn't help in any way. These "so called efits" either came from someone else....Or just to completely rule out Tannerman on CW. And the Smiths were used for that purpose.

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



Irishman Martin Smith and members of his family saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10pm, about 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting. However, he was not asked to help produce a photofit. The Met refuses to discuss the details but it is expected that officers will approach Mr Smith and his family for help. Yard experts are looking at ways of improving the images to end with one pristine likeness of the “suspect”.

The more I ponder this, the more I think the Smiths have not given any efits to anyone, police included, at anytime. In the above links the mirror says "an" efit, then "efits" ???
I believe, and I don't care if some want to put me down...that the Smiths couldn't help in any way. These "so called efits" either came from someone else....Or just to completely rule out Tannerman on CW. And the Smiths were used for that purpose.

Is this another Tranmer efit manipulation ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DC1485'It seems to me that you would recognise this individual were you to see him again'

CT'Yes, I would recognize him. Don't ask me why but I know that I would.

DC1485'Okay, and you told me, when we were speaking of his behaviour, you told me that he left and shut the gate very slowly after himself, that he had to turn. With both his hands.

CT'With both hands.

DC1485'He turned and pulled the gate, he pulled or pushed the gate closed'

CT'Humm... he pulled it.

DC1485'Because it opens from the inside'

CT'It opens from the inside.

DC1485'Yes, then when you saw him leave, he had to pull the gate in his direction.

CT'Yes.

DC1485'Okay, and you told me that he was doing this stealthily, what do you mean by stealthily'

CT'Stealth, humm... someone who would draw my attention, you know, the normal way of entering and exiting a gate, one opens the gate and just leaves, but he did this as though he wanted to make the minimum amount of noise, that is stealthily, and as if, he did not want anyone to know that he was coming or going.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'This was very, very unusual and it was this that stayed in my memory.

DC1485'This was the photo-sketch that you reproduced'

CT'No, he did not use spectacles, but he did have this type of hair.

DC1485'Yes, I was intrigued that the reason for his sunglasses.

CT'He did not have sunglasses, he did not use spectacles and his mouth was not like this, and his nose was not like this, it is not the same person.

DC1485'Then you are telling me that this is not the photo-fit that you made'

CT'No.

DC1485'No.

CT'Because he has glasses, he did not use glasses.

Dc1485'No, but the hair is the same'

CT'The hair is right. More or less.

DC1485'I know that the image is not very good.

CT'And it appears that he has something on his chin that he did not have, humm, but the format is similar, he certainly did not use glasses, and his mouth was different.

DC1485'Okay, but the top of his...

CT'The top, his head is...

DC1485'The same.

CT'Yes.

DC1485'The format of the face is the same, the format of the mouth is the same'

CT'Well, he had a long face.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'Yes, this, this you know.

DC1485'But this is not it, this is not your photo-sketch.

CT'No, certainly it is not.

DC1485'No, it is not... okay. And the name Tasmin.

CT'Is this what they sent'

DC1485'Yes.

CT'This I made'

DC1485'Well, do you remember the name of the person who made the photo with you'

CT'No, a young person, humm...

DCc1485'Male'

CT'Yes, male, a young man, hummm.

DC1485'Tasmin, does that have any significance for you'

CT'No.

DC1485'No.

CT'From Reading.

DC1485'Yes, from Reading.

CT'I signed something, he had a CD and did everything on computer.

DC1485'Okay, sure.

CT'But this, this is not like the one he did.

DC1485'Well, there must be some confusion. I would like to finally ask you regarding your aunt, Pamela FENN.




Lets hope we are not on another 6 year hunt.....

@ Chilly heat.

Yeah - another 6 year hunt. And then only for a lost e-fit. After that the search for the person so add another 6 ...... 12 to be on the safe side.
Now where's my invalid carriage?

ETA Reading. Just noticed. That's Thames Valley Police!

Mirage wrote:@ Chilly heat.

Yeah - another 6 year hunt. And then only for a lost e-fit. After that the search for the person so add another 6 ...... 12 to be on the safe side.
Now where's my invalid carriage?

ETA Reading. Just noticed. That's Thames Valley Police!

This thread gets no interest because of where it is. Candyfloss began the thread totally unaware of the situation due to it being posted way back. The worry is when the thread is read nobody looks at the dates. So when SY approached the Smiths eventually, we are led to believe that they produced these e-fits. There is no evidence whatsoever to say they did, or that they have to this day produced one. That's why Im so pissed off about things. Its another spin by possibly SY to say, "Hey all......We have a "REVELATION", and a Gerry lookalike thrown in"......Now to me, that's at least an internet go over by many.......For perhaps many years.
Being a newbie, it is hard to put the point across...

ChillyHeat wrote:

Mirage wrote:@ Chilly heat.

Yeah - another 6 year hunt. And then only for a lost e-fit. After that the search for the person so add another 6 ...... 12 to be on the safe side.
Now where's my invalid carriage?

ETA Reading. Just noticed. That's Thames Valley Police!

This thread gets no interest because of where it is. Candyfloss began the thread totally unaware of the situation due to it being posted way back. The worry is when the thread is read nobody looks at the dates. So when SY approached the Smiths eventually, we are led to believe that they produced these e-fits. There is no evidence whatsoever to say they did, or that they have to this day produced one. That's why Im so pissed off about things. Its another spin by possibly SY to say, "Hey all......We have a "REVELATION", and a Gerry lookalike thrown in"......Now to me, that's at least an internet go over by many.......For perhaps many years.
Being a newbie, it is hard to put the point across...

The thread was originally in Latest News, and like all threads, when interest has died down, and people stop posting they get moved to the relevant forum.

candyfloss wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

Mirage wrote:@ Chilly heat.

Yeah - another 6 year hunt. And then only for a lost e-fit. After that the search for the person so add another 6 ...... 12 to be on the safe side.
Now where's my invalid carriage?

ETA Reading. Just noticed. That's Thames Valley Police!

This thread gets no interest because of where it is. Candyfloss began the thread totally unaware of the situation due to it being posted way back. The worry is when the thread is read nobody looks at the dates. So when SY approached the Smiths eventually, we are led to believe that they produced these e-fits. There is no evidence whatsoever to say they did, or that they have to this day produced one. That's why Im so pissed off about things. Its another spin by possibly SY to say, "Hey all......We have a "REVELATION", and a Gerry lookalike thrown in"......Now to me, that's at least an internet go over by many.......For perhaps many years.
Being a newbie, it is hard to put the point across...

The thread was originally in Latest News, and like all threads, when interest has died down, and people stop posting they get moved to the relevant forum.

I believe it should be moved back to latest news. I had no clue about this thread until it was bumped and that's when I started looking at it a bit closer. It stood out to me. It needs more input, but without it receiving the arguments it seems to gain. The Smiths in my opinion did see someone, but I feel they are also being manipulated by way of, how can I say...."Be quiet for now, as a thorough investigation is in progress"......That's why I fear another drawn out era. I don't believe they have any relevant information....Therefore its easy for them to step back.

Think about all the arguments over the Smith sighting since CW. Who told us we have a revelation to connect the dots ? Who gave us the efits ? Who changed the timeline ?
SY
Who are now beginning to argue over the dots, efits and timeline ?
Not SY

Indeed, It is the biggest f*** up on this planet......