Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by chillyheat 05.11.13 16:59

I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10” in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

Its quite possible they thought it was all irrelevant anyway.....Remember, Tannerman was still top suspect.

Richard McCluskey Statement - Madeleine McCann Case
In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.

Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.

I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.

The child's head was sort of hanging over behind Mr. McCann, this made me think back to the night in Portugal and it just looked like the same person.

He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong.

by Nereid 05.11.13 17:02

galena wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:If the Smith's did NOT see the man's face then where have these SY(?) 'emphasised' e-fits come from?

Not one e-fit..... BUT TWO!

IF they are the 'supressed' McCann e-fits then surely SY have been left with egg on their faces!

And where did the McCann e-fits come from if nobody, repeat nobody, saw his 'face'?
Perhaps the question should be not why these efits were suppressed but why they exist at all? What on earth is the relevance of not one but two facial reconstructions done a year later presumably based on the memory of people who said at the time that they wouldn't be able to recognise the person again? Quite honestly an efit done by you or me based solely on imagination would be just as relevant. Also why - as Nereid said - have they been done on different types of software?

I am not sure they have been done using different types of software, but to me it looks like they have.

I'm just going to post the 2 e-fits again, so perhaps other people can give their opinion on the style/quality of both efits, ignoring how different the two men look.

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 22 Efits10

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 22 Efits10

1a is far more pixelated, but also looks more amateurish. 1b looks as if it's done using E-fit-V software.

Here's an example of an E-fit-V image:

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 22 Efit-v10

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 22 Efit-v10

http://www.gizmag.com/efit-v-software-sketch-artist/13057/

I wonder if 1a was done based on the witness statement of all 3 Smith witnesses.
And perhaps 1b was done later on by Scotland Yard, after ~~coaxing~~ talking to the Smiths.

by sallypelt 05.11.13 17:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to have ideas that I agree with described as 'bordering on the insane' or 'daft', or 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous' or 'impossible'.
What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.

A pair of "daps" and a white hankie, and knotted in each corner, and placed on his/her head? Mrs

by dunn 05.11.13 17:06

"He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong."

Yes. We know McCluskey was wrong, it was proved so. Therefore it's correct to dismiss it. The Smith sighting remains inconclusive, and until this is otherwise, nobody can dismiss it - Basic problem solving process.

by chillyheat 05.11.13 17:10

GPD wrote:"He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong."

Yes. We know McCluskey was wrong, it was proved so. Therefore it's correct to dismiss it. The Smith sighting remains inconclusive, and until this is otherwise, nobody can dismiss it - Basic problem solving process.

They both independantely stated, they Identified Gerry McCann on his mannerisms ???
Not good for court is it

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane

by dunn 05.11.13 17:15

ChillyHeat wrote:
GPD wrote:"He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong."

Yes. We know McCluskey was wrong, it was proved so. Therefore it's correct to dismiss it. The Smith sighting remains inconclusive, and until this is otherwise, nobody can dismiss it - Basic problem solving process.
They both independantely stated, they Identified Gerry McCann on his mannerisms ???
Not good for court is it

It's not in court though?? And you cannot possibly, in any way, speculate that should this go to court charging the McN's, that this would be the argument for the prosecution; nor can you assume it would be an isolated piece of evidence arguing for the prosecution and not attached as circumstantial back up to something physical. You just can't, nor can I!

by chillyheat 05.11.13 17:15

Break a finger.....By the time the info goes through your mates and through others, your Mum hears you broke your arm.

Im not saying the Smiths are wrong. The fact that Tannerman was the main suspect, would infer that they could say what they wanted, because at the end of the day....It must be Tannerman. Possibly what they thought. Who knows.

by chillyheat 05.11.13 17:18

GPD wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
GPD wrote:"He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong."

Yes. We know McCluskey was wrong, it was proved so. Therefore it's correct to dismiss it. The Smith sighting remains inconclusive, and until this is otherwise, nobody can dismiss it - Basic problem solving process.
They both independantely stated, they Identified Gerry McCann on his mannerisms ???
Not good for court is it
It's not in court though?? And you cannot possibly, in any way, speculate that should this go to court charging the McN's, that this would be the argument for the prosecution; nor can you assume it would be an isolated piece of evidence arguing for the prosecution and not attached as circumstantial back up to something physical. You just can't, nor can I!

Im saying its shit evidence. There is no evidence to say that was Gerry McCann. Thats what I mean

by dunn 05.11.13 17:21

Well firstly Chillyheat, I'm not arguing for the content, I'm arguing it as an entity that you cannot just dismiss cause you think it's shit - you may well be right, but it's subjective. If it is revealed that there is physical evidence 100m from the sighting, for e.g. - you'd be all over it, would you not?

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 18:03

Sockpuppet wrote:Looks like we're back to this article that I linked to earlier in the thread on the same matter:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

'Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.'

E-fits compiled in 2008.

1. Last i heard MR Smith said he did not do any efits...now im not quite up-to-date, so if you have an official source that says he did the efits then id like to see it. After all it was the McCanns that did the efit of Tannerman, and not Tanner.

2. I do not trust mass media..so the Mirror article means jack to me smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 18:16

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Sockpuppet:

Thank you for replying to my question, but although there was a gracious reply, it missed out one very important thing.

Er, you didn't actually answer my question, which was:

"I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal."

If, as you say (though I think you are wrong), the police asked: "Mr Smith, did this bloke look like a tourist?"

And then Martin Smith asked:

"What does a tourist look like?"...

...what would have been the police officer's answer?
Columbostogey gave you a good answer. I haven't lived abroad, but he/she has. I hope they won't mind me quoting them:

columbostogey wrote:
Having lived in many places in the med etc, we always used to laugh at the tourists especially in the early part of the year when it was very chilly, as they NEVER seemed to bother bringing coats, or warm over clothing, so you would see the tourists freezing their bits off even at night, and the locals would be wrapped up warm in coats or jumpers etc lol. Thats the truth as I know it...
Satisfied?

No - but then I did appreciate his post.

I have always enjoyed good quality comedy - and this thread has been great entertainment.

I think I've got it, though.

TOURIST AT 10.00PM, EARLY MAY, PORTUGAL: T-shirt, shorts, shivering...

LOCAL AT 10.00PM, EARLY MAY, PORTUGAL: Warm jumper and thick trousers, overcoat, feeling snug and warm...

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 18:19

thetruthbeknown wrote:
1. Last I heard Mr Smith said he did not do any efits...

To paraphrase William Shakespeare:

Did he do the e-fits - or did he not do the e-fits?

That is the question.

(or actually, one of a great many questions)

by ProfMoriarty 05.11.13 18:25

How SY came up with TWO efits purportedly of the same individual is unexplained. To my eyes, they bear no resemblance to each other - the jawlines alone are radically dissimilar.
Why SY decided not to privilege ONE of the twos fits as more accurate is also unexplained. Two efits would only confuse identification.
Why Mr Smith and his family weren't and aren't national celebrities by now on foot of their outing on CW is a mystery also. This man now is the prime witness in the most sensational international case of the decade but is being concealed by himself and SY. Why didn't he give his own testimony in his own vivid way? Surely that would have provoked even more calls to the hotline.
Why didn't SY and CW own up to the origin and age of the efits?
SY have the answers to these mysteries; there is no chance they will tell us.
The demise of Tannerman remains devastating for the McCann campaign. It could be that Smithman was elevated by SY largely because, without him, the CW programme would have resulted only in a most negative revelation - the disappearance of an abductor from the McCann assertion of M being 'taken' - and thrown a spotlight on Tanner the liar.
In any case, the idea that Mr Smith's sighting is bogus, tho it is supported by his family who also saw the figure he claims to have seen, seems to me unlikely to be true. Whether he saw a man clearly or not, whether these efits are based on his descriptions or not, on those of his family or not, whether they are fanciful or not, whether it has been misused by SY or CW or not, doesn't detract from the fact that, as sightings go, his would require a conspiracy of some complexity to manufacture.
And for no reason. He does not stand to gain one way or the other.
Which can't be said about any other player in this affair.

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 18:27

Tony Bennett wrote:To paraphrase William Shakespeare:

Did he do the e-fits - or did he not do the e-fits?

That is the question.

(or actually, one of a great many questions)

Indeed..now Im not well versed in this case, and I know you are. I was brought here while involved with Haut as it has connections, and got interested more deeply...Dont think you can not get interested in this case big grin

Now has it been said, officially, that smith did provide an efit?

by MaryB 05.11.13 18:31

I've read there were nine people altogether in the Smith family who were walking back that night. Any two of them could have done the e-fits. I am assuming that the e-fits came from two separate descriptions. Or it's not impossible that somebody else saw this person with a child and gave the e-fits. a person not even part of the Smith family. We just do not know.

by justathought 05.11.13 18:34

ProfMoriarty wrote:How SY came up with TWO efits purportedly of the same individual is unexplained. To my eyes, they bear no resemblance to each other - the jawlines alone are radically dissimilar.
Why SY decided not to privilege ONE of the twos fits as more accurate is also unexplained. Two efits would only confuse identification.
Why Mr Smith and his family weren't and aren't national celebrities by now on foot of their outing on CW is a mystery also. This man now is the prime witness in the most sensational international case of the decade but is being concealed by himself and SY. Why didn't he give his own testimony in his own vivid way? Surely that would have provoked even more calls to the hotline.
Why didn't SY and CW own up to the origin and age of the efits?
SY have the answers to these mysteries; there is no chance they will tell us.
The demise of Tannerman remains devastating for the McCann campaign. It could be that Smithman was elevated by SY largely because, without him, the CW programme would have resulted only in a most negative revelation - the disappearance of an abductor from the McCann assertion of M being 'taken' - and thrown a spotlight on Tanner the liar.
In any case, the idea that Mr Smith's sighting is bogus, tho it is supported by his family who also saw the figure he claims to have seen, seems to me unlikely to be true. Whether he saw a man clearly or not, whether these efits are based on his descriptions or not, on those of his family or not, whether they are fanciful or not, whether it has been misused by SY or CW or not, doesn't detract from the fact that, as sightings go, his would require a conspiracy of some complexity to manufacture.
And for no reason. He does not stand to gain one way or the other.
Which can't be said about any other player in this affair.

Many interesting and valid points, especially as the Smiths seem key witnesses. i am firmly in the camp that they did see someone. they have had ample opportunity to back out, and am sure SY could have conveniently dismissed there "sighting" as they did JT's.
if in the future they are proven to have fabricated their evidence, surely they risk "wasting police" time and/or there reputations being in ruins.

by galena 05.11.13 19:16

GPD wrote:"He was sure it was BOTH Kate and Gerry.........He was wrong."

Yes. We know McCluskey was wrong, it was proved so. Therefore it's correct to dismiss it. The Smith sighting remains inconclusive, and until this is otherwise, nobody can dismiss it - Basic problem solving process.

For me it show hows subjective the human memory is - by the time Smith gave his evidence, let alone 'recognised' Gerry from the plane the story was all over the news media, lots of suspicion of the parents already being expressed. So there is no way on earth this sighting can be seen as objective.

If he had gone to report the story the next day and identified Gerry in the police station - without knowing his connection to the case that would be a very different story.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 19:17

Tony Bennett wrote:No - but then I did appreciate his post.

I have always enjoyed good quality comedy - and this thread has been great entertainment.

I think I've got it, though.

TOURIST AT 10.00PM, EARLY MAY, PORTUGAL: T-shirt, shorts, shivering...

LOCAL AT 10.00PM, EARLY MAY, PORTUGAL: Warm jumper and thick trousers, overcoat, feeling snug and warm...

Whether you find it funny or not means nothing to me, you've had an answer.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 19:25

ChillyHeat wrote:
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane

The more I ponder that statement...

...the more I realise that it is pure and utter guff.

by galena 05.11.13 19:31

justathought wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:How SY came up with TWO efits purportedly of the same individual is unexplained. To my eyes, they bear no resemblance to each other - the jawlines alone are radically dissimilar.
Why SY decided not to privilege ONE of the twos fits as more accurate is also unexplained. Two efits would only confuse identification.
Why Mr Smith and his family weren't and aren't national celebrities by now on foot of their outing on CW is a mystery also. This man now is the prime witness in the most sensational international case of the decade but is being concealed by himself and SY. Why didn't he give his own testimony in his own vivid way? Surely that would have provoked even more calls to the hotline.
Why didn't SY and CW own up to the origin and age of the efits?
SY have the answers to these mysteries; there is no chance they will tell us.
The demise of Tannerman remains devastating for the McCann campaign. It could be that Smithman was elevated by SY largely because, without him, the CW programme would have resulted only in a most negative revelation - the disappearance of an abductor from the McCann assertion of M being 'taken' - and thrown a spotlight on Tanner the liar.
In any case, the idea that Mr Smith's sighting is bogus, tho it is supported by his family who also saw the figure he claims to have seen, seems to me unlikely to be true. Whether he saw a man clearly or not, whether these efits are based on his descriptions or not, on those of his family or not, whether they are fanciful or not, whether it has been misused by SY or CW or not, doesn't detract from the fact that, as sightings go, his would require a conspiracy of some complexity to manufacture.
And for no reason. He does not stand to gain one way or the other.
Which can't be said about any other player in this affair.
Many interesting and valid points, especially as the Smiths seem key witnesses. i am firmly in the camp that they did see someone. they have had ample opportunity to back out, and am sure SY could have conveniently dismissed there "sighting" as they did JT's.
if in the future they are proven to have fabricated their evidence, surely they risk "wasting police" time and/or there reputations being in ruins.

Just a small correction - SY did not dismiss Jane's evidence they endorsed it by saying someone had come forward. I'm not sure how either Jane or the Smith's could be proved liars? No-one can actually prove they didn't see someone carrying something, and in the worst case they can just say it was dark and they are mistaken.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 19:39

Nereid wrote:
[ E-fit images snipped ]

I wonder if 1a was done based on the witness statement of all 3 Smith witnesses.
And perhaps 1b was done later on by Scotland Yard, after ~~coaxing~~ talking to the Smiths.

Fascinating - and worrying.

I hope someone else will help us, because it looks as though two different machines/computers have produced the two very different images.

You wonder about when these e-fits were done, by whom, and based on whose memory.

So do I.

I don't suppose anyone will tell us.

Just like we will never know, for example, the name of the British banker who agonisingly agonised for two years before telling the McCanns' private detectives about his encounter with a young Australian woman (who looked just like Victoria Beckham) at 2am on Barcelona dockside after an evening's crawl through Barcelona's finest dockside bars.

Nor the name of the mystery man who apparently travelled all the way from Germany to Teford to hand Wayne Hewlett a vital letter disclosing what really happened to Madeleine McCann - before he burnt it - and then told the McCann Team what he had done with the letter.

These two men prefer to remain anonymous.

Or...

...could it be the same bloke?

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 19:47

Im certainly not convinced either that the efits were done by Mr Smith..he had said he didn't feel confident of seeing the persons face (which an efit is based upon) He had refused to do it when approached by Kennedy, I presume for that reason, that he wasnt confident of facial features. The ID of Gerry from the plane is a whole different subject. As many have pointed out, we recognise people by all different means of identification..we can often see someone we know from behind and recognise that its them (although sometimes we do get it wrong, ive often embarrassed myself by tapping a complete stranger on the shoulder big grin

)

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 19:54

thetruthbeknown wrote: As many have pointed out, we recognise people by all different means of identification...we can often see someone we know from behind and recognise that its them...

In response, let me reiterate something I said back up the thread.

I agreed with another poster earlier that it is very possible to recognise the gait and mannerisms of someone one is familiar with.

BUT NOT:

* someone you only saw for a second or two

* in the dark.

To claim that one can recognise a person one has seen for only one or two seconds by the way he is carrying a two-year-old child over his left shoulder - which is the natural position for most right-handed people - at the very minimum raises a query as to the credibility of his statement.

Some would argue that it's palpable nonsense.

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 20:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote: As many have pointed out, we recognise people by all different means of identification...we can often see someone we know from behind and recognise that its them...
In response, let me reiterate something I said back up the thread.

I agreed with another poster earlier that it is very possible to recognise the gait and mannerisms of someone one is familiar with.

BUT NOT:

* someone you only saw for a second or two

* in the dark.

To claim that one can recognise a person one has seen for only one or two seconds by the way he is carrying a two-year-old child over his left shoulder - which is the natural position for most right-handed people - at the very minimum raises a query as to the credibility of his statement.

Some would argue that it's palpable nonsense.

True, but I also think if we are 'racking our brains' (imagine thinking that you may have been witness to a very serious crime) that your mind can play tricks. Maybe Smith was genuine in his feeling, I wouldnt like to tarnish the mans integrity without evidence, (despite the obvious Murat connection) but obviously it could never be used as evidence..for the reason you point out above Tony.

by Guest 05.11.13 20:05

I'm still waiting for enlightenment on the Unilever thing. Why is it of significance that Mr Smith worked for them? Sorry, I'm still a novice regarding the finer nuances of this case, is there a link with Unilever elsewhere?

I googled 'Unilever madeleine mccann'. Bizarrely, it chucked out a link to a list of notorious Freemasons, on which there is at least one very interesting name...