DAILY STAR - Is this REALLY the man who took Maddie?

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] / Published 13th September 2017


Is this REALLY the man who took Maddie? There's a BIG problem with this sighting

IT’S the Maddie sighting that’s supposed to hold the key to the case, but what do we really know about the mysterious man in this notorious e-fit?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]GETTY/MICHAEL HAVIS
KEY TO THE CASE: The man pictured left has been thought of as vital to the investigation  
Within an hour of Madeleine McCann disappearing in 2007, a child matching her description was seen in the arms of an unknown man.

He was heading towards the coast just 500 yards from where Maddie vanished in the Portuguese resort town of Praia da Luz.

So intriguing was the sighting that likenesses of the man were pulled together and later broadcast on Crimewatch.

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

MICHAEL HAVIS OBSCURED: The man's face would have been hidden by shadow, like this model's face

“I happen to believe he is Portuguese and innocent, but that’s not how he's depicted”

Yet while the world thinks of the man as a key piece of the puzzle, some say the sighting is a dead end.

Daily Star Online visited Praia da Luz and recreated the sighting 10 years after Maddie vanished.

At the same time of night and with similar lighting, we discovered how hard it was to get a good look at a face.

The street, Rua da Escola Primaria, is lit dimly lit by just a few street lamps, a sign from a nearby clinic and moonlight.

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

MICHAEL HAVIS CLOAKED IN SHADOW: The model's face was difficult to see from every angle

Photos of a model, which were taken at the scene and brightened afterwards to better simulate the view, show a face shrouded in shadow.

It’s also worth noting that e-fits are usually produced by an operator under the direction of a witness, in accordance with strict police guidelines.

The e-fits created from this sighting were assembled in 2008, several months after Madeleine disappeared, when witnesses were likelier to misremember.

On the other hand, if they were made without the direction of witnesses – but rather from their statements – the operator is likelier to have influenced the end result.

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


MICHAEL HAVIS MYSTERY MAN: The person (not pictured) has never been identified by investigators

Given these factors, some have concluded that the man – who was spotted and described by the Smith family from Ireland – is just an innocent bystander.

One local man with knowledge of the case said that, whether the man is innocent or not, "the e-fits almost certainly look nothing like him"

He told Daily Star Online: "I happen to believe he is Portuguese and innocent, but that’s not how he's depicted in Portuguese media.

"They showed the e-fits, but called him Scotland Yard’s chief suspect. They did not include that he might be totally innocent."

Of course he is not the man... durh.

...seeing as Tony is not here, was it Smithman?   Sorry, couldn't resist!!!

Michael Havis must be short of a byline today. He was out in PdL in May, presumably when this must have been concocted, but only published today.
 
Based on a search he has had 1073 bylines for the Daily Star in the last year, 22 supposedly ‘Maddie’ related, the most recent shown below.
 
But rubbishing the Smith’s sighting, whatever next?
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interestingly, Textusa comments today that ‘the street is well lit’, not as portrayed in these photos, although they visited PdL this summer and it may have been a bit later in the year when it would have been brighter anyway.
 
 The closest street light is correctly shown in these pictures and there is not another one until you get round the corner into R. de 25 April, so you would have to rely on the flats or surgery to give better lighting towards the corner.
 
The third photo is taken just round the corner as you turn left into R. de 25 Abril from R. da Escola Primaria and is roughly opposite the street light. This photo should have been taken on the other side of the road, next to the steps to illustrate Aiofe’s reported sighting.
 
The other two photos are roughly right, outside the doctors surgery on the corner and a few yards further up the hill.
 
Martin Smith’s sighting was ‘as he reached the artery’, so outside the surgery, Aiofe’s was ‘upon reaching the top of the stairs’, so in the R. de 25 Abril, and Peter’s was ‘immediately at the beginning of this road’ so again outside the surgery, but a little bit higher up the hill.


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

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

The Daily Star efitman has more than a passing resemblance to Gerry, even without the benefits of quaffing litres of vinho verde and munching plates of sardinhas. Maybe that is a better starting for OG & MSM.

The solitary man pictured standing in the gas light could not be the phantom abductor - he's dressed like a tourist.

I always thought the Daily Star to be way out there in some galaxy far far away but this merde is infinity personified.

I actually feel there is a purpose to the the above article. The timing is interesting. We are asked to believe that four months after the "experiment" the Star decides to publish its findings, skipping the anniversary fest and instead appearing just as Op Grange requests more money and the McCanns appeal their "not proven innocence" to the E.C.H.R.. Having a large swathe of the public believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that Gerry was spotted with an unresponsive Madeleine that night, does not garner public sympathy for the McCanns. Interestingly, this article does not use the e fit which looks most like Gerry. It seeks to provide an excuse for why the Smiths might have been mistaken - e fits drawn up so long after, dim lighting, the "artists" own prejudices etc. Surely they contacted Martin Smith for comment? If he is working for the McCanns this provides a golden opportunity for him to state publicly that he has come to realize he was mistaken in 2008! I don't recall another article in the MSM which so actively sought to debunk the Smithman sighting. Of course, there may be another explanation. Perhaps this current hot lead - last throw of the dice - centres around a suspicious car or van seen near 5A at the crucial time and Smithman aka Eureka man is casting a spanner in the work of trying to connect this. Madeleine's "abductor" cannot be on foot and in a vehicle at the same time! Whatever the reason, I feel this latest offering is more that just "lets get a seasonal Madeleine story out". It serves a purpose.

Phoebe wrote: Whatever the reason, I feel this latest offering is more that just "lets get a seasonal Madeleine story out". It serves a purpose.

What the Daily Star?  Don't make me laugh.

Times is 'ard if you need to rely on the gutter press extraordinaire to get a message across.  The UK tabloids are again blitzing with ripping yarns leading up to the seal of Home Office approval to continue Operation Grange for the foreseable future - any day now.

History repeating itself.

Verdi wrote:

Phoebe wrote: Whatever the reason, I feel this latest offering is more that just "lets get a seasonal Madeleine story out". It serves a purpose.

What the Daily Star?  Don't make me laugh.

Times is 'ard if you need to rely on the gutter press extraordinaire to get a message across.  The UK tabloids are again blitzing with ripping yarns leading up to the seal of Home Office approval to continue Operation Grange for the foreseable future - any day now.

History repeating itself.

More convoluted BS?
Smithman as DCI Andy Redwood has spoken too,was an Englishman carrying his Daughter home from the Night Creche,which was based in an Opposite direction to where JT spotted Him?
Why hasn't the Daily Star informed it's readers that Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley,Alphaig,had these E-fits drawn up in 2008 and the McCann family had chosen through Carter Ruck to withhold this information until Crime Watch 2013?
So why has the Daily Star chosen Not to Publish that Two e-fits were made of the same person,by the Two Witnesses,who both stated they had not a "Clear View" of the persons face as his face was turned away from them,but both E-fits are different of the same person supposedly seen on 3 May 2007 at around 22.00 hrs,as part of the evolving time scale,JT 21.15pm sighting,eh DCI Redwood,so "you make the Time to fit the Crime"much like Ben Needhams case?
Why have the Daily Star chosen,"Not"to mention the jammies from the Amsterdam press conference,which were supposedly Amellies,then Amellie states to John McCann,"Maddies Jammies"?
You know the"Jammies"that Kate washed according to her Book on Thursday 3 May 2007,Tea stain?
Which questions,where these Pyjamas actually Madeleine's,which she could Not have been wearing on the evening of the disappearance,unless the parents had at least Two Pairs per child in case of accidents?
An Eighteen month old child suddenly has Pyjamas purchased for them,which apparently not made for children under Twenty Four months in the UK,M&S?
Are you looking to the facts Mr Mark Rowley,Assistant Commander of the Metropolitan Police Service, you are supposed to"impartial" be investigating the case and not becoming too friendly with people with closeness to the Investigation?

willowthewisp wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Phoebe wrote: Whatever the reason, I feel this latest offering is more that just "lets get a seasonal Madeleine story out". It serves a purpose.

What the Daily Star?  Don't make me laugh.

Times is 'ard if you need to rely on the gutter press extraordinaire to get a message across.  The UK tabloids are again blitzing with ripping yarns leading up to the seal of Home Office approval to continue Operation Grange for the foreseable future - any day now.

History repeating itself.

More convoluted BS?
Smithman as DCI Andy Redwood has spoken too,was an Englishman carrying his Daughter home from the Night Creche,which was based in an Opposite direction to where JT spotted Him?
Why hasn't the Daily Star informed it's readers that Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley,Alphaig,had these E-fits drawn up in 2008 and the McCann family had chosen through Carter Ruck to withhold this information until Crime Watch 2013?
So why has the Daily Star chosen Not to Publish that Two e-fits were made of the same person,by the Two Witnesses,who both stated they had not a "Clear View" of the persons face as his face was turned away from them,but both E-fits are different of the same person supposedly seen on 3 May 2007 at around 22.00 hrs,as part of the evolving time scale,JT 21.15pm sighting,eh DCI Redwood,so "you make the Time to fit the Crime"much like Ben Needhams case?
Why have the Daily Star chosen,"Not"to mention the jammies from the Amsterdam press conference,which were supposedly Amellies,then Amellie states to John McCann,"Maddies Jammies"?
You know the"Jammies"that Kate washed according to her Book on Thursday 3 May 2007,Tea stain?
Which questions,where these Pyjamas actually Madeleine's,which she could Not have been wearing on the evening of the disappearance,unless the parents had at least Two Pairs per child in case of accidents?
An Eighteen month old child suddenly has Pyjamas purchased for them,which apparently not made for children under Twenty Four months in the UK,M&S?
Are you looking to the facts Mr Mark Rowley,Assistant Commander of the Metropolitan Police Service, you are supposed to"impartial" be investigating the case and not becoming too friendly with people with closeness to the Investigation?

Maybe Michael Davis of the Star of the day, should be sent a link to CMoMM .

The video clip he uses is from the McCanns interview with Fiona Bruce last April during the 10th anniversary blitz.  Good 'ol Gerald sits there, flying in the face of all that's sane, still saying there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm..

Woof!  Woof!  Woof!