Poll! The Smithman e-fits

Mimi wrote:Blimey - you all agree with me  

Its gone up to 21 overnight.

I voted early this morning, I forgot to log out yesterday.

AndyB wrote:Sorry but they look like completely different people to me - the eyes, noses and jaw lines are all different, even if the one on the right is made symmetrical. The mouths are especially different.

The one on the left clearly has a look of GM but if you looked at the one on the right in isolation I don't think there's any way that you'd think it was GM. To me it looks more like Kevin Halligen (I don't think it is Halligen, just that it looks more like him than it does GM).

This poll is very tongue in cheek AndyB and if I were being honest I agree that these 2 could be of different men but going on the fact that they were created from what were the recollections and different viewpoints of at least 2 members of a family who varied in ages and angles of sight etc I think there are enough similarities to see that they could also be the same man.
If they were created by the Smith family through TM and they say they all saw only 1 man that night then it is safe to assume they are at least supposed to be the same man.
What swayed my vote is that SY stated in an FOI request from whatshisname that they were of the same man.
Good enough for me.

AndyB wrote:Does anyone know when the efits were created?

Probably around 2008 Andy, they were prepared by the McCanns private detectives (Henri Exton), then supressed by the parents for the next 5 or so years. Redwood introduced them as a revelation moment, but they were far from it. The McCanns claimed they couldn't afford to follow two leads, and they were sticking with tannerman. What would it have cost them to put those images on their website or include them in Kate's book? Hmmm.

Bennett has done his utmost of course to smear Henri Exton and discredit his report, almost as much as the McCanns themselves, who threatened Exton with legal action if he revealed the contents of it. It is extremely sensitive to the McCanns, they sued the Times for saying they suppressed it. However, it must have credible for Scotland Yard to have led with it in their 2013 Crimewatch.

What is TB`s motive for discrediting the Smiths? Where is he going with this line of thinking ? My brain doesn`t work very well when things get complicated.

I have wondered the same thing. As far as I know, there has never been an explanation for this.

Cristobell wrote:

AndyB wrote:Does anyone know when the efits were created?

Probably around 2008 Andy, they were prepared by the McCanns private detectives (Henri Exton), then supressed by the parents for the next 5 or so years.  Redwood introduced them as a revelation moment, but they were far from it.  The McCanns claimed they couldn't afford to follow two leads, and they were sticking with tannerman.  What would it have cost them to put those images on their website or include them in Kate's book? Hmmm.  

Bennett has done his utmost of course to smear Henri Exton and discredit his report, almost as much as the McCanns themselves, who threatened Exton with legal action if he revealed the contents of it. It is extremely sensitive to the McCanns, they sued the Times for saying they suppressed it.  However, it must have credible for Scotland Yard to have led with it in their 2013 Crimewatch.  

Which begs the obvious question, why did they commission it in the first place?

I see the retention of private detectives as laudable on the part of the McCanns - perhaps the only laudable thing they did, actually. OK, so we know how it turned out in practice, but they must have been given a certain amount of free reign if they ended up turning in potentially damning reports.

It's the only part of things that I can't really square with the rest, to be honest.

Mimi wrote:What is TB`s motive for discrediting the Smiths?  Where is he going with this line of thinking ?  My brain doesn`t work very well when things get complicated.

The most charitable explanation (and this goes for RDH too) is that he knows something that he isn't disclosing.

I would really hope that is the case.

chirpyinsect wrote:

AndyB wrote:Sorry but they look like completely different people to me - the eyes, noses and jaw lines are all different, even if the one on the right is made symmetrical. The mouths are especially different.

The one on the left clearly has a look of GM but if you looked at the one on the right in isolation I don't think there's any way that you'd think it was GM. To me it looks more like Kevin Halligen (I don't think it is Halligen, just that it looks more like him than it does GM).

This poll is very tongue in cheek AndyB and if I were being honest I agree that these 2 could be of different men but going on the fact that they were created from what were the recollections and different viewpoints of at least 2 members of a family who varied in ages and angles of sight etc I think there are enough similarities to see that they could also be the same man.
If they were created by the Smith family through TM and they say they all saw only 1 man that night then it is safe to assume they are at least supposed to be the same man.
What swayed my vote is that SY stated in an FOI request from whatshisname that they were of the same man.
Good enough for me.

I know SY have said that they're the same man but they've also said a lot of other things that aren't true like Jean Charles De Menezes was wearing a padded jacket and jumped the barrier. About grange they've said that none of the T9 are people of interest yet there are many people here who will say that this is just a lie and that the investigation is honest. The point is that, as far as the institutional racist and endemically corrupt Met is concerned, I don't share your faith and take everything they say with a very large pinch of salt.

I take your point about it being two different members of the family creating the efits and agree that it would lead to differences but can't see enough similarities for that to explain the differences. I think a better explanation could be that the Smith's encounter with Smithman was brief and in the dark but this causes its own problem: How is it possible to draw up on accurate efit of someone that quickly passed by in the dark? I couldn't do it. BTW, do we know that they're from two different members of the Smith family or is that an (entirely reasonable) assumption?

Cristobell wrote:

AndyB wrote:Does anyone know when the efits were created?

Probably around 2008 Andy, they were prepared by the McCanns private detectives (Henri Exton), then supressed by the parents for the next 5 or so years.  Redwood introduced them as a revelation moment, but they were far from it.  The McCanns claimed they couldn't afford to follow two leads, and they were sticking with tannerman.  What would it have cost them to put those images on their website or include them in Kate's book? Hmmm.  

Bennett has done his utmost of course to smear Henri Exton and discredit his report, almost as much as the McCanns themselves, who threatened Exton with legal action if he revealed the contents of it. It is extremely sensitive to the McCanns, they sued the Times for saying they suppressed it.  However, it must have credible for Scotland Yard to have led with it in their 2013 Crimewatch.  

I agree completely but I do have concerns about the efits, particularly about the timing of their creation: Either they were created prior to Mr Smith seeing GM walk down the plane steps on television or after. If before then how could they be accurately drawn when they'd only seen Smithman briefly in the dark? If after, why bother? Why not say, you don't need an efit it was GM?

AndyB wrote:
I agree completely but I do have concerns about the efits, particularly about the timing of their creation: Either they were created prior to Mr Smith seeing GM walk down the plane steps on television or after. If before then how could they be accurately drawn when they'd only seen Smithman briefly in the dark? If after, why bother? Why not say, you don't need an efit it was GM?

Yes, I agree with that too.

BTW, have you turned into Phileas Fogg from Medomsley Road?

Seicento wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

AndyB wrote:Does anyone know when the efits were created?

Probably around 2008 Andy, they were prepared by the McCanns private detectives (Henri Exton), then supressed by the parents for the next 5 or so years.  Redwood introduced them as a revelation moment, but they were far from it.  The McCanns claimed they couldn't afford to follow two leads, and they were sticking with tannerman.  What would it have cost them to put those images on their website or include them in Kate's book? Hmmm.  

Bennett has done his utmost of course to smear Henri Exton and discredit his report, almost as much as the McCanns themselves, who threatened Exton with legal action if he revealed the contents of it. It is extremely sensitive to the McCanns, they sued the Times for saying they suppressed it.  However, it must have credible for Scotland Yard to have led with it in their 2013 Crimewatch.  

Which begs the obvious question, why did they commission it in the first place?

I see the retention of private detectives as laudable on the part of the McCanns - perhaps the only laudable thing they did, actually. OK, so we know how it turned out in practice, but they must have been given a certain amount of free reign if they ended up turning in potentially damning reports.

It's the only part of things that I can't really square with the rest, to be honest.

I hadn't thought about that before and its a good point. Perhaps it was to find out what evidence there might be against them so they could change their stories to explain it? They certainly went to great lengths to get Leicester police to tell them what they knew.

Seicento wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I agree completely but I do have concerns about the efits, particularly about the timing of their creation: Either they were created prior to Mr Smith seeing GM walk down the plane steps on television or after. If before then how could they be accurately drawn when they'd only seen Smithman briefly in the dark? If after, why bother? Why not say, you don't need an efit it was GM?

Yes, I agree with that too.

BTW, have you turned into Phileas Fogg from Medomsley Road?

Lol. It appears so, although Mr Fogg is no longer there. I don't know how to stop it creating random avatars for me

AndyB wrote:

Seicento wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I agree completely but I do have concerns about the efits, particularly about the timing of their creation: Either they were created prior to Mr Smith seeing GM walk down the plane steps on television or after. If before then how could they be accurately drawn when they'd only seen Smithman briefly in the dark? If after, why bother? Why not say, you don't need an efit it was GM?

Yes, I agree with that too.

BTW, have you turned into Phileas Fogg from Medomsley Road?

Lol. It appears so, although Mr Fogg is no longer there. I don't know how to stop it creating random avatars for me

Ok so you don't want one, no problem.

Admin wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Seicento wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I agree completely but I do have concerns about the efits, particularly about the timing of their creation: Either they were created prior to Mr Smith seeing GM walk down the plane steps on television or after. If before then how could they be accurately drawn when they'd only seen Smithman briefly in the dark? If after, why bother? Why not say, you don't need an efit it was GM?

Yes, I agree with that too.

BTW, have you turned into Phileas Fogg from Medomsley Road?

Lol. It appears so, although Mr Fogg is no longer there. I don't know how to stop it creating random avatars for me

Ok so you don't want one, no problem.

Thanks

crazy as it may sound could the second slim image on right be seen front on with his face partially obscured as if a child was round by the left of his /neck,you can almost imagine the curve of a tiny back? This could affect what was perceived?

Bampots wrote:crazy as it may sound could the second slim image on right be seen front on with his face partially obscured as if a child was round by the left of his /neck,you can almost imagine the curve of a tiny back? This could affect what was perceived?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

- The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland.

The youngest at 4 could be possibly not relied upon,the other grandchildren are not aged, so that leaves 4 adults and two children,aged 12 and 10,its possible they all saw smithman from different angle's rather than face on.

The age of the son Peter must have been 32 or 33 rather than 23 as the other two children in the party were his and aged 13 and 6.

Bampots wrote:crazy as it may sound could the second slim image on right be seen front on with his face partially obscured as if a child was round by the left of his /neck,you can almost imagine the curve of a tiny back? This could affect what was perceived?

I think this.

More specifically, if one witness was shorter than the other compiler (a child as opposed to an adult, perhaps?), or lower down the hill so looking farther upwards towards Smithman, then this obscuring angle would become more pronounced, imo, and result in the "chunk" missing from the jawline - the asymmetrical shape of the e-fit's jawline being the literal curve of what  the witness looking up at the child carrier saw of the jaw.

I think the head or hair of the child would fit comfortably into that "gouge".

Absolutely Dee Coy and if you place a finger or thumb over said portion.....well who does it look like again!

It can't of escaped Redwood or indeed any one else who is part of OG that there are similarities,but and there is always a but,its led nowhere as it,so was it that much of a revelation.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped the eagle eyes of OG. But,and there is always one isn't there,until they start feeding me with information I will just have to be content with my own,even if they lead nowhere!

Apologies if I seem dense, I am very tired, but should it not be the other side of Smithman's face obscured if this was the unseen area concealed by a child's head?

I see TB has answered your post here over there Russian Doll

Found this on Google images:

Russian Doll wrote:  Apologies if I seem dense, I am very tired, but should it not be the other side of Smithman's face obscured if this was the unseen area concealed by a child's head?

You're right, RD, according to both Martin and Aoife Smiths' statements the child was carried with the head against Smithman's left shoulder:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.h

Martin Smith: "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."

Aoife Smith:  "She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck."

Could the e-fits be flipped?