Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #40

[Anxala]

The 2 efits of smithman are completely different to one another yet its apparently the same man seen by two different members of the same family. All of whom claim they wouldn't be able to recognise him again from a photo. How they can put together an accurate efit then is anyone's guess.

For sure, they're different. But they still resemble each other more than either one resembles the efit of Tannerman, which was the point I was making in my above post. Tannerman and Smithman were clearly not the same person.

Apart from which, the Smithman efits were withheld for 5 years by the McCs.

 

[Lilly b]

Have you not seen the artists impressions?
Tanner's man was wearing a jacket for starters and had dark collar length hair.
Smithsman was wearing light coloured trousers possibly with buttons ( I call them holiday makers must haves ) and top ,no jacket ,didn't have longish hair

It's all proper random though, men carrying young kids at night in the way they did, normally people take buggies with them on holiday , unless they are a bit older, fair enough if the kids are in a creche within your holiday complex , the smiths sighting especially, walking through the streets

 

[Consider Dudley]

Have you not seen the artists impressions?
Tanner's man was wearing a jacket for starters and had dark collar length hair.
Smithsman was wearing light coloured trousers possibly with buttons ( I call them holiday makers must haves ) and top ,no jacket ,didn't have longish hair

Smith does not mention an absence of jacket if I recall correctly, but both have the guy as darkish hair, clean shaven, no glasses wearing light trousers and carrying a small female child. Quite a few points of similarity imo.

 

[Consider Dudley]

For sure, they're different. But they still resemble each other more than either one resembles the efit of Tannerman, which was the point I was making in my above post. Tannerman and Smithman were clearly not the same person.

Apart from which, the Smithman efits were withheld for 5 years by the McCs.

tsk tsk tsk.

 

[CousinVinny]

For sure, they're different. But they still resemble each other more than either one resembles the efit of Tannerman, which was the point I was making in my above post. Tannerman and Smithman were clearly not the same person.

Apart from which, the Smithman efits were withheld for 5 years by the McCs.

So different that a conspiracy arose that they each were a different Podesta brother, when both efits were meant to be of the same person. My point was efits are not really a reliable way to detemine if it could or couldn't be the same person. I don't know if we can place much value in the Tannerman efit either given what started as an egg with hair and she also didn't really get a good look.

I wasn't aware the McCanns withheld efits tho, have you got a source for that?

 

[Consider Dudley]

So different that a conspiracy arose that they each were a different Podesta brother, when both efits were meant to be of the same person. My point was efits are not really a reliable way to detemine if it could or couldn't be the same person. I don't know if we can place much value in the Tannerman efit either given what started as an egg with hair and she also didn't really get a good look.

I wasn't aware the McCanns withheld efits tho, have you got a source for that?

This might help put that claim into perspective Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police

 

[CousinVinny]

This might help put that claim into perspective Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police

My goodness. So a slanderous accusation then?

 

[Mex]

And yet the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were very different. And not one of the facial composites resembled CB. And Smithman, unlike Tannerman, was not dependent upon one witness account.

I'm not sure where the discussion on unidentified child bearers ties into the investigation of CB who was as far as 2007 events are concerned was playing the part of the invisible man.

The files tell us that the members of the Smith family who were interviewed by the PJ were unable to take the description of the child carrier any further forward.
Snip
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. MS
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child. AS
— States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. PS

P.J. POLICE FILES: MARTIN SMITH & FAMILY STATEMENTS

The Smiths who saw the guy face to face professed themselves unable to id him.
JT saw him from the back and side on might have been able to pick him from a line-up
Snip
When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

P.J. POLICE FILES: JANE TANNER'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2008

 

[Deleted member 268165]

And yet the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were very different. And not one of the facial composites resembled CB. And Smithman, unlike Tannerman, was not dependent upon one witness account.

Not very different. Psychology of perception.

 

[Mex]

Have you not seen the artists impressions?
Tanner's man was wearing a jacket for starters and had dark collar length hair.
Smithsman was wearing light coloured trousers possibly with buttons ( I call them holiday makers must haves ) and top ,no jacket ,didn't have longish hair

The Smith statements include a description of the man's apparel.
Snip
— Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot.

P.J. POLICE FILES: MARTIN SMITH & FAMILY STATEMENTS

 

[CousinVinny]

I have many reservations over the smith sighting and their efits. The fact it took weeks for them to recall it and only after seeing the whole affair played out on the news. Are they sure it was definitely on the 3rd this encounter took place?

And then Martin thinkin it could be Gerry based on the way he carried a sleeping child (how many ways are there?). A whole family walked passed and spoke to this guy yet none of them seemed to think it was the father they'd seen all over the TV during this time. Personally, I think Martin convinced himself it was Gerry when the McCanns were named arguido. He admitted that Aoife and Peter, the two other members who had gave a description to police, disagreed with him that it might have been Gerry.

Be interested to know whether other members of the Smith family have been asked if they recognise bruekner.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

What AndyRedwood ( was lead detective of Operation Grange) did on the update on Crimewatch was , he totally wiped Tanner's man off the board as being of any significance , instead wholly concentrating on Smithsman (who was going in a different direction to Tannersman ) .
Why would CB ,having transport , be seen out on foot where anyone could identify him ?
On second thoughts if it was him and a robbery gone wrong why not at least rob something while he was in there?

IMO the vehicle was left in the "parking" near the coast to the West of PdL, to avoid people to recognize it. IMO in the dark is easier to recognize a car than a man.

PdL is a labryinth for walkers, direction of Tannerman could be a good election not to pass in front of the Tapas bar entrance. He knew well PdL.

IMO the abductor stole the most value thing for him, the child.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

"How do you reconcile that with her claim she saw GM talking in the street?"

She saw Tannerman at 21:50. GM talking in the street was at 21:15. My opinion.

 

[CousinVinny]

"How do you reconcile that with her claim she saw GM talking in the street?"

She saw Tannerman at 21:50. GM talking in the street was at 21:15. My opinion.

Do I take it you think Tanner was confused about what time she actually saw the man?

 

[Deleted member 268165]

Smith does not mention an absence of jacket if I recall correctly, but both have the guy as darkish hair, clean shaven, no glasses wearing light trousers and carrying a small female child. Quite a few points of similarity imo.

IMO most important: neither JT nor S's family could recognize the man if they would see him in person, according to their statements.

 

[RichardKimble]

And yet the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman were very different. And not one of the facial composites resembled CB. And Smithman, unlike Tannerman, was not dependent upon one witness account.

Redwood said the child fitted a description close to that of MM, that was the Smith sighting, Tanners concentrated on gym jams.

 

[RichardKimble]

Do I take it you think Tanner was confused about what time she actually saw the man?

Thing is has Tanner ever said as much?

 

[CousinVinny]

Thing is has Tanner ever said as much?

Exactly. How would we know? We have the PJ files which (sort of) give a detail of what things were ascertained during the original investigation, everything since (OG and no BKA investigations) has not been divulged to the public... which is the norm.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

Do I take it you think Tanner was confused about what time she actually saw the man?

Yes.

 

[CousinVinny]

Yes.

Understood. Yes, this is always a possibility. People's memories are extremely fallible, you can apply this logic across most of the remembered "timings" in the PJ files to be fair. Statistics alone will show how unreliable we are in recollecting exact events and timings. Sometimes people read too much into things without appreciating this basic fact.