"The e-fits of alleged Madeleine suspect cannot possibly be the “Podesta brothers”. Each of the two e-fits were constructed by two different people and are two persons recollections of ONE alleged suspect. So the two e-fits are not two people. They are in fact the same person. This means the e-fits are unreliable because they look so different. Because they represent the same person they cannot possibly be representative of two brothers."
I don't know the answers to this question or how to find it, but, how are we sure that the two witnesses were not describing two different people? How do we know for sure that they were both describing the same person?
I am doing some searches but haven't found anything that claims 100% yet.
"Police have issued two efits that
they believe
are descriptions of the same man"
They believe? What?
"He was seen in the vicinity of the Praia da Luz resort in Portugal six years ago at the time that the three-year-old went missing."
"Whilst this man may or may not be the key to unlocking this investigation, tracing and speaking to him is of vital importance to us. We have witnesses placing him in the resort area around the time of Madeleine's disappearance."
So who were the witnesses? They happened to be in the area that this guy was in? How do the authorities determine for sure that the witnesses are describing the same guy?
"The man was described by the two witnesses as being inside the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz area on the evening that Madeleine went missing from the apartment."
"He was described by the witnesses as white, aged between 20 and 40, with short brown hair, of medium build, medium height and clean shaven."
So why is one of the e-fits skinny and one of the e-fits fat?
He has a point when he says they are unreliable because the two sketches look so different, but if one was skinny and one was obese, I'm pretty sure they actually were two different people being described by the witnesses. Was this never questioned by the professionals working on the case?
Since it sounds like it's two different witnesses who were like, "Yeah I saw a suspicious guy in there," and then described him? Or?
"The McCanns' friend, Jane Tanner has said that at about 9.15pm she saw a man carrying a small child, walking away from apartment 5a. That man has never been traced. "
Okay she is mentioned by name, after the previous persons were referred to just as the "witnesses" so is she a different person from them? What did she think of the sketches? Where is the sketch describing what she saw? How did authorities determine that the man she saw is the man that both witnesses are describing, in addition to determining that the witnesses were both describing the same man?
I will say, though, that if the witnesses were lying as part of a coverup, they must have just described the Podestas on purpose or this is some serious next level psyop shit.
Right down to the freckle on the forehead, for real? At first I thought naahhh some troll added the freckle, no way, but then I looked up a news article releasing the sketches (not recent pizzagate people) and just look in the article I linked above
First, thanks for your clear post and answer. You pointed out every bits of things that bothered me while reading,
That's why I've decided to post it here to have your opinion on it.
How someone dedicated to this case can possibly says "Sketches are not podesta brothers" ? Even if it screams out loud they are look-a-like ?
So many question about it. He's denying main suspect that easily ? The closest we have here from various informations ?
For the witness name, i'm crossing information about it. And sure, if I found it's high rank psyop, just whoa I think I'll have an heart attack soon :)
EDIT :
correction of my not-so fluent english, mistakes can remain tho.
EDIT 2 :
And this guy seems to be an investigator on various topics too, of course I'm not saying he got the absolute truth. To me it's a thrid way to see this case. Offical story / our research / and this man film
I haven't watched his videos yet, I'm exhausted right now and it's a 5-video series, each video 30-40 minutes long, so I'm just gonna admit right upfront here that I have not watched his videos yet. He might have some very good points, though, and I might consider them.
He claims that the sketches are misleaded and the kidnapper story abducting Maddie on the street was fake ?
What do you think ?
EDIT : I don't say I trust this man, comments, proofs or whatever neither I justify a witch hunt or deep emotional reaction, related to kids / toddlers being hurt and more.
Just asking, debate, and regroup a lot of information to get EVERY pieces fitting together without blank.
▼ SheSaidDestroy
A quote from him:
I don't know the answers to this question or how to find it, but, how are we sure that the two witnesses were not describing two different people? How do we know for sure that they were both describing the same person?
I am doing some searches but haven't found anything that claims 100% yet.
Like here from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/14/british-detectives-efits-madeleine-mccann-suspect
They believe? What?
So who were the witnesses? They happened to be in the area that this guy was in? How do the authorities determine for sure that the witnesses are describing the same guy?
So why is one of the e-fits skinny and one of the e-fits fat?
He has a point when he says they are unreliable because the two sketches look so different, but if one was skinny and one was obese, I'm pretty sure they actually were two different people being described by the witnesses. Was this never questioned by the professionals working on the case?
Since it sounds like it's two different witnesses who were like, "Yeah I saw a suspicious guy in there," and then described him? Or?
Okay she is mentioned by name, after the previous persons were referred to just as the "witnesses" so is she a different person from them? What did she think of the sketches? Where is the sketch describing what she saw? How did authorities determine that the man she saw is the man that both witnesses are describing, in addition to determining that the witnesses were both describing the same man?
I will say, though, that if the witnesses were lying as part of a coverup, they must have just described the Podestas on purpose or this is some serious next level psyop shit.
I mean look at this: http://imgur.com/a/3mz1J
Right down to the freckle on the forehead, for real? At first I thought naahhh some troll added the freckle, no way, but then I looked up a news article releasing the sketches (not recent pizzagate people) and just look in the article I linked above
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/14/british-detectives-efits-madeleine-mccann-suspect
There that freckle is WTF
▼ SomeD
First, thanks for your clear post and answer. You pointed out every bits of things that bothered me while reading,
That's why I've decided to post it here to have your opinion on it.
How someone dedicated to this case can possibly says "Sketches are not podesta brothers" ? Even if it screams out loud they are look-a-like ? So many question about it. He's denying main suspect that easily ? The closest we have here from various informations ?
For the witness name, i'm crossing information about it. And sure, if I found it's high rank psyop, just whoa I think I'll have an heart attack soon :)
EDIT : correction of my not-so fluent english, mistakes can remain tho. EDIT 2 : And this guy seems to be an investigator on various topics too, of course I'm not saying he got the absolute truth. To me it's a thrid way to see this case. Offical story / our research / and this man film
▼ SheSaidDestroy
I haven't watched his videos yet, I'm exhausted right now and it's a 5-video series, each video 30-40 minutes long, so I'm just gonna admit right upfront here that I have not watched his videos yet. He might have some very good points, though, and I might consider them.
That freckle, though.
▼ SomeD
same, I need a bit of rest to watch his videos. And we can keep talking about them here and cross our infos, if you're ok ?
▼ SomeD
Hello people,
This is how I've found this story :
He claims that the sketches are misleaded and the kidnapper story abducting Maddie on the street was fake ?
What do you think ?
EDIT : I don't say I trust this man, comments, proofs or whatever neither I justify a witch hunt or deep emotional reaction, related to kids / toddlers being hurt and more.
Just asking, debate, and regroup a lot of information to get EVERY pieces fitting together without blank.