Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.

[icabodcrane]

Leading up to a re-opening the case -- the only legitimate context in which such an efit could be released.

Are you saying that publishing the  the e fits of Cooperman,  Spotty man,  Victoria Beckam lookie-likie et al,  was  not legitimate  ?

[ferryman]

Are you saying that publishing the  the e fits of Cooperman,  Spotty man,  Victoria Beckam lookie-likie et al,  was  not legitimate  ?

See my earlier post ....

[icabodcrane]

One point that I wouldn't dispute is that I hadn't seen those e-fits before, but - aside from that - much of that article seems so tabloidish, I find it hard to assess what's fact and what isn't.

I could not disagree more.  I found the article in The Times to be a clear and well sourced piece of investigative journalism   (  not  'tabloidish'  in the least   ...  no hyperbole or sensationilsm at all,  in fact  ) 

[icabodcrane]

See my earlier post ....

Which post are you refering to  ?

I've read back and I can't see where you have given a reason for suggesting publishing the Smithman  e fit would not have  have been  'legitimate'  until this late date  ...  whilst publishing the rest of the e fits  (  Cooperman,  Spotty man,  Posh Spice  and all the rest  )   somehow  WAS   'legitimate'

What is your reasoning for making that distinction  ?

[Carana]

I could not disagree more.  I found the article in The Times to be a clear and well sourced piece of investigative journalism   (  not  'tabloidish'  in the least   ...  no hyperbole or sensationilsm at all,  in fact  )

I find The Times to be well researched, although any media can make mistakes on occasion. The Sunday Times is a separate entity to The Times, isn't it? Does it have the same reputation? Who are those journalists?

[icabodcrane]

I find The Times to be well researched, although any media can make mistakes on occasion. The Sunday Times is a separate entity to The Times, isn't it? Does it have the same reputation? Who are those journalists?

The two investigative journalists involved  ( can't think of their names off the top of my head, sorry  )  had previously been succesfully sued   ( together with the Times  )   for libelling a politician  (  I can't think of his name either,  I'm afraid   )

In the spirit of  'once bitten, twice shy'  I think it's fair to assume the Times legal people went through the article with a tooth comb before allowing publication 

Certainly,  there has been no rebuttal or denial from the McCanns 

[Cariad]

Could suppressing those e fits be regarded as perverting the course of justice  ?   ( given that it appears they were withheld from Scotland Yard whilst they were investigating the case  ) 

I don't just mean with regard to the McCanns,  but with regard to Exton too  ...  and the legal firm who made threats in order to ensure his silence

I believe that doing nothing is not enough for a charge of perverting the course of justice. They could easily claim that they didn't see the necessity for example.

" The Offence
3. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
which has a tendency to pervert and
which is intended to pervert
the course of public justice."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/perverting_the_course_of_justice_-_rape_and_dv_allegations/

Ah, there you are!

As far as I understand it, it's the difference between noticing blood on your partners jeans and not calling the police and washing blood out of your partners jeans.

It's possible that using a solicitor to prevent someone else publishing the efits could be seen as perverting the corse of justice I suppose, but not doing it themselves isn't a crime.

[AnneGuedes]

Why was Mr Exton surprised, according to the Sunday Times, by a breaking news he had known for 5 years, if he really released the e-fits after being informed there would no legal consequences ?
How long before Crimewatch could SY have had the e-fits ? Wouldn't they have suppressed the obsolete moving door (they suppressed so many things) if they had had then the e-fits ?

[Carana]

The two investigative journalists involved  ( can't think of their names off the top of my head, sorry  )  had previously been succesfully sued   ( together with the Times  )   for libelling a politician  (  I can't think of his name either,  I'm afraid   )

In the spirit of  'once bitten, twice shy'  I think it's fair to assume the Times legal people went through the article with a tooth comb before allowing publication 

Certainly,  there has been no rebuttal or denial from the McCanns

No direct rebuttal, no. Except to say that they won't be commenting on press speculation.

From that article, the only direct quote attributed to Exton seems to be this:
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

What was this letter? A termination letter from a solicitor? If so, what would seem strange about a confidentiality clause?

[icabodcrane]

No direct rebuttal, no. Except to say that they won't be commenting on press speculation.

From that article, the only direct quote attributed to Exton seems to be this:
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

What was this letter? A termination letter from a solicitor? If so, what would seem strange about a confidentiality clause?

Carana,  the McCanns used lawyers to   silence  Henri Exton  ...  then they suppressed his report and the e fits that came with it 

How you,  or anyone else,  can say that is not a shocking revelation  (  and one that is extremely damaging to the McCanns )   is beyond me 

I can only  assume it is a case of  trying to minimise the gravity of the charge laid out in The Times article

[ferryman]

Carana,  the McCanns used lawyers to   silence  Henri Exton  ...  then they suppressed his report and the e fits that came with it 

How you,  or anyone else,  can say that is not a shocking revelation  (  and one that is extremely damaging to the McCanns )   is beyond me 

I can only  assume it is a case of  trying to minimise the gravity of the charge laid out in The Times article

No they didn't.

Just standard confidentiality clauses scandalously misrepresented as something different by The Times

[AnneGuedes]

Except to say that they won't be commenting on press speculation.

Was the e-fits omission a press speculation ?
They commented on Tractorman press speculation... they revealed it was "speculation" !

[jassi]

No they didn't.

Just standard confidentiality clauses scandalously misrepresented as something different by The Times[/i]

And how, exactly, do you know this for certain ?

[Mr Gray]

Carana,  the McCanns used lawyers to   silence  Henri Exton  ...  then they suppressed his report and the e fits that came with it 

How you,  or anyone else,  can say that is not a shocking revelation  (  and one that is extremely damaging to the McCanns )   is beyond me 

I can only  assume it is a case of  trying to minimise the gravity of the charge laid out in The Times article

 Extremely damaging to the McCanns you say...extremely damaging..so tell me...what damage has it done?

[ferryman]

And how, exactly, do you know this for certain ?

Isn't it a wonderful thing that the McCanns miraculously released Exton from this "repression" (on "free-speech") to talk to The Times?