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

[John]

If there was even the tiniest chance that the e-fits were going to help in finding Madeleine they should have been released 5 years ago.  The fact that they weren't released is very damaging.  I wonder if SY realised what they were doing and the huge can of worms they were opening by releasing them now?

[Aegean]

I think from CR's point they would prefer if nothing was said..weren't published because everyone though JT had identified the abductor

No, not "everyone" thought that JT had identified the abductor. Many of us thought her sighting was a load of rubbish, maybe even a deliberate red herring. We were attacked, however, as being nasty and insensitive - by people rather like you!

[Mr Gray]

If there was even the tiniest chance that the e-fits were going to help in finding Madeleine they should have been released 5 years ago.  The fact that they weren't released is very damaging.  I wonder if SY realised what they were doing and the huge can of worms they were opening by releasing them now?

So who's decision was it not to release them

[Aegean]

So who's decision was it not to release them

Current evidence appears to point to the McCanns - Kate even avoided mentioning these efits in her book, in the section on efits.

And, considering they're the ones who commissioned the investigation that produced the efits and were therefore the ones you'd expect to release them, you really have to ask why

Yes, I know, you will say "but the PJ had them!" Maybe they did, but they didn't have them first. The McCanns and their PR team really have no trouble criticising the PJ for its alleged laxity, so it's surprising that they didn't move to release the efits themselves when they saw the PJ wasn't bothering.

Of course, they may have been concerned about releasing an efit of man with facial features not too disimilar from Gerry's, who the eye witness in fact felt was Gerry, carrying a small child in the direction of the beach, where some "[ censored word]" had suggested a dead Maddie may have been buried, at a time when the only people who could 100% corroborate that Gerry was actually somewhere else were his friends from the Tapas group. It was far easier for them to hope that "everyone" would believe Tannerman was the culprit, as that had no complications for them.

Now, I should point out that I don't necessarily believe that's what happened on the night Madeleine disappeared, but I do think this is an example of the McCanns interfering with the investigations and creating more of a problem for the efforts to find Madeleine.

But, I don't really know davel. Who do you think is responsible for not releasing them?

[John]

Please note guys and gals.

The topic title has been changed to reflect the fact that several newspapers are now being quoted.

[Cariad]

I think from CR's point they would prefer if nothing was said..weren't published because everyone though JT had identified the abductor

Apparently the report cast doubt on the JT sighting.... The report they paid for.

According to the fund (you made a good point yesterday about it being an unnamed fund member, which I didn't acknowledge at the time, but I have taken on board) felt that the report was hyper critical and would have been a distracrtion. Fair enough, but they could have still released the pictures couldn't they?

The two didn't have to be released together.

[Sherlock Holmes]

SY and the McCanns must have been well aware that they were opening this can of worms.

[icabodcrane]

SY and the McCanns must have been well aware that they were opening this can of worms.

It was Scotland Yard's decision, alone,  to  'open this can of worms'  ...  or do you  think they asked the McCanns permission before releasing the E fits to the public  ?

Kate and Gerry kept quiet about those E fits for years  (  and used their lawyers to make sure others kept quiet about them too )

It makes me  think Scotland Yard and the McCanns are not  quite as hand in glove as might appear 

[Albertini]

And so the trashing begins! As per usual with McCann supporters.

The odd thing is that the "source close to the fund" - who will of course be Clarence "Pinky" Mitchell - after all why have a paid spokesman and not use him, HAS NOT denied the story, he has simply given a defence as to the reason why this information was suppressed.

If it was not true why wouldn't the "source close to the fund" - Mitchell- have simply stated that the story was false if it was not true?

The fact that a defence has been forthcoming must automatically mean the article was correct.

[Lyall]

SY and the McCanns must have been well aware that they were opening this can of worms.

They had little else to show on Crimewatch. Very little else.

[BigFatBlonde]

The integrity, or otherwise, of the investigators is not the point here. I wouldn't expect anyone who worked for security services to be particularly honest or trustworthy - after all their chosen profession is one which relies heavily on secrecy and deceit.

The point is that these images existed - they could have been drawn by Walt Disney, it makes no difference. The images existed and they were suppressed.

Now, this suppression could be indicative of the McCanns interference in the case, the PJ's inadequacy as an investigate force, how desperate SY are to have something to show after 5 years or a mixture of all of the above.

Trying to taint the reputation of the people who created the images (which according to SY are extremely useful) doesn't solve anything and certainly doesn't absolve whoever is responsible for suppressing them.

N

[BigFatBlonde]

Show me a PI that isn't dodgy, apart from Magnum of course (although his moustache was questionable)

N

[ferryman]

Show me a PI that isn't dodgy, apart from Magnum of course (although his moustache was questionable)

N

You are intimately acquainted with PIs?

[BigFatBlonde]

You are intimately acquainted with PIs?

Well I've never been intimate with one if that is your question. My partner is a teacher.

N

[Mr Gray]

Apparently the report cast doubt on the JT sighting.... The report they paid for.

According to the fund (you made a good point yesterday about it being an unnamed fund member, which I didn't acknowledge at the time, but I have taken on board) felt that the report was hyper critical and would have been a distracrtion. Fair enough, but they could have still released the pictures couldn't they?

The two didn't have to be released together.

According to the telegraph article they  passed the e fits on to the PJ and SY...So who's telling lies