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

[Mr Gray]

Just having another look at this article and noticed this line....

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

Well that's blatantly untrue as Redwood said the man may be completely innocent....so if this is untrue how accurate is the rest of the article

[Apostate]

Don't be daft all suspects may be completely innocent. Or maybe they just showed the e-fits for the fun of it.

[Mr Gray]

Don't be daft all suspects may be completely innocent. Or maybe they just showed the e-fits for the fun of it.

 you need to listen more carefully...did you watch crimewatch...Redwood was very clear that this man is not a suspect and may be perfectly innocent. to describe someone as a prime suspect is wrong and potentially libellous..

[Mr Gray]

now I've heard everything. Libelous comments about an unnamed, unidentified efit. What ever next.

Another one who doesn't understand the law as you have already shown on another thread. There isn't the slightest piece of evidence against this person but he is being referred to as a prime suspect.

[Kazcutt]

Another one who doesn't understand the law as you have already shown on another thread. There isn't the slightest piece of evidence against this person but he is being referred to as a prime suspect.

The appeal included the release of new e-fits and police received calls which put forward names for their new prime suspect

[Mr Gray]

The appeal included the release of new e-fits and police received calls which put forward names for their new prime suspect

Redwood has never referred to him as a prime suspect

[Aegean]

Another one who doesn't understand the law as you have already shown on another thread. There isn't the slightest piece of evidence against this person but he is being referred to as a prime suspect.

Davel, I'm really confused. If this person isn't a "person of interest" then why is such a big fuss being made about his efit? Why are Scotland Yard distributing these images of him?

[Mr Gray]

Davel, I'm really confused. If this person isn't a "person of interest" then why is such a big fuss being made about his efit? Why are Scotland Yard distributing these images of him?

hes certainly a person of interest..thank god someone is paying attention...but he is certainly not  "the prime suspect"

[Apostate]

now I've heard everything. Libelous comments about an unnamed, unidentified efit. What ever next.

Thank goodness noone said anything defamatory about this man (not Clarence the handsome one). Imagine the law suit!

[Cariad]

Thank goodness noone said anything defamatory about this man (not Clarence the handsome one). Imagine the law suit!

Knowing what we do now about suppressed e-fits, this photo is almost laughable. It would be laughable if it wasn't that a child has potentially been left in the hands of a paedophile for 5 long years because her parents didn't want to look bad!

[Aiofe]

Another one who doesn't understand the law as you have already shown on another thread. There isn't the slightest piece of evidence against this person but he is being referred to as a prime suspect.

You can only libel a person. You cannot libel an e-fit.

[imustpointout]

I find this pic more laughable look at him ... what a tramp

I wonder what it would reveal if Amaral's face in 2007 was placed beside his face now - just as an example of how features can change.

[Benita]

I wonder what it would reveal if Amaral's face in 2007 was placed beside his face now - just as an example of how features can change.

yes I wonder ..amaral looks totally different now ..doesn't look the same as he did back then  >@@(*&)

[stephen25000]

 

As does that.

[imustpointout]

yes I wonder ..amaral looks totally different now ..doesn't look the same as he did back then  >@@(*&)

strange then to ridicule and mock 2 efits that have been released?