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

[Mr Gray]

It is evidence that what actually took place during those years wasn't what the public were being told. It is evidence it wasn't all about searching for Madeleine (there was more than one campaign going on).

unimportant...whats important is the new investigation

[Lyall]

unimportant...whats important is the new investigation

It's clearly no longer unimportant to several UK newspapers.

Crimewatch was perhaps a turning point.

[Mr Gray]

It's clearly no longer unimportant to several UK newspapers.

Crimewatch was perhaps a turning point.

keep on dreaming

[Lyall]

keep on dreaming

Oh I will

Every journalist in the land who followed the case in 2007-9 knows the Smith sighting was as good as ignored, Dave. Do you think they've all forgotten?

[Mr Gray]

Oh I will

Every journalist in the land who followed the case in 2007-9 knows the Smith sighting was as good as ignored, Dave. Do you think they've all forgotten?

so now its 2 years not 5 and ignored not supressed...if there was a gold medal for back pedalling...wait for your national anthem

[Lyall]

so now its 2 years not 5 and ignored not supressed...if there was a gold medal for back pedalling...wait for your national anthem

You miss the point. This says nothing about what happened to Madeleine in May 07, but it does about the people running the campaign afterwards.

[pegasus]

IMO the book author is honest and if 2 efits are not mentioned has anyone considered this means the author was unaware thereof?

[Redblossom]

IMO the book author is honest and if 2 efits are not mentioned has anyone considered this means the author was unaware thereof?

What book author?

Surely not Kate Mccann???

Did people keep things from her?

Ie these efits but no others?

oh well leave you to wonder, nite nite

[icabodcrane]

I don't really understand the need for the  guarded  language in the title thread   

The e-fits  WERE  suppressed  (  kept from the public )  for five years  ....   there is no  'claim'   about it

[VIXTE]

I don't really understand the need for the  guarded  language in the title thread   

The e-fits  WERE  suppressed  (  kept from the public )  for five years  ....   there is no  'claim'   about it

How do you know this? Is your source The Times?

I thought The Times, who published this info, have apologised and corrected their false claim

[Wonderfulspam]

How do you know this? Is your source The Times?

I thought The Times, who published this info, have apologised and corrected their false claim

Had you seen them efits before October last year?

[Mr Gray]

I don't really understand the need for the  guarded  language in the title thread   

The e-fits  WERE  suppressed  (  kept from the public )  for five years  ....   there is no  'claim'   about it

spin on

[slartibartfast]

Had you seen them efits before October last year?

Nope. Think that concept is a little difficult for some.

[Redblossom]

Nope. Think that concept is a little difficult for some.

I think no 3 here is pertinent


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suppressed


I still dont  understand if the efits/report was sent to LP and PJ in 2009 and SY in 2011 , all of which info SY ill have had when they started their review, why SY had to get special written permission from the Madeleine Ltd company to get the bleeding thing from Oakley!!!!


 8-)(--)

[Mr Gray]

I think no 3 here is pertinent


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suppressed


I still dont  understand if the efits/report was sent to LP and PJ in 2009 and SY in 2011 , all of which info SY ill have had when they started their review, why SY had to get special written permission from the Madeleine Ltd company to get the bleeding thing from Oakley!!!!


 8-)(--)

perhaps they didn't..you should stop believing everything you read in the papers