Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Robittybob1]

Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed

SNIP: "It emerged yesterday that the recently released E-fits were in fact contained in files produced FIVE years ago by private investigators hired by the McCanns. Similarly, those private detectives had questioned the Tanner sighting and the timings associated with it.

But the E-fits were kept private, and the questioning of the Tanner sighting and related timeline were kept quiet. One detective said he was ‘utterly stunned’ to see his five-year-old dossier suddenly presented as new on TV."


 
Matched Madeleine's description? Less than two hundred meters from their apartment? and they didn't lift a finger in their so called search for their missing child until Scotland Yard done it for them more than FIVE years later.

I'm stuck for words!

How did they get two E-fits for the same person, when in their PJ statements the Smiths say they didn't get a good look at the man. 
E-fits require a look at the face and need to be produced within days of the sighting.  The E-fits IMO are worthless.

[Robittybob1]

The blowing in the wind point is also a vital point imo. Did it never dawn on either Kate or Gerry that the slamming door Kate alleges she witnessed at 10 pm coincided with the sighting of a man carrying a child matching Madeleine's description toward the beach at 10pm? Obviously not, because they completely ignored this man of significant interest until Scotland Yard took an interest on their behalf.

How can anyone take their so called search seriously when it is littered with such serious flaws.?
Matched Madeleine's description? Less than two hundred meters from their apartment? and they didn't lift a finger in their so called search for their missing child.

The answer got it fingers stuck in the slamming door while it was at it imo.

Where do the bold bits come from?  The Smith's sighting was definitely more than 200 meters from the apartment.  More like 500 meters from memory. 

[Brietta]

Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed

SNIP: "It emerged yesterday that the recently released E-fits were in fact contained in files produced FIVE years ago by private investigators hired by the McCanns. Similarly, those private detectives had questioned the Tanner sighting and the timings associated with it.

But the E-fits were kept private, and the questioning of the Tanner sighting and related timeline were kept quiet. One detective said he was ‘utterly stunned’ to see his five-year-old dossier suddenly presented as new on TV."


 
Matched Madeleine's description? Less than two hundred meters from their apartment? and they didn't lift a finger in their so called search for their missing child until Scotland Yard done it for them more than FIVE years later.

I'm stuck for words!

You are aware that the allegation you are making cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.

[Robittybob1]

They weren't worthless in Scotland Yard's professional opinion were they. Whose opinion counts here, yours or the police?

We looked into the E-fits in detail.  OK they asked the public if anyone recognised the faces but there were two faces to compare to.  Produced after the time Gerry was identified by Martin Smith if my memory serves me correct.   The MPS would never produce E-fits themselves under those conditions.  They are seriously flawed IMO.

[barrier]

We looked into the E-fits in detail.  OK they asked the public if anyone recognised the faces but there were two faces to compare to.  Produced after the time Gerry was identified by Martin Smith if my memory serves me correct.   The MPS would never produce E-fits themselves under those conditions.  They are seriously flawed IMO.

So SY asking for info about the sighting is a seriously falwed investigation then,strangely many think the same.

[Robittybob1]

OK, big deal, what's 300 meters when some dirty old pedophile has abducted your daughter?
And why have you bolded the matched Madeleine's description bit? Didn't you watch Crimewatch?

So you are blaming the quote of 200 meters on the Crimewatch program. 

Who is WE when they are at home?

This forum.  Maybe 1 or 2 years ago.

So SY asking for info about the sighting is a seriously falwed investigation then,strangely many think the same.

Well it would have been exciting at the time.  Yes it was completely wrong IMO.

[Brietta]

Who is WE when they are at home?

The forum ???  We discussed it at length and in some detail ... might be worth you searching for the thread and having a read.

[barrier]

Who is WE when they are at home?

The experts on here.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes. I'm a crap judge. I'm not precious. I won't sit here and start spewing about how right I am. I've learnt humility.
Doesn't disallow me from having an opinion or taking a stance. Like the old adage, opinions are like.......
I try to be rational, but it's not easy with this lifetime of baggage I'm carrying around.
I don't need unpicking, comment by comment, compromising answer by compromising answer. If you feel my opinions are invalid, so be it.

If every sceptic was as honest as you I really wouldn’t have a problem with them at all.

[jassi]

If every sceptic was as honest as you I really wouldn’t have a problem with them at all.

Don't see why you have a problem anyway. It's not as if is actually real life - it's only cyber-waffle

[Venturi Swirl]

There you go again.  Another dollop of rudeness.

Here it is called maleducado, meaning bad mannered, literally badly educated.

What's the word for it in your country?  I'd guess it's something significantly stronger than rude or impolite.

However, if that is how you wish to portray yourself, that is your choice.

Thank you for allowing it.  I find you similarly rude and goading so I guess we’re as bad as each other. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Don't see why you have a problem anyway. It's not as if is actually real life - it's only cyber-waffle

I had a bet with myself when I posted that comment that you would reply exactly as you did.  Should have gone down Ladbrokes instead.

[Venturi Swirl]

What is it that leads you to believe other sceptics are dishonest exactly?

The way they respond to my posts, moving goal posts, avoiding questions, claiming to have no beliefs, that sort of thing.  The General is admirably candid, if only she was prepared to criticise her “own side” on here when they write nonsense she’d be practically perfect 

[jassi]

I had a bet with myself when I posted that comment that you would reply exactly as you did.  Should have gone down Ladbrokes instead.

Certainly might be more profitable than being on here.

[Angelo222]

I'm not so sure. If Scotland Yard are telling the truth and the Tanner sighting was an abductor who never existed, then they have evidence (the fabulous moving door) that indicates an attempt to pervert the course of justice as been uncovered. It didn't just move once, it moved twice according to Gerry. It wasn't Tannerman that moved it according to Scotland Yard.

Someone moved it, right?

I hold with the belief that the wind moved the door what with the opening of the patio door and then the window on what was confirmed as a squally night.