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

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't know.. it would be hard to read their minds.. they either don't trust the current strongest line of the inquiry ( being stubborn in their own beliefs..maybe their PIs already investigated the Tannerman lookalike in past and decided it wasn't him) or they might have been advised by SY to publish it the way they did.. or something third.. maybe even the SY made an U-turn and informed them and did not inform the public because they don't have to..

Which PI's are these?

[Lyall]

I have wondered about this.

We have had no updates for a while, so we don't know what SY's official focus is.

Having said that, SY were appealing to the public for any information they may have had on Smithman. If Smithman is no longer a person of interest, it would be courteous to the public to inform them that their help in this area is no longer needed..  If SY have changed their focus away from SY without informing the public, the public are effectively being led on a wild goose chase.

They couldn't do that this soon because then it would be obvious Crimewatch was just spin.

But let's be honest those efits aren't exactly being pursued like John Dillinger are they.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They couldn't do that this soon because then it would be obvious Crimewatch was just spin.

But let's be honest those efits aren't exactly being pursued like John Dillinger are they.

But how do we know?

[AnneGuedes]

I understand all this from the alibi perspective, but the fact remains that in continuing to suppress the Smithman aspect, the McCanns are making themselves look more suspicious.

If it were true that Smithman had nothing to do with Gerry, surely the McCanns would want him to be found and investigated.

Well, apparently they aren't in a hurry... Perhaps they're facing a double bind.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another thought, Lyall:

If SY had gathered more information on Smithman and ruled him out, presumably we would have been told about it.

That would not necessarily make Crimewatch look like a fudge at all. In fact it would show how quickly and efficiently SY were acting.

However the fact that we have heard nothing to the effect that he has been ruled out suggests that they are still working on him, no?

[Lyall]

But how do we know?

We can see the papers have forgotten about them, and while SY are of course limited in what they can do inside Portugal I think they could be using social media re: those efits if they were really taken seriously.

Redwood and fellow officers could also be doing regular interviews to keep pushing the efits (which would also be seen by at least some in Portugal via the net) but as we know they haven't.

[AnneGuedes]

But let's be honest those efits aren't exactly being pursued like John Dillinger are they.

Yes, the three burglars jumped on the scene shortly after.
I've a feeling that, as Crecheman served to eliminate the irresolvable Tannerman, Smithman's utility is just to play temporarily the part of the abductor.

[Redblossom]

I understand all this from the alibi perspective, but the fact remains that in continuing to suppress the Smithman aspect, the McCanns are making themselves look more suspicious.

If it were true that Smithman had nothing to do with Gerry, surely the McCanns would want him to be found and investigated.

Fact is they have done SOD ALL with this efit for years....it would  have remained buried if SY didnt unearth it

They had their PI Edgar (to whom the files from Oakley International were passed on with these efits and their report after they were sacked in late 2008)  prancing around Barcelona in 2009 doing nothing much except rack up expenses chasing some phantom aussie woman story apparently overheard by some businessman in a bar in Spain a few days after May 3 sayng something like have you got my new daughter?, said anonymus "businessman" (obviously a businessmans statement is more respectable too, yeah right) waited TWO years btw to come forward!! (not to mention the language apparently used many have said had something to do with drugs and NOT an abducted child)


An did a huge press conference with pinky Mitchell on her but NOTHING about a man seen  on the night very near the place carrying a four yr old blonde kid in pyjamas

Not to menion the other huge press conference about creepyman, also seen without child and nowhere near the place or anywhere near on the same date
You just couldnt make it up if you tried!!

Oh but the Mccanns fund spokesman as quoted in the Times said it would have been too expensive to follow up the Smith sightng! Insane or what?

 >@@(*&)

The Smiths efits were suppressed by the Mccanns, their PIs, their spokesman and wouldnt have ever seen the light of day



The other fact is the Mccanns state on their  FB page they have faith in SY and say they are doing fantastic work but it seems they are not supporting them by not promoting the efits on their official website

[Lyall]

Another thought, Lyall:

If SY had gathered more information on Smithman and ruled him out, presumably we would have been told about it.

That would not necessarily make Crimewatch look like a fudge at all. In fact it would show how quickly and efficiently SY were acting.

However the fact that we have heard nothing to the effect that he has been ruled out suggests that they are still working on him, no?

Could be SH, but why no media work then by the Met since October? And why have they let the papers forget about the efits?

[Sherlock Holmes]

We can see the papers have forgotten about them, and while SY are of course limited in what they can do inside Portugal I think they could be using social media re: those efits if they were really taken seriously.

Redwood and fellow officers could also be doing regular interviews to keep pushing the efits (which would also be seen by at least some in Portugal via the net) but as we know they haven't.

But how can we use a press which is so intrinsically unrealiable as a gauge as to how the investigation is proceeding?  Aren't we then contradicting ourselves when we criticise it?

[VIXTE]

Which PI's are these?

Haven't they had few of them? Control Risk Group? Metodo3 - god knows whom they were working with in Portugal?Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley?
 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Haven't they had few of them? Control Risk Group? Metodo3 - god knows whom they were working with in Portugal?Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley?

Oh, I though you were implying that PI's were involved in the case at the moment...

[Lyall]

But how can we use a press which is so intrinsically unrealiable as a gauge as to how the investigation is proceeding?  Aren't we then contradicting ourselves when we criticise it?

Not sure what you mean by the press being unreliable? >@@(*&) Police can always rely on them, as we saw before and after Crimewatch (massive publicity and no awkward questions asked). It was the same in January with the Mail story and the burglars theory.

No doubt I think that the papers would continue with the efits if they were asked to.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Could be SH, but why no media work then by the Met since October? And why have they let the papers forget about the efits?

Perhaps they are assuming that the public thinks they are working on things and don't need to be given regular updates. Not sure.

[Redblossom]

I used to think so as well. I don't know the details surrounding the fact that the Smithman e-fits weren't made public, nor who actually had them in their possession, when, and in which legal circumstances.

read the Times article, which answers all those questions! First post

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0