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

[pegasus]

Anyone here work in papers? -would a UK paper and a Port paper have PAID several k into search fund to print them?
However I still think that efits not being released does not have to mean efits relevant i e of perp., its a bit more complicated than that IMO.

[Silkywhiskers]

To speak about it and show the efit at the many interviews they gave  ...  cost zero

To show the efits on Oprah  (  thereby reaching a worldwide audience  )  ...  cost zero

To include the efit in Kate's book  ...  cost zero

Just say I was as rich as say, JK Rowling, Oprah, or Richard Branson, and I had previously offered these people any and all tangible help, including private jets, an entire hour in front of my audience of 80 million plus, millions of dollars in cash and influence and support, I  would be very taken aback to hear them cry poverty when all they need do is ask.

I would withdraw my support immediately and pretend I'd never heard the name McCann.

Oh wait, isn't that what happened?

[AnneGuedes]

Anyone here work in papers? -would a UK paper and a Port paper have PAID several k into search fund to print them?

That would be le monde à l'envers !

[John]

The withholding of these e-fits from the public for five years is disturbing.  If it was your child who had been taken wouldn't you want every possible piece of information and especially e-fits made public?

I suppose it is beyond the bounds of possibility that they were overlooked or simply forgotten.

[icabodcrane]

The withholding of these e-fits from the public for five years is disturbing.  If it was your child who had been taken wouldn't you want every possible piece of information and especially e-fits made public?

I suppose it is beyond the bounds of possibility that they were overlooked or simply forgotten.

Yes John,  I would say it  is   beyond the bounds of possibility that the efits were overlooked or forgotten by the McCanns 

The procuror of the efits,  and author of the report that accompanied them   (  Henri Exton  )  was issued with a legal threat to keep quiet  ...  so no oversight there


And there is the explanation offered by the McCann spokesman  ...  not that the efits were overlooked or forgotten,  but that consideration had been given and a decision made to  'go with'  the man Jane Tanner saw because there was not enough money to investigate the man the Smiths saw as well

[John]

All they had to do was to go into every shop, office, hotel and public building in Praia da Luz and ask them to put up the e-fits but apparently this was too simple for them.  8-)(--)

A bit like the searching claim...it never happened!

[AnneGuedes]

All they had to do was to go into every shop, office, hotel and public building in Praia da Luz and ask them to put up the e-fits

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

[John]

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

...and not a single poster revealing these two chappies was ever put up.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you serious?

One of the sketches has his exact hairline, the other could be a portrait!

Important to note that NEITHER appear Portuguese, or Africa.

What are the chances of another athletically built Caucasian , with the appearance of Gerry McCann, striding about PDL with Madeleine that night?

What do I think of the Smithman mess?  The surest sign of guilt so far, which cannot be disguised or explained any other way.

Its amusing to see the feeble attempts on this forum.

But Gerry McCann really looks like Mr nobody, silky whiskers, doesn't he?

Post any picture of a Caucasian male of medium height and build with darkish hair, and you would certainly find some similarities.

Hence the fact that people are able to say that two entirely different facial profiles, with few real similarities beyond the fact that they are white men with two eyes, ears, a nose and mouth, are in fact the same person.

It's meaningless.

[Estuarine]

I agree that Estuarine raised an important point 

It is surprising that we have not addressed the point on this forum,  and that no specific thread exists on which we might 

A McCann spokesperson announced that the reason the man the Smiths saw was not publicised was a question of money  ...  that they could not afford investigate the two sightings that were made that night,  and had to 'choose'  one or the other 

This is an astonishing statement to make  ...   and there was no retraction of it 

What does the forum make of that line of reasoning  ?

Well thanks Icabod ! there is another question that would make a good thread but I am offering a pint for the first one to identify it elsewhere. Don't hold your breath for this becoming a thread; the preference seems to be for topics where we can discuss how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Witness two threads on pooches.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Feel free to suggest a thread title, Estuarine. The question of money here seems a very reasonable one to me!

(And re the pooches - many more than two threads all in all, methinks!)

[Estuarine]

Feel free to suggest a thread title, Estuarine. The question of money here seems a very reasonable one to me!

(And re the pooches - many more than two threads all in all, methinks!)

OK lets have one but credit where it is due Serendipity started the ball rolling with post 1223.

[Sherlock Holmes]

OK lets have one but credit where it is due Serendipity started the ball rolling with post 1223.

No problem, Estuarine.

I will start the thread for the mean time, and will ask John to arrange starting and other posts as he sees fit.

[John]

The more I look at this issue the more sinister it appears...


In the Sunday Times article published on 27th October 2013 and later withdrawn, the following was claimed...

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised.

This was a spectacular admission to make for all sorts of reasons.

Firstly, publicising an e-fit of a missing child is not an expensive undertaking.  Secondly, the cost of publicising these e-fits would in normal circumstances be borne in any event by the police force investigating the appearance.

Using money as an excuse for not publishing these e-fits is unforgivable imo.

[Mr Gray]

The more I look at this issue the more sinister it appears...


In the Sunday Times article published on 27th October 2013 and later withdrawn, the following was claimed...

This was a spectacular admission to make for all sorts of reasons.

Firstly, publicising an e-fit of a missing child is not an expensive undertaking.  Secondly, the cost of publicising these e-fits would in normal circumstances be borne in any event by the police force investigating the appearance.

Using money as an excuse for not publishing these e-fits is unforgivable imo.

we have no idea how true this statement is......