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

[VIXTE]

I thought it was mainly Brian Kennedy who paid for this, ie who paid this through the fund and it was him who found this Private Investigators.
I don't see him suing the McCanns for his money so  if he is happy to spend his money this way and happy with the outcome I don't see any financial misuse.

The only problem is in a wrong judgement by the McCanns side. The question is if they knew this lead was the right lead.. whether they would wait for 5 years for this to come to the light.

[Cariad]

Quote from: davel on Today at 07:46:32 AM

The McCanns don't have to .... the papers have cleared the McCanns...every article now says the parents aren't suspects and the PJ are looking for an abductor

You are the number one gullible poster..if you read the above post, it says the papers have cleared the McCanns..and that is a fact. .... doesn't say I believe it.....you don't have the critical observational skills to understand the subtlety in the post

We all know I'm a bit dense, can you point out the subtleties for me please? I'm almost certainly missing them.

On another note, if the Mccanns have been cleared of all involvement as is constantly being reported by SY and The Mccanns criminal lawyer, why are papers now printing negetive things about the poor, blighted parents?

[xtina]

The PJ interviewed the Smiths and had the information before any PIs

yes  but  G.A. was  took of the case  [wasn't that from pressure from the uk]...then  pr machine  got in motion

[VIXTE]

We all know I'm a bit dense, can you point out the subtleties for me please? I'm almost certainly missing them.

On another note, if the Mccanns have been cleared of all involvement as is constantly being reported by SY and The Mccanns criminal lawyer, why are papers now printing negetive things about the poor, blighted parents?

Well, both SY and PJ know about this report from the past and both police forces have announced that the parents are not suspects.. so there is no a criminal action by parents deciding that these  old PIs findings in the past were rubbish.

They might have been only morally wrong..

[Luz]

Well, both SY and PJ know about this report from the past and both police forces have announced that the parents are not suspects.. so there is no a criminal action by parents deciding that these  old PIs findings in the past were rubbish.

They might have been only morally wrong..

The PJ have done no such thing, they are under the secrecy law.

[Lyall]

The PJ interviewed the Smiths and had the information before any PIs

But they did not have the efits.

[Benita]

The PJ have done no such thing, they are under the secrecy law.

when it suits you mean... 8-)(--)

[VIXTE]

The PJ have done no such thing, they are under the secrecy law.

Wasn't there a breaking news 'McCanns are not suspects' on the TVI Portugal night before last night?

And also McCanns lawyer in Portugal has said they were told they are no longer suspects at the police briefing to which they were invited to on the 17th?

[Luz]

when it suits you mean... 8-)(--)

Sorry to disappoint you, but so far nobody from the Public Ministry or the PJ declared the McCann non suspects. Only their lawyer said that and the journos that reproduced his declarations. The PGR declined to answer.

[imustpointout]

But they did not have the efits.

There was nothing stopping PJ from doing their own efits in 2007.

[xtina]

Well, both SY and PJ know about this report from the past and both police forces have announced that the parents are not suspects.. so there is no a criminal action by parents deciding that these  old PIs findings in the past were rubbish.

They might have been only morally wrong..

Anyone claiming there  innocence  .etc etc .....IMO have no  choice [they have  to whatch their backs were  the mccs are concerned  at the moment].................but  one little thing can  change  all that

[Lyall]

There was nothing stopping PJ from doing their own efits in 2007.

That's a different issue. That's not relevant to the questions about these efits raised after Crimewatch and in this Times article - why did the people who did have the efits not use them for five years?

[imustpointout]

That's a different issue. That's not relevant to the questions about these efits raised after Crimewatch and in this Times article - why did the people who did have the efits not use them for five years?

as I said earlier - it is history and doesn't bother me.

[Apostate]

That's a different issue. That's not relevant to the questions about these efits raised after Crimewatch and in this Times article - why did the people who did have the efits not use them for five years?

Any why when their own paid detectives trashed one of their abductor sightings did they still continue to peddle it for years, choosing it over another sighting?

5 years wasted. Incredible.

[stephen25000]

Any why when their own paid detectives trashed one of their abductor sightings did they still continue to peddle it for years, choosing it over another sighting?

5 years wasted. Incredible.

That is precisely the point.