Now that is precisely the point.
They had every opportunity to so and matter the prevarication from their supporters, the fact of this cannot be ignored.
If they had been passed on years ago, they can't have been suppressed, can they and the ST article would then be completely and utterly wrong.
And it can't be because Mitchell's quote in the original article is:
A source close to the McCanns said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.
Now if it had been passed on years ago to the PJ and SY the quote would have been:
A source close to the McCann's said the report was considered “important enough to pass on to the PJ and SY many years ago” and “as such this story is completely false”
If they had passed them on then there is no reason for the ludicrous denials issued in the article is there?
Me thinks this is the spin machine cranking up.