The Sunday Times Apologises...yet e-fits withheld from public view for 5 years?

[Wonderfulspam]

You miss the point...for all the reasons given on this forum....why would an abductor carry a child that far...the fact that the tanner sighting had not been shown to be false......the smith sighting was not thought to be important IMO...if it was , why did the pj not act on it...new evidence to open the investigation

They were just waiting for a dead black guy to pin it on.

[Mr Gray]

They were just waiting for a dead black guy to pin it on.

 now you are making more sense...couldn't pin it on the Mccanns...so what about the dead black guy

[Wonderfulspam]

now you are making more sense...couldn't pin it on the Mccanns...so what about the dead black guy

Yes I stubbed the spliff out, took a breath of fresh air & started thinking rationaly & now I realise that abduction is the reality.
It was like a revelation moment.

[Lyall]

 

[Mr Gray]

Yes I stubbed the spliff out, took a breath of fresh air & started thinking rationaly & now I realise that abduction is the reality.
It was like a revelation moment.

As a matter of interest did you realise that their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate too?

[Lyall]

We've all done it

[Wonderfulspam]

As a matter of interest did you realise that their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate too?

Absolutely, when taken entirely in the context of facilitating a non existant child abductor.

[pegasus]

The withheld efits were given not to LP or PJ, but to a PI company. The question arises, what other information was given to a PI agency and not passed to police? Remember the efit which witness CT thought she had done for UK police, yet LP were unaware of it? And why is it that the Daily Meal reported in Sept 2007 that witness CP had spoken to UK police twice about the Saturday night 1130pm boatman, but then the paper altered their report in Oct 2007 to remove that claim? Did the witness actually speak twice to LP? Or twice to PIs? If the latter, was it ever passed on to LP? In other words, can we be confident that  the efits by the Irish family are an unique isolated oversight, and everything else was keenly passed on to PJ/LP?

[jassi]

pj had efits long enough to act on why they not act on them

Perhaps because the case wasalready closed and the efits weren't considered sufficient  new evidence to re-open it.

[Benice]

Perhaps because the case wasalready closed and the efits weren't considered sufficient  new evidence to re-open it.

So who would have decided the efits were not considered sufficient new evidence if the case had been closed?  Who would have the authority to make such an important decision?  I thought the case was shelved not closed.

[Redblossom]

Anyone figured out yet why the mccanns sat on the fits for five years? and did nothng with these crucial efits.....??? But instead promoted efits of untenuous people......miles and countries away as opposed to a man on the night carrying a blonde four yr old?

[jassi]

So who would have decided the efits were not considered sufficient new evidence if the case had been closed?  Who would have the authority to make such an important decision?  I thought the case was shelved not closed.

Not at all sure, but I thought the case was reopened under instruction from the judiciary, so I presume it would be a legal decision, rather than a police one.

[Montclair]

Not at all sure, but I thought the case was reopened under instruction from the judiciary, so I presume it would be a legal decision, rather than a police one.

Correct, it is the Ministério Público that makes the decision if any evidence is relevant enough to warrant the reopening of the case. The PJ does not have that authority.

[sadie]

Anyone figured out yet why the mccanns sat on the fits for five years? and did nothng with these crucial efits.....??? But instead promoted efits of untenuous people......miles and countries away as opposed to a man on the night carrying a blonde four yr old?

Red, I thought that it had been proven very recently on this forum that what you are saying is NOT true.  Why do you keep repeating the myth?

[Redblossom]

Red, I thought that it had been proven very recently on this forum that what you are saying is NOT true.  Why do you keep repeating the myth?

Try and keep up, its not a myth but 100 per cent fact that the mccanns decided to not publicise these efits, never mention a word about them, ever, anywhere,whilst they publicised dubious others....the question you should try finding an answer to is WHY....they even had them whilst they did their maddie was here documentary in 2009 and ignored them but instead tried to make out Tannerman was Smithman....whch flew in the face of both the evidence in the files and the efits......why manipulate facts?



 >@@(*&)