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

[Jazzy]

"most kind decent people" wouldn't bash and hound the parents of a missing child ..so that counts you out of that quote 

 

[Montclair]

We all seem to be focusing on the e-fits that were suppressed but there are other aspects of the report which are quite damning for the parents. The reports mentions Madeleine's irregular sleep patterns, the possibility of an accidental death after she left the house through the unlocked doors and also questions the discrepencies in the statements made by the parents and their friends.

[Cariad]

We all seem to be focusing on the e-fits that were suppressed but there are other aspects of the report which are quite damning for the parents. The reports mentions Madeleine's irregular sleep patterns, the possibility of an accidental death after she left the house through the unlocked doors and also questions the discrepencies in the statements made by the parents and their friends.

Agreed. I wonder if SY have the whole report? There was also mention of lie detector tests....

[imustpointout]

Repeated here as a number of threads are discussing the same thing

Quote from: imustpointout on Today at 10:53:47 AM
"Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago.""

Telegraph 19/10/13 - before the Sunday Times article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10391348/Madeleine-McCann-is-there-hope-at-last.html

interesting that a fuss wasn't made of this at the time

[C.Edwards]

Repeated here as a number of threads are discussing the same thing

Quote from: imustpointout on Today at 10:53:47 AM
"Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago.""

Telegraph 19/10/13 - before the Sunday Times article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10391348/Madeleine-McCann-is-there-hope-at-last.html

interesting that a fuss wasn't made of this at the time

Who's the source? Someone who wants to deflect attention onto the PJ?  I find it hard to believe this as the PJ would have the e-fit in the released files. They don't.  They may have treated the e-fits as worthless (as I think many may also be inclined to think seeing as they were generated by a family who claimed they didn't get a good look at the person anyway!) but if they did that, you would expect record of it in the files.

Maybe this source is the same person who has originated this as-yet-unsubstantiated claim that Mr. Smith has retracted his "looked like Gerry" statement?

[Redblossom]

Unnamed sources = always lessen credibility

At least here a reporter is putting his name to it when saying the efits were not passed to the PJ

PS CEdwards, efits apparently were done in sept 08 so wouldnt be in the files released in aug 08

[Mr Gray]

Does  'moderates' mean in this context damage limitation ?

it means that they are concerned about being sued. You will notice that the Mail article talks about supressed but doesn't accuse the McCanns as the Times does. Why have the Mail done this..Carter Ruck...if what the Times has printed is true..they have nothing to fear..if it isn't..they could be in trouble

[Cariad]

it means that they are concerned about being sued. You will notice that the Mail article talks about supressed but doesn't accuse the McCanns as the Times does. Why have the Mail done this..Carter Ruck...if what the Times has printed is true..they have nothing to fear..if it isn't..they could be in trouble

Morning davel! I missed you!

Have you seen all the articles? Is it true now? Did you note that Mr Mitchell wasn't available for comment?

[Aegean]

If it's possible to make a comment that isn't part of the pro/anti tit-for-tat...

The main thing that sticks out for me about these efits is that there is a lot of confusion around them. The Smith sighting, and how various investigation teams have treated it, is also something that isn't so simple.

We know these efits were made around five years ago by the private investigation team the McCanns hired. But they have only just been released to the public.

Mr Smith delayed in relating what he saw and his suspicions, and the Smith sighting was initially not taken as seriously by all parties as it perhaps should have. The only people to think it was important, up till now, were Amaral and the "[ censored word]".

Now it appears that the McCanns deliberately suppressed the release of the efits. At some point, perhaps a couple of years ago when both the PJ and SY started their own separate (although I'm sure collaborating) inquiries, the police forces in both Portugal and the UK got hold of the efits.

Again, however, we only learned about them the other week. Perhaps the police wanted to make sure this was a credible sighting, that this man actually could be a "person of interest" and not just some innocent random bloke. Putting out efits of anyone who was seen at the time in the area without having properly investigated them first would only make things worse, create confusion, undermine the credibility of the inquiries. They may have wanted to try and do all they could to track this individual down and eliminate him before releasing an efit, like they did with Tannerman. Once they had exhausted all possibilities and got a credible timeline together, then they released the efits.

So, maybe the police had a legitimate reason in holding the efits back until releasing them to the public. The McCanns, however? Not only did they not release these efits, they even, it is claimed, legally threatened the investigative team so it would keep them hidden. The McCanns would not, however, be able to prevent the police from getting hold of the reports and the efits once they started their enquiries.

[Mr Gray]

Morning davel! I missed you!

Have you seen all the articles? Is it true now? Did you note that Mr Mitchell wasn't available for comment?

If you mean have the McCanns deliberately hidden the e fits ...then  I would say that at the moment there is not enough evidence to show that....according to the telegraph the e fits were given to the PJ and SY so someone isn't telling the truth...we don't know who yet..as regards Clarence's silence, perhaps Carter Ruck have told him to leave it to them...any statement could be prejudicial

[Mr Gray]

If it's possible to make a comment that isn't part of the pro/anti tit-for-tat...

The main thing that sticks out for me about these efits is that there is a lot of confusion around them. The Smith sighting, and how various investigation teams have treated it, is also something that isn't so simple.

We know these efits were made around five years ago by the private investigation team the McCanns hired. But they have only just been released to the public.

Mr Smith delayed in relating what he saw and his suspicions, and the Smith sighting was initially not taken as seriously by all parties as it perhaps should have. The only people to think it was important, up till now, were Amaral and the "[ censored word]".

Now it appears that the McCanns deliberately suppressed the release of the efits. At some point, perhaps a couple of years ago when both the PJ and SY started their own separate (although I'm sure collaborating) inquiries, the police forces in both Portugal and the UK got hold of the efits.

Again, however, we only learned about them the other week. Perhaps the police wanted to make sure this was a credible sighting, that this man actually could be a "person of interest" and not just some innocent random bloke. Putting out efits of anyone who was seen at the time in the area without having properly investigated them first would only make things worse, create confusion, undermine the credibility of the inquiries. They may have wanted to try and do all they could to track this individual down and eliminate him before releasing an efit, like they did with Tannerman. Once they had exhausted all possibilities and got a credible timeline together, then they released the efits.

So, maybe the police had a legitimate reason in holding the efits back until releasing them to the public. The McCanns, however? Not only did they not release these efits, they even, it is claimed, legally threatened the investigative team so it would keep them hidden. The McCanns would not, however, be able to prevent the police from getting hold of the reports and the efits once they started their enquiries.

  Neither the latest article in the times or the mail article are saying that the MCanns suppressed the e fits

[Cariad]

If you mean have the McCanns deliberately hidden the e fits ...then  I would say that at the moment there is not enough evidence to show that....according to the telegraph the e fits were given to the PJ and SY so someone isn't telling the truth...we don't know who yet..as regards Clarence's silence, perhaps Carter Ruck have told him to leave it to them...any statement could be prejudicial

I don't really understand how libel law works. Would it be prejudicial to say "we did not suppress these e-fits, they were handed over on such and such a date"...

That still wouldn't explain why they hadn't published them themselves though would it?

[Mr Gray]

I don't really understand how libel law works. Would it be prejudicial to say "we did not suppress these e-fits, they were handed over on such and such a date"...

That still wouldn't explain why they hadn't published them themselves though would it?

I think from CR's point they would prefer if nothing was said..weren't published because everyone though JT had identified the abductor

[VIXTE]

I don't really understand how libel law works. Would it be prejudicial to say "we did not suppress these e-fits, they were handed over on such and such a date"...

That still wouldn't explain why they hadn't published them themselves though would it?

Maybe they don't care right now what me and you and any Mike or Dave think about them at this very moment.
Because their daughter if finally being looked for by good police forces?

[Aegean]

  Neither the latest article in the times or the mail article are saying that the MCanns suppressed the e fits

The McCanns had the efits from five years ago, yet we didn't hear anything from them about them. Even in her book, Kate McCann outlines all the sightings and efits but doesn't mention these ones. The media coverage is going to be uneven, much of it regurgitating other articles, a lot of it using vague or highly-qualified language for legal reasons, but still giving you enough to read between the lines. We can all choose to read between the lines in a way that fits our points of view.

Regardless, you can quibble (as I'm sure you will, over and over again) about who's responsible for not releasing the efits, but the fact is they've been around for five years, in the McCanns' possession, and have only now been released by the police. Surely there is a reason for this.