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

[colombosstogey]

How about this for a scenario John ...

Henri Exton contacts Scotland Yard and says,  "I've got some important information that will be very relevant to your investigation,  but I can't give it to you  because the McCann lawyers have hamstrung me with legal threats"

So Scotland Yard approach the McCanns and say,  "We want this information  ...   get your lawyers to lift their threat so this witness can speak to us freely"

What can the McCanns do  ? ...  tell Scotland Yard that they will not call their legal dogs off,  and, therefore the information the police need will remain  'off limits'  ? 

Of course they couldn't 

They  HAD  to give written assurances that if  Exton gave the information that  Scotland  Yard wanted from him,   there would be be no legal objection from them


Rock and a hard place

I agree with you. The thing is IF the Exton team did the Efits then how did Scotland Yard end up with this information in the first place.... >@@(*&)

[stephen25000]

The story from the Times has now appeared in the Mail.

It will be interesting to see the comments there, 2 as I type this comment.

[Apostate]

Unless the McCanns can successfully refute this story the integrity and sincerity of their search is in tatters. 5 years wasted.

[stephen25000]

it's interesting that the Mail reports that the suppressed report considers Madeline wandering off a possibility. I wonder if that is the reason the McCanns stopped its publication. Because if Madeline wandered off then the only people to blame would be Kate and Gerry. That would seem to fit in with the claims of the report being overly critical of them.

Indeed. Not good for the McCann publicity machine.

This could well have a significant impact on the trial this week in Portugal.

Remembering of course there is more than one defendant.

[carlymichelle]

im suprised our australian media published this!!!

[Wonderfulspam]

it's interesting that the Mail reports that the suppressed report considers Madeline wandering off a possibility. I wonder if that is the reason the McCanns stopped its publication. Because if Madeline wandered off then the only people to blame would be Kate and Gerry. That would seem to fit in with the claims of the report being overly critical of them.

Madeline wandering off a possibility

Kate was adamant she could not have wandered off,  she 'knew' that 'they' had taken her.
She knows more than we do, she was there.

(http://www.mccannfiles.com/id301.html

"I knew immediately she'd been taken."

[stephen25000]

Madeline wandering off a possibility

Kate was adamant she could not have wandered off,  she 'knew' that 'they' had taken her.
She knows more than we do, she was there.

(link to follow)

Now that's magic.

[imustpointout]

The e-fits were in the possession of both Portuguese police and Scotland Yard for some years before this month's publication.

[Eleanor]

The e-fits were in the possession of both Portuguese police and Scotland Yard for some years before this month's publication.

This has also been mentioned elsewhere.  And The PJ seem to have had them for longer than Scotland Yard.

[Cariad]

The e-fits were in the possession of both Portuguese police and Scotland Yard for some years before this month's publication.

Since when did saying it make it true? Red provide a link to C4 news yesterday in which in was denied.

Also, the archiving of the case was in August 08 and the e-fits made in November 08.

[stephen25000]

'The e-fits were in the possession of both Portuguese police and Scotland Yard for some years before this month's publication.'

For how long exactly ?

[imustpointout]

Since when did saying it make it true? Red provide a link to C4 news yesterday in which in was denied.

Also, the archiving of the case was in August 08 and the e-fits made in November 08.

it's your choice to believe it or not

[imustpointout]

Dominic Kennedy
Published at 12:01AM, October 28 2013

it is a follow up article that moderates a lot of the sensational Sunday Times article

[stephen25000]

Dominic Kennedy
Published at 12:01AM, October 28 2013

it is a follow up article that moderates a lot of the sensational Sunday Times article

Does  'moderates' mean in this context damage limitation ?

[imustpointout]

Does  'moderates' mean in this context damage limitation ?

probably - I wonder why The Times would do that?

The article has been on this forum for about 4 hours