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

[Brietta]

Dr McCann firmly believes that the Smith family sighting is compelling so why would she supress efits purporting to support a sighting of a child she believed may have been Madeleine?

The efits were passed to the police authorities who should have been conducting the search for Madeleine: they chose not to publicise them. 

They may not have been in Dr McCann’s book, Madeleine, but a detailed account of the Smith family sighting is.

[faithlilly]

Dr McCann firmly believes that the Smith family sighting is compelling so why would she supress efits purporting to support a sighting of a child she believed may have been Madeleine?

The efits were passed to the police authorities who should have been conducting the search for Madeleine: they chose not to publicise them. 

They may not have been in Dr McCann’s book, Madeleine, but a detailed account of the Smith family sighting is.

The McCanns had the efits in their possession before handing them over to anyone. If, as you claim, the McCanns believe that the Smith family sighting is compelling why did they not publicise the efits sooner, as they did with Gail Copper's ?

Interesting that while you claim the McCanns believe the Smith sighting compelling you think he may not exist. Care to explain your thinking ?

[pathfinder73]

It's no surprise to me that the Smithman efits were a main focus of the Crimewatch special and Tannerman aka Crecheman discarded when the McCanns were in the studio.

Smithman is still not on this page 8-)(--)

http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

No wonder they didn't look very happy



Kate and Gerry McCann appearing on Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special

[Alfred R Jones]

Perhaps they don't look very happy because they were appearing on Crimewatch, talking about the investigation into their child's abduction?  Just a thought...

[Wonderfulspam]

KATE: We're just doing absolutely everything we can do, you know, to help find Madeleine, and the last thing we're wanting to look back and think we could have done more.


Kate must be devestated to know that those vital e-fits were kept from public view for 5 years.

[Wonderfulspam]

Full video - Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special

[John]

DCI Redwood from timestamp 29.40 on the Crimewatch programme relates the significance of the Smith's sighting and the lightbulb moment.

Redwood   "Well at 10pm we can see a man walking down to the sea, a white man in his thirties with brown hair and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair wearing pyjamas, very close description to Madeleine McCann, two e-fits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual, really important for us to understand who he is."



E-fits as they were presented on Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special 


The question I would like to have an answer to is this.  Has DCI Redwood asked the people who commissioned these e-fits why they were never introduced into the public domain if they are so critical to the search...leaving no stone unturned and all that etc...

[misty]

DCI Redwood from timestamp 29.40 on the Crimewatch programme relates the significance of the Smith's sighting and the lightbulb moment.

Redwood   "Well at 10pm we can see a man walking down to the sea, a white man in his thirties with brown hair and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair wearing pyjamas, very close description to Madeleine McCann, two e-fits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual, really important for us to understand who he is."



E-fits as they were presented on Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special 


The question I would like to have an answer to is this.  Has DCI Redwood asked the people who commissioned these e-fits why they were never introduced into the public domain if they are so critical to the search...leaving no stone unturned and all that etc...

Wouldn't that action be illegal under Portuguese law?

[jassi]

Wouldn't that action be illegal under Portuguese law?

It might be, but it wasn't the Portuguese that commissioned them, so they wouldn't be the ones to be asked.

[Alice Purjorick]

DCI Redwood from timestamp 29.40 on the Crimewatch programme relates the significance of the Smith's sighting and the lightbulb moment.

Redwood   "Well at 10pm we can see a man walking down to the sea, a white man in his thirties with brown hair and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair wearing pyjamas, very close description to Madeleine McCann, two e-fits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual, really important for us to understand who he is."



E-fits as they were presented on Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special 


The question I would like to have an answer to is this.  Has DCI Redwood asked the people who commissioned these e-fits why they were never introduced into the public domain if they are so critical to the search...leaving no stone unturned and all that etc...

So on the one hand we have the Metropolitan Police Service investigator saying the efits had never been in the public domain and a McCann spokesperson saying they were handed over by October 2009 (after the case was archived). So someone is mistaken but who? Or was it the rascally Portugee bent, convicted, torturing coppers being bent again and secreting them away in a secret place? Well it must be I suppose as everyone else is renowned for their honesty.

[Wonderfulspam]

DCI Redwood from timestamp 29.40 on the Crimewatch programme relates the significance of the Smith's sighting and the lightbulb moment.

Redwood   "Well at 10pm we can see a man walking down to the sea, a white man in his thirties with brown hair and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair wearing pyjamas, very close description to Madeleine McCann, two e-fits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual, really important for us to understand who he is."



E-fits as they were presented on Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine McCann Special 


The question I would like to have an answer to is this.  Has DCI Redwood asked the people who commissioned these e-fits why they were never introduced into the public domain if they are so critical to the search...leaving no stone unturned and all that etc...

"Well at 10pm we can see a man walking down to the sea, a white man in his thirties with brown hair and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair wearing pyjamas, very close description to Madeleine McCann"

I wonder why Redwood chose not to mention that the man seen was described as wearing beige trousers with buttons.

He was, afterall, quite happy to tell us that the BurglaryBinman Sex attacker had a Burgundy sweatshirt.

But then again, that guy didn't have a face though did he?

Can't have it all I suppose.

[misty]

The dossier may well have been passed to the UK police in 2009, but at that time the Portuguese investigation had been shelved & the UK police had not been authorised to open their own investigation.
What do you suppose the McCans legal position would have been, had they gone to a UK newspaper & asked them to print efits of a man they believe was carrying their daughter? Who would have collated the data received?

I  also think you can guess what the Portuguese response would have been, had the McCanns tried to present the "new evidence". The PJ had ample opportunity to get efits from the Smiths - yet they chose not to, and, from the statements in the files it is clear to understand why they didn't.

The only suggestion that this is not the man the Smiths saw is the phrase "walking down to the sea". No-one knows for sure where Smithman was heading.

[stephen25000]

The dossier may well have been passed to the UK police in 2009, but at that time the Portuguese investigation had been shelved & the UK police had not been authorised to open their own investigation.
What do you suppose the McCans legal position would have been, had they gone to a UK newspaper & asked them to print efits of a man they believe was carrying their daughter? Who would have collated the data received?

I  also think you can guess what the Portuguese response would have been, had the McCanns tried to present the "new evidence". The PJ had ample opportunity to get efits from the Smiths - yet they chose not to, and, from the statements in the files it is clear to understand why they didn't.

The only suggestion that this is not the man the Smiths saw is the phrase "walking down to the sea". No-one knows for sure where Smithman was heading.

Even though the investigation was shelved, several PJ officers were still working on the case. Please be precise.

[misty]

Even though the investigation was shelved, several PJ officers were still working on the case. Please be precise.

The PJ did have officers still working on the case. However, evidence obtained by Private Investigators is inadmissable in the Portuguese Justice system - it  is illegal - so who, may I ask, do you consider would have been commissioned to investigate any potential suspects named as a result  of the McCanns going public?

[stephen25000]

The PJ did have officers still working on the case. However, evidence obtained by Private Investigators is inadmissable in the Portuguese Justice system - it  is illegal - so who, may I ask, do you consider would have been commissioned to investigate any potential suspects named as a result  of the McCanns going public?

Now if the mccanns had gone public at that time, they would open themselves to prosecution.


and that state of affairs should still stand.

As to the P.I.'s, what did they find that has resulted in any real progress in solving Madeleine's disappearance ?