Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[AnneGuedes]

There might be reasons for that...

Reasons for my saying this or reasons for the MP to let the McCanns go and take a hike elsewhere ?

[Albertini]

Hmmm. That's one of my problems with this article (amongst many others).

The only attributable comment to the Madeleine Fund seems to be this:

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”


Prior to that was "a McCann fund source". There might have been one, but without knowing what that person was actually asked, any reply may have been taken out of context.

It was of course Mitchell providing a man with two heads response and indeed it's also a standard modus operandi of all spin doctors in general. Put your name to things you have to say to the media but then go unnamed as a source to say the things you want to say unofficially.

It's a well used Mitchell tactic throughout the case. Here's another example where he does it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-algarve-2859874

[ferryman]

Is this just an attempt to muddy the waters? This question has already been dealt with. Smiths statement was jan 2008. The report was created 2008 therefore after Oakley had been hired but before 31st dec 2008. The e-fits were part of the report.

So then why keep making statements referring to only releasing the e-fits once there is an active investigation in progress? It's a non argument and I suspect you probably know it. You're just unprepared to accept it because it would raise questions regarding the McCanns that you either choose to ignore or clearly struggle to answer

Why are you questioning the timing of Scotland Yard in unveiling the efit?

ETA:

From that Sunday Times article again, the crucial part:

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

[ferryman]

I am questioning it because there is a rather large matter of a child who has been missing since May 2007!

Why are YOU stating the e-fits can only be published when there is an official investigation? You know there have been other e-fits released by the McCanns but with this one you all of a sudden require an official investigation.

Because the man was seen carrying a child in the vicinity of apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted.

That is a matter for the police to investigate, and also a matter for police timing as to when to release the e-fit.

The e-fit had been in the possession of both British and Portuguese police some years before the release of the e-fit

Why do you think the McCanns should have gainsaid the police?

[Carana]

There was no denying.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

[Albertini]

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

crucially the statement did not say when they handed the e-fits over. Indeed the ST article says they were handed over when SY requested them.

The fact they handed them over is not the point. It's why they held them back and why they handed them over when they were asked.

Given the serious implications of the ST's article if it was untrue then a more firm and strongly worded denial would be issued and no doubt swift legal action would have been instigated and publicised to combat the inference of the article.

Bearing in mind SY know all the facts it's hard to deny something that's true with the yard watching.

Which is why they haven't of course.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It was of course Mitchell providing a man with two heads response and indeed it's also a standard modus operandi of all spin doctors in general. Put your name to things you have to say to the media but then go unnamed as a source to say the things you want to say unofficially.

It's a well used Mitchell tactic throughout the case. Here's another example where he does it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-algarve-2859874

Yes and it's also interesting that Redwood in the above article speaks of work going on in
 creating pan-European investigative teams for this case, within a supporting legal framework.

Things are moving very, very slowly on this case, whether by circumstance or by design.

[ferryman]

crucially the statement did not say when they handed the e-fits over. Indeed the ST article says they were handed over when SY requested them.

The fact they handed them over is not the point. It's why they held them back and why they handed them over when they were asked.

Given the serious implications of the ST's article if it was untrue then a more firm and strongly worded denial would be issued and no doubt swift legal action would have been instigated and publicised to combat the inference of the article.

Bearing in mind SY know all the facts it's hard to deny something that's true with the yard watching.

Which is why they haven't of course.

It's why they held them back and why

It's poor debating form to state an uncorroborated assertion as if "fact", then pose all sorts of questions based on said uncorroborated "fact".

[Mr Gray]

crucially the statement did not say when they handed the e-fits over. Indeed the ST article says they were handed over when SY requested them.

The fact they handed them over is not the point. It's why they held them back and why they handed them over when they were asked.

Given the serious implications of the ST's article if it was untrue then a more firm and strongly worded denial would be issued and no doubt swift legal action would have been instigated and publicised to combat the inference of the article.

Bearing in mind SY know all the facts it's hard to deny something that's true with the yard watching.

Which is why they haven't of course.

the fact that the article has been withdrawn indicates to me it is inaccurate

[ferryman]

The most ridiculous things must pass through your mind.

Albertini is making a perfectly valid point.

Albertini has made no point at all ...

[Albertini]

It's why they held them back and why

It's poor debating form to state an uncorroborated assertion as if "fact", then pose all sorts of questions based on said uncorroborated "fact".

Yet it's something you have made a forum career out of over grime and the dogs. The irony of you posting that is hysterical.

[ferryman]

Yet it's something you have made a forum career out of over grime and the dogs. The irony of you posting that is hysterical.

I'm perfectly happy with everything I've said about Martin Grime.

[Mr Gray]

Yet it's something you have made a forum career out of over grime and the dogs. The irony of you posting that is hysterical.

 I find ferrymans post re grime very informative and feel he has  a good understanding of the facts..unlike other posters

[Albertini]

the fact that the article has been withdrawn indicates to me it is inaccurate

No that isn't how newspapers work. If an article is inaccurate or untrue then they print an apology and a retraction/correction in the newspaper. If that is not satisfactory then legal action is taken.

You yourself quote a court case the ST lost as a result of a story.

So why hasn't the ST apologised and printed a retraction or why haven't the McCann's publicly stated their desire to take legal action against the ST?

The fact you can't find the article online may be because it is behind their paywall.

[stephen25000]

I'm perfectly happy with everything I've said about Martin Grime.

Of course you are. 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)