Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Benice]

No, Benice, it was a lot more significant than that. That was the first critical article in over five years.

The McCanns have said they are not going to comment on the case.   
SY have said they are not going to give a running commentary on the case.

What is there not to understand?

[pinkblossoms]

Dwelling on this wont make it any truer, "now will it" 

[slartibartfast]

If it has been removed, I wonder why they haven't had it removed from all the other sites that had copies or quoted it?

[Albertini]

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

 From the sunday times...so which is correct

No that's from the Times not the Sunday Times (different journalists) and the source of the given years ago was one Clarence Mitchell! The claim it was passed to the Pj was then denied by the PJ.

" Instead, detectives are now focusing their efforts on a second man seen carrying a child towards the beach just minutes before Kate McCann went to check on Madeleine. An Irishman, Martin Smith, and his wife reported seeing him at the time. Their e-fits, which have only now been released, were originally produced by a private detective agency which was hired by the McCanns in 2008 when they became dissatisfied with the Portuguese police inquiry.
At the time, though, it was not published, partly because Portuguese detectives thought the other theory more viable, and partly because Mr Smith himself said he thought the man he had seen looked like Gerry McCann, whom several other witnesses had already said had been at the restaurant table at that point.
Now the later sighting is being taken seriously. While DCI Redwood stressed that it could be a yet another innocent holidaymaker carrying his child, it is the key public line of inquiry, if only because of the absence of anything else. 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."

[Mr Gray]

No that's from the Times not the Sunday Times (different journalists) and the source of the given years ago was one Clarence Mitchell! The claim it was passed to the Pj was then denied by the PJ.

Its whatever you want to believe ..if any...just don't treat any of them as 100% true...we just don't know

[Albertini]

It was pulled.

Will that do?

I repeat again you cannot pull a print article. If the subjects accused by the article have been wronged by said article a simple removal of an online article does not denote a retraction.

If there is no official retraction then the newspaper stands by its article.

If it were true that the McCann's gave the yard and the pj the efits years ago why didn't the McCann's response in the original ST article state that?

That was the perfect riposte to it. Yet they didn't, why could that be?

[Mr Gray]

I repeat again you cannot pull a print article. If the subjects accused by the article have been wronged by said article a simple removal of an online article does not denote a retraction.

If there is no official retraction then the newspaper stands by its article.

If it were true that the McCann's gave the yard and the pj the efits years ago why didn't the McCann's response in the original ST article state that?

That was the perfect riposte to it. Yet they didn't, why could that be?

I was referring to the online article as you well know re your comment about the paywall

[Albertini]

Its whatever you want to believe ..if any...just don't treat any of them as 100% true...we just don't know

If there was a formal retraction I would accept that it was incorrect. The fact it hasn't been retracted given the McCann's litigious nature and carter ruck Rottweilers indicates it was indeed true.

Do you hand on heart believe given the way the McCann's have sued in the past they wouldn't sue now for something as damaging to their reputation as this?

[Albertini]

I was referring to the online article as you well know re your comment about the paywall

And I'm saying if they were retracting the story they would have to do so witn both print and digital versions. They haven't so they must be standing by their story.

[Mr Gray]

And I'm saying if they were retracting the story they would have to do so witn both print and digital versions. They haven't so they must be standing by their story.

you can say what you like..its just your opinion

[Albertini]

No. It is a fact the article has not been retracted. It's contents stand until such time as an official retraction is printed in both digital and online versions.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

[Mr Gray]

No. It is a fact the article has not been retracted. It's contents stand until such time as an official retraction is printed in both digital and online versions.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

 the situation was clear to me a week ago ..its you who refuses to accept reality...my last post on the subject...your posts are getting boring

[Albertini]

This exchange shows an interesting point. Debate on this forum is futile. No one accepts anything or changes their mind despite overwhelming evidence. The article has been removed from the online edition..its  afact...but your head in the sand attitude cant and wont accept it.

I thought your last post was the last on the subject? lol obviously not!

I could say exactly the same about you. An article not being on a website where it was does not equate to the story being untrue.

The only way an article can be accepted as being wrong is if a formal retraction is printed. No formal retraction has ever been made. That means the article stands.

Why can't you accept that?

[Mr Gray]

I thought your last post was the last on the subject? lol obviously not!

I could say exactly the same about you. An article not being on a website where it was does not equate to the story being untrue.

The only way an article can be accepted as being wrong is if a formal retraction is printed. No formal retraction has ever been made. That means the article stands.

Why can't you accept that?

 So we can accept that the expresss article re the satellite photos is correct...unless they print a retraction ...oh dear

[Angelo222]

They are no longer suspects,which part of that can you not get a grip of.
  8-)(--)

Not currently being a suspect is a long way from being exonerated.   Barry George is no longer a suspect and he hasn't been exonerated since they would have to pay him £millions if he was.

They can still be made a suspect at any time.  Have you ever heard any police officer say they are innocent??