Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Albertini]

If you are claiming it was not retracted and the contents are true then why are people ignoring this statement from it:-

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

Surely that clearly contradicts the claim that the McCanns suppressed the Efits.

I'm not ignoring anything from the original ST article.

That line you refer to was in the Times article the following day using the quote from Mitchell from some days previously to an article in the Telegraph.

the PJ flatly denied that they had been passed them, as per Redblossom's link to the C4 article.

[Albertini]

How the police came by the e-fits i obviously irrelevant.

Hogwash! It is not irrelevant if the e-fits were suppressed by the McCann's and the Yard had to request them from Exton. It is of significant relevance.

Timing of when to release them was obviously the Police's call -- and specifically the Portuguese police's call as the lead force in the investigation.

The Yard could only release them when they had them. The ST article was unequivocal in stating the Yard had to ask for them from Exton.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

And that leads on to another question. Why say they wanted to give precedence to Tanner's sighting when the documentary gave the impression it was the same man?

[Wonderfulspam]

Thursday 6 August 2009

A "Victoria Beckham lookalike" is being sought by private detectives searching for Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007.

An efit of the woman was released today at a London press conference by a family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, and David Edgar, the retired detective who now leads the search for the girl.

The McCann team said they would be liaising with British, Australian and Spanish police over the new information.

The Portuguese police say they have closed the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/5981579/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-to-trace-Victoria-Beckham-lookalike.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann

[ferryman]

I'm not ignoring anything from the original ST article.

That line you refer to was in the Times article the following day using the quote from Mitchell from some days previously to an article in the Telegraph.

the PJ flatly denied that they had been passed them, as per Redblossom's link to the C4 article.

I'm not ignoring anything from the original ST article.

You should!

It was pulled because it was wrong.

[Albertini]

I'm not ignoring anything from the original ST article.

You should!

It was pulled because it was wrong.

Where is your proof  "It was pulled because it was wrong."

Cite please.

[ferryman]

Where is your proof  "It was pulled because it was wrong."

Cite please.

If there was no problem with the article it wouldn't have been pulled and replaced by a different one.

[Albertini]

If there was no problem with the article it wouldn't have been pulled and replaced by a different one.

Nope, you don't understand this proof thing do you?

You made a statement it was pulled because it was wrong yet you have no proof to support that, do you?

[Lyall]

And that leads on to another question. Why say they wanted to give precedence to Tanner's sighting when the documentary gave the impression it was the same man?

They'll have a job spinning that one, Albertini.

[Mr Moderator]

References to the McCanns being 'exonerated' have been removed since they are false.  The current SY official position is that the McCanns are neither persons of interest or suspects.  This of course can change as the investigation proceeds.  How many times has history shown us to expect the unexpected?  Take nothing for granted.

There is a very big difference between not being a suspect and being exonerated as has already been pointed out. (Ref to Barry George and the Jill Dando unsolved murder case).



For those who haven't already seen the articles.

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

27 Oct - The Sunday Times article (online version subsequently removed)
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post273258.html#p273258

28 Oct - The Times article
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post273561.html#p273561

[Mr Gray]

Where is your proof  "It was pulled because it was wrong."

Cite please.

 It is no longer there...and I predicted when it first appeared that I expected it to be removed...why we don't know but it seems odd that no other articles have been removed re the McCanns

[Jean-Pierre]

Of course the McCanns have not been exonerated. 

In order to be exonerated, it would first be necessary for them to be in a position from which exoneration is possible. 

As far as I know, the McCanns have not been arrested, charged or convicted of anything at all.  It is therefore not possible for them to be exonerated.

Now - that was easy, wasn't it. 

 

[lizzibif]

Of course the McCanns have not been exonerated. 

In order to be exonerated, it would first be necessary for them to be in a position from which where exoneration is possible. 

As far as I know, the McCanns have not been arrested, charged or convicted of anything at all.  It is therefore not possible for them to be exonerated.

Now - that was easy, wasn't it. 

 

Now that's what is called fact!..good post Jean-Pierre..

[Mr Gray]

Now that's what is called fact!..good post Jean-Pierre..

 Of course its true..its  a fact..but will the post go unchallenged

[lizzibif]

Of course its true..its  a fact..but will the post go unchallenged

What's there to challenge when a known fact has been posted..

[Albertini]

Of course the McCanns have not been exonerated. 

In order to be exonerated, it would first be necessary for them to be in a position from which exoneration is possible. 

As far as I know, the McCanns have not been arrested, charged or convicted of anything at all.  It is therefore not possible for them to be exonerated.

Now - that was easy, wasn't it. 

 

Nope. Mr Mod is not talking about exoneration from arrest, charges or convictions. That isn't what he said nor what the final archiving report said either.