The original article was wrong because it failed to state that the efits were in the possession of both Portuguese and British police for several years before the crimewatch programme.
So the efits if they were "suppressed" at all, were suppressed by the British and Portuguese police.
More particularly by the Portuguese police, I would say, as the lead force in the investigation.
Why do you keep propagating such falsehoods?
It has been shown on this board, that the only source for the claim the PJ & SY had the e-fits was taken from a quote Clarence Mitchell gave to the Telegraph approximately 9 days before the Sunday Times article.
The PJ categorically denied they had received the e-fits (as per the C4 news link Redblossom provided) and SY have never confirmed they received them earlier either.
Interestingly Mitchell did not use the same line in the more detailed ST Insight report. If Mitchell's claim in the Telegraph was true why did he not use it in the ST article?
You must either provide some evidence to back up your assertion or cease stating something as fact you cannot justify.
This continued spamming of the forum with your version, completely unsupported, of the truth, with no basis in fact, is becoming tedious.
