Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[icabodcrane]

He was a  serious 'in the field'  expert,  afterall   (  one of the  'big boys'  as Clarence  Mitchell described him at the time )   ...  ex MI5  and all that 

So why did   the McCanns ignore  his  findings  ?  ....  not only ignore them,  it appears, but issued him with a warning from  their lawyers to  'keep schtum'  about them

Why  ? 

[colombosstogey]

Because their investigation pointed to the parents.........

They asked them to spy and ask questions they did, but the McCanns did not like the answers or the report that came back, especially the bit about Mr Smith clocking GM carrying his child etc.

The followers of this case knew about the Smith sighting all along.

It always troubled me, that GA was pushing this sighting and the bit about Mr Smith thinking it was GM carrying the child they saw, and before GA COULD do a second interview with Mr Smith he was zapped off the case then in 2008 the sighting by the Smiths was zapped too.

Sometimes people need to be careful what they wish for lol. .....

Of course now this article will be RIDICULED etc because the guy who run agency was convicted of fraud, so therefore the information his detectives gleened will be tainted....and so the white wash bucket gets more and more empty.

I actually often wondered if Mr GM didnt have something to do with eye spy with my little eye, and that is why he is so close to government.............

anyway let the GAMES begin lol.....

EXPLAIN that away Mr & Mrs McCann should keep their PR a bit busy and at least hopefully all the little blonde children sleeping with their Roma families can sleep a bit tighter without fear of official abduction for a few weeks.....

[colombosstogey]

On another note how can the McCanns say GA book hindered the search for their daughter if they too have hidden important leads to the abduction of their child.......

[Mr Gray]

this was Exton who worked with Halligan...so what findings did they reject and what is your source

[icabodcrane]

Thinking about it,  I suppose what is equally relevant to the McCanns rejecting Exton's expertise is the fact that Scotland Yard,  apparently,  did not

On Crimewatch they presented Exton's previously suppressed e-fits  as crucial new information

Furthermore,  they rejected Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the investigation  ...  again  in line with Exton's report  given that he had expressed the opinion that Tanner's witness statement was unreliable

It would appear,  wouldn't it,  that, unlike the McCanns,  Scotland Yard put considerable stock in Henri Exton, and his investigation 

[Mr Gray]

Thinking about it,  I suppose what is equally relevant to the McCanns rejecting Exton's expertise is the fact that Scotland Yard,  apparently,  did not

On Crimewatch they presented Exton's previously suppressed e-fits  as crucial new information

Furthermore,  they rejected Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the investigation  ...  again  in line with Exton's report  given that he had expressed the opinion that Tanner's witness statement was unreliable

It would appear,  wouldn't it,  that, unlike the McCanns,  Scotland Yard put considerable stock in Henri Exton, and his investigation

You seem to have ignored the question for 2 months so I will post it again

this was Exton who worked with Halligan...so what findings did they reject and what is your source

[Wonderfulspam]

Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, recommending the release of the e-fits and the revised timeline, but the relationship between the Fund and the company had soured, and the Fund's lawyers warned Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential.

The Fund did not release the Smith e-fits; a spokesperson told the Sunday Times that the Oakley report had been "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." Instead the Fund focused on the Tanner sighting, even though Tanner had not seen the man's face. Kate McCann did not include the Smith e-fits with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), even though she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/madeleine-mccann-e-fit-pictures-overlooked-for-5-years/story-fnb64oi6-1226748119500

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/347672/Maddie-Crimewatch-pictures-kept-secret-for-five-years

http://www.thestar.ie/star/e-fit-of-maddie-kidnap-suspect-was-suppressed-five-years-ago-35302/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html

[AnneGuedes]

Thinking about it,  I suppose what is equally relevant to the McCanns rejecting Exton's expertise is the fact that Scotland Yard,  apparently,  did not

On Crimewatch they presented Exton's previously suppressed e-fits  as crucial new information

Furthermore,  they rejected Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the investigation  ...  again  in line with Exton's report  given that he had expressed the opinion that Tanner's witness statement was unreliable

It would appear,  wouldn't it,  that, unlike the McCanns,  Scotland Yard put considerable stock in Henri Exton, and his investigation

What's curious is that Henri Exton, fading Tannerman and underlining Smithman, did nothing that GA hadn't done.

[Mr Gray]

What I don't understand is how exton did not realise that halligan was a conman...thats why I question his validity.
Furthermore is there any evidence that exton was part of MI5...I don't think there is...is there any evidence that the efit was supressed by the McCanns...apart from one article in the ST that has now been removed ...  I don't think there is

[Cariad]

What I don't understand is how exton did not realise that halligan was a conman...thats why I question his validity.
Furthermore is there any evidence that exton was part of MI5...I don't think there is...is there any evidence that the efit was supressed by the McCanns...apart from one article in the ST that has now been removed ...  I don't think there is

The Mccanns had access to the e-fits, yet didn't publish them. I guess that that is some form of evidence.

[Mr Gray]

The Mccanns had access to the e-fits, yet didn't publish them. I guess that that is some form of evidence.

 according to an article in the telegraph the e fits were forwarded to the pj who didn't publish them

[Cariad]

according to an article in the telegraph the e fits were forwarded to the pj who didn't publish them

I'm assuming that they would've keep a copy though.

I would have. That's just my assumption, I have no evidence that that is what happened.

[Wonderfulspam]

according to an article in the telegraph the e fits were forwarded to the pj who didn't publish them

I noticed they didn't appear in Kate's book or on the find Madeleine website until about 2 weeks after crimewatch,

[Mr Gray]

I noticed they didn't appear in Kate's book or on the find Madeleine website until about 2 weeks after crimewatch,

 its called a Post Hoc argument...google it

[AnneGuedes]

It always troubled me, that GA was pushing this sighting and the bit about Mr Smith thinking it was GM carrying the child they saw, and before GA COULD do a second interview with Mr Smith he was zapped off the case then in 2008 the sighting by the Smiths was zapped too.

It is indeed troubling.
I think that the arguido status was the maximum Portugal was prepared to do concerning the McCanns, unless they had very solid charges that implied the finding of a body. Something like : they're not clear, but we are not here to have them protest, accuse, claim we're incompetent. You better resolve yourselves and if you don't, al-right !
I don't think that GA would have admitted this. He was a potential risk for the policy of burying heads in the sand.
Rebelo wasn't called to investigate new avenues (there was none except for aberrant sightings) but basically to review carefully the investigation.
He didn't engage his reputation doing so. The media were never interested by him nor insulted him.