Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[icabodcrane]

We don't know the ins and outs of the Halligen saga. I find it plausible that information may have been withheld by subcontractors pending payment by Halligen... which was unlikely to happen.

If the Times article was not true,  or misleading in any way,  then surely the McCanns media controller  ( Mitchell )  would have responded with a denial or rebuttal of some sort   ? 

He did not

[Carana]

If the Times article was not true,  or misleading in any way,  then surely the McCanns media controller  ( Mitchell )  would have responded with a denial or rebuttal of some sort   ? 

He did not

- It's not an article by The Times, but The Sunday Times. Do they have the same reputation?

- Mitchell made one comment, the other "source" is anonymous.

- I haven't found anything to corroborate the contentious aspects of that article.

- Are the authors known for accurate investigative journalism?

[Lyall]

- It's not an article by The Times, but The Sunday Times. Do they have the same reputation?

- Mitchell made one comment, the other "source" is anonymous.

- I haven't found anything to corroborate the contentious aspects of that article.

- Are the authors known for accurate investigative journalism?

I think they are. But obviously they're not in Lori Campbell's league

[Lyall]

And I dare say Jerry Lawton too.

[Lyall]

But Lawton did write an article based on the Sunday Times one, so I may be being unfair.

He did also go on Nancy Grace though

[Benice]

If the Times article was not true,  or misleading in any way,  then surely the McCanns media controller  ( Mitchell )  would have responded with a denial or rebuttal of some sort   ? 

He did not

Could it be because the McCanns have said they are not going to comment on the case?  - just as SY have said they are not going to give a running commentary either?       Unlike us -  the McCanns and SY will know the 'ins and outs' of the situation - however they are not obliged to be at the beck and call of a group of people on the internet who for various reasons want to put every single word uttered on this case under a microscope.         

As long as SY are satisfied that they know all the facts regarding this article  -  then IMO from the MCanns POV - that is all that matters.   

That same article claimed that Martin Smith no longer regarded GM as the person he saw.   That would seem to be an extremely important revelation  - but which  has been largely ignored by the same people who for whatever reason  have decided there must be something 'sinister' in the rest of the article.  Very odd imo.     

[Angelo222]

Perhaps its just that you don't understand...papers pay a lot for any tit bits re people in the public eye tahts why they have confidentiality agreements for everyone they employ. This is just another innocent action being interpreted as something sinister..It isn't its standard practice

You're missing the point as per usual.  It might be standard practise but they invoked it to prevent information being passed on.  That in itself exposes the McCanns to a charge of gross hypocrisy.   To take that one step further it effectively means that they are taking donations under false pretences.  They ask people to donate to a fund whose declared and much publicised aim is to assist in the search for their missing daughter but by refusing to disclose all the material facts which are in their possession they have damaged that search.  Maybe a point for Amaral and his team to pursue since they are being sued for exactly the same reason.

[Carana]

I think they are. But obviously they're not in Lori Campbell's league

That doesn't answer my questions. There has been inaccurate reporting on both sides.

[Carana]

You're missing the point as per usual.  It might be standard practise but they invoked it to prevent information being passed on.  That in itself exposes the McCann to a charge of gross hypocrisy.   To take that one step further it effectively means that they are taking donations under false pretences.  They ask people to donate to a fund whose declared and much publicised aim is to assist in the search for their missing daughter but by refusing to disclose all the material facts which are in their possession they have damaged that search.  Maybe a point for Amaral and his team to pursue since they are being sued for exactly the same reason.

If you could substantiate the Halligen saga beyond what was alleged in that one article, from an independent source that didn't simply copy this so-called scoop, I'd be interested in reading it.

[Angelo222]

Could it be because the McCanns have said they are not going to comment on the case?  - just as SY have said they are not going to give a running commentary either?       Unlike us -  the McCanns and SY will know the 'ins and outs' of the situation - however they are not obliged to be at the beck and call of a group of people on the internet who for various reasons want to put every single word uttered on this case under a microscope.         

As long as SY are satisfied that they know all the facts regarding this article  -  then IMO from the MCanns POV - that is all that matters.   

That same article claimed that Martin Smith no longer regarded GM as the person he saw.   That would seem to be an extremely important revelation  - but which  has been largely ignored by the same people who for whatever reason  have decided there must be something 'sinister' in the rest of the article.  Very odd imo.   

Nothing sinister in any of it.  Smithman is not Gerry McCann and they withheld crucial e-fits.  The only mystery is WHY?  The second mystery is what are they hiding and why??

[Carana]

Nothing sinister in any of it.  Smithman is not Gerry McCann and they withheld crucial e-fits.  The only mystery is WHY?  The second mystery is what are they hiding and why??

WHO withheld these e-fits? Who were they sent to? When?

[Mr Gray]

- It's not an article by The Times, but The Sunday Times. Do they have the same reputation?

- Mitchell made one comment, the other "source" is anonymous.

- I haven't found anything to corroborate the contentious aspects of that article.

- Are the authors known for accurate investigative journalism?

NO...they lost one recent case re false allegations

[Angelo222]

WHO withheld these e-fits? Who were they sent to? When?

Work it out for yourself.  Kennedy commissioned them in junction with Metodo 3 using Martin Smiths eye witness accounts of Smithman, thereafter never produced to the public.  Good question...on whose orders were they suppressed until SY unearthed them??

[Benice]

Nothing sinister in any of it.  Smithman is not Gerry McCann and they withheld crucial e-fits.  The only mystery is WHY?  The second mystery is what are they hiding and why??

It may be a mystery to us - but it won't be to SY who unlike us have the ability to discover all the facts about what happened and why -  concerning these Efits.    Just because they haven't divulged that information to the public - doesn't mean it doesn't exist.    Without knowing all the facts -  then to assume anything has deliberately been hidden can only be pure speculation imo.     

[Wonderfulspam]

Someone has withheld them for some reason.

Why weren't they handed to the Portuguese investigation?

Would'nt that have been the sensible thing to do in the all important search for a little girl?

Simon Israel Channel 4 news.

" These are 2 e-fits of the same man. A man who may hold the key to Madeleine McCanns disappearance.
They've been shut away in a private investigation file for 5 years.

They were compiled from 2 witness accounts on the night Madeleine disappeared, but never handed over to the Portuguese investigation. Now British police are treating them with the utmost importance"



If she was 'alive when she was taken' as Kate & Gerry 'strongly believed' then someone has seriously 'damaged the search' & potentially abandoned the little girl to her fate by delaying for 5 years 'probably' their 'best chance of finding Madeleine'.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2653.0

Gerry McCann Crimewatch 33:55

"We don't know whats happened to Madeleine, erm we don't know who's taken her.
Probably our best chance of finding her is identifying that person, and that's why the E-Fits & sketches & the new information tonight are so important to us, erm because that's probably our best chance we've got of finding Madeleine"
 

What a terrible / disgusting thing to do.