Author Topic: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?  (Read 89545 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2013, 07:39:17 PM »
Let's see.

The efits were in the possession of the police (Portuguese and UK) years before the Crimewatch programme.

So the question is: why did they not release it?

The most likely answer is that at the time those efits came into their possession, there was no official enquiry.

Now, there is, and DCI Redwood choose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to unveil it.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2013, 07:40:50 PM »
Let's see.

The efits were in the possession of the police (Portuguese and UK) years before the Crimewatch programme.

So the question is: why did they not release it?

The most likely answer is that at the time those efits came into their possession, there was no official enquiry.

Now, there is, and DCI Redwood choose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to unveil it.

Is that supposed to be a serious and logical explanation ?

Offline Montclair

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2013, 07:48:09 PM »
Let's see.

The efits were in the possession of the police (Portuguese and UK) years before the Crimewatch programme.

So the question is: why did they not release it?

The most likely answer is that at the time those efits came into their possession, there was no official enquiry.

Now, there is, and DCI Redwood choose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to unveil it.

These e-fits were not in the possession of the Portuguese or British police!!!!

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2013, 08:29:46 PM »
These e-fits were not in the possession of the Portuguese or British police!!!!
We all know that neither the PJ nor the LC nor SY knew those e-fits that however are far less informative than the feeling of Martin Smith and his wife (a Mr McCann lookalike).
We also know that Mr Amaral found Smithman was crucial and that it took 6 years to the UK police (LC then SY) to be interested themselves.
But finally they did get there, brilliant !

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2013, 09:30:15 PM »
The McCanns are not the police.

They had no authority to release the efit.

You might be close there, if you replaced authority with advice (from the lawyers).

Mitchell's press conference was just a piece of theatre. Nobody took his e-fit seriously so nobody worried about the possible repercussions of releasing it. It's different with Smithman.

Offline Carana

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2013, 09:52:12 PM »
We all know that neither the PJ nor the LC nor SY knew those e-fits that however are far less informative than the feeling of Martin Smith and his wife (a Mr McCann lookalike).
We also know that Mr Amaral found Smithman was crucial and that it took 6 years to the UK police (LC then SY) to be interested themselves.
But finally they did get there, brilliant !

Do you have any idea why the night crèche records don't seem to have been checked back in May 07?

Offline Angelo222

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2013, 10:07:46 PM »
The key sentence from the article in The Times:

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

The efits were not withheld.

Where's the problem?


I don't know where you got that quote ferryman but it certainly does not appear in the Sunday Times article.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2013, 10:08:13 PM »
Sunday Times - paper edition 27 October 2013

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years



                                   

  Madeleine disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in the
                                        Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on 3rd May 2007



THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

But the trail was left to go cold for five years because the McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged the contents.

The report, seen by the Sunday Times, called for the E-Fits to be released immediately and said "anomalies" in statements by the McCanns and their friends must be resolved.

A source close to the McCanns said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

[Page 4]

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports

The team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

It was the spring of 2008, 10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public.

Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.


"The report questioned 'anomalies' in the McCanns' statements"


The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

Investigators had E-Fits five years ago

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

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.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert


www.themaddiecasefiles.com/post273258.html#p273258
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 12:22:28 AM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2013, 10:20:55 PM »
Let's see.

The efits were in the possession of the police (Portuguese and UK) years before the Crimewatch programme.

So the question is: why did they not release it?

The most likely answer is that at the time those efits came into their possession, there was no official enquiry.

Now, there is, and DCI Redwood choose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to unveil it.

SY had to approach the fund to ask if they would give Exton  permission to hand over the report and efits, ie once the review had begun. If the report and e-fits had been given to the PJ they would have been in the file handed to SY.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2013, 11:49:19 PM »
Piffle

"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"

To think they would pass up on probably their best chance of finding her for the last 5 years for some sort of investigation operational tactics is just total nonsense.

The charge of using a KGB word like 'suppressed' was not directed at anyone specifically, Wonderfulspam. It was a response to its previous use on these threads, along with words like 'withheld'.

The point is that the situation is not an either/or between leaving out important evidence and deciding on operational tactics. Deciding what to put in and when, and what to leave out, IS operational tactics - tactics which the McCanns and police believe will assist in their investigation.

 

 
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 11:51:56 PM by Sherlock Holmes »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2013, 11:54:58 PM »
Do you have any idea why the night crèche records don't seem to have been checked back in May 07?
Have you ?
I've an idea that the PJ had many sightings to check : on the 4th of May only
Lagos, Albufeira, Viseu, Condeixa-a-Nova, Coimbra, Odemira, Vila Nova de Gaia, Alvor, Lisbonne, Coruche, Alcochete, Leiria, Quarteira, Ourique, Marinha Grande, Valença, Peniche, Sintra, in a flight Faro-Gatwick, Amsterdam et Weymouth (Dorset).
I've an idea they hardly could think that Tannerman was a Crecheman as he didn't seem to come from there... 
A intriguing and logical point that SY avoided.

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2013, 11:57:44 PM »
Have you ?
I've an idea that the PJ had many sightings to check : on the 4th of May only
Lagos, Albufeira, Viseu, Condeixa-a-Nova, Coimbra, Odemira, Vila Nova de Gaia, Alvor, Lisbonne, Coruche, Alcochete, Leiria, Quarteira, Ourique, Marinha Grande, Valença, Peniche, Sintra, in a flight Faro-Gatwick, Amsterdam et Weymouth (Dorset).
I've an idea they hardly could think that Tannerman was a Crecheman as he didn't seem to come from there... 
A intriguing and logical point that SY avoided.

It's some litany.

But what detective begins far from the scene of the crime and works backwards?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 12:05:42 AM by Sherlock Holmes »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2013, 11:59:03 PM »

I don't know where you got that quote ferryman but it certainly does not appear in the Sunday Times article.
You don't know ?
 ?{)(**

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2013, 12:06:03 AM »

What detective begins far from the scene of the crime and works backwards?
What kind of police officer checks a night creche before sightings of a child, if the suspect, sighted, comes from the opposite direction and if nothing indicates a father using the creche could be an abductor ?

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2013, 12:09:13 AM »
Woe is me
Then
it's some litany
What do you mean ?
Would you like the list of the sightings of the following days ?