Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[AnneGuedes]

Never mind, Mr Exton and MI5, James Murray has got NATO on the case

Ouah !
I bought Ashton's book to-day, didn't feel like buying the defence attorney's after what he said about... you know !

[Lyall]

Ouah !
I bought Ashton's book to-day, didn't feel like buying the defence attorney's after what he said about... you know !

Good call, Anne.

[ferryman]

Is that supposed to be a serious and logical explanation ?

Delete the word supposed and you're there.

[Mr Gray]

Considering Smith said he did not see the mans face...considering a quote from smith saying he refused to help make an e fit in jan 08...does anyone know when these efits were made.  Al these claims due to one article in the ST which has been removed fro a company led by a jailed fraudster

[Cariad]

Alright, lets assume for a minute that the Mccanns didn't have access to the E-fits for whatever reason. They'd been withheld due to none payment by whatisface, or they'd handed over all copies to various police forces*. Why then didn't they try to get more copies when they are faced with someone else suppressing them?

They were happy to take LC to court to try to get access to information about the investigation after all. These were E-fits which their own fund had paid for. Why weren't they shouting on top of their voices that someone else was suppressing vital information that could lead to Madeleine being found?

Even if they didn't think the E-fits were likely to be of the abductor, as someone (davel?) pointed out on a different thread the other day, you grasp at straws when your child has been abducted, you try anything. They released other e-fits, so the argument that they didn't have the authority does hold water. I can't see a legitimate  reason for these e-fits not being published.

*I haven't seen a reliable source for these ever being handed to a police force.

[ferryman]

Considering Smith said he did not see the mans face...considering a quote from smith saying he refused to help make an e fit in jan 08...does anyone know when these efits were made.  Al these claims due to one article in the ST which has been removed fro a company led by a jailed fraudster

Mr Smith said (apparently!) that he didn't believe he would recognise the man again from photographs.

That was a remarkably fine e-fit ...

Martin Smith's statement 26 May:

— States that it is not possible for him [Mr Smith] to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

[Mr Gray]

That would be a convincing argument if the e-fits didn't actually exist and were just rumoured to exist. The fact is however that they do exist and according to Exton they are the same e-fits from his original investigation.

Exton is not a jailed fraudster and it is his claim not Halligan's.

When were the e fits made

[Wonderfulspam]

When were the e fits made

2008 apparently.

[ferryman]

When were the e fits made

This is from Mr Smith's statement dated 30th January 2008:

He [Mr Smith] has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

So, Mr Smith assisted in the production of this efit after the end of January 2008.

[ferryman]

Well given that Oakley was appointed after then they have clearly been more successful than the tabloids in gaining Smith's trust.

After the enquiry that exonerated the McCanns had been shelved.

That's why the efits didn't surface until the crimewatch programme

[Mr Gray]

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.

So why didn't rebelo follow it up

[icabodcrane]

The question I asked in to op was not,  "Why did the McCanns suppress the e fits ?"

It was,  "Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?"

...  they  did  reject it, afterall,  didn't they  ? 

What reasoning could they have applied when rejecting his expert advice that Jane Tanner's witness statement was unreliable,  and that the Smith sighting should be prioritised  ? 

What reason could there be  for the McCanns  to ignore that advice,  and continue  (  for years )  to insist  that they believed it was Jane who  'saw' the abductor  ? 

Why would they do that  ?   

[Mr Gray]

The question I asked in to op was not,  "Why did the McCanns suppress the e fits ?"

It was,  "Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?"

...  they  did  reject it, afterall,  didn't they  ? 

What reasoning could they have applied when rejecting his expert advice that Jane Tanner's witness statement was unreliable,  and that the Smith sighting should be prioritised  ? 

What reason could there be  for the McCanns  to ignore that advice,  and continue  (  for years )  to insist  that they believed it was Jane who  'saw' the abductor  ? 

Why would they do that  ?

because the pj had been so incompetent as to not identify tannerman as sy have done

[icabodcrane]

because the pj had been so incompetent as to not identify tannerman as sy have done

That does not answer the question I posed davel

When  the McCanns continued to prioritise  Jane Tanner's sighting,  they did it against the advice of  Henri Exton

Why  ?

Why did they reject his expertise  ?  (  with which Scotland Yard now concur, by the way  )

[Lyall]

because the pj had been so incompetent as to not identify tannerman as sy have done

Thing is davel, they aren't Madeleine's parents. One of the reasons why people were so suspicious, and so critical of those defending them like yourself, is that they, and their defenders, appeared to behave more like politicians, or chess players.