Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Carana]

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.

Where did Exton, as opposed to an unnamed investigator, actually say that?

The only quote attributable to Exton that I can find in that article is:

[Exton] said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

[Carana]

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  ?

Did they?

[Lyall]

Where did Exton, as opposed to an unnamed investigator, actually say that?

The only quote attributable to Exton that I can find in that article is:

[Exton] said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

The investigator told a Sunday newspaper: ‘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.’

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

[Carana]

The investigator told a Sunday newspaper: ‘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.’

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

The original ST "scoop" states:

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.

Who was this?

[icabodcrane]

Did they?

Exton advised that Jane Tanner's witness statement was unreliable and that the Smith sighting should be prioritised

....   Do you  think the McCanns followed that advice  ? 

[Lyall]

The original ST "scoop" states:

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.

Who was this?

I can't answer that. >@@(*&)

[Montclair]

After the enquiry that exonerated the McCanns had been shelved.

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

What inquiry? And the McCanns have NEVER been exonerated. So please, stop saying it. You seem to think that if you repeat something over and over again it will become true.

[pinkblossoms]

What inquiry? And the McCanns have NEVER been exonerated. So please, stop saying it. You seem to think that if you repeat something over and over again it will become true.

They are no longer suspects,which part of that can you not get a grip of.
  8-)(--)

[Carana]

Exton advised that Jane Tanner's witness statement was unreliable and that the Smith sighting should be prioritised

....   Do you  think the McCanns followed that advice  ?

Could you show me where Exton is quoted as having said that?

[Carana]

Who said it does nothing to diminish the fact that it was part of the investigation commissioned by the McCann's in 2008. It does nothing to diminish the fact that this e-fit was subsequently presented to the McCann's as part of that investigation in 2008. It does nothing to diminish the fact that after the McCann's promising "As I have stated many times, someone has a key bit of information that can unlock this frustratingly difficult and painful situation." and "Every piece of information is important to us." they then failed and still fail to this day bother publishing the e-fit on their own Find Madeleine website. Finally, it does nothing to diminish the fact that this information which is at this moment in time considered so important to SY was paid for by donations given to the McCann's with the sole intention of finding Madeleine.

Can you seriously not see how the McCann's treating the e-fit with this much disregard and then only going along with the e-fit once SY discover it and force it into the open is not suspicious behaviour?

The reason the McCann's take so much of a bashing is because there is a constant supply of suspicious behaviour which emanates from them. It's like fighting off a swarm of wasps...once one episode of suspicious behaviour is dealt with another one very quickly appears!

Why is it so wrong to question suspicious behaviour?

Posters were citing Exton as being the source. So far, I haven't found anything that could attribute the allegations to him.

Who, then, was the source of these "facts"?

[icabodcrane]

Posters were citing Exton as being the source. So far, I haven't found anything that could attribute the allegations to him.

Who, then, was the source of these "facts"?

Carana,  Henri Exton  was  named as a source by the Sunday Times  ...   why do you doubt it ? 

[Mr Gray]

Carana,  Henri Exton  was  named as a source by the Sunday Times  ...   why do you doubt it ?

the article which has now been removed

[Mr Gray]

I see no more reason to take the ST article as being 100% correct as taking the latest express article as 100% correct. One thing I have learnt is that we should not believe everything we read in the press...it seems some posters haven't learnt this

[Carana]

One of the team of investigators. It could be Exton. It could be another colleague but it was one of the team of investigators. It was Exton's investigation.

If we can generalize the information give by SY as coming from SY rather than naming each and every detective involved then why in this instance can it not be generalized as Exton's expertise?

I understand that "sources" can't always be identified for various reasons. I don't have a problem with that, if anonymity is in the public interest and not used to either invent a "source" or use one who may not actually be credible. 

If Exton is not the anonymous investigator in question, Exton may well object to the content of the article, as at least several posters assume that he was the source for allegations. For the moment, all I can deduce is that he replied to an apparently innocent question. Nothing more, so far.

[Carana]

Carana,  Henri Exton  was  named as a source by the Sunday Times  ...   why do you doubt it ?

Yes, I'm aware of that, but only on one comment, which is nothing more than a statement of fact concerning what would seem to be a confirmation of a confidentiality agreement. Have you found anything else?