Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Albertini]

You are ignoring answers already provided.

The decision to publish the efits was the police's, not the McCanns.

Correct. But the uncorrected/unretracted article clearly states that the police had to get them from Exton, and the McCann's could have released them at anytime from 2008 BEFORE the Yard began their review and investigation but chose not to, simply because the report was "hypercritical" of the McCanns.

I will repeat a question you have ignored. 

Would you be crucifying the McCanns for, themselves and independently, releasing efits actually in the possession of the police, but not released by them?

That question is not relevant given the McCann's had them before the yard investigation. They should have released them when they first received them in 2008.

I'm not crucifying them I'm saying they have placed their reputations above the search for their daughter.

[Albertini]

Doesn't their FB page say the McCanns won't be commenting on rumours and speculation (or words to that effect)?
 
 If all the above is correct then why is anyone surprised that they haven't commented on it?
 

Not quoting on rumours and speculation you say? Like this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-algarve-2859874

Portuguese police hunting for Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper are not “pulling their weight,” a source close her parents said yesterday.

Fears that tension between the country’s Policia Judiciara and Scotland Yard is mounting comes as Britain’s top cop called on the two forces to unite in a joint investigation.

The Met Police’s Bernard Hogan-Howe’s plea is “a polite but public expression of frustration", Kate and Gerry McCann’s close pal believes.

The source added: “They can’t see this ever happening else it would have happened six and a half years ago!

“It seems the PJ are not pulling their weight and are almost working against the Met!

“If Mr Hogan-Howe is at pains to stress that both investigations should run jointly, and not in parallel, it shows his frustration that the present system to find Madeleine and whoever took her is not working.”

The source added: “There are two separate agendas here. The Met recently showed on Crimewatch images of a white suspect they are looking for.

“Just two or three days later the PJ say they are hunting for a black tractor driver! It is completely contradictory to what the Met are saying!

“It seems obvious to us that the PJ are back to their old game, which is not helping the search for Madeleine.”

Heart specialist Gerry and former GP wife Kate, both 45, of Rothley, Leics, declined to comment while the police inquiry is ingoing.

Their spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said: “How the investigations are run is entirely a matter for both police forces to agree themselves.”

Maddie was aged nearly four when she vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007.



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-algarve-2859874#ixzz2nZmqXwZq
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

[ferryman]

Correct. But the uncorrected/unretracted article clearly states that the police had to get them from Exton, and the McCann's could have released them at anytime from 2008 BEFORE the Yard began their review and investigation but chose not to, simply because the report was "hypercritical" of the McCanns.

That question is not relevant given the McCann's had them before the yard investigation. They should have released them when they first received them in 2008.

I'm not crucifying them I'm saying they have placed their reputations above the search for their daughter.

The article now on the Times site, written by Domonic Kenedy, says no such thing.

[ferryman]

Correct. But the uncorrected/unretracted article clearly states that the police had to get them from Exton, and the McCann's could have released them at anytime from 2008 BEFORE the Yard began their review and investigation but chose not to, simply because the report was "hypercritical" of the McCanns.

That question is not relevant given the McCann's had them before the yard investigation. They should have released them when they first received them in 2008.

I'm not crucifying them I'm saying they have placed their reputations above the search for their daughter.

Did the article say that?

Or did the Article quote Exton as saying that?

[Albertini]

The article now on the Times site, written by Domonic Kenedy, says no such thing.

The original incorrect and unretracted ST article does. Do you want me to reprint it for you?

[ferryman]

The original incorrect and unretracted ST article does. Do you want me to reprint it for you?

Why was the original pulled?

[Mr Gray]

The original incorrect and unretracted ST article does. Do you want me to reprint it for you?

 The article by kennedy has a subtle difference and is still there.....the one by Fiona bleak has been withdrawn...FACT

[Albertini]

Did the article say that?

Or did the Article quote Exton as saying that?

No quote the insight team stated in the article::

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.

[Albertini]

Why was the original pulled?

It hasn't been retracted or corrected as far as i can see.

[Albertini]

The article by kennedy has a subtle difference and is still there.....the one by Fiona bleak has been withdrawn...FACT

Terrific can you point me to the formal correction/retraction please?

[Mr Gray]

It hasn't been retracted or corrected as far as i can see.

 Do you understand the one you are looking for...by Fiona blake   perhaps you could provide the link

[ferryman]

Sounds as if they made a meal out of standard confidentiality clauses.

As I repeat, this alleged 'muzzling' didn't stop Exton from spilling the beans to The Times.

[Lyall]

Its a newspaper article, which makes some claims but only tells part of a 'story'.

On the other hand I'm sure SY will have known ALL the related facts on that subject for a long time - and that's all that matters IMO. 
 
IIRC when it was announced the PJ would be re-opening the case the McCanns said they would not be commenting on it.      Doesn't their FB page say the McCanns won't be commenting on rumours and speculation (or words to that effect)?
 
 If all the above is correct then why is anyone surprised that they haven't commented on it?
 
It's just a newspaper article written by a couple of reporters with less than impeccable histories and with the aim of selling lots of newspapers, not a statement from SY or the PT team.

No, Benice, it was a lot more significant than that. That was the first critical article in over five years.

[Mr Gray]

Terrific can you point me to the formal correction/retraction please?

never mentioned the word formal or retraction I said it ahs been withdrawn

[Albertini]

Do you understand the one you are looking for...by Fiona blake   perhaps you could provide the link

I'm talking about the print article. Show me a formal retraction or correction either in print or online then we can talk.