Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Lyall]

This is a clip from the telegraph article


Now the later sighting is being taken seriously. While DCI Redwood stressed that it could be a yet another innocent holidaymaker carrying his child, it is the key public line of inquiry, if only because of the absence of anything else. Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago."


its not me its from an article in the telegraph

That's probably the same man speaking who held up other efits in front of the cameras on at least two occasions.

So why those but not the 10pm sighting ones? >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

This is a clip from the telegraph article


Now the later sighting is being taken seriously. While DCI Redwood stressed that it could be a yet another innocent holidaymaker carrying his child, it is the key public line of inquiry, if only because of the absence of anything else. Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago."


its not me its from an article in the telegraph

It's actually from  'one source close to the McCann investigation'   

Who is that then  ?   ...  Clarence Mitchell  ?   ...   and why brief anonymously if the claim is true  ?

[Mr Gray]

It's actually from  'one source close to the McCann investigation'   

Who is that then  ?   ...  Clarence Mitchell  ?   ...   and why brief anonymously if the claim is true  ?

 Its in a well respected newspaper so it has about as much credibility as the article in the times that started this thread. When you want to take your "facts" from newspaper articles then the conclusions you reach may be totally false.

[Mr Gray]

The source close to the investigation being who? The known spin person they contracted for 70k to deplete all the real news in favour of constructed lies?!

So, the Met had the "important" e-fits, that could help find a live child and yet they chose to sit on them for 2 years?!!!!

At least the PJ final report was more inclined for a death than for an abduction, so time was not so important, but the Scotland Yard assumingly is looking for an abducted child that can be alive - what justifies it siding the suppression of information for 2 years?!

 
it looks like you need to ask the pj why it was supressed

[Benice]

Brilliant, blame the PJ. 


You never let me down 

P.S. It's a shame that nobody believes the McCann anymore.

Really?   Is that why SY have said they are not suspects or even persons of interest in this case and are looking for an abductor? 

[Albertini]

  mCCannns say they gave the efits to the pj...so perhaps the pj sat on them

Or given the PJ offically denied it, perhaps, shock horror, Mitchell lied.

Note Mr Mitchell did not claim in the ST article, which came out AFTER the PJ denied receiving them on C4, that they had been passed on to the PJ.

Why do you think that is?

[Luz]

Or given the PJ offically denied it, perhaps, shock horror, Mitchell lied.

Note Mr Mitchell did not claim in the ST article, which came out AFTER the PJ denied receiving them on C4, that they had been passed on to the PJ.

Why do you think that is?

It's the old "spin" strategy: try to put out a lie and see if it passes on, if not just let it rest.

[Albertini]

That's probably the same man speaking who held up other efits in front of the cameras on at least two occasions.

So why those but not the 10pm sighting ones? >@@(*&)

There is no probability about it. Mitchell is their spokesperson, so any quote emanating from the McCann's or a source close to the McCann's comes from Mitchell.

Note his two headed approach, often in the same article or piece, where he gives an on the record quote to say the dignified bit, but then gives a quote as "a source close" to the Mccann's to lay the boot in.

Just like he did in that piece about the PJ not co-operating with SY.

Utterly odious.

[Mr Gray]

Or given the PJ offically denied it, perhaps, shock horror, Mitchell lied.

Note Mr Mitchell did not claim in the ST article, which came out AFTER the PJ denied receiving them on C4, that they had been passed on to the PJ.

Why do you think that is?

 wheres your source for PJ denied it....

[Albertini]

It's actually from  'one source close to the McCann investigation'   

Who is that then  ?   ...  Clarence Mitchell  ?   ...   and why brief anonymously if the claim is true  ?

Dead simple. That was a known lie by Mitchell as the PJ attested. Yet had he put his official name to it then that kind of lie can come back to bite him on the backside.

By quoting off the record as a "source" he has deniability when the brown stuff hits the fan.  See my previous post.

It is thoroughly manipulative and repulsive paid lying.

[Mr Gray]

Dead simple. That was a known lie by Mitchell as the PJ attested. Yet had he put his official name to it then that kind of lie can come back to bite him on the backside.

By quoting off the record as a "source" he has deniability when the brown stuff hits the fan.  See my previous post.

It is thoroughly manipulative and repulsive paid lying.

Whers your source for the pj officially denied it

[Wonderfulspam]

Its in a well respected newspaper so it has about as much credibility as the article in the times that started this thread. When you want to take your "facts" from newspaper articles then the conclusions you reach may be totally false.

"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"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2760.0

And then after the efits were released the Portuguese investigation reopened because a dead black guy with a fear of employment tribunals might have snatched Maddie.

[Mr Gray]

Or given the PJ offically denied it, perhaps, shock horror, Mitchell lied.

Note Mr Mitchell did not claim in the ST article, which came out AFTER the PJ denied receiving them on C4, that they had been passed on to the PJ.

Why do you think that is?

 you say Mitchell lied...wheres your source for the official denial by the pj..perhaps Mitchell is not the one lying

[Benice]

There is no probability about it. Mitchell is their spokesperson, so any quote emanating from the McCann's or a source close to the McCann's comes from Mitchell.Note his two headed approach, often in the same article or piece, where he gives an on the record quote to say the dignified bit, but then gives a quote as "a source close" to the Mccann's to lay the boot in.

Just like he did in that piece about the PJ not co-operating with SY.

Utterly odious.

Pure speculation.    There are numerous people who can be described as 'close to the McCanns'

Any time the word 'source' is used in an article - I immediately question its credibility.    It's a common ploy often used to bulk out articles with material for which they have no real source.

[Luz]

"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"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2760.0

And then after the efits were released the Portuguese investigation reopened because a dead black guy with a fear of employment tribunals might have snatched Maddie.

It's amazing isn't it?! Five years. And the McCann want us to believe that their daughter is alive when they couldn't care to have that report investigated!

The PJ doesn't have to deny anything, it's common knowledge that the McCann, from the start, contracted PIs to attempt to divert the official police investigation. The only information they gave to the PJ were e-mails from cucoo   psychics.

The insinuation that the McCann gave this report or/and e-fits to the PJ is the same sort of strategy (it is in the same BS category) used by their portuguese lawyer after the first trial against Amaral, when she implied there were 195 sightings that had not been investigated. Then, like now, nobody ever heard about those allegations again...Liar, liar, pants on fire.