Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?

[G-Unit]

Scotland Yard chose the moment to release the Smith efits, not the McCanns.

The McCanns just handed them on to Scotland Yard.

If you have a beef, direct it against Scotland Yard.

The McCanns had them in November 2008. They hung onto them and handed them to SY in 2011 (although the Oakley people said SY approached them for the e-fits and report, which is strange if they already had them)

The McCanns didn't need to wait, they could have released them when they got them.

[G-Unit]

Sorry, I don't follow.

Many contracts include a confidentiality clause.

Whatever contract existed was with Oakley International, which ended in September 2008. There's no reason to believe that the contract was binding on sub-contractors, and it was they who handed over the report and e-fits in November 2008. Hence the legal threat.

[Miss Taken Identity]

...And we don't know if that damming report, the one not very favorable of the parents account, was done accuratly by vigerous investigation or coincidences were matched up to make a real  theory, sometimes it can be the little fish that catches the big fish as it swims towards a fishing net...

[mercury]

"they" is vague it could mean 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 person who was sitting on.

well, that doesn't really get us anywhere, I suppose we will have to just not know who exactly did not think it was a good idea to give efits of a man  seen carrying a 4 yr old blonde shoeless pyjama clad child on the night MM went missing and within the timeframe....a stone not turned IMO

[faithlilly]

In January 2008 there was a live and on-going police enquiry (finally shelved in August 2008).

When the Smith efits were produced, there was none.

Publication of the efits had to wait until there was a police enquiry to justify publication.

That's how police enquiries work (at least in England).

I dispute that. Do you have a cite ?

[G-Unit]

well, that doesn't really get us anywhere, I suppose we will have to just not know who exactly did not think it was a good idea to give efits of a man  seen carrying a 4 yr old blonde shoeless pyjama clad child on the night MM went missing and within the timeframe....a stone not turned IMO

Then along came DCI Redwood. He squashed Tannerman, the star of the show for six years and lifted the stone lying on top of the Smithman e-fits. I wonder if anything interesting crawled out?

[ferryman]

The McCanns had them in November 2008. They hung onto them and handed them to SY in 2011 (although the Oakley people said SY approached them for the e-fits and report, which is strange if they already had them)

The McCanns didn't need to wait, they could have released them when they got them.

Is there a cite for when Scotland Yard were handed the efits?

[faithlilly]

Then along came DCI Redwood. He squashed Tannerman, the star of the show for six years and lifted the stone lying on top of the Smithman e-fits. I wonder if anything interesting crawled out?

Certainly not a sense of embarrassment !

The McCanns included the Smith sighting in Madeleine Was Here. They not only had the Smith's statement but a clear efit of what the alleged abductor looked like yet they included one and excluded, it could be argued, the most important piece of evidence. That simply beggars belief.

[mercury]

Then along came DCI Redwood. He squashed Tannerman, the star of the show for six years and lifted the stone lying on top of the Smithman e-fits. I wonder if anything interesting crawled out?

One has to question the UK LP, they were told very early on by crèche man if we are to believe newspaper reports that  he was around that time carrying a small child and they seemingly did nothing.....

As to what crawled out...the Sunday Times Insight report I suppose.....

[faithlilly]

Is there a cite for when Scotland Yard were handed the efits?

Don't deflect ferryman. You said the UK police handle the use of efits in a certain way, prove it ?

[G-Unit]

Is there a cite for when Scotland Yard were handed the efits?

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

[mercury]

Certainly not a sense of embarrassment !

The McCanns included the Smith sighting in Madeleine Was Here. They not only had the Smith's statement but a clear efit of what the alleged abductor looked like yet they included one and excluded, it could be argued, the most important piece of evidence. That simply beggars belief.

Pegasus thinks some PR  or other advisor may have stopped them doing it....not sure why...yes it does beggar belief.....it really does when you think of all the media the mccanns commanded, there was nothing illegal afaiaw in them using the smith efits in 2008 and beyond....god knows dozens of pics and efits of all sorts were splashed all over for years by them and others...NONE of them as close in proximity or time to these ones,

[pathfinder73]

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

"HE 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."

[mercury]

Why did SY need permission from the fund to access the report and efits in 2011  if the mccanns had already passed it to the LP in 2009... ? Honest question

[G-Unit]

Why did SY need permission from the fund to access the report and efits in 2011  if the mccanns had already passed it to the LP in 2009... ? Honest question

It says the e-fits were passed to LP and the PJ in 2009, not the report. It also says the report and the e-fits were passed to SY in 2011. It doesn't say who by, it could have been the Oakley investigators after the authorisation letter was obtained from the Fund. If the Fund/McCanns passed them to SY there would have been no need for SY to ask the Oakley investigators for it.