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

[mercury]

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.

Well, it's all bloody ridiculous, all info should have been passed to any police involved at the time of anything end of IMO


It is a fact though that previous suspects were withholding evidence then.....in a way...and commanding when go divulge, chose which way to suit I suppose to make it so or not so!!

Unbelievable

[ferryman]

The report should have been burnt.

It is irrelevant.

[jassi]

The report should have been burnt.

It is irrelevant.

Sorry, lost track - what report do you mean?

[G-Unit]

The report should have been burnt.

It is irrelevant.

I wonder why the Met wanted it then? Enough to ask Oakley's investigators for it and when refused to go to the trouble of getting a letter from the Fund authorising them to be given it?

[Carana]

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 doesn't make much sense to me. I'm wondering how much of that ST article was actually true.

[G-Unit]

It doesn't make much sense to me. I'm wondering how much of that ST article was actually true.

It makes perfect sense to me. Had the article been completely untrue the McCanns would have said so loud and clear. They didn't.

[Brietta]

It doesn't make much sense to me. I'm wondering how much of that ST article was actually true.

I would imagine not a lot.  If there had been any substance at all the ST would not have rolled over and paid up.  They didn't even put up a token resistance.

[mercury]

It doesn't make much sense to me. I'm wondering how much of that ST article was actually true.

All of it BAR the investigative journalists not knowing that the efits were passed on to uk and pt police a year after they were produced.....something Oakley wouldn't have known either.....they just surfaced five years later so understandable for the original headline

[pegasus]

If SY hadn't obtained the 2 smithsighting efits made years before, would those 2 efits ever have been released? If so, by who?

[mercury]

If SY hadn't obtained the 2 smithsighting efits made years before, would those 2 efits ever have been released? If so, by who?

Mccanns and/or advisers" not top of that list IMO

[pegasus]

Mccanns and/or advisers" not top of that list IMO

Hopefully no-one is claiming that the only reason the efits were ever released is because SY forced a certain "fund" to remove the legal blockage which prevented their release?

[misty]

Hopefully no-one is claiming that the only reason the efits were ever released is because SY forced a certain "fund" to remove the legal blockage which prevented their release?

Maybe there were copyright issues?

[mercury]

Maybe there were copyright issues?

Yeah like any sane person is going to worry about bloody  "copyright" where a child's life is at stake, steady on misty

[Brietta]

If SY hadn't obtained the 2 smithsighting efits made years before, would those 2 efits ever have been released? If so, by who?

Where is the 'Smith' provenance?

All of the three statements in the public domain state categorically that they were unable to describe the features of the carrier.

If any other member of the family had had such a good look and recall to provide images months after the event ... the question arises of why they did not do so at the time?

How much was it that was defrauded by the alleged source for the efits charging for work which wasn't carried out ... £300,000 if I remember correctly ... a lot anyway.
So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source?

I can't think of one.

We have no idea of the circumstances in which SY decided these efits were worth publicising.  It won't have been done lightly, and who is to say whether or not they  have fulfilled their function.
No doubt we shall be informed in the fullness of time.

[blonk]

Where is the 'Smith' provenance?

All of the three statements in the public domain state categorically that they were unable to describe the features of the carrier.

If any other member of the family had had such a good look and recall to provide images months after the event.. the question arises of why they did not do so at the time?

How much was it that was defrauded by the alleged source for the efits charging for work which wasn't carried out...£300,000 if I remember correctly...a lot anyway.

So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source? I can't think of one.

We have no idea of the circumstances in which SY decided these efits were worth publicising.  It won't have been done lightly, and who is to say whether or not they have fulfilled their function.

No doubt we shall be informed in the fullness of time.

Where is the 'Smith' provenance?

All of the three statements in the public domain state categorically that they were unable to describe the features of the carrier.

Agreed

If any other member of the family had had such a good look and recall to provide images months after the event ... the question arises of why they did not do so at the time?

Agreed

How much was it that was defrauded by the alleged source for the efits charging for work which wasn't carried out ... £300,000 if I remember correctly ... a lot anyway.

No. £500,000 - PLUS expenses on top

So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source? I can't think of one.

Neither can I

We have no idea of the circumstances in which SY decided these efits were worth publicising. 

Precisely - though we might go on to ask why the McCanns hired two successive parcels of rogues and criminals to look for Madeleine  - Metodo 3 followed by Oakley

It won't have been done lightly, and who is to say whether or not they have fulfilled their function. No doubt we shall be informed in the fullness of time.

I doubt it. It looks like you have more confidence in the integrity of the Met Police than I do. Hopefully tomorrow night's Panorama programme (if litigation doesn't stop it going ahead) on police corruption will inform us in more detail of the sheer scale of police corruption in the U.K. these days