No abduction? So what if the e-fits were suppressed for 5 years ?

[Admin]

Unfortunately, due to a data file corruption it has proved necessary to restart this thread.  Apologies to Aoife and to those members who had already commented before the thread went off topic.

Basically, many members are of the opinion that no abduction occurred.

Aoife merely pointed out if that is the case then the alleged suppression of e-fits for five years is somewhat irrelevant.

Comments please...

[Redblossom]

Not  irrelevant, just some mind game by imuspointout who started the original thread IMO


It doesnt matter one jot if anyone thinks there was no abduction....the crux is....it was reported and pushed as such  for years and information being asked for, various other efits being issued, some irrelevant, appeals, etc etc, ergo any evidence kept back is relevant from that angle, all this was explained by various posters in numerous ways, tbh the thread had just become groundhog day, I shant miss it....nor  shall I be posting on this thread again,pointless...underlying it is the mccanns credibility, and this is being amply covered by the oakley thread, no need for this spin off one IMO, that one can encompass this "question" which IMO was only set up to undermine the bombshell that was the times insight investigative team reporting in the Times article....IMO, all the rest is blah blah spin and trickery

 >@@(*&)

[imustpointout]

Not  irrelevant, just some mind game by imuspointout who started the original thread IMO


It doesnt matter one jot if anyone thinks there was no abduction....the crux is....it was reported and pushed as such  for years and information being asked for, various other efits being issued, some irrelevant, appeals, etc etc, ergo any evidence kept back is relevant from that angle, all this was explained by various posters in numerous ways, tbh the thread had just become groundhog day, I shant miss it....nor  shall I be posting on this thread again,pointless

yes - you were one of the first to prove that you didn't understand the point. You have conveniently done it again.

This thread is not the same as my thread and I won't bother posting on it again.

[pathfinder73]

Thank you. Same as Red my lost post- along these lines. It doesn't matter if it was an abduction or not. The man seen carrying the cold sleeping child in his arms has to be identified. If the efits were released in 2008 then important eye witnesses may have come forward. That man has never came forward and his silence speaks volumes!

[Cariad]

Red, Pathfinder and Openminded have covered it I think. I agree with every said.

[Apostate]

The main issue it is the McCanns that have always insisted there was an abduction -  it's even in the "constitution" of the Fund - and they will hear of no other explanation. Yet it is they who seem to have suppressed information about a potential abductor. Suspicious doesn't even begin to describe such behaviour.

[AnneGuedes]

They know better. Isn't Madeleine their daughter ? Aren't they aware of what she would do or do not ? Haven't they found the shutters and the window and the curtains wide open ? Weren't they proclaimed responsible parents ? How can people shamefully doubt them ?
Why should they spread unhelpful elements like two contradictory e-fits ? Wasn't it enough to loose time running behind an innocent man whom the incompetent PJ wasn't able to unmask?

[Aegean]

The answer to this is so obvious, it's almost embarrasing that some people are using this as a way to "catch out" the "[ censored word]".

If there was no abduction the reason the efits were suppressed is because they are of Gerry. The efits resemble him and the witnesses who gave the evidence for the efits thought it was possible the man could be Gerry.

If there was an abduction, then the efits were suppressed because… they resemble Gerry. Perhaps the McCanns feared that efits and witness sightings of a man who resembled Gerry, carrying a sleeping child that resembled Madeleine towards the beach would only strengthen the suspicions that somehow the parents were reponsible.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The answer to this is so obvious, it's almost embarrasing that some people are using this as a way to "catch out" the "[ censored word]".

If there was no abduction the reason the efits were suppressed is because they are of Gerry. The efits resemble him and the witnesses who gave the evidence for the efits thought it was possible the man could be Gerry.

If there was an abduction, then the efits were suppressed because… they resemble Gerry. Perhaps the McCanns feared that efits and witness sightings of a man who resembled Gerry, carrying a sleeping child that resembled Madeleine towards the beach would only strengthen the suspicions that somehow the parents were reponsible.

Do the efits resemble Gerry?

If so, why would SY be releasing them?

[jassi]

They have a passing resemblance, as they must do to countless thousands of other men.
I don't think you can use these images to positively identify anyone, merely to bring people into view, so that the police can then investigate the likelihood of being involved.

[AnneGuedes]

Do the efits resemble Gerry?

If so, why would SY be releasing them?

They don't, SY. But imagine Smithman was Mr McCann, don't you think he would fear somebody finds one of the e-fits is resembling ? And they hardly could suppress the other e-fit, it would have given second thoughts to the main witness.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They don't, SY. But imagine Smithman was Mr McCann, don't you think he would fear somebody finds one of the e-fits is resembling ? And they hardly could suppress the other e-fit, it would have given second thoughts to the main witness.

If the e-fit(s) resembled Gerry McCann in 2007, then presumably they still resemble him today (give or take minor changes in Gerry's appearance since then).

Though the two e-fits look completely different - quite an achievement in artistic terms, given their banality -  so how Gerry (or anyone else for that matter) could be framed given that one contradicts the other makes no sense.

In fact the release of two contradictory pictures makes no sense in the first place, but that's another thread...

[Apostate]

the point is they weren't released

[AnneGuedes]

If the e-fit(s) resembled Gerry McCann in 2007, then presumably they still resemble him today (give or take minor changes in Gerry's appearance since then).

Though the two e-fits look completely different - quite an achievement in artistic terms, given their banality -  so how Gerry (or anyone else for that matter) could be framed given that one contradicts the other makes no sense.

In fact the release of two contradictory pictures makes no sense in the first place, but that's another thread...

Their contradictory aspect has been denounced immediately. I'm afraid no reasonable answer to the mystery of the e-fits' concealment is possible as long as we don't know first in which conditions they were done. Mr Smith stated to the Gardai that he refused Mr Kennedy's request of them. Did another member of the family accept ? Who ? Mr Smith Jr said he hardly looked at Smithman because he was worried about his pregnant wife. Aoife ? I doubt very much that her father would allow her to do that (she was a minor).

[Sherlock Holmes]

the point is they weren't released

Yes, but what Gerry had to fear in releasing them is questionable.

His presence in the OC area at the time of the Smith sighting is well-founded.