The Find Madeleine website, Tannerman & the e-fits

[Wonderfulspam]

has it occurred to you that if it was Gerry...why would  they hire investigators to get the efit drawn up in the first place...theres no logical reason

I wasn't aware they hired the investigators 'specificly' to draw up efits of Smithman.

I was under the assumption they hired them to investigate.

If those investigators did happen to consider Tanners account useless (like anyone with half a braincell) & Smithman the strongest lead then that explains why efits were made. And why, after they were made they were shut away in a private investigators file for 5 years.

[icabodcrane]

There may or may not have been a good reason.

But my post was in relation to Icabod's suggestion that the McCanns could have been clearer to us as to their intentions with regard to the e-fit saga.

So let's say the McCanns came forward and gave their account.

Would that satisfy everyone? Would we all accept their explanation?

An answer in a case like this usually just gives rise to another set of questions, so what would be the point?

The point I made was that the McCanns have,  since the very begining,  spoken out about how damaging speculation is

They must  be aware,  though,  that some of their own actions,  with no  explanation  offered,   are  bound  to provoke the very speculation they profess to abhor

You suggest that even if they  were  to be accountable for their decisions and actions  it would only serve to engender further questions

I disagree

Were the McCanns to give clear,  exact,  and unequivical  responses to the questions they  know    are being asked,  then it would almost certainly put an end to wild speculation

Coming back to the point in hand  ...  that of the McCanns removing the e fits  of the man the Smith family saw from their official website ...   you allude to there having, possibly,  been a  'good reason'  for them doing so   

Come then Sherlock,  speculate with us on what that  'good reason'  may have  been

Afterall,  by offering no explanation or reason themselves,  the McCanns have virtually  invited  us to do so

[Lyall]

because they are being displayed by SY . The  McCannns don't owe you or anyone else an explanation

No, not us. But they do the wider public if they want them to believe Madeleine could still be findable.

[Lyall]

On the subject of 'fooling people' which you raise Anne - no-one reading Amaral's book would have the slightest clue from from a single word in that book -  that he had never met or spoken to the McCanns in his life - in fact quite the opposite impression is encouraged from beginning to end. 

A perfect example of deliberately 'fooling people'  IMO.

What has whether they ever met got to do with anything?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point I made was that the McCanns have,  since the very begining,  spoken out about how damaging speculation is

They must  be aware,  though,  that some of their own actions,  with no  explanation  offered,   are  bound  to provoke the very speculation they profess to abhor

You suggest that even if they  were  to be accountable for their decisions and actions  it would only serve to engender further questions

I disagree

Were the McCanns to give clear,  exact,  and unequivical  responses to the questions they  know    are being asked,  then it would almost certainly put an end to wild speculation

Coming back to the point in hand  ...  that of the McCanns removing the e fits  of the man the Smith family saw from their official website ...   you allude to there having, possibly,  been a  'good reason'  for them doing so   

Come then Sherlock,  speculate with us on what that  'good reason'  may have  been

Afterall,  by offering no explanation or reason themselves,  the McCanns have virtually  invited  us to do so

I was actually referring in that post to the situation from the start - why the e-fits were not released in the fist place. And the whole ensuing saga.

But as to why the Smithman mugshots have been removed from the Madeleine website -  and thanks for keeping things on topic! - I personally have no idea whatsoever. It seems on the face of it like a blatant contradiction of SY and is therefore quite hard to fathom.

Should the McCanns publicly address that question? Perhaps, morally, they should. An enormous amount of money was spent on that Crimewatch episode, and our (the public's) help was sought in coming forward with information . To do something which appears to contradict the programme's main thrust would seem to demand an explanation - and leaves us with a lot to figure out for ourselves, I agree.

The reality is however that if the Mc Canns were to give another interview explaining matters, or post something on their website, it would never be the kind of explanation that we would find in any way satisfying. We would pick that post to bits.

It does look on the face of it that there are difficulties with the Smithman line of inquiry, and these are probably not the kind of things that are easy to explain.

[Carana]

has it occurred to you that if it was Gerry...why would  they hire investigators to get the efit drawn up in the first place...theres no logical reason

I've already posted on this topic.... The Smith family (three of them) went back to PdL in May 2007. Why didn't the PJ organise an e-fit, or a police artist's drawing way back then?

One reason might be that the PJ didn't have the resources to do so... but then, why didn't they request help from the UK  police / Gardai back then?

[Wonderfulspam]

The point I made was that the McCanns have,  since the very begining,  spoken out about how damaging speculation is

They must  be aware,  though,  that some of their own actions,  with no  explanation  offered,   are  bound  to provoke the very speculation they profess to abhor

You suggest that even if they  were  to be accountable for their decisions and actions  it would only serve to engender further questions

I disagree

Were the McCanns to give clear,  exact,  and unequivical  responses to the questions they  know    are being asked,  then it would almost certainly put an end to wild speculation

Coming back to the point in hand  ...  that of the McCanns removing the e fits  of the man the Smith family saw from their official website ...   you allude to there having, possibly,  been a  'good reason'  for them doing so   

Come then Sherlock,  speculate with us on what that  'good reason'  may have  been

Afterall,  by offering no explanation or reason themselves,  the McCanns have virtually  invited  us to do so

They have obviously encountered some technical difficulties when trying to display the efits within the main body of their website during the past 2 months.

But it's ok, because they managed to post a christmas message, so there is hope they might be able to resolve the technical issue in the near future.

[Carana]

No, not us. But they do the wider public if they want them to believe Madeleine could still be findable.

How do you (or myself) constitute the "wider public"?

Whether she's still alive or dead, someone who was there at the time may have something honest to contribute (whoever it was).

[Sherlock Holmes]

They have obviously encountered some technical difficulties when trying to display the efits within the main body of their website during the past 2 months.

But it's ok, because they managed to post a christmas message, so there is hope they might be able to resolve the technical issue in the near future.

Your quick-wittedness cannot be faulted, Wonderfulspam.

[Wonderfulspam]

Your quick-wittedness cannot be faulted, Wonderfulspam.

I'm afraid it really is as far as my intellect will stretch.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm afraid it really is as far as my intellect will stretch.

Modest as well

[AnneGuedes]

a young innocent beautiful child

That defines all children or the way we look at them.

[sadie]

I wasn't aware they hired the investigators 'specificly' to draw up efits of Smithman.

I was under the assumption they hired them to investigate.

If those investigators did happen to consider Tanners account useless (like anyone with half a braincell) & Smithman the strongest lead then that explains why efits were made. And why, after they were made they were shut away in a private investigators file for 5 years.

That is your opinion.  There still is no proof that Jane Tanners sighting was incorrect in any way.

Has anyone taken the time to wonder if SY have changed their minds about this man who we understand carried his child back from the Creche that way.  Maybe new evidence?

 ....   moderated  ....

[AnneGuedes]

On the subject of 'fooling people' which you raise Anne - no-one reading Amaral's book would have the slightest clue from from a single word in that book -  that he had never met or spoken to the McCanns in his life - in fact quite the opposite impression is encouraged from beginning to end. 

A perfect example of deliberately 'fooling people'  IMO.

Was it your feeling when you read the book, Benice, that GA had met the McCanns or was it not, thanks of informations that he did not ?

[AnneGuedes]

Praise be to God that your here ferryman, you really are an asset to the McCanns.

I don't think it's helping them to try and spread pure rumours.