Author Topic: The Sunday Times Apologises...yet e-fits withheld from public view for 5 years?  (Read 32484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sadie

I don't know which month, but that's of little relevance.

Numerous sources - as WS says - and crucially no source says it wasn't 2008.
No source says it wasn't 2008 ?

Great logic for then saying that it WAS 2008, aint it?

Jeez, you guys have the strangest thinking processes at times

Lyall

  • Guest
No source says it wasn't 2008 ?

Great logic for then saying that it WAS 2008, aint it?

Jeez, you guys have the strangest thinking processes at times

They were produced by the PD's who finished their work for TM/The Fund before the end of 2008, so that surely dates it.

Good enough for me until someone goes on the record to say otherwise, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen - that's not how TM has ever worked. Between PR efforts they say nothing.

Offline pathfinder73

"We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it."

Hmmm still trying to get that bold point as fact! You have done your homework but this sighting happened after you had reported Madeleine to be missing. I like to get my facts right. Let me finish this off for you in your book "Who was this man? He was seen carrying a child who's description of matched Madeleine and of a similar age. This man could well be our daughter's abductor. Please look at the efits in this book and if anyone remembers seeing him then please contact the police with the relevant information."
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:06:22 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Victoria

"We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it."

Hmmm still trying to get that bold point as fact! You have done your homework but this sighting happened after you had reported Madeleine to be missing. I like to get my facts right. Let me finish this off for you in your book "Who was this man? He was seen carrying a child who's description of matched Madeleine and was of a similar age. This man could well be our daughter's abductor. Please look at the efits in this book and if anyone remembers seeing him then please contact the police with the relevant information."

The bit you have in bold is ambiguous. It could refer to either the first or second sighting. In any event, your post seems largely irrelevant.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:06:02 PM by Victoria »

Offline John

Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and weren't been seen in public for 5 years.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:12:37 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Victoria

Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and weren't been seen in public for 5 years.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI

The Times said the same and had to apologise (and probably pay compensation). Channel 4 may very well be next to have to do so.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:13:47 PM by John »

Offline pathfinder73

The bit you have in bold is ambiguous. It could refer to either the first or second sighting. In any event, your post seems largely irrelevant.

That is the Smith family sighting which was the second one and no efits are featured in the 2012 book version. It's very smart pointing out that this sighting happened before Madeleine was reported to be missing because it puts everyone at the tapas bar (their alibi) and therefore not a suspect. That  very important fact in this case doesn't fool everyone as the sighting happened after Madeleine was reported to be missing. Getting an important fact right can change a lot - from not being a suspect to now being one!
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:25:19 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Lyall

  • Guest
The Times said the same and had to apologise (and probably pay compensation). Channel 4 may very well be next to have to do so.

Well that's how you know the efits were produced in 2008 - the Sunday Times correction didn't correct that fact.

Offline Mr Gray

Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and withheld for 5 years.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI

and where did they get there information from?

Offline John

and where did they get there information from?

Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme,  the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.

Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:18:05 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme,  the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.

Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?

so NO accusation of them being supressed

Offline John

so NO accusation of them being supressed

Isn't suppressed the direct opposite of promoted?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Lyall

  • Guest
Davel's like a dog with a bone 8)--))

Offline Mr Gray

Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme,  the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.

Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?

Doesn't say where they were for 5 years....could have been in a drawer in the pjs office

Offline Victoria

Isn't suppressed the direct opposite of promoted?

The PJ and the Leicestershire force also ' suppressed' this information then, by that definition. Look, the McCanns passed it to the authorities in two countries. Claiming the McCanns suppressed the information is clearly spin.