The Smithman e-fits - are the McCanns less than happy with them?

[Alfred R Jones]

There is a prevailing view amongst the "sceptic" community that the McCanns are uncomfortable with the Smithman e-fits as revealed on the Crimewatch programme in October 2013.  I pointed out on another thread that the OFM FB page featured these e-fits 7 times and these posts received 75,000 shares.  There is also a button on the OFM FB page entitled "watch video" which links to the Crimewatch appeal that some "sceptics" are convinced is the McCanns least favourite programme as it features them sitting on a sofa looking uncomfortable as Redwood "decimates" JT's sighting and introduces us to the Smithman e-fits (which many sceptics are convinced look exactly like Gerry).

So what's the evidence to suggest that the McCanns actively distance themselves from the Smithman e-fits?  Let's have it here please...

[Edited slightly]

266

[Wonderfulspam]

This....

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

[Alfred R Jones]

This....

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

Right.  So the fact that their far more active FB page has given significant emphasis to the Smithman e-fits is completely outweighed by the lack of them on the tumbleweed OFM website is it...? &%+((£

[Gadfly2.1]

I no way endorse the following story, but it is interestingly linked to this thread:

CM (presumably), 28th October 2013, on a Daily Mail story entitled: 'Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed.'

"A source close to the fund said the report would have been ‘completely distracting’ if it had become public."  Written by DM journalist NS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html

[Gadfly2.1]

So at least according to the source in the Mail, we can summarise that that such a person who was the source was afraid of the investigation being 'distracting' to the pursuit of the JT sighting which Andy is now "almost certain" wasn't as it was first argued.

[Wonderfulspam]

The official tumble weed site was updated after CW, but not to add the E-fits.... funnily enough.

Instead Redwoods revelation was spun.

Fancy that.

[Alfred R Jones]

The official tumble weed site was updated after CW, but not to add the E-fits.... funnily enough.

Instead Redwoods revelation was spun.

Fancy that.

Any view on why there is a prominent link to the Crimewatch programme on the OFM Facebook page?

[G-Unit]

Any view on why there is a prominent link to the Crimewatch programme on the OFM Facebook page?

I can't see it.

[Gadfly2.1]

It isn't on the front page on Sunday 26th April 2015.

[G-Unit]

It isn't on the front page on Sunday 26th April 2015.

It's at the top on the right, it says 'watch video', but you only find out it's the Crimewatch video when you click on it.

[Alfred R Jones]

And they would choose to link to the dreaded Crimewatch programme with a permanent "watch video" button because...?

[Lyall]

There is a prevailing view amongst the "sceptic" community that the McCanns are uncomfortable with the Smithman e-fits as revealed on the Crimewatch programme in October 2013.  I pointed out on another thread that the OFM FB page featured these e-fits 7 times and these posts received 75,000 shares.  There is also a button on the OFM FB page entitled "watch video" which links to the Crimewatch appeal that some "sceptics" are convinced is the McCanns least favourite programme as it features them sitting on a sofa looking uncomfortable as Redwood "decimates" JT's sighting and introduces us to the Smithman e-fits (which many sceptics are convinced look exactly like Gerry).

So what's the evidence to suggest that the McCanns actively distance themselves from the Smithman e-fits?  Let's have it here please...

Wrong question Alfie. The right question is: Why by May 2009 had they only publicly acknowledged the family's claim once (and that single occasion was in response to newspaper publicity, it wasn't generated by M3-Mitchell).

The efits are just theatrics.

[Alfred R Jones]

Wrong question Alfie. The right question is: Why by May 2009 had they only publicly acknowledged the family's claim once (and that single occasion was in response to newspaper publicity, it wasn't generated by M3-Mitchell).

The efits are just theatrics.

Whose theatrics?

[Lyall]

Whose theatrics?

&%+((£ Mainly Redwood's I think. He had nothing else to show.

[faithlilly]

And they would choose to link to the dreaded Crimewatch programme with a permanent "watch video" button because...?

The question should be why are the efits not pinned in a prominent position at the top of the OFM FB page ? Is some cliched quote about hope really more important than the efits of a man SY say may have abducted their daughter ?