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

[Alfred R Jones]

%£&)**# It is. But you can't blame people for wondering why they aren't on the website can you?

I do blame people for putting 2 and 2 together and arriving at 5, which so often happens in this case.  You can see for yourself that the website is more or less dormant, and that virtually ALL OFM activity now takes place on their Facebook page.  Why is that not a valid explanation for some people to grasp?

[G-Unit]

As far as I recall from the BBC Crimewatch, DCI Redwood attributed the two e-fits to the Smiths or more correctly to an Irish family who could only be the Smiths.  As it would have been standard police practise to check this out before going public, we have no reason therefore to doubt the veracity of what he stated.

It could very well be that several e-fits were attempted between the older members of the nine who met the man that night.  The two which have been revealed could very well be the best of the bundle and quite possibly not that accurate when all is taken into account.  After all, aren't both e-fits supposed to be the same man, I emphasize the word 'supposed'!

As I recall he said an Irish family saw a man with a child, but never specifically said they were the witnesses who produced the e-fits. Time for my nap now, but I'll revisit Crimewatch and check. 

[Lyall]

I do blame people for putting 2 and 2 together and arriving at 5, which so often happens in this case.  You can see for yourself that the website is more or less dormant, and that virtually ALL OFM activity now takes place on their Facebook page.  Why is that not a valid explanation for some people to grasp?

Maybe it's because they also see that the 10pm sighting was also ignored previously, publicly at last, right up to May 2009 in fact. That's why they're also wondering about what's happened after Crimewatch. You're only looking at October 2013 onwards.

[Matthew Wyse]

I see that my thread title has been changed.  The question I originally asked was - are the McCanns afraid of the Smithman e-fits (to the point where they will do anything not to draw attention to them).  This is a "sceptic" belief, because some "sceptics" believe that the Met are playing mindgames with the McCanns and have decided to go after Gerry by dismissing Tannerman and focusing on Smithman, by highlighting  a pair of e-fits that they (the Met) believe depict Gerry.  The fact that the Official Find Madeleine page has not once but SEVEN times posted these e-fits, and then put a permanent "watch video" link to the Crimewatch programme at the top of their page suggests to me that the McCanns are quite comfortable with the way the Met's investigation is going.  The only evidence that "sceptics" can scrape together to suggest the opposite is true is a) the fact that the e-fits don't appear on the official website, however this website seems not to be very active anymore and b) the fact that, despite being re-posted 7 times the e-fits are not used as the OFM FB page's cover photo.  This is very weak evidence indeed to support the "sceptic" belief, in my view.

But then you have to ask yourself who controls the FM website and who runs the Facebook page?

[Carana]

What happened to the promise of transparency given by the parents at the outset?  Would see-through not be better?

What? They've never denied that they'd hired PIs.

The purpose of hiring them was to gather potentially useful information for law enforcement to follow up, not armchair detectives with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

[jassi]

I do blame people for putting 2 and 2 together and arriving at 5, which so often happens in this case.  You can see for yourself that the website is more or less dormant, and that virtually ALL OFM activity now takes place on their Facebook page.  Why is that not a valid explanation for some people to grasp?

Is there a link to their FB page on their almost moribund website telling people that this is where the action now is?

[Alfred R Jones]

Maybe it's because they also see that the 10pm sighting was also ignored previously, publicly at last, right up to May 2009 in fact. That's why they're also wondering about what's happened after Crimewatch. You're only looking at October 2013 onwards.

The 10pm sighting was not ignored previously, please get your facts right.

[Alfred R Jones]

But then you have to ask yourself who controls the FM website and who runs the Facebook page?

Who do you think controls it / them?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is there a link to their FB page on their almost moribund website telling people that this is where the action now is?

No, do you read something sinister into that as well?

[Matthew Wyse]

What? They've never denied that they'd hired PIs.

The purpose of hiring them was to gather potentially useful information for law enforcement to follow up, not armchair detectives with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

I was talking about the promise to maintain transparency when they set up the Find Madeleine Fund.  Withheld e-fits, secret reports, and hidden agendas are not exactly transparent ?   

[jassi]

No, do you read something sinister into that as well?

I'm working on it   

[Carana]

I was talking about the promise to maintain transparency when they set up the Find Madeleine Fund.

What has that got to do with the contents of the PI report?


(Apologies, Alfie, I'm not hijacking your thread ;) .

[Lyall]

The 10pm sighting was not ignored previously, please get your facts right.

It was mate. The only book ever published on the case in UK indicated the 10pm sighting was likely to be more significant than 9.15's. That book was published in May 2008. However the other sighting was not acknowledged publicly by the McCanns or Mitchell at all between January 2008 and May 2009. It wasn't mentioned by the newspapers either.

Can you find any mentions? I don't think so. That's why people are still wondering.

[Alice Purjorick]

Is there a link to their FB page on their almost moribund website telling people that this is where the action now is?

It appears not but the website retains all the usual donation and shopping paraphernalia so it [the website] probably isn't thought of as being particularly redundant with respect to the campaign.

[Matthew Wyse]

What has that got to do with the contents of the PI report?


(Apologies, Alfie, I'm not hijacking your thread ;) .

We are discussing the e-fits and why the McCanns didn't promote them as the parents of any missing child would do.  Any suggestions?