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

[Alfred R Jones]

Back to the question, are they less than happy with them?

Well, if they were happy - or further than that - ecstatic with them, what would we expect their approach to be?  Certainly, they would have surely given them continued prominence on their site. 

The truth is that they have been removed from the Official Madeleine site.  Previously, a new click through page with various e-fits was there.  Then it was removed and the Scotland Yard's thinking was cast doubt upon. There was a change - and that may suggest that they are indeed less than happy with them.

Taken from Find Madeline: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com."

Or it may suggest as some have noted that the e-fits have served their purpose and no longer need to be in the public realm.  I very much doubt the family have been told this by SY -- simply because if that was the case, they wouldn't feature on the facebook site AT ALL.

If the McCanns are not happy with the e-fits why do they feature on their FB page AT ALL?  Why do they keep a "watch video" button which takes the viewer straight to the Crimewatch programme that "sceptics" like to imagine the McCanns were so worried about, a programme that has been watched on the OFM's own youtube channel nearly 100,000 times? 

[Alfred R Jones]

PS: who would be "ecstatic" at the production of e-fits showing a mugshot of the man who may have abducted your daughter?  Is it something that would make you happy and full of joy to look at? 

Yes, it's a lead which is a positive thing but surely you'd have to be a bit warped to be in a state of ecstasy over it.

[Gadfly2.1]

The McCanns turned up on Crimewatch.  Remember this:



So you could make your argument that way Alfred.  I don't accept the e-fits are prominent on their website, nor do I accept that they view them as central to solving this case.  The sighting is on the site, but isn't prominent or immediately noticeable.  Equally, the sighting is on the Find Madeline website as witness 5 of 5 as an audio recording.

[Alfred R Jones]

Perhaps you could address the point I made Gadfly?

If the McCanns are not happy with the e-fits why do they feature on their FB page AT ALL?  Why do they keep a "watch video" button which takes the viewer straight to the Crimewatch programme that "sceptics" like to imagine the McCanns were so worried about, a programme that has been watched on the OFM's own youtube channel nearly 100,000 times?

[Gadfly2.1]

I'm sticking to the subject topic Alfred.

I've listed a series of points:
1) Prioritisation of Tanner sighting above Crimewatch e-fits.
2) Prioritisation of Barcelona sighting above Crimewatch e-fits -- that concern a man in Luz.
3) Prioritisation of 4 other witness statements before the Smith account on OFM site.
4) Removal of CW e-fits from FM website.

All of this I would suggest means that the McCanns are happier promoting the Tanner account that SY showed had a different explanation during the CW show.  In fact, as AR said, he was "almost certain" that SY had solved the Tanner sighting.  Here he is appealing for the great British public to pay attention.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm sticking to the subject topic Alfred.

I've listed a series of points:
1) Prioritisation of Tanner sighting above Crimewatch e-fits.
2) Prioritisation of Barcelona sighting above Crimewatch e-fits -- that concern a man in Luz.
3) Prioritisation of 4 other witness statements before the Smith account on OFM site.
4) Removal of CW e-fits from FM website.

All of this I would suggest means that the McCanns are happier promoting the Tanner account that SY showed had a different explanation during the CW show.  In fact, as AR said, he was "almost certain" that SY had solved the Tanner sighting.  Here he is appealing for the great British public to pay attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDlTK3hg44Y .

[Youtube:LDlTK3hg44Y]

You are fixating on what is essentially a dormant website that hasn't been properly maintained in years.  Why? 

Incidentally, did you know that the ONLY e-fits that have ever been publicised on the OFM FB page (which has over 607k likes) are the Smithman e-fits?  Why do you suppose that is the case?

[faithlilly]

Perhaps you could address the point I made Gadfly?

If the McCanns are not happy with the e-fits why do they feature on their FB page AT ALL?  Why do they keep a "watch video" button which takes the viewer straight to the Crimewatch programme that "sceptics" like to imagine the McCanns were so worried about, a programme that has been watched on the OFM's own youtube channel nearly 100,000 times?

How could they not have them SOMEWHERE on their campaign page ?

The only thing they feasibly could do is make the efits as hard to find as possible.

[Alfred R Jones]

Using "sceptic" logic, the fact that the Tannerman likeness does not appear at all on the OFM FB page must mean that the McCanns are trying to suppress it in favour of the Smithman e-fits which do, correct?

[Gadfly2.1]

You are fixating on what is essentially a dormant website that hasn't been properly maintained in years.  Why? 

Incidentally, did you know that the ONLY e-fits that have ever been publicised on the OFM FB page (which has over 607k likes) are the Smithman e-fits?  Why do you suppose that is the case?

Alfred - you are spreading misinformation.  The website is not dormant.  It has had two significant updates in recent times.  One to take down the Crimewatch e-fits.  The other to question the conclusion regarding the Tanner sighting.  To state otherwise is false.

[Alfred R Jones]

How could they not have them SOMEWHERE on their campaign page ?

The only thing they feasibly could do is make the efits as hard to find as possible.

How do you account for the fact that the Crimewatch programme featuring the Smithman e-fits have been watched nearly 100,000 times on the McCanns' own youtube channel?

ETA: Compare that with less than 1000 viewings of the same programme on the highly esteemed (cough) HiDeHo's Youtube channel!

[pathfinder73]

What's this then? Yet again...


Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

October 2009? They were produced in 2008. The contract with Oakley International and Halligen was terminated by the end of September 2008, after £500,000-plus expenses had been spent.

[faithlilly]

How do you account for the fact that the Crimewatch programme featuring the Smithman e-fits have been watched nearly 100,000 times on the McCanns' own youtube channel?

ETA: Compare that with less than 1000 viewings of the same programme on the highly esteemed (cough) HiDeHo's Youtube channel!

How many of those views have come through either of their campaign websites and how many recently at not at the time of the CW programme ?

[Alfred R Jones]

How many of those views have come through either of their campaign websites and how many recently at not at the time of the CW programme ?

Come again? 
What point are you trying to make?  The Crimewatch programme appears on the OFM's OWN youtube channel.  There is a link to it on their 600k+ followers FB page.  What difference does it make when the views actually occurred, if they were last week or last year? The McCanns, if they were so anti the Crimewatch programme didn't have to put it on their youtube channel, nor did they have to link to it on their FB page.  Please explain why they have managed to get so many views if they are embarrassed and ashamed of the programme and the e-fits?

[Gadfly2.1]

Alfred - you still haven't withdrawn your comment about the OFM site being 'dormant.'

It isn't - it has had two significant changes to it in recent times, which is reasonable considering it isn't an interactive site reliant on new content, but rather an informational site with a stable fundraising section.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” ― Abraham Lincoln

[Carana]

October 2009? They were produced in 2008. The contract with Oakley International and Halligen was terminated by the end of September 2008, after £500,000-plus expenses had been spent.

I was responding to Montclair who had said that there was no proof that they had been handed to the PJ.

The ST correction acknowledges that they WERE handed over (who by isn't entirely clear) in 2009 but neither police force (LP/PJ) did anything with them until the Met became actively involved.

As to a reason for any delay between when they were produced and when they were handed to the police in 2009... no idea.

There appears to have been quite a lot of legal wrangling between the Fund and Halligen/Oakley, and no doubt between Halligen and the seemingly unpaid subcontractors.