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

[mercury]

I know very little beyond that the webmistress defers to Miss Healey when asked a question and that she is very bad at propaganda.

Terrible propaganda, should be thoroughly ashamed of herself
HVe to dash

[slartibartfast]

As an aside, the Facebook Group is not as controllable or focused as a website. Without regular updates posts fall off the front page on Facebook and especially with mobile access it is difficult to view old posts. With a website the owner can highlight what is important.

[Montclair]

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

Who told the newspaper that the e-fits were provided to the Portuguese Leicestershire police? The McCanns of course and for me that is not proof. The PJ and the Leicestershire police have never confirmed the receipt of these e-fits.

BTW, even if the e-fits had been turned over to the police and the McCanns saw that nothing was being done by either force, why didn't they take the initiative to show them to the public. They had their spokesman hold press conferences before with dubious sightings, etc. and this should not have stopped them.

[Carana]

Who told the newspaper that the e-fits were provided to the Portuguese Leicestershire police? The McCanns of course and for me that is not proof. The PJ and the Leicestershire police have never confirmed the receipt of these e-fits.

BTW, even if the e-fits had been turned over to the police and the McCanns saw that nothing was being done by either force, why didn't they take the initiative to show them to the public. They had their spokesman hold press conferences before with dubious sightings, etc. and this should not have stopped them.

Erm... I think you'll find that official apologies / corrections in newspapers of that nature tend to involve their legal desk. "Acknowledge and accept" is a clue that they were provided some kind of evidence or confirmation from an authoritative source that they were wrong. Otherwise they could just have said that "the McCanns deny the allegation".

[Carana]

Who told the newspaper that the e-fits were provided to the Portuguese Leicestershire police? The McCanns of course and for me that is not proof. The PJ and the Leicestershire police have never confirmed the receipt of these e-fits.

BTW, even if the e-fits had been turned over to the police and the McCanns saw that nothing was being done by either force, why didn't they take the initiative to show them to the public. They had their spokesman hold press conferences before with dubious sightings, etc. and this should not have stopped them.

As I said earlier, I can find a few plausible reasons:

a) they didn't hold the copyright / agreement to use them, if indeed they ever had them at the time (i.e., they could have been sent by Oakley to LP / PJ).

b) they could have had informal police advice not to release e-fits of a potential key suspect (i.e. one of a man actually carrying a child who may or may not have been Madeleine), without the backup of a live investigation to move quickly if needed.

[Carana]

"Suppressed" is so much more emotive than "not released"...

I find the idea that they "suppressed" the e-fits because one looks vaguely like Gerry to be somewhat silly.

1. If they had had them and were free to use them, they could have chosen to release the other one, which looks nothing like him.

2. Kate devoted pages to a description / comparison of the similarities between Tanner/Smithman. If she'd been free to use them, she could easily have quipped that despite the fact that one vaguely resembles Gerry, it wasn't him.

3. I see no reason why the Met would not have taken notice of a caller saying it was Gerry if they were there that night and could corroborate it - as opposed to calls from the usual trolls wasting police time to point out the resemblance.

[Alice Purjorick]

When I started my business everyone told me I needed a website so I paid for my domain name and scouted about for someone to design and maintain my online presence.  I also set up a Facebook page and twitter id.  It soon became apparent to me that a website was going to be relatively expensive and time-consuming to keep updated regularly.  In the meantime my facebook page is updated almost daily, and now has nearly 1500 followers, and my twitter account is fast catching up.  Some of my fb and twitter posts reach far beyond my usual followers when they are shared or re-tweeted, something that is much less likely with a website.  I have now completely abandoned my plans to launch a website as I can link my social media presence to a third party website where I can sell online too, reaching a far greater number of potential customers than I would with my website.  Facebook may not be as big as "the tinternet" but when you combine it with twitter and youtube it is, almost!

Alf you really do disappoint me. Hitherto (I believe) you have refrained from "there I wuz" stories to support your argument. Now you have been and gorn and spoiled it.

[John]

Who told the newspaper that the e-fits were provided to the Portuguese Leicestershire police? The McCanns of course and for me that is not proof. The PJ and the Leicestershire police have never confirmed the receipt of these e-fits.

BTW, even if the e-fits had been turned over to the police and the McCanns saw that nothing was being done by either force, why didn't they take the initiative to show them to the public. They had their spokesman hold press conferences before with dubious sightings, etc. and this should not have stopped them.

I think we all know the real answer to that Montclair.   All and every e-fit should have been made available to the public regardless of how embarrassing they were.  In fact, there is no excuse for engineering a policy of selective dissemination when it comes to a child's life.

Now thanks to what went on we are left with a maybe Tannerman and a possible Smithman, neither of whom have even now been positively identified.

 

[faithlilly]

When I started my business everyone told me I needed a website so I paid for my domain name and scouted about for someone to design and maintain my online presence.  I also set up a Facebook page and twitter id.  It soon became apparent to me that a website was going to be relatively expensive and time-consuming to keep updated regularly.  In the meantime my facebook page is updated almost daily, and now has nearly 1500 followers, and my twitter account is fast catching up.  Some of my fb and twitter posts reach far beyond my usual followers when they are shared or re-tweeted, something that is much less likely with a website.  I have now completely abandoned my plans to launch a website as I can link my social media presence to a third party website where I can sell online too, reaching a far greater number of potential customers than I would with my website.  Facebook may not be as big as "the tinternet" but when you combine it with twitter and youtube it is, almost!

There are other videos on their FB page, mainly of the couple McCann whining outside the court in Lisbon, which play directly from the home page and not via a non-description button which is easily missed. Why wasn't if not all at least part of the CW video put on their page in the same way ?

[John]

The official FM website would for all intents and purposes appear to be at odds with SY's latest reveals in that Tannerman is still flavour of the month and Smithman has been effectively expunged.  That would indeed engender the belief that they are not at all happy with the Smith e-fits.

[Carana]

I think we all know the real answer to that Montclair.   All and every e-fit should have been made available to the public regardless of how embarrassing they were.  In fact, there is no excuse for engineering a policy of selective dissemination when it comes to a child's life.

Now thanks to what went on we are left with a maybe Tannerman and a possible Smithman, neither of whom have even now been positively identified.

You haven't been sucked in by sensationalism, by any chance, have you John? ;)

You said: "In fact, there is no excuse for engineering a policy of selective dissemination". That's a rather loaded statement, isn't it?

Do you KNOW why they weren't released earlier? I don't, so I'm not sure who "we all" refers to.

What evidence do you have that they were involved in "engineering a policy of selective dissemination" with regard to those e-fits? I'm all ears.

How does anyone know that Smithman hasn't been quietly identified? The police are not giving running updates.

[G-Unit]

The official FM website would for all intents and purposes appear to be at odds with SY's latest reveals in that Tannerman is still flavour of the month and Smithman has been effectively expunged.  That would indeed engender the belief that they are not at all happy with the Smith e-fits.

I can't imagine why. The PJ accepted that Gerald McCann was at the Tapas Restaurant when the Smiths saw the man with a child. His friends all testified to that.

[John]

More facts: The Smithman e-fits were the FB cover pic for a whole month between mid-October and mid-November.  No one made the McCanns use the e-fits in this way.  They chose to.  They are the ONLY e-fits to have been featured on the FB page.  The Smithman e-fits do not feature on either the Op Grange or the Crimewatch pages either as far as I can see.

A quick look at the Metropolitan Police website and Operation Grange will reveal that all the previous information has been taken down.  If one didn't know any better, one could be forgiven for thinking the case has been solved.

Poor Madeleine, I suppose it was only a matter of time.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434

[John]

You haven't been sucked in by sensationalism, by any chance, have you John? ;)

You said: "In fact, there is no excuse for engineering a policy of selective dissemination". That's a rather loaded statement, isn't it?

Do you KNOW why they weren't released earlier? I don't, so I'm not sure who "we all" refers to.

What evidence do you have that they were involved in "engineering a policy of selective dissemination" with regard to those e-fits? I'm all ears.

How does anyone know that Smithman hasn't been quietly identified? The police are not giving running updates.

The facts as previously reported speak for themselves.

It is more likely that the entire operation has been scaled down to reflect increasing public annoyance at the vast sums of money being spent on wild goose chases.

[Carana]

A quick look at the Metropolitan Police website and Operation Grange will reveal that all the previous information has been taken down.  If one didn't know any better, one could be forgiven for thinking the case has been solved.

Poor Madeleine, I suppose it was only a matter of time.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434

One could also be forgiven for thinking that the absence of the daily drip-feed of tabloid media sensationalism means that professional police work isn't making progress...

As one rather vocal ex-coordinator and subsequently ubiquitous media pundit concerning the case once said: "Justice works in silence". ;)