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

[G-Unit]

The judicially secrecy laws/arguido status prevented them publicising the sightings & efits in the first instance.
When the case was shelved. there was no official outlet to publicise the sighting/efits without invalidating any resultant information collected. The efits were obtained via private investigators- not admissible in a Portuguese court.

The arguido status of the McCanns ceased in July 2008. Can you think of any reason why, when the e-fits were given to the McCanns later in 2008 they didn't approach the media to publish them along with Oakley's hotline number? Do you think the media would have refused?

[misty]

The arguido status of the McCanns ceased in July 2008. Can you think of any reason why, when the e-fits were given to the McCanns later in 2008 they didn't approach the media to publish them along with Oakley's hotline number? Do you think the media would have refused?

Can you think of a reason why the PJ would accept or act upon any information forwarded by Oakley or the UK press which had been obtained following publication of the efits post July 2008?

[misty]

Misty, you should be on the stage with Frankie Boyle.

I hope that is not one of your best chat-up lines, Lyall, otherwise I recommend you demand a refund from whichever charm school you attended. 

[G-Unit]

Can you think of a reason why the PJ would accept or act upon any information forwarded by Oakley or the UK press which had been obtained following publication of the efits post July 2008?

I didn't suggest that Oakley or the UK press should forward information to the PJ, so why ask that question?

If the e-fits had been publicised by the media and a contact number supplied, any information received could have been sent to the PJ by the McCanns. They had the right to bring new evidence forward.

[misty]

I didn't suggest that Oakley or the UK press should forward information to the PJ, so why ask that question?

If the e-fits had been publicised by the media and a contact number supplied, any information received could have been sent to the PJ by the McCanns. They had the right to bring new evidence forward.

Can you think of a reason why the PJ would act on information received via the McCanns from private detectives or the press following publication of efits which the witnesses on record were unable to produce for the original, since shelved, investigation?

[G-Unit]

Can you think of a reason why the PJ would act on information received via the McCanns from private detectives or the press following publication of efits which the witnesses on record were unable to produce for the original, since shelved, investigation?

If the McCanns had presented new compelling evidence about their daughter's disappearance the PJ would have had to consider it.

The McCanns vowed to leave no stone unturned in their search or Madeleine, but they made no effort whatsoever to turn this stone over to see what was beneath it. If the e-fits had been publicised in 2008 instead of 2013 some interesting evidence might have been discovered. Five years lost!

[carlymichelle]

If the McCanns had presented new compelling evidence about their daughter's disappearance the PJ would have had to consider it.

The McCanns vowed to leave no stone unturned in their search or Madeleine, but they made no effort whatsoever to turn this stone over to see what was beneath it. If the e-fits had been publicised in 2008 instead of 2013 some interesting evidence might have been discovered. Five years lost!

you have  to wonder why they waited all those years too dont you?

[ferryman]

The efits were produced after the end of January 2008 and were produced after commencement of the second enquiry during the crimewatch programme.

There was no other context (or earlier point) when they could have been unveiled publicly. 

[G-Unit]

you have  to wonder why they waited all those years too dont you?

Was it said that they didn't have enough money? Of course the media wouldn't have charged them for printing the e-fits and Oakley's hotline was already up and running.

[carlymichelle]

Was it said that they didn't have enough money? Of course the media wouldn't have charged them for printing the e-fits and Oakley's hotline was already up and running.

so no  excuses really

[ShiningInLuz]

The efits were produced after the end of January 2008 and were produced after commencement of the second enquiry during the crimewatch programme.

There was no other context (or earlier point) when they could have been unveiled publicly.

What was the problem with May 2011 and Kate's book "Madeleine"?

[ferryman]

What was the problem with May 2011 and Kate's book "Madeleine"?

Scotland Yard choose the moment to unveil the e-fits, which had been in their possession for a couple of years beforehand.

[misty]

If the McCanns had presented new compelling evidence about their daughter's disappearance the PJ would have had to consider it.

The McCanns vowed to leave no stone unturned in their search or Madeleine, but they made no effort whatsoever to turn this stone over to see what was beneath it. If the e-fits had been publicised in 2008 instead of 2013 some interesting evidence might have been discovered. Five years lost!

Five years were lost because crucial information, eg Tannerman, was sitting in the files of the shelved investigation.
What external diligences did the PJ carry out in the vicinity of Kelly's Bar/Dolphin restaurant immediately after taking the Smiths' statements in May 2007? Answer - none.
What use are a couple of efits from the hazy memories of people who had no true recollection of a person they claim to have encountered on the night of the 3rd?

[ferryman]

What was the problem with May 2011 and Kate's book "Madeleine"?

There was no on-going enquiry at the time.

That was the only context in which the efits could be released.

[ShiningInLuz]

There was no on-going enquiry at the time.

That was the only context in which the efits could be released.

How many efits were there in the book?  Why was a book restricted to what was not happening in a not on-going enquiry?

A book is a book is a book.

The efits could have been released as soon as they were made.