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

[misty]

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.

Weren't Oakley guilty of interfering with a witness during an ongoing investigation?

[ShiningInLuz]

Weren't Oakley guilty of interfering with a witness during an ongoing investigation?

I think you may be ahead of me on this one.  Please stick with me while I try to keep up.

Oakley produced the e-fits?  Oakley, allegedly, interfered with a witness in an ongoing investigation?  By 2011 Kate could not stick the e-fit in her book?

Please trust me.  I am struggling to comprehend, so help would be most appreciated.

[G-Unit]

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.

Why didn't they do it at a press conference like with the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit in 2009? There was no investigation going on then.

AN Australian woman believed to hold vital clues to Madeleine McCann's abduction will today become the target of a worldwide hunt......Former police chief Dave Edgar, leading the McCanns' investigation team, will unveil an e-fit image of the woman at a press conference in London and appeal for anyone who knows her to come forward.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id262.html


 

[ferryman]

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.

No they couldn't.

All earlier efits were released in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

I am fairly certain it was only after the first enquiry was shelved and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the Smiths had all seen Gerry that night that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

It turns out the second e-fit was produced by his wife.

There was no delay in forwarding the e-fits to the police, then it was up to the police to choose the timing of their (public) release, which they did.

[Carana]

No they couldn't.

All earlier efits were released in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

I am fairly certain it was only after the first enquiry was shelved and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the Smiths had all seen Gerry that night that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

It turns out the second e-fit was produced by his wife.

There was no delay in forwarding the e-fits to the police, then it was up to the police to choose the timing of their (public) release, which they did.

I've noticed that the UK will often release CCTV images or a description of someone they'd like to identify and interview quickly after a crime has been committed, but they often wait in cold cases for a signficant date (e.g., the anniversary of a disappearance), presumably to ensure maximum media attention and thus refocus public attention.

[ferryman]

Why didn't they do it at a press conference like with the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit in 2009? There was no investigation going on then.

AN Australian woman believed to hold vital clues to Madeleine McCann's abduction will today become the target of a worldwide hunt......Former police chief Dave Edgar, leading the McCanns' investigation team, will unveil an e-fit image of the woman at a press conference in London and appeal for anyone who knows her to come forward.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id262.html

That sighting was in Barcelona, Spain, 3 days after Madeleine vanished.

The Smith sighting was of someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was abducted.

Key difference ....

[G-Unit]

That sighting was in Barcelona, Spain, 3 days after Madeleine vanished.

The Smith sighting was of someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was abducted.

Key difference ....

I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Both e-fits were the work of private investigators. One was released via a press conference, the other wasn't. Why are the sighting dates a 'key difference'?

[ferryman]

I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Both e-fits were the work of private investigators. One was released via a press conference, the other wasn't. Why are the sighting dates a 'key difference'?

Someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a (Praia da Luz) at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted is (potentially) a suspect and that image can only be released into the public domain in the domain in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

That was the judgment of the police who had the e-fits in their possession well before the Crimewatch programme, and chose that programme as the right time for its public release.

[Brietta]

No they couldn't.

All earlier efits were released in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

I am fairly certain it was only after the first enquiry was shelved and Mr Smith realised he had been (honestly) mistaken to suppose the Smiths had all seen Gerry that night that he agreed to produce the e-fit.

It turns out the second e-fit was produced by his wife.

There was no delay in forwarding the e-fits to the police, then it was up to the police to choose the timing of their (public) release, which they did.

I think that assessment regarding the timing ties in with reports I have read; which in my opinion makes it all a little bit more extraordinary as far as the man the Smiths said they saw is concerned.

• It would suggest they had a far clearer view of his face than they told the PJ they had had
• It would also suggest that while Madeleine's case was being actively pursued they had no interest in cooperating in developing images which could have been useful in ruling a prime suspect in or out

That doesn't ring true for me ... I don't think the Smith family contributed to these efits ... I think it possible that another unidentified person/s who may have seen something similar and may have had a better memory for faces than they did is the source. 

[Carana]

I think that assessment regarding the timing ties in with reports I have read; which in my opinion makes it all a little bit more extraordinary as far as the man the Smiths said they saw is concerned.

• It would suggest they had a far clearer view of his face than they told the PJ they had had
• It would also suggest that while Madeleine's case was being actively pursued they had no interest in cooperating in developing images which could have been useful in ruling a prime suspect in or out

That doesn't ring true for me ... I don't think the Smith family contributed to these efits ... I think it possible that another unidentified person/s who may have seen something similar and may have had a better memory for faces than they did is the source.

On the second point, Martin was fuming at the press for misrepresenting what he'd said and quite possibly at some form of media intrusion going on at the time, and simply didn't want to cooperate with anyone other than the police. But the PJ seemingly never requested the Gardai to approach the family for an efit or artist's sketch...

[jassi]

I'm not sure I understand the importance of knowing who created these e-fits. Surely it is enough to know SY are using them in an effort to identify Smithman

[ferryman]

I'm not sure I understand the importance of knowing who created these e-fits. Surely it is enough to know SY are using them in an effort to identify Smithman

That is the most important thing, I agree ...

[Brietta]

I'm not sure I understand the importance of knowing who created these e-fits. Surely it is enough to know SY are using them in an effort to identify Smithman

Sit down and hold on tight, Jassi, I am in complete agreement with you on that one.

It is my opinion that the erroneous Sunday Times article was seized on with an unholy glee by those who have a dire antipathy towards Madeleine McCann's parents.  The majority of thinking people reinforced by the award of damages paid for libel, have accepted it is nonsense, but there are those who cannot.

The sad thing is that this furore occurred right at the start of the reopening of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance ... which was actually the most important issue at the time.

[G-Unit]

Someone carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a (Praia da Luz) at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted is (potentially) a suspect and that image can only be released into the public domain in the domain in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

That was the judgment of the police who had the e-fits in their possession well before the Crimewatch programme, and chose that programme as the right time for its public release.

What law or rule are you quoting which says that no-one except police carrying out a live investigation can release an e-fit of someone?

[jassi]

Didn't Clarence & Edgar do a pseudo police-type press conference at which they promoted certain e-fits?