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

[stephen25000]

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

Was that the Beckham lookalike, which was all bluster and never followed up by chance ?

[ferryman]

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?

Law or rule?

If you put into the public domain an image of someone carrying a child in close proximity to the scene of a crime, at roughly the time the crime is known to have happened, you are turning them into a potential suspect, which is OK in the context of a live and on ongoing police enquiry, but unacceptable (indeed libel!) apart from the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

That is why Scotland Yard (who had the images in their possession for some considerable time before the crimewatch programme) chose the moment of broadcast of that programme to release the images into the public domain.

[Carana]

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's the most important thing, I'd agree.

However, the discussion was about the allegations that the McCanns had had them for years but hadn't used them (with the insinuation that they chose not to because one of them looks a bit like Gerry).

I very much doubt that Kate wouldn't have released both e-fits in her book if there was not a legal or practical reason that prevented it (if ever she had access to them in the first place at the time).

[jassi]

That's the most important thing, I'd agree.

However, the discussion was about the allegations that the McCanns had had them for years but hadn't used them (with the insinuation that they chose not to because one of them looks a bit like Gerry).

I very much doubt that Kate wouldn't have released both e-fits in her book if there was not a legal or practical reason that prevented it (if ever she had access to them in the first place at the time).

Yes, but I was responding (in part) to the suggestion that they may have been produced by people other than the Smiths.

[Carana]

Law or rule?

If you put into the public domain an image of someone carrying a child in close proximity to the scene of a crime, at roughly the time the crime is known to have happened, you are turning them into a potential suspect, which is OK in the context of a live and on ongoing police enquiry, but unacceptable (indeed libel!) apart from the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

That is why Scotland Yard (who had the images in their possession for some considerable time before the crimewatch programme) chose the moment of broadcast of that programme to release the images into the public domain.

An interesting point and I've thought about it, but I'm not convinced that that's the reason.

There could have been practical issues surrounding publicising new e-fits without a live investigation to handle any new feedback from witnesses. On the other hand, there were several pages in Kate's book describing the similarities between the two sightings, so they were presumably hoping that it might trigger calls to the hotline.

I don't see how e-fits of an unidentified person, who could simply be an innocent dad to eliminate, could be libellous.

It's also possible that they were given advice not to publish them for reasons unknown... but then why insist on the similarities in the hope of feedback?

I'm still back to thinking that there were legal issues (surrounding ongoing litigation with Oakley & co.).

The Met would presumably have had powers to organise demanding the handover of any pending information under criminal laws that the McCanns may not have been able to achieve under civil laws.

[Carana]

Yes, but I was responding (in part) to the suggestion that they may have been produced by people other than the Smiths.

Ahh. Ok.

Personally, I'd always assumed that they were done by the Smiths, but it's always possible that one or more people (not in the files) came forward at some point who'd got a better glimpse.

[lordpookles]

If you published photos of the Victoria Beckham lookalike it's hard to see how legally you would be concerned about libel laws when publishing the smithman efits.

[jassi]

An interesting point and I've thought about it, but I'm not convinced that that's the reason.

There could have been practical issues surrounding publicising new e-fits without a live investigation to handle any new feedback from witnesses. On the other hand, there were several pages in Kate's book describing the similarities between the two sightings, so they were presumably hoping that it might trigger calls to the hotline.

I don't see how e-fits of an unidentified person, who could simply be an innocent dad to eliminate, could be libellous.

It's also possible that they were given advice not to publish them for reasons unknown... but then why insist on the similarities in the hope of feedback?

I'm still back to thinking that there were legal issues (surrounding ongoing litigation with Oakley & co.).

The Met would presumably have had powers to organise demanding the handover of any pending information under criminal laws that the McCanns may not have been able to achieve under civil laws.

Was this stuff not already in the hands of the Leicester Police by this time? Surely UK  police forces can freely share intelligence sources.

[Carana]

Was this stuff not already in the hands of the Leicester Police by this time? Surely UK  police forces can freely share intelligence sources.

From what I've read, the report and the e-fits somehow got transmitted to both LP and the PJ in 2011. It may therefore not have involved the Met in legal wrangling to get the report / e-fits out of Oakley itself.

However, did the McCanns have a copy at the time that they could legally have used?

Some people associated with Oakley were disgruntled that they hadn't been paid, although the Fund had paid Oakley or whichever official business entity, until the Fund got suspicious and cancelled the last leg of the renewable contract. Halligen should have paid the sub-contractors, but apparently didn't and was then arrested and convicted in the Trafigura saga.

I find it entirely possible that the Fund refused to pay a second time, but were trying to get hold of a copy that they could legally obtain / use. Possible issues are that they couldn't physically obtain or couldn't have used a copy from Oakley pending the outcome of whatever litigation, and / or that they had been given a copy under judicial secrecy by either LP / PJ.

However the Met got hold of it, it was then up to them to no doubt double-check, then choose an appropriate media-friendly moment to publicise them.

[jassi]

I thought it was claimed that the McCanns gave the report to LP & PJ. If this is so, then they must have been legally free to do what they wanted with it.

[G-Unit]

I thought it was claimed that the McCanns gave the report to LP & PJ. If this is so, then they must have been legally free to do what they wanted with it.

I thought they claimed they passed the e-fits to LP and the PJ in 2009. Why, I don't know because there was no investigation at the time. i can think of no reason why they couldn't have held a press conference and showed them, just as they did with the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit.

[jassi]

Ah right, it was just the e-fits, not the whole report. My mistake. But presumably they had the report from which to extract the e-fits.

[G-Unit]

Ah right, it was just the e-fits, not the whole report. My mistake. But presumably they had the report from which to extract the e-fits.

I don't know, but only the e-fits were mentioned. The report could have been handed over too.

[ferryman]

An interesting point and I've thought about it, but I'm not convinced that that's the reason.

There could have been practical issues surrounding publicising new e-fits without a live investigation to handle any new feedback from witnesses. On the other hand, there were several pages in Kate's book describing the similarities between the two sightings, so they were presumably hoping that it might trigger calls to the hotline.

I don't see how e-fits of an unidentified person, who could simply be an innocent dad to eliminate, could be libellous.

It's also possible that they were given advice not to publish them for reasons unknown... but then why insist on the similarities in the hope of feedback?

I'm still back to thinking that there were legal issues (surrounding ongoing litigation with Oakley & co.).

The Met would presumably have had powers to organise demanding the handover of any pending information under criminal laws that the McCanns may not have been able to achieve under civil laws.

The key difference between Kate's discussion of the sightings in her book and actual publication of the efits is that Kate's discussion in her book was never going to identify anyone specific.

[pathfinder73]

The key difference between Kate's discussion of the sightings in her book and actual publication of the efits is that Kate's discussion in her book was never going to identify anyone specific.

So what's the point? The point is to find Madeleine f*** the rest. Efits are of specific people. That's why they are done and released to find that person. Names will come in if you recognise an efit. That looks like so and so in PDL so I better call and tell them the name. Those names will then be investigated.