SY Crimewatch Smithman Efits

[Brietta]

They went after The Sunday Times but never explained why they hung onto the information for a year before giving it to the police. They didn't refute what Exton said, either, The report was 'handed to SY', but they don't actually say who's hands were involved.

It cost the Sunday Times a lot of money not to mention lost editorial and journalistic credibility when they maintained the McCanns had withheld information from the police.
Let it go ... they had to when the facts of the matter were produced - although it took legal action to do it.

[Brietta]

The Sunday Times over-egged the allegation and in doing so let the McC's off the hook.  The e-fits were withheld for years after they were created and what's more nobody has ever explained why?

Leicestershire police and the Portuguese police had sat on them for those four years.  No doubt they will have the explanation for why they did that.

It is a McCann bashing exercise which falls flat when it is known the appropriate police authorities had timeous full access.

[Angelo222]

Leicestershire police and the Portuguese police had sat on them for those four years.  No doubt they will have the explanation for why they did that.

It is a McCann bashing exercise which falls flat when it is known the appropriate police authorities had timeous full access.

And for two years before that they sat in a file never seeing the light of day because they resembled Gerry McCann.

[G-Unit]

It cost the Sunday Times a lot of money not to mention lost editorial and journalistic credibility when they maintained the McCanns had withheld information from the police.
Let it go ... they had to when the facts of the matter were produced - although it took legal action to do it.

Just pointing out the facts, Brietta.
1. The information was withheld for a year, the Times said five years.
2. There was no denial that the McCCanns threatened the investigators with legal action.
3. There was no denial that SY contacted the authors and requested a copy.

[ferryman]

Just pointing out the facts, Brietta.
1. The information was withheld for a year, the Times said five years.
2. There was no denial that the McCCanns threatened the investigators with legal action.
3. There was no denial that SY contacted the authors and requested a copy.

Bloody hell

What else is there to say?

[Brietta]

And for two years before that they sat in a file never seeing the light of day because they resembled Gerry McCann.

I think you've got it wrong about them sitting on them for two years, Angelo. 

If there is the slightest resemblance between the the efits and Gerry McCann it has passed me by.  However the stunning likeness between one in particular and another main player in the process jumps out of the page at one.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say.

[Brietta]

Just pointing out the facts, Brietta.
1. The information was withheld for a year, the Times said five years.
2. There was no denial that the McCCanns threatened the investigators with legal action.
3. There was no denial that SY contacted the authors and requested a copy.

Hmmm ... let's see.  I seem to recall that the private investigation agency is the one and the same which defrauded numerous clients attracting the attention of the FBI.
Wonder if they made the "Most Wanted" list?


**Snip
Although the six-month Madeleine McCann deal was worth £500,000, it is understood only about £300,000 was paid before suspicions were raised and the contract terminated early.

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for Mr and Mrs McCann, said: "Due diligence was carried out before Oakley were employed on behalf of the Madeleine fund. Money was paid for work satisfactorily carried out in the early months but questions were raised later on and the contract was terminated. The matter is considered closed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6630110/Security-consultant-paid-300000-from-Madeleine-McCann-fund-charged-with-fraud.html

[pegasus]

According to the ST, a spokesperson reportedly gave this reason for the fund deciding to not publish the 2 efits...

"The McCann fund source said ... the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised"

[pegasus]

According to the ST, reportedly...

"The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators"

Who were the next private investigation team after Oakley?

[misty]

According to the ST, reportedly...

"The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators"

Who were the next private investigation team after Oakley?

I think it was Alphaig Ltd.

[pegasus]

I think it was Alphaig Ltd.

Presumably the report reportedly passed to them included the 2 e-fits?

[misty]

Presumably the report reportedly passed to them included the 2 e-fits?

The Sunday Times article stated that to be the case.

[pegasus]

If so, they didn't exactly overpublicise the efits in that May 2009 documentary they did

[misty]

If so, they didn't exactly overpublicise the efits in that May 2009 documentary they did

I think the more relevant issue is why the PJ didn't act upon receipt of the potentially crucial new evidence. Could it have been because they deemed the witness unreliable & the original testimonies would not have stood up in court? If so, what purpose would it have served releasing the efits on UK TV?

[mercury]

The facts are that the mccanns were given efits in mid 2008 and SAT on them for a year

No stone unturned has been proven by THEIR actions to be a TOTAL JOKE in that they WITHHELD the efits from all police forces for a year

thats criminal imo

Perhaps brietta you can justify this, Im all ears

Eta lets not forget that it is a fact that another stone UNTURNED for five years was not informng the public of a potential lead....the smith sighting does seem to have been a bummer in this case