Wiki's assessment of the ST article:
Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the Fund told Exton that the report and its efits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the Fund soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[50] The Fund passed the e-fits to the police – the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[176] – but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial. Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction.[50]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#OakleyOakley may well have been sacked in September, with some subsequent wrangling to get them to hand over the report / efits to the Fund (which apparently happened in November if the ST is correct). Not everything in that article appears to be accurate, so I have a doubt - perhaps unfounded - as to whether both the report and the efits were handed over at the same time. The outfit seems to have been such a mess that I find it feasible that the Fund had to chase up different people, whom Halligen may well not have paid.
Again if ST is correct, LP / PJ had them by Oct 2009, but didn't act on them. The case had been shelved but the PJ still had primacy over the investigation, with LP acting to provide assistance when requested to do so by the PJ. Did Paiva bother to submit it to the prosecutor to try to get the case reopened to investigate it, or did it go in his vertical filing tray along with everything else that came in, allegedly?
Without a UK open investigation, I'd have thought it difficult for LP to attempt to check any background (or cross-check details) of who Smithman might be. He might have been another crècheman for all anyone knew (or knows).
As to why Kate devoted 4 pages to Smithman without using the efits... I somewhat doubt that it was because one of them vaguely resembled Gerry. There could have been copyright issues; she could have been advised not to by the police pending a review / reopening of the case.
From other investigations that I've observed, the police make public appeals once they've got their ducks lined up: making sure that the individual is definitely of interest (and not someone already eliminated); know more or less how they're going to handle the information; and time the appeal to get as wide an audience as possible.
