He refused to produce one when approached by Brian Kennedy, but he agreed when approached by Oakley's investigators. I don't know what Kennedy hoped to achieve but I have some idea what Oakley were up to.
They kept the e-fits in or with a report they produced. The report was hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends and it didn't think the Tanner sighting was credible. Can you see the direction they were taking? A clue; it wasn't an attempt to demonstrate the innocence and honesty of the T9.
Forget the crap about Oakley's quibbles with the (estimable) Jane Tanner; a red-herring.
For the moment, forget, also, the thoughts of the PJ. At least, at that juncture, efits was foreign territory for them. They never used them in their own investigations and didn't really understand their purpose or the rationale of their use.
Think about the
English police and English rationale for the use and purpose of efits.
Efits are used to highlight (most commonly) likely suspects in crime and to aid identification of criminals.
It is conceivable that the Smiths might have seen Madeleine's abduction
and Madeleine's abductor.
Therefore, that efit could only, ever, be released into the public domain in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
Scotland Yard, themselves, kept hold of the efits for a considerable period (after taking custody of them) before releasing them into the public domain during the
Crimewatch programme.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquires.
They long have.
Nothing new about the Madeleine enquiry (at least in that respect).
Not rocket-science ....
