Have the Oakley e-fits added anything to the search for Madeleine McCann?

[Benice]

Oakley International's 6-month contract was axed in August 2008 just after the Archiving of the investigation.  Their Report did not appear until November 2008 as already pointed out.  They had every opportunity prior to August to release the e-fits but were prevented from doing so.

Are private individuals allowed to publicise efits willy nilly into the public domain?    Surely something so potentially dangerous for anyone who just happened by co-incidence to resemble the efit is not something the general public can choose to do?       It could result in innocent people's lives being exposed to serious danger. 

Would it be legal?   I don't know -  but it seems unlikely to me.  Surely the police would have to be involved.

[Brietta]

The man in the efit wasn't being accused of anything other than carrying his daughter at about the time Madeleine was discovered missing. If anything the efits could have served to eliminate the individual and thus refocus the McCann's private investigation.

I think tracking the man seen by the Smiths should have been treated as a matter of urgency and I do not think that it should have been left to private detectives some months after the event to do so.

The Policia Judiciaria knew about this sighting a fortnight after the event ... the files indicate that they appear to have done little about it.

They are the lead investigative authority in Madeleine's case ... the victims of a crime can hardly be criticised without bearing in mind the lack of importance attached to the Smith sighting by the PJ.

When has it been considered appropriate for the victims of crime to be forced to conduct major investigations? when that is the province of the forces of law and order.

[faithlilly]

Are private individuals allowed to publicise efits willy nilly into the public domain?    Surely something so potentially dangerous for anyone who just happened by co-incidence to resemble the efit is not something the general public can choose to do?       It could result in innocent people's lives being exposed to serious danger. 

Would it be legal?   I don't know -  but it seems unlikely to me.  Surely the police would have to be involved.

And the many, many other efits released by the McCanns?

[faithlilly]

I think tracking the man seen by the Smiths should have been treated as a matter of urgency and I do not think that it should have been left to private detectives some months after the event to do so.

The Policia Judiciaria knew about this sighting a fortnight after the event ... the files indicate that they appear to have done little about it.

They are the lead investigative authority in Madeleine's case ... the victims of a crime can hardly be criticised without bearing in mind the lack of importance attached to the Smith sighting by the PJ.

When has it been considered appropriate for the victims of crime to be forced to conduct major investigations? when that is the province of the forces of law and order.

Accepted it should have been done by the PJ, but it wasn't. That certainly doesn't let the McCanns off the hook. In fact it should have given them cause to be more proactive in the efits release.

[ferryman]

The Portuguese don't (or didn't, then) use e-fits.

[faithlilly]

The Portuguese don't (or didn't, then) use e-fits.

Irrelevant.

[ferryman]

Irrelevant.

Fully relevant, particularly combined with the fact that, of all efits, only one was (potentially) of Madeleine being abducted as it happened.  That was the Smith sighting.

You needed a police investigation, well, investigating it.

[faithlilly]

Fully relevant, particularly combined with the fact that, of all efits, only one was (potentially) of Madeleine being abducted as it happened.  That was the Smith sighting.

You needed a police investigation, well, investigating it.

Who released the Tannerman efit ferryman because it certainly wasn't the PJ?

[John]

I don't quite see the logic there. surely the two intentions are synonymous?

You could say that since neither objective was achieved.  The enduring mystery of course is why create two disimiliar e-fits of one person raising all sorts of speculations when one reasonably accurate facial profile could have achieved so much more?

[ferryman]

Who released the Tannerman efit ferryman because it certainly wasn't the PJ?

There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.

Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.

[John]

There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.

Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.

When they came into the hands of the McCanns is irrelevant.  The point is that the private investigators had them in early 2008 and should have passed them onto the PJ immediately had they been of any consequence. 

I think the real answer to all of this is that the e-fits were of no significance whatsoever and Oakley were sold a pup!

[faithlilly]

There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.

Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.

But the efit wasn't part of the official investigation.

So if an efit could not be released outside an official investigation why did Exton, an experienced detective, encourage the McCanns to release them as soon as possible?

[faithlilly]

When they came into the hands of the McCanns is irrelevant.  The point is that the private investigators had them in early 2008 and should have passed them onto the PJ immediately had they been of any consequence. 

I think the real answer to all of this is that the e-fits were of no significance whatsoever and Oakley were sold a pup!

Care to provide the evidence on which you've formed that opinion John?

[John]

The three members of the Smith family who returned to Portugal were unable to give a better description than the one recorded in the files.  Probably due to the elapsed time between sighting and interview and the fact they did not get a clear view of his face ... certainly not clear enough to be able to identify anyone from photographs (suggesting they were shown some).
The value of this sighting at the time may have been to take some of the heat off Robert Murat ... as it was stated the individual seen definitely was not him.

I certainly think the efits attributed to the Smiths raise more questions than answers.

I agree.  The Smith's, for reasons best known to themselves, have remained tight lipped over this entire issue for some inexplicable reason.

For all we know the e-fits are fake!

[John]

Care to provide the evidence on which you've formed that opinion John?

Simply reading between the lines and the fact that Oakley were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they revealed what really went on.  That must be one of the most damning facts to date and proof if proof were needed that not all is as it seems?