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

[Brietta]

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!

That is an interesting thought, John.

Whatever the situation regarding the efits I am sure the Smiths would have brought Scotland Yard up to speed on all they knew.

• did Oakley produce something out of nothing after speaking to them?

[faithlilly]

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?

You've lost me.

[Brietta]

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.

Why should the McCanns or any other person have had any confidence in anything produced by Oakley? 

Bearing in mind the McCann's apparently less than positive experience of them and the publicity about Halligen's criminal activities ... would you?

I most certainly would not have trusted anything emanating from that particular source.

[ferryman]

I'm at a complete loss to understand why anyone is mystified about the efits.

All fits like a hand in a glove ....

[Robittybob1]

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?

Could you expand on that John please?

[faithlilly]

Why should the McCanns or any other person have had any confidence in anything produced by Oakley? 

Bearing in mind the McCann's apparently less than positive experience of them and the publicity about Halligen's criminal activities ... would you?

I most certainly would not have trusted anything emanating from that particular source.

Oakley wasn't Halligen alone so why should the other elements of his team, themselves cheated by him, be tarred with the same 'conman' brush? As far as I am aware Halligen was not involved in the day to day investigation so it would seem unlikely that he had any direct input into either the report or the efits.

[slartibartfast]

The secret detective certainly deserved his recognition if that write up is anything to go by ... just goes to show how good Halligen was at what he did if he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of someone possessing that skill set with whom he was working closely.

Exton was also a victim of Halligen's confidence tricks.

However I believe warning signals were sent when the quality of Oakley International's work, particularly in relation to their interviewing technique being scrutinised leading to the non-renewal of their contract.

I am bemused that anyone finds it extraordinary that the Fund and the McCanns might have had no confidence in anything emanating from that particular source.

There is criticism for the McCanns in their hiring of Oakley.  There is criticism for the McCanns in their firing.  There is criticism of the McCanns regarding the emails allegedly produced by a firm tainted by criminality ... and it is well worth bearing in mind that this particular story cost the Sunday Times dearly.

Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police


 In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008.

We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities.

This was not the case.

We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009.

We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/

Key phrase.

We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case.

[Brietta]

Key phrase.

Why?

[slartibartfast]

Why?

No one could prove the McCanns withheld anything, hence libellous. Who decided not to hand straight to the police is another question.

[Brietta]

No one could prove the McCanns withheld anything, hence libellous. Who decided not to hand straight to the police is another question.

Where is the chain of evidence confirming that the efits were not handed straight to the police?

[slartibartfast]

Where is the chain of evidence confirming that the efits were not handed straight to the police?

If they had been with the police prior to October 2009 we would have heard.

[Brietta]

If they had been with the police prior to October 2009 we would have heard.

Uh huh ... when I mentioned "chain" it was not in reference to where the efits ended up in 2009 ...

[slartibartfast]

Uh huh ... when I mentioned "chain" it was not in reference to where the efits ended up in 2009 ...

You would have to ask those who employed the PIs who generated the efits.

[Brietta]

You would have to ask those who employed the PIs who generated the efits.

I would have found it exceedingly strange if the Sunday Times had not checked out all avenues including backward trailing the evidence.
They would not have rolled over and meekly handed over damages in recognition the McCanns had been libelled had there been any suggestion which would have saved them the expense and a front page apology.

[slartibartfast]

I would have found it exceedingly strange if the Sunday Times had not checked out all avenues including backward trailing the evidence.
They would not have rolled over and meekly handed over damages in recognition the McCanns had been libelled had there been any suggestion which would have saved them the expense and a front page apology.

It is known that there was a gap between the efits being produced and them being handed to the police of about a year. How would the Sunday Times know what part of the McCann organisation prevented or neglected the passing of the efits to the relevant authorities. Stating it was the McCanns was the libel.