The Smithman e-fits

[misty]

I believe the PJ knew the private investigators were in Portugal.    The private investigators had to hand everything they found out to the PJ,   that included the Smith's e-fits,   it was up to the PJ what they did with them.

IMO

Trying to demonstrate your innocence by employing PI's to find your missing daughter is considered a criminal offence in Portugal? Rhetorical question.

[slartibartfast]

Trying to demonstrate your innocence by employing PI's to find your missing daughter is considered a criminal offence in Portugal? Rhetorical question.

i think you will find employing a PI while a live investigation is going on could be seen as perverting the course of justice in the Uk as it could result in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.

[G-Unit]

I believe the PJ knew the private investigators were in Portugal.    The private investigators had to hand everything they found out to the PJ,   that included the Smith's e-fits,   it was up to the PJ what they did with them.

IMO

I don't know where you got that [bolded] idea from. Where are the statements of these two in the PJ files?

The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz58E7rK5BX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Lace]

Trying to demonstrate your innocence by employing PI's to find your missing daughter is considered a criminal offence in Portugal? Rhetorical question.

It is misty but the McCann's managed to get around that problem with Metado 3.

From Kate's second book - 

With private investigations technically illegal in Portugal,  we felt the closest we could get would be a firm from somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula, which would have the advantage of familiarity with local systems, culture and geography and the best network of contacts in the region. M3 also had links to the Spanish police,  who, in turn, had good connections with the Portuguese police.   End of quote.

[Lace]

I don't know where you got that [bolded] idea from. Where are the statements of these two in the PJ files?

The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz58E7rK5BX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Private investigators are constrained by many limitations.

I remember reading something from one of the private investigators saying that they were watched and they had to hand any information to the PJ.   I'll try and find it.

[blonk]

Private investigators are constrained by many limitations.

I remember reading something from one of the private investigators saying that they were watched and they had to hand any information to the PJ.  I'll try and find it.

On Sunday 27 October 2013, just 13 days after that BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which brought the Smithman e-fits of two quite different-looking people to the notice of 7 million British TV viewers, the Sunday Times pointed out (correctly as it happens) that these two efits (despite the apparently crucial significance now attributed to them) had remained under wraps for five-and-a-half years.

Although no date has ever been given for exactly when they were produced, the consensus of opinion is that they were produced - by Henri Exton - in the spring of 2008.

Unfortunately for the Sunday Times, their report carried the implication that the McCanns were responsible for this delay of over five years.

Not for the first time, the McCanns reached for their lawyers.

A few weeks later, the Sunday Times printed a grovelling apology, conceding that the McCanns had passed the efits 'to the PJ and Leicestershire police' - 'by' October 2008. 

This raised a number of questions, e.g.

1. On what actual date were these efits passed by the McCanns to the PJ and Leicestershire Police?,

2. Why did the McCanns not immediately hand these two efits to the PJ and Lesicestershire Police, instead of waiting for several months?, and

3. Why did the PJ and Leicestershire Police sit on these oh-so-crucial efits for a whole five years (October 2008 to  October 2013)?

[  IIRC the Sunday Times had to pay out £35,000 plus costs to the McCanns for their error, in addition to a prominent publication of their apology in their newspaper  ]         

[misty]

On Sunday 27 October 2013, just 13 days after that BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which brought the Smithman e-fits of two quite different-looking people to the notice of 7 million British TV viewers, the Sunday Times pointed out (correctly as it happens) that these two efits (despite the apparently crucial significance now attributed to them) had remained under wraps for five-and-a-half years.

Although no date has ever been given for exactly when they were produced, the consensus of opinion is that they were produced - by Henri Exton - in the spring of 2008.

Unfortunately for the Sunday Times, their report carried the implication that the McCanns were responsible for this delay of over five years.

Not for the first time, the McCanns reached for their lawyers.

A few weeks later, the Sunday Times printed a grovelling apology, conceding that the McCanns had passed the efits 'to the PJ and Leicestershire police' - 'by' October 2008. 

This raised a number of questions, e.g.

1. On what actual date were these efits passed by the McCanns to the PJ and Leicestershire Police?,

2. Why did the McCanns not immediately hand these two efits to the PJ and Lesicestershire Police, instead of waiting for several months?, and

3. Why did the PJ and Leicestershire Police sit on these oh-so-crucial efits for a whole five years (October 2008 to  October 2013)?

[  IIRC the Sunday Times had to pay out £35,000 plus costs to the McCanns for their error, in addition to a prominent publication of their apology in their newspaper  ]       

To answer question 2 - the McCanns did not sit on the efits for months if Adrian Gatton's tweet is reliable.

[Robittybob1]

Maybe Gemma O'Doherty can ask for confirmation from Martin and Peter Smith when the E-fits were made.

[misty]

Maybe Gemma O'Doherty can ask for confirmation from Martin and Peter Smith when the E-fits were made.

Try asking her via twitter but don't be surprised if she fails to respond & blocks you.

[Robittybob1]

Try asking her via twitter but don't be surprised if she fails to respond & blocks you.

Done.

[G-Unit]

Private investigators are constrained by many limitations.

I remember reading something from one of the private investigators saying that they were watched and they had to hand any information to the PJ.   I'll try and find it.

I don't care what they said, they clearly didn't do it in the example I quoted.

[misty]

I don't care what they said, they clearly didn't do it in the example I quoted.

Why did Metado3 need to report that matter when the UK police had also taken official statements which would be legally acceptable to the PJ?

[G-Unit]

The contract with Oakley ended in September 2008. In it's apology The Times acknowledged that the e-fits had been
provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police by October 2009.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-and-madeleines-fund-jwbq0c7wdj8

What 'by October 2009' means is anyone's guess.

[Alice Purjorick]

I think there should be no limitation on the use of PIs.
Everyone involved in a major police investigation should have the right to employ their own PIs if they don't like what Old Bill is doing.....

[Robittybob1]

I think there should be no limitation on the use of PIs.
Everyone involved in a major police investigation should have the right to employ their own PIs if they don't like what Old Bill is doing.....

Well it wasn't illegal in the Scott Watson case in NZ, but the question becomes how much they have to share with the Police, and I'm not sure about that.
But there was a comment on the video about Kevin Halligen that it was illegal to have PIs working on an active case in Portugal.  I can see good reason why that should be limited as you could get people intimidating witnesses under the disguise of a private investigation.