The Smithman e-fits

[misty]

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.

The active investigation was following a different line of enquiry to the PI's in the eyes of most people. IMO.

[misty]

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.

The McCanns met with Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 to request a review of the case. Do you know when that meeting took place or when Johnson commissioned Gamble to prepare a report?

[G-Unit]

The McCanns met with Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 to request a review of the case. Do you know when that meeting took place or when Johnson commissioned Gamble to prepare a report?

The report, ordered by the then Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson in late 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeliene-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-british-portuguese-police-fell-out-daughter-missing-operation-a7714736.html

[misty]

The report, ordered by the then Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson in late 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeliene-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-british-portuguese-police-fell-out-daughter-missing-operation-a7714736.html

Thanks for that. So the "late 2009" & "by October 2009" may well have been the stage at which the McCanns handed over the efits to a more trusted recipient in Alan Johnson/UK Govt with a view to progress the case.
By that time, the McCanns would have been more aware of someof the information which LP should have forwarded to the PJ but appeared not to have been actioned.

[Brietta]

Thanks for that. So the "late 2009" & "by October 2009" may well have been the stage at which the McCanns handed over the efits to a more trusted recipient in Alan Johnson/UK Govt with a view to progress the case.
By that time, the McCanns would have been more aware of someof the information which LP should have forwarded to the PJ but appeared not to have been actioned.

I think it was an incredibly busy period for Kate and Gerry as they worked to get officialdom to reopen the investigation into what had happened to Madeleine.
There was just so much going on at the time in which the Smith efit was just one of the very many cogs in the wheel and may even have been one of the many studiously ignored by the Portuguese.

Snip
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html

[Robittybob1]

I think it was an incredibly busy period for Kate and Gerry as they worked to get officialdom to reopen the investigation into what had happened to Madeleine.
There was just so much going on at the time in which the Smith efit was just one of the very many cogs in the wheel and may even have been one of the many studiously ignored by the Portuguese.

Snip
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html

When you think about the logic of trying to get the investigation reopened, why do that if they were guilty in any other way other than for child neglect? 

[G-Unit]

When you think about the logic of trying to get the investigation reopened, why do that if they were guilty in any other way other than for child neglect?

I don't think they ever asked for the investigation to be reopened.

[Lace]

I don't think they ever asked for the investigation to be reopened.

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but didn't Gerry McCann mention they wanted the investigation reopened in the Leveson inquiry?

[Robittybob1]

I don't think they ever asked for the investigation to be reopened.

Maybe not the PJ investigation but there was the open letter in the papers that was going to carry on till the British did their investigation  (I've just listened to the BBC documentary and that was the impression I got.  Was that not roughly correct?)
https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=1842  from this point onward.  I can't think that the McCanns had not been behind that.

[slartibartfast]

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but didn't Gerry McCann mention they wanted the investigation reopened in the Leveson inquiry?

That isn’t the same thing.

[Mr Gray]

Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation  reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened.  That's why they asked for a review  which led to the investigation being  reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of  evidence which shows their innocence... Imo

[G-Unit]

Thanks for that. So the "late 2009" & "by October 2009" may well have been the stage at which the McCanns handed over the efits to a more trusted recipient in Alan Johnson/UK Govt with a view to progress the case.
By that time, the McCanns would have been more aware of someof the information which LP should have forwarded to the PJ but appeared not to have been actioned.

No-one has ever suggested that the e-fits were given to Johnson.

[Erngath]

Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation  reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened.  That's why they asked for a review  which led to the investigation being  reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of  evidence which shows their innocence... Imo

I share that opinion.

[kizzy]

Of course the mccanns fought to get the investigation  reopened... But new evidence had to be found first... It couldn't just be reopened.  That's why they asked for a review  which led to the investigation being  reopened.
So as Rob questions... Why would they do this if they we're involved... It's another piece of  evidence which shows their innocence... Imo

Scraping the barrel a bit there, classing that as evidence. imo

[Mr Gray]

Scraping the barrel a bit there, classing that as evidence. imo

It is evidence

Those, scraping the barrel are the ones who want to deny the mccanns wanted the investigation  reopened... Imo