The Smithman e-fits

[slartibartfast]

Both places are in the province of Donegal.

Drogheda?

[Carana]

The McCanns could have used the money in the fund to buy advertising space in the Portuguese newspapers to publicise the efits. As to Amaral, do you really think he had any control of editorial decisions just because he wrote a column for the paper ? Besides he always thought that Smithman was a very important lead.

There's no way of knowing whether they could legally do so or not, or if they could, but made a conscious decision not to, and if so, why. Were they advised not to? If so, by whom?

I never said that Amaral had any control over editiorial decisions. However, CdaM is (or certainly was) about as neutral as Julia's pink couch. Why would it haved wished to a) upset a cosy relationship or b) potentially confuse readers?

Yes, he did think Smithman was an important lead. With numerous hints over time (by various people) as to whom he was thought to have been. If there had been a conscious decision not to publicise them at the time, it might have been to avoid the similar ridicule that Jane had been subjected to.

Aside from that, there is still the issue that there was no active investigation to follow up on leads and to request any action that would have required a court order.

As to copyright that belonged to the fund or they would not legally have been allowed to pass the efits on to the PJ and Leicestershire police.

I'm not sure about that as copyright law is complicated. If whoever was involved in producing those efits hadn't been paid, who owns the copyright? What were the terms of the contract? Was the contract drawn up under UK or US law?

I don't know who passed the efits to the PJ / LP. Was it someone from Oakley? From the Fund? Was a court order issued to obtain them? If so, at whose instigation?

Your last paragraph makes you wonder why the McCanns even employed PIs if there was such an issue with any evidence they uncovered.

If PIs were never of any use, I don't see the point of the profession. We don't know at the moment whether any of the leads have been helpful to the review or not, so hard to tell.

[faithlilly]

There's no way of knowing whether they could legally do so or not, or if they could, but made a conscious decision not to, and if so, why. Were they advised not to? If so, by whom?

I never said that Amaral had any control over editiorial decisions. However, CdaM is (or certainly was) about as neutral as Julia's pink couch. Why would it haved wished to a) upset a cosy relationship or b) potentially confuse readers?

Yes, he did think Smithman was an important lead. With numerous hints over time (by various people) as to whom he was thought to have been. If there had been a conscious decision not to publicise them at the time, it might have been to avoid the similar ridicule that Jane had been subjected to.

Aside from that, there is still the issue that there was no active investigation to follow up on leads and to request any action that would have required a court order.

I'm not sure about that as copyright law is complicated. If whoever was involved in producing those efits hadn't been paid, who owns the copyright? What were the terms of the contract? Was the contract drawn up under UK or US law?

I don't know who passed the efits to the PJ / LP. Was it someone from Oakley? From the Fund? Was a court order issued to obtain them? If so, at whose instigation?

If PIs were never of any use, I don't see the point of the profession. We don't know at the moment whether any of the leads have been helpful to the review or not, so hard to tell.

Firstly there was no active investigation but are you actually saying that if information was forwarded either to Leceister police or the PJ as a result of the efits that that wouldn’t have been followed up ? Further if the McCanns weren’t going to publicise the efits why go to the expense of having them done in the first place ?

As to your second paragraph you’ll agree that the fund could have paid for advertising space to publicise the efits if not in CdM then certainly the other Portuguese newspapers ?

We were told at the time of the Times Insight article that it was the McCanns who passed the efits to the LP and PJ so no mystery there and, it would appear, no problem over copyright. 

As to the PIs it is you who claimed that even if they dug up any information there was no active investigation to take that information forward so my question was why then have PIs in the first place ?

[slartibartfast]

Firstly there was no active investigation but are you actually saying that if information was forwarded either to Leceister police or the PJ as a result of the efits that that wouldn’t have been followed up ? Further if the McCanns weren’t going to publicise the efits why go to the expense of having them done in the first place ?

As to your second paragraph you’ll agree that the fund could have paid for advertising space to publicise the efits if not in CdM then certainly the other Portuguese newspapers ?

We were told at the time of the Times Insight article that it was the McCanns who passed the efits to the LP and PJ so no mystery there and, it would appear, no problem over copyright. 

As to the PIs it is you who claimed that even if they dug up any information there was no active investigation to take that information forward so my question was why then have PIs in the first place ?

...and as legal expertise had been obtained, you would assume legal issues could have been sorted out.

[faithlilly]

...and as legal expertise had been obtained, you would assume legal issues could have been sorted out.

It’s clutching at straws. The truth is there is no legal reason why the efits weren’t publicised. The McCanns, bizarrely, simply chose not to.

[Lace]

Was there something about it that you found particularly interesting?

Yes this part -

14.1 All unidentified E-Fits will be stored in a central folder named “Unidentified E-Fits”. Once identification has been made the OIC will update the occurrence to that effect, and inform the E-Fit operator responsible for creating the E-Fit. It will then be the responsibility of this member of staff to move the E-Fit into the separate file entitled “Identified E-Fits” in order that it can be searched and the E-Fit disposed of in line with the requirements of MOPI.

It seems to me that unidentified e.fits are stored,   so I don't see anything wrong with SY bringing out Smithman e.fit after so many years.    Once he is identified they dispose of it.

[slartibartfast]

Yes this part -

14.1 All unidentified E-Fits will be stored in a central folder named “Unidentified E-Fits”. Once identification has been made the OIC will update the occurrence to that effect, and inform the E-Fit operator responsible for creating the E-Fit. It will then be the responsibility of this member of staff to move the E-Fit into the separate file entitled “Identified E-Fits” in order that it can be searched and the E-Fit disposed of in line with the requirements of MOPI.

It seems to me that unidentified e.fits are stored,   so I don't see anything wrong with SY bringing out Smithman e.fit after so many years.    Once he is identified they dispose of it.

You seem to be misunderstanding “stored”.

[Lace]

You seem to be misunderstanding “stored”.

In what way?

[Lace]

It’s clutching at straws. The truth is there is no legal reason why the efits weren’t publicised. The McCanns, bizarrely, simply chose not to.

I don't think they were allowed to publicise the e.fits,   it's up to the police IMO

[Robittybob1]

Yes this part -

14.1 All unidentified E-Fits will be stored in a central folder named “Unidentified E-Fits”. Once identification has been made the OIC will update the occurrence to that effect, and inform the E-Fit operator responsible for creating the E-Fit. It will then be the responsibility of this member of staff to move the E-Fit into the separate file entitled “Identified E-Fits” in order that it can be searched and the E-Fit disposed of in line with the requirements of MOPI.

It seems to me that unidentified e.fits are stored,   so I don't see anything wrong with SY bringing out Smithman e.fit after so many years.    Once he is identified they dispose of it.

I take that to mean if he is innocent.  Like if Smithman came forward and he is obviously innocent would they then dispose of the e-fit?   

[jassi]

I don't think they were allowed to publicise the e.fits,   it's up to the police IMO

So what about the Beckham lookalike? Did the police publish that?

[faithlilly]

I don't think they were allowed to publicise the e.fits,   it's up to the police IMO

The McCanns publicised a myriad of efits, not least Tannerman. What made those different from Smithman ?

[Lace]

The McCanns publicised a myriad of efits, not least Tannerman. What made those different from Smithman ?

The Police produced tannerman first.

[slartibartfast]

In what way?

You appear to imply it means put out of the way rather than just an area on a system for processing.

[Lace]

I take that to mean if he is innocent.  Like if Smithman came forward and he is obviously innocent would they then dispose of the e-fit?   

I would imagine so Rob.