No abduction? So what if the e-fits were suppressed for 5 years ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Trying  to control events,  and  being  in control of them are two very different things

It might be said that the McCanns  'tried'  to contol events (  by determindly presenting a narrative that had Tannerman in the  abductor lead-role  ) 

It appears,  though,  that they have falied,  and are no longer in a position to narrate the story

Although come to think of it this is hardly all they are being accused of. Holding pictures and threatening legal action...

...this is apparently still their MO, as the current case against Amaral demonstrates.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think so, SH, your time has no price.

Thank you, Anne.

I will get the Irregulars onto it. Times are hard in London just now and I am sure they will be grateful for a few brass farthings.

[Lyall]

Although come to think of it this is hardly all they are being accused of. Holding pictures and threatening legal action...

...this is apparently still their MO, as the current case against Amaral demonstrates.

Whether they had the e-fits or not, it was only on October 14th that the public was told the 10pm sighting is of great importance. Prior to that it was always 'may be...'.

The e-fits are a bit of a red herring.

[AnneGuedes]

The e-fits are a bit of a red herring.

Isn't a red herring supposed to be subtle ?

[AnneGuedes]

Thank you, Anne.

I will get the Irregulars onto it. Times are hard in London just now and I am sure they will be grateful for a few brass farthings.

Excellent idea !

[Lyall]

Isn't a red herring supposed to be subtle ?

If it's a deliberate one perhaps, but I think the release of these e-fits is an act of desperation not deliberation. Just days before Crimewatch people weren't even talking much about the 10pm sighting online, because there had been no hint of the new thinking in the press. You'd maybe expect a change this dramatic to be slowly leaked, but the public were just hit with it all at once weren't they.

[AnneGuedes]

If it's a deliberate one perhaps, but I think the release of these e-fits is an act of desperation not deliberation. Just days before Crimewatch people weren't even talking much about the 10pm sighting online, because there had been no hint of the new thinking in the press. You'd maybe expect a change this dramatic to be slowly leaked, but the public were just hit with it all at once weren't they.

Is it a sign of desperation to send unexplained contradictory e-fits by ??? of the same person to millions of watchers when they could have had one singular e-fit newly and properly executed ? If you told me that it was deliberately done in order to get as many calls as possible in order to postpone as far as possible the definitive shelving of this case, I would agree it was a red herring.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If it's a deliberate one perhaps, but I think the release of these e-fits is an act of desperation not deliberation. Just days before Crimewatch people weren't even talking much about the 10pm sighting online, because there had been no hint of the new thinking in the press. You'd maybe expect a change this dramatic to be slowly leaked, but the public were just hit with it all at once weren't they.

Yes, that's one of the problems.

SY are being very unclear to the public on what message they are trying to get across.

Are the e-fits the same person, different people..? Without following the case it's hard to take in.

The crimewatch reconstruction went so quickly. The fact that the Smith sighting consisted of a whole family of people who saw a man carrying a child - hence the different e-fits - was mentioned only very briefly. Would people have understood in passing what these two pictures were supposed to be about?

Added to that, they look very different. So how anyone unfamilliar with the details of the case would be expected to grasp in a flash that they were supposed to represent the same person it's hard to imagine.

All very badly thought out and not very clearly done.

[AnneGuedes]

All very badly thought out and not very clearly done.

Why ?

[Lyall]

Is it a sign of desperation to send unexplained contradictory e-fits by ??? of the same person to millions of watchers when they could have had one singular e-fit newly and properly executed ? If you told me that it was deliberately done in order to get as many calls as possible in order to postpone as far as possible the definitive shelving of this case, I would agree it was a red herring.

They're under a lot of pressure, and perhaps aren't thinking too rationally? The Met have done similar things to this with e-fits before in high profile cases, releasing ones that don't actually make much sense. Most infamously in the Jill Dando murder case.

[Lyall]

Yes, that's one of the problems.

SY are being very unclear to the public on what message they are trying to get across.

Are the e-fits the same person, different people..? Without following the case it's hard to take in.

The crimewatch reconstruction went so quickly. The fact that the Smith sighting consisted of a whole family of people who saw a man carrying a child - hence the different e-fits - was mentioned only very briefly. Would people have understood in passing what these two pictures were supposed to be about?

Added to that, they look very different. So how anyone unfamilliar with the details of the case would be expected to grasp in a flash that they were supposed to represent the same person it's hard to imagine.

All very badly thought out and not very clearly done.

I agree, and the 'reconstruction' was contradictory too. They left in the information about door angles that still suggests someone was in the room before 9.15 (if you believe it... but I guess most viewers would do), so perhaps the 'revelation' about the 9.15 sighting came after the filming had been done?

[Luz]

They're under a lot of pressure, and perhaps aren't thinking too rationally? The Met have done similar things to this with e-fits before in high profile cases, releasing ones that don't actually make much sense. Most infamously in the Jill Dando murder case.

Good point. Now I understand the Crimewatch absurd release.
I hope that unlike Jill Dando they don't find an innocent person to fit their criminal profile.

But what am I saying? After all Scotland Yard is the best police in the world - when they are not shooting innocent citizens, that is.

[Luz]

Thanks Sr. Administrador/Moderator, I just love to have my posts eliminated without explanation.

I understand your job is difficult. God bless you.

[AnneGuedes]

Thanks Sr. Administrador/Moderator, I just love to have my posts eliminated without explanation.

I understand your job is difficult. God bless you.

Sometimes eliminating efficiently an abusive post implies to eliminate reactions to it. That's why Lyall's post and mine alluding to Kaa were deleted I suppose.

[Luz]

Sometimes eliminating efficiently an abusive post implies to eliminate reactions to it. That's why Lyall's post and mine alluding to Kaa were deleted I suppose.

I am not that old, but whenever I'm confronted with elimination of text  I recall the blue crayon of the censors (dictatorship prior to April 1974)....