Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.

[Redblossom]

But we don't know the details do we  - so we can only speculate.   

Another thing which as far as I know has never been established is when the McCanns were actually given these Efits.    For all we know they could have handed them to the police as soon as they received them but as we are not privy to the why's and wherefore's  - then we simply don't know.

Now youre just making things up muddying the waters to suit!

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008 , recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0

(Do read the full article for all the details includng the Mccann spokesmans comments)


and

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

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."


Hope that's all cleared up for you now.

[Estuarine]

Now youre just making things up muddying the waters to suit!

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008 , recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0

(Do read the full article for all the details includng the Mccann spokesmans comments)


and

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

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."


Hope that's all cleared up for you now.

Not withheld at all just a very slow post  8-)(--); 12 months minimum in transit; given to the Portuguese 12 months after the case was archived; LP obliquely blamed for not passing info to The MPS; recommendations of their own PI's ignored; finally handed over to The MPS by McCann PI's three years later. Just among friends what would you call those shenanigans?
Of course there will be innocent explanations to paraphrase Clarence. Any rational person would be receiving aromas of siberian hamsters.

[Redblossom]

Not withheld at all just a very slow post  8-)(--); 12 months minimum in transit; given to the Portuguese 12 months after the case was archived; LP obliquely blamed for not passing info to The MPS; recommendations of their own PI's ignored; finally handed over to The MPS by McCann PI's three years later. Just among friends what would you call those shenanigans?
Of course there will be innocent explanations to paraphrase Clarence. Any rational person would be receiving aromas of siberian hamsters.

Spot on and LOL at siberian hamsters!!!

 

fact remains these efits were kept hush hush by the Mccanns in ALL their interviews, in their documentary, in their book! whilst they publicised efits/pointed finger at numerous tom dicks and harrys, ergo hidden/suppressed till it came to light courtesy of the Insight investigative Times team.FACT


 

[Benice]

Now youre just making things up muddying the waters to suit!

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008 , recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0

(Do read the full article for all the details includng the Mccann spokesmans comments)




and

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

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."


Hope that's all cleared up for you now.

That still doesn't tell us the date when McCanns received the Efits Red.  Weren't there problems over payments at the time?    I don't profess to know the details but could it be that the Efits were held back by the PIs because they hadn't been paid for them?      I really don't know, but there are too many 'unknowns' for me personally to come to specific conclusions about this.   In the meantime others are perfectly entitled to their own opinions.   

[John]

But we don't know the details do we  - so we can only speculate.   

Another thing which as far as I know has never been established is when the McCanns were actually given these Efits.      For all we know they could have handed them to the police as soon as they received them but as we are not privy to the why's and wherefore's  - then we simply don't know.

Feel free to speculate Icab but personally I don't feel I have enough information to form a proper opinion or  make judgements.

(G'night)

There is no need to speculate.   The e-fits were commissioned by Halligen on behalf of Kennedy and the McCanns.   This followed the initial refusal by Mr Smith following an earlier approach.

Halligen's report stated that the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

We now know that Scotland Yard agree and are basing their new investigation on this report and e-fits.

The question has always been and still is >> why was this report together with the two e-fits kept under wraps?

[pathfinder73]

Because they know the TRUTH - that doesn't mean they want you or anyone else to know it 

[AnneGuedes]

There is no need to speculate.   The e-fits were commissioned by Halligen on behalf of Kennedy and the McCanns.   This followed the initial refusal by Mr Smith following an earlier approach.

Halligen's report stated that the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

We now know that Scotland Yard agree and are basing their new investigation on this report and e-fits.

The question has always been and still is >> why was this report together with the two e-fits kept under wraps?

The issue is clearly exposed, thank you John !

[Lyall]

You weren't commenting on my opinion - you were sneering at me personally. 

Would you like it if I called people 'apologists' for burglars or paedaphiles just because they voiced their opinions on why they think burglars would not abduct a child - or why they don't think a paedaphile was involved?   I very much doubt it.

As far as I am concerned it was a newspaper article - which didn't give the whole picture - and had to issue an apology for making a false allegation.    Nuff said IMO. 

My faith in the accuracy of newspaper articles is and always has been zilch.    Others may feel differently - but that's up to them.

This wasn't just any old article, Benice. It's one of the few - very few - that has dared to raise questions since late-2008.

The correction did not change most of what the article said, and the other newspapers that reported the Sunday Times article's points did not print any corrections.

You can't dismiss the questions the article raised that easily.

The Telegraph, Mail and Star also printed the story, and made no corrections.

[slartibartfast]

This wasn't just any old article, Benice. It's one of the few - very few - that has dared to raise questions since late-2008.

The correction did not change most of what the article said, and the other newspapers that reported the Sunday Times article's points did not print any corrections.

You can't dismiss the questions the article raised that easily.

The Telegraph, Mail and Star also printed the story, and made no corrections.

Yup, the correction was clear to point out that it shouldn't be inferred that the ST was stating that the McCanns (personally) suppressed the efits.

[Benice]

This wasn't just any old article, Benice. It's one of the few - very few - that has dared to raise questions since late-2008.

The correction did not change most of what the article said, and the other newspapers that reported the Sunday Times article's points did not print any corrections.

You can't dismiss the questions the article raised that easily.The Telegraph, Mail and Star also printed the story, and made no corrections.

People seem to have had no difficulty in dismissing the claim in the same article that Martin Smith has since stressed that he no longer believes the man he saw was Gerry McCann.     Surely that is the most momentous news in the article?  It would certainly seem to dispel any idea that the Efit was of Gerry - and that is why they withheld it - which IIRC is a claim being made.

I have no idea what happened over the Efits because IMO we haven't been told enough to know with any certainty.

However SY will know - and that's good enough for me.

[John]

People seem to have had no difficulty in dismissing the claim in the same article that Martin Smith has since stressed that he no longer believes the man he saw was Gerry McCann.     Surely that is the most momentous news in the article?  It would certainly seem to dispel any idea that the e-fit was of Gerry - and that is why they withheld it - which IIRC is a claim being made.

I have no idea what happened over the e-fits because IMO we haven't been told enough to know with any certainty.

However SY will know - and that's good enough for me.

A good point Benice.   As I pointed out previously, SY would not be pursuing identification of the individual to whom the e-fits relate if they thought for a minute that it was G McC.

It doesn't take much to realise, the ST article aside, that Mr Smith must have relented and changed his earlier view that Smithman resembled G McC.  After all, the rest of the Smith group never shared his view.

[Lyall]

However SY will know - and that's good enough for me.

We'll agree to disagree there

[Wonderfulspam]

A good point Benice.   As I pointed out previously, SY would not be pursuing identification of the individual to whom the e-fits relate if they thought for a minute that it was G McC.

It doesn't take much to realise, the ST article aside, that Mr Smith must have relented and changed his earlier view that Smithman resembled G McC.  After all, the rest of the Smith group never shared his view.

With the exception being Mrs Smith.

[Lyall]

A good point Benice.   As I pointed out previously, SY would not be pursuing identification of the individual to whom the e-fits relate if they thought for a minute that it was G McC.

It doesn't take much to realise, the ST article aside, that Mr Smith must have relented and changed his earlier view that Smithman resembled G McC.  After all, the rest of the Smith group never shared his view.

SY couldn't not use them John once they had them in their possession, because during Crimewatch they still used others produced even earlier. They had to just throw it all out there (and once again hope no papers would ask questions).

[AnneGuedes]

SY would not be pursuing identification of the individual to whom the e-fits relate if they thought for a minute that it was G McC.

It doesn't take much to realise, the ST article aside, that Mr Smith must have relented and changed his earlier view that Smithman resembled G McC.  After all, the rest of the Smith group never shared his view.

How can SY possibly know that Smithman wasn't Mr McCann if Mr Smith himself isn't sure ?
Mr Smith never said that Smithman resembled Mr McCann. He spoke of a weird way of carrying. Have you already carried a body, John ?
Mr Smith Jr and his wife didn't share his view. Had they been sure that Smithman wasn't Mr McCann, as Mr Smith was sure he wasn't Mr Murat, they would have said it.