SY Crimewatch Smithman Efits

[ferryman]

I don't have to provide cites, you do. I'll stick with what their 'source' said. On the report;

the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

The McCann fund source said;

 the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

There you are; it's quite clear and easily understood. Nothing to do with police investigations, just a decision by the McCanns and their supporters for the reasons given.

Efits are used to support live and on-going criminal enquiries.

They aren't used for any purpose.

To have published an efit of (potentially!) Madeleine's abductor -- apart from a live and ongoing criminal enquiry -- would have been crass, bordering on criminal, irresponsibility.

[mercury]

Efits are used to support live and on-going criminal enquiries.

They aren't used for any purpose.

To have published an efit of (potentially!) Madeleine's abductor -- apart from a live and ongoing criminal enquiry -- would have been crass, bordering on criminal, irresponsibility.

Dave Edgar and the other one supported by Mitchell did exactly that when there was no police investigation

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/25MAY9/SUN_07_05_09.htm

[mercury]

Well? Ferryman? Ignoring a post in reponse to your claims, which youve read is a sign of....???

[pegasus]

Dave Edgar and the other one supported by Mitchell did exactly that when there was no police investigation

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/25MAY9/SUN_07_05_09.htm

Those PIs had been given the oakley report so it's surprising they didn't use two of the efits in it.

Source: "The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators" (ST 27 Oct 2013)

[misty]

Those PIs had been given the oakley report so it's surprising they didn't use two of the efits in it.

Source: "The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators" (ST 27 Oct 2013)

Was the Oakley report worth the paper it was written on?

[Brietta]

Those PIs had been given the oakley report so it's surprising they didn't use two of the efits in it.

Source: "The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators" (ST 27 Oct 2013)

You found the saga of the paddling 'priest' intriguing.  Seriously, Pegasus, given the history would you have used anything emanating from that proven unreliable source with any degree of confidence?
I certainly wouldn't have ... and particularly not efits apparently sourced from people who were on record as being unable to help the Portuguese police in the first instance.

I wonder if the information passed on to new investigators consisted of a 'catch up' on those telephone contacts Oakley ignored (As we know  ~ one of the criticisms of Oakley which initially led to the loss of confidence and the parting of the ways between employer and contractor lay in the latter's failure to pick up calls to a hotline set up for information).

**snip
But The Mail on Sunday can reveal today that despite setting up a hotline for potential informants and witnesses, none of the hundreds of calls received by a call centre hired by Halligen, 48, was listened to by Oakley investigators - and Halligen also bragged to his colleagues that he had executed a series of peculiar tactics to find Madeleine.

He claimed to have hired an actor to pretend to be a 'drunken priest' who would seek confessions as he toured the bars of Praia da Luz, the resort where Madeleine disappeared in May 2007.

And he told colleagues that a family with a Madeleine lookalike daughter had been paid to set up home in a nearby resort in order to tempt out a potential kidnapper.

Meanwhile, a paper trail obtained by The Mail on Sunday shows that Halligen, a former director of a catering firm, launched an extraordinary spending spree on hotels, cigar bars, restaurants and luxury goods while he was in the pay of the Find Madeleine Fund, and in the period shortly after he was fired last summer.

Documents show that in his first two months as lead investigator in the search for Madeleine, Halligen spent £7,000 on a personal chauffeur.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz4HRtLU6O8

[pegasus]

Was the Oakley report worth the paper it was written on?

That depends on whether you equate "critical of the group" with "waste of paper".

The Oakley report (which was handed to the next set of PIs) must have included the 2 smithman efits.

[pegasus]

You found the saga of the paddling 'priest' intriguing.  Seriously, Pegasus, given the history would you have used anything emanating from that proven unreliable source with any degree of confidence?
I certainly wouldn't have ... and particularly not efits apparently sourced from people who were on record as being unable to help the Portuguese in the first instance.

I wonder if the information passed on to new investigators consisted of a 'catch up' on those telephone contacts Oakley ignored (As we know  ~ one of the criticisms of Oakley which initially led to the loss of confidence and the parting of the ways between employer and contractor lay in the latter's failure to pick up calls to a hotline set up for information).

**snip
But The Mail on Sunday can reveal today that despite setting up a hotline for potential informants and witnesses, none of the hundreds of calls received by a call centre hired by Halligen, 48, was listened to by Oakley investigators - and Halligen also bragged to his colleagues that he had executed a series of peculiar tactics to find Madeleine.

He claimed to have hired an actor to pretend to be a 'drunken priest' who would seek confessions as he toured the bars of Praia da Luz, the resort where Madeleine disappeared in May 2007.

And he told colleagues that a family with a Madeleine lookalike daughter had been paid to set up home in a nearby resort in order to tempt out a potential kidnapper.

Meanwhile, a paper trail obtained by The Mail on Sunday shows that Halligen, a former director of a catering firm, launched an extraordinary spending spree on hotels, cigar bars, restaurants and luxury goods while he was in the pay of the Find Madeleine Fund, and in the period shortly after he was fired last summer.

Documents show that in his first two months as lead investigator in the search for Madeleine, Halligen spent £7,000 on a personal chauffeur.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz4HRtLU6O8

Did you notice this bit Brietta?
"the director of operations at .. the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed ...
' We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us. ' "

Therefore IMO the situation in about Aug 2010 (the date of the Mail investigative article) was that "no one" (not Oakley, nor the next teamt of investigators, nor the fund) had got in touch with the call center company to log all the calls.

[mercury]

Those PIs had been given the oakley report so it's surprising they didn't use two of the efits in it.

Source: "The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators" (ST 27 Oct 2013)

Indeed

Another pointer to the fact the mccanns didnt want to publicise the smiths efits
My point was towards ferryman though who claims no image is allowed and its criminal irresponsibility to post one if no police force is investigating, those same PIs released scar face...hmmm

[misty]

That depends on whether you equate "critical of the group" with "waste of paper".

The Oakley report (which was handed to the next set of PIs) must have included the 2 smithman efits.

The report was deemed "hypercritical of the people involved". Does that necessarily mean the McCanns or was it their friends? Maybe it was actually referring to the Portuguese police or the team surrounding the McCanns. For the report to be considered a major distraction there must have been something highly damning in it.
As per the previous post - did Oakley ever pass on the efits or the call centre records or were the Fund directors only made aware of their existence when people started chasing unpaid bills?

[mercury]

the  fund was purported to give em half a million quid, its their responsibility to check on them at every turn
They didnt
They got nothing
They complained but didnt sue
sounds dodgy to me

[Brietta]

Did you notice this bit Brietta?
"the director of operations at .. the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed ...
' We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us. ' "

Therefore IMO the situation in about Aug 2010 (the date of the Mail investigative article) was that "no one" (not Oakley, nor the next teamt of investigators, nor the fund) had got in touch with the callcenter company to lsten to the calls.

Another agency which had not been paid for the work they had carried out despite Halligen taking £300,000.
The man was an utter disaster who seemed able to defraud all with whom he came into contact without the slightest twinge of concience.

The most poignant quote from that article is the one made by Dr Parton ...
"He has left a trail of debts across America and the UK. But the horrible truth is that he stole from the McCanns what they really couldn't afford - time."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz4HS8bedkn

This man who used and abused the fund money for a missing child ... a very successful con artist of the most devious kind ... provided efits to the family of the missing child.

Why on earth do you suppose that the McCanns and the Fund should suppose that information should have been any more reliable than anything else associated with Halligen.
They have been derided for "falling for" incompetent private investigators ~ although in Halligen's case they had him sussed before most perhaps including the FBI.
Oakley's work was unsatisfactory which is why they were sacked ... and subsequent events proved that was the correct course of action ... and they must have been highly suspicious of any materials from that source.
That suspicion was very quickly confirmed as being justified.
Why would any reasonable person construct a campaign around any of the material provided by a dyed in the wool dishonest and dishonourable con artist? They must have been relieved they hadn't fallen for the deceit.

Latterly, DCI Redwood perhaps had more information about these efits than was previously available ... and his use of them no doubt had purpose based on his professional judgement.
But I think the McCanns would have been very foolish indeed to rush into promoting them as part of Madeleine's campaign ... given the source how would they have explained them and in what way could they have used them?

[Brietta]

The report was deemed "hypercritical of the people involved". Does that necessarily mean the McCanns or was it their friends? Maybe it was actually referring to the Portuguese police or the team surrounding the McCanns. For the report to be considered a major distraction there must have been something highly damning in it.
As per the previous post - did Oakley ever pass on the efits or the call centre records or were the Fund directors only made aware of their existence when people started chasing unpaid bills?

Excellent points, Misty.
The man was an unprofessional fantasist ... the Lord alone knows what he had put into the report.

[G-Unit]

Excellent points, Misty.
The man was an unprofessional fantasist ... the Lord alone knows what he had put into the report.

Halligen was indeed unreliable, but it was his sub-contractors who produced the report and e-fits, not him. He was sacked in Sept 2008, and the McCanns were given the report, including the e-fits, in Nov 2008. Clearly not by Halligen then.

One of the sub-contractors had an impressive CV. He had the Queen's Police Medal and an OBE. At the time he was awarded the OBE he was listed as an MOD employee, Grade 7, which is the equivalent of a Colonel in the Army. He was, allegedly, also a victim of Halligen.

[Angelo222]

Wiki's assessment of the ST article:

Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the Fund told Exton that the report and its efits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the Fund soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[50] The Fund passed the e-fits to the police – the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[176] – but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial. Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Oakley

As to why Kate devoted 4 pages to Smithman without using the efits... I somewhat doubt that it was because one of them vaguely resembled Gerry. There could have been copyright issues; she could have been advised not to by the police pending a review / reopening of the case.

So Exton and Halligen of Oakley also favoured the woke and wandered and met with an accident scenario to the exclusion of an abduction?

Point being that an abduction would get the McCanns off the neglect hook while woke and wandered wouldn't.  If it is ever proven that Maddie got out and met with an accident the olde neglect factor comes back to play.