The Smithman e-fits

[Lace]

Nothing stopping the McCanns form doing it as they were outside the jurisdiction of the PJ
Whatever their excuse was, they simply chose not to.  IMO

So how do you know that for sure?

[jassi]

So how do you know that for sure?

See those 3 letters at the end of my post?

[G-Unit]

It would be quite ironic, imo, if the report and e-fits were already in the hands of the Met when the McCanns took steps to ensure that Exton kept quiet about them.

[blonk]

I don't think the McCann's were in a position to show the e-fits.

Oh yes they were, as I said in my post (it seems you overlooked point 5 of my post).

In August 2009, the McCanns called a press conference.

They had a new 'suspect' - a young Australian woman said to look like Victoria Beckham. She was suspected of having abducted Madeleine on a yacht bound for Australia. At that press conference Clarence Mitchell held up an efit/photofit of the suspect - someone on here will perhaps help me out with a photograph of that press conference. The efit was drawn up by the McCanns and their Team and presented by the McCann Team.

They needed no authority from the PJ, or Operation Grange, or Leics Police, or anyone else, to display their efits, and develop their story.

Just like they needed no permission from anyone to release the Smithman efits - certainly they didn't need any permission after July 2008 when the PJ investigation was archived.


AND BY THE WAY

1 At the above press conference, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman carrying Madeleine on 3 May, not a man
2 The McCann Team was savagely criticised by several people and organisations in Barcelona  in a subsequent Mail on Sunday article - for not having made the most basic checks on the claims they were making about this alleged suspect and the yacht in question
3 A week after that the Mail on Sunday ran another article based on information supplied by the owner of iJet, a company based in Virginia. He said that Brian Kennedy had not followed up one single call made to the McCann Team Investigation Hotline, which he had operated on behalf of the McCanns
         

[misty]

Well, yes, actually, I have...

...but then I have also wondered why these efits were produced in early 2008 but not used for five-and-a-half years after they were produced...

...and in particular I have wondered why:

1 The McCanns didn't immediately make them public in early 2008

2 The McCanns didn't show them to the PJ before they archived the case in July 2008

3 The McCanns did not make sure they were shown in the May 2009 C4/Mentorn documentary 

4  The McCanns never put the efits on their website, along with the Smithman audio recording, in May 2009

5 The McCanns never made them public themselves (despite going public with other sightings and their own efits e.g. the Victoria Beckham-lookalike, Barcelona, August 2009)    

6 The McCanns never put the efits in their book, 'madeleine', which emphasised that Tannerman was probably Smithman

7 Operation Grange gets mixed up over when they received the efits

8 It took Operation Grange two years and five months (May 2011 to October 2013) to get round to showing us the efits, and

9 Instead of showing us the efits at the first available opportunity, Operation Grange wasted over six months' time and over £1 million preparing TV show.     

Had the McCanns permitted the release of the Smith family's efits back in 2008, what effect would that have had on their (Smiths) credibility in the eyes of the PJ?

[misty]

The PJ lost interest in the Smith sighting after Amaral's departure. I am unsure who asked Paiva  (2/10/07) to check out the timings in the Dolphin restaurant but the production of the duplicate till receipt & the till roll faxed though by the restaurant's accountants on 4/10/07 clearly post-dated Amaral's removal.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3255.jpg

 They had ample opportunity to produce the efits before the PJ case was shelved but chose not to do so until 4/9/08.(see screenshot). Why are you ignoring the images Gatton provided which were allegedly contained in Operation Omega's files?

FWIW I have zero belief in the Smiths or their efits for reasons I have previously posted.

[Lace]

Oh yes they were, as I said in my post (it seems you overlooked point 5 of my post).

In August 2009, the McCanns called a press conference.

They had a new 'suspect' - a young Australian woman said to look like Victoria Beckham. She was suspected of having abducted Madeleine on a yacht bound for Australia. At that press conference Clarence Mitchell held up an efit/photofit of the suspect - someone on here will perhaps help me out with a photograph of that press conference. The efit was drawn up by the McCanns and their Team and presented by the McCann Team.

They needed no authority from the PJ, or Operation Grange, or Leics Police, or anyone else, to display their efits, and develop their story.

Just like they needed no permission from anyone to release the Smithman efits - certainly they didn't need any permission after July 2008 when the PJ investigation was archived.


AND BY THE WAY

1 At the above press conference, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman carrying Madeleine on 3 May, not a man
2 The McCann Team was savagely criticised by several people and organisations in Barcelona  in a subsequent Mail on Sunday article - for not having made the most basic checks on the claims they were making about this alleged suspect and the yacht in question
3 A week after that the Mail on Sunday ran another article based on information supplied by the owner of iJet, a company based in Virginia. He said that Brian Kennedy had not followed up one single call made to the McCann Team Investigation Hotline, which he had operated on behalf of the McCanns
         

Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?    I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw,   the sighting that was reported to the PJ.   

[Robittybob1]

Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?    I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw,   the sighting that was reported to the PJ.

From what you ask and say I would say your understanding of the situation needs improvement.

[Lace]

From what you ask and say I would say your understanding of the situation needs improvement.

In what way Rob?

[Robittybob1]

In what way Rob?

"Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?" -  Yes 2 weeks later
"I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw"  - NO  because the McCanns PI's got the e-fits done.
"the sighting that was reported to the PJ" - YES but then why was the E-fits not done by the PJ?

[Lace]

"Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?" -  Yes 2 weeks later
"I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw"  - NO  because the McCanns PI's got the e-fits done.
"the sighting that was reported to the PJ" - YES but then why was the E-fits not done by the PJ?

The private detectives had to hand their findings over to the PJ,  the Smith e-fits were handed to the PJ,  why was that?   In my opinion,  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PJ had to give permission for the e-fits to be released.

[Robittybob1]

The private detectives had to hand their findings over to the PJ,  the Smith e-fits were handed to the PJ,  why was that?   In my opinion,  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PJ had to give permission for the e-fits to be released.

I started this thread to discover answers about the e-fits and it has been a total surprise the way the thread continues to come up with new information.  I don't know the answers to your question sorry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your three-year-old child disappears while on holiday and a year later you secure two e-fits (possibly others too) of a person who might have been involved and you do very little about it?   

There's only one reason I can think of for not promoting the images immediately.

What is that reason, in your opinion?

[G-Unit]

The private detectives had to hand their findings over to the PJ,  the Smith e-fits were handed to the PJ,  why was that?   In my opinion,  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PJ had to give permission for the e-fits to be released.

The only people the PI's had to answer to was their clients.

[misty]

Wasn't the Smith sighting part of Amaral's investigation?    I wouldn't think the McCann's could release an e-fit of the man the Smith's saw,   the sighting that was reported to the PJ.

That is my opinion, too. The Smith family sighting formed part of a Portuguese police criminal investigation, whereas the VB lookalike sighting was reported to & dealt with by a private investigation. The McCanns could not authorise the release of the Smithman efits without compromising witnesses in the PJ case.