The Smithman e-fits

[Carana]

Read again,part of a dossier.

Yes, I just did, and you're correct, my bad -  it does say as part of a dossier. Was this the entire dossier, or a few elements of it?

These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private  investigators that had been working on the case.  The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do  not form part of any current appeal.

The bottom line is that they got the efits in September 2008; they don't form part of any current appeal; and they don't want to give a financial breakdown of "individual spends", nor give a running commentary, which detailed FOI responses could contribute to, of the ongoing investigation:

We are not prepared to provide data on individual spends under the operation as that information, if disclosed, would indicate the level of activity and the current focus of the operation.

The MPS are not prepared to provide a running commentary on the progress of the investigation and instead will release statements in the form of press lines or blogs in order to keep the public informed without compromising what is an ongoing investigation. Providing up to date data for each FOI request that comes in would add towards that "running commentary" and has the potential to disrupt the investigation therefore we have applied the exemption under section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act.

[Carana]

Its best if you don't ingest this guff.

I was innoculated long ago.  :)

[Vertigo Swirl]

Cites?

Cites for me not noticing?

[Carana]

From the FoI reply
"These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008
as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private
investigators that had been working on the case. "

It might not be the whole dossier, but clearly more than just the e-fits . The text is quite clear

Snap again. lol

[Carana]

The private investigators were working in double quick time or were working away  before the archiving in July 2008 to be able to get a file produced by September 2008.

If that's the case, do you find something suspicious about that? If so, what?

[barrier]

If that's the case, do you find something suspicious about that? If so, what?

Observations of what is written down,why does one need to be suspicious of it? One a FOI reply the other the Archiving date.

[Carana]

Observations of what is written down,why does one need to be suspicious of it? One a FOI reply the other the Archiving date.

Not sure what you're getting at.

[barrier]

Not sure what you're getting at.

If that's the case, do you find something suspicious about that? If so, what?

Observations of what is written down,why does one need to be suspicious of it? One a FOI reply the other the Archiving date.

[G-Unit]

I was just thinking that.

The Op Task debrief was published some time in 2009. I find it unlikely that the operation shut down overnight when the case was archived. Unless that's the case, the efits would presumably have been fed into the database.

Grange inherited the work already done by Task, so I don't see the issue, beyond referring to the later op name as opposed to the earlier one.

Nitpicking re the name is less important, IMO, than the accusation that the McCanns had sat on them until years later, with insinuations of having deliberately done so for some nefarious reason.

The information was given to the Met in 2008 by the PI's. The e-fits were given to LP and the PJ in 2009.by the Fund/McCanns. The e-fits and dossier were given to OG in 2011 by ? or they were requested from Exton by OG in 2011? 

[jassi]

The information was given to the Met in 2008 by the PI's. The e-fits were given to LP and the PJ in 2009.by the Fund/McCanns. The e-fits and dossier were given to OG in 2011 by ? or they were requested from Exton by OG in 2011?

Could be that in 2011, OG were checking that there wasn't anything else that they should know about.

[Robittybob1]

Could be that in 2011, OG were checking that there wasn't anything else that they should know about.

Classic question for a policeman - is there anything else that they should know about?

[Alice Purjorick]

IIRC scuttlebutt had it that Oakley had to receive permission from their client, whichever legal person that was, before handing over the files (?) to the MPS. The permission bit suggests the there was a no divulgence to third parties clause in the contract. That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files.

[sadie]

IIRC scuttlebutt had it that Oakley had to receive permission from their client, whichever legal person that was, before handing over the files (?) to the MPS. The permission bit suggests the there was a no divulgence to third parties clause in the contract. That being the case then paradoxically it would suggest there was nothing new or of a serious nature to interest the police, within said files.

ORLY?
So “rumour informs” us that Oakley “needed permission” from “someone legal” (their client), before “maybe” handing over the files to “maybe” the MPS.
So “according to rumour”, “IYO”, this “suggests” there was a no divulgence clause to third parties.
So accordingly, “based on rumour”, and “IYO”, this paradoxically “suggests” that there was nothing new, or of serious nature to interest the police, within said files


OH REALLY?
Try putting that to the Courts


BTW, I added the IYO's.  Seems that you are privileged and that for YOU they dont matter   

[Alice Purjorick]

ORLY?
So “rumour informs” us that Oakley “needed permission” from “someone legal” (their client), before “maybe” handing over the files to “maybe” the MPS.
So “according to rumour”, “IYO”, this “suggests” there was a no divulgence clause to third parties.
So accordingly, “based on rumour”, and “IYO”, this paradoxically “suggests” that there was nothing new, or of serious nature to interest the police, within said files


OH REALLY?
Try putting that to the Courts


BTW, I added the IYO's.  Seems that you are privileged and that for YOU they dont matter   

Try coming at it from a different angle.
What is a contract?
Can two parties enter into an illegal contract?
What is an accessory after the fact?
Now work from that.

The interesting bit in the contract with Oakley is that we only know one party for sure.
Unless someone on here has had sight of or a copy of said contract.

[Mr Gray]

Try coming at it from a different angle.
What is a contract?
Can two parties enter into an illegal contract?
What is an accessory after the fact?
Now work from that.

The interesting bit in the contract with Oakley is that we only know one party for sure.
Unless someone on here has had sight of or a copy of said contract.

Oakley may have had the full support from the Mccanns in sending information to SY