The Smithman e-fits

[G-Unit]

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.

The Times article claimed;

The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008,
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/in-full-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-5-years-times-2-t21297.html



If that's true, it happened after the the Oakley contract ended in September and after the information had been provided to the Met.

Potentially, therefore, Operation Grange got it from the Met (?), from Exton and from the McCann's last PI's, Edgar and Cowley.

[Carana]

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.

Whether passing on the e-fits had to be technically approved to pass onto the Met or not, even the Sunday Times "correction" about the "Insight" supposed investigative piece doesn't appear to be accurate.


According to the Press Gazette piece ( September 19, 2014), the offending "Insight" article was published on 27 October of the previous year, i.e., 2013.

According to the "correction":

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."
   
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

Unless basic arithmetic has changed goalposts, 2013 - 5 = 2008.

So why did the "correction" say 2009? Was it to make it seem as if the "hidden for 5 years" allegation was only out by 1 year (i.e., only hidden for 4 and therefore a mere detail?)

Credit where it's due, it's thanks to the FOI response to Tony that the efits were not in fact "hidden" for 5 years.

I'm not sure how that will affect those who have been crowing that the McCanns had "hidden" them because of a potential likeness to Gerry as regards one of them will weave that into a newly fine-tuned conspiracy narrative, but I expect someone will soon find an "explanation".

As regards the last bit of your post: "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"...

I'm not sure that it wasn't of interest to the police, but rather that there was no interest in PT in reopening the investigation for a further round and the UK only had a supporting role.

[jassi]

Whether passing on the e-fits had to be techically approved to pass onto the Met or not, even the Sunday Times "correction" about the "Insight" supposed investigative piece doesn't appear to be accurate.


According to the Press Gazette piece ( September 19, 2014), the offending "Insight" article was published on 27 October of the previous year, i.e., 2013.

According to the "correction":

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."
   
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

Unless basic arithmetic has changed goalposts, 2013 - 5 = 2008.

So why did the "correction" say 2009? Was it to make it seem as if the "hidden for 5 years" allegation was only out by 1 year (i.e., only hidden for 4 and therefore a mere detail?)

Credit where it's due, it's thanks to the FOI response to Tony that the efits were not in fact "hidden" for 5 years.

I'm not sure how that will affect those who have been crowing that the McCanns had "hidden" them because of a potential likeness to Gerry as regards one of them will weave that into a newly fine-tuned conspiracy narrative, but I expect someone will soon find an "explanation".

As regards the last bit of your post: "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"...

I'm not sure that it wasn't of interest to the police, but rather that there was no interest in PT in reopening the investigation for a further round and the UK only had a supporting role.

I can't see any mention that the PJ got more than the e-fits in 2009. Is it known when or if they ever got the full dossier?

[Carana]

I can't see any mention that the PJ got more than the e-fits in 2009. Is it known when or if they ever got the full dossier?

If the Sunday Times "correction" got the wrong year (2009 as opposed to 2008), there's no way of knowing.

The PJ did apparently get the efits. Hopefully, there was an accompanying report on the process that culminated in that (notes taken on the recollection of features, and by whom, and any cognitive process leading up to them).

If some of the "full dossier" was critical of the PJ, then I could understand that it might not have been very "delicate" to forward the totality at the time.

Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009... what action was taken?

[sadie]

If the Sunday Times "correction" got the wrong year (2009 as opposed to 2008), there's no way of knowing.

The PJ did apparently get the efits. Hopefully, there was an accompanying report on the process that culminated in that (notes taken on the recollection of features, and by whom, and any cognitive process leading up to them).

If some of the "full dossier" was critical of the PJ, then I could understand that it might not have been very "delicate" to forward the totality at the time.

Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009... what action was taken?

Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009...[/size] what action was taken?[/color]

"What action was taken?"
That is the important question.

[G-Unit]

If the Sunday Times "correction" got the wrong year (2009 as opposed to 2008), there's no way of knowing.

The PJ did apparently get the efits. Hopefully, there was an accompanying report on the process that culminated in that (notes taken on the recollection of features, and by whom, and any cognitive process leading up to them).

If some of the "full dossier" was critical of the PJ, then I could understand that it might not have been very "delicate" to forward the totality at the time.

Whether it landed on Paiva's desk in 2008 or 2009... what action was taken?

I find events in the UK much more interesting.

September 2008;

The dossier and e-fits are handed to the Metropolitan Police.
The Fund and Oakley part company.

November 2008;

The dossier and e=fits are given to the Fund.

Why hand evidence to a police force which wasn't involved?
Why hand evidence to the client after the contract had ended?

[Carana]

I find events in the UK much more interesting.

September 2008;

The dossier and e-fits are handed to the Metropolitan Police.
The Fund and Oakley part company.

November 2008;

The dossier and e=fits are given to the Fund.

Why hand evidence to a police force which wasn't involved?
Why hand evidence to the client after the contract had ended?

Where does this Nov 2008 date come from?

[Alice Purjorick]

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

They may very well have.
I was not suggesting they didn't have.

[faithlilly]

I find events in the UK much more interesting.

September 2008;

The dossier and e-fits are handed to the Metropolitan Police.
The Fund and Oakley part company.

November 2008;

The dossier and e=fits are given to the Fund.

Why hand evidence to a police force which wasn't involved?
Why hand evidence to the client after the contract had ended?

Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?

Wishful thinking?

[faithlilly]

Wishful thinking?

Just suggesting causes for the anomalies above.

[Alice Purjorick]

Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?

Looking at the process and ignoring names. Well mentioning names does detract from the principle around here.
1)Party A makes a contract with Party B. The whole point of a contract being that it is enforceable at law (fact).
2)Party A includes includes a "no divulgence to third parties" clause in the contract (hypothetically)
3)Two parties may not enter into an illegal contract as no court will uphold an illegal act (fact).
4)So the hypothetical no divulgence clause only works to a point. That point being where Party B ignores it so he may report to the police what he is duty bound to in order to avoid the potential of being considered an accessory after. In that case Party A has no comeback against Party B wrt to the "no divulgence" clause (fact:see the wholepoint of a contract is that it is enforceable at law)..
5) If Party B had to seek permission from Party A then what is being divulged is probably of little or no more significance than the neighbours cat just having had kittens. (imo).

[Carana]

Was the report given directly to the Met before the fund because Oakley suspected the holiday group ? Is this what Adrian Gatton means by his claim that we don’t know the whole story re: Oakley ?

I expect that Conspiracy Central is working on fitting that in as we type. ;)

If the UK police got one version in September and a different one a bit later, the Met has had years to check through both.

A less "exciting" possibility is that the substance was passed on and e.g., an accounting sheet annexe hadn't been done (of no particular interest to the police) or any of the usual last-minute details hadn't been double-checked or added, and was therefore not considered final.

Or, that November was put on the cover, anticipating that the contract would continue, and didn't bother to change the cover date before handing over whatever they had in September.

[Carana]

Looking at the process and ignoring names. Well mentioning names does detract from the principle around here.
1)Party A makes a contract with Party B. The whole point of a contract being that it is enforceable at law (fact).
2)Party A includes includes a "no divulgence to third parties" clause in the contract (hypothetically)
3)Two parties may not enter into an illegal contract as no court will uphold an illegal act (fact).
4)So the hypothetical no divulgence clause only works to a point. That point being where Party B ignores it so he may report to the police what he is duty bound to in order to avoid the potential of being considered an accessory after. In that case Party A has no comeback against Party B wrt to the "no divulgence" clause (fact:see the wholepoint of a contract is that it is enforceable at law)..
5) If Party B had to seek permission from Party A then what is being divulged is probably of little or no more significance than the neighbours cat just having had kittens. (imo).

I was wondering as well if an NDA would apply to the police... I don't see how it could be enforceable, either, even if that were technically the case.

I'm not sure about your point 5 though. I can see it both ways: either, as you suggest, that the dossier wasn't crucial after all or that part of it (including the efits) was indeed considered to be important enough to Oakley to avoid potential charges (if ever) of withholding evidence in a missing child case.

Whether the McCannns / Fund got hold of the full dossier prior to 2009 might be a different issue.

There was apparently a legal saga over the aborted contract, with some disgruntled people that Halligen hadn't paid, so I find it feasible that some of the dossier may have been withheld pending the outcome of that.... Then, of course, Halligen got nabbed for other offences.

[G-Unit]

Once Exton became suspicious about Halligen he investigated him. He then approached the FBI with a dossier of the evidence he had gathered. That led to the FBI beginning their own investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HRCWfPn_k4