A few questions

[brit1981]

Suppressed efits
Madeleine McCann Suspect E-Fit 'Produced By Former Spies In 2008 And Suppressed By Parents'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/27/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5_n_4167645.html


If you have the subscribed version of the times with the revised article please post some of it and include the link. Thanks

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

Here it states the e.fits were given to the police years ago. In the original article, upon, which the Huffington post article is based, it states the fund had to write to oakley to get them to hand the e.fits to the police so obviously the fund were not in possession of them. It was the police who chose not to release the e.fits.

 

[brit1981]

Robert Murat criminal complaint against Jane Tanner
Today, a UK media journalist, ITV'S Keir Simmons was able to confirm with Mr. Pagarete, Robert Murat's lawyer, that he has filed a legal complaint against Jane Tanner.

According to Portuguese Journalist Frederico Duarte de Carvalho's twitter, the case which is still at the inquest phase and under the secrecy of justice, is taking place at the Criminal Court of Lagos, in the Algarve, and apparently Mr. Amaral has already testified. Jane Tanner has not yet been constituted as an arguida, nor has she appeared in court.

Robert Murat's criminal complaint against Jane Tanner for calumnious denunciation, has already heard some witnesses, and will continue to hear some more, one of which is Ricardo Paiva, the PJ inspector who is currently being called as a 'liar' by the McCanns Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html

This is from a blog by an amaral supporter, she turned up at court clutching flowers and his book ( http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/view/1084-3 ). I have been unable to find anything to support her claim tanner was facing criminal or civil charges from murat.

 

[~n/t~]

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

Here it states the e.fits were given to the police years ago. In the original article, upon, which the Huffington post article is based, it states the fund had to write to oakley to get them to hand the e.fits to the police so obviously the fund were not in possession of them. It was the police who chose not to release the e.fits.

So if I understand correctly the efits were only given to LE a year later in 2009 and subsequently they withheld these efits unto 2011 and the given to the Met police according to the Times

Why would Leicestershire police withhold this information and why wouldn't the McCanns demand they be released?

I think stories have changed because of the libel suits. IMO there are some truths to all the stories that were printed but some decided being sued wasn't worth the risk so they issued statements suggesting some may have misunderstood? Really? Do they think their readers are incapable of reading comprehension?

I have an appt so won't be online until later. :seeya: Thanks for the link

 

[brit1981]

So if I understand correctly the efits were only given to LE a year later in 2009 and subsequently they withheld these efits unto 2011 and the given to the Met police according to the Times

Why would Leicestershire police withhold this information and why wouldn't the McCanns demand they be released?

I think stories have changed because of the libel suits. IMO there are some truths to all the stories that were printed but some decided being sued wasn't worth the risk so they issued statements suggesting some may have misunderstood? Really? Do they think their readers are incapable of reading comprehension?

I have an appt so won't be online until later. :seeya: Thanks for the link

Who knows why the police did not release them. But given that oakley did not get paid after the alleged fraud by halligan, and that the fund had to ask oakley to hand over the e.fits to the police rather than just hand them over themselves its likely the e.fits were not the property of the mccanns or the fund but remained with oakley. The police may have had their own reasons for not releasing them to the public straight away. For all we know the police have lots of e.fits of various men sighted but chose to only release those that they deemed of interest.

Here is an article about halligan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...p-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html
This was the company that produced the e.fits and its understandable that its e.fits from them that did not get released as this company had issues with paying the people who did the work. The e.fits that were released straight away were all by other firms.

 

[Junebug99]

Amaral being convicted of perjury regarding another missing child, makes me doubt anything that man says. Then writing a book to profit off this tragedy doesn't make him look any better. I have 0 respect and I give him 0 creditability. Moo

 

[Junebug99]

This lady swears the M's are innocent, I think she would be a very reliable witness. When you take away the lies, the rumors and misconceptions you see an innocent family who had their baby stolen. Moo

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/made...ain-that-kate-mccann-is-innocent-7300663.html

 

[~n/t~]

Who knows why the police did not release them. But given that oakley did not get paid after the alleged fraud by halligan, and that the fund had to ask oakley to hand over the e.fits to the police rather than just hand them over themselves its likely the e.fits were not the property of the mccanns or the fund but remained with oakley. The police may have had their own reasons for not releasing them to the public straight away. For all we know the police have lots of e.fits of various men sighted but chose to only release those that they deemed of interest.

Here is an article about halligan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...p-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html
This was the company that produced the e.fits and its understandable that its e.fits from them that did not get released as this company had issues with paying the people who did the work. The e.fits that were released straight away were all by other firms.

Considering you posted a daily mail article , here is one regarding the efits

The McCanns are now fully behind the fresh police drive and release of the E-fits – but five years ago they were reluctant to issue them, possibly in part because witness Mr Smith’s account seemed inconsistent and unreliable.

Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz2rd3XmQy7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It appears from this article that the McCanns were aware and decided not to release them.

 

[~n/t~]

This lady swears the M's are innocent, I think she would be a very reliable witness. When you take away the lies, the rumors and misconceptions you see an innocent family who had their baby stolen. Moo

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/made...ain-that-kate-mccann-is-innocent-7300663.html

She admired the McCanns for leaving the children alone while they dined?

And this.

Ms O'Donnell also dispelled conspiracy theories, declaring: "There were no drug-fuelled 'swingers' on our holiday - there was a bunch of ordinary parents worrying about sleep patterns."



:thud:

Worried parents don't leave their children alone.

 

[SapphireSteel]

This lady swears the M's are innocent, I think she would be a very reliable witness. When you take away the lies, the rumors and misconceptions you see an innocent family who had their baby stolen. Moo

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/made...ain-that-kate-mccann-is-innocent-7300663.html

Sorry but that link is another opinion.

The PJ Archive File spells out the shenanigans and refusal to cooperate, which is why the case was archived in the first place. The PJ could not move forward with the investigation as no one would answer any questions.

This woman's descriptions of Kate as calm and beautiful and Gerry as proud and confident clash jarringly with the "sweaty" and "twitchy" Murat who she clearly implicated.

Also written in December 2007, way back when Murat had been labelled Probably a Child Molester by the British Media.

 

[~n/t~]

Amaral being convicted of perjury regarding another missing child, makes me doubt anything that man says. Then writing a book to profit off this tragedy doesn't make him look any better. I have 0 respect and I give him 0 creditability. Moo

Meh so did Mark Fuhrman. What does that prove in Madeleine's case? What do you think he lied about?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Trouble is, there's millions of $$$$ involved now.

Money tends to cloud the judgement and bring forth all sorts of third parties.

Its a lot easier when there is no Money Tree in the name of the missing child to add to the mix.

 

[brit1981]

Considering you posted a daily mail article , here is one regarding the efits

The McCanns are now fully behind the fresh police drive and release of the E-fits – but five years ago they were reluctant to issue them, possibly in part because witness Mr Smith’s account seemed inconsistent and unreliable.

Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz2rd3XmQy7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It appears from this article that the McCanns were aware and decided not to release them.

If you read the article fully it's based on the Sunday time article which was later clarified, the rest is speculation. For that matter much if the halligan article may be speculation, but he certainly was charged with fraud http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/halligen/documents.html and was accused of not handing money to oakley. There is just no proof the decision not to release them came from the mccanns, and the original times article admits the fund had to write to oakley in order for the police to be given the e.fits so they were not in the funds or the mccanns possession.

 

[brit1981]

Trouble is, there's millions of $$$$ involved now.

Money tends to cloud the judgement and bring forth all sorts of third parties.

Its a lot easier when there is no Money Tree in the name of the missing child to add to the mix.

If there had not been the millons donated then there would have been no investigation at all as the pj shelved the case less than a year later. Its only through a sustained campaign by the mccanns that investigators could be hired and also madeleine remained in the media which led to their success in getting scotland yard to investigate.

But third party involvement is harmful which is why scotland yard should be left to investigate and not have amateurs trying to cash in.

 

[Clutchbag]

If you read the article fully it's based on the Sunday time article which was later clarified, the rest is speculation. For that matter much if the halligan article may be speculation, but he certainly was charged with fraud http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/halligen/documents.html and was accused of not handing money to oakley. There is just no proof the decision not to release them came from the mccanns, and the original times article admits the fund had to write to oakley in order for the police to be given the e.fits so they were not in the funds or the mccanns possession.

False and misleading.....the fund spokesman is quoted as saying they made the decision not to release the efits or follow up the Smith sighting as it would be too costly?..see the full original article

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post273258.html?sid=4f2e284b4db36241ec8425ab47f5f6f3#p273258

The Sunday Times did not retract anything in detail apart from saying they may have given an impression the Mccanns kept the efits from the authorities, which they have said they didnt, they said they did send them on a year later!!! Oh the urgency


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

 

[SapphireSteel]

The McCann's suppressed it on their own website.

To this day it doesn't appear.

Scotland Yard have publicly denounced Tannerman the Abductor in favour of the e-fit.

The e-fit the McCann's procured then hid.

I don't care that they eventually handed it over. If they were serious they'd have it front and centre on their web page.

Instead they still have the picture of Tannerman furthermore a statement that LE could be (are) wrong.

It should have been all over the papers from day one, per Tannerman , Pimple man, Egg man etc.

WHY was it withheld, even for one day?

 

[~n/t~]

The McCann's suppressed it on their own website.

To this day it doesn't appear.

Scotland Yard have publicly denounced Tannerman the Abductor in favour of the e-fit.

The e-fit the McCann's procured then hid.

I don't care that they eventually handed it over. If they were serious they'd have it front and centre on their web page.

Instead they still have the picture of Tannerman furthermore a statement that LE could be (are) wrong.

It should have been all over the papers from day one, per Tannerman , Pimple man, Egg man etc.

WHY was it withheld, even for one day?

The efits do appear and so does tanner man

http://www.findmadeleine.com
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

 

[brit1981]

The McCann's suppressed it on their own website.

To this day it doesn't appear.

Scotland Yard have publicly denounced Tannerman the Abductor in favour of the e-fit.

The e-fit the McCann's procured then hid.

I don't care that they eventually handed it over. If they were serious they'd have it front and centre on their web page.

Instead they still have the picture of Tannerman furthermore a statement that LE could be (are) wrong.

It should have been all over the papers from day one, per Tannerman , Pimple man, Egg man etc.

WHY was it withheld, even for one day?

Another poster has just linked to the e.fits on madeleine's site, so they do appear.

It was oakley that handed them over after the fund wrote to them. Therefore the fund and the mccanns cannot have had the e.fits or they would have handed them over without involving oakley. If the mccanns did not have the e.fits, perhaps due to the alleged halligan fraud, then they could not release them.

So what if they ask people to still report sightings of a man matching tanners description just in case? No doubt terrified that the same thing could happen, all focus on one individuel as happened with tannerman.

And if the police chose not to release the e.fits that is their decision, its not right to get at the mccanns for it.

 

[Supernovae]

Regardless of the clarification of some details, the fact that the Times article was published at all; in the current climate with the unassailable position the McCanns enjoy in the mainstream press; with that tone, emphasis and the conclusions the reader was clearly invited to draw, is extremely telling.

 

[Clutchbag]

The efits do appear and so does tanner man

http://www.findmadeleine.com
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

the e fits on the find madeleine website are just part of a collection of motley crew of "suspects" or "persons of interest", not differentiated or detailed in any way at all vis a vis where they were seen, by whom, when etc..considering SY made such a massive deal of them in Crimewatch a couple months ago you would think they would have a dedicted age or the barest details at least!

Nuff said...still being suppressed to a degree ....

 

[Clutchbag]

Another poster has just linked to the e.fits on madeleine's site, so they do appear.

It was oakley that handed them over after the fund wrote to them. Therefore the fund and the mccanns cannot have had the e.fits or they would have handed them over without involving oakley. If the mccanns did not have the e.fits, perhaps due to the alleged halligan fraud, then they could not release them.

So what if they ask people to still report sightings of a man matching tanners description just in case? No doubt terrified that the same thing could happen, all focus on one individuel as happened with tannerman.

And if the police chose not to release the e.fits that is their decision, its not right to get at the mccanns for it.

READ the previous posts and links..... the Mccanns DID have them immeditely in 2008... TheyDECIDED not to release them and gave their reasons...they eventually sent them alledgedly in 2009 to the LP and the PJ.......SY had to write to Oakley to get them, who had to write to the Mccanns for permission to release them
Sheesh, have a nice night though with your misleading and spinning!!
To suggest the mccanns never had them is ridiculous to the extreme...it was their own PIs who got them made up and issued to them with a report in November 2008 to them, said report stated by their spokesman was unhelpful!!! cant help you any more old chap ?..its ok to believe the mccanns have your opinions but no need to bend and really distort facts insupport of that! Thats disingenuous! Sneaky and really not conducive to honest debate

:floorlaugh: