Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years - The Sunday Times

kitti wrote:
The e-fits were in the possession of both Portuguese police and Scotland Yard for some years before this month's publication.


Paper in Australia.

The original Times report said SY asked for them - "some years" is therefore something up to two. Sounds like someone is trying to play down the fact they were sat upon until sometime after the review started.  I wonder who drafted the confidentiality agreement - these things normally have a "get out" clause if required by a competent authority yet Exton seemed to require a release.

Chris wrote:

flower wrote:Srill no mention on Breafast News ........ Terrible..........

The tabloids are picking it up though


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Maddie-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-years-Images-evidence-sighting-uncovered-private-detectives-suppressed.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/347672/Maddie-Crimewatch-pictures-kept-secret-for-five-years

The only new bit seems to be:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment.

Cleaning the cack off his biscuits no doubt.

The comments following this article are encouraging; liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/news-opin "Pete Price: Stop these vile attacks on the McCann family". After reading the "title" you may want to scroll to the comments only.

jinvta wrote:

kitti wrote:They are saying that the PJ had the efits  too....wait for the backlash and pj bashing...

Where did it say that the PJ had the efits too? I must have missed that. If the PJ had the efits, they probably knew that they were useless, just as the Tanner bundleman/eggman efit that the McCanns insisted on doing.

Still think that it is possible that these "efits" were done without any help of witnesses and based on vague descriptions from the Smith family witness statements. If true, SY will be the ones looking like keystone coppers.

The efits are so clear they almost look photographic, at least the one does. Hard to think they'd create those based on a vague description and not the way they actually do it where they sit down and discuss hairline, nostrils, distance under the nose to the lips, etc very precise.

if PJ DID have them, then the argument is that the case was closed due to non cooperation and this is just more evidence of that and with their own hirelings.

Clarence will say that they fired Oakley for good reasons - look at him. he's in jail on fraud! - and not be forthcoming on the rest of what Mr Exton was saying about the highly critical nature of the report he turned in or at least Sunday Times was saying was a highly critical report that focused on an alternative scenario where MM died in the apt and their comments about her sleep patterns and the "anomalies" in the T9 accounts of that evening.

It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

So are these the missing part of the jigsaw that everyone has been so keen to find.

and they had that piece all the time. duplicitous ******* ********

Iris wrote:It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and the fact they had passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

It was obviously to protect the McCanns Iris. They did not get away with it though did they? Deadwood has egg on his face with this one.

The Tortoise certainly has egg on his face. I don't know why he thought they could do crime watch and e fits and there would be no comment about the McCs suppressing it for 5 years. it is also alleged that reference is made to Madeleines difficult sleeping pattern and that she may have woke, wandered and other thoughts. why has the Tortoise seemingly dismissed these and is concentrating on abduction again.

I understand that SY have said there is no issue with them concerning the suppression of information for5 years as they were not investigating then. Surely they have concerns about how the McCs manipulated the Portuguese investigation particularly having pressure brought for them to publish bundleman, when the PJ had concerns about the validity of the claims. The Fundraiser in chief and the Tortoise better up their game and realise there really is no hiding place. what needs to come out will one way or another. jimo

We all know the McCanns have had the support of the Government in this coverup if not directly, at least through underlings/subordinates/flunkeys of three Prime Ministers.

Anyone got that link that was here the last day or two to the guy who waited on them in the Tapas Bar, he was a witness to who stayed and who left and he saw Gerry running around.

I'm interested because he had put the time at 930 to ten I THINK. Mrs Carpenter put it about 930 also.

If it was 930 when Kate went or say 940, does that give time for him to run to the playground looking for her after they all went to the apt - and then take her down to the place where Smith's saw her?

I wonder if anyone checked the bar register that printed Smith's receipt, at that time. I recall a case where the register was 10 minutes off. People don't always keep those up to time. But by the time Smith came forward you couldn't know if the clock had been reset for more accuracy.

Still I have a hard time believing they'd have been able to hide the body well enough or that they would have decided to dispose of the body rather than spend a good while trying to resuscitate having called 999, it's unimaginable. Most people even finding a child obviously drowned in a pool try to do this, they always call the EMT

then to insist that SY open an investigation. They couldn't control where that would go even though they'd want to; it seems so risky and unlikely to demand millions for a review of a case where you yourself were guilty and got away with it.

interested wrote:We all know the McCanns have had the support of the Government in this coverup if not directly,  at least through underlings/subordinates/flunkeys of three Prime Ministers.

they have certainly had support but I don't think they would have if the govt suspected it was a cover up.

I wish I could be sure about that Widowan but when you think what does get covered up concerning certain types of people. I have my doubts.

Iris wrote:It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

They were in the position that they had to produce something Iris, even if it was someone else's work, but did they know that it was 5 years old, commissioned by the parents who had sat on it for all that time? If they were aware, surely it means that SY officers themselves have been involved in a cover up and obstructing the course of justice...

I still can't find any more news or reaction to the Sunday Times "news" on Sky or BBC online. Has it been mentioned/discussed on TV at all?

interested wrote:I still can't find any more news or reaction to the Sunday Times "news" on Sky or BBC online.  Has it been mentioned/discussed on TV at all?

Not that I've seen, interested.

malena stool wrote:

Iris wrote:It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

They were in the position that they had to produce something Iris, even if it was someone else's work, but did they know that it was 5 years old, commissioned by the parents who had sat on it for all that time? If they were aware, surely it means that SY officers themselves have been involved in a cover up and obstructing the course of justice...

They did say it was from investigators files, just left out a few enormous show stopping details.

I don't understand them using somebody else's work. Notwithstanding who hired the investigators, I would expect more from an outfit like SY. They should take nothing for granted, dot their i's and cross their t's.

I have decided the sole purpose of CW was to kill off bundleman. I do not believe he exists, either Tanners man or Redwoods man. Once he was gone, they had to move to Smithman, what else could they do ? They had nothing to report once bundleman was gone.

The question is will Smithman turn out to be another lost father and child or are they satisfied they know who he is. If they are satisfied they know who he is, that explains their half arsed attempt on the CW mini drama. Otherwise they now have one very big mess on their hands and it is only going to get bigger.

mossman wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Iris wrote:It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

They were in the position that they had to produce something Iris, even if it was someone else's work, but did they know that it was 5 years old, commissioned by the parents who had sat on it for all that time? If they were aware, surely it means that SY officers themselves have been involved in a cover up and obstructing the course of justice...

They did say it was from investigators files, just left out a few enormous show stopping details.

I don't understand them using somebody else's work.  Notwithstanding who hired the investigators, I would expect more from an outfit like SY.  They should take nothing for granted, dot their i's and cross their t's.

I have decided the sole purpose of CW was to kill off bundleman.  I do not believe he exists, either Tanners man or Redwoods man.  Once he was gone, they had to move to Smithman, what else could they do ?  They had nothing to report once bundleman was gone.  

The question is will Smithman turn out to be another lost father and child or are they satisfied they know who he is.  If they are satisfied they know who he is, that explains their half arsed attempt on the CW mini drama.  Otherwise they now have one very big mess on their hands and it is only going to get bigger.  

Hi mossman, I think either way, SY have one gianormous smelly mess on their doorstep... They've blown £5million on an investigation then proudly, with great fanfare and drum rolls, produced information that turns out to be 5 years old, not the fruits of their own investigative prowess, but commissioned and then hushed up by the very parents who've hassled two separate government administrations demanding a review of the case.

What skills do these 'supersleuths' really possess that justifies them being in a position of public trust?

Not only has our much vaunted British Justice System been exposed as being almost the equal of a banana republic, the police who persecute prosecute the offenders are now seen as little more than Keystone Cops, only not nearly as funny.

malena stool wrote:

interested wrote:I still can't find any more news or reaction to the Sunday Times "news" on Sky or BBC online.  Has it been mentioned/discussed on TV at all?

Not that I've seen, interested.

Thanks "malena stool" - the silence is deafening - I would have thought they'd have enough time by now to explore/investigate the news and report on it.

I am beginning to think it's the first tiny droplet of information from the ocean of information that these newspapers have on this.

This has to be the very first McCann story that Clarence Mitchell has not commented on. (Not even a 'no comment')

malena stool wrote:

mossman wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Iris wrote:It still doesn't explain why SY plagiarised those e-fits and passed them off as new evidence without even bothering to give credit to the original authors.

They were in the position that they had to produce something Iris, even if it was someone else's work, but did they know that it was 5 years old, commissioned by the parents who had sat on it for all that time? If they were aware, surely it means that SY officers themselves have been involved in a cover up and obstructing the course of justice...

They did say it was from investigators files, just left out a few enormous show stopping details.

I don't understand them using somebody else's work.  Notwithstanding who hired the investigators, I would expect more from an outfit like SY.  They should take nothing for granted, dot their i's and cross their t's.

I have decided the sole purpose of CW was to kill off bundleman.  I do not believe he exists, either Tanners man or Redwoods man.  Once he was gone, they had to move to Smithman, what else could they do ?  They had nothing to report once bundleman was gone.  

The question is will Smithman turn out to be another lost father and child or are they satisfied they know who he is.  If they are satisfied they know who he is, that explains their half arsed attempt on the CW mini drama.  Otherwise they now have one very big mess on their hands and it is only going to get bigger.  

Hi mossman, I think either way, SY have one gianormous smelly mess on their doorstep... They've blown £5million on an investigation then proudly, with great fanfare and drum rolls, produced information that turns out to be 5 years old, not the fruits of their own investigative prowess, but commissioned and then hushed up by the very parents who've hassled two separate government administrations demanding a review of the case.

What skills do these 'supersleuths' really possess that justifies them being in a position of public trust?

Not only has our much vaunted British Justice System been exposed as being almost the equal of a banana republic, the police who persecute prosecute the offenders are now seen as little more than Keystone Cops, only not nearly as funny.

Apart from the efits, which two of the several Smiths helped Oakley produce in 2008,  the main part of the new information they've breathlessly and maybe actually uncovered themselves seems to be that Bundleman was a guy from the crèche.

Of course where they put the crèche on the map he'd have been walking the opposite way past the apts I think, Jane had him going TOWARDS the reception nighttime crèche rather than away from it. however PJ knocks it on the head in stating that jane's testimony is dodgy and uncorroborated - link below - no cop either Brit or Portuguese was willing to posit that Jane saw that abductor as she passed two men, neither of whom saw her.

The brand new info produced by SY (as found by Exton/Oakley) appears to be here, basically we've all known it for ages http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm#rr20  page 70 ish

The PJ have the breaking news stuff about the timelines (if the parents weren't involved) being 915 to 10 - so in other words in declaring them innocent, SY can now focus on the efit of a guy who Smith said was Gerry   

and the time line is from 7 to 10 if mcCanns were involved and Payne wasn't, and 530 to ten if Payne lied about seeing Madeleine or was maybe more involved than that.

That just about covers it - they knew the group had gotten together "a posteriori, they got together in a meeting where they remembered the rules referring to the continuous supervision of the children while they were having dinner." in other words made the timelines up.

SY doesn't seem to think that means they are guilty of anything, they just were all lying innocently.

So Redwood is seemingly saying it's okay they lied to cover their arses because the important thing is a little girl is missing - a different attitude to the one the PJ took, which is, given their behavior and the dogs' evidence, this looks like an inside job.

I wonder how long it'll be before he breaks the news that the cleaning girl said the cots were usually separated and the blinds up in the kids' room, rather than the way K&G said they left them. I guess they aren't looking at that either, it's just part of what they were not truthful about for innocent reasons. ?

interested wrote:This has to be the very first McCann story that Clarence Mitchell has not commented on.  (Not even a 'no comment')

Any chance he's been 'abducted'???

We live in hopes!

There is chatter on twitter that Katie Hopkins has been hired by The Sun to write a weekly column. Like I mentioned earlier in the week, I had never heard of her before her comments on twitter about the McCanns in response to the Sunday Times article. I'm wondering if she will be allowed to continue to voice her assertions while employed by the McCann friendly Sun; she certainly made her opinion clear earlier in the week on twitter.