An analysis of the Sunday Times article 27 Oct 2013, on the 'SMITHMAN' efits, which relied on Henri Exton as the source

Comments in bold

By TB

On Sunday 27 October 2013, 13 days after the BBC CrimeWatch special on Madeleine McCann, the Sunday Times ran the story analysed below. It was clearly based on evidence supplied to the Sunday Times by Henri Exton, who was employed sometime during 2008 as part of the McCann Team’s so-called ‘private investigation’.

Before we analyse the report in more detail, a number of preliminary points need to be made: 

1.   Henri Exton, the prime source for the story, appears to have been employed by a company called Oakley International. This was formed after Madeleine McCann was reported missing, by Kevin Halligen.

2.   Halligen and Oakley International were recruited for the McCann private investigation by Brian Kennedy, who throughout the past seven years has recruited private detectives, most of them entirely unsuitable or unqualified for the task of searching for a missing child, on behalf of the McCann Team.

3.   Kevin Halligen had for years been close to the British security services. He was also a serial fraudster who spent four years in jail (2009-2013) for serious fraud offences. His word cannot be trusted.

4.   The McCann Team claimed in August 2008 that Oakley International were ‘the big boys’ of international private detection and made many similarly bold claims about it. It was a claim wholly without foundation.

5.   There were reliable reports that Halligen did not pay the men he employed, including Henri Exton. He made false promises that they were going to be paid (see also below).

6.   If so, Exton therefore had a motive for extracting revenge on Halligen and the McCann Team, who had made use of the services of him and his men, but not paid him.

7.   The alleged sighting of a man carrying a child by members of the Smith family has been questioned on numerous grounds. Even on their own admission, none of them saw him properly, in the dark, and said they could not give a proper description of his face or be able to recognise him again if they saw him.   

8.   In summary, we have to be very careful before accepting anything said by Exton as ‘gospel’.  

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

COMMENT: The term ‘critical new evidence’ refers to two e-fits which were heavily promoted on BBC CrimeWatch, October 2013.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

COMMENT: ‘A firm of former spies’ may be a correct description. Haliigen had security service and Ministry of Defence connections, while Exton has been confirmed as the former Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Unit. It was recently revealed that a third member of the team, Tim Craig-Harvey, also had defence/security service connections.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

COMMENT: The Smiths claimed to have seen a man carrying a child. But there are severe doubts about their accounts.

But the trail was left to go cold for five years because the McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged the contents.

COMMENT: According to Exton, that is. Neither he nor the Sunday Times has supplied any proof of this

The report, seen by the Sunday Times, called for the E-Fits to be released immediately and said "anomalies" in statements by the McCanns and their friends must be resolved.

A source close to the McCanns said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

[Pic:   The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports]

The team of hand-picked former MI5 agents

COMMENT: If that is correct, then both Kevin Halligen and Tim Craig-Harvey were former MI5 agents

had been hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

It was the spring of 2008, 10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured.

COMMENT: As noted above, this could well be because Exton wasn’t paid.

A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public.

COMMENT: So Exton says.

Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

COMMENT: Claimed to have been seen.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

COMMENT: And 6.7 million viewers.

One of the investigators

COMMENT: Henri Exton

whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

COMMENT: From this article and other sources, it seems likely that these two efits were indeed produced by Exton and colleagues in the spring or summer of 2008.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

COMMENT: Claimed sighting.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

COMMENT: But the Sunday Times didn’t produce evidence of this alleged letter nor of any other correspondence surrounding it.

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

COMMENT:  Hmmm. So they say.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

COMMENT: There is a great deal of evidence  that both ‘sightings’ were fabrications.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

COMMENT: Claimed sighting.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw.

COMMENT: It is not clear whether Exton alone or Exton with others travelled to Ireland.

Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

[Pic: "The report questioned 'anomalies' in the McCanns' statements"]

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

[Pic: Investigators had E-Fits five years ago]

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme…It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things…And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

COMMENT: It is accepted that Exton, with or without others, produced them.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns.

COMMENT: This is the critical sentence in the whole report. How could the Smiths conceivably have produced ‘detailed images’ when:

a) they only saw him for a few seconds

b) it was dark

c) the street lighting was very poor

d) none of them saw his face as it was hidden by the child they said he was carrying

e) each one of the three Smiths admitted that they would not be able to identify the man if they saw him again

f) it is suggested that they were only asked to produce efits in 2008, a year or so after the event.

It is therefore unclear what the provenance of those efit images is. Maybe they were generated not from any description of the Smiths but by some other means.  

But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”.

COMMENT: However, there were three pages in Kate’s book devoted to a detailed comparison of the ‘striking similarities’ between the man Jane Tanner said she saw and the man the Smiths said they saw.

Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted - and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility.

COMMENT: His basis for identifying Gerry McCann in the first place wholly lacked credibility.

Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team.

COMMENT: Exactly. Exton has the clearest possible motive for exacting revenge on the McCann Team. He probably wasn’t paid for his work.

Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full - so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved…It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because…the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine Fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

The article was in the year 2013, not 2014.
I realize that this is a simple mistake.  But as the post concerns the analysis of material, and how accurate it is - or not, is it not important to even get the date correct.

I've corrected the date in the post heading. Thank you Shibboleth. NFWTD. 16th July.

"The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay."

So if these efits shown on Crimewatch are both from the Smith family why are they both a totally different style to each other ?

They look like totally different kits were used if you look closely at the textures.

Grande Finale wrote:"The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay."

So if these efits shown on Crimewatch are both from the Smith family why are they both a totally different style to each other ?

They look like totally different kits were used if you look closely at the textures.

Hallo Grande Finale and thank you for making that very telling point.

With which I fully agree.
But in reality there are at least SIX major areas of doubt about the provenance of those e-fits; here's my list of the six:

+++++++++++++++++++++++  

Problems about the e-fits


Problem 1: We are given two e-fits by Redwood. He tells us that the e-fits are of ‘the man they [the Irish family] saw’. But, in the opinion of the vast majority of people, myself included, these two e-fits are of two very different men. Apart from the obvious visual differences, these are the main contrasts:

(a) The man in Image A is older than the man in Image B
(b) The main in Image A has a fatter face than the rathe thin-looking man in Image B
(c) The man in Image A has a rectangular-shaped profile, in contrast with the man in Image B, whose face is more triangular in shape, with a narrow chin.

Problem 2:  Those with expert knowledge of computer-imaging techniques have noticed a further difference. The two images appear to have been produced using entirely different computer programs. Image A is blurred and ‘grainy’. Image B is sharp. There is no obvious explanation for why, if these images were produced by the Irish family, the e-fits should have been produced on two different computer programs.

Problem 3:  A third very serious problem about these e-fits is the circumstances under which the Irish family made their claimed sighting. Let’s look at this in a bit more detail. The family are the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland. Nine of them – adults and children - were apparently walking back to the Estrela da Luz holiday apartment owned by the senior member of the Smith family, grandfather Martin Smith. He, his son Peter ,and his grand-daughter Aoife, all made statements to the Irish and Portuguese Police about what they say was a man carrying a child, at about 10.00pm on the evening of 3 May. Each one of the three says the same thing about this sighting

(a) they each only saw the man for a second or two
(b) it was dark at the time
(c) the street lighting was ‘weak’
(d) the man had his head down and the child he was carrying was covering his face, and
(e) all three of them said that they could not possibly recognise the man if they saw him again.

Problem 4: The e-fits were drawn up, as far as can be established, in the spring or summer of 2008, a year after the day Madeleine was reported missing. Again it is hardly likely that any of the Smiths could remember anything sufficiently well by then to be able to draw up n e-fits, especially bearing in mind what we said under ‘Problem 3’.

Problem 5:  The e-fits were not drawn up by any police force. They were drawn up by members of the McCanns’ private investigation team. Here is some relevant background detail

(a) In September 2007, the McCanns appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency. Metodo 3, as their main private investigators
(b) They lied many times claiming that they knew where Madeleine was and that she would be ‘home by Christmas’.
(c) The McCanns’ lead Metodo 3 investigator, Metodo 3 man Antonio Giminez Raso, was arrested in February 2008, charged with multiple offences, including theft of a large quantity of drugs, and corruption (he was an inspector in the Catalonian Regional Drug Squad at  the time). He spent four years in prison
(d) Later, two other Metodo 3 men who worked closely on the Madeleine McCann case, boss Francisco Marco and his assistant, Julian Peribanez, also spent time in prison in a case of illegal ‘phone-tapping
(e) Following the work of this disreputable agency, the McCann Team appointed Irishman Kevin Halligen to be the lead private investigator. He had founded a company called ‘Oakley International’ in July 2007, two months after Madeleine McCann was reported missing. The McCann Team falsely claimed in the British press that Oakley was a major international detective agency. It was nothing of the sort. It was a one-man band founded by Halligen, who used a number of alias and committed many frauds whilst employed by the McCanns For one of those frauds, involving £1.5 million, he was jailed for four years (2009 to 2013)
(f) Furthermore, Halligen’s role in the McCann private investigation was exposed by an article in the Evening Standard by Mark Hollingsworth in August 2009. Whilst supposed to be finding Madeleine, he and his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis spent much of the time on a wild spending spree in the U.S., Britain and Italy. Most of the rest of the time, Halligen was seen drinking heavily in the Hey-Jo bar of one of London’s clubs
(g) Halligen was sacked by the McCann Team after fulfilling only 4 months of his 6-month contract, for which he was paid around £700,000, including expenses
(h) In Hollingsworth’s article, he accused Halligen and his colleagues of intimidating witnesses in the Madeleine McCann case into silence. If proved true, this would amount to the serious criminal offence of perverting the course of justice
(i) Halligen employed two men alongside him, Henri Exton, and Tim Craig-Harvey. According to the McCann Team themselves, all three men had worked for MI5. In addition, Exton had formerly been the Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Department. How three ex-MI5 men could help to find Madeleine McCann has never been explained. MI5 agents are more usually concerned to protect the government’s interests
(j) In an article published in the Sunday Times on 27 October 2007, Exten claimed that her and ‘his men’ drew up the two e-fits during the spring or summer of 2008, a claim that is probably true. He added that the McCann Team suppressed them, deciding not to release them to the general public
(k) If we look at the whole history of the McCanns’ private investigations during 2007 and 2008, therefore, we are entitled to query the precise provenance of these efits. The issue is whether we can trust what Henri Exton, the former Head of MI5's Covert Intelligence Department, says about those e-fits. We might also ask, then: is their origin as claimed by DCI Andy Redwood and the BBC true - or false?

Problem 6: On top of all those 5 major problems about the provenance of these e-fits is a further issue. And that is whether the Smiths really did see a man carrying a child, as they claim. That is a very important matter which needs to be examined separately, and in depth.

Tony

There is so much information you have given about these efits, Halligen, Exton etc that it is difficult to get a clear vision of what could be going on.

In the first instance I wanted to comment on the points raised in your first post. Unfortunately I have lost those by mistake and deleted them without saving them. Then you have given more depth on the Smith sighting on Crimewatch and its made things look even complicated to me.

Initially Metodo3 etc. were essential in the arena that was Portugal to keep MSM satisfied that they were doing all they could to look for Madeleine at whatever cost. Its possible that the McCanns knew these PI’s would not find any useful information but what they did find was what they wanted to know. The remit was probably also to inform of local news reports. Word on the ground etc.

As regards  Oakley Int. I do think that Exton and the other one, Tim Craig-Harvey have to be the same caliber as Halligen. Is it possible these three were in it for the money. Its a bit like "bees round a honey pot" - and maybe these were the sort of PI's they wanted. 

IMO The McCanns' didn't really want a true investigation at all but they wanted someone out there gathering information to keep track of what is going on. Because the whole arena had changed from being based in Portugal, it was now England. So you hire people to make it look as though you are searching. But they have to cover what transpires in the MSM as well as any facts they do find which will end up in the Report they give to the McCanns (great idea to keep any knowledge/evidence or whatever private). The efits supposed to be of the sighting by the Smiths can be of anybody really because I don't think they were interested. In fact, any information they did get would go in the sighting file and it may contradict the efits or not). Strange remit but never mind. 

If this was me I would make efits look as ridiculous as I could and who better than choose Gerry and Brunt! Its a joke, and I mean it really was a joke. But along with those efits they probably gave lots of information the McCanns needed to know but could not be seen/heard enquiring about. Especially if it was some information they didn't want out in the daylight so they could sit on it - be in control of it. I think probably the McCanns paid them because we haven't heard anything about them suing for recompense.

I think the statement by Exton about being their efits/non payment/signed to secrecy is what he was told to say by the McCanns.

Even if having all these PI’s does look like they were wasting money, in thinking about it, money does have to laid out at some point to cover ones backside.

When these efits landed on Redwood depending on whether he is legitimately investigating or not, he would use them appropriately. The fact that he has wrapped them up in a Crimewatch programme tells it all really.

All IMO.

Tony

Thank you for your replies to the points raised in my post.

I hope you understand I did not mean to draw you into unsafe ground on the point regarding Metodo3. Sorry.

I will read up further on the link you provided regarding the efits. I will also ponder again on the 3 questions you mentioned.

IMO I think my point about the PI"s was it didn't matter about Madeleine. It was shoring up the "Agenda" and "abduction". You can't defend your thesis if you don't know what your up against. It was and is a long campaign.

Exton and the efits. I did think that he did them for a while as an act of revenge. To press home his point. Which is non-payment for work. This is his only grouse? But is it possible that even the most generous of persons would allow non-payment for extensive work. He must have known, he really must, that this was something other than searching for clues as to the whereabouts of Madeleine.

Your point about "the two witnesses" stated by Matthew Amroliwala in the Crimewatch programme is interesting and I had not noticed it. I will read on and maybe a light might come on so I can see what this is all about.

Goodnight.

Angelique wrote:Your point about "the two witnesses" stated by Matthew Amroliwala in the Crimewatch programme is interesting and I had not noticed it.

IMO DCI Redwood and the BBC CrimeWatch Team from the Head of Unit downwards wrote the script for the CrimeWatch McCann Show so cunningly that we weren't meant to notice what they were actually saying.

There are different types of witnesses possible, the people who actually did see, hear or know something from the crime itself when it happened, but there are also witnesses that belong more to the informer/informant group, the law don’t make a difference between those groups. Also a testimony or statement from an expert is also called a witness statement. So also the expert could be a witness.
 
So technically speaking of witnesses is not saying that those e-fits are made on information of somebody that has direct knowledge of what happened, by their own observations directly related to the crime.
 
In it’s purest form what is said is that those e-fits were made with assistance of two irish nationals. This could also be the people who just fill in any information into the software program that was used to produce the e-fits. Even if those two had done it not in a hunt for the truth, it still is technically correct as said on crimewatch.
I don’t think henri extton made the e-fits himself, but just could have given the task to do it to some other people, who did know how to work the software to make the e-fits. Two very different e-fits, so two different operators is likely and why would they not be irish?
 
The moment an police officer working on a crime case asked anybody any question, this person becomes technically a witness. All what redwood had to do or let do, was asking those operators did you make this, bingo, two nice irish witnesses!
 
There is been a lot of these word games used by redwood, he did exactly the same when he said the parents were no suspects. Of course they are not, if you just had told the world you start a case from scratch, that just means a empty whiteboard. The suspects would come along as the investigation follows on.
The only cases you can talk from suspects at the start of the investigation is when you caught them in the act, this is not such a case, so the facts and findings of the investigation have to bring as a result a list of possible suspects.
 
As long as it is a police investigation, the word suspect is to strong loaded in the eyes of the public, the police just bring possible suspects on to a cps and the cps could decide to bring them before a court.
The police can’t clear anybody from guilt or declare somebody innocent, the gimmick is everyone is already innocent until a court decided against that by law. the only way to be declared not guilty could be done in court, even there is not something as truly declared innocent. The law is easy, not guilty = innocent, but this is not the same as you did not do it, it was just not proven under the rules of the law you did it.
 
The police can make you a possible suspect or suspect and could end that status, but this only rules in the investigation part. The term suspect gives protection to the person and also gives the investigation more tools to get access to possible evidence. this is bound under rules for duration and often need the go ahead from the cps.
 
Redwood did make the most of blending the layman’s understanding of words used and the true meaning of those same words as used in law.
 
I am agreeing with tony on this, the public is nicely fooled!
 
I think this case just ends with some announcement of to little evidence, to investigate further or not enough evidence to stand in court. We only would know if it is a whitewash if somebody breaks the ranks. Come on, 10 million pounds to keep the public occupied is peanuts, i don’t think the budget of coronation street would be less for over three years of episodes. The money is already back in taxes, made on lawyer fee’s, newspaper sales, books, forum software, etc. Also nice to keep of the met’s finest of some other cases. The moment the politics had set a foot in this case, we are fooled!
 
And the pj just had open their case, to put their flag in the ground, i would like to use some sentence with dogs in it, but that would not be within the forum rules.

No court case in brittain as long as the portuguese hold their leg up. 


Redwood did not have to lie, henri exton did not have to lie in the times article, just playing with words that keep them away from that. Exton did not really tell the purpose why he had his hands in the making of those e-fits. it could be misfits after all!

This is how "Lying In The Sun" sees it:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I have to say we swallowed it all whole without a murmur.

How does - or might - Adrian Oldfield of PACT and Ernst & Young, fit into this, if at all?

Per other posters' research, there is no known connection between Adrian Oldfield and Matthew Oldfield, so I don't think he has any relevance to this case.

I am stunned that Henri Exton ex-MI5, and also Kevin Halligen and Tim Craig-Harvey also former MI5 agents (allegedly) were taken in by the Mccanns.

You got to wonder what were their briefs - what they were told about the circumstances of her disappearance?
Were they given a basis to start from, or did they have to work from blank and without remit?
It goes without saying money is the biggest attractant factor.
You would imagine they got to expect to be given something at the very least as starting point even if the something is just an informal chats with the Mccanns ie interview them, obtain their statements and take it from there.

If none of them had ever spoken to Mccanns directly, but got their brief from Brian Kennedy then that is just hearsay. On top of that secondary hire in the case of Exton (by Halligen) then the hearsay is third hand.

M3 and Alphaig were not of the same calibre as ex British Security Service Agents.
You expect MI5 agents to be super skilled like Secret Service agent 007 well capable of solving the mystery, cracking the case, and passing the info to Police for indictment.
Instead all they produced were two efits that would not have seen daylight if not for the MET review.

Bumping for new members and readers who still believe that Madeleine disappeared on 3rd May and that Smithman sighting was genuine