UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: sadie on September 19, 2014, 02:30:36 PM
-
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police
PressGazette
William Turvill
19 September 2014
(http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/node_image/public/McCanns.JPG)
The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.
According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled.
Kate and Gerry McCann took issue with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their daughter".
In addition to the article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until 8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left on the article - in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette.
The story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “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.”
The title reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged its contents”.
The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.
In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".
They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.
They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.
The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".
On 1 November, the couple sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter – urgent”.
They said that the email, outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”, was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later.
The McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely rejected their complaint.
They said Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.
On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below.
The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.
The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:
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."
Good, I am glad they are going after people who are putting out false information.
-
Why didn't the mccanns publish the photos themselves ?
They had no excuses not to do so, if they genuinely wished to find their daughter.
I wonder what 'damages' they were awarded, and where the money went to, since the fund has now become redundant. &%+((£
-
The Sunday Times made a right dogs dinner of this story. There is case to answer as to why e-fits created in 2007 of a suspect were never made available to the wider public until late last year.
Why were these e-fits withheld, by whom and on whose advice?
-
The Sunday Times made a right dogs dinner of this story. There is case to answer as to why e-fits created in 2007 of a suspect were never made available to the wider public until late last year.
Why were these e-fits withheld, by whom and on whose advice?
If these efits were constructed as a result of the Smiths' sighting, which Smith or Smiths co-operated in generating them?
The three Smith statements we have seen state that none could describe the face of the man seen. There was also a bit of a press furore generated by the request made to the Smiths by McCann representatives for such assistance.
-
I remember saying at the time that the mccans would sue...whilst the doubters were claiming that the ST's legal team would have checked the story out...I'm proved right once again
-
If these efits were constructed as a result of the Smiths' sighting, which Smith or Smiths co-operated in generating them?
The three Smith statements we have seen state that none could describe the face of the man seen. There was also a bit of a press furore generated by the request made to the Smiths by McCann representatives for such assistance.
You are correct Brietta.....How could they do an efit, maybe it was someone else.
-
You are correct Brietta.....How could they do an efit, maybe it was someone else.
It is something which genuinely puzzles me.
Mrs Smith may have had a better view of the man’s face and may have described him but I would be loath to rush to judgement on anything to do with the Smith sighting which I think raises more questions than it answers.
-
It is something which genuinely puzzles me.
Mrs Smith may have had a better view of the man’s face and may have described him but I would be loath to rush to judgement on anything to do with the Smith sighting which I think raises more questions than it answers.
Mary and Martin, were I believe together and Martin said in his second statement
Excerpt MS:-
It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either.
-
The Sunday Times made a right dogs dinner of this story. There is case to answer as to why e-fits created in 2007 of a suspect were never made available to the wider public until late last year.
Why were these e-fits withheld, by whom and on whose advice?
I tend to agree John. Another of those mares nests that will never be un-muddled.
The ST should have learned from others mistakes, didn't and consequently lost on a technical KO.
-
I tend to agree John. Another of those mares nests that will never be un-muddled.
The ST should have learned from others mistakes, didn't and consequently lost on a technical KO.
Absolutely, they turned a valid issue into a farce.
-
Absolutely, they turned a valid issue into a farce.
They may have been overzealous in their haste to get the boot in ... which rather belies the common assertion that the MSM "protect the McCanns."
-
From the article quoted, I get the impression that the case was settled out of court, as is usual for the McCanns. It seems IMO that the parents have not said that what was written in the ST article was not true. Their complaint is that the authors give the idea that they hindered the search for their daughter, suffered damage to their reputation, embarrassement and distress. Also, their complaint cited the fact that their spokesman was not consulted before publishing the article. What is this? Every article in the MSM about these lovely parents must meet the approval of CM and Kate and Gerry?
-
From the article quoted, I get the impression that the case was settled out of court, as is usual for the McCanns. It seems IMO that the parents have not said that what was written in the ST article was not true. Their complaint is that the authors give the idea that they hindered the search for their daughter, suffered damage to their reputation, embarrassement and distress. Also, their complaint cited the fact that their spokesman was not consulted before publishing the article. What is this? Every article in the MSM about these lovely parents must meet the approval of CM and Kate and Gerry?
more mistakes from you ..too many to challenge...if you had read the article properly..it's still there you can check...the mccanns claim was that the rebuttal arguments given by their spokesman were not fully printed making the article biased and unfair..plus the lies printed to boot...no wonder you are confused you must be quite dizzy from all your spinning.
Every article must obey the law of the UK...perhaps you have a problem with that.. I don't
just to make it easy for you this sis what the mccanns said re their spokesman
The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".
-
So why didn't the mccanns publish the photo themselves ?
-
So why didn't the mccanns publish the photo themselves ?
exactly
and why did they still hold on to them for over a year
But not only that.... they have their own publicity machine who also decided not to publish the pictures.
Even though we'd previously had Cooperman,.... Egghead...., striding man, ... aged pictures of maddie
If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team..... then surely that's called withholding evidence
-
So why didn't the mccanns publish the photo themselves ?
Why do you keep asking the same question? No-one knows why - as the public (unsurprisingly) have not been informed of the details. However, SY will know - and that is all that matters.
-
So why didn't the mccanns publish the photo themselves ?
Because it's obvious who Smithman was, Stephen, that's why.
Oh look, no Smithman here....
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Fancy that.
-
They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.
IMO..... always ...reputation comes first....its the only thing that disstresses or devastates them...never mind though mccs there there ...money always makes your suffering better........ .
-
The Crimewatch Reconstruction showed the correct detail of the Smith's sighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y#t=1431
Oh look, the McCann's reconstruction didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=na4aBr5PTYY#t=348
Fancy that.
-
IMO this could possibly be ...more smoke and mirrors..... reading it again it's all mccSpin...
The article outlines the complaints the mccs filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms.... but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the mccs claiming "unspecified damages"... and reports: "according to publisher News UK the claim has been settled"..... inferring that the mccs won......... however,.....the article is careful to not actually state this.......
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it.....
The inference is that the Macs emerged vindicated......
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
-
IMO this could possibly be ...more smoke and mirrors..... reading it again it's all mccSpin...
The article outlines the complaints the mccs filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms.... but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the mccs claiming "unspecified damages"... and reports: "according to publisher News UK the claim has been settled"..... inferring that the mccs won......... however,.....the article is careful to not actually state this.......
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it.....
The inference is that the Macs emerged vindicated......
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
The McCanns were libelled and took action. Good for them.
Let's hope this puts an end to the myth that the McCanns control the UK press.
-
Why do you keep asking the same question? No-one knows why - as the public (unsurprisingly) have not been informed of the details. However, SY will know - and that is all that matters.
The mccanns had no excuse.
After all they were looking for Madeleine, weren't they ?
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
The mccanns had no excuse.
After all they were looking for Madeleine, weren't they ?
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
You can have no idea what the reasons were - as we haven't been told them. I don't know why you are even bothering to ask the question as even if they did give a full explanation - if it didn't suit you - you would simply claim they were lying.
-
You can have no idea what the reasons were - as we haven't been told them. I don't know why you are even bothering to ask the question as even if they did give a full explanation - if it didn't suit you - you would simply claim they were lying.
They said they were looking for Madeleine.
So why didn't they publish the e-fit ?
-
The McCanns were libelled and took action. Good for them.
Let's hope this puts an end to the myth that the McCanns control the UK press.
I Don't think the mccs controll the media........they just watch them like a hawk..[if only they had maddie].....and it shows you what will happen if they write anything to upset them ,....they will sue.....sue ...sue...that is what they are afraid of ....
you don't actually know though....if they got compensation ...or the article just to pacify them for there distress [cough]
is this article only on line.......... or is it in the national paper as well
-
I Don't think the mccs controll the media........they just watch them like a hawk..[if only they had maddie].....and it shows you what will happen if they write anything to upset them ,....they will sue.....sue ...sue...that is what they are afraid of ....
you don't actually know though....if they got compensation ...or the article just to pacify them for there distress [cough]
is this article only on line.......... or is it in the national paper as well
The article seems perfectly straightforward IMO. The fact that some people feel the need to dissect it to the Nth degree to try to make it mean something different - is inexplicable to me.
-
The Crimewatch Reconstruction showed the correct detail of the Smith's sighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y#t=1431
Oh look, the McCann's reconstruction didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=na4aBr5PTYY#t=348
Fancy that.
The McCanns have 21:50 and carrying the child the same way as Tannerman @)(++(*
I wonder where the yard should search &%+((£
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gzJ79Elc9qg/T1CqPIcn8mI/AAAAAAAAIcE/x6NNLF6nNtc/s400/Actualizado%2Brecentemente18.jpg)
-
They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.
IMO..... always ...reputation comes first....its the only thing that disstresses or devastates them...never mind though mccs there there ...money always makes your suffering better........ .
Reputation and dignity seems to rate very highly with Dr Amaral if we are to believe his statements on why he wrote his book denigrating Madeleine's parents. No complaints about that?
-
They said they were looking for Madeleine.
So why didn't they publish the e-fit ?
Stephen, please stop being boring. No one knows why, and no one is telling.
-
The Sunday Times made a right dogs dinner of this story. There is case to answer as to why e-fits created in 2007 of a suspect were never made available to the wider public until late last year.
Why were these e-fits withheld, by whom and on whose advice?
I think it's perfectly simple, John.
Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an e-fit in January 2008, but refused.
It is plain common sense that all the time he thought he had seen Gerry he would refuse.
It was surely only after the files were released in August 2008 following shelving of the first enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been mistaken (to suppose the man was Gerry) and agreed to produce the e-fit.
The e-fits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police by 2009, yet they chose the moment of the crimewatch programme to release the efit.
You simply cannot produce an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted other than in the context of a live enquiry.
The police understood that, and the McCanns would have been crucified for doing so, particularly when the police had chosen to wait until the launch of a fresh investigation.
Indeed, it's not even clear that the McCanns were in a position to release the efit before the police. Did they actually have it in their possession?
-
I Don't think the mccs controll the media........they just watch them like a hawk..[if only they had maddie].....and it shows you what will happen if they write anything to upset them ,....they will sue.....sue ...sue...that is what they are afraid of ....
you don't actually know though....if they got compensation ...or the article just to pacify them for there distress [cough]
is this article only on line.......... or is it in the national paper as well
It seems only to be online.
Press Gazette article is 4 days old.
See links below which are less than a day old
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kate-gerry-mccann-suing-sunday-times-over-madeleine-151607657.html#TSyOZxF
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mccanns+sue+times&tbm=nws
There seems to be a difference of opinion with regard to what is going on.
It is anybody's guess by the look of it.
With the new funding arrangements for defamation cases it is unlikely to reach/have reached court. The plaintiffs would have to pay their costs out of their "winnings" which is a gamble; like will income exceed expenditure.
-
It does seem that MSM are ignoring this story for reasons best known to them alone?
Kate and Gerry McCann Suing Sunday Times over 'Madeleine Clue' Defamation
International Business Times
Dominic Gover
19 September 2014
(http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/453592/madeleine-mccanns-father-leaves-lisbon-court.jpg?w=720&h=478&l=50&t=50)
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the Sunday Times for defamation over print claims.
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are suing the Sunday Times newspaper for libel over claims printed in 2013.
Kate and Gerry McCann began legal proceedings against the Rupert Murdoch-owned title after it claimed they had kept secret from police "a crucial piece of evidence" in the investigation.
That alleged evidence was an e-fit of a potential suspect which was created by a former British spy for the McCanns' own probe in to their daughter's disappearance.
Also cited by the McCanns in their complaint were comments posted by readers below the online version of the article, which was pulled down by News UK just under two weeks after publication.
But it caused the couple "severe embarrassment and distress," they claimed in court documents.
Alleging the Sunday Times' article damaged their reputation, the McCann's said that the story implied they had allowed "the trail to go cold," reported Press Gazette.
The Sunday Times later apologised for the article, which had carried the headline "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago."
The McCanns are seeking unspecified damages.
www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-gerry-mccann-suing-sunday-times-over-madeleine-clue-defamation-1466318
-
The first report by NewsGazette was in the past tense and claims that the libel has been settled yet this more recent report is in the present tense and claims an ongoing suit. Who does one believe?
-
I think it's perfectly simple, John.
Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an e-fit in January 2008, but refused.
It is plain common sense that all the time he thought he had seen Gerry he would refuse.
It was surely only after the files were released in August 2008 following shelving of the first enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been mistaken (to suppose the man was Gerry) and agreed to produce the e-fit.
The e-fits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police by 2009, yet they chose the moment of the crimewatch programme to release the efit.
You simply cannot produce an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted other than in the context of a live enquiry.
The police understood that, and the McCanns would have been crucified for doing so, particularly when the police had chosen to wait until the launch of a fresh investigation.
Indeed, it's not even clear that the McCanns were in a position to release the efit before the police. Did they actually have it in their possession?
None of us have a clue why the efits were not released in 2009 but as they were in the possession of the police here and in Portugal that would tend to exonerate Madeleine’s parents from deliberate obfuscation.
It should be remembered that the Drs McCann were striving to have Madeleine’s case reopened and would be anxious not to upset law enforcement in any way.
We have no idea what advice they may have been given.
However if they have sufficient grounds to sue it suggest to me that the ST were wrong in the assertion in their original article - as the apology confirms.
-
If you were the parent of a child whom you claim has been abducted and you have in your possession e-fits of a man carrying a child around the same time that the claimed abduction occurred, would you not want to post them up on every possible location all over PdL because I most certainly would?
-
None of us have a clue why the efits were not released in 2009 but as they were in the possession of the police here and in Portugal that would tend to exonerate Madeleine’s parents from deliberate obfuscation.
It should be remembered that the Drs McCann were striving to have Madeleine’s case reopened and would be anxious not to upset law enforcement in any way.
We have no idea what advice they may have been given.
However if they have sufficient grounds to sue it suggest to me that the ST were wrong in the assertion in their original article - as the apology confirms.
I am still confused, as to who could have done efit. Since all of the Smith family said That they could not recognise him in person or photo. It was very poor light in the street too, but that efit looks very precise to me.
-
I am still confused, as to who could have done efit. Since all of the Smith family said That they could not recognise him in person or photo. It was very poor light in the street too, but that efit looks very precise to me.
Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.
-
Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.
but the smiths said they hardly saw his face
-
Just try, will ya. Make it up as you go along. Both of them.
-
Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.
Persauded them to do an efit of a face they never saw? but it was Halligen after all!
-
Well whatever!
The Yard still seem to think they need account for who "efit man" really is so on that basis he is "relevant to our enquiries sir" but we are not telling you why.
-
Well whatever!
The Yard still seem to think they need account for who "efit man" really is so on that basis he is "relevant to our enquiries sir" but we are not telling you why.
I can understand them needing to find him, even if only for elimination, but it still is a possibility that the man looks nothing like the efit. We don't know who done it with the help of Halligen.
-
Persauded them to do an efit of a face they never saw? but it was Halligen after all!
If the very questionable Halligen was the source it may explain why two police forces didn't see fit to use them, could be they just didn't believe they were an accurate representation, similarly the directors of the Madeleine fund had already been fleeced by him and had plenty of reason to trust nothing emanating from that source.
That the Met saw fit to use the efits to launch the new investigation suggests they must have reasons which were not apparent five years ago - they sure aren't going to tell us in the middle of an active investigation though.
-
If the very questionable Halligen was the source it may explain why two police forces didn't see fit to use them, could be they just didn't believe they were an accurate representation, similarly the directors of the Madeleine fund had already been fleeced by him and had plenty of reason to trust nothing emanating from that source.
That the Met saw fit to use the efits to launch the new investigation suggests they must have reasons which were not apparent five years ago - they sure aren't going to tell us in the middle of an active investigation though.
I believe that to be the case. Afterall would you trust an efit that he persuaded someone to put together, who probably didnt see the face they were describing and said they could not recognise in person or photo?
It seems as if this efit may have come from elsewhere, but where?
I think SY suspect who this person is and are fishing. I hope they find him however.
-
I believe that to be the case. Afterall would you trust an efit that he persuaded someone to put together, who probably didnt see the face they were describing and said they could not recognise in person or photo?
It seems as if this efit may have come from elsewhere, but where?
I think SY suspect who this person is and are fishing. I hope they find him however.
I agree, Anna.
I do not think the Smiths, with the best will in the world, would have been capable of providing information to enable such detailed efits to be produced.
Jane Tanner could not do it because she did not see the man's face ... neither did the Smiths.
-
I can understand them needing to find him, even if only for elimination, but it still is a possibility that the man looks nothing like the efit. We don't know who done it with the help of Halligen.
Me too but why has he not come forward?
He is guilty as hell.
He is dead.
He is in deep space.
He has seen how others have been treated in this case and is wisely maintaining a hull down position.
Take yer pick.
-
lets hope any money received from the lawsuit is spent on expensive holidays and a nice new car for each of them...they certainly deserve it.
-
lets hope any money received from the lawsuit is spent on expensive holidays and a nice new car for each of them...they certainly deserve it.
If I mislay my child, can I have an expensive holiday and a nice new car... &%+((£
-
If I mislay my child, can I have an expensive holiday and a nice new car... &%+((£
if you are extensively libelled ...YES
-
if you are extensively libelled ...YES
Are you sure you don't mean extensively labelled ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
lets hope any money received from the lawsuit is spent on expensive holidays and a nice new car for each of them...they certainly deserve it.
Expensive holidays and new cars will never bring back what they willingly gave away..........their reputations as good, attentive parents.
No amount of suing will ever bring that back.
-
lets hope any money received from the lawsuit is spent on expensive holidays and a nice new car for each of them...they certainly deserve it.
what like as in ...forget what maddie has gone through
because of there actions ......maddie is missing ...no one else's ..the mccs
whatever the truth maddie suffered...
and on the back of that ....they deserve holidays and new cars ...
well there again i think they can live with that ....like they do every thing else......
-
if you are extensively libelled ...YES
That biggie has yet to be determined. 8(0(*
-
wonder what happened about this Revelation
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.
One of the investigators 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.
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.
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.”
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.
-
Expensive holidays and new cars will never bring back what they willingly gave away..........their reputations as good, attentive parents.
No amount of suing will ever bring that back.
The twins would probably disagree with your assessment. Nothing to say about the person the PJ and the Met are looking for ... you know, the person who actually committed the crime of abducting Madeleine McCann? the person some think is an allright guy?
-
lets hope any money received from the lawsuit is spent on expensive holidays and a nice new car for each of them...they certainly deserve it.
I agree, some real luxuries for the family, after all the abuse they have had to endure
-
I agree, some real luxuries for the family, after all the abuse they have had to endure
How about Spain for a holiday sadie ? I hear they do lovely tapas !
-
How about Spain for a holiday sadie ? I hear they do lovely tapas !
For The Mccanns?
There are some lovely parts to Spain, but I would like to see them have something a bit more special than the run of the mill parts of Spain.
I think they would like Nova Scotia, Cape Cod, The Keys .......... Disney Fla, ... or a Safari in Africa. They would have to choose their month tho for the last three, could be mighty hot
They deserve a really good holiday after all they have endured. How wonderful it would be if Madeleine could join them
-
what like as in ...forget what maddie has gone through
because of there actions ......maddie is missing ...no one else's ..the mccs
whatever the truth maddie suffered...
and on the back of that ....they deserve holidays and new cars ...
well there again i think they can live with that ....like they do every thing else......
Excellent post.
The judge in the Amaral 'trial' wanted to know what could have been worse- Maddie being 'abducted' or the book- Kate replied the Documentary was much worse.
And so... This HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THEIR REPUTATION hence, why they lie about checking the children and jemmied shutters and all the other sillyness about Tanners 'abductor'. Payne's visit/ non visit etc.
That is the first people they contacted-PR people and Lawyers .As they knew they would be slated and were worried the twins would be removed from them and placed into care. Which would happen here in the UK.
Yo know for 'family' 'suffering' from the effects of Amarals book- they do like to take people to court and gain money- they LOVE they money OH how They love the fame and Money....it would take their mind off what the real issue is...which is erm..um damn...
Maddie-rotting in a shallow grave? being used as a sex slave? who knows- who cares- her parents are too busy defending their REPUTATIONS!
-
The twins would probably disagree with your assessment. Nothing to say about the person the PJ and the Met are looking for ... you know, the person who actually committed the crime of abducting Madeleine McCann? the person some think is an allright guy?
Hmm Well, Kate has forgiven this person who abducted /raped? tortured? murdered? left in a shallow grave? thrown down a mine shaft? fed to the sharks? whatever... She and Gerry have also forgiven themselves for sitting in their garden keeping an eye on things.
BUT she hates Amaral for writing a book and she hates the fking tosssers of policemen who were all trying to piece together what happened to their little girl.
But she made them rich beyond their wildest dreams- now if only they could persuade people to believe them and get on with their happy content lives with the twins... Hmmm
Poor Little forgotten Maddie...
-
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine
Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.
McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.
The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”
Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeated calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.
After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.
The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.
“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago. In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.
His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”
Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout?CMP=twt_gu
-
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine
Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.
McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.
The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”
Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeated calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.
After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.
The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.
“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago. In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.
His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”
Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout?CMP=twt_gu
Thanks for that Brietta. I notice in some quarters that even the fact that the £55,000 has been donated to charity is already being turned into yet another 'crime' by the McCanns by some sceptics.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't - every step of the way.
-
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine
Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.
McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.
The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”
Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeated calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.
After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.
The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.
“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago. In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.
His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”
Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout?CMP=twt_gu
It was settled out of court which usually means no admission of guilt.
-
It was settled out of court which usually means no admission of guilt.
It usually means that it would have cost The Times a jolly sight more.
-
It usually means that it would have cost The Times a jolly sight more.
Agreed, either in defence costs and/or possible higher damages if they lost.
-
Agreed, either in defence costs and/or possible higher damages if they lost.
What a farce it all is. These people are never held fully accountable. So much for Leveson.
-
The one question which has never been answered is why the mccanns didn't release the photo-fit themselves.
-
It usually means that it would have cost The Times a jolly sight more.
Exactly. Also - Carter Ruck undertook this case on a 'No win -no Fee' basis'. IMO it can be assumed that they would have to be very confident about the legal outcome should it go to court - before agreeing to do that.
IMO we can also assume that the lawyers acting for The Times also knew what the likely outcome would be. A payment of £50,000 is nothing - but the damage to their image resulting from a lost court case would be extremely serious. If they did have a convincing defense of their actions - then they would have gone to court IMO. The fact that they chose not to says it all IMO.
-
The one question which has never been answered is why the mccanns didn't release the photo-fit themselves.
We don't know what The McCanns were advised to do, or why, Stephen
Sadie has adequately explained how these two e-fits could be the same person, but it isn't immediately obvious. So perhaps they were considered to be confusing.
-
We don't know what The McCanns were advised to do, or why, Stephen
Sadie has adequately explained how these two e-fits could be the same person, but it isn't immediately obvious. So perhaps they were considered to be confusing.
What did they have to lose ?
After all they were looking for Madeleine, weren't they ?
-
What did they have to lose ?
After all they were looking for Madeleine, weren't they ?
I don't know, Stephen. Perhaps it was considered to be New Evidence which might reopen the case. And consequently best left to The Police who would ultimately get wider coverage. Which is actually what happened.
-
I don't know, Stephen. Perhaps it was considered to be New Evidence which might reopen the case. And consequently best left to The Police who would ultimately get wider coverage. Which is actually what happened.
So why didn't the PJ or SY release it earlier ?
-
So why didn't the PJ or SY release it earlier ?
There was a lot going on behind the scenes at the time while Scotland Yard and The PJ endeavoured to set up a working relationship that had some legal clout.
These things have to be done properly, otherwise any evidence gained would be worthless.
-
What a farce it all is. These people are never held fully accountable. So much for Leveson.
You are not really keen on investigative journalism are you.
-
You are not really keen on investigative journalism are you.
Of course she isn't because when the least bit of digging is done in this case, as opposed to Mitchell distributing a press release and the churnalists cut and pasting it, the McCann never come out of it smelling of roses.
-
So printing lies for which various news rags have been forced to pay damages is Investigative Journalism, is it?
Methinks that some of you don't understand what the term means.
I hope none of you feel free to repeat any of it because Repeated Libel is still Libel.
-
You are not really keen on investigative journalism are you.
I for one am very keen on investigative journalism and am unfortunately old enough to remember the work of the pre Murdoch Sunday Times Insight Team of renown.
It should be understood there are investigative journalists who are worthy of the name; then there are people who think they may have the skills but who quite patently have not done their homework … so what is investigative about that?
-
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine
Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.
McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.
The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”
Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeated calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.
After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.
The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.
“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago. In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.
His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”
Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout?CMP=twt_gu
???????
There is no such thing as "no win no fee". The relevant law changed earlier this year to prevent lawyers from screwing outrageous "success fees" out of losing parties. Before you shriek I should point out that this element of CFAs was instrumental in the jacking up of insurance costs to everyone.
Sorry to nit pick but if the article cannot be right on that what else is incorrect or is it intended to lead the populace up the garden path?
-
???????
There is no such thing as "no win no fee". The relevant law changed earlier this year to prevent lawyers from screwing outrageous "success fees" out of losing parties. Before you shriek I should point out that this element of CFAs was instrumental in the jacking up of insurance costs to everyone.
Sorry to nit pick but if the article cannot be right on that what else is incorrect or is it intended to lead the populace up the garden path?
Are you sure it is not you that is wrong and are attempting to lead posters up the garden path. Was this action started before the law change....there was a massive increase in claims as lawyers tried to beat the deadline
-
Are you sure it is not you that is wrong and are attempting to lead posters up the garden path. Was this action started before the law change....there was a massive increase in claims as lawyers tried to beat the deadline
Picking the salient points.
There is no such thing as "no win no fee" (refer to linked article)
The law Changed in April 2013
Any case commenced before April 2013 was not subject to the new laws. (November comes after April in my calendar).
The old CFA system led to increases in insurance premiums generally (refer to linked article and ombudsman's comments)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/06/lawyers-no-win-no-fee-disputes
If you give us chapter and and verse where what I said is incorrect in principle then maybe we will believe you.
-
So printing lies for which various news rags have been forced to pay damages is Investigative Journalism, is it?
Methinks that some of you don't understand what the term means.
I hope none of you feel free to repeat any of it because Repeated Libel is still Libel.
We still don't know what the "libel" in the article was. Maybe it couldn't be proved that the McCann's knew what their PIs were doing?
-
Picking the salient points.
There is no such thing as "no win no fee" (refer to linked article)
The law Changed in April 2013
Any case commenced before April 2013 was not subject to the new laws. (November comes after April in my calendar).
The old CFA system led to increases in insurance premiums generally (refer to linked article and ombudsman's comments)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/06/lawyers-no-win-no-fee-disputes
If you give us chapter and and verse where what I said is incorrect in principle then maybe we will believe you.
There is such a thing as no win no fee...Carter Ruck can take any case they like on a no win no fee basis...the new law does not stop them...what the new law does stop is the excessive legal claims for fees when the case is won....the success fee
-
There is such a thing as no win no fee...Carter Ruck can take any case they like on a no win no fee basis...the new law does not stop them...what the new law does stop is the excessive legal claims for fees when the case is won....the success fee
That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.
-
That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.
You obviously missed the word, "Excessive."
-
You obviously missed the word, "Excessive."
Yeah what ever; and davel didn't respond to most of my post because he was left in a position where he could only nit pick.
Hey ho says Rowley.
-
That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.
no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.
If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you read in the telegraph
-
no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.
If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you read in the telegraph
All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.
Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.
So where is the money going ?
-
no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.
If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you read in the telegraph
I was looking at C-Rs website!
-
All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.
Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.
So where is the money going ?
According the press (which is notoriously unreliable we hear today on here and elsewhere) it is going to two charities.
As the fund is not a charity ipso fatso it ain't going there. With the caveat in parentheses above.
-
All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.
Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.
So where is the money going ?
The McCanns are donating the £50,000 to charity Stephen - but I'm sure that won't stop you finding fault with them for doing that.
-
The McCanns are donating the £50,000 to charity Stephen - but I'm sure that won't stop you finding fault with them for doing that.
Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?
-
Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?
I have no idea. Does it really matter? Although in some people's eyes whatever they decided to do with the money will be wrong.
At least two charities will benefit from the £50,000 because of their decision.
That's a good thing isn't it?
-
Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?
Possibly that might not be a smooth move right now?
-
Possibly that might not be a smooth move right now?
Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?
-
Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?
That of course is possible. IF public perception was that the fund was to provide funds specifically to look for Madeleine then after all the summers publicity public perception may be that as The Yard have a team of 37 together with the Portuguese Police looking for Madeleine.. well join up the dots sir!
-
Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?
Yes, I think the public caught on quite quickly! they stopped donating!
They were quite happy to take the money from The NOW which was earmarked for CHARITIES!
The times issued an apology they didn't like that, they took the money and had no choice to give the money to charities I believe for two reasons.
1.The public are not in the mood for this 'celebrity couple' wingin all the time about their reputations..ha!
2. they are trying to win the public over by showing what nice people they are...oh ook they give money to charity....Meh.
-
I have no idea. Does it really matter? Although in some people's eyes whatever they decided to do with the money will be wrong.
At least two charities will benefit from the £50,000 because of their decision.
That's a good thing isn't it?
I don't know either, but can make a guess that if the money is put into the fund it will lie there until the official investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is concluded and the Met have intimated it is likely to be a long haul.
Isn't it better that the money has been directed to be used for good now rather than at some future time when the fund may no longer be required.
However it is sadly very true that whatever they decided to do would meet with criticism.
-
I don't know either, but can make a guess that if the money is put into the fund it will lie there until the official investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is concluded and the Met have intimated it is likely to be a long haul.
Isn't it better that the money has been directed to be used for good now rather than at some future time when the fund may no longer be required.
However it is sadly very true that whatever they decided to do would meet with criticism.
Bit of a waste of time suing really.
-
Bit of a waste of time suing really.
It is a deterrent to others, who may be contemplating, publishing untruths in the press and they are quite entitled to put the money in their own account………..But it is very unlikely that they would do this.
-
And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract. Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?
-
And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract. Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?
Brian Kennedy was hardly likely to pay Halligen, and give him the opportunity to sell The McCann's Story, possibly to The Times.
Did any of the other agencies sign such an agreement?
-
And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract. Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?
I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.
McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...
-
I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.
McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...
As far as I can see, the Sunday Times retraction said that they stated that the McCanns withheld the eFits for which they had no evidence. It didn't actually say the the efits were not withheld.
-
I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.
McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...
Absolutely ... it is foolish to think otherwise.
The fact that the Times felt it necessary to settle out of court - in conjunction with the police in Portugal and Britain being in possession of the efits - compiled by a firm which has defrauded the Madeleine fund - suggests that there was no official police belief that the efits were relevant.
Why should the Drs McCann have thought otherwise and have confidence in them under the circumstances.
Dr K McCann gave the sighting itself a lot of credence in MADELEINE.
>>snip<<
He was seen by an Irish family called Smith, who gave a statement to police soon after their holiday. The e-fits were compiled by private detectives in September 2008. However, Redwood said, for years the sighting was seen as “wrong place, wrong time” and thus unimportant.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1332079/suspect-sighting-madeleine-mccann-case-was-false-lead-say-police-they
>>snip<<
The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory”, a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24Horas.
The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/irishman-was-already-discarded-24horas.html
-
Dontchas just love it when the supporters use J. Morais' blogspot to further their arguments.
-
I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?
"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.”
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."
-
I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?
"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.”
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."
Good point Bert.
-
I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?
"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.”
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."
why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them?
-
So everyone's honesty is to be questioned.......that is apart from the McCanns !
-
why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them?
Are you suggesting he is being dishonest about detectives obtaining written permission from the fund?
-
why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them?
How could you think otherwise Faithlilly.
The mere notion that the McCann's have told lies in this case and through it's aftermath.............. &%+((£
-
Are you suggesting he is being dishonest about detectives obtaining written permission from the fund?
No, why would you think that?
-
Dontchas just love it when the supporters use J. Morais' blogspot to further their arguments.
What on earth is amiss with using Joana’s blogs?
Are you telling me they are anything other than as impeccable as her translations? WOW!
-
What on earth is amiss with using Joana’s blogs?
Are you telling me they are anything other than as impeccable as her translations? WOW!
It is rather like simultaneously supporting Liverpool and Everton. J M being a figure of ridicule to the supporters and all.
I don't know enough about her to make a informed judgement of her.
-
I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.
McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...
Actually, far from it. Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.
Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!
-
No, why would you think that?
So in your opinion, Exton is being truthful and detectives had to obtain written permission FROM THE FUND?????
Who is this almighty fund that decrees written permission must be sought for Exton to release efits that are already in possession of the Portuguese and UK police?
Who is this almighty fund that "PREVENTED" Exton from handing over potentially crucial efits to Scotland Yard, the "world's finest police force", who clearly couldn't obtain it from their own counterparts?
What happened to the efits originally given to the police? Why didn't "the fund" just tell Scotland Yard at the time, that their was no need to sign anything, due to the relevant forces already having them in their possession?
As usual, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this case.
-
So in your opinion, Exton is being truthful and detectives had to obtain written permission FROM THE FUND?????
Who is this almighty fund that decrees written permission must be sought for Exton to release efits that are already in possession of the Portuguese and UK police?
Who is this almighty fund that "PREVENTED" Exton from handing over potentially crucial efits to Scotland Yard, the "world's finest police force", who clearly couldn't obtain it from their own counterparts?
What happened to the efits originally given to the police? Why didn't "the fund" just tell Scotland Yard at the time, that their was no need to sign anything, due to the relevant forces already having them in their possession?
As usual, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this case.
I don't know the answers to your questions but my guess is this: there was a legal confidentiality clause forbidding Exton from (for example) selling his findings to the News of the World or divulging them to any other Tom, Dick or Harry, and as with all legally binding clauses written agreement needed to be sought and given before information covered by the clause was given. No doubt if this is ridiculously implausible or unreasonable you'll be the first to tell me why.
-
Actually, far from it. Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.
Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!
Try again.
At the end of January 2008 Mr Smith told the Irish Gardia police that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
By 2009 the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police.
So nothing suppressed for 5 years.
Unless you want to accuse British and Portuguese police of "suppressing" the efits.
My guess is that (at least British) police judged that the e-fit could be released only in the context of a live and on-going enquiry.
And that makes perfect sense.
The prior judgment would have been that releasing an e-fit a man seeing carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted, was not on, apart from an official and on-going enquiry.
Then that changed and a fresh enquiry was launched -- and the efit released, during the Crimewatch programme
Imagine the outcry if the McCanns had gainsaid the police by releasing it themselves, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...
-
Actually, far from it. Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.
Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!
Despite you writing it on sign and smacking them over the head with it, John. I don't they have spotted what you are saying!!
8(>((
-
Despite you writing it on sign and smacking them over the head with it, John. I don't they have spotted what you are saying!!
8(>((
John's abject failure to provide proper context badly needed exposing.
I exposed it.
-
Try again.
At the end of January 2008 Mr Smith told the Irish Gardia police that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
By 2009 the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police.
So nothing suppressed for 5 years.
Unless you want to accuse British and Portuguese police of "suppressing" the efits.
My guess is that (at least British) police judged that the e-fit could be released only in the context of a live and on-going enquiry.
And that makes perfect sense.
The prior judgment would have been that releasing an e-fit a man seeing carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted, was not on, apart from an official and on-going enquiry.
Then that changed and a fresh enquiry was launched -- and the efit released, during the Crimewatch programme
Imagine the outcry if the McCanns had gainsaid the police by releasing it themselves, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...
Of course they were suppressed. The efits weren't in the leaving no stone unturned fantasy book.
-
Try again.
At the end of January 2008 Mr Smith told the Irish Gardia police that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.
By 2009 the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police.
So nothing suppressed for 5 years.
Unless you want to accuse British and Portuguese police of "suppressing" the efits.
My guess is that (at least British) police judged that the e-fit could be released only in the context of a live and on-going enquiry.
And that makes perfect sense.
The prior judgment would have been that releasing an e-fit a man seeing carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted, was not on, apart from an official and on-going enquiry.
Then that changed and a fresh enquiry was launched -- and the efit released, during the Crimewatch programme
Imagine the outcry if the McCanns had gainsaid the police by releasing it themselves, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...
Why then did Scotland Yard seek written permission from the fund before using efits they required from Exton if they already had them on file? What sort of inept policing is that?
-
Actually, far from it. Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.
Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!
Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?
The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.
In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN which to be honest were ridiculed by many.
Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.
So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....
Well there you have it!
-
Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?
The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.
In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN which to be honest were ridiculed by many.
Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.
So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....
Well there you have it!
The company was Oakley, Henri Exton is former MI5.
-
I don't know the answers to your questions but my guess is this: there was a legal confidentiality clause forbidding Exton from (for example) selling his findings to the News of the World or divulging them to any other Tom, Dick or Harry, and as with all legally binding clauses written agreement needed to be sought and given before information covered by the clause was given. No doubt if this is ridiculously implausible or unreasonable you'll be the first to tell me why.
In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.
How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?
This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?
-
My apologies for that typo...I was reading something else at the time!
-
In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.
How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?
This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?
The massive weakness in your argument is that you are basing it on a newspaper story....one that has been shown to be innaccurate
-
In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.
How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?
This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?
Are you expecting a decent reply to challenge this?....Don't hold your breath! You do know you will be targeted as being a 'non believer' and troll'. Oh, but It is worth it.
Excellent post!
-
Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?
The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.
In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN which to be honest were ridiculed by many.
Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.
So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....
Well there you have it!
Now a compnay called Exon ...
I think you might mean a man called Henri Exton
-
The comapny was Oakley International.
Miss Taken by name.......... 8)--))
-
The massive weakness in your argument is that you are basing it on a newspaper story....one that has been shown to be innaccurate
On the contrary.
My first question yesterday dealt with that subject. If this particular piece of the article is inaccurate then why hasn't Exton sued? He's already witness the Sunday Times pay out to the McCanns so one would think he'd be salivating at the thought of easy pickings?
Unless of course this particular excerpt is wholly accurate?
-
In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.
How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?
This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?
You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns. SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally. Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...
-
You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns. SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally. Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...
I think it's also a key point as to when the e-fit was produced.
My guess is, after the files were released in August 2008, and Mr Smith realised he had been mistaken to suppose the man was Gerry ...
-
You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns. SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally. Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...
The knots are all yours.
Who told you SY wanted access to "all the data" uncovered by Exton? Are you joining the dots to form your own picture? Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?
-
The knots are all yours.
Who told you SY wanted access to "all the data" uncovered by Exton? Are you joining the dots to form your own picture? Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?
Exton did: see below. No specific mention of e-fits in the quote you chose to highlight earlier.
"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.”
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."
-
Exton did: see below. No specific mention of e-fits in the quote you chose to highlight earlier.
"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.”
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."
Good spot.
So how about answering rest which also form part of the argument?
Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?
-
The knots are all yours.
Who told you SY wanted access to "all the data" uncovered by Exton? Are you joining the dots to form your own picture? Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?
The so-called 'report' was worth less than the paper it was written on anyway.
Idle speculation about weight and emphasis to JT's report versus the Smith's ...
All froth and bubble ...
-
Good spot.
So how about answering rest which also form part of the argument?
Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?
Sorry, are you saying that the McCanns stated that their investigators uncovered no new information other than that which formed part of the case files? I'm unable to answer your questions in truth, suffice it to say, what do you think all this signifies, in your view? That the McCanns dunnit or what?
-
The so-called 'report' was worth less than the paper it was written on anyway.
Idle speculation about weight and emphasis to JT's report versus the Smith's ...
All froth and bubble ...
Why was the report worth less than the paper it was written on ?
Was it perhaps because the McCann 's own investigators, investigators that they had lauded for their professionalism, had raised doubts about their and their friends role in Madeleine's disappearance ?
TBH if your own investigators, who have access to ALL the evidence, think you are hiding something there's definitely something wrong !
-
Sorry, are you saying that the McCanns stated that their investigators uncovered no new information other than that which formed part of the case files? I'm unable to answer your questions in truth, suffice it to say, what do you think all this signifies, in your view? That the McCanns dunnit or what?
No. I'm asking why SY would need a report that has already been given to the investigating forces? If it has previously been given to the investigating forces then shouldn't it already be part of the case files?
If it wasn't previously given to the investigating forces then on what basis had the efits been given to them and why did those efits subsequently never see the light of day for such a long time?
-
No. I'm asking why SY would need a report that has already been given to the investigating forces? If it has previously been given to the investigating forces then shouldn't it already be part of the case files?
If it wasn't previously given to the investigating forces then on what basis had the efits been given to them and why did those efits subsequently never see the light of day for such a long time?
I have absolutely no idea. In truth, these are not questions that keep me awake at night. If you really need to know the answers perhaps you could send in an FOI request, as obviously this is a matter of great import to you.
-
No. I'm asking why SY would need a report that has already been given to the investigating forces? If it has previously been given to the investigating forces then shouldn't it already be part of the case files?
If it wasn't previously given to the investigating forces then on what basis had the efits been given to them and why did those efits subsequently never see the light of day for such a long time?
shows the ST article is inaccurate...no wonder they removed it and paid damages...Exton didn't sue because he doesn't have the money to sue and if the report was based on a verbal conversation might find it difficult to prove exactly what he said...simple
-
Why was the report worth less than the paper it was written on ?
Was it perhaps because the McCann 's own investigators, investigators that they had lauded for their professionalism, had raised doubts about their and their friends role in Madeleine's disappearance ?
TBH if your own investigators, who have access to ALL the evidence, think you are hiding something there's definitely something wrong !
This paragraph is from the Calvert and Blake original:
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.
Depending on when the e-fits were produced, that might have been sound advice (assuming a live and on-going investigation was in progress when the e-fits were produced).
But in November 2008, there certainly wasn't!
By 2009, the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police, who, themselves, chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release it.
So clearly nothing was suppressed/withheld for 5 years.
And as to emphasis on the Smith sightings, just read Kate's book.
Plenty in there about it. Plenty of emphasis ...
-
This paragraph is from the Calvert and Blake original:
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.
Depending on when the e-fits were produced, that might have been sound advice (assuming a live and on-going investigation was in progress when the e-fits were produced).
But in November 2008, there certainly wasn't!
By 2009, the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police, who, themselves, chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release it.
So clearly nothing was suppressed/withheld for 5 years.
And as to emphasis on the Smith sightings, just read Kate's book.
Plenty in there about it. Plenty of emphasis ...
So released without delay means on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
(With apologies to DA)
-
This paragraph is from the Calvert and Blake original:
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.
Depending on when the e-fits were produced, that might have been sound advice (assuming a live and on-going investigation was in progress when the e-fits were produced).
But in November 2008, there certainly wasn't!
By 2009, the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police, who, themselves, chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release it.
So clearly nothing was suppressed/withheld for 5 years.
And as to emphasis on the Smith sightings, just read Kate's book.
Plenty in there about it. Plenty of emphasis ...
From the original Times article :
"A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
But within months the relationship had soured. 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. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy."
And
"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."
So even if the efits were handed over to the relevant authorities, albeit after over a years delay, the Oakley report certainly wasn't and it took a request from SY to the fund for the contents to be revealed.
So there was certainly suppression of important information, the only mistake the Times made was to choose the wrong piece as their centrepiece.
-
So released without delay means on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
(With apologies to DA)
Or stuffed in a file marked "Not Relevant" by Paiva.
-
From the original Times article :
"A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
But within months the relationship had soured. 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. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy."
And
"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."
So even if the efits were handed over to the relevant authorities, albeit after over a years delay, the Oakley report certainly wasn't and it took a request from SY to the fund for the contents to be revealed.
So there was certainly suppression of important information, the only mistake the Times made was to choose the wrong piece as their centrepiece.
You'd have thought the Sunday Times much vaunted insight team would have understood that standard confidentiality clauses are run-of-the-mill to emails and other communications in the modern age.
But evidently they didn't.
The fact remains that e-fits delivered to the McCanns in November 2008 were in the hands of British and Portuguese police by 2009.
So who suppressed/withheld what for 5 years?
-
You'd have thought the Sunday Times much vaunted insight team would have understood that standard confidentiality clauses are run-of-the-mill to emails and other communications in the modern age.
But evidently they didn't.
The fact remains that e-fits delivered to the McCanns in November 2008 were in the hands of British and Portuguese police by 2009.
So who suppressed/withheld what for 5 years?
Can anyone tell me why if three bodies hold the same information
(a) The Madeleine fund (the McCanns)
(b) The British police
(c) The Portuguese police
and it is not publicised why only one of the three are castigated?
Can anyone tell me why that one should be the McCanns?
Can anyone explain the rationale behind that?
-
Can anyone tell me why if three bodies hold the same information
(a) The Madeleine fund (the McCanns)
(b) The British police
(c) The Portuguese police
and it is not publicised why only one of the three are castigated?
Can anyone tell me why that one should be the McCanns?
Can anyone explain the rationale behind that?
Coz they are the ones leaving no stone unturned...?
-
Coz they are the ones leaving no stone unturned...?
Why are the British and Portuguese police leaving stones unturned then?
-
Coz they are the ones leaving no stone unturned...?
Hmmm ... interesting response ... not.
The people who tried to ensure that these efits and any other publicity about Madeleine McCann would never see the light of day when they organised campaigns to have the CW programme pulled … are the people who are foaming at the mouth (exclusively at Madeleine’s parents – not the police who had been given copies) at the idea they hadn’t been publicised.
Something a bit Alice in Wonderland about that mentality …
Just how essential were these efits to the reopened investigation … a situation brought about only because her parents indeed left no stone unturned to have it happen?
Did we have a queue of people lining up to declare “I am Spar Smithman”?
Did the police arrest or question anyone on the strength of them … that remains to be seen … but I doubt it?
Some people don't let logic get in the way of something - anything fortifying an opportunity to indulge in some McCann baiting ... to whom they ignore that the ST had to pay damages because of their libellous article.
Don't think they would have done that ... if they hadn't had to.
-
Why are the British and Portuguese police leaving stones unturned then?
Because at the time of the report the Portuguese had archived the case and The Met had no remit to investigate?
-
Hmmm ... interesting response ... not.
The people who tried to ensure that these efits and any other publicity about Madeleine McCann would never see the light of day when they organised campaigns to have the CW programme pulled … are the people who are foaming at the mouth (exclusively at Madeleine’s parents – not the police who had been given copies) at the idea they hadn’t been publicised.
Something a bit Alice in Wonderland about that mentality …
Just how essential were these efits to the reopened investigation … a situation brought about only because her parents indeed left no stone unturned to have it happen?
Did we have a queue of people lining up to declare “I am Spar Smithman”?
Did the police arrest or question anyone on the strength of them … that remains to be seen … but I doubt it?
Some people don't let logic get in the way of something - anything fortifying an opportunity to indulge in some McCann baiting ... to whom they ignore that the ST had to pay damages because of their libellous article.
Don't think they would have done that ... if they hadn't had to.
Are you saying the McCann organisation did not have the Smithman e-fit?
-
Are you saying the McCann organisation did not have the Smithman e-fit?
??? &%+((£ ???
-
The McCanns could have chosen to make the efits of Smithman available to the public, as the did with Cooperman, Victoria-Beckham-alikie etc, at anytime. The archiving of the process hadn't stopped them before. The fact that there no official investigation in progress had not stopped them before either.
The bald truth is that for their own reasons they chose not to and there is absolutely no getting away from that.
-
And suddenly all this nonsense about 'confidentiality clauses' is knocked neatly into a cocked-hat.
Of course there were confidentiality clauses stopping their agents from making public information willy-nilly, just as the McCanns, themselves, (rightly) didn't feel they could gainsay the police by making public e-fits that came into their possession while there was no live and on-going investigation, at least without say-so of the police.
The McCanns would have been remiss in their duty not to draw up confidentiality clauses preventing their agents from making public willy-nilly arising from their investigations.
-
And suddenly all this nonsense about 'confidentiality clauses' is knocked neatly into a cocked-hat.
Of course there were confidentiality clauses stopping their agents from making public information willy-nilly, just as the McCanns, themselves, (rightly) didn't feel they could gainsay the police by making public e-fits that came into their possession while there was no live and on-going investigation, at least without say-so of the police.
The McCanns would have been remiss in their duty not to draw up confidentiality clauses preventing their agents from making public willy-nilly arising from their investigations.
We all watched the documentary on the CONMAN ... and we are supposed to accept without question anything emanating from that quarter ... just as long as it excoriates the McCanns.
-
We all watched the documentary on the CONMAN ... and we are supposed to accept without question anything emanating from that quarter ... just as long as it excoriates the McCanns.
Thats the way the logic works. Just so long as they are saying the "right" things.
-
And suddenly all this nonsense about 'confidentiality clauses' is knocked neatly into a cocked-hat.
Of course there were confidentiality clauses stopping their agents from making public information willy-nilly, just as the McCanns, themselves, (rightly) didn't feel they could gainsay the police by making public e-fits that came into their possession while there was no live and on-going investigation, at least without say-so of the police.
The McCanns would have been remiss in their duty not to draw up confidentiality clauses preventing their agents from making public willy-nilly arising from their investigations.
Halligen certainly was prosecuted.
The spiel was certainly swallowed hook line sinker and halfway down the rod too.
Remember this? and of course the Mark Hollingsworth article in The Evening Standard.
Secret A-Team in hunt for Maddie Daily Star (no longer available online)
By Jerry Lawton
14th August 2008
Desperate Kate and Gerry McCann have forked out £500,000 on an "A-Team" of former top spooks to find missing daughter Madeleine.
The couple now have "a global operation" of dozens of retired FBI, CIA and even MI5 agents dedicated to solving the mystery of her disappearance.
The top secret team has been given six months to solve the riddle.
Doctors Kate and Gerry, both 40, have vowed to keep up the search for five-year-old Madeleine after the latest sighting at a Belgian bank was ruled out.
And the couple, from Rothley, Leics, have been reassured their new team of private eyes will follow up every lead around the world.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There is a global operation working for Kate and Gerry.
"They are internationally-based with components in Britain, America, Europe and other countries where sightings have been made."
The new team, appointed three months ago, is half way through a six-month contract.
Mr Mitchell explained: "A sum of £500,000 has been committed to them from the Find Madeleine Fund.
"They have been on board for a few months and are on a six-month contract.
"For security reasons we can't go into detail of the experts involved but it would not be wrong to say some are former military and police personnel with a degree of expertise."
-
Yes, they were taken in by a fantasist and fraudster. Like many others. Including US government departments.
-
Yes, they were taken in by a fantasist and fraudster. Like many others. Including US government departments.
But it was Exton, a former undercover police officer who worked on MI5 operations, and not Halligen who spoke to the Times. Why on earth would he lie ?
-
Wasn't Exton done for shoplifting?
-
Wasn't Exton done for shoplifting?
Indeed he was, as was Lady Isobel Barnett (for those old enough to remember).
But Oakley (they were called something else at the start) sure fooled the hell out of the "A Team" of Kennedy & Mitchell.
-
??? &%+((£ ???
I can only assume that you think they didn't have the e-fits because I can see I reason not to publicise them. There is no law would prevent them publicising them? No BS about active investigations, if you have an e-fit which your PIs have said is critical, why would you not distribute it to all and sundry.
-
Yes, they were taken in by a fantasist and fraudster. Like many others. Including US government departments.
Really? I thought he was indicted for turning over a commodities company and their lawyers?
I can't find anything on conning US Government departments out of long green folding stuff. No doubt you you will have a cite for that?
-
Yes, they were taken in by a fantasist and fraudster. Like many others. Including US government departments.
They were among the first to suspect something was amiss ... so although they got 'ripped off' ... they didn't get ripped off as badly as everyone else who were conned out of their cash.
-
I can only assume that you think they didn't have the e-fits because I can see I reason not to publicise them. There is no law would prevent them publicising them? No BS about active investigations, if you have an e-fit which your PIs have said is critical, why would you not distribute it to all and sundry.
Wonder if you would be kind enough to explain why you think anyone should put their faith in any information emanating from that source?
Would you place your confidence in a firm which had ripped you off for thousands?
Based on your attitude I can see why there are people around who are quite content to give out their bank details over the phone to nice guys calling from an international number ... then repeat the exercise because they trust these guys so much.
-
Really? I thought he was indicted for turning over a commodities company and their lawyers?
I can't find anything on conning US Government departments out of long green folding stuff. No doubt you you will have a cite for that?
Who did Exton work for?
-
Wonder if you would be kind enough to explain why you think anyone should put their faith in any information emanating from that source?
Would you place your confidence in a firm which had ripped you off for thousands?
Based on your attitude I can see why there are people around who are quite content to give out their bank details over the phone to nice guys calling from an international number ... then repeat the exercise because they trust these guys so much.
If I was the parent of a missing child I would clutch at any straw...
-
If I was the parent of a missing child I would clutch at any straw...
It is possible we are falling into the trap of assuming that stuff which gets reported is all that is going on.
-
Who did Exton work for?
Kevin Halligen, a nice man ...
From The Times:
THE wedding guests arrived in black limousines to see a British secret agent marry his US government lawyer bride, surrounded by the strictest of security.
From the grand 19th-century Evermay mansion, where the ceremony took place, the guests had commanding views of America's power base, Washington, DC.
It is a city where former intelligence operatives and military men mix warily with politicians and power-brokers, looking for lucrative government security contracts.
Among the guests at the wedding were a former CIA station chief and a security adviser to Barack Obama. The best man had once been special operations marine colonel.
The guests were some of the best-informed people in the capital. Yet none knew that the wedding was a sham, the priest was an amateur actor and Richard Halligen, the groom, was an imposter.
Halligen, 50, is better known as Kevin Halligen in Britain (or more precisely Halligan with an "a", according to his birth certificate).
The wedding was part of a illusion that has seen him take in some of the most senior figures in the intelligence world on both sides of the Atlantic with a mixture of charm and trickery.
On the way he has made considerable sums from the Madeleine McCann fund and more than £1m from a deal involving a company accused of dumping toxic waste. He has left a string of creditors behind. His debts are said to amount to more than £3m.
Halligen is now on the run after last being spotted with a girlfriend at the Royal Crescent hotel in Bath.
His pursuers include the former head of undercover operations for the UK police, a City lawyer, a Washington lobbyist, his former bride and a former head of the SAS, who blames himself for helping to launch Halligen into the world of intelligence and security.
The United States justice department, on behalf of the FBI, has issued an indictment seeking his arrest for an alleged £1.2m fraud.
The secretive nature of the security and intelligence community provided the perfect cloak for the talented Mr Halligen. It is a world where people do not talk openly about their past exploits, because they are frequently matters covered by the Official Secrets Act.
I would say the McCanns and Brian Kennedy did pretty well to suss him out as quickly as they did ...
-
Who did Exton work for?
Perhaps I did not make myself plain.
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2009/wfo111209b.htm
Mr Halligen had two companies Red Defence International and Oakley International. Mr Exton worked for one or both of the companies.
I cannot however find any details of how and why they defrauded (conned) a US Government department.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to point me in the right direction ?
-
Perhaps I did not make myself plain.
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2009/wfo111209b.htm
Mr Halligen had two companies Red Defence International and Oakley International. Mr Exton worked for one or both of the companies.
I cannot however find any details of how and why they defrauded (conned) a US Government department.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to point me in the right direction ?
Have you seen the documentary about Halligen?
-
Have you seen the documentary about Halligen?
I'll take that as: "you are unable to provide a reliable cite to support your contention that Mr Halligen had the US Government over".
-
I'll take that as: "you are unable to provide a reliable cite to support your contention that Mr Halligen had the US Government over".
See my post at 1.27
-
I'll take that as: "you are unable to provide a reliable cite to support your contention that Mr Halligen had the US Government over".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAqiisgBBY
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAqiisgBBY
I have seen that.
I was rather hoping for something like an indictment for swindling a US Government department.
His extradition to the States wasn't for that was it? See my link above.
-
I have seen that.
I was rather hoping for something like an indictment for swindling a US Government department.
His extradition to the States wasn't for that was it? See my link above.
Sorry you have been disappointed. 8(8-))
-
Jeezuz. He certainly swindled several people. Does it matter who?
-
Jeezuz. He certainly swindled several people. Does it matter who?
That he was a conman is not in doubt.
A poster implied that Halligen swindled the US Government; there would seem to be no corroboration of this.
-
I have seen that.
I was rather hoping for something like an indictment for swindling a US Government department.
His extradition to the States wasn't for that was it? See my link above.
Are you ignoring ferryman's post?
I think it is succinct and answers your request for a cite as does the YouTube link. &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5267.msg192349#msg192349
-
Are you ignoring ferryman's post?
I think it is succinct and answers your request for a cite as does the YouTube link. &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5267.msg192349#msg192349
Not really; it seems merely to be a retread of guff in the Channel 5 documentary.
It does not address the question that I asked; if the collective comprehension is so poor there is no point in my asking it again.
-
That he was a conman is not in doubt.
A poster implied that Halligen swindled the US Government; there would seem to be no corroboration of this.
Deary me Alice - perchance you need a new prescription for your pince nez. Who mentioned "swindled"? Apart from your good self that is.
"Yes, they were taken in by a fantasist and fraudster. Like many others. Including US government departments."
8)--))
-
The so-called 'report' was worth less than the paper it was written on anyway.
Idle speculation about weight and emphasis to JT's report versus the Smith's ...
All froth and bubble ...
Apparently it is such dynamite it still hasn't been released to the public. What is surprising however is that Gonçalo's lawyers haven't got hold of it, a report stating that Madeleine was in all probability not abducted but met with an accident would surely do wonders for his cause.
-
Apparently it is such dynamite it still hasn't been released to the public. What is surprising however is that Gonçalo's lawyers haven't got hold of it, a report stating that Madeleine was in all probability not abducted but met with an accident would surely do wonders for his cause.
Why do you think the McCanns won their libel action?
Take a look at this paragraph from the Calvert and Blake original:
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.
There were no "serious inconsistencies".
On the contrary, Jane Tanner was confirmed as a credible and honest witness.
Exton et al screwed up royally.
So did the Times so-called "Insight" team.
That's why the McCanns won their libel action ...
-
Why do you think the McCanns won their libel action?
Take a look at this paragraph from the Calvert and Blake original:
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.
There were no "serious inconsistencies".
On the contrary, Jane Tanner was confirmed as a credible and honest witness.
Exton et al screwed up royally.
So did the Times so-called "Insight" team.
That's why the McCanns won their libel action ...
So you don't think claiming you walked within inches of two people yet they never saw you isn't a 'serious inconsistency ' ?
-
So you don't think claiming you walked within inches of two people yet they never saw you isn't a 'serious inconsistency ' ?
.
No"think" about it.
The man Jane saw has been identified.
-
So you don't think claiming you walked within inches of two people yet they never saw you isn't a 'serious inconsistency ' ?
Inches away?
Actually it is quite possible - if the two people were lookiing in another direction for the few seconds it would take to pass them by.
It happened the other day to my grandson. I was standing at the garden gate saying goodbye to him, He was sitting in his car (parked with the driver's side at the kerb) with the door open. As he went to close the door he dropped his car keys on the ground - and while he was looking down trying to retrieve them - a jogger in some very 'eye-catching' shorts passed by on the pavement inbetween his car and me.
''Did you see his shorts'' I said - laughing.
''Whose shorts?'' Was his reply.
He was totally unaware that ANYONE had passed by - even though they were only about 3 feet away from him while he was looking down for his keys.
So there you go.
(Oops we seem to be straying off topic - so I'll say no more)
-
The Met however believe the man JT saw has been accounted for and was not "the abductor".
I love the way the bit about Jane not being seen by Jeremy and Gerald gets a retread every so often with various posters having "there I wuz" stories about not being able to see their granny washing their face when they were kids ......if you se what I mean; if you don't then never mind ?{)(**
-
The Met however believe the man JT saw has been accounted for and was not "the abductor".
I love the way the bit about Jane not being seen by Jeremy and Gerald gets a retread every so often with various posters having "there I wuz" stories about not being able to see their granny washing their face when they were kids ......if you se what I mean; if you don't then never mind ?{)(**
Very perceptive, Alice.
-
Apparently it is such dynamite it still hasn't been released to the public. What is surprising however is that Gonçalo's lawyers haven't got hold of it, a report stating that Madeleine was in all probability not abducted but met with an accident would surely do wonders for his cause.
I'm not sure whether to take that at face value or not... :)
Having analysed hundreds of media pieces over time (particularly the tabloids) and, where possible, compared them to what would appear to be facts and realistic context, I've noticed that there is often a grain of truth buried somewhere in a mishmash of misinformation (deliberate or otherwise), misunderstandings, sometimes personal grievances, translation issues and whatever else, the whole presented via a sensationalistic filter in order to make a quick buck.
The difficulty is finding that grain of truth and sorting it from the chaff when the full story isn't available to cross-check.
I used to find The Sunday Times reliable many years ago, but for some time (and this predates the McCann saga) I've come across numerous articles that simply don't appear to be of the same quality.
The nugget of truth in this instance is that the e-fits weren't released until the Crimewatch appeal, which anyone who has followed this case already knew.
We, the public, do not know all of the facts, nor the context, of why those e-fits weren't released earlier, either by the McCanns or by the police.
We can all make what we feel to be reasoned guesses, but the fact is that we simply don't have all of the facts, nor any information as to the context of the situation.
-
I'm not sure whether to take that at face value or not... :)
Having analysed hundreds of media pieces over time (particularly the tabloids) and, where possible, compared them to what would appear to be facts and realistic context, I've noticed that there is often a grain of truth buried somewhere in a mishmash of misinformation (deliberate or otherwise), misunderstandings, sometimes personal grievances, translation issues and whatever else, the whole presented via a sensationalistic filter in order to make a quick buck.
The difficulty is finding that grain of truth and sorting it from the chaff when the full story isn't available to cross-check.
I used to find The Sunday Times reliable many years ago, but for some time (and this predates the McCann saga) I've come across numerous articles that simply don't appear to be of the same quality.
The nugget of truth in this instance is that the e-fits weren't released until the Crimewatch appeal, which anyone who has followed this case already knew.
We, the public, do not know all of the facts, nor the context, of why those e-fits weren't released earlier, either by the McCanns or by the police.
We can all make what we feel to be reasoned guesses, but the fact is that we simply don't have all of the facts, nor any information as to the context of the situation.
These days, I tend to regard the Guardian as the best of the British press.
I haven't always thought so, but I've gradually moved to that view.
-
I'm not sure whether to take that at face value or not... :)
Having analysed hundreds of media pieces over time (particularly the tabloids) and, where possible, compared them to what would appear to be facts and realistic context, I've noticed that there is often a grain of truth buried somewhere in a mishmash of misinformation (deliberate or otherwise), misunderstandings, sometimes personal grievances, translation issues and whatever else, the whole presented via a sensationalistic filter in order to make a quick buck.
The difficulty is finding that grain of truth and sorting it from the chaff when the full story isn't available to cross-check.
I used to find The Sunday Times reliable many years ago, but for some time (and this predates the McCann saga) I've come across numerous articles that simply don't appear to be of the same quality.
The nugget of truth in this instance is that the e-fits weren't released until the Crimewatch appeal, which anyone who has followed this case already knew.
We, the public, do not know all of the facts, nor the context, of why those e-fits weren't released earlier, either by the McCanns or by the police.
We can all make what we feel to be reasoned guesses, but the fact is that we simply don't have all of the facts, nor any information as to the context of the situation.
The original “Insight” team of investigative journalists were second to none.
I think speculation without information from the three agencies who witheld the efits is pointless. Quite obviously there was a reason which they have chosen not to share.
What is remarkable however is that of the three only one was subjected to denunciation.
-
The Press
Freedom of the press in Britain is freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertiser's won't object to. ~Helen Swaffer
Nuff said 8(>((
-
The original “Insight” team of investigative journalists were second to none.
I think speculation without information from the three agencies who witheld the efits is pointless. Quite obviously there was a reason which they have chosen not to share.
What is remarkable however is that of the three only one was subjected to denunciation.
Calvert and Blake?
Quite ...
The Times seems to have sufficiently deep pockets to indulge the, ahem, luxury of employing them ...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2298.html
-
The Press
Freedom of the press in Britain is freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertiser's won't object to. ~Helen Swaffer
Nuff said 8(>((
Shes wrong....apart from their position on contentious issues proprietors print what will sell their papers and advertisers are interested in how many papers are sold...dAVEL...
-
Shes wrong....apart from their position on contentious issues proprietors print what will sell their papers and advertisers are interested in how many papers are sold...dAVEL...
You are talking bollox and would realise it if you analysed your statement properly.
I sometimes wonder why any one in the world ever bothers having an opinion when yours trumps everything.
Trump being the operative word it would seem; comes from the same part of the body as your opinions.
-
Sometimes it goes wayyyy over the head.
The News of the World collapsed because advertisers wouldn't touch it with a barge pole -simples!
-
Sometimes it goes wayyyy over the head.
The News of the World collapsed because advertisers wouldn't touch it with a barge pole -simples!
The news of the world collapsed because of the phone hacking scandal by its staff...causing a public backlash...nothing to do with the prejudices of it's proprietor
-
You are talking bollox and would realise it if you analysed your statement properly.
I sometimes wonder why any one in the world ever bothers having an opinion when yours trumps everything.
Trump being the operative word it would seem; comes from the same part of the body as your opinions.
she's still wrong...Murdoch prints what sells papers..he wouldn't let his own prejudices get in the way of making money...that's why he's so wealthy
-
Can I suggest you read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies.
I don't need to. I'm well aware of the distortion carried out by journalists to sell more papers...I'm well aware of lies told by newspapers and journalists...I'm well aware govt massage figures..
What I don't accept is that a newspaper is simply the projection of the proprietors prejudice
-
What I don't accept is that a newspaper is simply the projection of the proprietors prejudice
Not just 'a' newspaper, but the whole of the News International stable of titles turned on the Conservative party in favour of the Labour party at the whim of Rupert Murdoch, ensuring the election of Tony Blair, and then again on the Labour Party in favour of the Conservative party, ensuring the election of David Cameron, once again at the behest of the newspapers owner.
Are you really that narrow minded and gullible to 'believe' what you are being brainwashed to 'believe' ?
-
Try reading my posts again and you might understand...someone said 20 years ago that what wins elections is"Tits on page 3" and nothing has changed. I just don't subscribe to the Icke school of thought
Not many do but you you suggest they do because it is one the strategies in your Propaganda for Dummies manual.
-
Why do you think the McCanns won their libel action?
Very simply, the Sunday Times settled out of court because they accused the McCann's of purposely withholding the e-fits from everyone for five years thus impeding the investigation. We all know now of course that they did not withhold them for five years and that they were passed to police some months after their agents Oakley commissioned them. The fact that the McCanns never saw fit to promote the e-fits however is neither here nor there and leaves everyone free to ponder why?
Surely the parents of a missing child would want to make every scrap of information available to the public and especially any e-fits which could lead to her discovery? What happened between the time those e-fits were commissioned and their handing over to police which tainted them so badly in the eyes of the parents?
-
Very simply, the Sunday Times settled out of court because they accused the McCann's of purposely withholding the e-fits from everyone for five years thus impeding the investigation. We all know now of course that they did not withhold them for five years and that they were passed to police some months after their agents Oakley commissioned them. The fact that the McCanns never saw fit to promote the e-fits however is neither here nor there and leaves everyone free to ponder why?
Surely the parents of a missing child would want to make every scrap of information available to the public and especially any e-fits which could lead to her discovery? What happened between the time those e-fits were commissioned and their handing over to police which tainted them so badly in the eyes of the parents?
even more simply none of us know the reasons ST settled...even if you think you do
-
The fact that the McCanns never saw fit to promote the e-fits however is neither here nor there and leaves everyone free to ponder why?
Surely the parents of a missing child would want to make every scrap of information available to the public and especially any e-fits which could lead to her discovery? What happened between the time those e-fits were commissioned and their handing over to police which tainted them so badly in the eyes of the parents?
Tainted e-fits?
Never.
It really is perfectly simple. E-fits of a man seen carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted could not be released other than in the context of a live and on-going investigation.
That was the judgment the police made and the McCanns had no business gainsaying that judgment, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...
-
It really is perfectly simple. E-fits of a man seen carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted could not be released other than in the context of a live and on-going investigation.
That was the judgment the police made and the McCanns had no business gainsaying that judgment, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...
hmm &%+((£
Then again could it be that one of those tainted e fits was just so like Gerry that they didn't dare take a chance??
-
I believe the end result will be an unsolved case.
This will suit almost everyone.
-
nooooooo, i want a conclusion whatever the result and whether it is in 20 years time I hope/believe we will see a resolution...
-
nooooooo, i want a conclusion whatever the result and whether it is in 20 years time I hope/believe we will see a resolution...
Just be patient, your Lordship.
I think they are almost there ... might take a few months tho', cos they are thorough
-
I believe the end result will be an unsolved case.
This will suit almost everyone.
You think?
It will not suit Madeleine McCann … if you remember, she is the victim in this.
It will not suit the McCann family who have been deprived of the company of a much loved child; and who may never find out what happened to her if her case is not solved.
It won’t suit either the Met or the PJ who have invested a lot of time and effort into the search; and it won’t suit their respective governments.
It won’t suit the new prosecutors in Portugal who are anxious to have the case solved and who have invested personal credibility by declaring so.
The only people I can think of who for sure it will suit is whoever was responsible for taking Madeleine and anyone associated with the crime.
So do let’s hope the case is solved … and we are closer to that now than at any time since 2007 ... so I think there is a good chance it will be.
-
At least the Sunday Times didn't door step the family.
As for those who 'hound' the McCanns. I do not see any hounding on this forum of the family.
Discussing the details of the disappearance of Maddie cannot be classed as hounding, and expressing an opinion about their behavior is valid, if you look at the contempt they have for many people, who have tried to help them.
All is fair in love and war as they say...