Author Topic: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.  (Read 268061 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1395 on: August 05, 2014, 03:16:54 PM »

How is the timeline wrong?  Can you tell us that?  I would like to see your reasoning.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 06:48:32 PM by John »

Offline John

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1396 on: October 10, 2014, 06:56:20 PM »
So now at long last and hidden with a Leveson story we have a response about the withheld e-fits which Scotland Yard deem so relevant to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  Relevant part in bold text.

theguardian
2 October 2014

Leveson has changed nothing– the media still put ‘stories’ before the truth

As I know from experience, if papers tell lies about you, they’ll be able to get away with it pretty much scot free.
The public backs change – and editors must act.



Kate and Gerry McCann talking to the press earlier this year during a libel case against a
former Portuguese police officer. ‘Newspapers treat the people they write about as if they
don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect.’ Photograph: Mario Cruz/EPA



Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.

Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.

A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.

However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.

Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But 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? Absolutely nothing. Newspapers continue to put “stories” before the truth, and without much care for the victims.

They treat the people they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect. They hide behind talk about the rights of the press while they routinely trash the rights of ordinary people. They constantly claim to stand up to the powerful, but they are the ones with the power, and they use it ruthlessly.

Legal action should be a last resort. A final route when all else has failed. I don’t blame Leveson. He recommended changes that would make a big difference. He wanted a press self-regulator that was not controlled by the big newspaper companies and that had real clout. If a paper told lies about you, you could go to this body and count on fast and fair treatment: it would not just let papers off the hook. More than that, Leveson wanted a cheap, quick arbitration service so that ordinary people did not need to resort to the law. Our experience shows this is a vital reform.

Parliament backed Leveson’s plan. The public backs it. So do we, and almost all the other victims who gave evidence to Leveson. Only one group of people is opposing this change – the perpetrators themselves, the same editors and newspaper owners who were responsible for all that cruelty. Instead of accepting the Leveson plan, these people, including the owner of the Sunday Times, have set up another sham regulator called Ipso, which is designed to do their bidding just like the old, disgraced Press Complaints Commission.

If in another year’s time the press still rejects the royal charter – itself already a compromise – then it will be time for parliament to deliver on the promises the party leaders made, and ensure that what Leveson recommended is actually delivered. Otherwise elements of the press will go on treating people with total contempt. This time, once again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be you.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/leveson-gerry-mccann-media-stories-before-truth

« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 06:59:25 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1397 on: October 13, 2014, 02:50:04 PM »
Well SY certainly had confidence in the information Oakley handed over as the efits produced by them are now of primary importance to Operation Grange.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 01:09:25 AM by John »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1398 on: October 13, 2014, 02:54:45 PM »
Well SY certainly had confidence in the information Oakley handed over as the efits produced by them are now of primary importance to Operation Grange.

You seem to be labouring under a delusion that the importance of the e-fits has, ever, changed.

They never have.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1399 on: October 13, 2014, 02:56:35 PM »
You seem to be labouring under a delusion that the importance of the e-fits has, ever, changed.

They never have.

Sorry I'm not quite getting the point you are trying to make ferryman.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1400 on: October 13, 2014, 03:06:21 PM »
Sorry I'm not quite getting the point you are trying to make ferryman.

You say that the e-fits are "now" of primary importance, as if to imply that they were, ever, anything else?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1401 on: October 13, 2014, 03:09:23 PM »
You say that the e-fits are "now" of primary importance, as if to imply that they were, ever, anything else?

Then perhaps you will be able to tell me when before October last year the public had been shown them, if, as you say, they were always of primary importance ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1402 on: October 13, 2014, 03:10:43 PM »
Then perhaps you will be able to tell me when before October last year the public had been shown them, if, as you say, they were always of primary importance ?

They needed the sanction of a fresh enquiry to be released.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1403 on: October 13, 2014, 03:19:16 PM »
They needed the sanction of a fresh enquiry to be released.

Why ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1404 on: October 13, 2014, 03:23:58 PM »
Why ?

Because you just can't release 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 apart from an official enquiry.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1405 on: October 13, 2014, 03:27:34 PM »
Because you just can't release 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 apart from an official enquiry.

Why not ? It isn't illegal.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1406 on: October 13, 2014, 03:29:48 PM »
Why not ? It isn't illegal.

It would certainly breach civil law and be libel.

(At least in England) technically a tort rather than a crime.

Not sure what it would be called in Portugal

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1407 on: October 13, 2014, 03:36:00 PM »
It would certainly breach civil law and be libel.

(At least in England) technically a tort rather than a crime.

Not sure what it would be called in Portugal

What makes you think that it would breach civil and libel law and if that were true surely the McCanns touting of Cooperman complete with efit would be covered by the same piece of legislation ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1408 on: October 13, 2014, 03:40:58 PM »
What makes you think that it would breach civil and libel law and if that were true surely the McCanns touting of Cooperman complete with efit would be covered by the same piece of legislation ?

Spotty Man efit was released in 2009 iirc.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 03:53:15 PM by Wonderfulspam »
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.
« Reply #1409 on: October 13, 2014, 03:42:07 PM »
What makes you think that it would breach civil and libel law and if that were true surely the McCanns touting of Cooperman complete with efit would be covered by the same piece of legislation ?

We are talking about someone carrying a child  in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was abducted.

Mrs Cooper gave her statement 21 May, 2007, when there was definitely a live and on-going police enquiry ...