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: Jazzy on December 29, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
-
(http://www.imgur.com/tF3qydb.png?2)
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece
-
Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund The Sunday Times
Published: 28 December 2013
In articles dated October 23 ("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."
-
So there we have it, the Sunday Times got it wrong. The McCanns didn't withhold the Smiths e-fits for 5 years, they only withheld them for nearly 3. That'll be alright then? What a fiasco!!
-
Had the case in Portugal been closed down by the time the pictures were released?
-
So basically, nitpicking aside, the Sunday Times report was correct. But then we all knew that.
-
Had the case in Portugal been closed down by the time the pictures were released?
By the time they now pretend the e-fits were sent to the Portuguese (Oct 2009), the case had been closed for more than a year.
One thing is to send the e-fits (what for ?), another would have been to send the "unhelpful" report.
By the time the e-fits were done (Sept 2008 ?, the relations with Halligen came then to an end), the McCanns could yet request from the MP the opening of an instruction.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading on here.
The Times got it badly wrong and have apologised for the distress their erroneous, libellous article may have caused.
It's a simple as that. Get over it.
As far as I know we do not have enough information about the Efits to decide whether the were 'withheld' or not and without knowing the full details it's all guesswork IMO. The thread title is therefore pure speculation and misleading IMO.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading on here.
The Times got it badly wrong and have apologised for the distress their erroneous, libellous article may have caused.
It's a simple as that. Get over it.
As far as I know we do not have enough information about the Efits to decide whether the were 'withheld' or not and without knowing the full details it's all guesswork IMO. The thread title is therefore pure speculation and misleading IMO.
Dont get too over excited benice...the times never said their article was either erroneous or libellous...steady on
@)(++(*
-
The McCann Carnival keeps going on. Just some new clowns to replace old discarded ones.
And the public stays calmly being manipulated as if nothing happened.
By the way
HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone 8((()*/
-
Dont get too over excited benice...the times never said their article was either erroneous or libellous...steady on
@)(++(*
Red, do you honestly think The Times would have made a retraction and an apology if the article was not erroneous or libellous? It's simple common sense not rocket science.
.
-
Red, do you honestly think The Times would have made a retraction and an apology if the article was not erroneous or libellous? It's simple common sense not rocket science.
.
How do you explain it took almost 2 months to apology though only semi-retract ?
They don't say anything about the report, the controversial part, so we must assume it wasn't released.
-
Red, do you honestly think The Times would have made a retraction and an apology if the article was not erroneous or libellous? It's simple common sense not rocket science.
.
They never said their article was libellous or erroneous n any way...read it again! They apologised for what some readers might have thought.....in fact they retracted nothing
eta they did say they understand and accept......bullied no doubt......that said efits were given to lp and pj in 2009....understand and accept? Bullied.?.mafioso style...they accept it LOL...wheres the evidence?
-
And the public stays calmly being manipulated as if nothing happened.
I wonder. I've a feeling that the public finds those clowns boring.
-
I wonder. I've a feeling that the public finds those clowns boring.
The general public of the uk dont care and those that are pissed off say so in newspaper columns .....they are fed up of ths maddie circus, years back now
-
They never said their article was libellous or erroneous n any way...read it again! They apologised for what some readers might have thought.....in fact they retracted nothing
eta they did say they understand and accept......bullied no doubt......that said efits were given to lp and pj in 2009....understand and accept? Bullied....wheres the evidence?
Quote
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.
Unquote
What is that if it's not an admission they got it wrong?
LOL - Bullied? We are talking about hardnosed seasoned newspaper editors and their legals teams. No way would they apologise and admit they'd got it wrong if there was any way they could avoid it.
I can't believe you don't know that Red. I'm genuinely surprised.
-
"There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine’s abductor taking her away. There have been many occasions when I have visualized myself walking up that road instead of Jane. Would I even have noticed the man and child? Seen that it was my daughter? Would it have dawned on me, out of the blue, what was happening? If not, after going into the apartment and finding Madeleine missing, would I instantly have made the connection and been able to chase after him? I’ve even pictured myself catching up with him and grabbing him by the shoulder. Saving Madeleine."
While you're chasing him Kate, Smithman has gone the opposite way with your daughter. It's about time you put those efits in your book and on your website.
"My journals were so comprehensive, covering everything down to the most insignificant and boring incidents you can imagine, that by the time I had finished I was able to account for what we did and where we were at virtually any given time over the whole four months. I would have put Sherlock Holmes out of a job, if I say so myself."
You've got competition on that name SH. SY/PJ v SH.
"When you have eliminated the impossible (door moving 3 times in an hour by an abductor), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-
Quote
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.
Unquote
What is that if it's not an admission they got it wrong?
LOL - Bullied? We are talking about hardnosed seasoned newspaper editors and their legals teams. No way would they apologise and admit they'd got it wrong if there was any way they could avoid it.
I can't believe you don't know that Red. I'm genuinely surprised.
They admtted NOTHNG apart from giving an IMPRESSION that the mccanns kept the efits from authorities.....they SAY now they accept this wasnt so......means diddly squat..oh btw benice the mccanns HID the efits for six years.....why did they????
-
They admtted NOTHNG apart from giving an IMPRESSION that the mccanns kept the efits from authorities.....they SAY now they accept this wasnt so......means diddly squat..oh btw benice the mccanns HID the efits for six years.....why did they????
They admit the article was ambiguous and apology for that. No big deal.
Much more interesting is Mr Innocent having been ignored for more than 6 years by the LC for the sake of Tannerman, still present, instead of the e-fits, on the official site.
-
"There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine’s abductor taking her away. There have been many occasions when I have visualized myself walking up that road instead of Jane. Would I even have noticed the man and child? Seen that it was my daughter? Would it have dawned on me, out of the blue, what was happening? If not, after going into the apartment and finding Madeleine missing, would I instantly have made the connection and been able to chase after him? I’ve even pictured myself catching up with him and grabbing him by the shoulder. Saving Madeleine."
While you're chasing him Kate, Smithman has gone the opposite way with your daughter. It's about time you put those efits in your book and on your website.
"My journals were so comprehensive, covering everything down to the most insignificant and boring incidents you can imagine, that by the time I had finished I was able to account for what we did and where we were at virtually any given time over the whole four months. I would have put Sherlock Holmes out of a job, if I say so myself."
You've got competition on that name SH. SY/PJ v SH.
"When you have eliminated the impossible (door moving 3 times in an hour by an abductor), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Kate mccann and or her hubby and or others thought the smith efits they had meant NOTHING, thy had them late 2008:..... They ignored them when making their mockumentary with c4 in early 2009
-
They admit the article was ambiguous and apology for that. No big deal.
Much more interesting is Mr Innocent having been ignored for more than 6 years by the LC for the sake of Tannerman, still present, instead of the e-fits, on the official site.
I wonder what Mr Innocent himself has been thinking, all these years, seeing sketches and comments referencing his walkabout when he had already given information to police as to his identity and innocence.
Or perhaps he assumed that, having already identified himself, police and the McCanns must have been referring to another, second Tannerman, not him...
-
I wonder what Mr Innocent himself has been thinking, all these years, seeing sketches and comments referencing his walkabout when he had already given information to police as to his identity and innocence.
Or perhaps he assumed that, having already identified himself, police and the McCanns must have been referring to another, second Tannerman, not him...
Very likely. Remember the pyjama was different and he might not have crossed FGM, if he did, weirdly from W to E.
-
"There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine’s abductor taking her away. There have been many occasions when I have visualized myself walking up that road instead of Jane. Would I even have noticed the man and child? Seen that it was my daughter? Would it have dawned on me, out of the blue, what was happening? If not, after going into the apartment and finding Madeleine missing, would I instantly have made the connection and been able to chase after him? I’ve even pictured myself catching up with him and grabbing him by the shoulder. Saving Madeleine."
While you're chasing him Kate, Smithman has gone the opposite way with your daughter. It's about time you put those efits in your book and on your website.
"My journals were so comprehensive, covering everything down to the most insignificant and boring incidents you can imagine, that by the time I had finished I was able to account for what we did and where we were at virtually any given time over the whole four months. I would have put Sherlock Holmes out of a job, if I say so myself."
You've got competition on that name SH. SY/PJ v SH.
"When you have eliminated the impossible (door moving 3 times in an hour by an abductor), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
That's the theory all right. Problem here is that you have to eliminate things which you know for a fact to be incorrect. So many things in this case are not proven, or were only witnessed by one person and not corroborated.
The doors are a case in point. We just don't know for sure the exact position of the doors at given points in time. We would have needed cameras for that. And we can't assume the reason as to how or why they moved.
Though Sherlock himself, admittedly, would probably have seized upon something by now.
-
Very likely. Remember the pyjama was different and he might not have crossed FGM, if he did, weirdly from W to E.
Yes.
Though if he crossed the street the other way, why have SY ruled him out as Tannerman when JT describes the opposite?
-
That's the theory all right. Problem here is that you have to eliminate things which you know for a fact to be incorrect. So many things in this case are not proven, or were only witnessed by one person and not corroborated.
The doors are a case in point. We just don't know for sure the exact position of the doors at given points in time. We would have needed cameras for that. And we can't assume the reason as to how or why they moved.
Though Sherlock himself, admittedly, would probably have seized upon something by now.
Read the statements on the door first to later ones and compare. Read the official version in Madeleine book. I know what the door means and can explain those discrepancies very easily. Matt has always maintained that it was half-open. He is the only one out of the 3 who didn't change his statements.
The official version is:
8.30 door ajar
9.05 door half-open
9.10 door ajar
9.30 door half-open
9.50 door wide open
Door moved 3 times in an hour. That is impossible my dear Watson.
-
Yes.
Though if he crossed the street the other way, why have SY ruled him out as Tannerman when JT describes the opposite?
Good question. They admitted she had no sense of orientation, perhaps ;)
-
Read the statements on the door first to later ones and compare. Read the official version in Madeleine book. I know what the door means and can explain those discrepancies very easily. Matt has always maintained that it was half-open. He is the only one out of the 3 who didn't change his statements.
The official version is:
8.30 door ajar
9.05 door half-open
9.10 door ajar
9.30 door half-open
9.50 door wide open
Door moved 3 times in an hour.
True but at the end of the day these are all unverifiable reports.
-
These are from police statements that are signed.
-
The function of the moving door has to be analysed in relation to a stated fact : neither Mr McCann nor Mrs McCann used to look inside of the bed room. They just listened, scared to wake up a child and then another..
-
Mr Oldfield's visit at 9:30, even if he signed his statement, is not credible : too many discrepancies apart from the fact that none of the group said he was asked to do a visual check.
-
Oh how the mccanns are laughng.....disgusting
-
Mr Oldfield's visit at 9:30, even if he signed his statement, is not credible : too many discrepancies apart from the fact that none of the group said he was asked to do a visual check.
Fake 100 per cent
-
These are from police statements that are signed.
Yes but it's still not enough for causal links.
Open window and gusts of wind are another possible factor..
-
That would close the door not open it.
-
Fake 100 per cent
I don't believe Matt lied about his 9.30 check for the McCann's.
-
Open window and gusts of wind are another possible factor..
No fingerprints on the window apart from...
-
Look at Matt's name taken out 9.30pm check with Gerald written at the bottom of the timeline possibly meaning his timeline version.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VQUHmoeOafI/UoS34xPNS6I/AAAAAAAAE-k/cEUCMrTlDZY/s1600/tapas9-timeline-gerry.jpg)
-
I don't believe Matt lied about his 9.30 check for the McCann's.
Why is his statement full of shyte then? About it?
Catch up tomorrow xx nite nite
-
That would close the door not open it.
True
We're getting a little off topic though....
-
I don't believe Matt lied about his 9.30 check for the McCann's.
Then he lied to the McCanns and therefore had to lie to the PJ.
He described his bedroom, two windows, green curtains.. He could see only one twin.. He couldn't see that child breathing (lying on its stomach).. he omitted the empty bed under the window...
Totally discredited.
-
So we are all very happy around here, are we not?
The poor old Times made a mistake, has it? NOT
It seems we are back at when the Carter Ruck was beating every paper that wrote out off the two lines page.
Let's see how the NSY deals with the fact that, even with the Times apology, they have been sitting on the Exton info released since 2009. If Madeleine was alive, this waiting would be devastating.
-
Yes he did Gerry a big favour here didn't he?
4078 "Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that?"
Reply "So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids. But, you know, you don't, you know, we're all sort of responsible for our own children and you wouldn't sort of say, you know, you don't need to do that, I just sort of felt, oh I've listened, you don't need to do that because I've kind of just done it, but I hadn't gone into the apartment, so, erm".
4078 "Did you actually say that or you just thought that to yourself?"
Reply "Yeah, I thought that, you know, I'd said that everything was sort of quiet, I listened outside the shutters, but, you know, they went back up, erm, and said he was going to check.
-
Look at Matt's name taken out 9.30pm check with Gerald written at the bottom of the timeline possibly meaning his timeline version.
It's not Mr McCann's signature nor writing.
A study of those two time-lines has shown that the timeline without Mr Oldfield's check is the first one.
-
Luz, they were scared, al-right, but I really think that they were all horrified with what they believed had happened to Madeleine.
If they were afraid they made a good job at hiding it. Until now nobody heard about them anymore.
They made sure their asses were never to be back in Portugal and didn't bother about the poor missing child. >Marvelous people!
-
BTW would anyone agree that these two efits of same man are likely to have been done for the PIs by witnesses MS and AS?
If so is it possible to work out which efit is by which witness?
-
BTW would anyone agree that these two efits of same man are likely to have been done for the PIs by witnesses MS and AS?
If so is it possible to work out which efit is by which witness?
Interesting question, pegasus. What do you think is the significance of which witness did which e-fit?
-
If they were afraid they made a good job at hiding it. Until now nobody heard about them anymore.
They made sure their asses were never to be back in Portugal and didn't bother about the poor missing child. >Marvelous people!
Well certainly Kate, Gerry and Jane have returned. And am I remembering correctly that Fiona came over with Kate for part of one of the Amaral trials? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Btw, Luz, how do you know if they have been back or not?
-
I doubt very much that MS collaborated in an e-fit after having said that Smithman could be Mr McCann. For the same reason I doubt that MM did. And I don't think they would have let their minor daughter AS assume such responsibility.
-
I doubt very much that MS collaborated in an e-fit after having said that Smithman could be Mr McCann. For the same reason I doubt that MM did. And I don't think they would have let their minor daughter AS assume such responsibility.
So who would have been involved then?
-
Interesting question, pegasus. What do you think is the significance of which witness did which e-fit?
IMO possibly AS got better view than MS.
-
IMO possibly AS got better view than MS.
Interesting, I will have to have a look at their statements again.
-
According to the Sundae Times apology the PIs submitted the report on unspecified date in 2008, and the info was passed to police in Oct 2009.
That is at maximum about 1 year and 9 months, or at minimum about 9 months.
Doesn't alter the fact that any delay is too long but just pointing out "over two years" in thread title is a slight overstatement?
-
So who would have been involved then?
PS and his wife.
-
It seems very likely it was two members of that Irish group who did the efits for PIs IMO.
Agreed, which ones may be debatable.
-
According to the Sundae Times apology the PIs submitted the report on unspecified date in 2008, and the info was passed to police in Oct 2009.
That is at maximum about 1 year and 9 months, or at minimum about 9 months.
Doesn't alter the fact that any delay is too long but just pointing out "over two years" in thread title is a slight overstatement?
The ST rectification only mentions the e-fits, not the report. concerned by a clause of confidentiality.
All we know is that the e-fits can't be posterior to Sept 2008, when Brian K. reckoned that Halligen was crooking him and broke the contract.
They sent the e-fits to the LC and the PJ, but didn't published them on the official site. Why? What were the LC and the PJ expected to do exactly with those e-fits ?
-
It seems very likely it was two members of that Irish group who did the efits for PIs IMO.
Agreed, which ones may be debatable.
Only two adults hadn't "recognized" Smithman and therefore wouldn't unconsciously introduce a bias in the e-fits : PS and his wife SS.
I would find very unfair to ask a minor (AS was 12).
-
Comparing efits with statements maybe broad face is by AS and thinner face by MS?
-
Does anyone really know when these efits were made....I think the answers no
-
Does anyone really know when these efits were made....I think the answers no
Of course we do. 2008.
-
Does anyone really know when these efits were made....I think the answers no
John Snow:
"Officers predict a long hard slog in their efforts to solve the mystery of Madeleine McCanns disappearance.
They've released 2 e-fit images of a man, compiled in 2008, a year after she disappeared but never seen in public until today, based on information from 2 witnesses who were staying in the resort of Praia da Luz at the time.
Our home affairs correspondent Simon Israel has more"
Simon Israel:
" These are 2 e-fits of the same man. A man who may hold the key to Madeleine McCanns disappearance.
They've been shut away in a private investigation file for 5 years.
They were compiled from 2 witness accounts on the night Madeleine disappeared, but never handed over to the Portuguese investigation. Now British police are treating them with the utmost importance"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI
-
Of course we do. 2008.
What month and whats your source
-
What month and whats your source
I don't know which month, but that's of little relevance.
Numerous sources - as WS says - and crucially no source says it wasn't 2008.
-
Stop spinning Dave 8(>(( You'll just have to accept there's no way out of this one.
-
Stop spinning Dave 8(>(( You'll just have to accept there's no way out of this one.
No way out? they were never supressed...they were handed over to the PJ...A 69page thread was based on an inaccurate times article which you all believed 100% but I questioned from day one...who looks the fool?
-
I don't know which month, but that's of little relevance.
Numerous sources - as WS says - and crucially no source says it wasn't 2008.
of course and obviously it was 2008 as that is when Oakley were employed
@)(++(*
Please reread my post 95 here Davel....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.msg114564#msg114564
-
Does anyone really know when these efits were made....I think the answers no
And do we know the date when they were eventually passed over to the McCanns? I've never seen one.
-
No way out? they were never supressed...they were handed over to the PJ...A 69page thread was based on an inaccurate times article which you all believed 100% but I questioned from day one...who looks the fool?
They were handed over... in October 2009! You can't spin that.
You'll have to plant your flag and stand somewhere else now 8)-)))
-
And do we know the date when they were eventually passed over to the McCanns? I've never seen one.
November 2008 is the date the oakley report and efits were handed over to the Mccanns....widely reported by several papers
-
November 2008 is the date the oakley report and efits were handed over to the Mccanns....widely reported by several papers
so its down to 11 months now....not the 5 years...nothing was supressed...apart from a few posters intellect
-
so its down to 11 months now....not the 5 years...nothing was supressed...apart from a few posters intellect
11 or almost 12 months - why the apparent lack of urgency?
You can blame the PD's, or LP, or the Portuguese if you want [and we know you will], but why was there apparently no urgency shown by the parents?
Why, davel?
-
Spin that.
I can think of reasons, but I'm not doing the work for you. 8(0(*
None of those reasons reflect well on TM however, but they would perhaps explain some things.
-
No way out? they were never supressed...they were handed over to the PJ...A 69page thread was based on an inaccurate times article which you all believed 100% but I questioned from day one...who looks the fool?
Stop repeating the lies the McCannorder the journos to publish. Neither the efits nor the report was ever sent to Portugal, and I even doubt they were sent to Leicestershire Police "call me Stu". Otherwise why would the SY need a special authorization from the Fund??? Are we all mad or are they wanting to make us?
-
so its down to 11 months now....not the 5 years...nothing was suppressed...apart from a few posters intellect
Did they ever produce the report that Halligen did criticising them?
-
I do believe a similar post to yours was removed by this forum Wonderfulspam.
It couldn't have been Gerry McCann he was in the Tapas Bar.
-
Stop repeating the lies the McCannorder the journos to publish. Neither the efits nor the report was ever sent to Portugal, and I even doubt they were sent to Leicestershire Police "call me Stu". Otherwise why would the SY need a special authorization from the Fund??? Are we all mad or are they wanting to make us?
If what you say is true Luz then someone is going to have to answer some awkward questions. Whichever way one looks at it those e-fits were never circulated as was intended. I would love to hear what Mr Smith has to say about it all.
-
I do believe a similar post to yours was removed by this forum Wonderfulspam.
It couldn't have been Gerry McCann he was in the Tapas Bar.
Yes there are several independent witnesses that can verify that fact.
-
Yes there are several independent witnesses that can verify that fact.
Dozens according to the Mail...thats at least 24 or 36 or more even......wow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462431/Madeleine-McCann-Police-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html
-
Yes they had to be at the tapas bar - a good alibi but not good enough. Bringing the timeline forward to 10pm, the same time of the sighting, won't fool top detectives working on this case.
-
Catching up on here.
Stop repeating the lies the McCannorder the journos to publish. Neither the efits nor the report was ever sent to Portugal, and I even doubt they were sent to Leicestershire Police "call me Stu". Otherwise why would the SY need a special authorization from the Fund??? Are we all mad or are they wanting to make us?
Do you know that for a fact, or is that your opinion that you are stating as fact?
-
Catching up on here.
Do you know that for a fact, or is that your opinion that you are stating as fact?
isnt the answer in the latter part of that post? If the report and efits were in the LP or PJ files, SY who had the files from all sources on the case, would not have had to go direct to Oakley to ask for them, and then get told you need special permission from the Fund!
>@@(*&)
-
isnt the answer in the latter part of that post? If the report and efits were in the LP or PJ files, SY who had the files from all sources on the case, would not have had to go direct to Oakley to ask for them, and then get told you need special permission from the Fund!
>@@(*&)
How do you know they had to ask Oakley...are you basing this on a discredited times article...no wonder you have everything back to front
-
So there we have it, the Sunday Times got it wrong. The McCanns didn't withhold the Smiths e-fits for 5 years, they only withheld them for nearly 3. That'll be alright then? What a fiasco!!
Only withheld them for nearly 3 years?
When did Martin Smith produce this efit?
Do we know?
We know that at the end of January 2008 he hadn't, because this is from his statement to the Irish Gardia police at that date:
He [Mr Smith] has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
-
Only withheld them for nearly 3 years?
When did Martin Smith produce this efit?
Do we know?
We know that at the end of January 2008 he hadn't, because this is from his statement to the Irish Gardia police at that date:
He [Mr Smith] has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
Sometime between employing and not emloying Oakley ie late spring to November 2008 when Edgar and Cowley were brought in.....
read my post 63 on this thread and the link...September according to the Irish Times
-
How do you know they had to ask Oakley...are you basing this on a discredited times article...no wonder you have everything back to front
the whole article is discredited because the Times issued an apology to readers who may have assumed they were insinuating the Mccanns kept the efits and report by Oakley from the authorities? OK then
@)(++(*
They just made it all up......off the top of their heads.....there doneand dusted....
8((()*/
-
the whole article is discredited because the Times issued an apology to readers who may have assumed they were insinuating the Mccanns kept the efits and report by Oakley from the authorities until SY requested the report? OK then
@)(++(*
They just made it all up......off the top of their heads.....there doneand dusted....
8((()*/
-
Yes, more spin is required here......and stating a whole article is discredited doesnt cut any mustard......at all
-
Yes, more spin is required here......and stating a whole article is discredited doesnt cut any mustard......at all
Sorry ...my apologies....they got the date right
-
So it looks as if the police waited until what they deemed the right moment ( the crimewatch programme) to release the e-fit, after the investigation had been resumed. The police had had the e-fits in their possession for 3 years before that.
Why does anyone have a problem with that?
-
So it looks as if the police waited until what they deemed the right moment ( the crimewatch programme) to release the e-fit, after the investigation had been resumed. The police had had the e-fits in their possession for 3 years before that.
Why does anyone have a problem with that?
We don't have a problem, you guys do: Mitchell's press conferences, in which he used everything - everything except the 10pm sighting efits. >@@(*&)
-
Just admit you can't spin it guys 8(0(*
-
So it looks as if the police waited until what they deemed the right moment ( the crimewatch programme) to release the e-fit, after the investigation had been resumed. The police had had the e-fits in their possession for 3 years before that.
Why does anyone have a problem with that?
Because, despite it being the truth, if it doesn't fit with their pet theories it gets ignored.
-
I don't know which month, but that's of little relevance.
Numerous sources - as WS says - and crucially no source says it wasn't 2008.
No source says it wasn't 2008 ?
Great logic for then saying that it WAS 2008, aint it?
Jeez, you guys have the strangest thinking processes at times
-
No source says it wasn't 2008 ?
Great logic for then saying that it WAS 2008, aint it?
Jeez, you guys have the strangest thinking processes at times
They were produced by the PD's who finished their work for TM/The Fund before the end of 2008, so that surely dates it.
Good enough for me until someone goes on the record to say otherwise, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen - that's not how TM has ever worked. Between PR efforts they say nothing.
-
"We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it."
Hmmm still trying to get that bold point as fact! You have done your homework but this sighting happened after you had reported Madeleine to be missing. I like to get my facts right. Let me finish this off for you in your book "Who was this man? He was seen carrying a child who's description of matched Madeleine and of a similar age. This man could well be our daughter's abductor. Please look at the efits in this book and if anyone remembers seeing him then please contact the police with the relevant information."
-
"We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it."
Hmmm still trying to get that bold point as fact! You have done your homework but this sighting happened after you had reported Madeleine to be missing. I like to get my facts right. Let me finish this off for you in your book "Who was this man? He was seen carrying a child who's description of matched Madeleine and was of a similar age. This man could well be our daughter's abductor. Please look at the efits in this book and if anyone remembers seeing him then please contact the police with the relevant information."
The bit you have in bold is ambiguous. It could refer to either the first or second sighting. In any event, your post seems largely irrelevant.
-
Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and weren't been seen in public for 5 years.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI
-
Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and weren't been seen in public for 5 years.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI
The Times said the same and had to apologise (and probably pay compensation). Channel 4 may very well be next to have to do so.
-
The bit you have in bold is ambiguous. It could refer to either the first or second sighting. In any event, your post seems largely irrelevant.
That is the Smith family sighting which was the second one and no efits are featured in the 2012 book version. It's very smart pointing out that this sighting happened before Madeleine was reported to be missing because it puts everyone at the tapas bar (their alibi) and therefore not a suspect. That very important fact in this case doesn't fool everyone as the sighting happened after Madeleine was reported to be missing. Getting an important fact right can change a lot - from not being a suspect to now being one!
-
The Times said the same and had to apologise (and probably pay compensation). Channel 4 may very well be next to have to do so.
Well that's how you know the efits were produced in 2008 - the Sunday Times correction didn't correct that fact.
-
Channel 4 News clearly indicated that the e-fits had been created in 2008 and withheld for 5 years.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5w21mREDqtI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D5w21mREDqtI
and where did they get there information from?
-
and where did they get there information from?
Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme, the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.
Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?
-
Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme, the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.
Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?
so NO accusation of them being supressed
-
so NO accusation of them being supressed
Isn't suppressed the direct opposite of promoted?
-
Davel's like a dog with a bone 8)--))
-
Channel 4 are quite correct in what they stated at the start of the programme, the e-fits were created in 2008 and were not seen in public until the BBC Crimewatch broadcast in 2013 ie 5 years later.
Question still is, why were e-fits withheld from the public view for 5 long years if they could have in any way assisted in solving this case?
Doesn't say where they were for 5 years....could have been in a drawer in the pjs office
-
Isn't suppressed the direct opposite of promoted?
The PJ and the Leicestershire force also ' suppressed' this information then, by that definition. Look, the McCanns passed it to the authorities in two countries. Claiming the McCanns suppressed the information is clearly spin.
-
Isn't suppressed the direct opposite of promoted?
Not in my book
-
The PJ and the Leicestershire force also ' suppressed' this information then, by that definition. Look, the McCanns passed it to the authorities in two countries. Claiming the McCanns suppressed the information is clearly spin.
In the absence of explanation of what happened between 2008 and October 2009, their actions appear to show a lack of urgency. That's the point.
-
The PJ and the Leicestershire force also ' suppressed' this information then, by that definition. Look, the McCanns passed it to the authorities in two countries. Claiming the McCanns suppressed the information is clearly spin.
its more than spin its wrong
-
In the absence of explanation of what happened between 2008 and October 2009, their actions appear to show a lack of urgency. That's the point.
they were handed to the police...they were considered unimportant because the pj did not trace tannerman as sy did
-
they were handed to the police...they were considered unimportant because the pj did not trace tannerman as sy did
So unimportant that Cutting Edge claimed the two men could be one and the same 8(0(*
-
We know they didn't want to mention the 10pm sighting, davel. But they eventually did in Cutting Edge, claimed the two men could be the same and yet didn't use the efits available when no efit existed for 9.15 man.
Explain that >@@(*&)
-
We know they didn't want to mention the 10pm sighting, davel. But they eventually did in Cutting Edge, claimed the two men could be the same and yet didn't use the efits available when no efit existed for 9.15 man.
Explain that >@@(*&)
One doesn't irrevocably associate events, if one has no proof.
Otherwise a myth becomes established.
Better to leave it open, with obvious probable connections than to cement the two together .
-
One doesn't irrevocably associate events, if one has no proof.
Otherwise a myth becomes established.
Better to leave it open, with obvious probable connections than to cement the two together .
There's logic there... if you're not in any hurry. But it doesn't make sense for the parents of a child who is missing and who is they say alive and findable. You surely show some urgency. They didn't.
Unless there's another reason why the efits weren't used that they won't or can't tell us.
-
So unimportant that Cutting Edge claimed the two men could be one and the same 8(0(*
they were given to the pj...so not supressed...supressed means they were deliberately hidden...who took the decision not to publish them and why...anyone KNOW the answer
-
Tannerman was not walking through the streets with Madeleine in his arms for 45 minutes when spotted by the Smith family. There's two possibilities 1. Not Madeleine 2. Hidden and retrieved 45 minutes later. I believe number 2 happened (hidden and later retrieved) by Smithman to fool everyone but not by Tannerman going in that direction.
-
Tannerman was not walking through the streets with Madeleine in his arms for 45 minutes when spotted by the Smith family. There's two possibilities 1. Not Madeleine 2. Hidden and retrieved 45 minutes later. I believe number 2 happened (hidden and later retrieved) by Smithman to fool everyone but not by Tannerman going in that direction.
Hidden and retrieved later to 'fool everyone'? I wouldn't find that believable in a daytime TV crime show let alone real life. And to fool who, exactly? We are frequently told the streets were practically deserted. Was this person, in your opinion, simply wandering around carrying a corpse for as long as it took for him to be spotted? And presumably, whilst he wanted to be spotted to 'fool everyone' he didn't want to be recognised. So how does that work?
-
A simple simulated abduction scenario - Madeleine couldn't be in the apartment when the alarm was raised so she was moved and hidden earlier. It's quite simple. He retrieved her later and was seen by the Smith family at 10pm.
-
A simple simulated abduction scenario - Madeleine couldn't be in the apartment when the alarm was raised so she was moved and hidden earlier. It's quite simple. He retrieved her later and was seen by the Smith family at 10pm.
It's not simple though, is it. It's massively over complicated, involves huge risk, and relies on a large number of unproven assumptions. It's nonsense, putting it kindly.
-
It's not simple though, is it. It's massively over complicated, involves huge risk, and relies on a large number of unproven assumptions. It's nonsense, putting it kindly.
That sounds like a description of any of those ludicrous abduction scenarios that have been guffed out in here.
2 abductors & getaway cars & pervy creepy paedophiles or dead black ex heroin addicts stealing Maddie for 5 euros before dying in a tragic farmyard accident.
-
It's not simple though, is it. It's massively over complicated, involves huge risk, and relies on a large number of unproven assumptions. It's nonsense, putting it kindly.
I disagree. Anyone (or not anyone) could conceal a body in a bag, take it out of the apartment when it's dark and quiet and hide the body in the bottom of a wheelie bin and bring the bag back to the apartment. Then go back to the bin in the first searches and retrieve the body and be seen by eye witnesses. Only Smithman would know where she was hidden and why he retrieved her later.
-
I disagree. Anyone (or not anyone) could conceal a body in a bag, take it out of the apartment when it's dark and quiet and hide the body in the bottom of a wheelie bin and bring the bag back to the apartment. Then go back to the bin in the first searches and retrieve the child and be seen by eye witnesses. Only Smithman would know where she was hidden and why he retrieved her later.
Certainly more feasible than an elite gang of child abductors conducting a week long surveylance on the McCanns childcare arrangements.
-
It's not simple though, is it. It's massively over complicated, involves huge risk, and relies on a large number of unproven assumptions. It's nonsense, putting it kindly.
Perhaps huge risk was necessary, especially if the child had to be removed at short notice.
-
The McCanns are very adept at promoting anything which is useful to them and which raises their profile in the eyes of the public The fact that they saw fit not to promote those e-fits after Halligen went to the trouble to secure them is proof if proof were needed that they are running their own agenda behind the scenes. The report which Oakley did on them was damming otherwise that too would have been made public
The McCanns have refused to clarify this issue, scared no doubt that Halligen might still be in a position to expose them.
-
Yes they had to be at the tapas bar - a good alibi but not good enough. Bringing the timeline forward to 10pm, the same time of the sighting, won't fool top detectives working on this case.
It seems the Ag wasn't fooled.
-
The McCanns are very adept at promoting anything which is useful to them and which raises their profile in the eyes of the public The fact that they saw fit not to promote those e-fits after Halligen went to the trouble to secure them is proof if proof were needed that they are running their own agenda behind the scenes. The report which Oakley did on them was damming otherwise that too would have been made public
The McCanns have refused to clarify this issue, scared no doubt that Halligen might still be in a position to expose them.
If the report suggested that abduction was very unlikely vs wandering off, it was enough for keeping it hidden.
-
Release of an e-fit 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 requires the context of an official investigation.
It is that simple.
-
I disagree. Anyone (or not anyone) could conceal a body in a bag, take it out of the apartment when it's dark and quiet and hide the body in the bottom of a wheelie bin and bring the bag back to the apartment. Then go back to the bin in the first searches and retrieve the body and be seen by eye witnesses. Only Smithman would know where she was hidden and why he retrieved her later.
I can't find a justification for the bag episode.
-
It seems the Ag wasn't fooled.
Where can I read that report?
-
Release of an e-fit 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 requires the context of an official investigation.
It is that simple.
Nice try, ferryman.
Unconvincing though when you look at what else Mitchell got up to.
-
I can't find a justification for the bag episode.
For possible eye witnesses in case someone saw her being carried away from the crime scene. You couldn't take that risk IMO but it's possible to do it that way if you weren't seen. The body would be stored in a bag in the wardrobe before being moved. Someone may have seen a bag but it's not in the files.
-
I tend to just help myself, No matter how much much they struggle. They are gagging for it really.
They all are the little teasers.
Is that before or after you smoke a joint the size of a Christmas tree(by your own admission). Do you not realise that makes all your mental processes suspect
-
For possible eye witnesses in case someone saw her being carried away from the crime scene. You couldn't take that risk IMO but it's possible to do it that way if you weren't seen. The body would be stored in a bag in the wardrobe before being moved. Someone may have seen a bag but it's not in the files.
Sorry, old chum, but your theory not only makes no sense, but is also backed up by absolutely no facts. Try again (or better yet, don't)
-
In the absence of explanation of what happened between 2008 and October 2009, their actions appear to show a lack of urgency. That's the point.
Not only the lack of urgency. They had a good opportunity to insist on Smithman in April 2009 Cutting Edge.
-
Sorry, old chum, but your theory not only makes no sense, but is also backed up by absolutely no facts. Try again (or better yet, don't)
It connects Eddie's alerts from behind the sofa to the wardrobe and out the south side of the apartment (bedroom patio door).
-
Not only the lack of urgency. They had a good opportunity to insist on Smithman in April 2009 Cutting Edge.
You miss the point...for all the reasons given on this forum....why would an abductor carry a child that far...the fact that the tanner sighting had not been shown to be false......the smith sighting was not thought to be important IMO...if it was , why did the pj not act on it...new evidence to open the investigation
-
You miss the point...for all the reasons given on this forum....why would an abductor carry a child that far...the fact that the tanner sighting had not been shown to be false......the smith sighting was not thought to be important IMO...if it was , why did the pj not act on it...new evidence to open the investigation
They were just waiting for a dead black guy to pin it on.
-
They were just waiting for a dead black guy to pin it on.
now you are making more sense...couldn't pin it on the Mccanns...so what about the dead black guy
-
now you are making more sense...couldn't pin it on the Mccanns...so what about the dead black guy
Yes I stubbed the spliff out, took a breath of fresh air & started thinking rationaly & now I realise that abduction is the reality.
It was like a revelation moment.
-
8)--))
-
Yes I stubbed the spliff out, took a breath of fresh air & started thinking rationaly & now I realise that abduction is the reality.
It was like a revelation moment.
As a matter of interest did you realise that their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate too?
-
We've all done it 8((()*/
-
As a matter of interest did you realise that their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate too?
Absolutely, when taken entirely in the context of facilitating a non existant child abductor.
-
The withheld efits were given not to LP or PJ, but to a PI company. The question arises, what other information was given to a PI agency and not passed to police? Remember the efit which witness CT thought she had done for UK police, yet LP were unaware of it? And why is it that the Daily Meal reported in Sept 2007 that witness CP had spoken to UK police twice about the Saturday night 1130pm boatman, but then the paper altered their report in Oct 2007 to remove that claim? Did the witness actually speak twice to LP? Or twice to PIs? If the latter, was it ever passed on to LP? In other words, can we be confident that the efits by the Irish family are an unique isolated oversight, and everything else was keenly passed on to PJ/LP?
-
pj had efits long enough to act on why they not act on them
Perhaps because the case wasalready closed and the efits weren't considered sufficient new evidence to re-open it.
-
Perhaps because the case wasalready closed and the efits weren't considered sufficient new evidence to re-open it.
So who would have decided the efits were not considered sufficient new evidence if the case had been closed? Who would have the authority to make such an important decision? I thought the case was shelved not closed.
-
Anyone figured out yet why the mccanns sat on the fits for five years? and did nothng with these crucial efits.....??? But instead promoted efits of untenuous people......miles and countries away as opposed to a man on the night carrying a blonde four yr old?
-
So who would have decided the efits were not considered sufficient new evidence if the case had been closed? Who would have the authority to make such an important decision? I thought the case was shelved not closed.
Not at all sure, but I thought the case was reopened under instruction from the judiciary, so I presume it would be a legal decision, rather than a police one.
-
Not at all sure, but I thought the case was reopened under instruction from the judiciary, so I presume it would be a legal decision, rather than a police one.
Correct, it is the Ministério Público that makes the decision if any evidence is relevant enough to warrant the reopening of the case. The PJ does not have that authority.
-
Anyone figured out yet why the mccanns sat on the fits for five years? and did nothng with these crucial efits.....??? But instead promoted efits of untenuous people......miles and countries away as opposed to a man on the night carrying a blonde four yr old?
Red, I thought that it had been proven very recently on this forum that what you are saying is NOT true. Why do you keep repeating the myth?
-
Red, I thought that it had been proven very recently on this forum that what you are saying is NOT true. Why do you keep repeating the myth?
Try and keep up, its not a myth but 100 per cent fact that the mccanns decided to not publicise these efits, never mention a word about them, ever, anywhere,whilst they publicised dubious others....the question you should try finding an answer to is WHY....they even had them whilst they did their maddie was here documentary in 2009 and ignored them but instead tried to make out Tannerman was Smithman....whch flew in the face of both the evidence in the files and the efits......why manipulate facts?
>@@(*&)
-
Should they not have appeared in Kate's book? It is ,after all, claimed to be the definitive work on the subject.
-
Should they not have appeared in Kate's book? It is ,after all, claimed to be the definitive work on the subject.
You would think they should, being efits of a man seeing carryng a four yr blonde girl in pyjamas near to the ocean club on the night...but no....a charity collector called creepy two weeks earlier was more of a suspect? Or a woman in barcelona days later, drunk and noone knowing what she was on about and the witness coming forward two yrs later
@)(++(*
Lets not forget the prime person SY is searchng for is nowhere to be seen on the mccanns official findmadeleine website....unless you look really hard....lol
And the line that they sent the efits to the pj and lp in 2009 is heresay......sy will have had them but they didnt...they had to ask permission to get them!!.....even if they did send them in 2009 fact remans they sat on them for a year before doing so.....why is that??? Uncomfortable questions for the apologisers
-
You would think they should, being efits of a man seeing carryng a four yr blonde girl in pyjamas near to the ocean club on the night...but no....a charity collector called creepy two weeks earlier was more of a suspect? Or a woman in barcelona days later, drunk and noone knowing what she was on about and the witness coming forward two yrs later
@)(++(*
Lets not forget the prime person SY is searchng for is nowhere to be seen on the mccanns official findmadeleine website....unless you look really hard....lol
And the line that they sent the efits to the pj and lp in 2009 is heresay......sy will have had them but they didnt...they had to ask permission to get them!!.....even if they did send them in 2009 fact remans they sat on them for a year before doing so.....why is that??? Uncomfortable questions for the apologisers
The answer is - we don't know why - because we don't have the details. While this is the case I won't speculate. On the other hand while this is the case the sceptics will speculate- and of course that speculation will all be to the McCanns detriment. But when was it ever anything else?
I'm assuming that unlike us - SY do know all the details - and that's all that matters IMO.
-
The answer is - we don't know why - because we don't have the details. While this is the case I won't speculate. On the other hand while this is the case the sceptics will speculate- and of course that speculation will all be to the McCanns detriment. But when was it ever anything else?
I'm assuming that unlike us - SY do know all the details - and that's all that matters IMO.
one reason given and a quote from the Fund spokesman was they couldnt afford to investigate the smith sighting....
>@@(*&)
I doubt it would cost much to publicise an efit! And such a crucial one..carry on not speculating then....