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: faithlilly on August 01, 2014, 06:52:38 PM
-
It is being tweeted that the McCanns are suing the Times.
Should be interesting.
-
It is being tweeted that the McCanns are suing the Times.
Should be interesting.
this is sensational news if it's true...which it well may be
-
this is sensational news if it's true...which it well may be
Let's hope it goes all the way to court this time.
-
I hardly think The McCanns would sue The Times if there was any chance of losing.
-
I hardly think The McCanns would sue The Times if there was any chance of losing.
Nothing in life is certain - except death.
-
this is sensational news if it's true...which it well may be
I doubt it; it would have been appropriate to do so if a prompt apology had not been issued over the inaccurate report; and given the record of the journalists involved and what we now know to be the fact of the matter, I have no doubt they would have been awarded a substantial settlement; however I think at this moment in time they have a lot more on their mind.
Time will tell if it is just another rumour from the mill.
-
I hardly think The McCanns would sue The Times if there was any chance of losing.
the times have already issued an apology re the sunday times article...so thats almost an admission of guilt...perhaps they haven't gone as far as the mccanns wanted them to.
secondly the two journalists responsible for the article have already lost a case for the ST that did go to court. A court case may answer some interesting questions ...
-
It appears that it relates to the Sunday Times article, subsequently withdrawn, claiming that the Smith e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.
High Court ref HQ14D02886
-
It appears that it relates to the Sunday Times article, subsequently withdrawn, claiming that the Smith e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.
High Court ref HQ14D02886
The Times article claimed that the e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.
Those e-fits were compiled in 2008, they were withheld from public view (didn't appear in Kates book) & none of us knew they existed, until 2013, some 5 years later you may note.
So, the e-fits were witheld, by the McCanns for 5 years.
Why are they suing the Times again?
-
The Times article claimed that the e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.
Those e-fits were compiled in 2008, they were withheld from public view (didn't appear in Kates book) & none of us knew they existed, until 2013, some 5 years later you may note.
So, the e-fits were witheld, by the McCanns for 5 years.
Why are they suing the Times again?
The clue, Spammy, is in Johns post
It appears that it relates to the Sunday Times article, subsequently withdrawn, claiming that the Smith e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.
High Court ref HQ14D02886
Why was the article subsequently witheld?
Because it was incorrect. It put out mis- or dis-information.
It was a load of cobblers.
Do stop pushing the agenda that the Mccanns held the Efits back. You are wrong.
As has been gone over on here before, the PJ had them alll along, but chose not to use them.
I wonder why?
-
The clue, Spammy, is in Johns post
Why was the article subsequently witheld?
Because it was incorrect. It put out mis- or dis-information.
It was a load of cobblers.
Do stop pushing the agenda that the Mccanns held the Efits back. You are wrong.
As has been gone over on here before, the PJ had them alll along, but chose not to use them.
I wonder why?
And I wonder why when they staged press conferences to publicise both Gail Cooper's and the Victoria Beckham lookalike efits they didn't do the same for the Cimewatch ones even though they were in their possession for over a year before they gave them to the authorities ?
-
And I wonder why when they staged press conferences to publicise both Gail Cooper's and the Victoria Beckham lookalike efits they didn't do the same for the Cimewatch ones even though they were in their possession for over a year before they gave them to the authorities ?
Why did they wait that long before giving them to the authorities ? What prompted it ?
-
The clue, Spammy, is in Johns post
Why was the article subsequently witheld?
Because it was incorrect. It put out mis- or dis-information.
It was a load of cobblers.
Do stop pushing the agenda that the Mccanns held the Efits back. You are wrong.
As has been gone over on here before, the PJ had them alll along, but chose not to use them.
I wonder why?
Strange how weeks prior to that Sunday Times article, Channel 4 were in possesion of the following information........
"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://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2760.0
Do stop pushing the agenda that the Mccanns held the Efits back. You are wrong.
You remember seeing them e-fits between 2008- 2013 then sadie?
They were in Kates book?
Mitchell held them up in a press conference?
The McCanns held them aloft outside the Lisbon civil court?
You remember that?
I don't.
-
Oh What? Oh, Really? Oh Wow...
The McCanns in court again...oh the irony!
quote"Why are they suing the Times again?" unquote
Simple.
1. They have their reputation to maintain (giggles)
2. They have to keep up the pretense of Maddie being 'safe and alive' for the fund..oh god blessed them with that fund.
3. The court case with Amaral is drawing to a close...
4. because they can, it's what they do instead of 'looking' for their daughter!
5.They love the publicity of being victims
6.it's getting nearer xmas and the they need the money
7. yeah the list is long....
Will they push for out of court settlement? the Times reputation is far greater then Team Mc.... I think the Times will thoroughly investigate this.
oh , and yes so, who's fault was it that Maddie is not with her parents? yes the parents fault!
But isn't it great to blame everyone else..
-
Oh What? Oh, Really? Oh Wow...
The McCanns in court again...oh the irony!
quote"Why are they suing the Times again?" unquote
Simple.
1. They have their reputation to maintain (giggles)
2. They have to keep up the pretense of Maddie being 'safe and alive' for the fund..oh god blessed them with that fund.
3. The court case with Amaral is drawing to a close...
4. because they can, it's what they do instead of 'looking' for their daughter!
5.They love the publicity of being victims
6.it's getting nearer xmas and the they need the money
7. yeah the list is long....
Will they push for out of court settlement? the Times reputation is far greater then Team Mc.... I think the Times will thoroughly investigate this.
oh , and yes so, who's fault was it that Maddie is not with her parents? yes the parents fault!
But isn't it great to blame everyone else..
I really hope they are suing the Times but as yet no confirmation...the Times went to court before with the same two lawyers who wrote this article and lost so lets hope they will go to court again this time
-
It really is very simple. Did the McCanns publish the e-fits after they were created with Halligen's help in 2008?
-
Yes, I think the answer to that would be in the mccannfiles by Nigel- He publishes everything they do. It's a great web site! They are seen holding up many photofits and age progression photos of Maddie, It would take long to find out. If the Times is reading this... go search Nigels site!
They lodged at the High Court?! that is for serious crime....So are they going to hold up the UK over stretched court system for more money? sheeeesh.
-
It really is very simple. Did the McCanns publish the e-fits after they were created with Halligen's help in 2008?
No it isn't that simple at all.
What authority or mandate did anyone have to publish an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at about the time Madeleine was abducted apart from an official police enquiry?
Clearly neither the PJ nor Scotland Yard felt they had that mandate.
Why should the McCanns have gainsaid the police (of both countries)?
-
So no confirmation yet
-
No it isn't that simple at all.
What authority or mandate did anyone have to publish an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at about the time Madeleine was abducted apart from an official police enquiry?
Clearly neither the PJ nor Scotland Yard felt they had that mandate.
Why should the McCanns have gainsaid the police (of both countries)?
So why did they employ PIs?
-
Mandate? How about taking money from vulnerable, gullible people, to search for Madeline? placing it in a fund- then using said fund to employ PI's to investigate (are we decided if it was illegal or not?) they come up with a possible suspect in an efit- "no stone unturned" they said..... hmph lots of boulders lying around they keep falling over them!
They could have put it on their web site at least!
Or are we going back to that would have been illegal?
-
Mandate? How about taking money from vulnerable, gullible people, to search for Madeline? placing it in a fund- then using said fund to employ PI's to investigate (are we decided if it was illegal or not?) they come up with a possible suspect in an efit- "no stone unturned" they said..... hmph lots of boulders lying around they keep falling over them!
They could have put it on their web site at least!
Or are we going back to that would have been illegal?
are you saying you contributed ...or are you accusing others of being gullible
-
I know people who have. I am not naming names for you, but the fund is a contentious issue among many!
-
I know people who have. I am not naming names for you, but the fund is a contentious issue among many!
yes there must be at least 20 on this forum