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: ShiningInLuz on October 24, 2016, 04:32:42 PM
-
THIS IS AN OLD THREAD SO CAVEAT EMPTOR
I've posted a detailed look on my blog about the Exton e-fits and what is wrong with them.
For those who want the short version -
constructing an accurate e-fit required a LOT of skill on the part of the operator
success rates in 2007/8 were depressingly poor
the above is after a good, clean sighting which the Smiths did not get, with e-fits constructed within hours of the incident whilst the Exton e-fits were many months after the event.
83
-
THIS IS AN OLD THREAD SO CAVEAT EMPTOR
I've posted a detailed look on my blog about the Exton e-fits and what is wrong with them.
For those who want the short version -
constructing an accurate e-fit required a LOT of skill on the part of the operator
success rates in 2007/8 were depressingly poor
the above is after a good, clean sighting which the Smiths did not get, with e-fits constructed within hours of the incident whilst the Exton e-fits were many months after the event.
Which e-fits were constructed within hours of the incident?
-
Which e-fits were constructed within hours of the incident?
Kindly check my blog. The academics constructed e-fits within hours of their study 'incident', and got very poor results. The Smith e-fits were months and months after the event.
-
Kindly check my blog. The academics constructed e-fits within hours of their study 'incident', and got very poor results. The Smith e-fits were months and months after the event.
There are no impressive e fits in this case though, are there?
-
There are no impressive e fits in this case though, are there?
What about the Egg- Head?
-
There are no impressive e fits in this case though, are there?
That's the point. Unless a miracle has occurred, the Smithman e-fits are junk (no fault of the Smiths).
-
That's the point. Unless a miracle has occurred, the Smithman e-fits are junk (no fault of the Smiths).
One other explanation is that having ID'd Gerry, they had him mind when producing the efits.
-
One other explanation is that having ID'd Gerry, they had him mind when producing the efits.
I've covered that off on my blog. Even in 2007/8 the academics knew a different process was required for known faces and for unknown faces. Whether the Henri Exton crew had this level of expertise is something I don't know.
-
Newspaper apology.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/henri-exton-6497797.html
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, gave little credibility to Jane Tanner’s 9.15pm sighting and focused instead on the 10pm sighting by the Irish Smith family. The investigators recommended that their e-fit images be released without delay.
For some reason the images were not published even in Kate McCann’s 2011 book Madeleine, though it devoted a whole section to eight “key sightings” and carried e-fits on all of them except the Smiths’.
In its Insight report, the Sunday Times quoted one of the Oakley International investigators as saying: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those e-fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours.”
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/more-bizarre-twists-in-mccann-saga.html
He obviously had the expertise.
A gong for the secret detective
31 December 1998
Manchester Evening News
Steve Panter
A TOP-SECRET detective who risked his life time after time in the line of duty has been honoured for his courage. The master of deep infiltration of major crime rings becomes an OBE today. Henri Exton headed Greater Manchester Police undercover unit before he retired five years ago. The former detective chief inspector has continued in his specialist field and is now with the Ministry of Defence. His work while he was in Manchester varied from penetrating notorious soccer gangs to uncovering evidence which proved a convicted killer innocent.
Mr Exton was later "loaned out" by GMP to other forces and on one such mission was held hostage by a gang he inflitrated in the south of England - but retained his cover. His early successes in Greater Manchester in the 1970s and 80s involved uncovering organised crime rings and recruiting supergrasses.
He was heavily involved in the huge armed robbery inquiry Operation Belgium, so-called because of his Belgian family background. He became a trusted "member" of notorious 1970s soccer gang the Young Guvnors who followed Manchester City and caused serious violence across the country. In fact he became a leader of the Guvnors and had to take part in some organised incidents to preserve his cover. He even had to endure a beating in a cell in Wales inflicted by police officers who were convinced he was a soccer thug.
In Italy, during the 1990 World Cup, he wore an Italian policeman's uniform then switched sides to pose as a football hooligan. One triumph was pretending to be a drugs buyer. His role was so sensitive that, when he was awarded the Queen's Police Medal for outstanding skills and bravery, it was kept secret.
Two other officers have been awarded the Queen's Police Medal for their services in Greater Manchester. Chief Supt Andrew Glaister, who retired last March after 35 years as an officer in Manchester, was head of GMP's C division. The other officer honoured today cannot be named.
http://winnowinghistory.blogspot.com/1998/12/gong-for-secret-detective.html
-
That's the point. Unless a miracle has occurred, the Smithman e-fits are junk (no fault of the Smiths).
The three members of the Smith family who returned to Portugal were unable to give a better description than the one recorded in the files. Probably due to the elapsed time between sighting and interview and the fact they did not get a clear view of his face ... certainly not clear enough to be able to identify anyone from photographs (suggesting they were shown some).
The value of this sighting at the time may have been to take some of the heat off Robert Murat ... as it was stated the individual seen definitely was not him.
I certainly think the efits attributed to the Smiths raise more questions than answers.
-
Newspaper apology.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/henri-exton-6497797.html
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, gave little credibility to Jane Tanner’s 9.15pm sighting and focused instead on the 10pm sighting by the Irish Smith family. The investigators recommended that their e-fit images be released without delay.
For some reason the images were not published even in Kate McCann’s 2011 book Madeleine, though it devoted a whole section to eight “key sightings” and carried e-fits on all of them except the Smiths’.
In its Insight report, the Sunday Times quoted one of the Oakley International investigators as saying: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those e-fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours.”
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/more-bizarre-twists-in-mccann-saga.html
He obviously had the expertise.
A gong for the secret detective
31 December 1998
Manchester Evening News
Steve Panter
A TOP-SECRET detective who risked his life time after time in the line of duty has been honoured for his courage. The master of deep infiltration of major crime rings becomes an OBE today. Henri Exton headed Greater Manchester Police undercover unit before he retired five years ago. The former detective chief inspector has continued in his specialist field and is now with the Ministry of Defence. His work while he was in Manchester varied from penetrating notorious soccer gangs to uncovering evidence which proved a convicted killer innocent.
Mr Exton was later "loaned out" by GMP to other forces and on one such mission was held hostage by a gang he inflitrated in the south of England - but retained his cover. His early successes in Greater Manchester in the 1970s and 80s involved uncovering organised crime rings and recruiting supergrasses.
He was heavily involved in the huge armed robbery inquiry Operation Belgium, so-called because of his Belgian family background. He became a trusted "member" of notorious 1970s soccer gang the Young Guvnors who followed Manchester City and caused serious violence across the country. In fact he became a leader of the Guvnors and had to take part in some organised incidents to preserve his cover. He even had to endure a beating in a cell in Wales inflicted by police officers who were convinced he was a soccer thug.
In Italy, during the 1990 World Cup, he wore an Italian policeman's uniform then switched sides to pose as a football hooligan. One triumph was pretending to be a drugs buyer. His role was so sensitive that, when he was awarded the Queen's Police Medal for outstanding skills and bravery, it was kept secret.
Two other officers have been awarded the Queen's Police Medal for their services in Greater Manchester. Chief Supt Andrew Glaister, who retired last March after 35 years as an officer in Manchester, was head of GMP's C division. The other officer honoured today cannot be named.
http://winnowinghistory.blogspot.com/1998/12/gong-for-secret-detective.html
The secret detective certainly deserved his recognition if that write up is anything to go by ... just goes to show how good Halligen was at what he did if he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of someone possessing that skill set with whom he was working closely.
Exton was also a victim of Halligen's confidence tricks.
However I believe warning signals were sent when the quality of Oakley International's work, particularly in relation to their interviewing technique being scrutinised leading to the non-renewal of their contract.
I am bemused that anyone finds it extraordinary that the Fund and the McCanns might have had no confidence in anything emanating from that particular source.
There is criticism for the McCanns in their hiring of Oakley. There is criticism for the McCanns in their firing. There is criticism of the McCanns regarding the emails allegedly produced by a firm tainted by criminality ... and it is well worth bearing in mind that this particular story cost the Sunday Times dearly.
Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police
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."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/
-
One other explanation is that having IDed Gerry, they had him mind when producing the efits.
Did they have Cristavao in mind too ? *&*%£
-
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, ...
Confirmation of what I've said all along.
The first investigation was shelved in August 2008.
There was no mandate to release the efits into the public domain earlier than they were.
-
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, ...
Confirmation of what I've said all along.
The first investigation was shelved in August 2008.
There was no mandate to release the efits into the public domain earlier than they were.
Good thinking ferryman 8@??)(
-
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, ...
Confirmation of what I've said all along.
The first investigation was shelved in August 2008.
There was no mandate to release the efits into the public domain earlier than they were.
Why ever not? They were produced some time early in 2008 so lots of time to publish them before the Archiving. Oakley's Report appeared at the end of their contract while the e-fits were created at the beginning.
-
The Oakley International report, delivered in November 2008, ...
Confirmation of what I've said all along.
The first investigation was shelved in August 2008.
There was no mandate to release the efits into the public domain earlier than they were.
Exton, a very experienced detective, would have known when, and indeed, when not a efit could be made public and he encouraged the McCanns to publicise them as soon as possible ie in November 2008.
-
Whyever not, they were produced some time early in 2008 so lots of time to publish them before the Archiving. Oakley's Report appeared at the end of their contract while the e-fits were created at the beginning.
Key word: delivered: unavailable for release before then.
No mandate to release them earlier than the Crimewatch programme.
-
Key word: delivered: unavailable for release before then.
No mandate to release them earlier than the Crimewatch programme.
Did you read my post ferryman? Exton was an experienced detective. He would not have advised the McCanns to release the efits right away if he knew they'd be unable to do so.
-
Did you read my post ferryman? Exton was an experienced detective. He would not have advised the McCanns to release the efits right away if he knew they'd be unable to do so.
Did you read mine?
The efits were finally in the possession of the mCcanns after the first investigation was shelved.
The efits (in effect) were visual representations of a man, actually seen, and accused of a very serious crime, abducting a child.
That required a live and on-going police enquiry to investigate.
You simply can't accuse people of serious crimes like that that aren't even being investigated by any competent police force.
-
Did you read mine?
The efits were finally in the possession of the mCcanns after the first investigation was shelved.
The efits (in effect) were visual representations of a man, actually seen, and accused of a very serious crime, abducting a child.
That required a live and on-going police enquiry to investigate.
You simply can't accuse people of serious crimes like that that aren't even being investigated by any competent police force.
Then why did Exton, with all his years of experience, suggest that the McCanns did just that?
-
Oakley International's 6-month contract was axed in August 2008 just after the Archiving of the investigation. Their Report did not appear until November 2008 as already pointed out. They had every opportunity prior to August to publish the e-fits but were prevented from doing so, question is by whom and why?
-
Did you read mine?
The efits were finally in the possession of the mCcanns after the first investigation was shelved.
The efits (in effect) were visual representations of a man, actually seen, and accused of a very serious crime, abducting a child.
That required a live and on-going police enquiry to investigate.
You simply can't accuse people of serious crimes like that that aren't even being investigated by any competent police force.
The man in the efit wasn't being accused of anything other than carrying his daughter at about the time Madeleine was discovered missing. If anything the efits could have served to eliminate the individual and thus refocus the McCann's private investigation.
-
The efits were finally in the possession of the mCcanns after the first investigation was shelved.
Yes, if you believe for a moment that Kennedy kept them out of the loop.
-
Oakley International's 6-month contract was axed in August 2008 just after the Archiving of the investigation. Their Report did not appear until November 2008 as already pointed out. They had every opportunity prior to August to publish the e-fits but were prevented from doing so, question is by whom and why?
The Portuguese just don't use efits, do they?
Or at least they didn't, back then.
-
The Portuguese just don't use efits, do they?
Or at least they didn't, back then.
The newspapers were full of artists impressions and e-fits.
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/madeleine-mccann-suspects-.jpg)
-
The Portuguese just don't use efits, do they?
Or at least they didn't, back then.
All the more reason for the McCanns to release them.
-
The newspapers were full of them.
we've been through all that.
-
we've been through all that.
Care to answer my questions ?
-
we've been through all that.
The fact stands. Kennedy and Halligen persuaded the Smiths to create e-fits early on in 2008 yet they never saw the light of day until Redwood came along years later. No wonder the Sunday Times ran the story they did!
My own view is that the e-fits were merely intended to rule someone out, not to find an abductor so releasing them was not a priority. Unfortunately, the e-fits backfired, the rest as they say is history.
-
The fact stands. Kennedy and Halligen persuaded the Smiths to create e-fits early on in 2008 yet they never saw the light of day until Redwood came along years later. No wonder the Sunday Times ran the story they did!
My own view is that the e-fits were merely intended to rule someone out, not to find an abductor so releasing them was not a priority. Unfortunately, the e-fits backfired, the rest is history.
I don't quite see the logic there. surely the two intentions are synonymous?
-
Oakley International's 6-month contract was axed in August 2008 just after the Archiving of the investigation. Their Report did not appear until November 2008 as already pointed out. They had every opportunity prior to August to release the e-fits but were prevented from doing so.
Are private individuals allowed to publicise efits willy nilly into the public domain? Surely something so potentially dangerous for anyone who just happened by co-incidence to resemble the efit is not something the general public can choose to do? It could result in innocent people's lives being exposed to serious danger.
Would it be legal? I don't know - but it seems unlikely to me. Surely the police would have to be involved.
-
The man in the efit wasn't being accused of anything other than carrying his daughter at about the time Madeleine was discovered missing. If anything the efits could have served to eliminate the individual and thus refocus the McCann's private investigation.
I think tracking the man seen by the Smiths should have been treated as a matter of urgency and I do not think that it should have been left to private detectives some months after the event to do so.
The Policia Judiciaria knew about this sighting a fortnight after the event ... the files indicate that they appear to have done little about it.
They are the lead investigative authority in Madeleine's case ... the victims of a crime can hardly be criticised without bearing in mind the lack of importance attached to the Smith sighting by the PJ.
When has it been considered appropriate for the victims of crime to be forced to conduct major investigations? when that is the province of the forces of law and order.
-
Are private individuals allowed to publicise efits willy nilly into the public domain? Surely something so potentially dangerous for anyone who just happened by co-incidence to resemble the efit is not something the general public can choose to do? It could result in innocent people's lives being exposed to serious danger.
Would it be legal? I don't know - but it seems unlikely to me. Surely the police would have to be involved.
And the many, many other efits released by the McCanns?
-
I think tracking the man seen by the Smiths should have been treated as a matter of urgency and I do not think that it should have been left to private detectives some months after the event to do so.
The Policia Judiciaria knew about this sighting a fortnight after the event ... the files indicate that they appear to have done little about it.
They are the lead investigative authority in Madeleine's case ... the victims of a crime can hardly be criticised without bearing in mind the lack of importance attached to the Smith sighting by the PJ.
When has it been considered appropriate for the victims of crime to be forced to conduct major investigations? when that is the province of the forces of law and order.
Accepted it should have been done by the PJ, but it wasn't. That certainly doesn't let the McCanns off the hook. In fact it should have given them cause to be more proactive in the efits release.
-
The Portuguese don't (or didn't, then) use e-fits.
-
The Portuguese don't (or didn't, then) use e-fits.
Irrelevant.
-
Irrelevant.
Fully relevant, particularly combined with the fact that, of all efits, only one was (potentially) of Madeleine being abducted as it happened. That was the Smith sighting.
You needed a police investigation, well, investigating it.
-
Fully relevant, particularly combined with the fact that, of all efits, only one was (potentially) of Madeleine being abducted as it happened. That was the Smith sighting.
You needed a police investigation, well, investigating it.
Who released the Tannerman efit ferryman because it certainly wasn't the PJ?
-
I don't quite see the logic there. surely the two intentions are synonymous?
You could say that since neither objective was achieved. The enduring mystery of course is why create two disimiliar e-fits of one person raising all sorts of speculations when one reasonably accurate facial profile could have achieved so much more?
-
Who released the Tannerman efit ferryman because it certainly wasn't the PJ?
There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.
Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.
-
There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.
Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.
When they came into the hands of the McCanns is irrelevant. The point is that the private investigators had them in early 2008 and should have passed them onto the PJ immediately had they been of any consequence.
I think the real answer to all of this is that the e-fits were of no significance whatsoever and Oakley were sold a pup!
-
There was a police investigation when Jane Tanner's efit was released.
Not so when the Smith efits came into the possession of the McCanns.
But the efit wasn't part of the official investigation.
So if an efit could not be released outside an official investigation why did Exton, an experienced detective, encourage the McCanns to release them as soon as possible?
-
When they came into the hands of the McCanns is irrelevant. The point is that the private investigators had them in early 2008 and should have passed them onto the PJ immediately had they been of any consequence.
I think the real answer to all of this is that the e-fits were of no significance whatsoever and Oakley were sold a pup!
Care to provide the evidence on which you've formed that opinion John?
-
The three members of the Smith family who returned to Portugal were unable to give a better description than the one recorded in the files. Probably due to the elapsed time between sighting and interview and the fact they did not get a clear view of his face ... certainly not clear enough to be able to identify anyone from photographs (suggesting they were shown some).
The value of this sighting at the time may have been to take some of the heat off Robert Murat ... as it was stated the individual seen definitely was not him.
I certainly think the efits attributed to the Smiths raise more questions than answers.
I agree. The Smith's, for reasons best known to themselves, have remained tight lipped over this entire issue for some inexplicable reason.
For all we know the e-fits are fake!
-
Care to provide the evidence on which you've formed that opinion John?
Simply reading between the lines and the fact that Oakley were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they revealed what really went on. That must be one of the most damning facts to date and proof if proof were needed that not all is as it seems?
-
I agree. The Smith's, for reasons best known to themselves, have remained tight lipped over this entire issue for some inexplicable reason.
For all we know the e-fits are fake!
That is an interesting thought, John.
Whatever the situation regarding the efits I am sure the Smiths would have brought Scotland Yard up to speed on all they knew.
- did Oakley produce something out of nothing after speaking to them?
-
Simply reading between the lines and the fact that Oakley were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they revealed what really went on. That must be one of the most damning facts to date and proof if proof were needed that not all is as it seems?
You've lost me.
-
Accepted it should have been done by the PJ, but it wasn't. That certainly doesn't let the McCanns off the hook. In fact it should have given them cause to be more proactive in the efits release.
Why should the McCanns or any other person have had any confidence in anything produced by Oakley?
Bearing in mind the McCann's apparently less than positive experience of them and the publicity about Halligen's criminal activities ... would you?
I most certainly would not have trusted anything emanating from that particular source.
-
I'm at a complete loss to understand why anyone is mystified about the efits.
All fits like a hand in a glove ....
-
Simply reading between the lines and the fact that Oakley were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they revealed what really went on. That must be one of the most damning facts to date and proof if proof were needed that not all is as it seems?
Could you expand on that John please?
-
Why should the McCanns or any other person have had any confidence in anything produced by Oakley?
Bearing in mind the McCann's apparently less than positive experience of them and the publicity about Halligen's criminal activities ... would you?
I most certainly would not have trusted anything emanating from that particular source.
Oakley wasn't Halligen alone so why should the other elements of his team, themselves cheated by him, be tarred with the same 'conman' brush? As far as I am aware Halligen was not involved in the day to day investigation so it would seem unlikely that he had any direct input into either the report or the efits.
-
The secret detective certainly deserved his recognition if that write up is anything to go by ... just goes to show how good Halligen was at what he did if he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of someone possessing that skill set with whom he was working closely.
Exton was also a victim of Halligen's confidence tricks.
However I believe warning signals were sent when the quality of Oakley International's work, particularly in relation to their interviewing technique being scrutinised leading to the non-renewal of their contract.
I am bemused that anyone finds it extraordinary that the Fund and the McCanns might have had no confidence in anything emanating from that particular source.
There is criticism for the McCanns in their hiring of Oakley. There is criticism for the McCanns in their firing. There is criticism of the McCanns regarding the emails allegedly produced by a firm tainted by criminality ... and it is well worth bearing in mind that this particular story cost the Sunday Times dearly.
Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police
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."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/
Key phrase.
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.
-
Key phrase.
Why?
-
Why?
No one could prove the McCanns withheld anything, hence libellous. Who decided not to hand straight to the police is another question.
-
No one could prove the McCanns withheld anything, hence libellous. Who decided not to hand straight to the police is another question.
Where is the chain of evidence confirming that the efits were not handed straight to the police?
-
Where is the chain of evidence confirming that the efits were not handed straight to the police?
If they had been with the police prior to October 2009 we would have heard.
-
If they had been with the police prior to October 2009 we would have heard.
Uh huh ... when I mentioned "chain" it was not in reference to where the efits ended up in 2009 ...
-
Uh huh ... when I mentioned "chain" it was not in reference to where the efits ended up in 2009 ...
You would have to ask those who employed the PIs who generated the efits.
-
You would have to ask those who employed the PIs who generated the efits.
I would have found it exceedingly strange if the Sunday Times had not checked out all avenues including backward trailing the evidence.
They would not have rolled over and meekly handed over damages in recognition the McCanns had been libelled had there been any suggestion which would have saved them the expense and a front page apology.
-
I would have found it exceedingly strange if the Sunday Times had not checked out all avenues including backward trailing the evidence.
They would not have rolled over and meekly handed over damages in recognition the McCanns had been libelled had there been any suggestion which would have saved them the expense and a front page apology.
It is known that there was a gap between the efits being produced and them being handed to the police of about a year. How would the Sunday Times know what part of the McCann organisation prevented or neglected the passing of the efits to the relevant authorities. Stating it was the McCanns was the libel.
-
It is known that there was a gap between the efits being produced and them being handed to the police of about a year. How would the Sunday Times know what part of the McCann organisation prevented or neglected the passing of the efits to the relevant authorities. Stating it was the McCanns was the libel.
Where did you get the information from that any part of the "McCann organisation" might have prevented or might have neglected to pass information which might have been relevant to Madeleine's abduction to the authorities?
-
Where did you get the information from that any part of the "McCann organisation" might have prevented or might have neglected to pass information which might have been relevant to Madeleine's abduction to the authorities?
It's what the apology says. There was a gap before the police got the efits therefore they neglected to send them or decided not to. Quite simple. If it wasn't true, the McCanns wouldn't have accepted it.
-
It's what the apology says. There was a gap before the police got the efits therefore they neglected to send them or decided not to. Quite simple. If it wasn't true, the McCanns wouldn't have accepted it.
The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to issue an apology to them.
The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to pay them damages.
-
The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to issue an apology to them.
The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to pay them damages.
The photo fits were made on behalf of the Mccanns. TRUE.
They were withheld for several years. TRUE.
-
This from the Guardian of 2nd of October 2014.
"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."
Makes you wonder that if the McCanns had such a good case and if they were so displeased by the paltry settlement and apology why they did take the case to trial?
BTW Brietta, no front page apology !
-
The photo fits were made on behalf of the Mccanns. TRUE.
They were withheld for several years. TRUE.
Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.
However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.
-
You really do not know the truth of the matter and could well be blundering into innuendo leading to libel.
Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.
However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.
And however much you wish it to be true, the Times agreed an out of court settlement and suggesting otherwise is sheer disinformation.
-
Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.
However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.
Read Faithlilly's response.
When you type your mantra Brietta, the only people who agree with you will be your fellow supporters.
-
What they printed suggested that the McCanns hid efits from the authorities for 5 years so were sued. They should have printed - Why were crucial efits withheld from the public for 5 years? Then investigate further. Why were they not included in Madeleine released 3 years later when allegedly only the McCanns were still working on the case? When were the efits first produced and seen by the McCanns? etc. This is a serious matter especially when Exon was reported to have said, “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
"Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years"
"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."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/
-
And however much you wish it to be true, the Times agreed an out of court settlement and suggesting otherwise is sheer disinformation.
IMO The Times agreed to an out of court settlement because their lawyers advised them they didn't have a leg to stand on, and to go to court would have been even more costly and entail even more unfavourable publicity than an out of court settlement.
No newspaper is going to admit libel and pay compensation unless they know for sure they are guilty and have no choice.
It's not rocket science, or even comes close.
The ability of some to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
-
What is it with the reluctance to accept that the McCanns were libelled by the Sunday Times despite their clear admission of the offence?
Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).
Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October2013.
The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.
The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a copy of which is attached.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
It really could not be much clearer or simpler to understand than that.
-
There's a right way and a wrong way to investigate and they chose the latter. You ask questions and maybe they would have got an answer or no comment 8)--))
-
Brietta.
Was it really a fear by the Sunday Times owners of being Carter-Rucked ?
More than possible.
Meanwhile, The McCann's ordered the photo fits and the they were withheld.
The McCann's could have released them anytime .
They didn't.
Just the facts Mam.
Now remind me of who the photo fits are reminiscent of ?
8(0(*
-
What is it with the reluctance to accept that the McCanns were libelled by the Sunday Times despite their clear admission of the offence?
Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).
Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October2013.
The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.
The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a copy of which is attached.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
It really could not be much clearer or simpler to understand than that.
Libel was not proved.
-
Libel was not proved.
Why pay out and apologise then?
-
Libel was not proved.
Taking 'nitpicking' to the nth degree IMO.
-
Taking 'nitpicking' to the nth degree IMO.
Nah. IMHO.
-
What they printed suggested that the McCanns hid efits from the authorities for 5 years so were sued. They should have printed - Why were crucial efits withheld from the public for 5 years? Then investigate further. Why were they not included in Madeleine released 3 years later when allegedly only the McCanns were still working on the case? When were the efits first produced and seen by the McCanns? etc. This is a serious matter especially when Exon was reported to have said, “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
"Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years"
"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."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/
I tried to stick this story in my filing system and trying to index it made me think.
The 'by' in 'by October 2009'. That makes it vague, in the sense that it could have been earlier, for one or both forces.
I wonder what evidence convinced the ST? And I wonder why the McCanns did not produce such evidence earlier, before publication? Please note, having been Mirrored, I am aware that the timescale between a media approach for comments on an upcoming story and publication is of the order of a few days, so I am not impugning the McCanns.
Then there is the legal letter insisting on confidentiality. Why is anything about this significant? Unless the contractual relationship between the McCanns and Oakley was weird, the contract would have included a confidentiality agreement. The termination of the contract was not harmonious. A legal letter was written reminding Oakley the report was subject to confidentiality. It strikes me as appropriate, given the circumstances.
-
Could you expand on that John please?
It's self explanatory.
-
Oakley wasn't Halligen alone so why should the other elements of his team, themselves cheated by him, be tarred with the same 'conman' brush? As far as I am aware Halligen was not involved in the day to day investigation so it would seem unlikely that he had any direct input into either the report or the efits.
I disagree, Halligen was reared in Ireland just down the road from the Smiths so could relate to them better than anyone else. I believe Halligen was directly responsible for persuading the Smiths to cooperate.
-
What they printed suggested that the McCanns hid efits from the authorities for 5 years so were sued. They should have printed - Why were crucial efits withheld from the public for 5 years? Then investigate further. Why were they not included in Madeleine released 3 years later when allegedly only the McCanns were still working on the case? When were the efits first produced and seen by the McCanns? etc. This is a serious matter especially when Exon was reported to have said, “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
"Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years"
"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."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/
I agree, the Sunday Times made a complete pigs ear of what in truth was a very legitimate story of great public interest and that was that e-fits of a man who could very well have been seen carrying Madeleine McCann on the night she disappeared were suppressed from the public for five years. Question is and always has been, by whom and for what reason?
As for the libel claim, the Sunday Times claimed the McCanns withheld the e-fits but couldn't prove it thus they would have failed to defend any libel action. I have a feeling their star witness bailed in the end.
-
I tried to stick this story in my filing system and trying to index it made me think.
The 'by' in 'by October 2009'. That makes it vague, in the sense that it could have been earlier, for one or both forces.
I wonder what evidence convinced the ST? And I wonder why the McCanns did not produce such evidence earlier, before publication? Please note, having been Mirrored, I am aware that the timescale between a media approach for comments on an upcoming story and publication is of the order of a few days, so I am not impugning the McCanns.
Then there is the legal letter insisting on confidentiality. Why is anything about this significant? Unless the contractual relationship between the McCanns and Oakley was weird, the contract would have included a confidentiality agreement. The termination of the contract was not harmonious. A legal letter was written reminding Oakley the report was subject to confidentiality. It strikes me as appropriate, given the circumstances.
You're assuming that the report and the e-fits were produced under the umbrella of the Oakley contract. That contract ended before the McCanns received them. The question is who contacted team McCann with the report and e-fits after they had stopped working for them? I don't think it was Halligen.
-
I disagree, Halligen was reared in Ireland just down the road from the Smiths so could relate to them better than anyone else. I believe Halligen was directly responsible for persuading the Smiths to cooperate.
And as your opinion carries just as much weight as mine I'm afraid that doesn't take us much further forward.
-
And as your opinion carries just as much weight as mine I'm afraid that doesn't take us much further forward.
The evidence reveals something somewhat different though. Halligen was hands on initially in an attempt to impress, it was only latterly that he hung out at the Abracadabra Club near his Jermyn Street office, this effectively becoming his daytime base. Kennedy was rebuffed previously when he attempted to get the Smiths to cooperate so it was logical that local boy Halligen be sent in. Halligen as much as confirmed this the last time he spoke to the media.
-
It all comes back to why the mccanns never once made any mention or released these efits ever
And the excuse peddled that there was no official police investigation ongoing doesnt cut the mustard
They were free to publicise other efits which they did
No one was stopping them from releasing these ones WAS THERE?
-
It all comes back to why the mccanns never once made any mention or released these efits ever
And the excuse peddled that there was no official police investigation ongoing doesnt cut the mustard
They were free to publicise other efits which they did
No one was stopping them from releasing these ones WAS THERE?
There must have been a very good reason why the efits were not released until Madeleine's case was reopened and I am sure Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria would be able to inform you of what exactly that was if they chose to.
They also had copies of the efits in their possession.
-
There must have been a very good reason why the efits were not released until Madeleine's case was reopened and I am sure Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria would be able to inform you of what exactly that was if they chose to.
They also had copies of the efits in their possession.
What STOPPED the mccanns releasing them whilst alllowing clowns like mitchel to do pantomimes about every tom dick and harry "important efit"
-
It's self explanatory.
It might be but I'm not aware of it. Simply reading between the lines and the fact that Oakley were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they revealed what really went on. That must be one of the most damning facts to date and proof if proof were needed that not all is as it seems?
-
There must have been a very good reason why the efits were not released until Madeleine's case was reopened and I am sure Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria would be able to inform you of what exactly that was if they chose to.
They also had copies of the efits in their possession.
...by October 2009.
I can think of one very good reason.
-
...by October 2009.
I can think of one very good reason.
Indeed Slarti, and hardly difficult to work out.
-
The evidence reveals something somewhat different though. Halligen was hands on initially in an attempt to impress, it was only latterly that he hung out at the Abracadabra Club near his Jermyn Street office, this effectively becoming his daytime base. Kennedy was rebuffed previously when he attempted to get the Smiths to cooperate so it was logical that local boy Halligen be sent in. Halligen as much as confirmed this the last time he spoke to the media.
Did he ? Could you provide a cite as I also watched the interview, I presume, you are talking about yet don't remember him confirming this?
-
It might be but I'm not aware of it.
The reason why Oakley's Report was withheld on threat of legal action is self explanatory surely?