Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Mr Gray]

No that isn't how newspapers work. If an article is inaccurate or untrue then they print an apology and a correction in the newspaper. If that is not satisfactory then legal action is taken.

You yourself quote a court case the ST lost as a result of a story.

So why hasn't the ST apologised and printed a retraction or why haven't the McCann's publicly stated their desire to take legal action against the ST?

The fact you can't find the article online may be because it is behind their paywall.

I think you are totally wrong...do you have any evidence for what you say

[Mr Gray]

Of course you are. 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)

same as my reaction when cariad supported icads post

[Albertini]

Albertini has made no point at all ...

Oh but I do but you can't agree with the glaring truth as it doesn't fit in with your pre conceived ideas and beliefs.

Once agin:

ST article criticising parents
Limp response not denying the allegations from Mitchell
No correction or retraction from the ST
No actual or threatened legal action against the ST

All equal ST article being true.

Now I know that's an uncomfortable truth for you but that is the truth of the matter given the above facts.

[Albertini]

I think you are totally wrong...do you have any evidence for what you say

Yes. The evidence is there has been no retraction formally in the ST. The evidence is there has been no actual denial by Mitchell. The evidence is Mitchell has not threatened nor launched legal action against the ST.

That's all the evidence you should need.

[Mr Gray]

Yes. The evidence is there has been no retraction formally in the ST. The evidence is there has been no actual denial by Mitchell. The evidence is Mitchell has not threatened nor launched legal action against the ST.

That's all the evidence you should need.

 The fact that it has been removed is all the evidence I need...shows there is something not right...all the other articles are still there...why only that one removed

[Albertini]

The fact that it has been removed is all the evidence I need...shows there is something not right...all the other articles are still there...why only that one removed

I repeat it has not been retracted in print or online.

No corrections or apologies have been printed in the paper or online.

So you may think that but you would be wrong.

[ferryman]

The corroboration actually came from Exton. He was forced into confidentiality by the threat of the McCanns lawyers. SY recently requested the report from him. Why would SY request this if they already had it?

So Albertini is quite correct in stating the fact they handed them over is not the point. It is accepted by both sides that SY are in possession of the e-fits.

Albertini's questions.....

Why did they hold the e-fits back?
Why did they hand them over when asked?

Firstly they held them back because the report they originated from was hypercritical of them. Secondly it seems as though it was Exton who handed them over when asked. Not the McCanns.

It seems to me as though the McCanns preferred to keep these e-fits hidden because of the accompanying hypercritical report. Perhaps when SY learned of the e-fits they assured the McCanns their main interest was the e-fits and not the content of the report?

Exton almost certainly made a meal of standard confidentiality clauses in any work of this kind.

And despite the confidentiality clauses, Exton spilled, to The Times.

Why is that?

[Mr Gray]

So why haven't we heard of the parents disgust at his so called libel like we had with amaral? Why hasn't Mitchell come out and stated the parents are considering legal action? Why didn't we get a more strongly worded denial from the parents in the original article or since.

The only proof that the article is wrong would be with either a formal retraction in the paper or the launching of legal action.

What is there to consider to delay action? It's either correct or incorrect and can easily be proven one way or the other by the McCann's confirming with demonstrable evidence exactly when they received the efits and when they passed them on to SY.

If they could prove it then the ST would swiftly issue a formal retraction and no doubt given the implications from an incorrect article pay a donation to the fund.

None forthcoming = you are wrong I'm afraid.

if a libel action is planned there will be no prior comments...it is the only recent article re the McCannns that has been removed..do you really believe that is just a coincidence

[Albertini]

Exton almost certainly made a meal of standard confidentiality clauses in any work of this kind.

And despite the confidentiality clauses, Exton spilled, to The Times.

Why is that?

You are asking the wrong questions I'm afraid. The real question is why having paid for the report and the efits would the McCann's refuse to release them to the public, like all their other efits, which could help them find their daughter?

Again the uncomfortable truth can only be that the McCanns value protecting their own reputations over and above dong everything in their power to find their daughter.

[Albertini]

if a libel action is planned there will be no prior comments...it is the only recent article re the McCannns that has been removed..do you really believe that is just a coincidence

What like they kept quiet about suing Amaral?

Daily Telegraph

Kate and Gerry McCann threaten legal action over Madeleine book

Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened legal action over the publication of an explosive account of the investigation into their daughter's disappearance by the former detective in charge of the case.

By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
8:59PM BST 23 Jul 2008

Goncalo Amaral, who led the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance until he was sacked last October, has chosen to speak out about the case within days of it being shelved and the parents cleared of any involvement.

In the book, which will appear in bookshops across Portugal on Thursday, the detective reveals details of first five months of the investigation and presents his theories on what happened to the girl who disappeared shortly before her fourth birthday from a holiday apartment in the Algarve.

The McCanns, both 40, were said to be appalled at the contents of the book after excerpts were leaked to Portuguese newspapers and preparing to sue.

Mr Amaral, 48, also criticises elements of the probe, including contamination of the crime scene at a very early stage by his own officers.

"Gerry and Kate are going to sue over this book," said a source close to the family.

The book reveals intimate details about the life of the couple in the days after their daughter's disappearance.

Clarence Mitchell, the family's spokesman, said: "People should bear in mind that Amaral is a discredited former police officer who was removed from the case for criticising Leicestershire police.

"His own Attorney General ... on Monday, made it very clear there is absolutely no proof that any criminal offence was committed by Kate or Gerry."

He accused the detective of shamelessly attempting to cash in on Madeleine's plight.

"Amaral is seeking to make money out of Madeleine's situation and is seeking publicity – it's quite disgusting," he said admitting that legal advice had been taken.

"The libel lawyers who are representing Kate and Gerry and their friends are assessing every word of this book very closely, and they will not hesitate from taking legal action against Amaral if any passage requires it."

The former chief inspector, who retired from the force earlier this month following criticism over the way he handled the case, explained his motivation to write the book.

"I feel the time has come to restore my reputation after it was publicly sullied and I had no recourse within the institution that is the Policia Judiciaria," he wrote in an author's statement released with the book.

"I also want to contribute to finding out the truth and seek justice for Madeleine," he added.

[AnneGuedes]

The real question is why having paid for the report and the efits would the McCann's refuse to release them to the public, like all their other efits, which could help them find their daughter?

Again the uncomfortable truth can only be that the McCanns value protecting their own reputations over and above dong everything in their power to find their daughter.

Uncomfortable is the right word, as their reputation is intact.

[ferryman]

You are asking the wrong questions I'm afraid. The real question is why having paid for the report and the efits would the McCann's refuse to release them to the public, like all their other efits, which could help them find their daughter?

Again the uncomfortable truth can only be that the McCanns value protecting their own reputations over and above dong everything in their power to find their daughter.

You are ignoring answers already provided.

The decision to publish the efits was the police's, not the McCanns.

I will repeat a question you have ignored. 

Would you be crucifying the McCanns for, themselves and independently, releasing efits actually in the possession of the police, but not released by them?

[Albertini]

if you look at the date..they didn't sue amaral for a year. You can put your head in the sand and ignore the fact that this is the only article re the McCanns to have been removed ...to me thats significant

Forget how long it took them to sue amaral you stated:

if a libel action is planned there will be no prior comments..

Yet that is precisely what they stated in relation to Amaral.

Once again until a retraction is printed or legal action is threatened or announced he story remains accurate.

[Mr Gray]

Forget how long it took them to sue amaral you stated:

Yet that is precisely what they stated in relation to Amaral.

Once again until a retraction is printed or legal action is threatened or announced he story remains accurate.

it may be accurate to you but I don't believe everything I read in the papers

[Benice]

So why haven't we heard of the parents disgust at his so called libel like we had with amaral? Why hasn't Mitchell come out and stated the parents are considering legal action? Why didn't we get a more strongly worded denial from the parents in the original article or since.

The only proof that the article is wrong would be with either a formal retraction in the paper or the launching of legal action.

What is there to consider to delay action? It's either correct or incorrect and can easily be proven one way or the other by the McCann's confirming with demonstrable evidence exactly when they received the efits and when they passed them on to SY.

If they could prove it then the ST would swiftly issue a formal retraction and no doubt given the implications from an incorrect article pay a donation to the fund.

None forthcoming = you are wrong I'm afraid.

Its a newspaper article, which makes some claims but only tells part of a 'story'.

On the other hand I'm sure SY will have known ALL the related facts on that subject for a long time - and that's all that matters IMO. 
 
IIRC when it was announced the PJ would be re-opening the case the McCanns said they would not be commenting on it.      Doesn't their FB page say the McCanns won't be commenting on rumours and speculation (or words to that effect)?
 
 If all the above is correct then why is anyone surprised that they haven't commented on it?
 
It's just a newspaper article written by a couple of reporters with less than impeccable histories and with the aim of selling lots of newspapers, not a statement from SY or the PT team.