The Sunday Times Apologises...yet e-fits withheld from public view for 5 years?

[Jazzy]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

[Jazzy]

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."

[Angelo222]

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!!

[jassi]

Had the case in Portugal been closed down by the time the pictures were released?

[Apostate]

So basically, nitpicking aside, the Sunday Times report was correct. But then we all knew that.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Benice]

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.

[Redblossom]

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


 

[Luz]

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 

[Benice]

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.
.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Redblossom]

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?

[AnneGuedes]

And the public stays calmly being manipulated as if nothing happened.

I wonder. I've a feeling that the public finds those clowns boring.

[Redblossom]

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

[Benice]

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.