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

[pathfinder73]

"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."

[Redblossom]

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????

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Redblossom]

"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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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...

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

"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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

[pathfinder73]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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 ;)

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[pathfinder73]

These are from police statements that are signed.

[AnneGuedes]

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..

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Redblossom]

Oh how the mccanns  are laughng.....disgusting