The McCanns and the Times - Is litigation in the air again?

[faithlilly]

It is being tweeted that the McCanns are suing the Times.


Should be interesting.

[Mr Gray]

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

[faithlilly]

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.

[Eleanor]

I hardly think The McCanns would sue The Times if there was any chance of losing.

[jassi]

I hardly think The McCanns would sue The Times if there was any chance of losing.

Nothing in life is certain - except death.

[Brietta]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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 ...

[John]

It appears that it relates to the Sunday Times article, subsequently withdrawn, claiming that the Smith e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.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

[Wonderfulspam]

It appears that it relates to the Sunday Times article, subsequently withdrawn, claiming that the Smith e-fits were withheld by the McCanns for 5 years.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?

[sadie]

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?

[faithlilly]

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  ?

[jassi]

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 ?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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..

[Mr Gray]

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