Sunday Times sued by McCanns

[Alice Purjorick]

I Don't think the mccs controll the media........they just watch them like a hawk..[if only they had maddie].....and it shows you what will happen if they write anything to upset them ,....they will sue.....sue ...sue...that is what they are afraid of ....

you don't actually know though....if they got compensation ...or the article just to pacify them for there distress [cough]

is this article only on line.......... or is it in the national paper as well

It seems only to be online.
Press Gazette article is 4 days old.
See links below which are less than a day old
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kate-gerry-mccann-suing-sunday-times-over-madeleine-151607657.html#TSyOZxF
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mccanns+sue+times&tbm=nws
There seems to be a difference of opinion with regard to what is going on.
It is anybody's guess by the look of it.
With the new funding arrangements for defamation cases it is unlikely to reach/have reached court. The plaintiffs would have to pay their costs out of their "winnings" which is a gamble; like will income exceed expenditure.

[John]

It does seem that MSM are ignoring this story for reasons best known to them alone? 

Kate and Gerry McCann Suing Sunday Times over 'Madeleine Clue' Defamation

International Business Times
Dominic Gover
19 September 2014



Kate and Gerry McCann are suing the Sunday Times for defamation over print claims.

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are suing the Sunday Times newspaper for libel over claims printed in 2013.

Kate and Gerry McCann began legal proceedings against the Rupert Murdoch-owned title after it claimed they had kept secret from police "a crucial piece of evidence" in the investigation.

That alleged evidence was an e-fit of a potential suspect which was created by a former British spy for the McCanns' own probe in to their daughter's disappearance.

Also cited by the McCanns in their complaint were comments posted by readers below the online version of the article, which was pulled down by News UK just under two weeks after publication.

But it caused the couple "severe embarrassment and distress," they claimed in court documents.

Alleging the Sunday Times' article damaged their reputation, the McCann's said that the story implied they had allowed "the trail to go cold," reported Press Gazette.

The Sunday Times later apologised for the article, which had carried the headline "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago."

The McCanns are seeking unspecified damages.

www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-gerry-mccann-suing-sunday-times-over-madeleine-clue-defamation-1466318

[John]

The first report by NewsGazette was in the past tense and claims that the libel has been settled yet this more recent report is in the present tense and claims an ongoing suit.  Who does one believe?

[Brietta]

I think it's perfectly simple, John.

Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an e-fit in January 2008, but refused.

It is plain common sense that all the time he thought he had seen Gerry he would refuse.

It was surely only after the files were released in August 2008 following shelving of the first enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been mistaken (to suppose the man was Gerry) and agreed to produce the e-fit.

The e-fits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police by 2009, yet they chose the moment of the crimewatch programme to release the efit.

You simply cannot produce an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted other than in the context of a live enquiry.

The police understood that, and the McCanns would have been crucified for doing so, particularly when the police had chosen to wait until the launch of a fresh investigation.

Indeed, it's not even clear that the McCanns were in a position to release the efit before the police.  Did they actually have it in their possession?

None of us have a clue why the efits were not released in 2009 but as they were in the possession of the police here and in Portugal that would tend to exonerate Madeleine’s parents from deliberate obfuscation.

It should be remembered that the Drs McCann were striving to have Madeleine’s case reopened and would be anxious not to upset law enforcement in any way.

We have no idea what advice they may have been given. 

However if they have sufficient grounds to sue it suggest to me that the ST were wrong in the assertion in their original article - as the apology confirms.

[John]

If you were the parent of a child whom you claim has been abducted and you have in your possession e-fits of a man carrying a child around the same time that the claimed abduction occurred, would you not want to post them up on every possible location all over PdL because I most certainly would?

[Anna]

None of us have a clue why the efits were not released in 2009 but as they were in the possession of the police here and in Portugal that would tend to exonerate Madeleine’s parents from deliberate obfuscation.

It should be remembered that the Drs McCann were striving to have Madeleine’s case reopened and would be anxious not to upset law enforcement in any way.

We have no idea what advice they may have been given. 

However if they have sufficient grounds to sue it suggest to me that the ST were wrong in the assertion in their original article - as the apology confirms.

I am still confused, as to who could have done efit. Since all of the Smith family said That they could not recognise him in person or photo. It was very poor light in the street too, but that efit looks very precise to me.

[John]

I am still confused, as to who could have done efit. Since all of the Smith family said That they could not recognise him in person or photo. It was very poor light in the street too, but that efit looks very precise to me.

Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.

[Mr Gray]

Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.

but the smiths said they hardly saw his face

[Eleanor]

Just try, will ya.  Make it up as you go along.  Both of them.

[Anna]

Halligen said he persuaded the Smith's to do them.

Persauded them to do an efit of a face they never saw? but it was Halligen after all!

[Alice Purjorick]

Well whatever!
The Yard still seem to think they need account for who "efit man" really is so on that basis he is "relevant to our enquiries sir" but we are not telling you why.

[Anna]

Well whatever!
The Yard still seem to think they need account for who "efit man" really is so on that basis he is "relevant to our enquiries sir" but we are not telling you why.

 

I can understand them needing to find him, even if only for elimination, but it still is a possibility that the man looks nothing like the efit. We don't know who done it with the help of Halligen.

[Brietta]

Persauded them to do an efit of a face they never saw? but it was Halligen after all!

If the very questionable Halligen was the source it may explain why two police forces didn't see fit to use them, could be they just didn't believe they were an accurate representation, similarly the directors of the Madeleine fund had already been fleeced by him and had plenty of reason to trust nothing emanating from that source.

That the Met saw fit to use the efits to launch the new investigation suggests they must have reasons which were not apparent five years ago - they sure aren't going to tell us in the middle of an active investigation though.

[Anna]

If the very questionable Halligen was the source it may explain why two police forces didn't see fit to use them, could be they just didn't believe they were an accurate representation, similarly the directors of the Madeleine fund had already been fleeced by him and had plenty of reason to trust nothing emanating from that source.

That the Met saw fit to use the efits to launch the new investigation suggests they must have reasons which were not apparent five years ago - they sure aren't going to tell us in the middle of an active investigation though.

I believe that to be the case. Afterall would you trust an efit that he persuaded someone to put together, who probably didnt see the face they were describing and said they could not recognise in person or photo?
      It seems as if this efit may have come from elsewhere, but where?
I think SY suspect who this person is and are fishing. I hope they find him however.

[Brietta]

I believe that to be the case. Afterall would you trust an efit that he persuaded someone to put together, who probably didnt see the face they were describing and said they could not recognise in person or photo?
      It seems as if this efit may have come from elsewhere, but where?
I think SY suspect who this person is and are fishing. I hope they find him however.

I agree, Anna.
I do not think the Smiths, with the best will in the world, would have been capable of providing information to enable such detailed efits to be produced.
Jane Tanner could not do it because she did not see the man's face ... neither did the Smiths.