Sunday Times sued by McCanns

[slartibartfast]

The McCanns are donating the £50,000 to charity Stephen - but I'm sure that won't stop you finding fault with them for doing that.

Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?

[Benice]

Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?

I have no idea.   Does it really matter?    Although in some people's eyes whatever they decided to do with the money will be wrong.

At least two charities will benefit from the £50,000 because of their decision.

That's a good thing isn't it?

[Alice Purjorick]

Just wonder why they don't put it in fund?

Possibly that might not be a smooth move right now?

[slartibartfast]

Possibly that might not be a smooth move right now?

Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?

[Alice Purjorick]

Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?

That of course is possible. IF public perception was that the fund was to provide funds specifically to look for Madeleine then after all the summers publicity public perception may be that as The Yard have a team of 37 together with the Portuguese Police looking for Madeleine.. well join up the dots sir!

[Miss Taken Identity]

Sort of questions why, maybe public perception of the fund isn't what it was?

Yes, I think the public caught on quite quickly!  they stopped donating!

They were quite happy to take the money from The NOW which was earmarked for CHARITIES!

The times issued an apology they didn't like that, they took the money and had no choice to give the money to charities I  believe for two reasons.

1.The public are not in the mood for this 'celebrity couple' wingin all the time about their reputations..ha!
2.  they are trying to win the public over by showing what nice people they are...oh ook they give money to charity....Meh.

[Brietta]

I have no idea.   Does it really matter?    Although in some people's eyes whatever they decided to do with the money will be wrong.

At least two charities will benefit from the £50,000 because of their decision.

That's a good thing isn't it?

I don't know either, but can make a guess that if the money is put into the fund it will lie there until the official investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is concluded and the Met have intimated it is likely to be a long haul.

Isn't it better that the money has been directed to be used for good now rather than at some future time when the fund may no longer be required.

However it is sadly very true that whatever they decided to do would meet with criticism.

[slartibartfast]

I don't know either, but can make a guess that if the money is put into the fund it will lie there until the official investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is concluded and the Met have intimated it is likely to be a long haul.

Isn't it better that the money has been directed to be used for good now rather than at some future time when the fund may no longer be required.

However it is sadly very true that whatever they decided to do would meet with criticism.

Bit of a waste of time suing really.

[Anna]

Bit of a waste of time suing really.

It is a deterrent to others, who may be contemplating, publishing untruths in the press and they are quite entitled to put the money in their own account………..But it is very unlikely that they would do this.

[John]

And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract.  Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?

[Eleanor]

And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract.  Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?

Brian Kennedy was hardly likely to pay Halligen,  and give him the opportunity to sell The McCann's Story, possibly to The Times.

Did any of the other agencies sign such an agreement?

[ferryman]

And the question about the e-fits remains unanswered as does those relating to the gagging clause in the Oakley contract.  Remind me, why was Halligen gagged?

I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.

McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...

[slartibartfast]

I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.

McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...

As far as I can see, the Sunday Times retraction said that they stated that the McCanns withheld the eFits for which they had no evidence. It didn't actually say the the efits were not withheld.

[Brietta]

I think the question of the e-fits is probably answered in full.

McCanns wouldn't have won their action otherwise ...

Absolutely ... it is foolish to think otherwise.

The fact that the Times felt it necessary to settle out of court - in conjunction with the police in Portugal and Britain being in possession of the efits - compiled by a firm which has defrauded the Madeleine fund - suggests that there was no official police belief that the efits were relevant. 

Why should the Drs McCann have thought otherwise and have confidence in them under the circumstances. 

Dr K McCann gave the sighting itself a lot of credence in MADELEINE.

>>snip<<
He was seen by an Irish family called Smith, who gave a statement to police soon after their holiday. The e-fits were compiled by private detectives in September 2008. However, Redwood said, for years the sighting was seen as “wrong place, wrong time” and thus unimportant. 
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1332079/suspect-sighting-madeleine-mccann-case-was-false-lead-say-police-they

>>snip<<
The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory”, a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24Horas.

The same source specified: “First he said that he saw Maddie’s father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility”.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/irishman-was-already-discarded-24horas.html

[Alice Purjorick]

Dontchas just love it when the supporters use J. Morais' blogspot to further their arguments.