Sunday Times sued by McCanns

[Bert Singe]

I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?

"Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund."

[faithlilly]

I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?

"Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund."

Good point Bert.

[Alfred R Jones]

I wonder how true this part was given the fact Exton has not also sued the Sunday Times?

"Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund."

why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them? 

[faithlilly]

So everyone's honesty is to be questioned.......that is apart from the McCanns !

[Bert Singe]

why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them?

Are you suggesting he is being dishonest about detectives obtaining written permission from the fund?

[stephen25000]

why would he sue the Times over a claim he obviously made to them?

How could you think otherwise Faithlilly.

The mere notion that the McCann's have told lies in this case and through it's aftermath.............. &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

Are you suggesting he is being dishonest about detectives obtaining written permission from the fund?

No, why would you think that?

[Brietta]

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

What on earth is amiss with using Joana’s blogs?
Are you telling me they are anything other than as impeccable as her translations?  WOW!

[Alice Purjorick]

What on earth is amiss with using Joana’s blogs?
Are you telling me they are anything other than as impeccable as her translations?  WOW!

It is rather like simultaneously supporting Liverpool and Everton. J M being a figure of ridicule to the supporters and all.
I don't know enough about her to make a informed judgement of her.

[John]

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

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

Actually, far from it.  Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.

Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!

[Bert Singe]

No, why would you think that?

So in your opinion, Exton is being truthful and detectives had to obtain written permission FROM THE FUND?????

Who is this almighty fund that decrees written permission must be sought for Exton to release efits that are already in possession of the Portuguese and UK police?

Who is this almighty fund that "PREVENTED" Exton from handing over potentially crucial efits to Scotland Yard, the "world's finest police force", who clearly couldn't obtain it from their own counterparts?

What happened to the efits originally given to the police? Why didn't "the fund" just tell Scotland Yard at the time, that their was no need to sign anything, due to the relevant forces already having them in their possession?

As usual, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this case.

[Alfred R Jones]

So in your opinion, Exton is being truthful and detectives had to obtain written permission FROM THE FUND?????

Who is this almighty fund that decrees written permission must be sought for Exton to release efits that are already in possession of the Portuguese and UK police?

Who is this almighty fund that "PREVENTED" Exton from handing over potentially crucial efits to Scotland Yard, the "world's finest police force", who clearly couldn't obtain it from their own counterparts?

What happened to the efits originally given to the police? Why didn't "the fund" just tell Scotland Yard at the time, that their was no need to sign anything, due to the relevant forces already having them in their possession?

As usual, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this case.

I don't know the answers to your questions but my guess is this: there was a legal confidentiality clause forbidding Exton from (for example) selling his findings to the News of the World or divulging them to any other Tom, Dick or Harry, and as with all legally binding clauses written agreement needed to be sought and given before information covered by the clause was given.  No doubt if this is ridiculously implausible or unreasonable you'll be the first to tell me why.

[ferryman]

Actually, far from it.  Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.

Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!

Try again.

At the end of January 2008 Mr Smith told the Irish Gardia police that he had been approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an e-fit, but had refused.

By 2009 the efits were in the hands of British and Portuguese police.

So nothing suppressed for 5 years.

Unless you want to accuse British and Portuguese police of "suppressing" the efits.

My guess is that (at least British) police judged that the e-fit could be released only in the context of a live and on-going enquiry.

And that makes perfect sense.

The prior judgment would have been that releasing an e-fit a man seeing carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted, was not on, apart from an official and on-going enquiry.

Then that changed and a fresh enquiry was launched -- and the efit released, during the Crimewatch programme

Imagine the outcry if the McCanns had gainsaid the police by releasing it themselves, even if they were in a position to, which isn't clear, at least to me ...

[Alice Purjorick]

Actually, far from it.  Had the Times reporter not written the wrong story there wouldn't have been any libel in the first place.

Fact is... The e-fits were withheld from the public for over 5 years!

Despite you writing it on sign and smacking them over the head with it, John. I don't they have spotted what you are saying!!
 

[ferryman]

Despite you writing it on sign and smacking them over the head with it, John. I don't they have spotted what you are saying!!
 

John's abject failure to provide proper context badly needed exposing.

I exposed it.