Sunday Times sued by McCanns

[pathfinder73]

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 ...

Of course they were suppressed. The efits weren't in the leaving no stone unturned fantasy book.

[Bert Singe]

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 ...

Why then did Scotland Yard seek written permission from the fund before using efits they required from Exton if they already had them on file? What sort of inept policing is that?

[Miss Taken Identity]

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!

Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?


The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.

In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN  which to be honest were ridiculed by many.

Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.

So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
 a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....

Well there you have it!

[Wonderfulspam]

Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?


The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.

In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN  which to be honest were ridiculed by many.

Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.

So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
 a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....

Well there you have it!

The company was Oakley, Henri Exton is former MI5.

[Bert Singe]

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.

In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.

How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?

This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?

[Miss Taken Identity]

My apologies for that typo...I was reading something else at the time!

[Mr Gray]

In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.

How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?

This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?

The massive weakness in your argument is that you are basing it on a newspaper story....one that has been shown to be innaccurate

[Miss Taken Identity]

In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.

How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?

This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?

Are you expecting a decent reply to challenge this?....Don't hold your breath! You do know you will be targeted as being a 'non believer' and troll'.  Oh, but It is worth it.

Excellent post!

[ferryman]

Tsk John, you are not making yourself very clear about what you mean...May I?


The McCann's set up a fund (company) called no stone unturned- the public were donating as they believed the money was being used to search for Maddie.

In the early days- we got the various versions of TANNER MAN  which to be honest were ridiculed by many.

Now a compnay called Exon had done an investigation- acquired an e-fit and gave it to their employers: * No stone unturned* company. The title is unambiguous they desperately want to find their child!... BUT, well, thing is they didn't give these efits to the public like the other efits- they didn't go on Oprah and Lorraine and all over the bloody world with this ONE E-FIT.

So let's to an equation to see if this can be scientifically proved.
No stone unturned sets out to find Maddie- leaving no stone unturned.
 a=efit
b=public awareness (to find Maddie)
answer c=withheld efit from public.....

Well there you have it!

Now a compnay called Exon ...

I think you might mean a man called Henri Exton

[Jean-Pierre]

The comapny was Oakley International. 

Miss Taken by name.......... 

[Bert Singe]

The massive weakness in your argument is that you are basing it on a newspaper story....one that has been shown to be innaccurate

On the contrary.

My first question yesterday dealt with that subject. If this particular piece of the article is inaccurate then why hasn't Exton sued? He's already witness the Sunday Times pay out to the McCanns so one would think he'd be salivating at the thought of easy pickings?

Unless of course this particular excerpt is wholly accurate?

[Alfred R Jones]

In relation to the news of the world or Tom, Dick and Harry it's plausible. In relation to a UK police force in possession of the case files it is not. Amongst those case files should have been the efits.

How about this question? Do you think it plausible that Exton, being a significant part of the detective team who produced the efits would already have been aware that the UK police had been given the efits years ago? Why would information like that be kept from an integral part of the detective team?

This being the case, why is Exton then attempting to give that information to Scotland Yard if it's already part of the case files in their possession?

You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns.  SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally.   Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...

[ferryman]

You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns.  SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally.   Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...

I think it's also a key point as to when the e-fit was produced.

My guess is, after the files were released in August 2008, and Mr Smith realised he had been mistaken to suppose the man was Gerry ...

[Bert Singe]

You seem to be tying yourself up in knots in order to try and prove some sort of cover-up on the part of the Fund / The McCanns.  SY wanted access to all the available data uncovered by Exton and had to write a formal letter to the Fund before he could release it legally.   Had the Fund denied SY access to the Report then granted you might have a point, otherwise I fail to see what your problem is...

The knots are all yours.

Who told you SY wanted access to "all the data" uncovered by Exton? Are you joining the dots to form your own picture? Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?

[Alfred R Jones]

The knots are all yours.

Who told you SY wanted access to "all the data" uncovered by Exton? Are you joining the dots to form your own picture? Why would SY want access to information that according to the McCann's has already formed part of the case files? Did the McCann's not previously provide this after all? Did they just pass along an efit with no explanation of said efit? What purpose would that serve?

Exton did: see below.  No specific mention of e-fits in the quote you chose to highlight earlier.


"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."