Mitchell: McCanns move funds from Madeleine Fund to another account.

[Lyall]

       Could that uniqueness mean that "what about all the others" really never had any relevance.

Not with you there.

[Carana]

Giving those efits to police.

Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?

There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).

It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't been able to obtain. Don't know, but I find that plausible.

Edited for clarity.

[jassi]

Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?

There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).

It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't. Don't know, but I find that plausible.

Why would they need to do that when they could have easily obtained all the information from Leicestershire  police?

[Lyall]

Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?

There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).

It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't. Don't know, but I find that plausible.

Of course it's possible there were legal reasons why it took a year. There might be other reasons too, but why not just say so?

There may be reasons why they can't say so. But the Press Gazette said the Sunday Times didn't print everything Mitchell wanted them to, so if there was more to say in October 2013 there's more to say now. Mitchell still hasn't said what he says the Sunday Times declined to print. Why not?

[Carana]

police?

Why would they need to do that when they could have easily obtained all the information from Leicestershire

Would a live review with an investigative aspect have made a difference to legally force handing over information?

If some legal entities or sub-contractors were based in the US or elsewhere, there could have been a massive legal nightmare involved.

[Alfred R Jones]

If nobody cares why do the papers still keep putting the case on their front pages? Behave, Alfred. The case is unique in this country.

You misunderstand.  Of course people are interested in the McCann saga, but I very much doubt they are all clamouring to know why the McCanns felt it necessary to start a separate account for monies to be used to search for Madeleine, nor about the precise details of when e-fits were handed over to the police.  Behave yourself Lyall.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course it's possible there were legal reasons why it took a year. There might be other reasons too, but why not just say so?

There may be reasons why they can't say so. But the Press Gazette said the Sunday Times didn't print everything Mitchell wanted them to, so if there was more to say in October 2013 there's more to say now. Mitchell still hasn't said what he says the Sunday Times declined to print. Why not?

Because it's none of your business for crying out loud!!! 

[Mr Gray]

That is very altruistic of you, but do you really believe that your posts on here will make any difference in the general scheme of things?
To whom are you exposing the lies? less than 100 people?

of course I don't think my posts will make any difference in the grand scheme of life the universe and everything...I don't post to make any such difference...I just like to throw  a pebble in the pond and see the ripples..if you get my drift

[Lyall]

Because it's none of your business for crying out loud!!!

No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business

[Carana]

What substantiates even the (revised) heading of this thread?

Is it still based on a reported summary of what Clarence is supposed to have said about "keeping back" funds in the context of the official investigations shutting down?

"Keeping back" can simply mean mentally ensuring that reserves are available to continue searching.

[Carana]

No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business

Which means zilch. The rule used to be to find three independent sources for "facts". Cribbing on each other doesn't count.

[Alfred R Jones]

deleted.

[Alfred R Jones]

No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business

Business being the operative word. 

[Lyall]

Which means zilch. The rule used to be to find three independent sources for "facts". Cribbing on each other doesn't count.

It does mean something. It means interest exists beyond the forums, blogs and other social media.

Or it did in October 2013 at least.

[Alfred R Jones]

It does mean something. It means interest exists beyond the forums, blogs and other social media.

Or it did in October 2013 at least.

Of course interest exists beyond the forums, but interest in the minutiae of who handed what to whom on which date is of lesser interest.  Can you not see that there is 'interest' and then there is 'obsessive scrutiny'?