Gonçalo Amaral claimed that so-called Smithman e-fits were simply a ruse!

[pegasus]

No smithman e-fits on the main page
http://findmadeleine.com/pt/home.html

No smithman e-fits on the unidentified people of interest page
http://findmadeleine.com/pt/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

[Alfie]

Clearly you can't back up what you said. OK

 
You claimed that we have to treat the 9 Tapas diners' statements as one because they all agreed the timeline, then in the very next sentence you tell us that Gerry gives a time at odds with the rest of the group for the alarm being raised.  If you can't see how this contradicts your contention that they were all working off a pre-agreed timeline then I can draw you a picture if necessary....

[G-Unit]

An interesting side-line is that Gail Coooper's sighting classically illustrates the difference between intelligence and evidence.

Gail Cooper's sighting came before Madeleine's abduction, so we can state, certainly, that she did not witness Madeleine's abduction.

But (conceivably, not necessarily) she might have witnessed Madeleine's abductor.

So, in the light of Madeleine's abduction (and very properly!)  she offered the efit.

That is intelligence, which subsequent information and developments may (or may not!) make, also, evidence.

(Incidentally, full justification in the efit being published when it was).

The Smith sighting (by contrast) is actual evidence, potentially, Madeleine's abduction.

Hence the reason the two sightings were treated very differently.

I'm not referring to what the police did, but to what the McCanns did. They publicised Cooper's efit and had no objection to the NotW naming him as the 'abductor'.

When they got a much more significant lead; Smithman, they ignored it, although there was no-one stopping them from publicising it.

Wriggle away though if you wish, I expect nothing less.

[G-Unit]

You claimed that we have to treat the 9 Tapas diners' statements as one because they all agreed the timeline, then in the very next sentence you tell us that Gerry gives a time at odds with the rest of the group for the alarm being raised.  If you can't see how this contradicts your contention that they were all working off a pre-agreed timeline then I can draw you a picture if necessary....

The T9 went to the trouble of agreeing the timeline and then all strayed from it in their individual statements. Obviously it wasn't completely correct.

[jassi]

Yes - it was.

quote:
5. The McCanns were forced to make a legal claim in the High Court because of the Sunday Times' refusal to accept responsibility.
6. Only after the newspaper was sued did the it accept liability and offer to settle the case.
end quote.


Date 3 October 2014

Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages

Carter-Ruc k Solicitor s
6 St Andre w Stree t
Londo n EC4 A 3 A E

The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).

Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October 2013.

The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.

The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false.

As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.

The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a copy of which is attached.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF

The report quoted sounds more like an out of court settlement.

It wouldn't be a question of Sunday Times agreeing to pay a certain amount  if a court had ordered it

[Alfie]

The T9 went to the trouble of agreeing the timeline and then all strayed from it in their individual statements. Obviously it wasn't completely correct.

So their statements can all be taken as individual statements, not as one homogenous mutually agreed statement as you claimed.  Whether you choose to believe only one, two or none of them, is your prerogative but don't claim that their statements amount to one statement, it's not true as you yourself pointed out with Gerry's claim of a later time for the alarm.

[Brietta]

The report quoted sounds more like an out of court settlement.

It wouldn't be a question of Sunday Times agreeing to pay a certain amount  if a court had ordered it

Uh Huh ... now why do you suppose that would be?

The forum has already had a full discussion of why Times newspapers had to recompense the McCanns:  quite simply they libelled or in other words printed lies about them.  If you cannot accept the recorded and glaringly obvious truth of the matter nothing I can say will lift the blinkers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5267.msg187263#msg187263

[ferryman]

I'm not referring to what the police did, but to what the McCanns did. They publicised Cooper's efit and had no objection to the NotW naming him as the 'abductor'.

When they got a much more significant lead; Smithman, they ignored it, although there was no-one stopping them from publicising it.

Wriggle away though if you wish, I expect nothing less.

I "wriggle" from nothing.

You just don't understand the principle. 

If you are Portuguese, I forgive you.

But I don't think I can (explain the principle in a way you would understand).

[jassi]

Uh Huh ... now why do you suppose that would be?

The forum has already had a full discussion of why Times newspapers had to recompense the McCanns:  quite simply they libelled or in other words printed lies about them.  If you cannot accept the recorded and glaringly obvious truth of the matter nothing I can say will lift the blinkers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5267.msg187263#msg187263

I'm merely questioning whether it actually went to a court ruling.What you quoted makes no mention of a court ruling, only that the ST agreed to pay a sum of money and agreed to pay the McCann's legal costs.

I'm not making any comment about what ST wrote in their article.

[G-Unit]

So their statements can all be taken as individual statements, not as one homogenous mutually agreed statement as you claimed.  Whether you choose to believe only one, two or none of them, is your prerogative but don't claim that their statements amount to one statement, it's not true as you yourself pointed out with Gerry's claim of a later time for the alarm.

Well, you can take your pick. The collective timelines, given to the PJ to 'help' them are clearly useless.

Taking individual statements the alarm was raised between 9.45 and 10.13pm.

Independent witnesses suggest an even earlier time.

My conclusion; the timeline can't be relied on, because there is no definitive timeline.

[G-Unit]

I "wriggle" from nothing.

You just don't understand the principle. 

If you are Portuguese, I forgive you.

But I don't think I can (explain the principle in a way you would understand).

It has nothing to do with principles, it's very simple. The McCanns publicised one lead and didn't publicise another nine months later. They made that choice, no-one else. Had they wanted to publicise it they would have sent Clarence off to do another press conference. They didn't want to publicise it apparently.

[pegasus]

Were the police able to trace him for elimination purposes?

UK investigative journalists located a man in Altura resembling GC's photofit and when they showed photographs of him to GC, she reportedly confirmed it was the man she had seen:

"He's the spitting image of the man I saw three times at the resort where Madeleine vanished. It's deeply shocking to see my drawing come to life."
 
Do you know if the private detectives working for MFLNSUL followed this up at all?

[Robittybob1]

It has nothing to do with principles, it's very simple. The McCanns publicised one lead and didn't publicise another nine months later. They made that choice, no-one else. Had they wanted to publicise it they would have sent Clarence off to do another press conference. They didn't want to publicise it apparently.

They would your own feelings on the matter.  In the New theory I can see good reasons for this, for too much pressure on Smithman is not a good thing.  Somehow Smithman has to come clean through his own conscience and get the McCann's forgiveness, for they will be hoping Smithman knows where MM is.

[Alfie]

Well, you can take your pick. The collective timelines, given to the PJ to 'help' them are clearly useless.

Taking individual statements the alarm was raised between 9.45 and 10.13pm.

Independent witnesses suggest an even earlier time.

My conclusion; the timeline can't be relied on, because there is no definitive timeline.

your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone.  What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13.  Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!

[Alice Purjorick]

your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone.  What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13. Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!

Does it ?
How did you arrive at that conclusion ?
Is the universally accepted definition of "around" +/- 8.333% then ?