Have the Oakley e-fits added anything to the search for Madeleine McCann?

[Brietta]

It is known that there was a gap between the efits being produced and them being handed to the police of about a year. How would the Sunday Times know what part of the McCann organisation prevented or neglected the passing of the efits to the relevant authorities. Stating it was the McCanns was the libel.

Where did you get the information from that any part of the "McCann organisation" might have prevented or might have neglected to pass information which might have been relevant to Madeleine's abduction to the authorities?

[slartibartfast]

Where did you get the information from that any part of the "McCann organisation" might have prevented or might have neglected to pass information which might have been relevant to Madeleine's abduction to the authorities?

It's what the apology says. There was a gap before the police got the efits therefore they neglected to send them or decided not to. Quite simple. If it wasn't true, the McCanns wouldn't have accepted it.

[Brietta]

It's what the apology says. There was a gap before the police got the efits therefore they neglected to send them or decided not to. Quite simple. If it wasn't true, the McCanns wouldn't have accepted it.

The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to issue an apology to them.

The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to pay them damages.

[stephen25000]

The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to issue an apology to them.

The McCanns were libelled ... which is why the Sunday Times were forced to pay them damages.

The photo fits were made on behalf of the Mccanns. TRUE.

They were withheld for several years.  TRUE.

[faithlilly]

This from the Guardian of 2nd of October 2014.

"After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said."

Makes you wonder that if the McCanns had such a good case and if they were so displeased by the paltry settlement and apology why they did take the case to trial?

BTW Brietta, no front page apology !

[Brietta]

The photo fits were made on behalf of the Mccanns. TRUE.

They were withheld for several years.  TRUE.

Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.

However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.

[faithlilly]

You really do not know the truth of the matter and could well be blundering into innuendo leading to libel. 
Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.

However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.

And however much you wish it to be true, the Times agreed an out of court settlement and suggesting otherwise is sheer disinformation.

[stephen25000]

Were I you I would refrain from speculating on "true facts" in the awareness that the Sunday Times printed an accusation against the McCanns which when taken to court, was admitted to libel them.
Damages were paid and an apology issued as a result.

However much you wish it not to be true ... the truth of the matter is that the newspaper article was libel.

Read Faithlilly's  response.

When you type your mantra Brietta, the only people who agree with you will be your fellow supporters.

[pathfinder73]

What they printed suggested that the McCanns hid efits from the authorities for 5 years so were sued. They should have printed - Why were crucial efits withheld from the public for 5 years? Then investigate further. Why were they not included in Madeleine released 3 years later when allegedly only the McCanns were still working on the case? When were the efits first produced and seen by the McCanns? etc. This is a serious matter especially when Exon was reported to have said, “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

"Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years"

"We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/

[Benice]

And however much you wish it to be true, the Times agreed an out of court settlement and suggesting otherwise is sheer disinformation.

IMO The Times agreed to an out of court settlement because their lawyers advised them they didn't have a leg to stand on, and to go to court would have been even more costly and entail even more unfavourable publicity than an out of court settlement.

No newspaper is going to admit libel and pay compensation unless they know for sure they are guilty and have no choice.

It's not rocket science, or even comes close.

The ability of some to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.

[Brietta]

What is it with the reluctance to accept that the McCanns were libelled by the Sunday Times despite their clear admission of the offence?

Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck

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

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 October2013.

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


It really could not be much clearer or simpler to understand than that.

[pathfinder73]

There's a right way and a wrong way to investigate and they chose the latter. You ask questions and maybe they would have got an answer or no comment 

[stephen25000]

Brietta.

Was it really a fear by the Sunday Times owners  of being Carter-Rucked ?

More than possible.

Meanwhile, The McCann's ordered the photo fits and the they were withheld.

The McCann's could have released them anytime .

They didn't.


Just the facts Mam.

Now remind me of who the photo fits are reminiscent of ?

[faithlilly]

What is it with the reluctance to accept that the McCanns were libelled by the Sunday Times despite their clear admission of the offence?

Press Release
Date 3 October 2014
Carter-Ruck

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

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 October2013.

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


It really could not be much clearer or simpler to understand than that.

Libel was not proved.

[Alfie]

Libel was not proved.

Why pay out and apologise then?