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/
I tried to stick this story in my filing system and trying to index it made me think.
The 'by' in 'by October 2009'. That makes it vague, in the sense that it could have been earlier, for one or both forces.
I wonder what evidence convinced the ST? And I wonder why the McCanns did not produce such evidence earlier, before publication? Please note, having been Mirrored, I am aware that the timescale between a media approach for comments on an upcoming story and publication is of the order of a few days, so I am not impugning the McCanns.
Then there is the legal letter insisting on confidentiality. Why is anything about this significant? Unless the contractual relationship between the McCanns and Oakley was weird, the contract would have included a confidentiality agreement. The termination of the contract was not harmonious. A legal letter was written reminding Oakley the report was subject to confidentiality. It strikes me as appropriate, given the circumstances.
