The Smithman e-fits

[Brietta]

I know that the case was archived. I have seen no evidence that the PJ stopped looking for a live child on 5th May. I also know that the case comes under Portuguese jurisdiction. Have I suggested otherwise?

I can see nothing libellous in my posts. It would help if you were more specific so I could avoid making the same mistake again.

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 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.

https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF


You posted:
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.


In my opinion you chose your wording with great care ... but in my opinion you are repeating the lie which cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.
Your previous posting history gives me absolutely no hesitation in saying you will never make the same mistake again because as far as I am concerned you didn't make a mistake in the first instance.

[Angelo222]

The Sunday Times libel related to the claim that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits and so obstructed the investigation.  I edited the original post to remove any potential libel.

It should be noted however that there was a delay in forwarding the e-fits.  It should also be noted that there is a secret Report which Oakley did and which is being withheld from the public.

For the parents of a missing child who promised total transparency and formed a company called "Madeleine's Fund - Leaving no stone unturned limited", these things must be a constant embarrassment.

[slartibartfast]

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 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.

https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF


You posted:
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.


In my opinion you chose your wording with great care ... but in my opinion you are repeating the lie which cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.
Your previous posting history gives me absolutely no hesitation in saying you will never make the same mistake again because as far as I am concerned you didn't make a mistake in the first instance.

So what was the point of the complaint if you agree G-Unit didn’t libel?

[Eleanor]

So what was the point of the complaint if you agree G-Unit didn’t libel?

That isn't what Brietta said.

[G-Unit]

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 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.

https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF


You posted:
By making that decision the McCanns made themselves responsible for how the information they were given was treated. When the Smith e-fits were commissioned in 2008 they decided not to publicise them. That was their decision for which they are responsible.


In my opinion you chose your wording with great care ... but in my opinion you are repeating the lie which cost the Sunday Times £55,000 in libel damages.
Your previous posting history gives me absolutely no hesitation in saying you will never make the same mistake again because as far as I am concerned you didn't make a mistake in the first instance.

So when you posted to me 'You are libelling once again' you were giving your opinion, not stating a fact?

[G-Unit]

That isn't what Brietta said.

What is she saying, in your opinion?

[Eleanor]

What is she saying, in your opinion?

Repeated Libel is still Libel.

[slartibartfast]

Repeated Libel is still Libel.

It wasn’t libel, even Brietta agreed.

[Alice Purjorick]

So what was the point of the complaint if you agree G-Unit didn’t libel?

Good point.
Faithlilly and I both challenged the allegation of libel but received no response.
Strangely both posts no longer exist; the Goon Squad came through again I guess.

[jassi]

The Sunday Times libel related to the claim that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits and so obstructed the investigation.  I edited the original post to remove any potential libel.

It should be noted however that there was a delay in forwarding the e-fits.  It should also be noted that there is a secret Report which Oakley did and which is being withheld from the public.

For the parents of a missing child who promised total transparency and formed a company called "Madeleine's Fund - Leaving no stone unturned limited", these things must be a constant embarrassment.

Somehow I doubt that very much - I don't think they do embarrassment.

[G-Unit]

Repeated Libel is still Libel.

That's as maybe but I didn't, afaik, repeat anything which was in the Times article.

[Angelo222]

For the second time!!  I removed any potential libel from the original post.  And thank you Alice for calling me the goon squad.

[sadie]

Could be the PJ know who Smithman is but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest him YET.

I agree,

BUT THEN

I am thinking of a totally different person to you if I understand your  thought processes.

[Angelo222]

For the benefit of those who still don't understand it, the libel related to the allegation that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits from the authorities.  The Sunday Times later retracted this allegation and apologised.

The continued difficulty with all of this is that we still don't have defined dates as to when the e-fits were created or when they were passed to a police force. Given what we do know, I suspect there was a delay in doing so. However, the reason for that delay is anyone's guess.

[misty]

For the benefit of those who still don't understand it, the libel related to the allegation that the McCanns had withheld the e-fits from the authorities.  The Sunday Time later retracted this allegation and apologised.

The continued difficulty with all of this is that we still don't have defined dates as to when the e-fits were created or when they were passed to a police force. Given what we do know, I suspect there was a delay in doing so. However, the reason for that delay is anyone's guess.

The efits were created 4th September 2008. Oakley's final report was delivered to MFLNSU in November 2008.
Isn't the libel really the insinuation that the McCanns were responsible for if & how all the information received from their PI's was dealt with?
The McCanns may well have been acting on legal advice not to release those efits into the public domain. Equally there may have been copyright issues of the efits due to non-payment of production fee.`

All IMO.