The Smithman e-fits

[Robittybob1]

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.

  what does MFLNSU stand for please?

[misty]

  what does MFLNSU stand for please?

Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned

[slartibartfast]

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.

The PIs were working for the fund and indirectly for the McCanns. It is only natural that the fund decides what to do with information provided by companies it employs. Not libel just a business relationship. If information of a critical nature were passed to the fund they would of course immediately pass it on to the relevant police force...

[misty]

The PIs were working for the fund and indirectly for the McCanns. It is only natural that the fund decides what to do with information provided by companies it employs. Not libel just a business relationship. If information of a critical nature were passed to the fund they would of course immediately pass it on to the relevant police force...

So would you therefore agree any insinuation that the McCanns, rather than the Company, were responsible for what happened to information collected by the PI's is libellous?
ETA Kate & Gerry were not part of the business until 12/11/08 when they became directors.

[Brietta]

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.

We do not know why the Portuguese and Leicestershire police sat on the Smith efits.  I do not know if LP had a file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" ... but I do know the Portuguese did.
The press release from Carter Ruck detailing the settlement made by the Sunday Times in respect of libel damages to Kate and Gerry McCann is as you have said unequivocal in its wording:

Notes to editors

• The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann 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 it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this discussion should never have arisen.

There is no-one posting here who does not know of the High Court decision concerning the lies printed by the Sunday Times.
Therefore there is no reason why any member should feel free to reiterate it ... it is libel plain and simple.

The McCann's have enough experience of these matters to recognise that there is a rampant expertise in finding a big cesspit, jumping in with both feet to tread and keep it smelling before grabbing handfuls of the resultant muck and chucking it in their direction ad infinitum.

They weren't being psychic in recognising the Sunday Times libel as such a cesspit ... they were just stating the facts of their lives when they said ...

"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings - before it behaved reasonably.
But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse"  Kate and Gerry McCann

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

[slartibartfast]

So would you therefore agree any insinuation that the McCanns, rather than the Company, were responsible for what happened to information collected by the PI's is libellous?

The directors of the fund are responsible collectively for what happened to the information.

[slartibartfast]

We do not know why the Portuguese and Leicestershire police sat on the Smith efits.  I do not know if LP had a file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" ... but I do know the Portuguese did.
The press release from Carter Ruck detailing the settlement made by the Sunday Times in respect of libel damages to Kate and Gerry McCann is as you have said unequivocal in its wording:

Notes to editors

• The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann 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 it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this discussion should never have arisen.

There is no-one posting here who does not know of the High Court decision concerning the lies printed by the Sunday Times.
Therefore there is no reason why any member should feel free to reiterate it ... it is libel plain and simple.

The McCann's have enough experience of these matters to recognise that there is a rampant expertise in finding a big cesspit, jumping in with both feet to tread and keep it smelling before grabbing handfuls of the resultant muck and chucking it in their direction ad infinitum.

They weren't being psychic in recognising the Sunday Times libel as such a cesspit ... they were just stating the facts of their lives when they said ...

"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings - before it behaved reasonably.
But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse"  Kate and Gerry McCann

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

Or as the paper said...

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. 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. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

[misty]

The directors of the fund are responsible collectively for what happened to the information.

Kate & Gerry were not directors when either Oakley were appointed or the contract was terminated.

[Brietta]

Or as the paper said...

"We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."

There must be a reason why Leicestershire police and the Portuguese sat on them?  Do you think it might have been that they were put in the file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" that no-one knew existed until Ricardo Paiva spilled the beans about it in 2010?

[slartibartfast]

Kate & Gerry were not directors when either Oakley were appointed or the contract was terminated.

Halligen was CEO of private investigators Oakley International when he was hired by the McCanns.

Kate recalled: “Oakley’s proposal and overall strategy were streets ahead of all the others we’d considered and the company came highly recommended.”

[misty]

Did you miss the involvement of the Fund director Brian Kennedy in the appointment of Oakley?

[G-Unit]

Kate & Gerry were not directors when either Oakley were appointed or the contract was terminated.

No they weren't, but they seem to have had a say nevertheless;

Oakley’s proposal and overall strategy were streets ahead of all the others we’d considered......we agreed that our contract with them [madeleine]

[G-Unit]

We do not know why the Portuguese and Leicestershire police sat on the Smith efits.  I do not know if LP had a file marked "Not relevant to the investigation" ... but I do know the Portuguese did.
The press release from Carter Ruck detailing the settlement made by the Sunday Times in respect of libel damages to Kate and Gerry McCann is as you have said unequivocal in its wording:

Notes to editors

• The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann 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 it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this discussion should never have arisen.

There is no-one posting here who does not know of the High Court decision concerning the lies printed by the Sunday Times.
Therefore there is no reason why any member should feel free to reiterate it ... it is libel plain and simple.

The McCann's have enough experience of these matters to recognise that there is a rampant expertise in finding a big cesspit, jumping in with both feet to tread and keep it smelling before grabbing handfuls of the resultant muck and chucking it in their direction ad infinitum.

They weren't being psychic in recognising the Sunday Times libel as such a cesspit ... they were just stating the facts of their lives when they said ...

"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings - before it behaved reasonably.
But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse"  Kate and Gerry McCann

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

I know that the High Court didn't hand down a decision in the case of the McCanns v The Sunday Times because the case never got to court.

[G-Unit]

Did you miss the involvement of the Fund director Brian Kennedy in the appointment of Oakley?

Was he more involved than the other directors?

[jassi]

Did you miss the involvement of the Fund director Brian Kennedy in the appointment of Oakley?

Which Kennedy are you talking about - uncle or benefactor?