UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on March 07, 2018, 12:23:27 AM
-
"UK Justice Forum
@Justice_forum
Follow Follow @Justice_forum
More
Secret Oakley International Report into the disappearance of Madeleine #McCann might be released to the public following the death of crooked PI Kevin Halligen."
Other than the tweet I don't see much about it.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2809.msg77568#msg77568
"The Search for Madeleine McCann and Oakley International"
-
From Wikipedia.
"Oakley International
Further information: § Smith sighting
In 2008 Madeleine's Fund hired Oakley International, a Washington, D.C.-registered detective agency, for over £500,000 for six months.[231][236][237][238] (The company owner, Kevin Halligen, was arrested in 2009 in connection with an unrelated fraud allegation.[239]) Oakley sent a five-man team to Portugal. Led by Henri Exton, a former British police officer who had worked for MI5, the team engaged in undercover operations within the Ocean Club and among paedophile rings and the Roma community.[231]
Exton questioned the significance of the Tanner sighting of a man carrying a child at 21:15 near apartment 5A, and focused instead on the Smith sighting at 22:00—the sighting by Martin and Mary Smith of a man carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment that night. The Oakley team produced e-fits based on the Smiths' description. This was a sensitive issue, because in September 2007 Martin Smith had watched footage of the McCanns arriving in the UK from Portugal, and believed he recognized Gerry McCann as the man he had seen with the child in Praia da Luz. Smith came to accept that he was mistaken: at 22:00 witnesses placed Gerry McCann in the tapas restaurant. Nevertheless, publication of the Smith e-fits, which bore some resemblance to Gerry, would have fed the conspiracy theories about the McCanns.[61]
Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the fund told Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the fund had soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[61] The fund passed the e-fits to the police—the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[240]—but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.[61]
Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction. After it had aired, The Sunday Times published that the McCanns had had the e-fits since 2008.[61] In response the couple sued the newspaper for having implied (wrongly) that they had not only failed to publish them but had withheld them from the police. The newspaper apologized and paid £55,000 in damages.[240][241]"
-
From Wikipedia.
"Oakley International
Further information: § Smith sighting
In 2008 Madeleine's Fund hired Oakley International, a Washington, D.C.-registered detective agency, for over £500,000 for six months.[231][236][237][238] (The company owner, Kevin Halligen, was arrested in 2009 in connection with an unrelated fraud allegation.[239]) Oakley sent a five-man team to Portugal. Led by Henri Exton, a former British police officer who had worked for MI5, the team engaged in undercover operations within the Ocean Club and among paedophile rings and the Roma community.[231]
Exton questioned the significance of the Tanner sighting of a man carrying a child at 21:15 near apartment 5A, and focused instead on the Smith sighting at 22:00—the sighting by Martin and Mary Smith of a man carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment that night. The Oakley team produced e-fits based on the Smiths' description. This was a sensitive issue, because in September 2007 Martin Smith had watched footage of the McCanns arriving in the UK from Portugal, and believed he recognized Gerry McCann as the man he had seen with the child in Praia da Luz. Smith came to accept that he was mistaken: at 22:00 witnesses placed Gerry McCann in the tapas restaurant. Nevertheless, publication of the Smith e-fits, which bore some resemblance to Gerry, would have fed the conspiracy theories about the McCanns.[61]
Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the fund told Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the fund had soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[61] The fund passed the e-fits to the police—the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[240]—but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.[61]
Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction. After it had aired, The Sunday Times published that the McCanns had had the e-fits since 2008.[61] In response the couple sued the newspaper for having implied (wrongly) that they had not only failed to publish them but had withheld them from the police. The newspaper apologized and paid £55,000 in damages.[240][241]"
Crikey - has no-one corrected that yet? 8)-)))
-
Crikey - has no-one corrected that yet? 8)-)))
Who knows what is correct in the case of the Smiths. I can't see how Henri Exton produced an e-fit if Martin had not changed his mind. It would just about be considered a professional misconduct if he hadn't agreed it wasn't Gerry. Gemma may have editor rights on Wikipedia but I am glad I copied the version that is unchanged.
-
"Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008" according to the article in Wikipedia. Rather than calling it the Oakley report will I get better results with a search for the "Exton Report"?
Well first hit was this incredibly well written criticism of the Crimewatch program featuring the Smithman E-fits.
"Crimewatch: dupers or duped?
DAVID ELSTEIN 4 November 2013
The October edition of Crimewatch, focusing on the case of Madeleine McCann, featured new photofits of a potential suspect - only, they weren't new. According to the Sunday Times, they had been repressed by the McCanns themselves. The failure of the BBC to report this is extraordinary."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/crimewatch-dupers-or-duped
-
Next hit was back to the thread on the UK justice forum: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2798.msg95440#msg95440 "Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise?"
-
Halligen may have had a copy of the report, but I'm not convinced he gave it to the Fund/parents. His only interest seems to have been in taking the money while Exton's team did the work.
Handing over a report criticising those who are paying you is called 'biting the hand that feeds you'. Halligen might have been a fantasist, a drunk and a conman but he wasn't daft enough to do that imo.
-
Halligen may have had a copy of the report, but I'm not convinced he gave it to the Fund/parents. His only interest seems to have been in taking the money while Exton's team did the work.
Handing over a report criticising those who are paying you is called 'biting the hand that feeds you'. Halligen might have been a fantasist, a drunk and a conman but he wasn't daft enough to do that imo.
It could be used as a tool in a blackmail situation. It could be a scenario like this: "Don't show me up and I'll keep my report to myself!"
-
The third hit was to another forum CMOMM
"
In a series of tweets reproduced on the CMOMM forum by Get’emGonçalo, Gatton has revealed more about his knowledge of Halligen, and in turn about his role in the McCann case.
Here is what he said in his six tweets published on CMOMM:
‘Standard practice in corporate/intel/security/private investigations for intel work to be sub-contracted to specialists. Halligen attended some meetings, negotiated contract and fees (v. important), housed the operation at the Jermyn Street office’
‘Halligen was not in charge of the investigation into Madeleine McCann. Henri Exton was in charge, and his own team did collection (gathering intel), witness and source interviews, analysis, tasking, surveillance, cover, efits report-writing etc.’
Meanwhile Halligen undermined the real op by spending the money to find Madeleine on his ‘high roller’ lifestyle e.g. he didn’t pay the team doing the real on-the-ground-ops to find Madeleine, the ex-MI5 A4 surveillance team...)(emphasis: ex-MI5)’
‘Hope that provides a bit of clarity. Halligen did the deal through his company, but others did the serious work . In short, Halligen was a con-man who took that money but the work WAS done (eg see the Smith efits, adopted by Op Grange)’
‘Watch my ‘McCanns and the Con-Man’ for more context , though it only relates a fraction of the story’
‘Detectives from Operation Grange have the ‘Final Report’ Some say it served as a roadmap for the investigation . One question though: which edition of the report did Op Grange receive and did they receive the draft editions also?’
From these six tweets, it is plain that Gatton is repeating the rubbish we were expected to believe in ‘The McCanns and the Con-Man’."
Does Gatton whoever he is have access to more information than the rest of us?
-
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
Producer/Director, Journalist, Eternal Researcher ... Investigations, but have a sideline in con-artists, impostors, gas-lighters, oh, and Trump ...
London
adriangatton.net
-
The third hit was to another forum CMOMM
"
In a series of tweets reproduced on the CMOMM forum by Get’emGonçalo, Gatton has revealed more about his knowledge of Halligen, and in turn about his role in the McCann case.
Here is what he said in his six tweets published on CMOMM:
‘Standard practice in corporate/intel/security/private investigations for intel work to be sub-contracted to specialists. Halligen attended some meetings, negotiated contract and fees (v. important), housed the operation at the Jermyn Street office’
‘Halligen was not in charge of the investigation into Madeleine McCann. Henri Exton was in charge, and his own team did collection (gathering intel), witness and source interviews, analysis, tasking, surveillance, cover, efits report-writing etc.’
Meanwhile Halligen undermined the real op by spending the money to find Madeleine on his ‘high roller’ lifestyle e.g. he didn’t pay the team doing the real on-the-ground-ops to find Madeleine, the ex-MI5 A4 surveillance team...)(emphasis: ex-MI5)’
‘Hope that provides a bit of clarity. Halligen did the deal through his company, but others did the serious work . In short, Halligen was a con-man who took that money but the work WAS done (eg see the Smith efits, adopted by Op Grange)’
‘Watch my ‘McCanns and the Con-Man’ for more context , though it only relates a fraction of the story’
‘Detectives from Operation Grange have the ‘Final Report’ Some say it served as a roadmap for the investigation . One question though: which edition of the report did Op Grange receive and did they receive the draft editions also?’
From these six tweets, it is plain that Gatton is repeating the rubbish we were expected to believe in ‘The McCanns and the Con-Man’."
Does Gatton whoever he is have access to more information than the rest of us?
It would be nice to think so. ?{)(**
-
It could be used as a tool in a blackmail situation. It could be a scenario like this: "Don't show me up and I'll keep my report to myself!"
Then you need to explain why the directors of the Fund and or the McCanns were afraid of the report being released? They knew, after all, that they had been cleared, didn't they?
-
Then you need to explain why the directors of the Fund and or the McCanns were afraid of the report being released? They knew, after all, that they had been cleared, didn't they?
I would need know more about its contents first.
-
I can think of several reasons why a PI report, commissionned to help find a missing child, may not be for public consumption.
I don't see anything odd.
In the meantime, the ST article smacks to me of tabloid journalism. Not how I remember Insight investigative pieces years ago.
-
It would be nice to think so. ?{)(**
True, especially if he claims this "‘Watch my ‘McCanns and the Con-Man’ for more context , though it only relates a fraction of the story’
Is he claiming he wrote that documentary?
-
I can think of several reasons why a PI report, commissionned to help find a missing child, may not be for public consumption.
I don't see anything odd.
In the meantime, the ST article smacks to me of tabloid journalism. Not how I remember Insight investigative pieces years ago.
"Insight investigative pieces" can you explain that phrase for me please?
-
"Insight investigative pieces" can you explain that phrase for me please?
In the olden days (pre Murdoch) the Sunday Times Insight journalists were second to none. They reported on many issues and high profile events and were respected for their integrity and investigative skills.
-
"Insight investigative pieces" can you explain that phrase for me please?
"Insight" was (presumably still is) a section in the ST devoted to investigative journalism. It used to be highly regarded. Not the sort of journalism that one would expect to be sued over. Teams change over time, and there may well be less money to invest in quality pieces.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/madeleine-mccann-fund-hired-secret-agent-conman-wrvrhs7wl2z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_(Sunday_Times)
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
There were other stories circulating at the time, but as I can't find them for the moment, I won't add to it.
Suffice to say that I find the style of that article at least to be more akin to tabloidism than my recollection of much earlier pieces in the section's history.
-
In the olden days (pre Murdoch) the Sunday Times Insight journalists were second to none. They reported on many issues and high profile events and were respected for their integrity and investigative skills.
I was trying to find references and hadn't seen your post, Brietta. Yes, that was my recollection as well.
-
I was trying to find references and hadn't seen your post, Brietta. Yes, that was my recollection as well.
They did a truly outstanding piece on the demonstration outside the Libyan Embassy which resulted in the death of police officer Yvonne Fletcher ... their work was often truly ground breaking.
Their skill and integrity was irreplaceable and it wasn't in my opinion, as we have seen demonstrated in the libellous reporting of the Smith efits.
-
From Wikipedia.
"Oakley International
Further information: § Smith sighting
In 2008 Madeleine's Fund hired Oakley International, a Washington, D.C.-registered detective agency, for over £500,000 for six months.[231][236][237][238] (The company owner, Kevin Halligen, was arrested in 2009 in connection with an unrelated fraud allegation.[239]) Oakley sent a five-man team to Portugal. Led by Henri Exton, a former British police officer who had worked for MI5, the team engaged in undercover operations within the Ocean Club and among paedophile rings and the Roma community.[231]
Exton questioned the significance of the Tanner sighting of a man carrying a child at 21:15 near apartment 5A, and focused instead on the Smith sighting at 22:00—the sighting by Martin and Mary Smith of a man carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment that night. The Oakley team produced e-fits based on the Smiths' description. This was a sensitive issue, because in September 2007 Martin Smith had watched footage of the McCanns arriving in the UK from Portugal, and believed he recognized Gerry McCann as the man he had seen with the child in Praia da Luz. Smith came to accept that he was mistaken: at 22:00 witnesses placed Gerry McCann in the tapas restaurant. Nevertheless, publication of the Smith e-fits, which bore some resemblance to Gerry, would have fed the conspiracy theories about the McCanns.[61]
Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the fund told Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the fund had soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[61] The fund passed the e-fits to the police—the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[240]—but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.[61]
Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction. After it had aired, The Sunday Times published that the McCanns had had the e-fits since 2008.[61] In response the couple sued the newspaper for having implied (wrongly) that they had not only failed to publish them but had withheld them from the police. The newspaper apologized and paid £55,000 in damages.[240][241]"
When I were a nipper we sang this song:
OK no straight line or convoluted thinking required, just a bit of simple maths
"We've two chickens in our back yard. We feed them on indian corn, some lays eggs and some lays pegs and some lays nothing at all".
It would seem Oakley's personnel were much the same..... the five sure gave it some welly @)(++(*
-
I would need know more about its contents first.
You were happy to speculate about blackmail without knowing the contents.
-
You were happy to speculate about blackmail without knowing the contents.
Speculation.
I found the post where you claim I speculated but I think of it as more exploring possible options.
"It could be used as a tool in a blackmail situation. It could be a scenario like this: "Don't show me up and I'll keep my report to myself!"
Your post that I was replying to had as much speculation in it.
-
What is known about the secret Oakley Report?
Enough.
Which is quite a lot of significance.
-
What is known about the secret Oakley Report?
Enough.
Which is quite a lot of significance.
Although I'm as curious as anyone else, the police forces apparently have it. I presume they're capable of reading it.
-
Although I'm as curious as anyone else, the police forces apparently have it. I presume they're capable of reading it.
Release it then.
-
Release it then.
Why should they? It's an ongoing investigation. If there's anything more that they feel would be useful in terms of a public appeal, I expect they would.
-
Although I'm as curious as anyone else, the police forces apparently have it. I presume they're capable of reading it.
Indeed I am sure they did read it.
How they obtained it and what happened afterwards tells us all we need to know about the Oakley Report i.e it contained neither a smoking gun nor did it tell much that was not already known by the PJ. ....imo.