Possible Action Against The Times

pennylane wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Angelique wrote:Cristobell wrote:
 
“They are not telling a little white lie, they have conspired to tell a whopping great big one that has led two official police forces and umpteen private investigators off track, again, I reiterate, for 7 years!”
 
Is it possible that the Smiths are not lying, there was a sighting but it was used/designed as "flack" at some point during the following 7 years.

It is far more likely that the Smiths are telling the truth Angelique, sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.  It is a huge leap and an enormous amount of speculation to conclude they are lying. 

I am not sure the sighting has been used as 'flack', as it has remained buried for most of the 7 years that this case has dragged on.  When DCI Redwood released the efits in a 'revelation' moment, he was releasing information that was unknown by most of the British public. I think the McCanns suppression of  Smithman is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against them.

I agree Cristobell, it is THE most damning piece of evidence against the McCanns; alas I also believe the alleged 'innocent daddy' that was once Bundleman, that DCI Redwood pulled out of his flimsy hat, is also THE most damning piece of evidence against the legitimacy of Operation Grange. 

We shall see.....

I think innocent crèche daddy, might be the sprat to catch the mackerel, or just a way in which to get rid of the Tanner sighting without directly calling Jane a liar.

''REMIND' ME 'AGAIN'!

KM statement 4th May 2007. (having READ the deed it is confirmed, ratified, and signed by KM)

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------

KM "a LONG-HAIRED PERSON in JEANS, with a CHILD IN HIS ARMS and WALKING QUICKLY.

So REMIND ME, just exactly how LONG was Smithman's HAIR, in DCI Redwood's e-fits 'revelation' moment.

KM "Jane 'saw' from the BACK, about 50 (FIFTY) METRES away............"

So REMIND ME, if the guy was 'walking QUICKLY' 50 METRES 'from' Jane, when she first 'saw' him from, according to BOTH K&GM, he'd hardly still be 'where' she first 'saw' him, to be able to give such a detailed 'description' of his apparel and childs pyjamas, would 'he'? I say 'he' (because according to GM it COULD have been a 'HE' or a 'SHE' (or even a 'THEY!)

Obviously by the time Tanner had eventually got to her 'sighting location' the quickly walking 'person' would also have been a FURTHER 50 METRES 'away' from where KM said JT first 'saw' HIM.

BUT that didn't stop 'our' Jane from giving such a detailed 'description' of 'he' and the child, as though she was standing right besides 'him', did it?. Conveniently 'forgetting' that for every step she took towards (50-60 strides'= 50 METRES) 'him and the child' HE too was stepping, quickly, AWAY from her, at a faster rate!

So, REMIND ME, are we looking for a 'LONG-HAIRED PERSON' (KM) or a 'SHORT HAIRED PERSON' aka Smithman? (DCI AR's, OG, (ONE and ONLY, 'suspect/abductor' placing ALL his/their 'eggs in the ONE basket,.. NOW!) Exton, Smith 'family' etc', DCI Redwood AND his entire 'team' having elimitated ANY 'abductor' seen standing near or outside of apartment 5A 'carrying' a child)

REMIND ME, WHY did BOTH G&KM used the phrase 'Jane 'saw' from about 50 metres'

It's ALMOST as though they BOTH 'discussed' (pre-meditated/ planned?) the 'distance' for JT to 'see' the 'man' from,........ but 'forgot' to tell her!

eta:
GM statement 4th May 2007. (having READ the deed it is confirmed, ratified and signed by GM)

It is emphasised (EMPHASISED, (indeed!) that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres.

Pity he and Kate 'forgot' to 'emphasise' the crucial (pre-planned?) 50 METRES 'distance' to Jane!  

Just for 'reference' 50 METRES DOWN from the 'top junction' where JT's Tannerman 'was' crossing the road, carrying a child, measures just DOWN passed the OC 'entrance' they all used!

As Kate McCann might say......... 'Google it!' (ya t**sers!)

GOOD JOB THE MCCANNS HAD 'EAGLE-EYED' JANE to 'CONFIRM' SHE DEFINITELY SAW MADELEINE BEING 'ABDUCTED/CARRIED OFF' WEARING THE EXACT SAME PYJAMAS THAT MADELEINE WAS WEARING, EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT PYJAMAS MADELEINE WAS WEARING.

PHEW! McCANNS in the 'clear' then!

Otherwise, people MIGHT think that maybe there wasn't an 'abduction' at all!  

jeanmonroe wrote:

"Just for 'reference' 50 METRES DOWN from the 'top junction' where JT's Tannerman 'was' crossing the road, carrying a child, measures just DOWN passed the OC 'entrance' they all used!"

Oh dear, is that right?  That must put our Jane, Jez and Gerry down the hill from the OC entrance, going the wrong way:


"She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road". (JT 04/05/07)


And not outside the gate leading up to 5a veranda. Or maybe not on the other side of the road. I get confused....maybe they were in the middle of the road   .


I'll have what they are having please barman.

Re my last 'post'

"EAGLE-Eyed" Jane and the 50 METRES 'distance', BOTH KM & GM said "she SAW Tannerman FROM"

I've just realised, she must have also SEEN 'through' TWO chaps, 'chatting', and on the SAME pavement as her, outside the gateway, leading to the McCanns apartment, 5A!

"EAGLE-Eyed' Jane, indeed!



WHY ARE WE HAVING TO DO, EMPHASISING, POINTING OUT CONTRADICTIONS AND DISCREPANCIES, IN RECORDED EVIDENCE, WHEN OPERATION GRANGE 'OFFICERS' SHOULD BE QUESTIONING THESE ER, 'FAULTS' IN 'THEIR SLEEP'?

PERHAPS THAT'S THE PROBLEM?

ALL THE MET, HARD NOSED, EXPERIENCED, ELITE 'MADDIE COPS' AT OPERATION GRANGE,..... ARE ASLEEP!

And just to harp back to the Forensic Psychology course:
 
‘for ID evidence to be credible two basic requirements are needed, max. distance of 15 metres and a min. illumination of 15 lux.’
 
‘Lux is a measurement of luminance, where 0.3 lux is equivalent to night time with a full moon; 30 lux is equivalent to a badly lit room; and 300 lux is equivalent to a brightly lit room. It is important to note that this research does not mean that identification will be accurate if the perpetrator was seen from less than 15 metres and at more than 15 lux, just that identification evidence cannot be relied on unless these requirements are met.’
 
So where does 50 metres & 0.3 lux fit in the credibility stakes?

Looking at that map and the distances could a possibility be that JW had his back to the Tapas Bar reception and GM could see Jt whilst she nipped smartly ( after taking flip -flops off?) left to the passage where the back gates to the apartments are to get to her apartment?

Three possible  things if that was what happened:

1). JT  could not have seen Mr Bundleman and child but could see GM and JW before swerving left.

2). GM would be the only person to see JT. GM  is facing downhill and can't see the alleged Mr Bundleman.

3) JW if he had been facing towards the top of the hill would have seen Mr Bundleman not JT.

Begs a further question ( if true of course ) why would JT want to avoid one or both of the men?

Or did she leave her patio door open too?

The drama documentary ( it wasn't facts presented ) showed how difficult alll the manouvering was with Dave saying
that a key witnessing was not a big deal.

Only a proposition that's all.

Textusa's blog on this, questioning why such an apparent 'scoop' from a little known journalist who could have made a name for himself, has gone quiet, amongst other things.

It's a long read.

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/08/doomed-pieces-emerging-heroes.html

As they are so litigious and sue-ing left, right and centre did they ever sue the Telegraph?  There's at least 2 unfavourable articles AFAIK that don't seem to have been challenged.  Can't copy and paste, but one dated 17 Aug 2007 on today's page (around p 50/51) is shown in full.  It's not long after the dogs were sent in and just before that strange blog from Gerry about a moment of madness!

wonder how much they got .....and where the money will be going....


[*]

• Quote
  

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


Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police

PressGazette
William Turvill
19 September 2014



The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.

According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled.

Kate and Gerry McCann took issue with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their daughter".

In addition to the article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until 8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left on the article - in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette.

The story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “The critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.”

The title reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged its contents”.

The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.

In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".

They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".

On 1 November, the couple sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter – urgent”.

They said that the email, outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”, was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later.

The McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely rejected their complaint.

They said Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.

On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below.

The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

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."

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."

Mmmm..... the bolded part is surely unnecessary?

They passed them in 2009.. so they also passed them again in2011?

If I was The Times I'd be asking more questions about 2009 and the context.

I'm lost 'ere - I thought they held on to the e-fits for 5 years?
If so, then what else would one call "with-holding evidence"
??

If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team, then surely that's called with-holding evidence?

IOW - if I knew of something that could help the investigation but chose to with-hold it KNOWING it would hinder the case, what would happen to me? surely I would be done for with-holding information?
Oh hold on...... silly me.... that's the Mc's all over......

Withold evidence such as 48 questions
e-fits
DNA
cooperation
the list goes on

I've not read this thread yet but just noticed this on twitter...

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

whatsupdoc wrote:I've not read this thread yet but just noticed this on twitter...

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

Yes, still a year or possibly more. And how did they "hand it over" to Police in 2009. Was it buried in some obscure file dump along with 500MB of other material? There are ways of hiding things while appearing to be co-operative.

In such circumstances it seems odd in the extreme if you didn't hand over the E fits within a few days with a red exclamation on the E mail and something in bold saying "This could be important" - because the McCanns had no reason to think it was unimportant.

SixMillionQuid wrote:The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

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."

But that's still a year of holding onto the efits before they we're sent to the actual police.

So what I understand is that they actively watch the Internet for negative comments and respond accordingly. If they're happy with the Times apology then I can still see a delay from 2008 to 2009 before the efits were sent to Leicester / PJ. Maybe there's an explanation for that delay.

But not only that.... they have their own publicity machine who also decided not to publish the pictures. 

Even though we'd previously had Cooperman, Egghead, purposefully striding man, all the other crap... aged pictures of Madeleine...

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:I'm lost 'ere - I thought they held on to the e-fits for 5 years?
If so, then what else would one call "with-holding evidence"
??

If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team, then surely that's called with-holding evidence?

IOW - if I knew of something that could help the investigation but chose to with-hold it KNOWING it would hinder the case, what would happen to me? surely I would be done for with-holding information?
Oh hold on...... silly me.... that's the Mc's all over......

Withold evidence such as 48 questions
e-fits
DNA
cooperation
the list goes on

These people really have no shame or sense of right and wrong . Corrupt system from top to bottom . I really hope they do day trips from Heaven down to Hell cos I for one would book onto that just to see the penance the bad people have to pay for their sins .

tungsten tel wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:I'm lost 'ere - I thought they held on to the e-fits for 5 years?
If so, then what else would one call "with-holding evidence"
??

If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team, then surely that's called with-holding evidence?

IOW - if I knew of something that could help the investigation but chose to with-hold it KNOWING it would hinder the case, what would happen to me? surely I would be done for with-holding information?
Oh hold on...... silly me.... that's the Mc's all over......

Withold evidence such as 48 questions
e-fits
DNA
cooperation
the list goes on

These people really have no shame or sense of right and wrong . Corrupt system from top to bottom . I really hope they do day trips from Heaven down to Hell cos I for one would book onto that just to see the penance the bad people have to pay for their sins .

Fish rots from The HEAD down
enough said


ETA @ tungsten Corrupt system from top to bottom (Dmml = I rest my case)

More smoke and mirrors, my friends.  IMO reading it again, it's all McSpin.
The article outlines the complaints the McCanns filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms- but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the Mcs claiming "Unspecified damages", and reports: "According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled", inferring that the Macs won. However,

the article is careful to not actually state this. Maybe they settled like they were trying to do with Amaral?
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it. The inferrence is that the Macs emerged vindicated.
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
What wasn't retracted made it all the more damning IMO.
News UK could confirm this if it wanted to. Maybe it's keeping it's powder dry for something bigger. 
The Macs maybe sense they're on a loser in Portugal against Dr Amaral. The British Public need to be fed the myth that it's only the Sardine Munchers who won't accept their
innocence. Also, that was a really damning article which raised a new level or interest and doubt in the general public, which was not well managed by Team McCann at the time.
(Claimed Finincial restraints curtailed search to Tannerman only, and that hypercritical report would be a "distraction".) IMO This is an attempt to undo the damage of that article,
respin the "facts" in a better light, frighten nay-sayers and imply it has been rubber stamped by the courts. 
If I've interpreted piece wrong, I'm open to correction.

Jauna Loca wrote:More smoke and mirrors, my friends.  IMO reading it again, it's all McSpin.
The article outlines the complaints the McCanns filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms- but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the Mcs claiming "Unspecified damages", and reports: "According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled", inferring that the Macs won. However,

the article is careful to not actually state this. Maybe they settled like they were trying to do with Amaral?
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it. The inferrence is that the Macs emerged vindicated.
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
What wasn't retracted made it all the more damning IMO.
News UK could confirm this if it wanted to. Maybe it's keeping it's powder dry for something bigger. 
The Macs maybe sense they're on a loser in Portugal against Dr Amaral. The British Public need to be fed the myth that it's only the Sardine Munchers who won't accept their
innocence. Also, that was a really damning article which raised a new level or interest and doubt in the general public, which was not well managed by Team McCann at the time.
(Claimed Finincial restraints curtailed search to Tannerman only, and that hypercritical report would be a "distraction".) IMO This is an attempt to undo the damage of that article,
respin the "facts" in a better light, frighten nay-sayers and imply it has been rubber stamped by the courts. 
If I've interpreted piece wrong, I'm open to correction.

Exactly Kauna Loca.

Look at what has not been said.

In every case where a complaint of such serious merit has been made, not only does the paper make a public apology they also say they have paid undisclosed damages to the plaintiff or whoever they choose such as a designated charity and/ or that they have paid their legal costs.

What is missing is any mention of damages or costs, all they have said is it has been settled.

They have not said settled in whose favor which is telling.

Remember it is not just what the subject says, it is also what the subject doesn't say that can be just as revealing.

Given what we know concerning the ongoing trial against Dr Amaral, the ongoing investigations involving the PJ and Scotland Yard, the huge decline in income to the fund and funds available, it is likely they are hoping a threatening letter from carter-ruck will do the trick, much as it did before.

U suspect the mccanns backed down when confronted with irrefutable evidence, the paper didn't demand  their costs etc since the mccanns wouldn't have the money available ( plus if the mccanns got anything from Dr. Anaral it would be a pittance and not the million they want and it would then  have to pay legal costs and damages to  the paper, meaning the mccanns spent money for no return even had they won)

it is also likely that they as per usual didn't want to be in court where they would have to take the stand and testify under oath, something they are loathe to do.
They know the media would be there in full force and the sordid details would be made public, all the lies and deceptions and withholding of evidence would come out.
It would also mean it provided ammunition for Dr Amaral and the PJ.
Imagine claiming Dr Amaral's book  and documentary hindered the search causing distress etc and then having to admit in open court that yes they hindered the search, they did this and not that etc etc.
They would be laughed out of court.

For them, to cave in and drop the claim was their only  option, the cheapest and least damaging  option.

before, when they spoke , the media jumped and obeyed, that power is long gone.
Today, the media will say ok, bring it on, we'll see you in court and bring your checkbook.

They may well have come to a deal where both parties will say nothing or very little about the case except a settlement was reached.

It allows the mccanns to maintain their facade of innocence.

The paper however will have this stored away safely come time when they are charged, along with all the other little nuggets of info they have,
All the media will have a whole cabinet full of mccanns stories and incriminating  lurid info.
 When they are found guilty it will be  everything on the front page.

The paper is looking at stories for future publication.

In similar cases wehave seen family and friends, workmates, neighbors,  school and uni friends all talking about the subject, what they are like, how they behaved etc.
What is noticeable about this case is apart from a brief flurry at the start about hotlips healy, there has been nothing about who the mccanns are, what they are like, their personaluty etc.

Their parents and close family have stayed pretty silent again apart from a brief flurry at the start before they were shut down.
Their work collegues have maintained a deafening silence, as have their patients.
No one has said kate was my gp and she was ...
Even the tapas 7   have stayed silent, when they did speak it showed there was a distance between them and the mccanns,  kate and gerry were and are unlikeable and i suspect unwelcome wherever they went and go.

it is like they didn't exist before may 4th 2007 and  exist now only in their own bubble.

I think there is a lot of background to the family dynamics that the media is sitting on.
Intitially because perhaps the media thought Maddie was still alive and feared causing harm to her with lurid stories, these days even the dumbest journo knows Maddie is long dead and thus cannot come to harm.
Perhaps , having read kate wanting to press a button and kill the twins and gerry so they could ALL be togeather again with Maddie ( big clue here they know she is dead, else they just made her an orphan) they are keeping schtum in order to protect the twins.
Should the twins be removed for their care then stories about the mccanns would srtart coming out.

Another possibility is that the media knows the truth (or suspects the truth) and are abiding by police requests from the PJ and SY to not print anything that could  affect the case such as leaking what evidence the police may have, police procedures sucj as phone tapping or surveillance)  or could cause kate and gerry to harm the children or to do a runner to a country with no extradition treaty with Portugal or the UK or  to kill themselves and avoid justice that way,

I think  they may have known who it was for it to be withheld and not necessarily Gerry,  surely they must have seen it before.

BlueBag wrote:

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."

Mmmm..... the bolded part is surely unnecessary?

They passed them in 2009.. so they also passed them again in2011?

If I was The Times I'd be asking more questions about 2009 and the context.

My reading of this is that, while the efits were provided to Portuguese and Leicestershire police by Oct 2009, a copy of the final report which included the efits was not passed to Metropolitan police until August 2011.  Therefore, the McCs did not reveal the efits for a period of a year or more and did not reveal the content of the report drawn up by Exon for a further 2 years, or 3+ years in total.  In both cases the McCs failed to pass on information and while 1 year or more is a lot less than the 5 years claimed by the Times, a year is a very long time to hold on to something which could have reopened the investigation, and a very long time for the child who is waiting to be found.  Even after threatening to sue, the information is still out there that the McCs did potentially hinder "the search" for their own child, albeit for a year or so and for 3 years, not five.  And still leaves the question remaining, about why there was such a delay in releasing information which would almost certainly have galvanised "the search" and given limitless opportunities for fresh publicity.  It is such a counter intuitive thing to do that the rationale behind the decision to withhold this information must be interesting indeed.

Once they reveal the identity of those e-fits ,if ever, and I dont believe it is Gerry ,the house of cards will crumble.

I don't think it's Gerry either, if Smithman is supposed to be Gerry, and the E-fits are supposed to be Smithman. If the McCanns were going to hide a body, then even they would have had the sense to dispose of it before raising the alarm, in my opinion. It would be far too dangerous to be walking around with a body after raising the alarm. What is kind of amusing is the possibility that Gerry thinks the E-fits look like Gerry, which is the only reason I can see for hiding them away for 5 years, obviously in the interest of 'doing everything they can to find Madeleine'. Someone explain that to me because I don't get it. But anyway, all it has done is make them look more guilty! In my opinion.

All these people supposedly involved reminds me of that scene in the remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair' where the gallery is full of men in bowler hats and suits wandering around with briefcases. The result? Confusion!

If true I'd say that suing any part of the Murdoch empire would be a seriously bad move by the McCanns. Right now the British media has been very much "onside" with them,if that changes they might well find life becomes a lot less pleasant.If the press start to highlight "the doubts" rather than the "distraught parents" side of the case they could find support and empathy evaporating overnight.If that happens and the great British public turn against them just watch all their friends amongst the "great and the good" distance themselves.