The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Possible Action Against The Times

Page 4 of 16 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by SixMillionQuid on 02.08.14 6:52

@fred c dobbs wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:



REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.
The Smith family saw this bloke for longer than 2 seconds the daughter was even able to give a description of his shorts with the three buttons on the side just like a pair owned by the scotsman himself.The Smith family said they would not be able to reocgnise (your spelling) yes  him again but it reasonable to suppose they could say as they did that Mr.Smith thought that the man they encountered walked and carried the child the same way he saw GM carrying his son off the plane
But he was 80% sure it was GM and not anyone else. Given that no one could describe the face what made Mr Smith so sure it was GM and not a person he has never seen before? He's retracted the claim, whether he was nobbled or or not I dont know.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by nglfi on 02.08.14 7:10

@Woofer wrote:I`ve said before that K&G are like 2 ostriches with their heads in the sand and don`t realise that everyone can see their backsides. Typically narcissistic.  If they do go ahead with sueing The Sunday Times, they are pure and simple fools - not even realising how it will bring even more attention to their backsides.  Never mind, let them go ahead I say.  And here`s hoping Murdoch does not agree to settle beforehand and takes it all the way so Exton can produce his report and the letter warning him off.
I read an interesting article on the BBC website yesterday about the 'Barbara Streisand effect', which refers to pictures of the actress' home that she tried to get removed from a website and sue the owner. Very few people were interested in or had heard about these pictures until she announced she was suing, and the website hits promptly increased ten fold. There are many many more examples of celebrities making a big deal out of supposed libellous comments,  and by doing so they get much much more exposure.  This is what I believe will happen to the McCanns if they proceed with this ridiculous action. Opinion is already turning against them, people are fed up with it and don't want to hear any more about a pair of neglectful idiots. This action will just give them more and more negative attention and criticism.  They are true over litigious sociopaths. They really do have no idea when to shut up and go away. 

Ps could this action possibly be about the 'murder' comment rather than the other article? I don't understand how they could sue when an apology has been issued and retraction made. However AFAIK there was no retraction over the 'murder' article.

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 8:28

@coati mundi wrote:
What I would like to know, though, is what it is that you discern from the various shennanigans with the supposed sightings,

I have a few questions I would like you to answer about this whole matter 0f the "sightings" and your attitude toward them:

1) Was the Jill Tanner "sighting" a complete fabrication

REPLY: IMO Yes

and, if so, what was the purpose in fabricating it?

REPLY: I think that is obvious, isn't it?

2) What would be the purpose of using the "Smithman" sighting by SY, other than for the sole purpose of expanding the timeline?

REPLY: Clearly the effect of BBC CrimeWatch and DCI Andy Redwood promoting the Smithman sighting so strongly includes perpetuating in the minds of the public that there really was an abduction

If it does work to do that, why didn't the McCs jump on it and use it as soon as they had it?

REPLY: That's a good question. My answer is that it would seem improbable in the highest degree to suggest that the abductor was seen carrying a child by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm, and then seen by the Smiths 45 minutes later, still wandering around carrying a child, about 600 to 700 yards away from Apartment G5A. When the McCann Team floated this ridiculous idea on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' back in 2009, I was dumbfounded, and expressed my views on another forum at the time about how absurd this suggestion was.

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny], I continued to post about the extreme unlikelihood of the abductor walking around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes. I recall McCann-supporters at the time countering this by suggesting e.g. that the abductor might have stopped in a deserted house along the way for half-an-hour or so, and other such daft suggestions.

And then of course Dr Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine', published in 2011, devoted SIX pages to Smithman, devoting THREE of them to a detailed comparison of the two sightings, referring to the 'striking similarities' between the two - Tannerman and Smithman. Thus the McCann Team were promoting, through a book which has been bought and read by hundreds of thousands, the idea that the abductor was indeed wandering around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes carrying a child. Once again, I challenged this claim.

Of course one of DCI Redwood's triumphs was to remove this absurdity by 'finding' Crecheman, and thus ruling out Tannerman as the abductor.

And whatever you say about the provenance of the e-fits and the dissimilarities between the two, one of them does bear a marked resemblance to a certain person with the initials GM.

REPLY: The efit you refers to bears a superficial resemblance to tens of thousands of men in this country. Even on this forum, several named individuals have been suggested for this efit, Jez Wilkins being one of them. I disagree strongly with your claim that one of the efits 'bears a marked resemblance' to Gerry McCann. I think you concede my point that the two efits do not look like the same person.

3) Why would there be any "sightings" apart from the need to support the abdcution "thesis" and if so why would two fake sightings emerge?

REPLY: Clearly the Tannerman 'sighting' promoted the abduction claim. I suggest that the main purpose of the Smithman 'sighting' ws to try and clear Martin Smith's friend Robert Murat, who had been made a suspect the day before Martin Smith suddenly 'remembered' having seen a man carrying a child 13 days ago - but only after his son Peter 'phoned him up amd said: "Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz 13 days ago?"

4) I don't think you can answer this question, but it appears that many people on this forum believe that MM was no longer alive on May 3rd; some have even wilder ideas about her having had a much earlier demise. Goncalo Amaral seems to be convinced that the death took place on the night of May 3rd. Is your scepticism about the "Smithman" informed by an opinion about the date of "disappearance"?

REPLY: No it isn't. My scepticism about Smithman flows entirely from an exhaustive analysis of all that the Smiths have ever said or done or not said and not done. But as a matter of record I have said in the past that with the greatest respect to Goncalo Amaral I part company with him when he claims, in his book, that he is satisfied on the basis of claims by one of the creche staff that Madeleine was at a 'high tea' at around 5.30pm on 3 May. I find that claim very doubtful. That's as far as I can go I think in answering that question. 

I assure you that I am a genuine McCann sceptic - I have been from the very first reports, but have looked into it more deeply only in the last year. I am just puzzled as to what the logical outcome of some of your positions might be.

REPLY: Does that assist? Please feel free to ask supplementary questions if you wish. 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Sam S on 02.08.14 9:04

I imagine the fund is running low so if K and G do have powerful friends then maybe they have been "allowed" to sue and it will be settled out of court, to help them fill up the bank account again in a "legitimate" way. Or as a powerful wee man once said, "never interupt your enemies when they are making a mistake".Lets hope it goes to court and watch the cockroaches skuttle when the light is shone on them :) Just my saturday morning thoughts. spin

Sam S

Posts : 70
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-06-17
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Doug D on 02.08.14 9:20

Sonic72:
 
‘8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!’
 
I think the reference number given on the second tweet, which TB seems to suggest looks to be correctly formatted means that a least something has been filed.
 
Dan Douglas checks out as genuine from his homelessness tweets and articles published in The Guardian on his ‘speciality’ subject, although the McC’s does seem to fall outside his normal remit. Possibly he was looking for something else & just chanced upon the filing?
 
It is interesting to see Dan Douglas’ twitter profile which shows:
 
Reporter for ‪@InsideHousing. Recent work: Guardian, BBC, Private Eye, Birmingham Mail ‪@cityjournalism alumnus
 
although there is no Linked-In profile which jumped out at me (doesn’t mean there isn’t one), which seems strange for a media person.
 
Looking back to the original Sunday Times article and subsequent ‘apology’, it was felt at the time to be fairly half hearted and addressed errors relating more to timescale rather than changing significantly the underlying story.
 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8821-sunday-times-apology?highlight=sunday+times
 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8395-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1?highlight=sunday+times

Doug D

Posts : 2146
Reputation : 635
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 9:28

@Doug D wrote:Sonic72:
 
‘8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!’
 
I think the reference number given on the second tweet, which TB seems to suggest looks to be correctly formatted means that a least something has been filed.
Why doesn't a forum member simply ring up the proverbial 'source close to the McCanns' and ask him to confirm or deny the story?

And ask him - if there is a claim, as seems likely - what the claim is about and how much they are claiming?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo on 02.08.14 9:37

I disagree that they have powerful friends. They'd supporters from influential quarters at the height of it and never since then.

In fact they don't seem to have any friends at all, not even of the common folks kind.
No one has come out to speak about Kate or Gerry or even Madeleine.
It's as if they'd no past or they lived in total isolation.

Continuing to sue people is just to keep up the charade. They'd no choice they can't get off the tiger, partly to do with needing money for future legal fees, and party to do with their narcissistic personalities.
They must live in constant terror of being counter-sued or a knock on their door at dawn.
Their fund is low. Get more payout or risk bankruptcy.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo on 02.08.14 9:47

@Doug D wrote:
 
Looking back to the original Sunday Times article and subsequent ‘apology’, it was felt at the time to be fairly half hearted and addressed errors relating more to timescale rather than changing significantly the underlying story.
 

Remember mcs admitted in Libel court 'Kevin' and others monitor forum for them.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Claire25 on 02.08.14 10:04

@Sam S wrote:I imagine the fund is running low so if K and G do have powerful friends then maybe they have been "allowed" to sue and it will be settled out of court, to help them fill up the bank account again in a "legitimate" way. Or as a powerful wee man once said, "never interupt your enemies when they are making a mistake".Lets hope it goes to court and watch the cockroaches skuttle when the light is shone on them :) Just my saturday morning thoughts. spin
If someone like Murdoch wanted to help 'top up' their fund I think it would have just been done without the publicity of them suing him as that would just be counterproductive.

If someone more powerful that RM had told them to sue him I think he would be very disgruntled and fight it, again drawing unwanted attention.

No, I don't think they have high up protection anymore, if they ever did.  I think they were opportunists and practically everyone has abandoned them now.  They've seen the gist of news articles about them recently and realised that Brooks and Murdoch sold them out asking for the review and there's nothing to be lost now by suing, may as well get some cash out of it.

IMO anyway.

And if it's even true.  Yes could well be about the M word article.  I'm sure both would have been checked by the Times lawyers though, although it did seem a very risky thing to write?!

Claire25

Posts : 110
Reputation : 70
Join date : 2014-05-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by canada12 on 02.08.14 10:16

I wonder if C-R are on a retainer for Team McCann, or whether they're paid by the number of lawsuits they launch :-)

canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 187
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 10:32

Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article.  The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp.  Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 10:35

@Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article.  The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp.  Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.
Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED on 02.08.14 10:41

@aiyoyo wrote:
In fact they don't seem to have any friends at all, not even of the common folks kind.
No one has come out to speak about Kate or Gerry or even Madeleine.
It's as if they'd no past or they lived in total isolation.

A very, very relevant point.







IKNOWWHATHAPPENED

Posts : 110
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 02.08.14 10:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article.  The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp.  Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.
Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

I don't do Twitter. I've just had a look at Dan Douglas' tweet of 19hours ago. I'm typing it in as I'm unable to copy and paste - perhaps someone else can.

Quote

Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate, Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 10:50

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article.  The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp.  Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.
Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

Aw sorry - missed that.  Thanks for clarifying.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Cristobell on 02.08.14 11:13

Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 02.08.14 11:42

@Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Snipped from Cristobell's reply

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.


Is this the substance of your next blog Cristobell?

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Claire25 on 02.08.14 12:21

Looking at it I doubt it would be for this article would it? 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9619-the-times-article-19-may-2014-mentions-her-murder?highlight=The+times

Surely The Times could defend that easily by just saying that SY were investigating the possibility that MM didn't leave 5a alive?

Claire25

Posts : 110
Reputation : 70
Join date : 2014-05-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Cristobell on 02.08.14 12:26

@aquila wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Snipped from Cristobell's reply

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.


Is this the substance of your next blog Cristobell?
Maybe Aquila, although I am still trying to understand why on earth they would issue proceedings against the Times, at this stage of the game?  They must be absolutely swamped with troubles piling up at their door, yet they issue a Summons?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by noddy100 on 02.08.14 12:27

Their confidence knows no limits

noddy100

Posts : 696
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 02.08.14 12:30

@Cristobell wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Snipped from Cristobell's reply

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.


Is this the substance of your next blog Cristobell?
Maybe Aquila, although I am still trying to understand why on earth they would issue proceedings against the Times, at this stage of the game?  They must be absolutely swamped with troubles piling up at their door, yet they issue a Summons?
Perhaps you'd like to do some research about Douglas' tweet. He's given a case number but as usual there's nothing definite.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 12:37

@Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],

Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

REPLY: To recap and clarify, I think we are agreed on all the following:

1. That the efits were drawn up in 2008 (the  evidence suggest the spring of 2008)

2. That the edits first saw the light of day in the lead-up to the CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October 2013, some newspapers and the BBC trailing the images a day or two beforehand. 

3. That there was thus a delay of five-and-a-half years between the efits being created and them being published.

Now, basing the subsequent sequence of events on the Sunday Times article of 27/10/13:

We have:

4. Henri Exton delivering these two efits to the McCanns and the Directors of Madeleine's Fund (who paid Halligen/Oakley International) probably late spring or summer 2008

5. The McCanns deciding not to publish them

6. The McCanns passing them to Leicestershire Police 'before October 2009' 

7.  The McCanns passing them to the Portuguese Police 'before October 2009'

8. The McCanns passing them to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange in August 2011 (probably at their initial meeting together), and

9. DCI Andy Redwood sitting on them for a full 2 years and 2 months before releasing them on the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show and to the British media in a veritable blaze of glory.

Now, if the above is correct, the McCanns could plausibly argue, and with some justification, that they has delivered these efits to THREE police forces (in 2009 and 2011) and that THOSE POLICE FORCES did not advise their publication until 14 October 2013. That would amount to a truly staggering situation where the efits of the true main suspect had indeed been suppressed for an astonishing five-and-a-half years. But as you know, I say these e-fits are not images of a real suspect at all; indeed I suggest they were enver generated from the Smiths' recollections.

Indeed, I am henceforth going to call these 2 efits (of obviously different men IMO) the 'EXTON-PRODUCED EFITS', as to call them the 'Smithman efits' makes three assumptions that I suggest are unjustified:

A. that the Smiths saw anyone at all
B. that the efits are of one man (I am sure they are of two different men), and
C. that the Smiths drew up either of those efits - they could not have done: dark, weak street lighting, didn't see his face etc. etc.

Now we come to the factual matters regarding the McCanns' deployment of Smithman since 2009, which you are unable to deny:

10. The possibility that the Smiths might have seen the abductor formed an integral part of the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary which included a reconstruction of events based entirely on the McCanns' script

11. From then on, and for over 5 years, or nearly 2,000 days, the McCanns carried the following amongst their list of six key suspects on the Find Madeleine website:
a) a detailed written description of the Smith sighting, and
b) accompanying this, that description being read out in full by someone with a distinct Irish accent

12. Dr Kate McCann's book, written in 2011, 'madeleine' mentioned 'Smithman' on SIX pages

13. Dr Kate McCann's book also carried THREE of those pages to comparing the 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman.

THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US (assuming the above four facts are agreed) is that:

I say that the McCanns have used and promoted the Smithman sighting for 5 years...

While you, on the above facts, claim that the McCanns did NOT in any way promote the Smithman sightings (albeit that the McCanns didn't use the two efits).

Indeed, you go still further and have now made the bizarre claim, flying in the face of the facts, that the McCanns 'suppressed' all mention of Smithman.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 12:41

@Cristobell wrote:
Maybe Aquila, although I am still trying to understand why on earth they would issue proceedings against the Times, at this stage of the game? 

REPLY: See my post, 6th down on page 2 of this thread

They must be absolutely swamped with troubles piling up at their door, yet they issue a Summons?

REPLY: There could be a lorra lorra money in it [Reminder once again: Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow] 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 12:42

@Claire25 wrote:Looking at it I doubt it would be for this article would it? 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9619-the-times-article-19-may-2014-mentions-her-murder?highlight=The+times

Surely The Times could defend that easily by just saying that SY were investigating the possibility that MM didn't leave 5a alive?

Or surely a one off retraction could be requested or a complaint to the PCC.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 12:56

I can see where Tony and Cristobel are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.
 
IMO the McCanns have obviously talked about it because they had to.  Whether this is `promoting` it I don`t know because I haven`t read Kate`s book.
 
But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them  - none of us knew what `Smithman` was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.
 
So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.
 
What I find unusual is that it`s said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn`t they flag them up to the public?

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 16 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum