Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

by Carrry On Doctor 03.10.14 5:39

TB wrote; wrote:I believe that Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton between them manufactured those 2-fits.

Quite possibly

I believe that neither Henri Exton nor the McCanns and their Team nor DCI Redwood nor the BBC CrimeWatch Team have told us the truth about the provenance of these 2 e-fits.

Agreed

I am certain that the Smiths neither did produce and endorsed nor even could have produced and endorsed those 2 e-fits for reasons I have given elsewhere on the forum.

Quite possibly

I have evidence (not yet amounting to proof) that these 2-efits were produced from photographs of two men each living in the south of England who have nothing directly to do with the Madeleine McCann case.

OK

I have a hypothesis that the Smiths have agreed to go along with DCI Redwood's claim to 6.7 million people on BBC CrimeWatch that these e-fits were produced by them and represent a true sighting of a man carrying a child (Quite possibly) but I accept that this hypothesis may be wrong. If the Smiths have indeed gone along with DCI Redwood's plan to promote 'Smithman' as the abductor, I do not know why they may have done so

It is self-evident that those who claim that Madeleine 'disappeared' or died before 3rd May must be wrong if DCI Redwood is right in suggesting that the Smiths saw Madeleine McCann being carried near Kelly's bar at around 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

The use of the word 'suggesting' is crucial I think Tony. Has DCI Redwood stated or confirmed his belief that the child being carried by Smithman was definitely Madeleine ? The language used by DCI Redwood may be designed to suggest or infer and could be a deliberate play on words (I am asking a genuine question here so I dont know).

Personally, I have no doubt the Smiths saw a man carrying a child, but DCI Redwood could be spinning things to allow people to think it was MBM, for the moment at least. This would then leave open the possibility of something happening earlier.

Of course, DCI Redwood may be using Smithman as an unidentifiable abductor with a view to closing the case (whitewash), but he may also be using Smithman to move the focus elsewhere whilst he gets on with his job.

Despite yesterday being a dark day for many peoples hopes, I still keep the faith. Time will tell.

(All of the above IMO, and without prejudice)

by tiny 03.10.14 6:16

And the mccanns say .roll over, roll over and the msm roll over and then pay out. ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again - Page 1 181747

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again - Page 1 181747

by Bishop Brennan 03.10.14 8:29

tiny wrote:And the mccanns say .roll over, roll over and the msm roll over and then pay out.

Soft targets as Carter-Ruck know only too well - hence the continued no-win / no-fee engagement. They almost always settle and write off the money. It's loose change to them. Provides an easy PR win for McCanns though. All part of the End-Game sadly.

Not long to go now though. AR retires this year, and the new man will shut the thing down pretty quickly I'm sure.

by bobbin 03.10.14 8:43

Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.

The 22 remaining are either stating that the comments section will be closed shortly, no-one dare take the McCs on, and scarcely anything favourable for the McCs.
The 19 removed is almost 50 % of the population posting, add that to the other comments which were cynical comments, you have a NO vote to the McCs of well over 50%.
That's an awfully large public perception of the McCs which the Grauniad has given to the light of day.

This all makes a whitewash all the more difficult. No wonder tptb are still dragging this one out. They are still searching around for a suitable white rabbit to pull out of a credulous black hat and unfortunately we all know that trick already and will need something more 'magical' to convince us.

An unconvinced public is a worrying thing. It lies smouldering for just so long, and then the fire and all hell breaks out at the most politically inconvenient time.
I noticed that Gerry's main thrust was to call upon the 'next government' to impose control over the press. Control over the press will silence dissenters. The dissenters are the 'public' who have assessed the evidence and come to their own rationalised conclusion. They are also people who will fight tooth and nail for their right to freedom of thought and speech.

By talking about the NEXT government Gerry must be suggesting that the current government, which has not obliged the Hacked Off Campaign, will not be the incumbent government post election time.
Has Gerry been having a quiet chat with our Rupert, on the side, and been encouraged to believe that Rupert will swing the next election away from the Cons.

If justice for Madeleine slips away in the hands of the current government it won't need a Rupert to help it out of the door, it may well be a 'no longer convinced of the McCs version of events' public that will see it off because 'injustice' is a very strong social driver.

by aiyoyo 03.10.14 10:45

Brian Griffin wrote:Well, they are giving the money to charidy. That was unexpected.

Expected actually, else how would it look for them?

No private search, detectives redundant, suing people left right centre with the 1.2M euro case still pending.
This is all about image management by manipulating the public conscious.

Not bad PR management accomplished by a pair of amateurs, though Gerry did concede they are getting good at it from experience which others don't have (words to that effect).

by plebgate 03.10.14 11:40

Brian Griffin wrote:Well, they are giving the money to charidy. That was unexpected.

As Woofer pointed out, there are two police forces currently looking for Maddie (at the taxpayers' GREAT expense). Why would they need for this latest payout to go in the Search for Maddie Fund?

by ChippyM 03.10.14 12:52

bobbin wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.
.................

It is a bit odd in my mind that the Guardian allowed comments for all of about 10 minutes and then shut them down. I managed to get a carefully worded comment in because I saw the article just as it was put up.

Removing 50% of the comments could be seen as a rather clever comment on free speech and demonstration of public opinion by the paper.....possibly.

by jeanmonroe 03.10.14 13:19

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis
------------------------------------------

So, a 'win' = a 'fee'

As CR 'supposedly' 'won' what was their 'fee'?

Or, do one of the UK's most expensive law firms work on 'a win-NO fee' basis for anything McCann 'related'?

I say 'supposedly won' because Guardian 'readers' would have been alerted to 'other' sites they possibly didn't know 'existed'

So, a 'win' vs 'new' readers being 'informed' of, and possibly, for the first time, 'visiting' factual 'sites' related to this case.

PJ files, Pamalam, McCannfiles, here etc.,

So, imo, just a 'pyrrhic victory' at best.

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")

by noddy100 03.10.14 13:23

Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

by Guest 03.10.14 13:28

noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.

by noddy100 03.10.14 13:30

BlueBag wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.

So why did the Times pay them?

by bobbin 03.10.14 13:43

ChippyM wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.
.................

It is a bit odd in my mind that the Guardian allowed comments for all of about 10 minutes and then shut them down. I managed to get a carefully worded comment in because I saw the article just as it was put up.

Removing 50% of the comments could be seen as a rather clever comment on free speech and demonstration of public opinion by the paper.....possibly.

I think I can determine the post you mean, and yes a good one.
Today's article covering the yet more whining by Gerry McCann on the radio 4 programme has no comment possibility. Most scrabble players would probably run out of the letter 'a' in a big 'yaaaaaaaaaaaawn'.
Yes, it could well be the Gurniada making a discrete point. I think the tide has definitely turned since the upbeat pretty little green and yellow be-ribboned Kate pictures, glowing in the sunset, looking wistfully towards the cliff, with her little cuddle cat peeping out of the back of her rucksack.
She now looks old, hardened, haggard and fighting dirty to keep the lid on the whole boiling pot.

by pennylane 03.10.14 13:56

noddy100 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.
So why did the Times pay them?

Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y.....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording.... and that's all it takes.

by noddy100 03.10.14 14:05

Thanks
I cannot believe the Times don't have more power than those 2 when
it comes to reading between the lines.
DId they ever give a reason for holding the e fits back esp from the book where they printed all teh others?

by pennylane 03.10.14 14:12

noddy100 wrote:Thanks
I cannot believe the Times don't have more power than those 2 when
it comes to reading between the lines.
DId they ever give a reason for holding the e fits back esp from the book where they printed all teh others?

No, of course the McCanns didn't give a reason! Facts are not their forte, they only deal in diversionary tactics...

by noddy100 03.10.14 14:26

I wonder if the McCanns themselves donated the 55k to charity or
if the Times suggested it and paid it direct by way of apology

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.10.14 14:29

Lance Armstrong won many an libel action, then had to repay. Just saying yes

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.14 14:34

pennylane wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
So why did the Times pay them?
Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y .....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording...and that's all it takes.

@ pennylane

We are back to these e-fits again, and I think the following sequence of events must be put on the record, which helps us understand more about the mysterious provenance of these e-fits and also about the recent Sunday Times payout:

1. On or about 16 May 2007, the Smiths first reported to the Irish police their claimed 'sighting' on 3 May. Three of them made statements to the PJ later, on 26 May

2. On or about 20 September 2007, Martin Smith reported his 60% to 80% belief that, following a TV news bulletin he saw 11 days earlier on 9 September, he thought the man he said he had seen was Gerry McCann

3. The formal morphing (as you say) of Tannerman and Smithman was first aired on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May 2009

4. The Smiths, according to news reports and Halligen-associate Henri Exton, drew up e-fits of the man the Smiths said they saw sometime in 2008. October 2008 has been officially mentioned

5. At the very least, it must be in serious doubt whether the efits were produced by the Smiths for these (among other) reasons:
A. They only saw him in the dark
B. The street lighting was weak
C. They only saw him for a few seconds
D. Their evidence about what they saw contains a number of very significant contradictions
E. All of them agreed on 26 May 2007 that they would not be able to recognise him if they saw him again
F. The e-fits to most people's eyes are clearly of 2 different men
G. There is no way that a year after the event, any of the Smiths could possibly draw up credible efits.

6. It follows from that that the e-fits must have been produced by some other means, possibly the faces of other people.

7. Look at the Sunday Times apology (28 December 2013). It concedes these very impirtant points:
A. Leics Police and the PJ were shown these e-fits 'by October 2009' and did not recommend that they be used
B. The e-fits WERE shown to Operation Grange in August 2011

8. Furthermore, we now know that Martin Smith and DCI Redwood met once in 2012 and once in 2013.

It follows from the above that the McCanns can plausibly claim two very important things:

1. That from October 2009 to August 2011 (22 months), Leics Police and the PJ and not the McCanns held up the e-fits
2. That from August 2011 to October 2013 (a further 26 months), Operation Grange and not the McCanns held up these e-fits.

That, I have no doubt, is why the Sunday Times had to pay up and settle yet another claim from the McCanns. As far as we know from the earlier Sunday Times apology, the McCanns can plausibly argue that from October 2009 to October 2013 (FOUR YEARS), it was the three police forces, and not themselves, who decided against using these two e-fits.

That still leaves the McCanns having to explain what they were doing with these e-fits from October 2008 to October 2009.

I appeal to fellow forum-members here to place under the nicroscope each and every thing that is ever said about these two strange e-fits.

IMO they are the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery.

But not in the way DCI Redwood meant

by The Rooster 03.10.14 17:14

For the Times I think it's a simple case of managing the financial downside. I'm sure they made more money in sales by publishing the article in any event. Going to court at that level is mega expensive. It's a gamble the risk taking McCann's clearly happy to take. For the Times why bother with the risk.

by MRNOODLES 03.10.14 17:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
So why did the Times pay them?
Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y .....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording...and that's all it takes.
@ pennylane

We are back to these e-fits again, and I think the following sequence of events must be put on the record, which helps us understand more about the mysterious provenance of these e-fits and also about the recent Sunday Times payout:

1. On or about 16 May 2007, the Smiths first reported to the Irish police their claimed 'sighting' on 3 May. Three of them made statements to the PJ later, on 26 May

2. On or about 20 September 2007, Martin Smith reported his 60% to 80% belief that, following a TV news bulletin he saw 11 days earlier on 9 September, he thought the man he said he had seen was Gerry McCann

3. The formal morphing (as you say) of Tannerman and Smithman was first aired on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May 2009

4. The Smiths, according to news reports and Halligen-associate Henri Exton, drew up e-fits of the man the Smiths said they saw sometime in 2008. October 2008 has been officially mentioned

5. At the very least, it must be in serious doubt whether the efits were produced by the Smiths for these (among other) reasons:
A. They only saw him in the dark
B. The street lighting was weak
C. They only saw him for a few seconds
D. Their evidence about what they saw contains a number of very significant contradictions
E. All of them agreed on 26 May 2007 that they would not be able to recognise him if they saw him again
F. The e-fits to most people's eyes are clearly of 2 different men
G. There is no way that a year after the event, any of the Smiths could possibly draw up credible efits.

6. It follows from that that the e-fits must have been produced by some other means, possibly the faces of other people.

7. Look at the Sunday Times apology (28 December 2013). It concedes these very impirtant points:
A. Leics Police and the PJ were shown these e-fits 'by October 2009' and did not recommend that they be used
B. The e-fits WERE shown to Operation Grange in August 2011

8. Furthermore, we now know that Martin Smith and DCI Redwood met once in 2012 and once in 2013.

It follows from the above that the McCanns can plausibly claim two very important things:

1. That from October 2009 to August 2011 (22 months), Leics Police and the PJ and not the McCanns held up the e-fits
2. That from August 2011 to October 2013 (a further 26 months), Operation Grange and not the McCanns held up these e-fits.

That, I have no doubt, is why the Sunday Times had to pay up and settle yet another claim from the McCanns. As far as we know from the earlier Sunday Times apology, the McCanns can plausibly argue that from October 2009 to October 2013 (FOUR YEARS), it was the three police forces, and not themselves, who decided against using these two e-fits.

That still leaves the McCanns having to explain what they were doing with these e-fits from October 2008 to October 2009.

I appeal to fellow forum-members here to place under the nicroscope each and every thing that is ever said about these two strange e-fits.

IMO they are the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery.

But not in the way DCI Redwood meant

It's very interesting as to where it leaves OG. And why they sat on them.

From this

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-kidnapper-2371929

"DCI Redwood revealed that private detectives first produced the image of the man seen by the Smiths in September 2008 – but it was never released until this week. He would not be drawn on the reasons for this"

by j.rob 03.10.14 18:55

I have always found Kate's desire to 'morph' Tanner-man into Smithman and pretend that Smithman is the man that Jane Tanner saw at 9.15 ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

And Kate is obliged to write in her book: "Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves."

But they don't, imo. Jane Tanner's Tanner-man had very dark hair. And it is not cut short at the back but comes right down to the collar-level. It is not a close-cut hair style. There is something 'swarthy' in the appearance. More the appearance of someone from Southern Europe, perhaps. And he is holding the child in a very odd way. A way that is not natural to carry a sleeping child of 3/4. And would be quite difficult to achieve as the head would flop right back. And the adult's arms would get very tired quickly. Plus I just think the child would wake up.

However it is the way that you sometimes see children who have been killed in war zones, for instance, being carried by anguished or grieving relatives in news reports, (something that I know has been discussed elsewhere). (Was this Jane Tanner and TM 'brain leak' I wonder? A bit like Matt Oldfield flagging up the irony of searching on 'Cemetary Road' on the night that Madeleine had supposedly been abducted or Russell flagging up how a child is more likely to be clobbered by a relative than a complete stranger. So much brain-leak, imo.)

In Kate's book only the artist's impression of Tanner-man is shown. Not the Smith-man artist impression. A glaring omission, one might say.

Whereas the artist impressions of Smithman appear to show a man with more closely-cut brown hair, not jet black hair. He appears to have green eyes - a colour more compatible with someone of a lighter complexion and lighter hair. The description is 'short brown' hair. And he is carrying the child in a different way. More like you would expect an adult to carry a sleeping child.

Yet Kate records in her book that Smith-man 'did not carry child in a comfortable way.' But surely that is the wrong way round? It is Tanner-man who is not carrying the child in a comfortable way surely? If Smith-man is carrying the child in the way that Gerry carried Sean off the plane, then that would be the comfortable way to carry a sleeping child. (Although Sean does look in an incredibly deep sleep - but perhaps that is what the Smiths observed that evening - a child looking to be in a very deep sleep.)

If the Smithman description is, indeed, of a man who looks a lot like Gerry McCann then there is no way that Gerry looks like 'Tanner-man'. The hair is wrong, for a start.

It seems to me that TM really messed up big time with 'Tanner-man'. It must have been done in a complete panic, imo, otherwise they surely would not have had him carrying the child in such an uncomfortable way? And such a peculiar way.

by j.rob 03.10.14 19:07

And how very peculiar that Mr Smith specifically flags up that it was the way that Gerry was carrying Sean that made him think that the man he saw that night was Gerry?

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 19:09

Agree. Your arms would tire quickly bearing all that weight and the child's head would be unsupported. You just wouldn't carry a child that way unless you were a complete berk!

In my opinion.

Edit - the above refers to tannerman at the bottom of the post above this one.

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 19:24

noddy100 wrote:I wonder if the McCanns themselves donated the 55k to charity or
if the Times suggested it and paid it direct by way of apology

I might get Sky-Newsed for this but the darker side of my personality can imagine the following snippet of conversation chez McCann:

Kate: Ah, Gerry, can't we just keep the fifty-five grand? I wanna swimmin' pewl, a conservatory and a lorra pairs of Jimmy Choos.
Gerry: No, sorry, Poppet, not this time. It'll jast make us luke bad in tha press.

The above is intended merely as parody and not to be taken too seriously.

by Casey5 03.10.14 19:42

So I wonder why The Times didn't just print the exact timeline - that, in fact, the McCanns did keep quiet about the efits from the time they became aware of them and legally prevented the PI's from disclosing the information until they were first given to the police.
The McCanns would have been unable to Carter Ruck them surely.
Have the newspapers got no legal beagles on their staff?
If Carter Ruck could spot the loophole then why couldn't the legal team at The Times?

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again