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

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

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by noddy100 on 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

noddy100

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 03.10.14 14:29

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

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 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

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13964
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by The Rooster on 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.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"

The Rooster

Posts : 379
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 70
Location : Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by MRNOODLES on 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"



MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by j.rob on 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.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by j.rob on 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?

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Brian Griffin on 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.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)

Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Brian Griffin on 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.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)

Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Casey5 on 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?

Casey5

Posts : 321
Reputation : 18
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by noddy100 on 03.10.14 20:05

@Casey5 wrote: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?
I agree I can't believe that given the basic content was factual the Times couldn't get round it
KM even referenced this sighting in her book but unlike the other sightings she didn''t inc a picture
Surely that would have indicated some kind of furtive behaviour.

noddy100

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by tiny on 03.10.14 20:11

Madeleine has sure earnt the mccanns a lot of money,and i cant wait for the twins to read the pj files,i wonder how the mccanns are going to explain
all that's in them away.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.10.14 20:22

@j.rob wrote: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. 

REPLY: It may simply have been seen by the McCann Team at the time as the best way of reinforcing the abduction story  

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.

REPLY: I concede the point about both the hair colour and the hair length, as indeed - to be fair - so does Kate McCann in her book.

However, the 17 striking similarities still remain (as discussed on the 'SMITHMAN 2' thread), here they are again (slightly different from my OP on that thread):

One of the strangest aspects of the ‘Smithman’ sighting is how remarkably similar it was to the details given by Jane Tanner of the man she said she saw. Here are the 17 similarities:

   
1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no buggy or push-chair
3. The child was a girl
4. The child was barefoot
5. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
6. She looked about four years old
7. She was being held on the man’s left side
8. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
9. The man ‘did not look like a tourist’ (whatever that may mean)
10. He was wearing a dark jacket
11. He was wearing light-coloured trousers.
12. He was both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)
13. He was aged 25-40
14. He was of average build
15. He was walking ‘purposefully’/quite fast

16. Each was spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen properly (despite claims that the 
Smiths drew up the two e-fits, which I think are false).

As far as I can see, these remarkable similarities leave us with three basic possibilities

a)   It was the same man wandering around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes carrying a 4-year-old dressed only in pyjamas on a cold night

b)  Two different unaccompanied men without a buggy or pushchair, who looked near identical, were both carrying a child of about four years of age around dressed only in pyjamas, or

c)  The Smiths saw no-one, but invented their sighting with the deliberate intention of copying the details of the ‘Tannerman’ sighting, possibly (as we saw above) with the intention of giving extra credibility to the sighting of Jane Tanner, but at the same time emphasising that the man was not Robert Murat.       

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.)

REPLY: Possibly. In my time I've had to carry children who have gone to sleep some distance, and in doing so I used to alternate betwen the two posiitons (child on shoulder, child on open oustretched arms), because each is awkward in its own different way
 
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.

REPLY: Yes. Though the link between Tannerman and Smithman was made back in 2009, and continued on their website ever since and then given six pages of coverage in Kate's book, as you say the e-fits were never used. I suggest that these e-fits may have been deliberately held in reserve until an opportunity arose to use them. If you believe DCI Redwood is an honest, upright detective, then he and the McCann Team could only use the so-called 'Smithman' e-fits when 'Mr Crecheman' stepped forward.

I don't think 'Mr Crecheman' ever existed. So how to explain Redwood not using these e-fits for a further 2 years and 2 months? (August 2011 to October 2013). My theory is that he and those around him weren't bright enough to invent Crecheman any earlier. Alternatively, they did all think of that ruse much earlier, but maybe hesitated because they weren't 100% sure that they could get away with it.
     
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.

REPLY: This comes ONLY from Martin Smith's statememt, where he says:

"The child’s head lay on the man’s left shoulder; he did not appear to be comfortable holding her".


The other two Smith's statements did not make the same observation.

Kate Mcann seems to have embellished Martin Smith's statement.

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13964
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Praiaaa on 04.10.14 14:52

I heard the whining GM interview yesterday on the radio  they really should out a warning out so we can switch off in time.
A couple of things were interesting - John Humphries did make Gerry look a bit of an idiot over his claims about the press poodle.
And GM did actually make an interesting point - the payout was peanuts compared to what the ST makes in advertising etc.
So... given that ST lawyers would be all over any story in advance, maybe they knew it was dodgy but went for it anyway to draw out the Mcs and the derisory payout would be just peanuts anyway, but would get the story out there.
Also, if they payment was so little compared to the ST revenues, they must have been advised by their lawyers it was all they could reasonably get it if went to court - ie the judge would also see it as a slap on the wrist rather than serious damage caused.
The fact that it went to charidee rather than the Fund is also interesting - maybe they are damage limiting on the Fund.
IMO - its the Fund that will be their downfall.

Praiaaa

Posts : 419
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Brian Griffin on 04.10.14 17:44

Is there a link to the radio interview?

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)

Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jeanmonroe on 04.10.14 19:05

@Brian Griffin wrote:Is there a link to the radio interview?

Yes Sireee!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jm9mv

1hr 36 mins 'in'.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5132
Reputation : 885
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by frost on 04.10.14 21:11

There are a few folk tweeting that the 55k has gone to missing people though I have not seen actual  independant verification of this it would not suprise me in the slightest.

frost

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sallypelt on 04.10.14 22:12

According to Gerry McCann :

"He said the family would probably not have been able to bring the challenge if lawyers had not been willing to act on a no-win, no-fee basis".

Where is Brian Kennedy when he's needed?


http://www.talktalk.co.uk/news/technology/article/madeleine-father-in-web-trolls-plea/145239/

sallypelt

Posts : 3302
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sami on 04.10.14 22:17

@frost wrote:There are a few folk tweeting that the 55k has gone to missing people though I have not seen actual  independant verification of this it would not suprise me in the slightest.


The Guardian reported yesterday:-

"Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children."

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Brian Griffin on 04.10.14 22:17

@jeanmonroe wrote:
@Brian Griffin wrote:Is there a link to the radio interview?

Yes Sireee!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jm9mv

1hr 36 mins 'in'.
Ta!

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)

Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 04.10.14 22:20

@sallypelt wrote:According to Gerry McCann :

"He said the family would probably not have been able to bring the challenge if lawyers had not been willing to act on a no-win, no-fee basis".

Where is Brian Kennedy when he's needed?


http://www.talktalk.co.uk/news/technology/article/madeleine-father-in-web-trolls-plea/145239/
Does that suggest there is no money left in the fund,damn and blast Amaral for not giving in,all IMO.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by TMH on 04.10.14 22:59

Surely the whole £55K hasn't gone to charity as Carter Ruck would have to take out their winning fee first? I wonder how much their fee was from the £55K?

TMH

Posts : 192
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 05.10.14 0:03

Normally the arrangement would be a sum of damages agreed plus legal costs. Its unlikely therefore Carter-Rucks fees would come out of the £55,000.  I hope that we will be told specifically which charities will benefit (presumably one will be Missing People). I would like to see the charities themselves confirm that they received the money but I suspect I'm being unrealistic here!

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2013-11-14

View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 05.10.14 2:40

I'd suppose the Times would have given instruction to make out cheques to the named charities and hand them over to CR. That must be the procedures.  Otherwise what's there to stop The Times checking with the named charities, and should their claim proven to be false, to expose them.


I am surprised the Times were not obliged to make a public apology, or we will be told what the contentious issue was.  Me thinks the Times was gotten at over a very small technical error, and by not obliging the Times to make a public apology, it leaves it open for them to spin this to fit their agenda.  They need not say which bit the Times got wrong, just that the Times wronged them.
Very shrewd move by them as usual.  

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Jauna Loca on 05.10.14 11:32

By my understanding, The Times did issue an apology where it stood over all its facts except the length of time the Smithman efits
remained suppressed. The tenet of this writ seens to be that the couple were not afforded the right tp reply and put their side of
the story forward, and in that wasy The Times could be deemed legally remiss. Despite the Libel appelation it would seem that the
payout here is not to do with the facts of the story which remained intact after the measly "apology". McCanns were then forced into
heavy duty spin re lack of funds to follow two leads and supressing report as "distracting", which IMO did not help their case.
Similarly, it suits TM to stand on the court steps bellowing that Dr. Amaral is subject of a libel trial implying that the content of his book is untrue
and therefore open to challenge. It speaks volumes to note that inside thaee court not one of Amaral's theories has been challenged.
Instead the brunt of the gripe is how bad it makes the couple feel.

Jauna Loca

Posts : 65
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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