Re: WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

by ra18 27.10.13 15:09

candyfloss wrote:
ra18 wrote:Hi Everyone

Been lurking for a while but this is my first post. Seems the Huffington Post are picking up on this story now

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/27/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5_n_4167645.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Welcome ra18, thank you for bringing us this. It seems to be gathering pace. I see no comments allowed on the story.

Madeleine McCann Suspect E-Fit Produced By Former Spies In 2008 And Suppressed By Parents

Huffington Post UK | Posted: 27/10/2013 13:59 GMT | Updated: 27/10/2013 14:10 GMT

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/27/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5_n_4167645.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Huff post posted it on facebook and looking at the comments on that it seems most people are sick of the case! Think people might be suffering mccann fatigue!

by Guest 27.10.13 15:10

Quote Sunday Times:

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns' evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns

This I think is very telling.

by SixMillionQuid 27.10.13 15:13

Okeydokey wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]

[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare

@CaroleShooter
GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.
#McCann
[/ltr]

1:59pm - 27 Oct 13
Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!

Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?
Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!

I suppose you read the Fund's statement in two ways

1. The Fund is passing the buck by claiming SY sat on this info for the last 5 years; or
2. They're stating the obvious in that they handed over all of their private investigator stuff as part of the review.

by Woofer 27.10.13 15:21

I thought Murdoch was palsy with Clarence. They must have fallen out big time now.

by Guest 27.10.13 15:22

Humanist wrote: [...]
The biggest case in the world and he did not have the humanity, the balls, the conviction to go to someone else with this information to save a child. [...]

***
Perhaps he knew she couldn't be saved?
As others posted, he might have ruined himself by stepping forward then.

by SixMillionQuid 27.10.13 15:24

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]

[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare

@CaroleShooter
GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.
#McCann
[/ltr]

1:59pm - 27 Oct 13
Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!

Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?
Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!
I suppose you read the Fund's statement in two ways

1. The Fund is passing the buck by claiming SY sat on this info for the last 5 years; or
2. They're stating the obvious in that they handed over all of their private investigator stuff as part of the review.

Looks like its option 2 going by the Sunday Times report

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

End even when they got a review the Fund continued to lie through its teeth.

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 15:31

Woofer wrote:I thought Murdoch was palsy with Clarence. They must have fallen out big time now.

Wasn't there some connection to the McCanns via Rupert Murdoch's daughter? I thought it was possibly through her influence that he came to change the approach of his papers to teh McCanns.

Found a link...

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/freud-madeleine-mccann-murdoch.html

So something must have happened if the Murdoch papers are being allowed to pursue accurate reporting again. It might be that there is now a split in the "Chipping NOrton set" since the arrest of Coulson and Brooks.

by pauline 27.10.13 15:34

melisande wrote:Is this why esther mcvey jumped ship? What was the timing of her leaving the fund/the Fund receiving the Oakley report? I recall at one point there were a lot of departures from the Fund at the same time. Would make sense if it was around about the same time as the receipt of the report.

Esther went January 2008. Oakley report much later in 2008, November I think.

obviously she realised then what was going on, and left. Another person left Jan 2008 - was an elderly solicitor I think. probably concerned at the amount of money going on lawyers.

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 15:34

SixMillionQuid wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]

[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare

@CaroleShooter
GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.
#McCann
[/ltr]

1:59pm - 27 Oct 13
Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!

Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?
Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!
I suppose you read the Fund's statement in two ways

1. The Fund is passing the buck by claiming SY sat on this info for the last 5 years; or
2. They're stating the obvious in that they handed over all of their private investigator stuff as part of the review.
Looks like its option 2 going by the Sunday Times report

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

End even when they got a review the Fund continued to lie through its teeth.

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Can we read into this that initially the Fund did not hand over the material to SY and that they did so only after pressure was exerted by Exton, who had them by the short and curlies, so to speak.

by Prehensile 27.10.13 15:41

Lance De Boils wrote:I say. This article is certainly one for the "Thread of HOPE."

Now, remind me... who caused most damage to the "search" for Madeleine? Hmmm....?

Perhaps they will sue themselves and pocket the money from the fund.

by Woofer 27.10.13 15:46

Okeydokey wrote:
Woofer wrote:I thought Murdoch was palsy with Clarence. They must have fallen out big time now.
Wasn't there some connection to the McCanns via Rupert Murdoch's daughter? I thought it was possibly through her influence that he came to change the approach of his papers to teh McCanns.

Found a link...

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/freud-madeleine-mccann-murdoch.html

So something must have happened if the Murdoch papers are being allowed to pursue accurate reporting again. It might be that there is now a split in the "Chipping NOrton set" since the arrest of Coulson and Brooks.

Yep, Clarence used to work for Freud Communications (Murdoch`s in-laws). Also the McCanns went to lunch with Clement Freud when they were in Portugal. I remember Kate doing her usual name dropping bit, as she does !

Oh yes I forgot how it all ties in with the Chipping Norton set - Cor, they didn`t `arf go up in the world.

by TellTheTruth 27.10.13 15:50

SeeIyay wrote:
Searcher wrote:So far, BBC tv news at 9 am (BBC2), and review of papers on Andrew Marr, have omitted any reference to Sunday Times Insight article. They have chortled on about such major issues as the BBC, the US, Prince Charles, the weather - but nerry a word of the stunning revelations today. I wonder why not.
This is not a problem yet forTM. Most of the public won't be swayed by the article. Most won't get it's significance. What would get the rest of the media on board would be a double page spread with ST's famous graphics about the wider problems with the case.

'An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.'

If there is a follow up piece showing that at the time MC's statements about the JT sighting were anomalous and sat alongside inconsistencies in T7 statements then we have a big story likely to go into the full news cycle.
Basically this story would be that anomalies led to cover ups.
There would have been a call to TM to tell them this story was going to run on the Sunday. Insight are old school and will invite comment. TM are running with a plausible exclusion line right now ie they didn't want distraction from the JT sighting. It looks like a judgement call. All that changes if this story shifts to what else the spooks uncovered. If the next story is that double page spread with graphics drilling down into anomalies and inconsistencies that led to a suppression of evidence because of a cover up then the wider media have a meta story to run with. That TM had efits and didn't release them for years is not the story that will get traction but you can bet Insight are ready with the Why?
For anyone outside the UK this is not another Daily Mail/Express type story. The ST Insight team are one of the most credible outfits in journalism and are known for their campaigns. This may be the preface story to a wider investigations. Again if whistleblowers know Insight will hear them it is a gamechanger. Right now we are still in glitch country.

Thank you. Not got to the end of this thread yet so could well have missed the answer!

But WHY has it taken so long to ask these questions and put them into print?

by rainbow1 27.10.13 15:53

Hi
Long time lurker and followed the case from day one. Saw the invitation to join so thought I would do so.
I was surprised to see this news today and thought perhaps it was something to do with the Mccanns and Hacked off ?
If you remember in the early days they had Control Risks group involved in the search for little Madeleine and I always found that odd that such a high powered organization was involved in the search for one child.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id376.html

by Hicks 27.10.13 15:55

What irony though! It was the McCann's who hampered the search for their own daughter by withholding vital evidence of the Smith sighting. Does this mean that the case against Snr Amaral will now be thrown out of court?

by lj 27.10.13 15:55

Monty Heck wrote:
susible wrote:
Miraflores wrote:Has anyone any idea why the Sunday Times have broken ranks now?
Presumably they can't be Carter Rucked if they can prove that what they have printed is true?
Shouldn't think so, SY will be well aware of the deliberate attempt to hide the information. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Mc's and Carter Ruck have parted ways by now, if only because I doubt the Mc's will be able to afford them.
Yet despite being aware of the suppression of the e-fits AR, rather than pulling the McCs in for some detailed questioning, went along with the CW programme. During which he stated that the e-fits and later abduction timing were new and and indeed revelatory, while knowing that the e-fits had been produced 5 years ago and had been in the hands of the McCs all that time. The fact that what may have been vital evidence was kept back for 5 years and why that was done do not appear to have any significance for AR. He seems to have accepted this unquestioningly and simply moved the timescale forward while ruling out the JT sighting, so feverishly promoted by the Team. Meanwhile no-one has anything to say about the loss of this cherished sighting, when the fact they have been going up a blind alley on the strength of that testimony for 6+ years with a child still missing, is of major significance. The way SY have handled this is frankly disturbing.

I agree Monty. We don't know how long he had this information, after they (or Exton) needed permission from Carter *uck to get the files! Amazing, amazing. I guess that's what Andy meant when he said that the parents and SY work very close together (paraphrased).

It's amazing not more newspapers, tv shows have picked up on this.

by lj 27.10.13 15:58

Ollie1 wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:Some further thoughts:-

1. Won't this provide tremendous backing for those complaining about the untruthful nature of the BBC Crimewash programme?

2. The Sunday Times took care to quote in big font the following in a panel within the article:

"The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends"
I beleive this was a deliberate ploy by SY and DCI Redmond. I also think relations between SY and the PJ are a lot closer than the McCanns have been led to believe. Remember DCI Redwood said on CW that this was for Madeleine, be won't cover up, he has put Madeleine first. He is no McCann supporter, he wants justice and the truth, the same as Goncalo Amaral wanted, so please posters treat him with the same respect.

Where do see proof he is not a McCann supporter?

Respect has to be earned, and up until now I have seen very little that would earn this respect.

by Bobby Peru 27.10.13 16:05

Having purchased the ST for their Insight report, I'm convinced this is merely the first rock of a massive landslide, the opening skirmish in a larger battle, a mere hors d'oeuvre to an evening of steak and wine.

Ok, enough mixed metaphors for the time being. I am confident in predicting that the ST Insight Team are sat on even more damning evidence implicating TM that will be exposed to the public in the weeks to come. This is what they do. And in the following year or two there will, no doubt, be a full exposé in book form. They are an investigative team of journalists of global repute with fifty years of provenance. Today's article merely sliced off the top of the egg shell; next week will involve dipping their soldiers into TM's yoke, before consuming the white, and finally discarding TM's hollow, empty shell. (Excuse my fourth different metaphor in two paragraphs).

by MRNOODLES 27.10.13 16:06

candyfloss wrote:Quote Sunday Times:

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns' evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns

This I think is very telling.

Reminds me of this gem.

by plebgate 27.10.13 16:06

Monty Heck wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
susible wrote:
Miraflores wrote:Has anyone any idea why the Sunday Times have broken ranks now?
Presumably they can't be Carter Rucked if they can prove that what they have printed is true?
Shouldn't think so, SY will be well aware of the deliberate attempt to hide the information. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Mc's and Carter Ruck have parted ways by now, if only because I doubt the Mc's will be able to afford them.
Yet despite being aware of the suppression of the e-fits AR, rather than pulling the McCs in for some detailed questioning, went along with the CW programme. During which he stated that the e-fits and later abduction timing were new and and indeed revelatory, while knowing that the e-fits had been produced 5 years ago and had been in the hands of the McCs all that time. The fact that what may have been vital evidence was kept back for 5 years and why that was done do not appear to have any significance for AR. He seems to have accepted this unquestioningly and simply moved the timescale forward while ruling out the JT sighting, so feverishly promoted by the Team. Meanwhile no-one has anything to say about the loss of this cherished sighting, when the fact they have been going up a blind alley on the strength of that testimony for 6+ years with a child still missing, is of major significance. The way SY have handled this is frankly disturbing.
Sorry, I disagree.

SY have to get hard evidence, and they have to do whatever they have to do to get it, which probably includes keeping the McCanns sweet to some extent.

And carefully wording statements (as have the Portuguese police) to make it look as if they are following the abduction theory.

I do worry somewhat how the ST revelations today will affect the McCanns' stated willingness to take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, if they begin to realise that they have been well and truly rumbled.

What will they do now?

And why have none of the other papers taken this up, at least online
I do hope you are right, but do wonder whether SY felt they could simply gloss over the fact that the e-fits had been languishing in McC hands for 5 years because they thought this would never be contradicted. The Times article exposing the extent of SY's cosiness with the McC was surely unforseen? Whether SY's apparent support is all some kind of elaborate ruse remains to be seen but questioning people living within their jurisdiction seems an easier way of getting to the truth, rather than trailing around Europe with the McCsome on a roadshow of rather dubious merit.

I agree Monty Heck, never heard anything like it before. Traipsing round Europe with them doing CW type programmes but not asking them questions. Just who are they that the police have to pussyfoot around them or they wont agree to do a reconstruction or they wont do this that or the other.

The recent celebrities who have been interviewed about suspected crimes have been hauled in, questioned and released on bail pending further enquiries. I can't make head nor tale of it myself.

This case seems to be to be turning policing on its head, peeling an onion and working backwards - has that ever happened before?

by TellTheTruth 27.10.13 16:06

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone contacted The Sunday Times to commend them on having balls? I, for one, will be doing it asap

I tried this morning sallypelt but it failed. I have a very ancient laptop so probably a problem at my end sad

by DonNewbery 27.10.13 16:08

lj wrote:
Ollie1 wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:Some further thoughts:-

1. Won't this provide tremendous backing for those complaining about the untruthful nature of the BBC Crimewash programme?

2. The Sunday Times took care to quote in big font the following in a panel within the article:

"The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends"
I beleive this was a deliberate ploy by SY and DCI Redmond. I also think relations between SY and the PJ are a lot closer than the McCanns have been led to believe. Remember DCI Redwood said on CW that this was for Madeleine, be won't cover up, he has put Madeleine first. He is no McCann supporter, he wants justice and the truth, the same as Goncalo Amaral wanted, so please posters treat him with the same respect.
Where do see proof he is not a McCann supporter?

Respect has to be earned, and up until now I have seen very little that would earn this respect.

Please reserve judgement. I believe DCI Redmond is handling this very carefully and cleverly, and that Ollie's comments are spot on. Of course he's going to hide that fact that he is not on the side of the McCanns.

by TellTheTruth 27.10.13 16:11

candyfloss wrote:This bit is interesting.....

Nor were the Smith E-fits included in Kate McCann's 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight "key sightings" and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most 'crucial'. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist's impression. The Smiths' were the only exception. So why was such a "crucial" piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

That's what jumped out at me. Sorry, hours behind... soz

by lj 27.10.13 16:14

Truthandjustice wrote:
notlongnow wrote:Never in history has a steak & wine meal caused so much misery,hurt,spin,lies,deception,intrigue,job losses slander & fortunes for the few etc.....
I know! 30 euros for a babysitter for the evening seems cheap now eh?

They got offered one for free by Sylvia Batista, after the crying incident.

by Cristobell 27.10.13 16:16

Okeydokey wrote:Just throwing this out -

Does anyone think there is any possibility that Brian Kennedy has abandoned them? Just wondering if this would explain why Exton is now blowing the whistle on Team McCann?

I think their backers have long since gone Okeydokey, and in fact I would go so far as to say they are probably near broke. They have quite literally spent a fortune on the world's top lawyers even billionaires would flinch at their costs of 26 libel actions. They remind me a little bit of that mad woman who won the pools all those years ago 'I'm going to spend spend spend' - unfortunately they spent spent, spent on ill advised law suits that have opened the floodgates to hundreds more. I suspect they have got through their fortune a lot quicker than aforesaid mad woman.

by plebgate 27.10.13 16:20

Dr What wrote:Makes you wonder what the point is of continuing to pay for a mouthpiece like Clarrie.

He is supposed to control the media for the McCanns.To manage their reputation.

Not doing a very good job of it at the moment ,is he? Perhaps he needs to keep an eye on his next career move, as an MP in Parliament.

It's been reported that BK is no longer going to pay Pinky Mitchell's wages despite reportedly being worth £300 million.

If he isn't paying Pinky's wages then I wonder whether he is prepared to foot the bill for anything else?

Log in for more topics