Re: Sunday Times apology

by Cristobell 31.12.13 0:45

Over The Hill wrote:My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

Hi OTH, I have been reading your posts with interest, welcome smilie

It has been very frustrating knowing the MSM have not been telling us the truth and I am sorry to see that you seem to be getting the brunt of that. It is a curious case indeed, and one that seems to arouse extreme emotions, with some people [Lorraine Kelly], seemingly putting their hands over their ears and refusing to hear a bad word said about the Drs. McCann, to the point where they become quite hostile and abusive [even Lorraine].

Presumably if newsrooms are a reflection of society, it may be that there are enough outraged defenders of the McCanns running the schedules to ensure that only favourable (abduction) stories rise to the surface. Cynically, the McCann name is still a 'big earner' it programs get a surge in the ratings, newspapers sell more, it is a popular human interest story and they are probably all hovering and waiting for that scoop.

I won't blame you personally OTH, we all know 'bosses on high' can make the laws work in whichever way suits them. Libel is undoubtedly a factor, probably in the sense that the McCanns are notoriously litigious, it was probably just not worth the hassle and other stories may have superseded them, as in 'Drop the Dead Donkey'. The world turns, tragedies occur all the time, most people have probably forgotten the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are almost certainly not as devoted to it as we are.

Anyway, good to see you here and I look forward to reading your posts.

by aiyoyo 31.12.13 0:57

Oh, they can't possibly refuse to show up if their request to speak is granted by the Judge.

Wont look good for them if they do a u-turn now. Too late for that!

Whether the Judge grants them permission to speak or not is immaterial.
It wont make an ounce of difference to the overweighing evidence against them - that they were insincere in their search - that in fact they impeded the search when they refused to follow their PIs advice - and that they concealed evidence unearthed by their PIs. Not forgetting Amaral & Co is bound to have some more ace hidden up their sleeves waiting to be unveiled.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 1:01

Cristobell wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

Hi OTH, I have been reading your posts with interest, welcome

It has been very frustrating knowing the MSM have not been telling us the truth and I am sorry to see that you seem to be getting the brunt of that. It is a curious case indeed, and one that seems to arouse extreme emotions, with some people [Lorraine Kelly], seemingly putting their hands over their ears and refusing to hear a bad word said about the Drs. McCann, to the point where they become quite hostile and abusive [even Lorraine].

Presumably if newsrooms are a reflection of society, it may be that there are enough outraged defenders of the McCanns running the schedules to ensure that only favourable (abduction) stories rise to the surface. Cynically, the McCann name is still a 'big earner' it programs get a surge in the ratings, newspapers sell more, it is a popular human interest story and they are probably all hovering and waiting for that scoop.

I won't blame you personally OTH, we all know 'bosses on high' can make the laws work in whichever way suits them. Libel is undoubtedly a factor, probably in the sense that the McCanns are notoriously litigious, it was probably just not worth the hassle and other stories may have superseded them, as in 'Drop the Dead Donkey'. The world turns, tragedies occur all the time, most people have probably forgotten the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are almost certainly not as devoted to it as we are.

Anyway, good to see you here and I look forward to reading your posts.

Cristobell, I think you are letting OTH off the hook. He/she has been spreading misinformation, claiming that UK media cannot report foreign libel trials as that makes them subject to libel suits.

But read this from the Carter-Ruck site:

"Reports of proceedings listed in Schedule 1 Defamation Act 1996
The Defamation Act 1996 lists a number of publications which are covered by qualified privilege. These include fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in legislatures, courts, and international conferences anywhere in the world. The report does not have to be contemporaneous."

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 1:05

jeanmonroe wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:And, Kate & Gerry Mccanns have never dare step into the Witness Stand to be cross-examined, under Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH.

We may soon find out how they will disintegrate under cross examination if ever the Libel Court Judge grant them their wish to speak.
I suspect their wish to speak is just a narrow issue of reading out a legally-censored-pre-prepared-script, and once that's done they will refuse to answer questions.

They did put on 'another great performance', under oath, at Leveson but did not dare utter the 'A' words (abduction/abducted) in relation to their daughter Madeleine having been placed 'under oath' to give true evidence.

Even their very expensive lawyer at CR will NEVER again state that Madeleine 'was abducted'

Or even their Portuguese lawyer, at their current libel trial, who only ever refers to the 'abduction' as 'the McCann couple's THESIS'

Wow! - I never realised they had avoided the A word while under oath and that CR and Portugese lawyers also have to avoid it, for professional reasons! I would like to award you
Best Post of 2013 as a result!

by jeanmonroe 31.12.13 1:10

OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 1:20

jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

I'm with you on that Jean. Very suspicious. Claiming to know all about UK libel law until I posted the quote from Carter Ruck! A UK media person who is very happy with UK libel laws!!

I didn't think OTH was the genuine article either. If he/she returns let's see what they say about the Carter Rick site which makes it clear there is privilege afforded to the media to report on foreign libel trials.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 1:32

Okeydokey wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

Hi OTH, I have been reading your posts with interest, welcome

It has been very frustrating knowing the MSM have not been telling us the truth and I am sorry to see that you seem to be getting the brunt of that. It is a curious case indeed, and one that seems to arouse extreme emotions, with some people [Lorraine Kelly], seemingly putting their hands over their ears and refusing to hear a bad word said about the Drs. McCann, to the point where they become quite hostile and abusive [even Lorraine].

Presumably if newsrooms are a reflection of society, it may be that there are enough outraged defenders of the McCanns running the schedules to ensure that only favourable (abduction) stories rise to the surface. Cynically, the McCann name is still a 'big earner' it programs get a surge in the ratings, newspapers sell more, it is a popular human interest story and they are probably all hovering and waiting for that scoop.

I won't blame you personally OTH, we all know 'bosses on high' can make the laws work in whichever way suits them. Libel is undoubtedly a factor, probably in the sense that the McCanns are notoriously litigious, it was probably just not worth the hassle and other stories may have superseded them, as in 'Drop the Dead Donkey'. The world turns, tragedies occur all the time, most people have probably forgotten the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are almost certainly not as devoted to it as we are.

Anyway, good to see you here and I look forward to reading your posts.

Cristobell, I think you are letting OTH off the hook. He/she has been spreading misinformation, claiming that UK media cannot report foreign libel trials as that makes them subject to libel suits.

But read this from the Carter-Ruck site:

"Reports of proceedings listed in Schedule 1 Defamation Act 1996
The Defamation Act 1996 lists a number of publications which are covered by qualified privilege. These include fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in legislatures, courts, and international conferences anywhere in the world. The report does not have to be contemporaneous."

Hi OkeyDokey, I tend not to get involved in the intricacies of legal wording - the only winners are the lawyers. Laws like statistics can be manipulated to suit an argument, and indeed to hide behind. They are especially useful if one wants to say No, and needs an excuse. If a newspaper owner chooses to 'take a side' there is little the employees can do about it, and thats the bottom line. Whether you are right, or OTH is, makes no difference, unless of course OTH is a media mogul, in which case, fair dues.

I would assume a public service like the BBC would have some accountability, but again, if those in charge are defenders of the McCanns they will be sensitive as to what is reported and the journalists and crew will have little input. Anyone who has ever been an employee will know that bosses are never wrong. We can write and complain, but unless we do so in huge numbers, we will not be heard and if we were. the only retribution would be an apology and a promise they will not do it again, but they will, of course.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 1:44

Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

Hi OTH, I have been reading your posts with interest, welcome

It has been very frustrating knowing the MSM have not been telling us the truth and I am sorry to see that you seem to be getting the brunt of that. It is a curious case indeed, and one that seems to arouse extreme emotions, with some people [Lorraine Kelly], seemingly putting their hands over their ears and refusing to hear a bad word said about the Drs. McCann, to the point where they become quite hostile and abusive [even Lorraine].

Presumably if newsrooms are a reflection of society, it may be that there are enough outraged defenders of the McCanns running the schedules to ensure that only favourable (abduction) stories rise to the surface. Cynically, the McCann name is still a 'big earner' it programs get a surge in the ratings, newspapers sell more, it is a popular human interest story and they are probably all hovering and waiting for that scoop.

I won't blame you personally OTH, we all know 'bosses on high' can make the laws work in whichever way suits them. Libel is undoubtedly a factor, probably in the sense that the McCanns are notoriously litigious, it was probably just not worth the hassle and other stories may have superseded them, as in 'Drop the Dead Donkey'. The world turns, tragedies occur all the time, most people have probably forgotten the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are almost certainly not as devoted to it as we are.

Anyway, good to see you here and I look forward to reading your posts.

Cristobell, I think you are letting OTH off the hook. He/she has been spreading misinformation, claiming that UK media cannot report foreign libel trials as that makes them subject to libel suits.

But read this from the Carter-Ruck site:

"Reports of proceedings listed in Schedule 1 Defamation Act 1996
The Defamation Act 1996 lists a number of publications which are covered by qualified privilege. These include fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in legislatures, courts, and international conferences anywhere in the world. The report does not have to be contemporaneous."

Hi OkeyDokey, I tend not to get involved in the intricacies of legal wording - the only winners are the lawyers. Laws like statistics can be manipulated to suit an argument, and indeed to hide behind. They are especially useful if one wants to say No, and needs an excuse. If a newspaper owner chooses to 'take a side' there is little the employees can do about it, and thats the bottom line. Whether you are right, or OTH is, makes no difference, unless of course OTH is a media mogul, in which case, fair dues.

I would assume a public service like the BBC would have some accountability, but again, if those in charge are defenders of the McCanns they will be sensitive as to what is reported and the journalists and crew will have little input. Anyone who has ever been an employee will know that bosses are never wrong. We can write and complain, but unless we do so in huge numbers, we will not be heard and if we were. the only retribution would be an apology and a promise they will not do it again, but they will, of course.

You're mixing up a number of strands there.

The point is OTH stated CLEARLY that UK media were constrained from reporting on foreign libel trials because, contrary to the situation with UK libel trials, they enjoyed no privilege.

But the Carter Ruck site makes clear that foreign court proceedings DO enjoy legal privilege in this country. It couldn't be clearer.

Let's see if OTH has the gall to come back here and restate their claim. I predict not. But let's see.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 1:51

jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure. Especially hearing him/her discount the legal advice from Carter Ruck!

by jeanmonroe 31.12.13 1:55

Okeydokey wrote:
"Let's see if OTH has the gall to come back here and restate their claim. I predict not. But let's see."
______________________________________________

Especially after OTH stated that:

"TB libelled the McCanns under English Law,..."

Without OTH providing a scintilla of evidence, to back up that, possible libellous, statement, that TB did!

Which, by the way, he didn't!

by Cristobell 31.12.13 2:10

Okeydokey wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"[b]

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure. Especially hearing him/her discount the legal advice from Carter Ruck!

Clearly OTH does not approve of what has been going on, and as I explained earlier it is probably beyond his/her control, and was I think, rather put on the spot, and I see no reason for this to become confrontational. Personally, I think it would be great to have someone from the MSM join us, especially one that is on our side!

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 2:21

Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure. Especially hearing him/her discount the legal advice from Carter Ruck!

Clearly OTH does not approve of what has been going on, and as I explained earlier it is probably beyond his/her control, and was I think, rather put on the spot, and I see no reason for this to become confrontational. Personally, I think it would be great to have someone from the MSM join us, especially one that is on our side!

Hi Cristobell,

I don't see any need to be confrontational either.

However, OTH has simply dismissed all references to facts that the media could easily report.

Now I have shown he/she is wrong in claiming that there is no legal privilege for foreign court proceedings.

We haven't heard back from him/her yet. My prediction remains we won't be hearing from OTH again.
Personally I don't think OTH is "on our side" at all. I think OTH is "on a mission".

Honestly - I don't normally get this worked up about posts but OTH's posts are just setting off a lot of alarms for me. :)

by jeanmonroe 31.12.13 2:31

Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure. Especially hearing him/her discount the legal advice from Carter Ruck!

Clearly OTH does not approve of what has been going on, and as I explained earlier it is probably beyond his/her control, and was I think, rather put on the spot, and I see no reason for this to become confrontational. Personally, I think it would be great to have someone from the MSM join us, especially one that is on our side!

I agree we should welcome MSM.
But if OTH is 'concerned' about way the case has been reported in the MSM shouldn't she, or he, be running around her/his office shouting 'i've been on that forum, and had my eyes opened to what is not getting reported on the Madeleine McCann case'?

'I'm going to see the boss and demand to know why the reporting is so biased towards the McCanns, to the exclusion of all other views'

Will she/he won't she/he do just that?

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 2:38

jeanmonroe wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure. Especially hearing him/her discount the legal advice from Carter Ruck!

Clearly OTH does not approve of what has been going on, and as I explained earlier it is probably beyond his/her control, and was I think, rather put on the spot, and I see no reason for this to become confrontational. Personally, I think it would be great to have someone from the MSM join us, especially one that is on our side!

I agree we should welcome MSM.
But if OTH is 'concerned' about way the case has been reported in the MSM shouldn't she, or he, be running around her/his office shouting 'i've been on that forum, and had my eyes opened to what is not getting reported on the Madeleine McCann case'?

'I'm going to see the boss and demand to know why the reporting is so biased towards the McCanns, to the exclusion of all other views'

Will she/he won't she/he do just that?

Guess we'll find out, won't we?

Quite - it ain't gonna happen.

My prediction (following on your earlier observation) is that this is the last we will see of OTH. Of course I may be wrong and OTH may choose to come on here and explain why they are right about liability in reporting of foreign libel trials and Carter-Ruck (the ultimate libel lawyers) are wrong when they say foreign libel trials are privileged.

by suzyjohnson 31.12.13 8:24

PeterMac wrote:Neat summary here
http://freepdfhosting.com/2b20302620.pdf
Disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, Praia da Luz, Portugal 3rd May 2007
On 28 December 2013, the Sunday Times issued an on-line "apology for any distress caused" while accepting that its readers may have misunderstood certain aspects of the articles dated 23 October 2013 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) with regard to the "Oakley Report" commissioned by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited”.
The "Oakley Report", including a set of "eFit" images, was commissioned at a cost of approximately £500,000 by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” which was compiled within a six month period during 2008 and completed in November 2008, by a team of private investigators headed by Henri Exton, former MI5 Undercover Operations Chief, on behalf of Oakley International.
The Sunday Times statement / apology is published here:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece
“Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” is a private limited company which obtains funding from a combination of public donations and the sale of sundry items such as wristbands, luggage labels etc. Its directors include Madeleine McCann’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, Kate McCann’s uncle, Brian Kennedy, family friends Jon Corner and Michael Linnett and lawyer, Edward Smethurst.
More information about the company can be sought here:
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215/MADELEINES-FUND-LEAVING-NO-STONE-UNTURNED-LIMITED/company-summary
The aims and purposes of the company are published here:
http://findmadeleine.com/support/index.html
The Sunday Times’ statement clarifies for its readers that the set of “eFit” images contained within the Oakley Report, (but NOT the full Oakley Report itself), were in fact passed by the “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” to both the Policia Judicária in Portugal and Leicestershire Police in October 2009.
(At this time both of the above police forces had already shelved their active investigations into Madeleine’s disappearance.)
The eFits were, by implication, therefore, only withheld from the AUTHORITIES for a minimum of 11 months (but possibly up to 17 months, depending on the exact date of the eFits having been obtained).
The eFits were, also by implication, withheld from the PUBLIC by ALL parties, including “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” until October 2013 - a period of about five years.
This was also intimated by DCI Andy Redwood appearing on BBC Crimewatch in October 2013, when he stated very clearly that the eFits used in Scotland Yard’s public appeals during October 2013, had never previously appeared in the public domain until that time, although they had been in existence for some years prior.
The Sunday Times’ statement also clarifies that the FULL Oakley Report commissioned and paid for by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited”, and compiled by Henri Exton and his team of private investigators on behalf of Oakley International, was only passed by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011, when Scotland Yard opened a fresh review / investigation, known as “Operation Grange” into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in May 2007.
The full "Oakley Report" was, by implication, withheld by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” from the AUTHORITIES for a period of almost three years after it was completed.
To date, the full content of the “Oakley Report” has not been made public, and presumably forms part of the ongoing Scotland Yard investigation, Operation Grange.
It has been made clear, on several occasions by DCI Redwood that the “Smith sighting” and its associated eFits are of crucial significance to Operations Grange’s ongoing investigation. Indeed, the Smith sighting has been described by him as a “revelation moment” in the investigative process.
The Sunday Times, however, NEITHER apologises for, NOR refutes any of the following statements contained within its articles dated October 23 2013("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News):
 That the Oakley Report recommended that the Smith sighting eFits should be “released without delay" (November 2008).  That the Oakley Report raised questions about "anomalies" in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.
 That a source close to “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” said that the McCanns and their friends said that the Oakley Report was “hypercritical of the people involved ... it just wouldn’t have been conducive to the investigation to have the Report publicly declared because ... the newspapers would have been all over it and it would have been completely distracting”.
 That the Oakley Report contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns.  That the Oakley Report raised the possibility that Madeleine could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two
unsecured doors.
 That the Oakley Report stated the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded that “the Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of
Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting.”
 That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” wanted to pursue information about the earlier sighting by Tanner, in spite of the
recommendations of the Oakley Report.
 That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” deemed it too expensive to investigate both the Tanner and the Smith sightings fully.
 That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” deemed it necessary to threaten legal action against the authors of the Report.
 That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” had "silenced" Exton and his investigators, by way of a letter from lawyers binding them to confidentiality.
 That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” prevented Exton and his investigators from handing the Oakley Report to Scotland Yard when requested to by them, without the Fund's explicit permission.
 That the McCanns threatened the Report's authors with Legal Action if the Oakley Report was to be made public.  That the Smith sighting eFits were not included in the book "Madeleine" written by Kate McCann and published in 2011, although the Smith sighting
itself was cited and seven OTHER eFits were included in the book.  That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” have stated that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed on to Scotland Yard.
In light of the above omissions from the Sunday Times’ apology to its readers, one has to assume that, at this point in time, the Sunday Times is standing by the content of its articles dated October 23 2013 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News), and that the apology refers only to the fact that readers may have been misled into thinking that the eFits may have been withheld by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” from the authorities for a period of longer than eleven months.
Discussion
At first glance, the Sunday Times apology may appear to the undiscerning as a “retraction” of its articles published on 23 October 2013. However, it is very far from that.
The apology is only to the newspaper’s readers who may have misunderstood that, although the Smith sighting eFits were NOT PUBLICISED by any party, including “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” for almost 5 years after their production, they were passed to police authorities in the UK and Portugal after 11 months.
Neither of the two police authorities was actively investigating Madeleine’s disappearance at the time they received the eFits and the eFits were only eventually made public by Scotland Yard in October 2013.
The Sunday Times makes no apology or retraction regarding any other issues raised or statements made in the articles.
It now transpires that Scotland Yard deems that these Smith sighting eFits are of crucial significance to their investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance, which leaves one to wonder why there were not publicised “without delay” in November 2008, on Exton’s recommendation.
It appears that “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” believed that following the Smith sighting lead would prove too expensive; yet, at the very least, it would have only been a maximum of half a day’s work for the webmaster of FindMadeleine.com to add the eFit images with a paragraph of explanatory text to the website; i.e. not so expensive for a Fund whose net worth in 2008 was over £1 million, one would have thought.
“Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” also believed that the publications of the Smith sighting eFits would prove distracting to the ongoing search for Madeleine and preferred to pursue information relating to the Tanner sighting.
Yet, it transpires only this week in the media (Mirror), that Leicestershire police may well have identified the “Tanner Sighting” man as an innocent tourist carrying his own daughter as long ago as 2008, as a result of questionnaires that were sent out to tourists who used the Ocean Club “night crèche” facility during the week the McCanns were on holiday there.
One has to assume that these questionnaires were sent out before Leicestershire police shelved their active investigations, and therefore well before “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” passed the eFits to them in October 2009.
Scotland Yard has also since confirmed that the man in question has now been formally identified, interviewed and photographed, and that they also believe that Jane Tanner’s sighting should be disregarded.
To date (30 December 2013) the “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” official website, is still displaying artist’s impressions of the Tanner sighting: http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Although the Smith sighting eFits were displayed on the website from late October 2013 until just before Christmas, they have now been replaced by a Christmas message from Kate McCann.
So, as ever in this most bizarre of cases, one is left with the rather unpleasant sense that someone, somewhere has been trying very hard over a very long period of time to hinder the investigation leading to the true facts behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from being known.
One can only hope that, in time and for the sake of Madeleine herself, missing now for almost 7 years, the full facts will be known very soon, and that those responsible for her disappearance will finally be brought to justice.
Additional notes:
The Smith family, who originally sighted a man carrying a child similar in appearance to Madeleine McCann down a street in Praia da Luz at about 10pm on 3rd May 2007, made formal statements to the Policia Judicária in Portugal on 26 May 2007, about 3 weeks after Madeleine went missing.
Mr Smith’s initial statement was followed up by an additional statement to his local police force in Drogheda, County Louth, Eire in September 2007, which highlighted some physical similarities between the man he had seen and Madeleine’s father, Gerry McCann.
These statements have been in the public domain since August 2008 and can be read in full here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
The chief detective initially investigating Madeleine’s disappearance in Portugal was Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral became aware of the significance of this sighting early on in the investigation and was in the process of arranging for the Smith family to return to Portugal in late September 2007 to provide eFits of the man they had seen. However, Amaral was removed from the case on 2 October 2007, 12 days after Martin Smith’s second statement, and the Smith family were not re-interviewed by the Policia Judicária.
Ironically the McCanns are currently suing Amaral for libel in Lisbon over the publication of his book, which is largely based on the police files that have been in the public domain since August 2008. It is their belief, among other issues, that the publication of the book may have hindered the search for their daughter, Madeleine.
The final day of the trial is due to take place on 7 January 2014.
It is perhaps a moot point at this stage that the Smith sighting eFits were not publicised until very recently, more than six and a half years after Madeleine went missing.
Just like the man Jane Tanner saw that night, the man the Smith family saw may well also have been an innocent resident or tourist carrying his own child home after an evening out or at work.
It is also possible however that the child he was carrying could have been Madeleine. Operation Grange has not to date released any updates specific to this matter to the public.
Further reading: McCann PJ Files: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ McCann Files: http://www.mccannfiles.com/

Has all of the above been sent to Amaral?

by **PeterMac** 31.12.13 8:38

Dr Amaral has been sent several dossiers of information and evidence recently.
Some relating to things in the public domain, like the above.
Others relating to things too "sensitive" to put in the public domain, by which I mean things that can only be revealed under the privilege of court proceedings - if it becomes necessary for him to do so.

Grange and the PJ have also been sent similar dossiers, and have acknowledged receipt.
What they choose to do with the information is of course their decision.

by suzyjohnson 31.12.13 9:07

Cristobell wrote:

Clearly OTH does not approve of what has been going on, and as I explained earlier it is probably beyond his/her control, and was I think, rather put on the spot, and I see no reason for this to become confrontational. Personally, I think it would be great to have someone from the MSM join us, especially one that is on our side!

Cristobell, I agree with you. In the first place, OTH isn't responsible for the entire televised news output regarding the McCann case.

Secondly, OTH is as entitled to his / her opinion as anyone on here; the more people interested in the case the better.

by suzyjohnson 31.12.13 9:16

PeterMac wrote:Dr Amaral has been sent several dossiers of information and evidence recently.
Some relating to things in the public domain, like the above.
Others relating to things too "sensitive" to put in the public domain, by which I mean things that can only be revealed under the privilege of court proceedings - if it becomes necessary for him to do so.

Grange and the PJ have also been sent similar dossiers, and have acknowledged receipt.
What they choose to do with the information is of course their decision.

Well that's good. I had visions of the McCanns surprising the Lisbon court next month with their apology from the Sunday Times

by Over The Hill 31.12.13 9:25

jeanmonroe wrote:OTH:

Another '75 posts, over and out', 'new ' member?

Seems to be rather a lot of 'them' recently.

ETA:
A 'snippet' from OTH's 'last' post.

"Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored......"

IF you are still reading OTH, have you asked yourself WHY all of the UK media have ignored the basic rules of journalism (unbiased reporting) and only report anything that is perceived to be favourable to two uncleared people, in a missing child case, and will not ever invite anybody that dosen't believe in the UK media 'abduction' mantra into studios or press offices to give their alternative explanations as to why Madeleine is not here?

No matter how 'daft' their explanations COULD be.

I'm still here (surprised?)
Please don't dismiss people who are able to add some expertise to the discussion
You really believe that what was the papers in August 2007 was biased in that one direction?
Read again

by The Rooster 31.12.13 9:28

You make a good point Suzy J regarding the Times apology. All the legal costs to manage their deceipt must be very expensive and they don't have too much left surely. When it's gone we can lift up the stone they live under and see their malice for what it will be worth.

by Over The Hill 31.12.13 9:48

Re suggestions that my colleagues and I should be running around telling news editors what to do, I can assure you that this case is being covered in a very similar way to most other crime stories, it's just your perception that is different because you are particularly interested in it

MSM hardly ever accuses someone of carrying out a crime before that person has been charged, and I'm sure you can all recall a good example of them getting it terribly wrong three years ago today

We wouldn't want a repeat of that

by aiyoyo 31.12.13 9:50

The Rooster wrote:You make a good point Suzy J regarding the Times apology. All the legal costs to manage their deceipt must be very expensive and they don't have too much left surely. When it's gone we can lift up the stone they live under and see their malice for what it will be worth.

The Fund is not growing, in fact it is depleting and low on cash. And they have hell of a lot of legal fees outstanding and possibly more on the way.
Could be they thought they can grow their cash by suing is possible.
But Sunday Times made the corrections accompanied with an apology.
A rudimentary change that didn't change certain points that materials were concealed by the Fund, PI advice to pursue Smith's man not taken up, PI sacked and coerced into silence by threat of legal letter.

They will be burying themselves if they use this apology in Libel Court...eh erh..I dont think they are stupid.
Arrogant ,YES, stupid NO.
Unless they're caught off guard by open questions then yes they can give stupid answers as seen in some sofa interviews.

by Guest 31.12.13 9:55

Over The Hill wrote:Re suggestions that my colleagues and I should be running around telling news editors what to do, I can assure you that this case is being covered in a very similar way to most other crime stories, it's just your perception that is different because you are particularly interested in it

MSM hardly ever accuses someone of carrying out a crime before that person has been charged, and I'm sure you can all recall a good example of them getting it terribly wrong three years ago today

We wouldn't want a repeat of that

Yes, a terrible episode the way that poor innocent man was treated!

How do you square this then from just a few weeks ago........ where is this fact, nothing has been proven, yet we have a front page like this!

Sunday Times apology - Page 7 Dailystar311013fp

Sunday Times apology - Page 7 Dailystar311013fp

by sami 31.12.13 10:18

Over The Hill wrote:Re suggestions that my colleagues and I should be running around telling news editors what to do, I can assure you that this case is being covered in a very similar way to most other crime stories, it's just your perception that is different because you are particularly interested in it

MSM hardly ever accuses someone of carrying out a crime before that person has been charged, and I'm sure you can all recall a good example of them getting it terribly wrong three years ago today

We wouldn't want a repeat of that

I do not think our perception is different in this instance because of interest. It is because the majority of people here reading what is written in the press are educated about the story and can easily see through the limp propaganda attempts.

At this stage even I can spot a pink spin story immediately. I really would beg to differ that it is reported in a similar way way to other stories. I have rarely, if ever, seen a reference to Amaral without the prefix "disgraced cop". Leaving out such references in articles might be a starting point.

Report all or report nothing. I look forward to reading a printed retraction and apology to tractorman and his family, whilst looking forward I won't hold my breath though.

by justthinking 31.12.13 10:30

Okeydokey Today at 1:20 am
If he/she returns .........

Okeydokey Today at 1:44 am
see if OTH has the gall to come back here and restate their claim. I predict not. But let's see.

Okeydokey Today at 1:51 am
I'm predicting we never hear from OTH again. But if we do it will be interesting, I'm sure.

Okeydokey Today at 2:21 am
We haven't heard back from him/her yet. My prediction remains we won't be hearing from OTH again.

Look at the times of these posts.....rather than avoiding answering could it be that maybe Over the Hill was just asleep?

Log in for more topics