Page 14 of 14 • Share •
Oh, I'm sure it is wildly inaccurate. Addictive, though. I've just looked again and zoomed right in so you can see the names of the buildings. There are three 'guests' apparently sitting in the Met police building right now. Hi, you guys!@nobodythereeither wrote:Dee Coy wrote: Sure enough there is a
detectiguest or 3 in Westminster right now! So that's how they're solving this case!
Well this map is showing me as being in Westminster, and I'm in quite another part of South London a long way from Westminster!
So I would take the forum readers apparently in Westminster with a very large bushel of salt
Regardless of discrepancies of a few miles, what is undeniable is that there is an unusually high level of activity on this forum in the centre of London. There are more people viewing there than in the whole of the rest of the country.
I remain fairly accurately in my neighbour's shed.
Ladyinred wrote:I've just logged on and I'm placed in London... I'm actually about 200 miles away. Happy New Year to you all.
I should be in The Hague but I'm usually put in a hospital carpark east of Amsterdam.
But today I'm much further east, probably on my way to Germany.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
- Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20
Ladyinred wrote:If someone's got five minutes and is familiar with central London, could they tell me where I am based, pleased. I've an idea it could be where my daughter works.
You're in Westminster, near the conference centre. About a block from the Met building.
I bet you're right in that one's location could default to where the IP address of the device you're using either originally or usually connects from. My tablet rarely leaves the house so this would account for my accurate location.
I have just discovered this, which puts the whole thing into context. The pros are not going to like it, as they insist there was a full apology,
Disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, Praia da Luz, Portugal 3rd May 2007 (Article updated 11 February 2014)
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, reportedly at a cost several hundred thousand pounds, 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:
“Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” is a private limited company which obtains its 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. As a “not for profit” company the directors are not allowed to personally benefit financially from it.
More information about the company can be sought here:
The aims and purposes of the company are published here:
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 eFits of the Smith family sighting, prepared in 2008 by Exton and his team and contained within the Oakley Report, were NOT PUBLICISED by either “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” or the Police Authorities in the UK and Portugal, until October 2013.
That the Oakley Report found that a sighting by one of the McCanns' friends, named as Jane Tanner, of a man carrying a child close to the McCann's apartment at about 9.15pm, was dismissed as less credible after "serious inconsistencies" were found in her evidence.
That the Oakley Report focussed on a sighting by the Smith family, of a man carrying a child through Praia da Luz at about 10pm on the evening Madeleine went missing.
That the Oakley Report recommended revising the accepted timeline of events, giving more credibility to the second sighting by the Smith family at about 10pm, than the first sighting by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.
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 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 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 “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.
deemed it too expensive to investigate both the Tanner and the Smith sightings fully.
deemed it necessary to threaten legal action against the authors of the Report.
had "silenced" Exton and his investigators, by way of a letter from lawyers binding them to confidentiality.
prevented Exton and his investigators from handing the Oakley Report to Scotland Yard when requested to by them, without the Fund's explicit permission.
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.
That the McCanns threatened the Report's authors with Legal Action if the Oakley Report were 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.
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.
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.
The Sunday Times reported 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.
It was also reported that “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” 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, an article published in The Mirror that Leicestershire police may well have identified the “Tanner Sighting” man as an innocent tourist carrying his own daughter as long ago as 2007, as a result of questionnaires that were completed by tourists who used the Ocean Club “night crèche” facility during the week the McCanns were on holiday there. The man was interviewed and gave police a detailed statement.
Full Mirror article here:
One has to assume that the Mirror report is correct that these questionnaires were sent out in 2007, long before Leicestershire police shelved their active investigations, and also 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 (11 February 2014) the “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” official website, is still displaying artist’s impressions of the Tanner sighting:
The Smith sighting eFits were displayed on the website from late October 2013 until just before Christmas, when they were replaced by a Christmas message from Kate McCann. The eFits were reinstated shortly after the New Year and are shown only on the opening page of the website:
Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising
Dec 28, 2013 00:00 By Tom Pettifor
So, as ever in this most bizarre of cases, one is left with the distinct impression that someone, somewhere has succeeded over a very long period of time in hiding some significant pieces of evidence relating to the investigation which is attempting to establish 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.
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:
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 pending, at present date unknown.
While we wait for this protracted libel case to complete, the online tabloids are bombarding the public with endless stories of burglars, lost keys, ocean club workers etc which appear to have little or no bearing to any current police activity, either in the UK or Portugal.
It is perhaps a moot point at this stage that the Smith sighting eFits were not publicised until 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 significant updates specific to this matter to the public.
Further reading: McCann PJ Files: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ McCann Files: http://www.mccannfiles.com/
- Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06
How can that be anything other than damning Petermac? And how can the McCanns possibly be ruled out as suspects having hidden such vital evidence for so long. The McCanns have dragged this 'search' on for 7 years by their own actions, and not even Scotland Yard can cover that up.
- Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12
Page 14 of 14
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum