Re: The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder'

by sofieellis 20.05.14 10:15

Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

by canada12 20.05.14 10:19

sofieellis wrote:Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

Unfortunately it's behind a paywall and I don't know anyone who has a subscription.

They didn't even refer to the case as Madeleine McCann's death. They called it murder.

I find this astounding. I know many others don't, for a variety of reasons. But given the previous hesitancy of the press to report only the TM version of events... this, to my mind, is amazing.

by Guest 20.05.14 10:19

sofieellis wrote:Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

Here's the link. Not a member, so I can't get the screenshot.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can you get the screenshot ribisl?

by Ribisl 20.05.14 10:24

aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:Jimmy Saville £2.7 million to date.

Madeleine McCann £5.35 million to date.
The actual cost of the Madeleine McCann investigation so far, according to recent official statements from Scotland Yard, must now be somewhere between £7 million and £8 million.

It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.

Interesting that it's mentioned in an article dealing with historical child sex abuse.

Forgot to insert the link. Here it is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Ribisl 20.05.14 10:25

admin wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

Here's the link. Not a member, so I can't get the screenshot.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can you get the screenshot ribisl?

Yes, I'll do that admin.

by sofieellis 20.05.14 10:27

I don't have a subscription either unfortunately. But thanks, guys. It would be very interesting to know if the "M" word has been removed or not.

by Guest 20.05.14 10:30

Ribisl wrote:
admin wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

Here's the link. Not a member, so I can't get the screenshot.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can you get the screenshot ribisl?
Yes, I'll do that admin.

Thank you Ribisl, I'm sure Kate and Gerry will be grateful for the screenshot for when they sue The Times for hindering their search.

by canada12 20.05.14 10:49

I'm not sure if this helps but because I work at a university I have access to the digital version of The Times through the university's library. I can access this from home. I've just checked the May 19 article as it appears in The Times digital archive, and the sentence is still there. So it's recorded for posterity.

I can't do a screen shot as I don't know where or how I could post the picture of it.

by Ribisl 20.05.14 10:54

admin wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
admin wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Wow! Did anyone manage to get a screen shot of this? Has it been whooshed?

Here's the link. Not a member, so I can't get the screenshot.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can you get the screenshot ribisl?
Yes, I'll do that admin.

Thank you Ribisl, I'm sure Kate and Gerry will be grateful for the screenshot for when they sue The Times for hindering their search.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 20.05.14 10:56

Great stuff, Ribisl, thank you thumbsup

by canada12 20.05.14 10:57

Ribisl,

by sofieellis 20.05.14 11:00

Thank you so much, Ribisl. I am stunned that they have used the word "murder".

by Guest 20.05.14 11:02

Ribisl, please could you check the article later on to see if it's been a) whooshed or b) changed?

I'm sure Carter-Ruck is furiously typing a letter to Sean O'Neill as we speak.... or onphone

by Guest 20.05.14 11:03

Thank you Ribisl thumbsup

by bobbin 20.05.14 11:04

Well done Ribisl, as mentioned, it is in the McCs' best interest to have copies of anything that might get whooshed. They will never know when back reference will be required.
"better safe than sorry"..... an old medical expression, I'm sure. big grin

by wicksy 20.05.14 11:05

Wow! Just wow!

by Justformaddie 20.05.14 11:05

Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

by Liz Eagles 20.05.14 11:05

The very real acid test will be no retraction.

by Woofer 20.05.14 11:15

aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:Jimmy Saville £2.7 million to date.

Madeleine McCann £5.35 million to date.
The actual cost of the Madeleine McCann investigation so far, according to recent official statements from Scotland Yard, must now be somewhere between £7 million and £8 million.

It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.

This makes me optimistic cos if Grange have got more staff and more money to play with than Yewtree, then it says to me that Grange`s enquiry is far reaching - tentacles all over the place.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 20.05.14 11:25

Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

by bristow 20.05.14 11:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

I think Brunty used it either in a tweet or a report. it was whooshed pretty damn quickly!

by frost 20.05.14 11:28

great stuff I imagine the telephone exchange serving the Rothley area will have gone into meltdown oooh to be a fly on the wall right now winkwink

by Liz Eagles 20.05.14 11:28

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

by HelenMeg 20.05.14 11:31

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

But I wonder why murder and not death?. Murder is specific and doesn't account for accidental death .Why are they using that word. Most of our theories have centred on accidental death. I wonder if the Times use of this word is specifically intended to describe her death as murder or was used in a vague manner...
If it was murder then either the MC CANNS murdered her or someone else is supposed to have... I almost wish they'd used the word death.

by HelenMeg 20.05.14 11:33

On a positive side it almost certainly smashes 'the fund'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 20.05.14 11:33

aquila wrote:
If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

I just wonder whether the reason it hasn't been retracted yet is that it was behind a pay-wall and went unnoticed.

It will be noticed now, mainly because of this thread.

by bristow 20.05.14 11:41

Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.

by Guest 20.05.14 11:43

Ribisl wrote:
aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:Jimmy Saville £2.7 million to date.

Madeleine McCann £5.35 million to date.
The actual cost of the Madeleine McCann investigation so far, according to recent official statements from Scotland Yard, must now be somewhere between £7 million and £8 million.

It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.
Interesting that it's mentioned in an article dealing with historical child sex abuse.

Forgot to insert the link. Here it is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Ribisl roses

Yes it is very interesting that the MBM case is firmly placed in the context of historic child abuse.

And it is sandwiched between North Wales and Savile...hmmm

All in own opinion, nothing stated as fact

by Guest 20.05.14 11:44

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
aquila wrote:
If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

I just wonder whether the reason it hasn't been retracted yet is that it was behind a pay-wall and went unnoticed.

It will be noticed now, mainly because of this thread.

And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.

by Cristobell 20.05.14 11:48

bristow wrote:Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.

I suppose that is a possibility, but The Times have been challenged by the McCanns before and had to apologise for the wording of their report on the withheld e-fits. They must also be aware of the twitter storm caused by Martin Brunt's use of the word 'murder', so its unlikely the word was used carelessly.

Latest topics