Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by suzyjohnson 03.08.14 15:23

Claire25 wrote:

I believe this was because OG wasn't ready to 'out' TM at that point.

If they ARE efits of GM produced by the Smiths and kept hidden, then redwood wouldn't to need release the efits to find out who it was, he would already know that.. He would be releasing them to prepare the public, along with hints about death and unreliable alibis.

I'm not sure if this is the right wording but they must have some sort of responsibility to TM personal safety, if the contents of the files was common knowledge and the public all thought the same as we generally do, I can't imagine TM would be able to go about their daily business without harassment. Similarly, I think DP was specifically not named in the crimewatch episode as they didn't want everyone going off Googling that name as we all know what results would be thrown up and again, not only for his safety but they would be highly criticised for leaving the twins in situ if the Gaspar statements were common knowledge.

So, whitewash or not, everything coming from OG is orchestrated IMO and the efit appeal was not because they wanted to know who it was - they were released at that specific time for a good reason.

Very good Claire25

by sar 03.08.14 15:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is 'promoting' it I don't know because I haven't read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what 'Smithman' was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it's said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn't they flag them up to the public?
Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

+1 TB

by Cristobell 03.08.14 15:33

Justformaddie wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
joel27 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Tony as an opinion, and for debate purposes, Firstly I agree the Smith evidence does not stand up in court. My error I apoligise if there is clear evidence elsewhere that Gerry was independently verified as being elsewhere.
Where we depart in views is that OG is cover up. So a few points. If Tannerman is removed why have the McCanns not been pushing the line of the failure of the Portugeses police, why have they not been pushing the Smithman , its the abducter even with the Gerry connection ? I would even argue that they have tried to do the exact opposite the more recent comments from them are far more centered on a "they" or "he/she" . The only way they could go innocent or involved in my opinion is support the OG view.. Take the view they are innocent Tannerman was 7 years of wasted effort because the Portugese police failed to find him , I would be screaming about the failure it proves we were right.
Have an opinion that Tannerman was a set up by the McCanns , by OG saying they found him you still have to sing the failure of the Portugese police, by not doing so you are going to set alarm bells ringing. Assume Tannerman is false as the Mcanns you know he can never be found but OG say they have, by not supporting it what have you achieved ? The best I can come up with it leaves the doubt and any court case in the future can still use him , a get out of jail free card if you like.
The last paragraph was an attempt to suggest that its dawned (revelation) on the McCanns that the OG set up by them pushing for it was not going to clear them in fact it could well set thier attempts to prove innocence back further. Even worse if through the early years of OG they were convinced that it was all going there way. Again the words since Crimewatch the he/she they, the outburst in court regarding dogs (trusted by OG)

My opinion and only for the purpose of debate of course
Joel, the PJ never treated Tannerman as credible! They dismissed Jane's evidence on day 1 and have never pushed him as the 'abductor'. The police conferences, were 'faux' police conferences, they were called by the McCanns publicity department and NOT supported by the police.

And you had a valid point, why not call one of their 'faux' police press conferences and get the face of Smithman out there? They had almost photographic images of him, with considerably more detail than the egg.

I have to say I disagree with Tony on the Smiths being 'useless' witnesses. From, everything I have seen about the Smiths, they are credible, truthful people who have maintained a dignified silence for many years. In the witness box, much weight will rest on the credibility of the witnesses, as we saw recently in the Lisbon libel trial. The Smiths are good witnesses from the Prosecution's perspective.

The Defence may well pick up on the dim lighting, the momentary glimpse, etc, etc, but the Prosecution could argue the probability of a man the same age, build, haircut, clean shaven, a doppelganger of the father in fact, walking through the streets of PDL carrying a child that looked like Maddie. It may all boil down to the witnesses credibility, and they are credible enough for DCI Redwood to use their evidence as the focus of last October's Crimewatch and revelation moment. In case anyone didn't get the message, they are witnesses for the Crown.

It should also be remembered that Goncalo Amaral was removed from the original investigation, as he was prepared to fly the Smith family back to Portugal to be interviewed. In October last year, SY reached the stage GA had in September 2007. It doesn't bode well for the McCanns.
I to believe in the smiths, cristobel, mainly because of the plane episode, that was like a reconstruction for him, hence why he phoned police then. Also, the fact that a 12y old (I think) give a statement. I don't think a child could lie to police officers IMO

The idea is absurd imo, and it is also unthinkable that a grandfather would ask that of his children and grandchildren.

As for the plane episode, whilst it is true to say that the majority of people would carry a child in the same way as Gerry, the majority of people are not late 30s, tanned, athletically built etc, etc. If for example, Clarence had carried the sleeping S*** down the plan steps and across the runway, Mr. Smith, would not have stopped in his tracks and said, that's the man I saw. He probably wouldn't even have said I'm 20-30% sure, because Clarence is an entirely different height, shape, bodytype, hair colour etc. Kate was carrying A***** in a similar way, but she didn't warrant a second glance. Mr. Smith's recognition of Gerry wasn't based entirely on the way in which the child was being carried, though he may have thought it was. His brain had already stored that image (in its entirety) on the night of 3rd May 2007.

If we think of our brains as fast acting computers (hard to believe in some cases), its usually way ahead of us when searching its databank for memories of past experiences to make sense of the present. Are you still with me, lol. In the simplest terms, when we see a banana, we know it is a banana, because we have seen one before. If we see an Ugly fruit, or something we are unfamiliar with, our brain will be searching the vast storerooms for something else. Is it an aubergine? passionfruit, our mind is sending us images of things we have seen before, its trying to narrow things down and its in the fruit and veg zone. Its not sending us pictures of meat or dairy products.

For most of us our brains are pretty finely tuned, and the information it sends us is correct, because it has been filed and stored in the correct place. Our brains are far more efficient than we are with the whole filing thingy. We did once encounter that ugly fruit, and as soon as someone with a more efficient brains says the words out loud, we give ourselves a hefty kick. We knew it was in there.

When Mr. Smith saw Gerry descending the steps of the plane, his obviously very efficient brain file, threw up the image he had seen before.

He didn't see an eggman, he didn't see a George Harrison lookalike, he didn't smellyman or Robert Murat and even if the police lined them up with dolls in their arms, he still wouldn't get that hit of instant recognition that he got when he saw Gerry getting off the plane with a sleeping child.

Ps. Apologies, I often go off into teacher mode, which I know can be irksome. At home, they simply throw things at me nah

by missmar1 03.08.14 15:50

Hi Cristobell,

I know I'm going a bit off topic but I have been reading your references to the other cases you have been looking at whereby there was not enough evidence to prosecute the parents of the other "missing" children and just wanted to ask you - do you think that if, in the long run, the Mccann case goes the same way as the others ..ie, not enough evidence, then do you think the Mccann's could face questioning and charges for the lesser charges imo, of the discrepancies which have been captured on video/interviews they have conducted over the years ?

Eta, admin, please remove this post if it is in any way libellous as it is not intended to be.

by Justformaddie 03.08.14 15:54

Yep, I think the smiths had a reconstruction without knowing it, and realised right away, isn't that what a reconstruction is for, to jog people's memory, to recall what they'd seen. And it worked. I think if they made it up to save murat, all or more than one of them at least would've told the police that it wasn't Murat. The more of that family saying it was not him, the better chance they'd have to make sure he was off the hook. All IMO

by Praiaaa 03.08.14 16:06

Casey5 wrote:
Praiaaa, I've looked at David Payne's rogatory interview (I deserve a medal)

Casey. well done, you do deserve a medal, I can't stand their drivel...

by sar 03.08.14 16:13

dantezebu wrote:Are we very very sure the MC's phone wasn't hacked by NI?

are we very very sure phones weren't hacked by mirror group? All speculation of course, just a personal opinion

by sar 03.08.14 16:33

Cristobell , I recognise your analogy of the brain being like a computer, I think it's possibly very useful in this instance

by brilynn 03.08.14 16:38

As a long standing member,and avid daily reader here,I would like to say, I am really looking forward to the court case,MaCaans V The Times,hopefully soon.If the MaCaans can prove they did indeed pass on the Efits of Smithman to PJ and Leics police before Oct 2009,WHY,as we now know, were those efits withheld from PUBLIC VEIWING UNTIL Crimewatch 2013,and AR,s "revelation" moment.,did he mention then that he had known about them from at least Aug 2011? I don,t recall him saying so,and regardless of who were responsible for producing them, think of all the false efits we,ve had rammed down our throats year in year out,by TM,in the fruitless search for Madeleine,its mindblowing IMO for the parents NOT to have DEMANDED those possibly vital efits be shown ,as a matter of great urgency to the general public,they could have been invaluable in the search for Madeleine.WHY didn,t they demand that?and if they can prove that they did,then questions must be answered now as to WHY,the police didn,t show them immediatly? Thats what annoys me ,WHY they were not shown from the offset???? Or were they,and I missed it????The fact that Kate mentioned Smithman in her bewk ,is not good enough ,especially if she knew there were efits?? I haven,t read the bewk,so maybe I shouldn,t comment on it,but I really hope RM has his day in court with Madeleines parents ,as ,hopefully he might enlighten us with a few "tit bits",he and his team have suppressed so far. The Macs seem ,as always,confident, of yet another payout ,but hopefully,this time there won,t be,I just feel so sad their children are witnessing it all.Don,t worry,this post is just a one off from me,I think there are so many exellent people posting great comments every day,I,ll leave it to the experts,Peter Mac,I especially "luv" you,always the truth,with a dollop of great wit and humour,thank you.
Sorry if I,ve repeated anything relevant to previous posts.

by Brian Griffin 03.08.14 17:14

Cristobell wrote:
Should Goncalo Amaral decide to sell the serialisation rights of his book, I am sure there would be a bidding war between the UK tabloids and Dr. Amaral's financial troubles will be over. Just needs the libel trial to end!

Good grief! Then the fit really will hit the shan! Can you imagine the weeping and wailing and jogging of shoes. If they had just ignored it, it might just have come and gone, whereas now, after all the hoo-ha, everyone will want to read the book.

by missmar1 03.08.14 17:24

brilynn wrote:As a long standing member,and avid daily reader here,I would like to say, I am really looking forward to the court case,MaCaans V The Times,hopefully soon.If the MaCaans can prove they did indeed pass on the Efits of Smithman to PJ and Leics police before Oct 2009,WHY,as we now know, were those efits withheld from PUBLIC VEIWING UNTIL Crimewatch 2013,and AR,s "revelation" moment.,did he mention then that he had known about them from at least Aug 2011? I don,t recall him saying so,and regardless of who were responsible for producing them, think of all the false efits we,ve had rammed down our throats year in year out,by TM,in the fruitless search for Madeleine,its mindblowing IMO for the parents NOT to have DEMANDED those possibly vital efits be shown ,as a matter of great urgency to the general public,they could have been invaluable in the search for Madeleine.WHY didn,t they demand that?and if they can prove that they did,then questions must be answered now as to WHY,the police didn,t show them immediatly? Thats what annoys me ,WHY they were not shown from the offset???? Or were they,and I missed it????The fact that Kate mentioned Smithman in her bewk ,is not good enough ,especially if she knew there were efits?? I haven,t read the bewk,so maybe I shouldn,t comment on it,but I really hope RM has his day in court with Madeleines parents ,as ,hopefully he might enlighten us with a few "tit bits",he and his team have suppressed so far. The Macs seem ,as always,confident, of yet another payout ,but hopefully,this time there won,t be,I just feel so sad their children are witnessing it all.Don,t worry,this post is just a one off from me,I think there are so many exellent people posting great comments every day,I,ll leave it to the experts,Peter Mac,I especially "luv" you,always the truth,with a dollop of great wit and humour,thank you.
Sorry if I,ve repeated anything relevant to previous posts.

A very good post.

Remember when the Mccann's appeared on O Winfrey's show ? They didn't seem in any hurry to get the age progessed picture of their child out any earlier than til they were actually sitting on Oprah's sofa either. ...so no hurry there then.
Although they are always appealing to the public to keep a lookout, and search for their missing daughter, it seems they dont feel the need to get age progressed pictures of her or E.fits of a possible abductor out asap for reason's unknown to the rest of us.

by Brian Griffin 03.08.14 17:36

sar wrote:
Cristobell , I recognise your analogy of the brain being like a computer, I think it's possibly very useful in this instance

I believe the brain records everything that happens to us but we can only process up to 7 bits of information consciously at any one time. Under hypnosis, you can ask the subject questions and he or she can provide perfect answers to seemingly impossible questions because the information is stored in there somewhere. For example, you could ask the subject to recall exactly how many red cars he or she had ever seen and that information would be available. So I'm told. A victim of a hit-and-run can recall the model, make and registration of the car under hypnosis. Possibly seeing Gerry carrying one of the tots off the plane in a certain manner is what jogged the memories, and remember that we are only processing up to 7 bits of information at any one time consciously, so there may be hundreds more unconscious clues the brain is working on. That way, it is possible that, when the Smiths started to focus on trying to recall the events of that night, they gave the brain a goal to seek out that information. Gerry walks down the gangway and bingo! Just like when you've remembered where you put your mislaid car keys. Just a thought or two there. In my opinion. Allegedly. Etc.

by Praiaaa 03.08.14 17:46

I had a trivial example of that today. I needed to unlock a cupboard with a keycode on it, and I didn't have the code, because when someone showed me how to do it, he couldn't remember the numbers, just the sequence and I used the same sequence for a few days on the trot. Several weeks later, I needed to access that door, and could not remember the numbers or the sequence so left it.. But today, was passing and without thinking, just punched in a sequence, and got it right. I still could not tell you the numbers, but on the spot, there without thinking about it, it was somehow recalled.

by joel27 03.08.14 18:56

Cristobell wrote:
joel27 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Tony as an opinion, and for debate purposes, Firstly I agree the Smith evidence does not stand up in court. My error I apoligise if there is clear evidence elsewhere that Gerry was independently verified as being elsewhere.
Where we depart in views is that OG is cover up. So a few points. If Tannerman is removed why have the McCanns not been pushing the line of the failure of the Portugeses police, why have they not been pushing the Smithman , its the abducter even with the Gerry connection ? I would even argue that they have tried to do the exact opposite the more recent comments from them are far more centered on a "they" or "he/she" . The only way they could go innocent or involved in my opinion is support the OG view.. Take the view they are innocent Tannerman was 7 years of wasted effort because the Portugese police failed to find him , I would be screaming about the failure it proves we were right.
Have an opinion that Tannerman was a set up by the McCanns , by OG saying they found him you still have to sing the failure of the Portugese police, by not doing so you are going to set alarm bells ringing. Assume Tannerman is false as the Mcanns you know he can never be found but OG say they have, by not supporting it what have you achieved ? The best I can come up with it leaves the doubt and any court case in the future can still use him , a get out of jail free card if you like.
The last paragraph was an attempt to suggest that its dawned (revelation) on the McCanns that the OG set up by them pushing for it was not going to clear them in fact it could well set thier attempts to prove innocence back further. Even worse if through the early years of OG they were convinced that it was all going there way. Again the words since Crimewatch the he/she they, the outburst in court regarding dogs (trusted by OG)

My opinion and only for the purpose of debate of course
Joel, the PJ never treated Tannerman as credible! They dismissed Jane's evidence on day 1 and have never pushed him as the 'abductor'. The police conferences, were 'faux' police conferences, they were called by the McCanns publicity department and NOT supported by the police.

And you had a valid point, why not call one of their 'faux' police press conferences and get the face of Smithman out there? They had almost photographic images of him, with considerably more detail than the egg.

I have to say I disagree with Tony on the Smiths being 'useless' witnesses. From, everything I have seen about the Smiths, they are credible, truthful people who have maintained a dignified silence for many years. In the witness box, much weight will rest on the credibility of the witnesses, as we saw recently in the Lisbon libel trial. The Smiths are good witnesses from the Prosecution's perspective.

The Defence may well pick up on the dim lighting, the momentary glimpse, etc, etc, but the Prosecution could argue the probability of a man the same age, build, haircut, clean shaven, a doppelganger of the father in fact, walking through the streets of PDL carrying a child that looked like Maddie. It may all boil down to the witnesses credibility, and they are credible enough for DCI Redwood to use their evidence as the focus of last October's Crimewatch and revelation moment. In case anyone didn't get the message, they are witnesses for the Crown.

It should also be remembered that Goncalo Amaral was removed from the original investigation, as he was prepared to fly the Smith family back to Portugal to be interviewed. In October last year, SY reached the stage GA had in September 2007. It doesn't bode well for the McCanns.

I know I disagree with Tony on the great cover up scandal its not credible in my opinion that so many agencies are involved, without one leak. In saying that and taking a view Tony is wrong I might be wrong hence the debate. I dont see the McCanns publicising anywhere near enough Smithman certainly even if I took Tonys view it is a lot less than Tannerman. I dont I think. The only publicity pre crimewatch was aimed at tieing Smithman to Tannerman , I quoted the book its and Kates words its all looks like sounds like Tannerman I am surprised the police did not see it stuff. 6 pages maybe but not one looking at it as a seperate abductor to Tannerman , to me thats not publicity. Its rounded off by the lack of the Efit in the book.
The point on the page now being on the site , they have no option yes its the first page it cannot not be.....but why not take off Tannerman on page 2 he has been found, as opinion they are so certain he has not been found they are happy to keep it there its a very useful piece of the story. Why is Tannerman so important to them it places an abduction at before 9.15 (just). Any action post 9.15 cannot be Maddie the I saw the twins not Maddie, I dont believe you check someone elses kids and dont look and ensure you see all three. Its the opening of a timeline between 9.15 and 10.00 that I think gives them a headache, somewhere in that time period something happened that needs to be covered up. Now I am with you I am of the opinion its Gerry., but with Tony it will never hold up in court. If its not the great cover up its possible that Tannerman removal maybe one more piece on the OG list to prove its the McCanns, I prefer listening to what the McCanns say every press or court utterance. Tony might not agree but you look from Crimewatch on the they or he/she is more prevelant than at any time sine the early days, the doggie outburst to me is related to the use of dogs by OG they ask the dogs even if the McCanns dont. I think there is a gap between OG and the McCanns right now. They cannot say so but its there the body language with Redwood on Crimewatch this is not a cosy all pals together.

by jeanmonroe 03.08.14 19:43

Brian Griffin wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Should Goncalo Amaral decide to sell the serialisation rights of his book, I am sure there would be a bidding war between the UK tabloids and Dr. Amaral's financial troubles will be over. Just needs the libel trial to end!
Good grief! Then the fit really will hit the shan! Can you imagine the weeping and wailing and jogging of shoes. If they had just ignored it, it might just have come and gone, whereas now, after all the hoo-ha, everyone will want to read the book.

I think you mean all the very FEW remaining people that haven't read it!

After all the PRICELESS publicity GA's book was given by UK national TV 'stations' during' the last two libel claim 'episodes' outside the court in Lisbon, by the McCanns!

GA's Book................E10:00

WORLDWIDE publicity....................PRICELESS.

by Brian Griffin 03.08.14 23:49

jeanmonroe wrote:
I think you mean all the very FEW remaining people that haven't read it!

A lot of the British public accept the McCann's version of events without question and would not even consider reading the 'other' version of events. That is one reason, in a roundabout way, that I ceased to be a lurker and became an active member of this forum. I think that the fact that the press has been gagged up until this point is significant because the sheeple still believe what is shown and told in the media. If a newspaper publishes the book, it gives people the psychological go-ahead to start considering a different version of events. Then I think you'll get a few 'Ooh I never!'s (à la Frankie Howard) - maybe a lot of them! You may even get a few 'OOh Matron's if you happen to work in the medical field. We don't know anyone who happens to do that...do we?

by SallyVern 04.08.14 1:07

Tony Bennett wrote:The Sunday Times apology:

The Sunday Times actually issued an apology to Drs Kate & Gerald McCann on 28 December 2013 in respect of their 27 October article; here is a link to the apology, unfortunately in this instance I don't pay Rupert Murdoch a subscription so cannot access the full article:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

Maybe the Sunday Times has apologised but not paid up any compensation for their error/libel?

The apology itself is more than interesting (the bit of it I can read, anyway).

The McCanns, through their lawyers, appear to have said the following three things:

1. The efits were drawn up by their team (Oakley, Halligen & Exton) etc. in 2008

2. Some time before October 2009 (very curious wording IMO) they passed these e-fits to (a) Leicesterhsire Police and (b) the PJ [NOTE: The case was archived by both forces in July 2008]

3. DCI Redwood was handed these efits in August 2011 (!) 2 years and 2 months before showing then to the public on 14 October 2013 (!).

Quite apart from the focus this puts once again on the true provenance of these most mysterious e-fits, I will leave it to other members here to pull apart the many implications of the above three statements.

ETA: It would be very helpful if any Times subscriber on here could supply us with the full article

Yes Tony, that's what I said in the last post of page 2 in reply to you.

SallyVern

Tony Bennett wrote:
inspirespirit wrote:If it's true, why now? Surely it should have been done immediately after the article had been printed? Also, would The Times not have had libel lawyers checking it before it went to print?
Here is a possible explanation:

Say the McCanns took legal advice the week after the article was published (last week in October).

The McCanns' lawyers write to the Times asking for a retraction, and after a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, they say 'No'.

The McCanns sue i.e. issue a claim.

There is the usual pre-hearing exchange of pleadings - claims, replies, questions, answers to questions, further questions etc.

At last the case is ready for what used to be called a 'Pre-Trial Review' but is nowadays called a 'Case Management Hearing'.

Maybe we have just got to this stage and the journalist has been tipped off by a Court official that there is shortly to be a Case Management Hearing in the case of McCanns v Times.

Sunday Times printed a correction in Dec 2013 on one article. I think it's the one you mentioned Tony so may be they're suing over a different article or may be the retraction gave them a green light to sue over this one?
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece#commentsStart

by **PeterMac** 04.08.14 9:45

Managed to copy this much. Don;t know if there is more.

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund

The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (1) Print
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

by Guest 04.08.14 10:40

PeterMac wrote:Managed to copy this much. Don;t know if there is more.
Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund

The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (1) Print
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

"We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."

It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that understanding and if it was confirmed by both Police authorities.

Also... someone sat on these pictures for 4 years and nobody said anything.

Presumably there was nothing to stop the McCann team publishing them themselves as they did with several other things.

by nglfi 04.08.14 10:59

BlueBag wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Managed to copy this much. Don;t know if there is more.
Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund

The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (1) Print
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

"We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."

It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that understanding and if it was confirmed by both Police authorities.

I'm a bit confused as to how TM could sue over this. The apology appears to relate to the amount of time the e fits were suppressed for, rather than that they were suppressed at all. Instead of 5 years, the McCanns took somewhere between one and two years to show them to the PJ, and three years to show them to Scotland Yard. What possible grounds could there be to sue? It's still a deliberate suppression. The e fits should have been handed over straightaway, no question about it.

I still think this could be about the 'murder' comment, in fact I'm hoping it is because it will be the stupidest thing TM have ever done if true. The Times will simply say it is a theory, with much more evidence and credibility than the 'stranger abduction' theory, and one which is in part supported by the PJ. The PJ concluded an accidental death and cover up, so they believe death took place immediately. The Times will probably say on all balance of probabilities a 'murder' is what happened. Again it will bring much needed publicity to the correct version of events. All IMO.

by Praiaaa 04.08.14 11:26

nglfi wrote:

I still think this could be about the 'murder' comment, in fact I'm hoping it is because it will be the stupidest thing TM have ever done if true. . All IMO.

I hope so too.

by ShuBob 04.08.14 11:48

I don't think it's clear what the couple are actually suing for. Assuming it is true they have a case against the Times Group, it could be for something other than the article/retraction from October/December last year though I can't think of what.

by Guest 04.08.14 12:45

ShuBob wrote:I don't think it's clear what the couple are actually suing for. Assuming it is true they have a case against the Times Group, it could be for something other than the article/retraction from October/December last year though I can't think of what.

So far I've come up with the following possibilities in order of likelihood:

1) The article from last year (doesn't seem likely to me).

2) The Times (formerly part of News International) have the serialisation rights to Kate's work of fiction and the McCanns don't want them to use it without additional payment.

3) Their phones were hacked ...kerching!!!

4) The McCanns have got wind of something the Times is planning and want to nip it in the bud.

5) The pair of them are As. Mad. As. A. Box. Of. Frogs.

I'm veering towards option 5 myself laughat

by petunia 05.08.14 1:29

Rupert made Millions from the Milly Dowler story thanks to Rebekah, he made Millions from the Mccann story thanks to Rebekah,he paid the Dowlers Millions in compensation no questions asked after a short meeting with them.Imo Rupert will have no problem topping up the Madeleine fund with a couple of hundred thousand so long has he doesn't have to make a front page Apology all in opinion of course.

by Cristobell 05.08.14 2:32

Poe wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I don't think it's clear what the couple are actually suing for. Assuming it is true they have a case against the Times Group, it could be for something other than the article/retraction from October/December last year though I can't think of what.

So far I've come up with the following possibilities in order of likelihood:

1) The article from last year (doesn't seem likely to me).

2) The Times (formerly part of News International) have the serialisation rights to Kate's work of fiction and the McCanns don't want them to use it without additional payment.

3) Their phones were hacked ...kerching!!!

4) The McCanns have got wind of something the Times is planning and want to nip it in the bud.

5) The pair of them are As. Mad. As. A. Box. Of. Frogs.

I'm veering towards option 5 myself

I would veer toward 5 too Poe, but what I struggle with is how the lawyers can advise them it is a good idea. Are they still with Carter Ruck? If they are, there must be a substantial sum left in the Fund, or have they offered to sue the Times pro bono?

From a profit perspective, RM would have far more to gain in future newspaper sales if the scam is exposed. The McCanns personal news value has dropped to an all time low, we have read everything about them, no one cares anymore whether Kate wants to make love to Gerry, they have squeezed every 'at home with the McCanns' moment they can out of the abduction story. They have also run the gamut with the suspects, some of them have come around twice, or even three times, we know them all so well.

The next big UK newspaper sales will come from the end game, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Two years ago, it was all but illegal to say that Madeleine McCann is dead and the floodgates have opened there. It still seems 'illegal' however to speculate on how Madeleine died, though there have been feeble attempts to plant the story that the 'abductor' dumped her body during his getaway. The police have also of course, specifically asked the press not to speculate, and the Media are being restrained, I'm sure they know a lot more than they can say.

Doesn't answer why the lawyers would pursue this though. They are not taking on a lone detective with limited resources, they are taking on one of the most powerful men in the world. How can they be so sure he will roll over and pay up? Do they know they are about to be cleared of all involvement and the suings can begin?

I really don't think so. They would look far happier if that were the case, and all their support would magically reappear. Perhaps there is money left in the Fund, and this is a last ditch attempt to top up the coffers before the Lisbon verdict. It is an act of desperation, whatever the reasons.

by suzyjohnson 05.08.14 3:03

' ......... the Media are being restrained, I'm sure they know a lot more than they can say ...........' Well I should hope so, otherwise they must be really rubbish at their jobs.

You don't suppose with this that the McCanns have started proceedings with the Times because they have had to? In relation to the Lisbon hearing, I'm certain Amaral will have brought up the subject of the suppression of Exton efits. Are they in turn suing the Times to try and say that the Times was wrong, that the efits were not suppressed, so as to demonstrate that they did not hinder their own search?

by **Hobs** 05.08.14 5:47

suzyjohnson wrote:' ......... the Media are being restrained, I'm sure they know a lot more than they can say ...........' Well I should hope so, otherwise they must be really rubbish at their jobs.

You don't suppose with this that the McCanns have started proceedings with the Times because they have had to? In relation to the Lisbon hearing, I'm certain Amaral will have brought up the subject of the suppression of Exton efits. Are they in turn suing the Times to try and say that the Times was wrong, that the efits were not suppressed, so as to demonstrate that they did not hinder their own search?

The problem is kate and those 48 questions she didn't answer and the one question she did

Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

How can they sue others for allegedly hindering the search when we have clear evidence that kate did hinder the search!

by aiyoyo 05.08.14 9:33

A rather ambiguous apology. The Times did not state who provided them with the corrective info.

Can only assume the pink lapdog did the dirty job for the Mcs, not CR, and that would explain the sinister undertone of the apology.

Note the ~~skillfully~~ carefully worded apology:

We referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008.

We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009.

"Accept" meaning they took at face value from whoever it was that told them the story that the efits (note not final report) were handed over to the Police. It would mean they were saying they'd no mean of verification that this was actually done.

We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review.

Here in this sentence they omit to use the word "accept", but mentioned final report was also included to MET.

It's as though they had 2 sources providing them the story, or they were pedantic, or they were careless.

IIRC, the MET Police have had literally to ask the Mcs for the Exton's files.
That begs the question: are all their PIs not at liberty to release the files unless the MCs authorised the release, or does the restraint apply only to Exton since he was gagged by the Mcs by threat of law suit.

by Guest 05.08.14 10:52

aiyoyo wrote:
IIRC, the MET Police have had literally to ask the Mcs for the Exton's files.
That begs the question: are all their PIs not at liberty to release the files unless the MCs authorised the release, or does the restraint apply only to Exton since he was gagged by the Mcs by threat of law suit.

I've never been quite sure of the legal validity of this position. Surely if Exton's research turned up things that concerned him then he was legally (never mind morally) obliged to report them to the Police, in spite of what his paymasters might have to say about it.

Essentially the threat of the gag only works with Exton's complicity. So in essence he's effectively and willingly gagged himself?

by aiyoyo 05.08.14 13:09

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
I've never been quite sure of the legal validity of this position. Surely if Exton's research turned up things that concerned him then he was legally (never mind morally) obliged to report them to the Police, in spite of what his paymasters might have to say about it.

Essentially the threat of the gag only works with Exton's complicity. So in essence he's effectively and willingly gagged himself?

It's probably an issue of his research turning up things that caused him to suspect the Mcs story did not gel, but he did not uncover stone-cast evidence of their involvement hence nothing new that the Police should know that they did not already know. This is assuming he knew the mcs inconsistent statements were already on police records.