Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by **PeterMac** 05.08.14 11:38

Hobs wrote:
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!

That is only one problem.
Another is the FACT that they each gave TWO mutually exclusive versions of their actions.
One of each, or possibly both MUST BE A LIE. And therefore must have hindered any "search"
To recap
Entered through the front door using his key - v - entered through the unlocked patio door
Curtains wide open - v - curtains tightly closed and whooshing.

by Woofer 05.08.14 11:40

SY, when doing an investigation of any sorts, surely do not have to APPLY FOR PERMISSION to see Exton`s report.

by Guest 05.08.14 11:58

Woofer wrote:SY, when doing an investigation of any sorts, surely do not have to APPLY FOR PERMISSION to see Exton`s report.

Probably a case of ask nicely, but carry a big stick.

by aiyoyo 05.08.14 12:58

Woofer wrote:SY, when doing an investigation of any sorts, surely do not have to APPLY FOR PERMISSION to see Exton`s report.

Well, if Exton is barred from releasing it, then SY has no choice is it but to approach the Mcs...err we understand Exton cannot release his reports without your authorisation, so .....

It may be a case of SY approaching Exton and being told the reason why he can't release it without the expressed permission of the mcs, thus so on and so forth.

That is why it would be of interest to know whether all the other PIs were subjected to same restriction. Or whether SY approached mcs directly regardlessm or approached every individual PI company to get hold of their reports. Judging from the sudden swoop on M3 it would appear the answer may be obvious

by aiyoyo 05.08.14 13:02

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Woofer wrote:SY, when doing an investigation of any sorts, surely do not have to APPLY FOR PERMISSION to see Exton`s report.

Probably a case of ask nicely, but carry a big stick.

Even without the big stick, the Mcs had no choice in the matter.
Not handing over would arouse suspicions.
The biggest difference is how OG obtained it.
Through the PI directly they might get all the reports uncensored.
Through the Mcs you have to ponder whether everything was supplied or only selectively.

by jeanmonroe 05.08.14 16:32

Speaking of 'suing'

How are the McCanns getting on with their 'supposed' suing of 'conman' of Madeleine's 'fund' Mr Halligen?

All gone a bit 'quiet' on that 'front' hasn't it?

Or can the McCann's just 'write off' the alledged £300,000, of 'donators' money he 'took', just like that, without explaning to cake sale schoolkids where their £37:50p 'donation' which they THOUGHT was going to Madeleine's SEARCH fund, 'went to'?

by Praiaaa 05.08.14 17:10

jeanmonroe wrote:Speaking of 'suing'

How are the McCanns getting on with their 'supposed' suing of 'conman' of Madeleine's 'fund' Mr Halligen?

All gone a bit 'quiet' on that 'front' hasn't it?

Or can the McCann's just 'write off' the alledged £300,000, of 'donators' money he 'took', just like that, without explaning to cake sale schoolkids where their £37:50p 'donation' which they THOUGHT was going to Madeleine's SEARCH fund, 'went to'?

Jean, good point!

by Claire25 05.08.14 18:56

And how long can they realistically justify 'holding' all these donations. Even if the abduction story was true, no one believes MM is alive anymore (thanks to OG) - the balance of the fund should be donated to another charity, IMO.

by Pershing36 05.08.14 19:16

Yet another scalp for TM.

The Times printing an apology is surely a sign they have admitted they are wrong. I doubt it will get to court, just another big pay out settlement to go into the coffers.

The best thing the British press could do is not print any McCann stories. Without the endless publicity they would have very little.

by Carrry On Doctor 06.08.14 11:42

Given this story broke last Friday, can we assume that Daniel Douglas is having a laugh ?

by Liz Eagles 06.08.14 11:44

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Given this story broke last Friday, can we assume that Daniel Douglas is having a laugh ?

We have someone on the forum called Doug D, perhaps we can ask him?

by HelenMeg 06.08.14 11:47

Daniel Douglas is Reporter for @InsideHousing. Recent work: Guardian, BBC, Private Eye, Birmingham Mail @cityjournalism alumnus

He must have reported it for some reason - dont think he made it up..

by Carrry On Doctor 06.08.14 12:09

Hopefully it is true, but after this time there is still only one source, then nothing since.

We live in hope !

by Doug D 06.08.14 12:31

Aquila,

It's not me, honest!

I do keep checking his twitter page (not on Twitter so I can't 'follow' or whatever), so maybe there is nothing additional in the public domain at present that we can get hold of.

Maybe some of our legal eagles can advise whether this is likely.

I did have a look at Dan Douglas & he certainly looks genuine (see my post on p.8)

by Liz Eagles 06.08.14 13:48

Doug D wrote:Aquila,

It's not me, honest!

I do keep checking his twitter page (not on Twitter so I can't 'follow' or whatever), so maybe there is nothing additional in the public domain at present that we can get hold of.

Maybe some of our legal eagles can advise whether this is likely.

I did have a look at Dan Douglas & he certainly looks genuine (see my post on p.8)

I was teasing. I didn't think it was you.

I've already pointed out on the forum Dan D's quoted case number on his tweet and was hoping that those who are legally minded (ultimaThule springs to mind - always sharp to comment on the legal side of things) would check the case number.

by Guest 06.08.14 14:39

Legal eagle or not
Walk up to the Royal Courts and ask them. Simples.
You know the way.

by Liz Eagles 06.08.14 14:46

parapono wrote:Legal eagle or not
Walk up to the Royal Courts and ask them. Simples.
You know the way.

so do you.

by Cristobell 06.08.14 14:55

If the Writ has been lodged at the High Court, then the details should be available. Who issued the Writ, for example, was it Carter Ruck? I wonder if you have to physically go along to the High Court, or if the documents are available online? In the past copies of Writs have been available to us, but I'm afraid I don't know how they were obtained. I'm surprised actually, that journalists have not investigated this claim further.

by Okeydokey 06.08.14 16:30

Cristobell wrote:If the Writ has been lodged at the High Court, then the details should be available. Who issued the Writ, for example, was it Carter Ruck? I wonder if you have to physically go along to the High Court, or if the documents are available online? In the past copies of Writs have been available to us, but I'm afraid I don't know how they were obtained. I'm surprised actually, that journalists have not investigated this claim further.

Aren't some writs subject to secrecy injunctions?

by Doug D 07.08.14 8:52

Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html

‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.

by HelenMeg 07.08.14 9:47

A quick search of the website using McCann as a search word - comes up only with this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=McCann

Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.
All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.
Note for Editors

For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.

by worriedmum 07.08.14 9:51

A thoughtful and rather depressing 'lazzeri', DougD, and very relevant to the Times efit story.

It also reminded me,

'It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up. Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction?'

by Guest 07.08.14 9:54

HelenMeg: I feel sure that this dates back to 2007.

http://news.sky.com/story/554524/madeleine-mccann-parents-escape-neglect-charges

I think that we have someone on the forum who can confirm this!

by worriedmum 07.08.14 9:57

Just adding this as a reminder. Did the McCanns already know about Andy Redwood's 'revelation moment' on Crimewatch ?
Possible Action Against The Times - Page 8 Bb191113h

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 8 Bb191113h

by aiyoyo 07.08.14 10:00

Doug D wrote:Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html

‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.

Lengthy piece, essentially not positive about OG.

We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice."

Madeleine Page 205- 206

Was suppression of efits one of those tricky situations where they did not seem to have a choice ?

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 10:15

Thing is, their faces, both of them tells a lot, like deers in headlights ( I smile each time I see this pic). But, would OG really release that efit, when it looks so much like gm? I'm trying to be positive and know it looks like half the men out there but, how many British was there at that exact time, wearing those clothes, carrying a child, in her pjs, with blonde hair, aged 3/4, sleeping in his arms and totally ignore the smiths? Then 80% sure it was gm? Please pj, come tell there was no crècheman that night, smiths, tell the truth again, for madeleine plz!
IMO

by HelenMeg 07.08.14 10:45

I've just read the Lazzeri post from yesterday and have to say- it does seem to accurately assess the situation regarding Op Grange. It is pessimistic and appear to be rightly so.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 10:58

Justformaddie wrote:Thing is, their faces, both of them tells a lot, like deers in headlights (I smile each time I see this pic). But, would OG really release that efit,

What do you mean by 'that efit'? There are TWO. And they are quite clearly of TWO DIFFERENT men. How could the Smiths draw up two wholly different men, when they never saw his face? And look at all the many many doubts about whether their so-called 'sighting' is credible.

when it looks so much like GM?

A matter of opinion, but many people do NOT agree that one of the efits looks like Gerry McCann.

I'm trying to be positive and know it looks like half the men out there

Precisely - hundreds of thousands of British men aged 30 to 50 could resemble that efit

but, how many British was there at that exact time, wearing those clothes, carrying a child, in her pjs, with blonde hair, aged 3/4, sleeping in his arms and totally ignore the smiths?

Have you considered what I've written a few times elsewhere on here in recent weeks? - namely that the Smiths' description of 'Smithman' is essentially a carbon copy of Jane Tanner's description, with now fewer than SEVENTEEN similar features, including the meaningless statement that the man 'didn't look like a tourist'. The evidence strongly suggests, doesn't it, that the Smiths knew of Tanner's description and copied it. And we know that Martin Smith had a motive - Murat was a friend of his, they had met many times - and the one and only thing he was clear about was that he could, apparently, declare that the man was definitely not his friend, Robert Murat.

Then 80% sure it was GM?

No, he said '60% to 80%', and his basis for saying it was nor more than 'the way he was carrying the child'. @ Justformaddie, do you not see the very obvious problems with that claim? And although Cristobell has claimed that this would be good evidence to identify Gerry McCann in a court of law, surely you at least can see that it is worthless identification evidence, especially when taken with the fact that the family did nothing about their 'sighting' for THIRTENN days.

Please pj, come tell there was no crècheman that night, Smiths, tell the truth again, for madeleine plz! IMO

Let's be clear. Does not the evidence overwhelmingly suggest...

1. Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner

2. Smithman was a fabrication by the Smiths

3. Crecheman was an invention by DCI Redwood to pave the way for his soon-to-be-announced 'final theory' that the abductor took Madeleine between 9.10pm and 9.55pm and was seen by the Smiths at 10.00pm - the ONLY EVIDENCE apart from what the McCanns say that there ever was an abduction.

Also don't forget that DCI Redwood has interviewed Martin Smith twice.

And that Redwood did NOT say that the Smiths produced the two different efits - whilst giving 6.7 million people watching the BBC Crimewatch special in October that he had said this.

People are irrationally IMO clinging on to the 'Smithman' sighting when it is one of the most dubious claims in the whole case

by Cristobell 07.08.14 11:13

Doug D wrote:Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html

‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.

Strange how we interpret things different ways. I don't see DCI Redwood's actions as assisting the McCanns at all. I know several on here think OG revelations seem to coincide with the libel trial in Lisbon, but I actually see that as detrimental to the McCanns, rather than assisting them.

The main crux of the parents case is that Goncalo Amaral persuaded the public that Madeleine was dead and therefore no-one would search for her. Scotland Yard digging for a body, helps Goncalo's case, not the McCanns.

The details of this case simply do not allow a timeframe where an abductor can murder the child in the apartment, then dispose of her body in the immediate vicinity. If DCI Redwood wanted to influence the trial and steer suspicions away from the parents, he would have taken his excavations and earth moving equipment, far far away from 5A and the Ocean Club.

I also don't agree that the McCanns aren't bothered by the release of the Smith efits, the Crimewatch pictures of the starry pair, show them, Kate especially, looking like a deer about to be hit by a car. Twitter I think is a good gauge as to what is going on in the Team McCann camp, and the trolls are avoiding the Smithman efits like the plague. Happily there are a number of enthusiastic antis who keep getting those images out there, much to the trolls annoyance. The OFM website and FB page are not promoting the efits, they are still promoting their own 'abductor', Tannerman.

In the past, the McCanns have tried to morph the man seen by the Smiths into the man 'seen' by Jane Tanner, and indeed in Kate's book (Exhibit KH1) tries her best to convince her readers that they are one and the same person. DCI Redwood has now cleared that matter up conclusively, Smithman is an entirely different entity.

I would also have to ask 'Lazzeri' the same questions I put to Tony and others who are convinced of a whitewash. What would such a whitewash achieve? If as Lazzeri claims DCI Redwood is winding up (or is it winding down?) OG, then 3 years Review/Investigation and £7m+ of taxpayers money, will have achieved absolutely zilch. That is the cloud of suspicion hanging over the heads of Kate and Gerry will not have gone away (in fact it has increased a thousand fold since 2011) and Scotland Yard will look more corrupt under this government than it did under the previous one.

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 11:30

It was just IMO Tony, both don't look like gm, just the obvious one, I don't know who drew them either, I don't think Murat and smiths are friends that have met many times, smith seen him twice, in a bar, said hi once and never spoke again from what I read. IMO, a family would not lie to save a man they saw twice and if that was the reason for them coming forward, I would think more than just Martin smith would claim that it was not Murat, to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think smiths made it up, that's all.
IMO