Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by jeanmonroe 01.08.14 16:57

So, McCanns vs Murdoch?

by Miraflores 01.08.14 16:59

jeanmonroe wrote:So, McCanns vs Murdoch?

Given that Rebekah Brooks was a staunch supporter of the McCanns, isn't this biting the hand which feeds them?

by roy rovers 01.08.14 17:08

If this is true Kate and Gerry will be making a powerful enemy but I've never believed that they ever had particularly powerful friends. It's always been Kate and Gerry against the rest - attack being the best form of defence.

by **sharonl** 01.08.14 17:20

Silverspeed wrote:Does anybody know if there is any truth to this tweet from this man who I believe is a journalist? How reliable is he?

How timely.

This thread comes to the surface and a few hours later we get an unsubstantiated tweet, possibly about the article in question.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9984-an-analysis-of-the-sunday-times-article-27-oct-2013-on-the-smithman-efits-which-relied-on-henri-exton-as-the-source

by Praiaaa 01.08.14 17:23

roy rovers wrote:If this is true Kate and Gerry will be making a powerful enemy but I've never believed that they ever had particularly powerful friends. It's always been Kate and Gerry against the rest - attack being the best form of defence.

Agree about no powerful friends. Have never believed the 'powerful forces' conspiracy theory, that is IMO taking GM at his own inflated sense of importance. IMO - wannabe middle-classes go on 'MW on the cheap' hol to take advantage of wall-to-wall childcare so the adults can ~~drink~~ dine in the tapas bar unhampered - plan foiled when usual MW listening not available at that resort, but still blag a discount for the non-offered service, unfortunate accident, expedient cover-up, media pals unwittingly help, slebs and politicos jump on the bandwagon without checking facts - then quietly slink away without fanfare when obvious that MM not abducted (dogs). All IMO of course.

by noddy100 01.08.14 17:31

God Murdoch takes no prisoners he would throw anyone to the lions hope he keeps to it with these 2
If they even out fox him then its game over imho

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 17:37

Claire25 wrote:Where did the press get hold of the report from anyway though? The only thing I can think of is SY showed them? Am I missing something?

I doubt very much whether DCI Redwood or any of his near-retirees in Grange gave this report [Operation Omega] to the Times.

Most likely Henri Exton retained a copy of his report and gave it to the Times.

But knowing Exton's past record and possible motive in this case, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have fabricated parts of his report.

by Cristobell 01.08.14 17:56

Claire25 wrote:Where did the press get hold of the report from anyway though? The only thing I can think of is SY showed them? Am I missing something?

As I recall it Claire, the report came to light following Crimewatch in October last year. Crimewatch as you will remember was broadcast amid much publicity and of course, the revelation moment, the efits of Smithman.

I believe Henri Exton recognised the efits as part of his original report to the McCanns and contacted the Sunday Times. We do have the Sunday Times article on here somewhere Claire, but the report prepared by Exton was held back by the McCanns and they went so far as to 'gag' him legally, so that the efits and report would not come to light. The report was critical of the McCanns and their group, and they did not think it would be helpful. In the article it said the Times had to get permission from Madeleine's Fund, for the report to be released.

This will all be part of the proposed legal proceedings. The Sunday Times article did enormous damage to the McCanns, as it revealed that they had suppressed a vital lead for 5 years. Although it should be said, the length of time they suppressed the report is at issue. The Sunday Times issued an apology to the McCanns, but it wasn't the apology they wanted, as it continued to say they suppressed the report but got the timescale wrong. Should be interesting.

Again, I'm afraid, I differ from Tony on this subject, I think that Henri Exton is a credible witness who prepared a 'real' report, as compared to all the others.

by Woofer 01.08.14 18:07

The report submitted by Exton has not been published - correct me if I`m wrong. Cristobel is right in that Henri Exton must have contacted the Insight Team at The Times when he saw his efits on the Crimewatch Programme on the 14th October. There were only brief references to his original report and the fact he was threatened to never disclose it.

by Cristobell 01.08.14 18:11

Woofer wrote:The report submitted by Exton has not been published - correct me if I`m wrong. Cristobel is right in that Henri Exton must have contacted the Insight Team at The Times when he saw his efits on the Crimewatch Programme on the 14th October. There were only brief references to his original report and the fact he was threatened to never disclose it.

Thanks Woofer.

Here is a link to the Times article.

https://www.facebook.com/UK.database/posts/213807888792357

by NickE 01.08.14 18:19

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 2 9fadd3e05ee258a40c7fbf173376c5d9_normal

Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate,Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet.#mccann

by Woofer 01.08.14 18:29

sharonl wrote:
Silverspeed wrote:Does anybody know if there is any truth to this tweet from this man who I believe is a journalist? How reliable is he?

How timely.

This thread comes to the surface and a few hours later we get an unsubstantiated tweet, possibly about the article in question.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9984-an-analysis-of-the-sunday-times-article-27-oct-2013-on-the-smithman-efits-which-relied-on-henri-exton-as-the-source

It looks as if the tweeter has now substantiated it with a case number sharonl so it looks as if its true. Well TB started that thread on 6th July - so Kevin must have seen it and wet himself in excitement as he alerted one and all. Would that have left a sufficient amount of time to have obtained a hearing date?

by ShuBob 01.08.14 18:40

NickE wrote:
Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate,Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet.#mccann

Oh eh!

This could be interesting especially if the Times decide to fight it.

by margaret 01.08.14 18:55

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?

I thought the same but it's possible if they'd done it then the story would have been HUGE. Remember the publication of the new efits gave the media a field day anyway....

by margaret 01.08.14 18:57

jeanmonroe wrote:So, McCanns vs Murdoch?

OMG Jeanmonroe, Murdoch would wipe the floor with their skinny ass's!! lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 18:57

Cristobell wrote:
As I recall it Claire, the report came to light following Crimewatch in October last year.

REPLY: As stated up the thread, the Sunday Times article was on 27 October 2013, 13 days after the CrimeWatch Show - and was clearly based on information supplied by Exton.

...the report prepared by Exton was held back by the McCanns

REPLY: Again, up the thread you will see that the Sunday Times has formally apologised for making that claim. The McCanns maintained that (a) they disclosed these two most mysterious efits to Leicestershire Police and the PJ 'before October 2009' and (b) did so again to DCI Redwood as long ago as August 2011. As the Sunday Times has apologised for claiming that the efits were 'held back by the McCanns', and may still face a libel action, it might be advisable for you to withdraw your comment, Cristobell.

This will all be part of the proposed legal proceedings. The Sunday Times article did enormous damage to the McCanns, as it revealed that they had suppressed a vital lead for 5 years.

REPLY: NO. See above.

Although it should be said, the length of time they suppressed the report is at issue. The Sunday Times issued an apology to the McCanns, but it wasn't the apology they wanted, as it continued to say they suppressed the report but got the timescale wrong.

REPLY: That's not correct either. Look at the Times article of 28 December.

Again, I'm afraid, I differ from Tony on this subject, I think that Henri Exton is a credible witness who prepared a 'real' report, as compared to all the others.

REPLY: You place reliance on the word of a witness who (a) was the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 (b) swas acked by MI5 after stealing perfume from Manchester Airport and (c) was a close associate of the disgraced fraudster and con-man, Kevin Halligen? Yep, Cristobell, once more we are at odds and must agree to disagree.

by Guest 01.08.14 18:58

Excuse my ignorance. sad

Would the case be against The Sunday Times if it was about the efit article? And not The Times. Or are they lumped together for legal issues?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 19:00

NickE wrote:

Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate,Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet.#mccann

Much as I thought then.

Translating, that means the case was the 2,886th one to be issued in the High Court during 2014, and it will be tried (unless there is a settlement) in the Queen's Bench Division ('Q')

by canada12 01.08.14 19:01

Tony Bennett wrote:

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

Here it is:
(taken from a Sunday Times archive that I have access to)
(note the Publisher's note)

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, December 29, 2013
Publisher Notice: Please note: the sentence commencing "We also understand..." should read as follows "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review".

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to E-Fits 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 E-Fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused.
Edition: 01
Section: News
Page: 2
Record Number: 80705525
(c) Times Newspapers Limited 2013

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 19:02

dantezebu wrote:Excuse my ignorance.

Would the case be against The Sunday Times if it was about the efit article? And not The Times. Or are they lumped together for legal issues?

Yes, lumped together under 'Times Newspapers Ltd', the official name of the company

by Guest 01.08.14 19:06

Thank you. Sorry another question. If the Time issued an apology (for part), which they did, is it possible that they can still sue?
Or would it be another aspect of the article that wasn't retracted?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 19:24

dantezebu wrote:Thank you. Sorry another question. If the Times issued an apology (for part), which they did, is it possible that they can still sue?
Or would it be another aspect of the article that wasn't retracted?

1. Possibly, yes, another allegedly libellous statement that wasn't retracted by the Times, or (more likely in my view)...

2. The McCanns are content with the wording of the apology but want (a) their legal costs and/or (b) a libel award which the Times have been unwilling to pay.

Think: Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow

by Miraflores 01.08.14 19:29

If what the ST published is true, then surely it's not libel? Unless you are Gerry and declare that facts which are untrue are published (in which case, they are not facts Gerry.)

by Silverspeed 01.08.14 19:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
dantezebu wrote:Thank you. Sorry another question. If the Times issued an apology (for part), which they did, is it possible that they can still sue?
Or would it be another aspect of the article that wasn't retracted?
1. Possibly, yes, another allegedly libellous statement that wasn't retracted by the Times, or (more likely in my view)...

2. The McCanns are content with the wording of the apology but want (a) their legal costs and/or (b) a libel award which the Times have been unwilling to pay.

Think: Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow

Money, Money, Money...That's all it ever is with them!
So therefore I would say no.2 Tony.

by Justformaddie 01.08.14 19:34

Didn't know where to put this but, a woman in USA charged with child desertion. Left them in a car with windows down and engine off, they were aged 5 & 7 years old!