The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Possible Action Against The Times

Page 14 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 20.09.14 6:43

@SixMillionQuid wrote:The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

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."


But that's still a year of holding onto the efits before they we're sent to the actual police.

So what I understand is that they actively watch the Internet for negative comments and respond accordingly. If they're happy with the Times apology then I can still see a delay from 2008 to 2009 before the efits were sent to Leicester / PJ. Maybe there's an explanation for that delay. dance

But not only that.... they have their own publicity machine who also decided not to publish the pictures. 

Even though we'd previously had Cooperman, Egghead, purposefully striding man, all the other crap... aged pictures of Madeleine...
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4671
Reputation : 2439
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by tungsten tel on 20.09.14 7:14

@Dont Make Me Laff wrote:I'm lost 'ere - I thought they held on to the e-fits for 5 years?
If so, then what else would one call "with-holding evidence"
??

If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team, then surely that's called with-holding evidence?

IOW - if I knew of something that could help the investigation but chose to with-hold it KNOWING it would hinder the case, what would happen to me? surely I would be done for with-holding information?
Oh hold on...... silly me.... that's the Mc's all over......

Withold evidence such as 48 questions
e-fits
DNA
cooperation
the list goes on
These people really have no shame or sense of right and wrong . Corrupt system from top to bottom . I really hope they do day trips from Heaven down to Hell cos I for one would book onto that just to see the penance the bad people have to pay for their sins .

tungsten tel

Posts : 71
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-27
Location : walsall

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Dont Make Me Laff on 20.09.14 7:29

@tungsten tel wrote:
@Dont Make Me Laff wrote:I'm lost 'ere - I thought they held on to the e-fits for 5 years?
If so, then what else would one call "with-holding evidence"
??

If you have information and don't give it to the investigating team, then surely that's called with-holding evidence?

IOW - if I knew of something that could help the investigation but chose to with-hold it KNOWING it would hinder the case, what would happen to me? surely I would be done for with-holding information?
Oh hold on...... silly me.... that's the Mc's all over......

Withold evidence such as 48 questions
e-fits
DNA
cooperation
the list goes on
These people really have no shame or sense of right and wrong . Corrupt system from top to bottom . I really hope they do day trips from Heaven down to Hell cos I for one would book onto that just to see the penance the bad people have to pay for their sins .

Fish rots from The HEAD down
enough said


ETA @ tungsten Corrupt system from top to bottom (Dmml = I rest my case)
avatar
Dont Make Me Laff

Posts : 304
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Jauna Loca on 20.09.14 7:50

More smoke and mirrors, my friends.  IMO reading it again, it's all McSpin.
The article outlines the complaints the McCanns filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms- but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the Mcs claiming "Unspecified damages", and reports: "According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled", inferring that the Macs won. However,

the article is careful to not actually state this. Maybe they settled like they were trying to do with Amaral?
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it. The inferrence is that the Macs emerged vindicated.
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
What wasn't retracted made it all the more damning IMO.
News UK could confirm this if it wanted to. Maybe it's keeping it's powder dry for something bigger. 
The Macs maybe sense they're on a loser in Portugal against Dr Amaral. The British Public need to be fed the myth that it's only the Sardine Munchers who won't accept their
innocence. Also, that was a really damning article which raised a new level or interest and doubt in the general public, which was not well managed by Team McCann at the time.
(Claimed Finincial restraints curtailed search to Tannerman only, and that hypercritical report would be a "distraction".) IMO This is an attempt to undo the damage of that article,
respin the "facts" in a better light, frighten nay-sayers and imply it has been rubber stamped by the courts. 
If I've interpreted piece wrong, I'm open to correction.
avatar
Jauna Loca

Posts : 65
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Hobs on 20.09.14 8:35

@Jauna Loca wrote:More smoke and mirrors, my friends.  IMO reading it again, it's all McSpin.
The article outlines the complaints the McCanns filed against The Times. It refers to News Gazette seeing the High Court forms- but not to hearing High Court action.
It refers to the Mcs claiming "Unspecified damages", and reports: "According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled", inferring that the Macs won. However,

the article is careful to not actually state this. Maybe they settled like they were trying to do with Amaral?
It then goes on to sabre rattling, listing the threatening gestures of the plaintiffs- their demands for revision, their dispute of the facts, their invoking of the mighty Carter Ruck-
again, implied that all this took place in a court of law, but interestingly does not state it. The inferrence is that the Macs emerged vindicated.
We've all read the mealy mouthed "apology" printed by The Times at the time. It basically said, right, there's one thing we can't prove, but we stand by the rest of it.
What wasn't retracted made it all the more damning IMO.
News UK could confirm this if it wanted to. Maybe it's keeping it's powder dry for something bigger. 
The Macs maybe sense they're on a loser in Portugal against Dr Amaral. The British Public need to be fed the myth that it's only the Sardine Munchers who won't accept their
innocence. Also, that was a really damning article which raised a new level or interest and doubt in the general public, which was not well managed by Team McCann at the time.
(Claimed Finincial restraints curtailed search to Tannerman only, and that hypercritical report would be a "distraction".) IMO This is an attempt to undo the damage of that article,
respin the "facts" in a better light, frighten nay-sayers and imply it has been rubber stamped by the courts. 
If I've interpreted piece wrong, I'm open to correction.
Exactly Kauna Loca.

Look at what has not been said.

In every case where a complaint of such serious merit has been made, not only does the paper make a public apology they also say they have paid undisclosed damages to the plaintiff or whoever they choose such as a designated charity and/ or that they have paid their legal costs.

What is missing is any mention of damages or costs, all they have said is it has been settled.

They have not said settled in whose favor which is telling.

Remember it is not just what the subject says, it is also what the subject doesn't say that can be just as revealing.

Given what we know concerning the ongoing trial against Dr Amaral, the ongoing investigations involving the PJ and Scotland Yard, the huge decline in income to the fund and funds available, it is likely they are hoping a threatening letter from carter-ruck will do the trick, much as it did before.

U suspect the mccanns backed down when confronted with irrefutable evidence, the paper didn't demand  their costs etc since the mccanns wouldn't have the money available ( plus if the mccanns got anything from Dr. Anaral it would be a pittance and not the million they want and it would then  have to pay legal costs and damages to  the paper, meaning the mccanns spent money for no return even had they won)

it is also likely that they as per usual didn't want to be in court where they would have to take the stand and testify under oath, something they are loathe to do.
They know the media would be there in full force and the sordid details would be made public, all the lies and deceptions and withholding of evidence would come out.
It would also mean it provided ammunition for Dr Amaral and the PJ.
Imagine claiming Dr Amaral's book  and documentary hindered the search causing distress etc and then having to admit in open court that yes they hindered the search, they did this and not that etc etc.
They would be laughed out of court.

For them, to cave in and drop the claim was their only  option, the cheapest and least damaging  option.

before, when they spoke , the media jumped and obeyed, that power is long gone.
Today, the media will say ok, bring it on, we'll see you in court and bring your checkbook.

They may well have come to a deal where both parties will say nothing or very little about the case except a settlement was reached.

It allows the mccanns to maintain their facade of innocence.

The paper however will have this stored away safely come time when they are charged, along with all the other little nuggets of info they have,
All the media will have a whole cabinet full of mccanns stories and incriminating  lurid info.
 When they are found guilty it will be  everything on the front page.

The paper is looking at stories for future publication.

In similar cases wehave seen family and friends, workmates, neighbors,  school and uni friends all talking about the subject, what they are like, how they behaved etc.
What is noticeable about this case is apart from a brief flurry at the start about hotlips healy, there has been nothing about who the mccanns are, what they are like, their personaluty etc.

Their parents and close family have stayed pretty silent again apart from a brief flurry at the start before they were shut down.
Their work collegues have maintained a deafening silence, as have their patients.
No one has said kate was my gp and she was ...
Even the tapas 7   have stayed silent, when they did speak it showed there was a distance between them and the mccanns,  kate and gerry were and are unlikeable and i suspect unwelcome wherever they went and go.

it is like they didn't exist before may 4th 2007 and  exist now only in their own bubble.

I think there is a lot of background to the family dynamics that the media is sitting on.
Intitially because perhaps the media thought Maddie was still alive and feared causing harm to her with lurid stories, these days even the dumbest journo knows Maddie is long dead and thus cannot come to harm.
Perhaps , having read kate wanting to press a button and kill the twins and gerry so they could ALL be togeather again with Maddie ( big clue here they know she is dead, else they just made her an orphan) they are keeping schtum in order to protect the twins.
Should the twins be removed for their care then stories about the mccanns would srtart coming out.

Another possibility is that the media knows the truth (or suspects the truth) and are abiding by police requests from the PJ and SY to not print anything that could  affect the case such as leaking what evidence the police may have, police procedures sucj as phone tapping or surveillance)  or could cause kate and gerry to harm the children or to do a runner to a country with no extradition treaty with Portugal or the UK or  to kill themselves and avoid justice that way,

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
avatar
Hobs
Researcher/Analyst

Posts : 893
Reputation : 585
Join date : 2012-10-21
Age : 54
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Markus 2 on 20.09.14 20:00

I think  they may have known who it was for it to be withheld and not necessarily Gerry,  surely they must have seen it before.

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Monty Heck on 20.09.14 21:22

@BlueBag wrote:
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."

Mmmm..... the bolded part is surely unnecessary?

They passed them in 2009.. so they also passed them again in2011?

If I was The Times I'd be asking more questions about 2009 and the context.
My reading of this is that, while the efits were provided to Portuguese and Leicestershire police by Oct 2009, a copy of the final report which included the efits was not passed to Metropolitan police until August 2011.  Therefore, the McCs did not reveal the efits for a period of a year or more and did not reveal the content of the report drawn up by Exon for a further 2 years, or 3+ years in total.  In both cases the McCs failed to pass on information and while 1 year or more is a lot less than the 5 years claimed by the Times, a year is a very long time to hold on to something which could have reopened the investigation, and a very long time for the child who is waiting to be found.  Even after threatening to sue, the information is still out there that the McCs did potentially hinder "the search" for their own child, albeit for a year or so and for 3 years, not five.  And still leaves the question remaining, about why there was such a delay in releasing information which would almost certainly have galvanised "the search" and given limitless opportunities for fresh publicity.  It is such a counter intuitive thing to do that the rationale behind the decision to withhold this information must be interesting indeed.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Markus 2 on 20.09.14 21:30

Once they reveal the identity of those e-fits ,if ever, and I dont believe it is Gerry ,the house of cards will crumble.

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 3:52

I don't think it's Gerry either, if Smithman is supposed to be Gerry, and the E-fits are supposed to be Smithman. If the McCanns were going to hide a body, then even they would have had the sense to dispose of it before raising the alarm, in my opinion. It would be far too dangerous to be walking around with a body after raising the alarm. What is kind of amusing is the possibility that Gerry thinks the E-fits look like Gerry, which is the only reason I can see for hiding them away for 5 years, obviously in the interest of 'doing everything they can to find Madeleine'. Someone explain that to me because I don't get it. But anyway, all it has done is make them look more guilty! In my opinion.

All these people supposedly involved reminds me of that scene in the remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair' where the gallery is full of men in bowler hats and suits wandering around with briefcases. The result? Confusion!

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by davro on 21.09.14 4:42

If true I'd say that suing any part of the Murdoch empire would be a seriously bad move by the McCanns. Right now the British media has been very much "onside" with them,if that changes they might well find life becomes a lot less pleasant.If the press start to highlight "the doubts" rather than the "distraught parents" side of the case they could find support and empathy evaporating overnight.If that happens and the great British public turn against them just watch all their friends amongst the "great and the good" distance themselves.

davro

Posts : 19
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Markus 2 on 21.09.14 5:12

What is kind of amusing is the possibility that Gerry thinks the E-fits look like Gerry, which is the only reason I can see for hiding them away for 5 years, obviously in the interest of 'doing everything they can to find Madeleine'. Someone explain that to me because I don't get it.

The only thing I can think of here is they know who it might be.

Markus 2

Posts : 393
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 21.09.14 5:16

Sorry, I haven't read all this thread but I read on facebook today that The Times has settled out of court with the McCann's. Is that right?
avatar
Google.Gaspar.Statements

Posts : 365
Reputation : 236
Join date : 2013-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Doug D on 21.09.14 5:26

Only one report of this in the ‘Press Gazette’ which was then taken up by another fairly obscure paper* today.
 
Looks to me to be just a re-hash of the Sunday Times 'apology' story from last year, when they didn’t actually apologise for anything much other than a date.
 
Re-hashed stories? Now where have we come across that before?

eta *'International Business News'

Doug D

Posts : 2590
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by sharonl on 21.09.14 5:32

@Brian Griffin wrote:I don't think it's Gerry either, if Smithman is supposed to be Gerry, and the E-fits are supposed to be Smithman. If the McCanns were going to hide a body, then even they would have had the sense to dispose of it before raising the alarm, in my opinion. It would be far too dangerous to be walking around with a body after raising the alarm. What is kind of amusing is the possibility that Gerry thinks the E-fits look like Gerry, which is the only reason I can see for hiding them away for 5 years, obviously in the interest of 'doing everything they can to find Madeleine'. Someone explain that to me because I don't get it. But anyway, all it has done is make them look more guilty! In my opinion.

All these people supposedly involved reminds me of that scene in the remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair' where the gallery is full of men in bowler hats and suits wandering around with briefcases. The result? Confusion!


I agree.  I also think that if someone was going to hid a body, no way would they sound the alarm on the same evening of the death, especially if it was accidental and unexpected. There would need to be some careful planning, where to hide the body and when, a clean up may be necessary if blood was spilled, and if an abduction was to be staged, the scene would need to be set.  Surely this couldn't be, even badly, within a few hours.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4831
Reputation : 887
Join date : 2009-12-30

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 8:06

Come to think of it, why raise the alarm at all?

Just theorising here, but if you wanted to hide the fact that your child was missing, for whatever reason, why not just leave the resort as soon as possible, sell up in the UK and move somewhere else within the UK or go to another country, breaking ties with all friends and possibly family? Why take a course of action that will undoubtedly lead to questions being asked? Eventually your friends will forget you and you'll be set up somewhere else.

Just a theory.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 8:10

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Sorry, I haven't read all this thread but I read on facebook today that The Times has settled out of court with the McCann's. Is that right?
It's a bit like trial by combat isn't it? If you were the strongest and more skilled combatant, you'd win proving your innocence even if you were guilty. Nowadays, innocence seems to go to those who can afford and hire the best lawyer! In my opinion.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 21.09.14 8:15

I might be really dim but I've seen no proof of McCanns v The Times other than something on Twitter and a subsequent report from a non-newspaper which claims 'settlement' has been reached.

I await enlightenment with fact.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8888
Reputation : 1799
Join date : 2011-09-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by maebee on 21.09.14 9:07

http://portugalresident.com/readers%E2%80%99-online-commentary-targeted-in-mccann-libel-suit

As they await a decision on their €1.2 million euro defamation claim against former PJ police inspector Gonçalo Amaral, disturbing details have emerged of another libel action taken by the parents of Madeleine McCann - this time against a British newspaper.

Integral in the couple’s claim were references made to “comments posted by readers below the online version of the article”, writes Dominic Gover for International Business Times.

It is not clear exactly how the High Court dealt with this aspect of the McCann’s claim, but a successful ‘result’ effectively opens the floodgates to all kinds of litigation by people who consider reader commentary attached to online news articles offensive.

In this case, Press Gazette reports this morning that the libel claim has already been settled.

In his own report for IBT, Gover talks of unspecified damages.

The story the couple objected to appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times in October last year, and was widely reproduced by other news services, blogs and social media - all of which would have allowed for reader commentary and feedback.

It centred on allegations by a former British spy that the McCanns had suppressed “a crucial piece of evidence” from police which led to the hampering of the long-running search for their daughter.

Kate and Gerry McCann were quick to refute the claims, and demanded a detailed apology from the Sunday Times, which was printed in December.

Nevertheless, the couple’s libel action maintained that the Sunday Times article had caused them to suffer “serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

So much for GM stating at Leveson that people are entitled to their views, freedom of speech blah blah blah:(
avatar
maebee
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 492
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2009-12-04
Location : Ireland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.09.14 10:29

@maebee wrote:http://portugalresident.com/readers%E2%80%99-online-commentary-targeted-in-mccann-libel-suit

As they await a decision on their €1.2 million euro defamation claim against former PJ police inspector Gonçalo Amaral, disturbing details have emerged of another libel action taken by the parents of Madeleine McCann - this time against a British newspaper.

Integral in the couple’s claim were references made to “comments posted by readers below the online version of the article”, writes Dominic Gover for International Business Times.

It is not clear exactly how the High Court dealt with this aspect of the McCann’s claim, but a successful ‘result’ effectively opens the floodgates to all kinds of litigation by people who consider reader commentary attached to online news articles offensive.

In this case, Press Gazette reports this morning that the libel claim has already been settled.

In his own report for IBT, Gover talks of unspecified damages.

The story the couple objected to appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times in October last year, and was widely reproduced by other news services, blogs and social media - all of which would have allowed for reader commentary and feedback.

It centred on allegations by a former British spy that the McCanns had suppressed “a crucial piece of evidence” from police which led to the hampering of the long-running search for their daughter.

Kate and Gerry McCann were quick to refute the claims, and demanded a detailed apology from the Sunday Times, which was printed in December.

Nevertheless, the couple’s libel action maintained that the Sunday Times article had caused them to suffer “serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

So much for GM stating at Leveson that people are entitled to their views, freedom of speech blah blah blah...
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to post this, maebee.

So the journalist who, a few weeks back, spotted a McCanns v Times claim in the High Court has been vindicated as a truthful reporter of the fact that there was indeed a damages claim against the Times in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.

The key phrase in the above quote from the Press Gazette/International Business Times report is this:

QUOTE: "Integral in the couple’s claim were references made to 'comments posted by readers below the online version of the article', writes Dominic Gover for International Business Times".

The remainder of the article effectively makes it clear that the McCanns were suing the Times for libel on at least two counts:

1. That the article itself libelled them, by suggesting that they 'sat on' the two e-fits for 5 years, after ex-MI5 man Henri Exton, whom they employed, claimed he'd drawn up these e-fits in 2008, AND

2. That some readers' comments below the article also libelled them.

OBSERVATIONS:

A.  This has been settled out of court (i.e. without a court hearing).

B. It therefore DOES NOT set a precedent, as no formal court ruling appears to have been made. For example, the Times may have agreed to pay the McCanns a substantial sum of damages but WITHOUT admitting liability.

C. The case does however send a 'warning shot' over the bows of all newspapers and media that they need to take reasonable care to prevent or remove libellous comments (about anyone)

D. It might also be a valuable warning that we too need to take care before making any comment - against anyone - that could be construed as libellous


E.  Once again this focuses our attention on these controversial two e-fits, about which the following is known:

(1) They are claimed by Henri Exton (in an article in the Sunday Times 27 Oct 2013) to have been drawn up by him or members of his team

(2) They were drawn up some time in 2008 - October 2008 according to one recent account

(3) In a correction/apology published by the Sunday Times in December 2008, the McCanns were quoted as saying that they passed on these two e-fits to Leicestershire Police and the PJ, neither of whom recommended that the e-fits should be published - thus blaming those two police forces for not releasing these two e-fits  

(4) The same Sunday Times correction/apology said that the McCanns had handed over those two e-fits to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange in August 2011, just 3 months after Grange was set up - thus putting 'blame' on The Met for not doing anything with them for 2 years and 2 months, when they were first shown on CrimeWatch (14 October 2013)

(5) If DCI Redwood wanted to promote the Smith 'sighting' as well as the 'Tannerman' sighting, he would have to explain the wholly unlikely phenomenon of the abductor wandering around Praia da Luz carrying a sleeping or dead child for 45 minutes

(6) As we know, he 'found', or rather CLAIMS to have found, 'Crecheman', thus allowing Redwood to revise the timeline to give a 40-minute 'window' for the abductor, from say 9.15pm to 9.55pm 

(7) On CrimeWatch, while leading the 6.7 million viewers to think that these two e-fits were drawn up by 'the Irish family', these were NOT the actual words used by CrimeWatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala, who simply said they were drawn up 'by two of the witnesses'

(8) A large proportion of people who have seen these two e-fits do NOT believe that they represent the same person    

(9) Serious doubt has arisen as to whether the Smiths would have been capable of drawing up detailed e-fits of a face, given that - according to the available evidence - they were not asked to co-operate in producing the e-fits until 12 to 17 months after the event, AND they only saw him for a few seconds, in the dark, with his face partially hidden

(10) We know on the record that DCI Redwood and/or members of his staff interviewed Martin Smith 'once in 2012' and 'once in 2013'.

CONCLUSION:      

THE PRECISE PROVENANCE OF THESE TWO VERY CONTROVERSIAL E-FITS HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED, AND A GREAT DEAL OF MYSTERY STILL SURROUNDS THEIR TRUE ORIGIN

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14977
Reputation : 3028
Join date : 2009-11-26
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 10:37

The McCanns' definition of libel seems to be 'anything we don't like'.

They'd better hope there's no such thing as karma!

In my opinion.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Snifferdog on 21.09.14 13:52

Surely, because there are public comments involved, it is in the publics interest to know exactly what has happened with this libel case? So why so cagey?

Will these McCann libel accusations be used by the "Hacked off" champaign to clamp down on freedom of speech in the future? Or has hacked off facked off for good?
Why did the paper settle out of court with the McCanns, as they seemed to have a good enough case?
Also why just this one weak article criticizing the McCanns actions out of the blue, against the usual pandering to the McCanns by the media?
It seems that the Murdoch owned media may be colluding behind the scenes with the McCanns, to scare off public criticism, and or, the"settlement" may be a way of denoting monies into the Fund without raising suspicions.
IMO it looked to be really weak case for the McCanns, so why did the Mirror roll over so easily and fork out? As Brian Griffin posted; "The McCanns' definition of libel seems to be 'anything we don't like'. Snipped...
In my opinion."
I'm just purporting theories here, All IMO eek

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal
avatar
Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 15:08

Out of interest a couple of years ago there was a lot of heated debate on the TES forum about the McCanns but the thread or threads got deleted, or in the post-McCannist vernacular, 'whooshed'. I wonder why!

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 21.09.14 18:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:(3) In a correction/apology published by the Sunday Times in December 2008, the McCanns were quoted as saying that they passed on these two e-fits to Leicestershire Police and the PJ, neither of whom recommended that the e-fits should be published - thus blaming those two police forces for not releasing these two e-fits  

We have no idea how these were passed onto the Police in 2008, if the Police even knew they had had them passed (buried in amongst other stuff), if it was official, if the Police made recommendations (why would they say "don't publish these"?).

That said.. the McCanns have their own media resources who it seems also decided not to publish the pictures for 5 years.

They published other pictures... eggman, cooperman, striding man.... but not these.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4671
Reputation : 2439
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 21.09.14 18:09

avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4671
Reputation : 2439
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 21.09.14 18:17

Firstly, thanks maebee for the verification. roses 

Snipped from Tony's post (my underlining)


"B. It therefore DOES NOT set a precedent, as no formal court ruling appears to have been made. For example, the Times may have agreed to pay the McCanns a substantial sum of damages but WITHOUT admitting liability."


Just a thought, "Settled out of court" might also be The Times saying 'bring it on' or 'sod off' and the McCanns backing down. The Times may not have agreed to anything. It could just mean 'the matter has been settled out of court' that's spun to infer something else. It can't be doing TM image much good to have libel suits - even this one has been almost buried in the mainstream media.

Anyway, just a thought - I could be completely wrong.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8888
Reputation : 1799
Join date : 2011-09-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 14 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum