Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by Markus 2 20.09.14 10:00

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.

by Monty Heck 20.09.14 11:22

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.

by Markus 2 20.09.14 11:30

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

by Brian Griffin 20.09.14 17:52

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!

by davro 20.09.14 18:42

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.

by Markus 2 20.09.14 19:12

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.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 20.09.14 19:16

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?

by Doug D 20.09.14 19:26

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'

by **sharonl** 20.09.14 19:32

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.

by Brian Griffin 20.09.14 22:06

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.

by Brian Griffin 20.09.14 22:10

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.

by Liz Eagles 20.09.14 22:15

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.

by maebee 20.09.14 23:07

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:(

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.14 0:29

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

by Brian Griffin 21.09.14 0:37

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.

by Snifferdog 21.09.14 3:52

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

by Brian Griffin 21.09.14 5:08

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!

by Guest 21.09.14 8:02

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.

by Guest 21.09.14 8:09

by Liz Eagles 21.09.14 8:17

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.

by noddy100 21.09.14 8:28

Surely it is obvious that they were avoiding releasing the image just by looking at Kate's book?
She mentions and inc pics of all of the potential abductors bar this one

by Guest 21.09.14 8:32

noddy100 wrote:Surely it is obvious that they were avoiding releasing the image just by looking at Kate's book?
She mentions and inc pics of all of the potential abductors bar this one

Yes it's strange that The Sunday Times backed down on this one.

But who knows what mind games are going on here.

by aiyoyo 21.09.14 8:37

aquila wrote: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.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything. Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, and Defendant's legal costs paid by plaintiffs. It may not necessary involve pay out by Defendant.

Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times. Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.

If Times has caved in - why no public apology? Why no public statement from the Pink Spokescreature?

by nglfi 21.09.14 8:49

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote: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.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything. Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, not necessary a pay out by Defendant.

Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times. Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.

But damages are also mentioned, for an unspecified amount. Perhaps the Times said you can have a token £1 or bring it on, and they accepted it? Either way it can't be a massive victory for the McCanns otherwise Clarence would have mentioned it. Imagine if it had been splashed over the front pages, it would raise a lot of questions, particularly since it is clear they did suppress, or let's say 'fail to publicise' the e fits. The look on Gerry's face when they showed up on the Crimewatch edition suggests it was indeed handed over in amongst piles of dross in the hope it would ve ignored. Given their upcoming decision against Amaral, it is in fact incredibly bizarre this has not made it to the front pages, if indeed it was a 'victory'. Perhaps it's coming in the next few days

by Liz Eagles 21.09.14 9:03

I can but hope that if any token offer of financial settlement has been made The Times have made the proviso that their cheque is made payable to a forensic dog-training institute.

by aiyoyo 21.09.14 9:18

nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote: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.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything. Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, not necessary a pay out by Defendant.

Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times. Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.
But damages are also mentioned, for an unspecified amount. Perhaps the Times said you can have a token £1 or bring it on, and they accepted it? Either way it can't be a massive victory for the McCanns otherwise Clarence would have mentioned it. Imagine if it had been splashed over the front pages, it would raise a lot of questions, particularly since it is clear they did suppress, or let's say 'fail to publicise' the e fits. The look on Gerry's face when they showed up on the Crimewatch edition suggests it was indeed handed over in amongst piles of dross in the hope it would ve ignored. Given their upcoming decision against Amaral, it is in fact incredibly bizarre this has not made it to the front pages, if indeed it was a 'victory'. Perhaps it's coming in the next few days

Any pay out would have been at least 5-digit figure minimum. It will be interesting to see whether this will get accounted for in the Fund accounts next year.

Where's the public apology?
Where's the clarification in the MSM that the Times got it wrong and has accounted for it?
Surely they want the public to know they did not hamper investigation?

How does a suit taken out in secrecy and settled in secrecy vindicate their reputation damage claim?

by **PeterMac** 21.09.14 9:22

aiyoyo wrote:
Where's the public apology?
Where's the clarification in the MSM that the Times got it wrong and has accounted for it?
Surely they want the public to know they did not hamper investigation?
How does a suit taken out in secrecy and settled in secrecy vindicate their reputation damage claim?

But they are in a trap, because the small apology they got had to repeat the allegation !

They can hardly ask for a full one, because that would have to spell out the whole thing, and might say
for example
"when we said five years we accept this was incorrect and we should have said TWO !"

by The Rooster 21.09.14 9:24

Aiyoyo, you are quite correct. The McCanns would surely want a written apology in full in the published paper. I'm certain the original article was a missile put across HMS McCann as a warning to keep them in check. They managed to get a small retraction on what appeared to be minor detail.

by sami 21.09.14 9:27

Didn't the Times "settle" with Lance Armstrong too and quickly sought to recoup the money when the truth was revealed.

by aiyoyo 21.09.14 9:41

aquila wrote:I can but hope that if any token offer of financial settlement has been made The Times have made the proviso that their cheque is made payable to a forensic dog-training institute.

It's not like the Mcs to accept token financial settlement without demanding public apology, otherwise the purpose of the suit (claw back damage reputation) would not have been met. There is no justification for the wasted time and effort in suing someone only to accept a token sum when the objective of the suit is not met.

Usually if the objective of the suit isn't about money, a token sum may be acceptable on provision defendant agreed to do a public retraction and apology. If money is their objective for suing the Times, they would not have accepted a token sum.
Then they would have shown themselves up as being money greedy, which would be more damaging for their reputation. Imagine if the cheques were made out to them instead of the Fund? How would that look?
Even if made out to the Fund, it is after all a private ltd company, still won't look good for them.
Not when their contention in the claim is "damaged reputation".