Possible Action Against The Times

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

No, noddy100, that's incorrect.

Smithman WAS mentioned several times in Dr Kate McCann's book, indeed a detailed description of the Smith sighting appeared across three pages in an Appendix to the book, along with a blow-by-blow account of how 'strikingly similar' he was to 'Tannerman'.

According to the McCanns - via the Sunday Times correction/apology of December 2013 - we were told that the two controversial e-fits were shown (a) to Leicestershire Police and (b) to the PJ but that neither force recommended that the e-fits be used.

We then have a further puzzle to explain.

Why (again according to the above Sunday Times apology/correction) did DCI Andy Redwood receive these images from the McCanns in August 2011 - but do NOTHING with them for 2 years and 2 months?

Why was it right to show them to 6.7 million people on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013, but refuse to show them to anyone for the previous two years and two  months?

I don't think it said "shown" I think it said passed to them... not quite the same thing. The circumstances would be very interesting. I smell semantics.

"Neither force recommended that the e-fits be used"... but did either force say they couldn't? Did either force even comment on them?

Why would they say "don't use them"?

We had eggman, cooperman, striding man and all the other ridiculous stuff (eggman is my favourite, how did CM keep a straight face?).

Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO

palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO

Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???

jozi wrote:

palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO

Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???

@jozi - in the interests of accuracy, according to Summers & Swann the term is 'haters'

aquila wrote:

jozi wrote:

palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO

Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???

@jozi - in the interests of accuracy, according to Summers & Swann the term is 'haters'

Oh ok....nutters/ haters......same difference according to some ! LOL

I don't class myself as a nutter or even a hater, I just want justice for Maddie, the right way. 
If the pj had been left alone to do their job, we proberly wouldn't be here.
IMO

It puzzles me why none of the MSM seems willing to go to court over any supposed libel,just what is the hold on them,the only one prepared to stand up to the TM is Amaral,they tried to silence him with an out of court settlement.

wonder what the out come of this was ....


This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.
One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.


Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Can’t help but wonder how much people’s hands are tied by the super-inaudible.
 
Going back a few months, Craig Murray, author, broadcaster and human rights activist and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, posted up on his blog:
 
A Day Off Politics
by craig on May 23, 2014 5:31 pm
 
No politics tomorrow.
Instead there will be a short post entitled – Amanda Knox, Oscar Pistorius and the McCanns.
Guilty as hell.
 
However this post never arrived.
 
There were 93 comments posted to the above, which he happily responded to as appropriate, including making a comment about John Buck:
 
‘I know John Buck fairly well. A nice man, but the chances of him ever doing anything without a direct instruction are nil’
 
and then suddenly – nothing.
 
When asked what had happened to the post, by several people, all of a sudden he stopped responding, the article never arrived and there was never any explanation as far as I am aware, so he certainly seemed to have been ‘got at’.
 
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/a-day-off-politics/
 
How would things stand if the only defence to a libel suit involved submitting evidence that was banned under a super-injunction and therefore couldn’t be revealed and your hands were completely tied as you were also therefore precluded from even stating that there was evidence that you weren’t able to disclose existed?

Good grief!

Doesn't hold back, does he?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/oprah_winfreys/

Except on that last occasion, of course.

Super-injunctions are rich-elite-evil.

I sometimes wonder did we ever move on from "the enlightenment".

BlueBag wrote:I don't think it said "shown" I think it said passed to them... not quite the same thing. The circumstances would be very interesting. I smell semantics.

"Neither force recommended that the e-fits be used"... but did either force say they couldn't? Did either force even comment on them?

Why would they say "don't use them"?

We had eggman, cooperman, striding man and all the other ridiculous stuff (eggman is my favourite, how did CM keep a straight face?).

I'm a bit baffled here I'm afraid.

As far as I am aware these Smithman e-fits emerged due to SY demanding/ receiving all the Private Investigators files from the PI's.

All of them I think.

Am I correct in assuming that the reason why these e-fits emerged on Crimewatch Oct 13 was that SY were the investigation team that discovered them and in their wisdom ( not the PJ or LP ) decided that these were worth showing to the British public re: Smithman' sighting.?

Basically did the PJ and LP think that these were of no use despite knowing about the Smith family's declarations to the Gardai and the PJ for many years? As well as the lead investigator wanting to bring the Mr and Mrs Smith back to Portugal.

One things for sure is that in the search for Madeleine the Great British public didn't know about these e-fits for around seven years.

Whether they were suppressed is open to question and only the settlement with the Times will tell anyone the outcome of that particular battle. If it was settled in private then we will not get to know I think.

The McCann's don't do Private when it involves letting the world know they have sued a Newspaper cos they are the poor,poor victims,Imo the Times have told them to Fcuk off we will see you in court. Imo the McCann's have settled with an outcome of bugger all from the Times'spin, spin from TM otherwise it would be all over the MSM thanks to the Pink ponce all in my own opinion of course.

‘….then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably.’
 
‘The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
 
So ‘out of court’ again.

Leveson has changed nothing– the media still put ‘stories’ before the truth
As I know from experience, if papers tell lies about you, they’ll be able to get away with it pretty much scot free. The public backs change – and editors must act

• Share 9
  
  
  
• [url=javascript:void(0);]inShare[/url]1
  
• Email
  

• 
  
• 
  
  • Gerry McCann
    
    
  • The Guardian, Thursday 2 October 2014 19.14 BST
    
  • Jump to comments (39)
    
  
  
  

Kate and Gerry McCann talking to the press earlier this year during a libel case against a former Portuguese police officer. ‘Newspapers treat the people they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect.’ Photograph: Mario Cruz/EPA
Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.
Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.
A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.
However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.
Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there.
Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Absolutely nothing. Newspapers continue to put “stories” before the truth, and without much care for the victims.
They treat the people they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect. They hide behind talk about the rights of the press while they routinely trash the rights of ordinary people. They constantly claim to stand up to the powerful, but they are the ones with the power, and they use it ruthlessly.
Legal action should be a last resort. A final route when all else has failed. I don’t blame Leveson. He recommended changes that would make a big difference. He wanted a press self-regulator that was not controlled by the big newspaper companies and that had real clout. If a paper told lies about you, you could go to this body and count on fast and fair treatment: it would not just let papers off the hook. More than that, Leveson wanted a cheap, quick arbitration service so that ordinary people did not need to resort to the law. Our experience shows this is a vital reform.
Parliament backed Leveson’s plan. The public backs it. So do we, and almost all the other victims who gave evidence to Leveson. Only one group of people is opposing this change – the perpetrators themselves, the same editors and newspaper owners who were responsible for all that cruelty. Instead of accepting the Leveson plan, these people, including the owner of the Sunday Times, have set up another sham regulator called Ipso, which is designed to do their bidding just like the old, disgraced Press Complaints Commission.
If in another year’s time the press still rejects the royal charter – itself already a compromise – then it will be time for parliament to deliver on the promises the party leaders made, and ensure that what Leveson recommended is actually delivered. Otherwise elements of the press will go on treating people with total contempt. This time, once again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be you.

McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.

Me being me, at this point in the report, i would be asking so, kate, tell me about those 48 questions you refused to answer and the one question you did which was:

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

To which you, kate, replied

YES, If that's what the investigation thinks.



Since you kate dear, have openly and clearly admitted to jeopardising (hindering) the search for your daughter can i suggest gerry you hire carter-ruck, a firm to which you apparantly have a hotline to, to sue kate mccann for hindering the search for Maddie.
The same thing you have happily don,e suing and threatening to sue anyone who doesn't agree with your version of events, and who you, and your supporters, with great abandon and glee happily do on an almost daily basis.

After all what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I understand she has access to a nice amount of money which should keep you in the manner to which you would like to be come accustomed to.

Also it will be handy come divorce time and you want custody of the remaining children on the basis, of her mental health issues (see your claims regarding  suing Dr. Goncalo Amaral and also exhibit KH1 the bewk.

The Sunday Times have form for settling supposed libel cases., then counter suing for return of the funds when the "victim" is exposed as a liar.  Ask Lance Armstrong.