ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.14 20:46

So, another £55,000 for the McCanns from yet another libel action:

Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout

Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again Kate-McCann-and-Gerry-McC-006

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again Kate-McCann-and-Gerry-McC-006

Kate and Gerry McCann, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007. Photograph: Niall Carson/PA

Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.

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.

The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”

Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeats calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.

After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.

The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.

In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.

“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.

The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”

Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.

In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.

His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “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? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”

[REST OF ARTICLE SNIPPED]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

People on here and on other McCann-sceptic forums were very quick to accuse the McCanns of 'suppressing the Smiths' e-fits for 5 years' - following the Sunday Times story of 27 October (two weeks after the McCann CrimeWatch Special), which effevtively warned them of doing that.

Members here and others elsewhere were very quick to believe everything that Henri Exton - an associate of criminal fraudster Kevin Halligen - had told the Sunday Times as gospel.

I pointed out loud and clear at the time that Henri Exton was - as has been admitted on the record - the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5.

Which would mean that he would be close to the action at the very top layers of the government and its secuirty services.

I said I wouldn't trust one word that he said.

I will say this now.

I believe that Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton between them manufactured those 2-fits.

I believe that neither Henri Exton nor the McCanns and their Team nor DCI Redwood nor the BBC CrimeWatch Team have told us the truth about the provenance of these 2 e-fits.

I am certain that the Smiths neither did produce and endorsed nor even could have produced and endorsed those 2 e-fits for reasons I have given elsewhere on the forum.

I have evidence (not yet amounting to proof) that these 2-efits were produced from photographs of two men each living in the south of England who have nothing directly to do with the Madeleine McCann case.

I have a hypothesis that the Smiths have agreed to go along with DCI Redwood's claim to 6.7 million people on BBC CrimeWatch that these e-fits were produced by them and represent a true sighting of a man carrying a child but I accept that this hypothesis may be wrong. If the Smiths have indeed gone along with DCI Redwood's plan to promote 'Smithman' as the abductor, I do not know why they may have done so

It is self-evident that those who claim that Madeleine 'disappeared' or died before 3rd May must be wrong if DCI Redwood is right in suggesting that the Smiths saw Madeleine McCann being carried near Kelly's bar at around 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

by margaret 02.10.14 21:23

Thanks for the news tony.

£55,000 is frankly peanuts for such a damning story, just show show desperate for money they are. And it was settled out of court so not really a victory the press may be keeping their powder dry.

So now we know why the troll stories of today happened, to help alongside this news but they can't be vindicated really, they've still changed their stories and refused to help the police.

by frost 02.10.14 23:06

'Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.'

Why are they not putting the money into the find Madeleine fund? After all Madeleine is at the centre of all this and according to the McCanns she is still alive as there is no evidence that she has come to any harm .

So are they no longer searching for Madeleine or were they told under the curcumstances it would be a better PR move not to put it into the find Madeleine fund or does charity for missing people translate into Madeleine fund ?

You just could not make today up . I think today pandoras box has well and truly opened and there will be even more people following the McCann forums and twitter etc as a result of today .

Why did the Times give in and pay up they should have gone to court . I am sure the McCanns would have totally faltered in a British court of law . The last thing they want to do is have to answer any questions regarding their daughters disappearance .

by Woofer 02.10.14 23:20

So, really no hope of any newspaper questioning the Mcs lies...... and this was just for saying they hung on to the efits. I give up.

by Guest 02.10.14 23:26

Charity, eh? Don't they want to be seen to be adding more money to the Fund now for some reason...?

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 0:06

Well, they are giving the money to charidy. That was unexpected.

by pauloptix 03.10.14 0:19

Maybe it's public damage limitation for McCs and Murdoch

A Murdoch paper seen to be anti McC.... Everyone gets the message not to mess with the McCs... they will still sue your ass

The McCs then doing the good deed charity thing.

I'm welling up

by Bishop Brennan 03.10.14 3:38

The money wasn't the important thing here. Winning was everything - so that they could get some high-profile publicity in the press. Remember, the game plan at this stage in the whitewash is to show that EVERYBODY - from the evil troll to the mighty Sunday Times is WRONG about the McCanns. That any doubts about their innocence are now officially gone - removed by the Courts ('irresponsible' Sunday Times), by public mockery ('evil Troll'), by SY's 3-year investigation, and by 'respected' author Summers.

It's all part of the End Game. Entirely predictable and as coordinated and effective as ever.

Only two moves now remain. The closing of the SY case and the never-ending Amaral libel case. Both are late and neither is going to plan! I suspect that SY's original plan was to close the case right after the verdict - discrediting or acknowledging it as appropriate - and sweeping up Amaral as the final loose end.

by tiredofthebs 03.10.14 3:45

Bishop Brennan wrote:The money wasn't the important thing here. Winning was everything - so that they could get some high-profile publicity in the press. Remember, the game plan at this stage in the whitewash is to show that EVERYBODY - from the evil troll to the mighty Sunday Times is WRONG about the McCanns. That any doubts about their innocence are now officially gone - removed by the Courts ('irresponsible' Sunday Times), by public mockery ('evil Troll'), by SY's 3-year investigation, and by 'respected' author Summers.

It's all part of the End Game. Entirely predictable and as coordinated and effective as ever.

Only two moves now remain. The closing of the SY case and the never-ending Amaral libel case. Both are late and neither is going to plan! I suspect that SY's original plan was to close the case right after the verdict - discrediting or acknowledging it as appropriate - and sweeping up Amaral as the final loose end.

I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

by Bishop Brennan 03.10.14 3:54

tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!) big grin

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

by Carrry On Doctor 03.10.14 5:39

TB wrote; wrote:I believe that Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton between them manufactured those 2-fits.

Quite possibly

I believe that neither Henri Exton nor the McCanns and their Team nor DCI Redwood nor the BBC CrimeWatch Team have told us the truth about the provenance of these 2 e-fits.

Agreed

I am certain that the Smiths neither did produce and endorsed nor even could have produced and endorsed those 2 e-fits for reasons I have given elsewhere on the forum.

Quite possibly

I have evidence (not yet amounting to proof) that these 2-efits were produced from photographs of two men each living in the south of England who have nothing directly to do with the Madeleine McCann case.

OK

I have a hypothesis that the Smiths have agreed to go along with DCI Redwood's claim to 6.7 million people on BBC CrimeWatch that these e-fits were produced by them and represent a true sighting of a man carrying a child (Quite possibly) but I accept that this hypothesis may be wrong. If the Smiths have indeed gone along with DCI Redwood's plan to promote 'Smithman' as the abductor, I do not know why they may have done so

It is self-evident that those who claim that Madeleine 'disappeared' or died before 3rd May must be wrong if DCI Redwood is right in suggesting that the Smiths saw Madeleine McCann being carried near Kelly's bar at around 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

The use of the word 'suggesting' is crucial I think Tony. Has DCI Redwood stated or confirmed his belief that the child being carried by Smithman was definitely Madeleine ? The language used by DCI Redwood may be designed to suggest or infer and could be a deliberate play on words (I am asking a genuine question here so I dont know).

Personally, I have no doubt the Smiths saw a man carrying a child, but DCI Redwood could be spinning things to allow people to think it was MBM, for the moment at least. This would then leave open the possibility of something happening earlier.

Of course, DCI Redwood may be using Smithman as an unidentifiable abductor with a view to closing the case (whitewash), but he may also be using Smithman to move the focus elsewhere whilst he gets on with his job.

Despite yesterday being a dark day for many peoples hopes, I still keep the faith. Time will tell.

(All of the above IMO, and without prejudice)

by tiny 03.10.14 6:16

And the mccanns say .roll over, roll over and the msm roll over and then pay out. ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again 181747

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again 181747

by Bishop Brennan 03.10.14 8:29

tiny wrote:And the mccanns say .roll over, roll over and the msm roll over and then pay out.

Soft targets as Carter-Ruck know only too well - hence the continued no-win / no-fee engagement. They almost always settle and write off the money. It's loose change to them. Provides an easy PR win for McCanns though. All part of the End-Game sadly.

Not long to go now though. AR retires this year, and the new man will shut the thing down pretty quickly I'm sure.

by bobbin 03.10.14 8:43

Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.

The 22 remaining are either stating that the comments section will be closed shortly, no-one dare take the McCs on, and scarcely anything favourable for the McCs.
The 19 removed is almost 50 % of the population posting, add that to the other comments which were cynical comments, you have a NO vote to the McCs of well over 50%.
That's an awfully large public perception of the McCs which the Grauniad has given to the light of day.

This all makes a whitewash all the more difficult. No wonder tptb are still dragging this one out. They are still searching around for a suitable white rabbit to pull out of a credulous black hat and unfortunately we all know that trick already and will need something more 'magical' to convince us.

An unconvinced public is a worrying thing. It lies smouldering for just so long, and then the fire and all hell breaks out at the most politically inconvenient time.
I noticed that Gerry's main thrust was to call upon the 'next government' to impose control over the press. Control over the press will silence dissenters. The dissenters are the 'public' who have assessed the evidence and come to their own rationalised conclusion. They are also people who will fight tooth and nail for their right to freedom of thought and speech.

By talking about the NEXT government Gerry must be suggesting that the current government, which has not obliged the Hacked Off Campaign, will not be the incumbent government post election time.
Has Gerry been having a quiet chat with our Rupert, on the side, and been encouraged to believe that Rupert will swing the next election away from the Cons.

If justice for Madeleine slips away in the hands of the current government it won't need a Rupert to help it out of the door, it may well be a 'no longer convinced of the McCs version of events' public that will see it off because 'injustice' is a very strong social driver.

by aiyoyo 03.10.14 10:45

Brian Griffin wrote:Well, they are giving the money to charidy. That was unexpected.

Expected actually, else how would it look for them?

No private search, detectives redundant, suing people left right centre with the 1.2M euro case still pending.
This is all about image management by manipulating the public conscious.

Not bad PR management accomplished by a pair of amateurs, though Gerry did concede they are getting good at it from experience which others don't have (words to that effect).

by plebgate 03.10.14 11:40

Brian Griffin wrote:Well, they are giving the money to charidy. That was unexpected.

As Woofer pointed out, there are two police forces currently looking for Maddie (at the taxpayers' GREAT expense). Why would they need for this latest payout to go in the Search for Maddie Fund?

by ChippyM 03.10.14 12:52

bobbin wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.
.................

It is a bit odd in my mind that the Guardian allowed comments for all of about 10 minutes and then shut them down. I managed to get a carefully worded comment in because I saw the article just as it was put up.

Removing 50% of the comments could be seen as a rather clever comment on free speech and demonstration of public opinion by the paper.....possibly.

by jeanmonroe 03.10.14 13:19

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis
------------------------------------------

So, a 'win' = a 'fee'

As CR 'supposedly' 'won' what was their 'fee'?

Or, do one of the UK's most expensive law firms work on 'a win-NO fee' basis for anything McCann 'related'?

I say 'supposedly won' because Guardian 'readers' would have been alerted to 'other' sites they possibly didn't know 'existed'

So, a 'win' vs 'new' readers being 'informed' of, and possibly, for the first time, 'visiting' factual 'sites' related to this case.

PJ files, Pamalam, McCannfiles, here etc.,

So, imo, just a 'pyrrhic victory' at best.

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")

by noddy100 03.10.14 13:23

Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

by Guest 03.10.14 13:28

noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.

by noddy100 03.10.14 13:30

BlueBag wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.

So why did the Times pay them?

by bobbin 03.10.14 13:43

ChippyM wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
I'm not sure it is that effective. Pretty much every online comment I see about this case is still anti-mccann.

Most people aren't as vocal as us but they know there is something very wrong with this case.

Fair point. Probably better to say it's an effective coordination rather than it is convincing the public. After all, the SY investigation has pretty much descended into a public farce (3 years of investigation and 2 weeks of digging to come away with... a SOCK...!)

And even with 38 detectives, they have not been able to find a single clue that suggests abduction. And so if it wasn't an abductor... who was it? The dogs are now very high-profile with recent tragic news stories. Most people know that they were used again in PDL to rule out the recent arguidos, and most people know that there were very significant multiple alerts against the McCanns by those same type of dogs.

The McCann guilt will forever be associated with the findings of those dogs, and unless SY actually find an abductor then this very well coordinated whitewash will change the public record but not public perception.

Good post BB. I agree about the 'public perception'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout
Interesting scenario here. The Guardian article is clear in its delivery of Gerry McC whining on about 'Press Regulation' (whilst he steadfastly omits to mention anything about whether the Times' accusation was based on truth or not....Kate, the only question you did answer was to acknowledge that you were hindering the investigation by refusing to answer all of the previous questions...so the Times was right, wasn't it. It's only your bullying that got a payout)

For a very rare moment in time, and very different from the past, which makes me think that the TIDE HAS TURNED, the guardian allowed comments.

Of the 41 comments made, 19 have been disallowed.
.................

It is a bit odd in my mind that the Guardian allowed comments for all of about 10 minutes and then shut them down. I managed to get a carefully worded comment in because I saw the article just as it was put up.

Removing 50% of the comments could be seen as a rather clever comment on free speech and demonstration of public opinion by the paper.....possibly.

I think I can determine the post you mean, and yes a good one.
Today's article covering the yet more whining by Gerry McCann on the radio 4 programme has no comment possibility. Most scrabble players would probably run out of the letter 'a' in a big 'yaaaaaaaaaaaawn'.
Yes, it could well be the Gurniada making a discrete point. I think the tide has definitely turned since the upbeat pretty little green and yellow be-ribboned Kate pictures, glowing in the sunset, looking wistfully towards the cliff, with her little cuddle cat peeping out of the back of her rucksack.
She now looks old, hardened, haggard and fighting dirty to keep the lid on the whole boiling pot.

by pennylane 03.10.14 13:56

noddy100 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Can someone explain to me why the money was paid?
I thought the story printed was true.
Didn't KM refer to this sighting in her book but provide no picture even though she had one?

They were free to publish the pictures at any time just like they did with Eggman, George Harrison and striding man.

But they didn't.

In fact they they never did.
So why did the Times pay them?

Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y.....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording.... and that's all it takes.

by noddy100 03.10.14 14:05

Thanks
I cannot believe the Times don't have more power than those 2 when
it comes to reading between the lines.
DId they ever give a reason for holding the e fits back esp from the book where they printed all teh others?

by pennylane 03.10.14 14:12

noddy100 wrote:Thanks
I cannot believe the Times don't have more power than those 2 when
it comes to reading between the lines.
DId they ever give a reason for holding the e fits back esp from the book where they printed all teh others?

No, of course the McCanns didn't give a reason! Facts are not their forte, they only deal in diversionary tactics...

by noddy100 03.10.14 14:26

I wonder if the McCanns themselves donated the 55k to charity or
if the Times suggested it and paid it direct by way of apology

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.10.14 14:29

Lance Armstrong won many an libel action, then had to repay. Just saying yes

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.14 14:34

pennylane wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
So why did the Times pay them?
Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y .....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording...and that's all it takes.

@ pennylane

We are back to these e-fits again, and I think the following sequence of events must be put on the record, which helps us understand more about the mysterious provenance of these e-fits and also about the recent Sunday Times payout:

1. On or about 16 May 2007, the Smiths first reported to the Irish police their claimed 'sighting' on 3 May. Three of them made statements to the PJ later, on 26 May

2. On or about 20 September 2007, Martin Smith reported his 60% to 80% belief that, following a TV news bulletin he saw 11 days earlier on 9 September, he thought the man he said he had seen was Gerry McCann

3. The formal morphing (as you say) of Tannerman and Smithman was first aired on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May 2009

4. The Smiths, according to news reports and Halligen-associate Henri Exton, drew up e-fits of the man the Smiths said they saw sometime in 2008. October 2008 has been officially mentioned

5. At the very least, it must be in serious doubt whether the efits were produced by the Smiths for these (among other) reasons:
A. They only saw him in the dark
B. The street lighting was weak
C. They only saw him for a few seconds
D. Their evidence about what they saw contains a number of very significant contradictions
E. All of them agreed on 26 May 2007 that they would not be able to recognise him if they saw him again
F. The e-fits to most people's eyes are clearly of 2 different men
G. There is no way that a year after the event, any of the Smiths could possibly draw up credible efits.

6. It follows from that that the e-fits must have been produced by some other means, possibly the faces of other people.

7. Look at the Sunday Times apology (28 December 2013). It concedes these very impirtant points:
A. Leics Police and the PJ were shown these e-fits 'by October 2009' and did not recommend that they be used
B. The e-fits WERE shown to Operation Grange in August 2011

8. Furthermore, we now know that Martin Smith and DCI Redwood met once in 2012 and once in 2013.

It follows from the above that the McCanns can plausibly claim two very important things:

1. That from October 2009 to August 2011 (22 months), Leics Police and the PJ and not the McCanns held up the e-fits
2. That from August 2011 to October 2013 (a further 26 months), Operation Grange and not the McCanns held up these e-fits.

That, I have no doubt, is why the Sunday Times had to pay up and settle yet another claim from the McCanns. As far as we know from the earlier Sunday Times apology, the McCanns can plausibly argue that from October 2009 to October 2013 (FOUR YEARS), it was the three police forces, and not themselves, who decided against using these two e-fits.

That still leaves the McCanns having to explain what they were doing with these e-fits from October 2008 to October 2009.

I appeal to fellow forum-members here to place under the nicroscope each and every thing that is ever said about these two strange e-fits.

IMO they are the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery.

But not in the way DCI Redwood meant

by The Rooster 03.10.14 17:14

For the Times I think it's a simple case of managing the financial downside. I'm sure they made more money in sales by publishing the article in any event. Going to court at that level is mega expensive. It's a gamble the risk taking McCann's clearly happy to take. For the Times why bother with the risk.

by MRNOODLES 03.10.14 17:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
So why did the Times pay them?
Because the Times wording didn't allow for the fact that the Mc's did produce them...... f i n a l l y .....

when they couldn't sit on them any longer. But even then, they sneakily morphed tannerman and smithman into one person; once again (imo) confirming that the Smith sighting scared the dodgy doctors livid.

Carter Ruck found a loophole in the wording...and that's all it takes.
@ pennylane

We are back to these e-fits again, and I think the following sequence of events must be put on the record, which helps us understand more about the mysterious provenance of these e-fits and also about the recent Sunday Times payout:

1. On or about 16 May 2007, the Smiths first reported to the Irish police their claimed 'sighting' on 3 May. Three of them made statements to the PJ later, on 26 May

2. On or about 20 September 2007, Martin Smith reported his 60% to 80% belief that, following a TV news bulletin he saw 11 days earlier on 9 September, he thought the man he said he had seen was Gerry McCann

3. The formal morphing (as you say) of Tannerman and Smithman was first aired on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary of May 2009

4. The Smiths, according to news reports and Halligen-associate Henri Exton, drew up e-fits of the man the Smiths said they saw sometime in 2008. October 2008 has been officially mentioned

5. At the very least, it must be in serious doubt whether the efits were produced by the Smiths for these (among other) reasons:
A. They only saw him in the dark
B. The street lighting was weak
C. They only saw him for a few seconds
D. Their evidence about what they saw contains a number of very significant contradictions
E. All of them agreed on 26 May 2007 that they would not be able to recognise him if they saw him again
F. The e-fits to most people's eyes are clearly of 2 different men
G. There is no way that a year after the event, any of the Smiths could possibly draw up credible efits.

6. It follows from that that the e-fits must have been produced by some other means, possibly the faces of other people.

7. Look at the Sunday Times apology (28 December 2013). It concedes these very impirtant points:
A. Leics Police and the PJ were shown these e-fits 'by October 2009' and did not recommend that they be used
B. The e-fits WERE shown to Operation Grange in August 2011

8. Furthermore, we now know that Martin Smith and DCI Redwood met once in 2012 and once in 2013.

It follows from the above that the McCanns can plausibly claim two very important things:

1. That from October 2009 to August 2011 (22 months), Leics Police and the PJ and not the McCanns held up the e-fits
2. That from August 2011 to October 2013 (a further 26 months), Operation Grange and not the McCanns held up these e-fits.

That, I have no doubt, is why the Sunday Times had to pay up and settle yet another claim from the McCanns. As far as we know from the earlier Sunday Times apology, the McCanns can plausibly argue that from October 2009 to October 2013 (FOUR YEARS), it was the three police forces, and not themselves, who decided against using these two e-fits.

That still leaves the McCanns having to explain what they were doing with these e-fits from October 2008 to October 2009.

I appeal to fellow forum-members here to place under the nicroscope each and every thing that is ever said about these two strange e-fits.

IMO they are the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery.

But not in the way DCI Redwood meant

It's very interesting as to where it leaves OG. And why they sat on them.

From this

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-kidnapper-2371929

"DCI Redwood revealed that private detectives first produced the image of the man seen by the Smiths in September 2008 – but it was never released until this week. He would not be drawn on the reasons for this"

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Re: ANOTHER £55.000! Libel award for the McCanns against the Sunday Times over - yes - those SMITHMAN e-fits again

Latest topics