Re: WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 9:52

Just nip back and look at the Hagland thread - use the search box.
He, I believe, was persuaded to speak to SY about his secretive car-park assignations with Gerry
and left the team shortly after.

It is all beginning to fall into place.

by Tangledweb 27.10.13 9:53

Last time I felt as hopeful as this, was when Gerry and Kate were made Arguidos!

How damning.

There they were, throwing law suits around like confetti with one hand, whilst dipping into the fund raised by school cake sales with the other to pay their private detectives. Then they knowingly and deliberately suppress the findings.

The findings that could help them find Madeleine, which is why they had the fund and the detectives in the first place.

No PR team in the world can spin this one. The Sunday Times isn't a rag, it isn't the People or the Mirror with their 'Maddie in Greece' crap. It's got a credibility about it that goes way back and is read the world over.

Kate's rabbit-in-the-headlights appearance on Crimewatch makes sense perhaps...being confronted with Efits that she thought were dead and buried...thinking of the implications...what if the Press find out?

Well they have.

How can anybody, reading today's article, defend their decision to sit on this information?

by TMH 27.10.13 9:53

PeterMac wrote:
TMH wrote:Can this really be the beginning of the end??
Not long now folks !
But Madeleine is still missing - probably dead.
We must never forget that.

That goes without saying! And those who had part in her demise will get their just desserts and when they do, hopefully we will then know where she is pray2

by worriedmum 27.10.13 9:54

PeterMac wrote:
TMH wrote:Can this really be the beginning of the end??
Not long now folks !
But Madeleine is still missing - probably dead.
We must never forget that.

Totally agree Peter. It's a tragedy for all the McCann children.

by SeeIyay 27.10.13 9:58

Searcher wrote:So far, BBC tv news at 9 am (BBC2), and review of papers on Andrew Marr, have omitted any reference to Sunday Times Insight article. They have chortled on about such major issues as the BBC, the US, Prince Charles, the weather - but nerry a word of the stunning revelations today. I wonder why not.

This is not a problem yet forTM. Most of the public won't be swayed by the article. Most won't get it's significance. What would get the rest of the media on board would be a double page spread with ST's famous graphics about the wider problems with the case.

'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.'

If there is a follow up piece showing that at the time MC's statements about the JT sighting were anomalous and sat alongside inconsistencies in T7 statements then we have a big story likely to go into the full news cycle.
Basically this story would be that anomalies led to cover ups.
There would have been a call to TM to tell them this story was going to run on the Sunday. Insight are old school and will invite comment. TM are running with a plausible exclusion line right now ie they didn't want distraction from the JT sighting. It looks like a judgement call. All that changes if this story shifts to what else the spooks uncovered. If the next story is that double page spread with graphics drilling down into anomalies and inconsistencies that led to a suppression of evidence because of a cover up then the wider media have a meta story to run with. That TM had efits and didn't release them for years is not the story that will get traction but you can bet Insight are ready with the Why?
For anyone outside the UK this is not another Daily Mail/Express type story. The ST Insight team are one of the most credible outfits in journalism and are known for their campaigns. This may be the preface story to a wider investigations. Again if whistleblowers know Insight will hear them it is a gamechanger. Right now we are still in glitch country.

by Mirage 27.10.13 9:59

Not a mention of the article in Andrew Marr Show during the review of newspapers. Not even sight of the article on screen.

Now Harriet Harman is on talking about Leveson and press regulation. Victims of crime who have been abused by the press, the Dowlers and- wait for it - the McCanns ......

Just disgusting in the light of that article still sitting on the studio table under her nose, still not mentioned.

Now Greg Dyke (one of the earlier reviewers so he know what's in the paper) in a conversation with Harman about press regulation and still nothing mentioned

Well that's the BBC for you. What we have come to expect.

ETA Sorry Searcher, see you've posted about the review. The Harriet Harman interview was right at the end.

by sallypelt 27.10.13 10:01

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I so dearly hope you are right about your assessment of Redwood Russiandoll.

This makes me so cross, all the bullcrap, hyperbole, weaselling words we have been subjected to.

Just want someone to get on with bringing this to a swift conclusion now and for the McCanns to be stopped from producing all this hideous obfuscation.

From my understanding of A Redwood's methods , all he did on CW was throw back what the McCann's themselves have said. Even the efits were in the McCann's PI files. A Redwood is no idiot. He wouldn't be in the position he is in, if he was.

"This has gone on far too long" - Andy Redwood

by cssharp59 27.10.13 10:02

Beanie wrote:Amazing news, and we now know why the McCanns never sued Halligen.

My thoughts exactly Beanie! all makes sense now..

by Praiaaa 27.10.13 10:03

[quote="worriedmum. It's a tragedy for all the McCann children.[/quote]Yes, but IF they are guilty is a tragedy if they are or aren't brought to justice.

Please everybody, instead of your usual paper, if you buy one, buy TWO paper copies of the ST - one to read, and one to leave casually on a train/coffee shop with the article highlighted... If the MSM can see they will sell more papers (or subscriptions) maybe the other will see money in the truth and start to man up. Well wortth a few quid to get this out there.

Whatever spin is spun - the genie is out of the bottle now.

by lj 27.10.13 10:03

This puts Kate's opemimg remark: "it is not we did anything wrong" in a new licht!

by loopzdaloop 27.10.13 10:06

Okeydokey wrote:And this is clearly a claim that Redwood knowingly misled the British people!:

"One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said."

We know it was Redwood who claimed it was a "revelation moment". So that is a very serious charge.

Redwood has nothing to do with this, in fact it was he who released the information via Crimewatch so trying to slag him off here shows your true colours. It was the MCCANN's that surpressed the information and according to Pat Brown threatened legal action should they divulge the Smith Sighting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WOW! I am shocked! It has just come out in the news that the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]s kept the Smith e-fits under wraps for 5 years! That they threatened their PIs with a lawsuit if they divulged the Smith sighting info. I knew that they ignored the Smith sighting but I didn't know they had e-fits that they could have put in Kate's book but didn't! Maybe there IS hope if this is actually in the news!

I know the veracity of the Smith Sighting was being discussed in the other thread, but surely it must be agreed that the Smith's are credible now?

by Guest 27.10.13 10:06

Just got hubby to get the paper edition, it is on Page 4 same article as online. Heading is Investigators had E-fits five years ago Big quote bolded 'The report question 'anomolies' in the McCanns statements' Pic of Madeleine with tennis balls, and one of McCanns posing. Plus the 2 e-fits.

clapping

by sallypelt 27.10.13 10:08

Has anyone contacted The Sunday Times to commend them on having balls? I, for one, will be doing it asap

by Woofer 27.10.13 10:13

SeeIyay wrote:
Searcher wrote:So far, BBC tv news at 9 am (BBC2), and review of papers on Andrew Marr, have omitted any reference to Sunday Times Insight article. They have chortled on about such major issues as the BBC, the US, Prince Charles, the weather - but nerry a word of the stunning revelations today. I wonder why not.
This is not a problem yet forTM. Most of the public won't be swayed by the article. Most won't get it's significance. What would get the rest of the media on board would be a double page spread with ST's famous graphics about the wider problems with the case.

'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.'

If there is a follow up piece showing that at the time MC's statements about the JT sighting were anomalous and sat alongside inconsistencies in T7 statements then we have a big story likely to go into the full news cycle.
Basically this story would be that anomalies led to cover ups.
There would have been a call to TM to tell them this story was going to run on the Sunday. Insight are old school and will invite comment. TM are running with a plausible exclusion line right now ie they didn't want distraction from the JT sighting. It looks like a judgement call. All that changes if this story shifts to what else the spooks uncovered. If the next story is that double page spread with graphics drilling down into anomalies and inconsistencies that led to a suppression of evidence because of a cover up then the wider media have a meta story to run with. That TM had efits and didn't release them for years is not the story that will get traction but you can bet Insight are ready with the Why?
For anyone outside the UK this is not another Daily Mail/Express type story. The ST Insight team are one of the most credible outfits in journalism and are known for their campaigns. This may be the preface story to a wider investigations. Again if whistleblowers know Insight will hear them it is a gamechanger. Right now we are still in glitch country.

Thanks for that Seelyay. Just hope nothing will prevent any follow-ups.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:15

Woofer, even if we don't get follow ups, the best thing is it is in hard copy print, and not just online awaiting vaporisation by the "Whoosh" machine owned by Pinky!!

by Guest 27.10.13 10:16

This bit is interesting.....

Nor were the Smith E-fits included in Kate McCann's 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight "key sightings" and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most 'crucial'. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist's impression. The Smiths' were the only exception. So why was such a "crucial" piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

by pennylane 27.10.13 10:17

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone contacted The Sunday Times to commend them on having balls? I, for one, will be doing it asap

Good idea, and also send it out to the other cowardly media outlets. Make them squirm! clapping

by uppatoffee 27.10.13 10:18

Btw story is front page of The Times paper version - just a small section, with the full story on p4. The section on the front page does state it was the McCanns and their team that suppressed the reports findings from being published.

by bristow 27.10.13 10:19

One lonesome voice on the JATYK2 site saying this:!

"I've read it now, and personally, I am surprised the Times has been suckered again - you'd think they would have learned after the Hitler Diaries.

Didn't they look at the names involved before they published that tosh? Oakley? Exton? FFS! Why didn't the Times buy the 24 photos from Levy while they were at it?

I really would have expected better of the Times after they've had their fingers burned in the past by fraudsters."

If she's read it why doesn't she post it up??! big grin

by sallypelt 27.10.13 10:19

The Sunday Times contact number: Telephone: +0044 20 7711 1523.
For those calling inside the UK it's 020 7711 1523

by worriedmum 27.10.13 10:20

SeeIyay wrote:
Searcher wrote:So far, BBC tv news at 9 am (BBC2), and review of papers on Andrew Marr, have omitted any reference to Sunday Times Insight article. They have chortled on about such major issues as the BBC, the US, Prince Charles, the weather - but nerry a word of the stunning revelations today. I wonder why not.
This is not a problem yet forTM. Most of the public won't be swayed by the article. Most won't get it's significance. What would get the rest of the media on board would be a double page spread with ST's famous graphics about the wider problems with the case.

'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.'

If there is a follow up piece showing that at the time MC's statements about the JT sighting were anomalous and sat alongside inconsistencies in T7 statements then we have a big story likely to go into the full news cycle.
Basically this story would be that anomalies led to cover ups.
There would have been a call to TM to tell them this story was going to run on the Sunday. Insight are old school and will invite comment. TM are running with a plausible exclusion line right now ie they didn't want distraction from the JT sighting. It looks like a judgement call. All that changes if this story shifts to what else the spooks uncovered. If the next story is that double page spread with graphics drilling down into anomalies and inconsistencies that led to a suppression of evidence because of a cover up then the wider media have a meta story to run with. That TM had efits and didn't release them for years is not the story that will get traction but you can bet Insight are ready with the Why?
For anyone outside the UK this is not another Daily Mail/Express type story. The ST Insight team are one of the most credible outfits in journalism and are known for their campaigns. This may be the preface story to a wider investigations. Again if whistleblowers know Insight will hear them it is a gamechanger. Right now we are still in glitch country.

Sorry do not agree!

How do you spin an 'error of judgement ' like this:

quote ''said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.'' unquote

Firstly, if the e-fit line of enquiry had been followed, how could TM KNOW how long it would take? 'Expensive' as in 'pass it on to the police?' A PHONE CALL ?

Secondly, when does an 'error of judgement 'involve a trip to the lawyers. Ever?

by Hongkong Phooey 27.10.13 10:20

Lets hope this is only the start, perhaps the Sunday Times / The Times are sitting on other golden nuggets. They do claim to have seen the report and their article is a bit broad brush, no doubt the report has far more detail

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:20

candyfloss wrote:This bit is interesting.....

Nor were the Smith E-fits included in Kate McCann's 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight "key sightings" and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most 'crucial'. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist's impression. The Smiths' were the only exception. So why was such a "crucial" piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

Clearly they didn't want it to be linked to Mr Smith initially thinking it was Gerry and the hullaballoo that would have created. BUT nothing can take away that they got a lawyer to suppress evidence that Scotland Yard have now placed centre stage.

I really cannot see a way that this does NOT place McCanns square in the middle of the radar, and render their hand wringing bleatings about searching and co-operating fully with the investigation, absolute and total lies.

by Truthandjustice 27.10.13 10:21

sallypelt wrote:Has anyone contacted The Sunday Times to commend them on having balls? I, for one, will be doing it asap

Yep, have just done so; there is a live chat on their website who will pass messages on to news team.

by PIForHire 27.10.13 10:21

Interesting

What has happened to make them no longer scared

by Bishop Brennan 27.10.13 10:22

candyfloss wrote:This bit is interesting.....

Nor were the Smith E-fits included in Kate McCann's 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight "key sightings" and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most 'crucial'. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist's impression. The Smiths' were the only exception. So why was such a "crucial" piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The dog that didn't bark...?

by sallypelt 27.10.13 10:22

@DaSteelMan David Steel now
A message to DCI Redwood: if I had a wife, I'd let you sleep with her! #McCann #Redwood4PM:lol4:

by ProfessorPPlum 27.10.13 10:23

Have thanked STInsight team on Twitter for their courageous report

by sami 27.10.13 10:25

loopzdaloop wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:And this is clearly a claim that Redwood knowingly misled the British people!:

"One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said."

We know it was Redwood who claimed it was a "revelation moment". So that is a very serious charge.
Redwood has nothing to do with this, in fact it was he who released the information via Crimewatch so trying to slag him off here shows your true colours. It was the MCCANN's that surpressed the information and according to Pat Brown threatened legal action should they divulge the Smith Sighting.

I think Redwood is quite entitled to portray what he wants and in whatever way he sees fit, so long as his ultimate aim to to truly solve what happened and bring those to justice. If he is misleading the public with a view to covering things up that is a different matter. However I have seen nothing to suggest this. As it stands, IMO, he put forward the facts, facts that were suppressed by a missing child's parents. If he needs to use some poetic licence to do this, for legal or other reasons, so be it.

by loopzdaloop 27.10.13 10:25

worriedmum wrote:
SeeIyay wrote:

How do you spin an 'error of judgement ' like this:

quote ''said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.'' unquote

Firstly, if the e-fit line of enquiry had been followed, how could TM KNOW how long it would take? 'Expensive' as in 'pass it on to the police?' A PHONE CALL ?

Secondly, when does an 'error of judgement 'involve a trip to the lawyers. Ever?

I missed the 'too expensive' bit initially!
I would love to see how they would justify that it was 'too expensive' considering that everytime they open their mouths it is covered in a newspaper for free. Also considering their employment of Carter Ruck et al, The Private Investigators in the first place, the PR companies that are utilised to misdirect people within forums and 'brand managers' in comment sections of newspapers etc etc etc etc etc etc.

WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1