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

by oakeso 27.10.13 10:25

He 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.

I wonder how people who donated to the fund will feel this morning. How much extra cost would have been involved in adding the e-fits to their website and the book, were all of the photos in the book essential compared to the possible identification of the "abductor"?

And how much of the fund money did it cost to silence the investigators?

by susible 27.10.13 10:26

Well, well well...That puts the whole Halligen episode into perspective

And it bolsters my belief in the SY investigation as well, imagine how Redwood and his team felt about having to make a written request for information held by the McCanns...ludicrous as a certain spokespoodle would say.

To then bring it out of the bag on CW, in front of the McCanns...priceless. It also makes the likelihood of Smithman being Gerry McCann, as there is no other reason for its suppression.

But there we go, all that time the Mc's were looking for the "final piece of the puzzle" and they had it all the time, which of course we already knew, but now everyone who reads that article will know as well and already the Mc's sympathy vote was wearing very thin, now it will be obliterated, even if the full significance of the article does not dawn on the public as yet, they now know in no uncertain terms that the McCanns hid vital information from the police and the public to save their reputations...Oh Dear!

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:27

oakeso wrote:
He 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.
I wonder how people who donated to the fund will feel this morning. How much extra cost would have been involved in adding the e-fits to their website and the book, were all of the photos in the book essential compared to the possible identification of the "abductor"?

And how much of the fund money did it cost to silence the investigators?

Excellent question. I now have faith we will eventually get the answers, which is nothing short of what Madeleine deserves.

by sallypelt 27.10.13 10:28

oakeso wrote:
He 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.
I wonder how people who donated to the fund will feel this morning. How much extra cost would have been involved in adding the e-fits to their website and the book, were all of the photos in the book essential compared to the possible identification of the "abductor"?

And how much of the fund money did it cost to silence the investigators?

More to the point, what are they going to do now that the money has dwindled. Who is going to pay for the Libel case? No wonder ID was looking as if she was ready to leave the planet

by SeeIyay 27.10.13 10:30

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?

That's the question. Like all great print investigations you have to have another question unanswered. There is no 'rounding out paragraph' at the end of the piece. Tune in next Sunday I guess.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:30

sallypelt wrote:
oakeso wrote:
He 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.
I wonder how people who donated to the fund will feel this morning. How much extra cost would have been involved in adding the e-fits to their website and the book, were all of the photos in the book essential compared to the possible identification of the "abductor"?

And how much of the fund money did it cost to silence the investigators?
More to the point, what are they going to do now that the money has dwindled. Who is going to pay for the Libel case? No wonder ID was looking as if she was ready to leave the planet

I think she already did, she wasn't there for last day of court hearing. Had probably already checked herself into a private clinic for therapy.

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 10:33

And the twins will now be able to read that the parents withheld evidence for 5 YEARS which, according to the parents, could have led to the rescue of their big sister.
As will Philomena, Trish, Mrs Healy, and all the rest of the family.
Something to discuss over the Sunday Roast !
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by worriedmum 27.10.13 10:34

loopzdaloop wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
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?
I missed the 'too expensive' bit initially!
I woustrawberriesld 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.

Quite.

All that expense. So that's the stamp for Mr.Amaral's letter and the ~~price~~ ~~of a~~ phone call to the police.....anyone for strawberries?

by Bishop Brennan 27.10.13 10:34

I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:36

Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?

There are some witness statements withheld from the released DVD of the PJ files. I have always assumed that they contradicted the official fairytale, and that the reason the PJ held back quite a substantial portion of the files is because they needed to keep their powder dry IYKWIM,

by worriedmum 27.10.13 10:36

Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?

quote'' The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.''unquote (Sunday Times)

by Pyewacket 27.10.13 10:37

worriedmum wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And this is what you look like wearing handcuffs !!

by loopzdaloop 27.10.13 10:37

Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?

The 'witness' statements and the timings were MADE UP and in no way reflect the truth of what happened.
The Mccann's and David Payne (who is airbrushed currently from the media) led the formalisation of the time line as one of their main acts.

by worriedmum 27.10.13 10:39

Pyewacket wrote:
worriedmum wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And this is what you look like wearing handcuffs !!

by Guest 27.10.13 10:40

Twitter account of insight team at Sunday TImes......

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

by Guest 27.10.13 10:40

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Wonder how the SHEEPLE are going to feel when they discover that, far from being NEW evidence, the 'Crimewatch' info is 5 years old [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.10.13 10:42

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How ironic. The BBC 'Crimewatch' reconstruction was comprised of "new evidence" that was actually suppressed by the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for 5 years!

by Bishop Brennan 27.10.13 10:42

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?
There are some witness statements withheld from the released DVD of the PJ files. I have always assumed that they contradicted the official fairytale, and that the reason the PJ held back quite a substantial portion of the files is because they needed to keep their powder dry IYKWIM,

Could be. Pity there was no CCTV at the bar. But certainly hiding the e-fits is suspicious in the extreme, and "watching football" provides a good cover to explain to the tapas group why he was away for so long.

by Guest 27.10.13 10:44

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Dear KATE. Why does your book not mention the fact that you had the SMITH sighting e-fits for FIVE YEARS? & that you censored PI's? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Why did the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] threaten their PI's with LEGAL actions if they released the efits, now produced, and the SMITH sighting kept SECRET!??

by Hongkong Phooey 27.10.13 10:44

It's a pity the online snippet only mentions the e-fit, it would have been much better to have hinted at the other explosive info, that way they may very well have got more new subscribers as well as getting more of the message out.

by oakeso 27.10.13 10:46

worriedmum wrote:
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?

I'm sorry worriedmum, I didn't see your post before posting mine so didn't realize the subject had been raised. soz

Remember all those interviews when they spoke about how desperate they were for an investigation or any new leads. It's like you said earlier, they paid for a jigsaw piece and then hid it down the back of the sofa.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 10:47

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?
There are some witness statements withheld from the released DVD of the PJ files. I have always assumed that they contradicted the official fairytale, and that the reason the PJ held back quite a substantial portion of the files is because they needed to keep their powder dry IYKWIM,
Could be. Pity there was no CCTV at the bar. But certainly hiding the e-fits is suspicious in the extreme, and "watching football" provides a good cover to explain to the tapas group why he was away for so long.

There could have been CCTV I suppose, and that is being kept secret.

Or maybe other diners took photos in the restaurant ( some people do this when eating dinner, no idea why), and there is a time attached? Only guessing, but Tapas staff refuted claims made by the McCann Team. Then a lot of them got made redundant.

I think Murat knows, he did some translating work and was hanging about, fluent Portugese speaker, and when he popped up in the Express a few weeks ago saying all the Tapas should be hauled back to Portugal and the days SURROUNDING 3rd May re-investigated, I think he was trying to convey a serious message

by russiandoll 27.10.13 10:47

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

by mouse 27.10.13 10:48

Wow! Just finished reading this thread - sound's very hopeful indeedy!

Much praise to the 'Sunday Times' for reporting this, shame its a pay for view website now, meaning less people will get to see it, but still - very exciting news. Wonder if the Mccanns will ponder legal action on this...I won't hold my breath.

Still am not giving the SY the praise for all this new news. From what I could see around the Crimewatch Prog. - AR came over as very supportive, I know others disagree, but IMO did far too much sucking up before/during and after the programme. He said too too much for me....Plus all the plans for future trips to Germany etc...Will they happen now? He surely didn't have to mention all this. The other thing for me - just how many years has this been going on for...too long he says, but they must have had this info(along with all the other blatant inconsistancies) in front of them for some time...so why release this campaign so late in the day? Came across to me as one last ditch attempt to defend the indefensible - knowing that this info was about to see the light of day, and that the PJ were about to re-open. This is of course only my opinion.

Good news for Goncalo though - surely he can't lose - though I can't see this trial actually completing, the Mccanns will surely pull out.

Big Praise to all of you breaking the news up late last night (that extra hour must've come in v.handy) but gave me some great breakfast reading.

by Hicks 27.10.13 10:49

Bishop Brennan wrote:I am confused. If we assume that "Smithman" was Gerry, and it was at 9:50pm, and Maddie was with him... then how did he hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar in time for 10pm? And even if he did get back in time, it means he was away from the table from 9pm until 10pm. Do the witness statements at the bar not contradict this?

It certainly is a confusing picture. We can not rely on the witness statements given by the MC'S or their friends, so ruling those out of your head is a good start.

It could be agreed that going by OC workers the table was empty (bar Diane Webster) anywhere between 21.20/30. Some witnesses state that the alarm raised by Kate was before 22.00.

In light of this new revelation I think we can be certain that the Smith sighting is now crucial to the investigation

by Guest 27.10.13 10:59

mouse wrote:Wow! Just finished reading this thread - sound's very hopeful indeedy!

Much praise to the 'Sunday Times' for reporting this, shame its a pay for view website now, meaning less people will get to see it, but still - very exciting news. Wonder if the Mccanns will ponder legal action on this...I won't hold my breath.

It is on Page 4 of the PAPER EDITION, the Sunday Times has a good following and many thousands will see it

Still am not giving the SY the praise for all this new news. From what I could see around the Crimewatch Prog. - AR came over as very supportive, I know others disagree, but IMO did far too much sucking up before/during and after the programme. He said too too much for me....Plus all the plans for future trips to Germany etc...Will they happen now? He surely didn't have to mention all this. The other thing for me - just how many years has this been going on for...too long he says, but they must have had this info(along with all the other blatant inconsistancies) in front of them for some time...so why release this campaign so late in the day? Came across to me as one last ditch attempt to defend the indefensible - knowing that this info was about to see the light of day, and that the PJ were about to re-open. This is of course only my opinion.

Good news for Goncalo though - surely he can't lose - though I can't see this trial actually completing, the Mccanns will surely pull out.

Big Praise to all of you breaking the news up late last night (that extra hour must've come in v.handy) but gave me some great breakfast reading.

by sallypelt 27.10.13 11:03

RT @justiceMANz: DONT FORGET THE BBC EITHER. @BBCCrimewatch TOLD US IT WAS NEW SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION. Fucking liars. #McCann

To add to this tweet, the BBC are in danger of losing licence funds because of "biased reporting"

by Guest 27.10.13 11:05

Quote Sunday Times:

He 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.

So how 'expensive' would it have been to put those E-Fits on their website and ask for information, the website was getting millions of hits back then.

by sallypelt 27.10.13 11:07

candyfloss wrote:Quote Sunday Times:

He 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.

So how 'expensive' would it have been to put those E-Fits on their website and ask for information, the website was getting millions of hits back then.

Or even an e-fit of Smithman in her bewk?

by SchrodingersBody 27.10.13 11:10

I'm curious as to what phone records show, an element about which we heard before CW was shown and which has been suspiciously quiet since.

Latest topics