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

by Guest 27.10.13 11:11

Another good insight from:

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

snipped:

Silence of McCanns

“It’s a lot of money, but we cannot set limits, a child is priceless. We’ll pay whatever is necessary.”

Kate McCann,

Expresso Interview

by plebgate 27.10.13 11:12

Newintown wrote:
kitchen wrote:
Searcher wrote:"It's all very well; but there we were hiring a crack team at vast expense - paying their wages we were for months on end. How do they repay our generosity? They've only gone and listed all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in our statements, and our friends', and they've made me the suspect. Can't anyone be trusted to do what they are damn well asked to do and get it right? No wonder we threatened to Ruck them. The whole world's gone crazy."
Credit must go to these guys not afraid to bite the hand that was feeding them..... And consider how did SY know there was a report that had been suppressed?
I was thinking about that last night as I was going to bed, but my brain was too tired to think any further.

I wonder if the McCanns have been stitched up by someone (phones hacked etc, although they kept telling us they hadn't been).

Phooey, I've got to go out for the day now, I expect they'll be a 100 pages on this blog when I get back.

Is it possible the same person who leaked the private photos also leaked some info?

Is it possible that one of the ex spy detectives contacted the police?

by bristow 27.10.13 11:16

Massive spinning going on over at JATYK2 spin

by cssharp59 27.10.13 11:16

plebgate wrote:
Newintown wrote:
kitchen wrote:
Searcher wrote:"It's all very well; but there we were hiring a crack team at vast expense - paying their wages we were for months on end. How do they repay our generosity? They've only gone and listed all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in our statements, and our friends', and they've made me the suspect. Can't anyone be trusted to do what they are damn well asked to do and get it right? No wonder we threatened to Ruck them. The whole world's gone crazy."
Credit must go to these guys not afraid to bite the hand that was feeding them..... And consider how did SY know there was a report that had been suppressed?
I was thinking about that last night as I was going to bed, but my brain was too tired to think any further.

I wonder if the McCanns have been stitched up by someone (phones hacked etc, although they kept telling us they hadn't been).

Phooey, I've got to go out for the day now, I expect they'll be a 100 pages on this blog when I get back.
Is it possible the same person who leaked the private photos also leaked some info?

Is it possible that one of the ex spy detectives contacted the police?

Just wondering how long Jim Gamble has known about this information and what he thinks of the McCanns suppressing it?

by MaryB 27.10.13 11:17

My bet is on 'trial halted because of secrecy laws now investigation has been re-opened' Nice get out.

by pennylane 27.10.13 11:18

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.

Pleeeeease, after all those e-fits Clarrie put up on Sky News.... they are joking surely!

by sallypelt 27.10.13 11:20

I stall can't understand why the case was shelved "because of national security". Does anyone have any ideas?

by bristow 27.10.13 11:20

Cost of putting e-fits on their website - NOTHING!

It's like uploading an image to a forum like this.

by susible 27.10.13 11:20

MaryB wrote:My bet is on 'trial halted because of secrecy laws now investigation has been re-opened' Nice get out.

Not necessarily, because the re-opening is supposed to be based on new evidence and I don't see how that can impact on a civil libel trial based on historical information.

However the judge may throw it out because it's based on complete nonsense

by Cristobell 27.10.13 11:22

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

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.

Eeek, lost track and don't know who came up with the wonderful 'they paid for a jigsaw piece and then hit down the back of the sofa' but I have tweeted it and given credit to this forum. smilie

by susible 27.10.13 11:22

sallypelt wrote:I stall can't understand why the case was shelved "because of national security". Does anyone have any ideas?

Was it? I thought the national security thing was based on the refusal of FOI requests

by plebgate 27.10.13 11:23

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.

Bring it on ST, BRING IT ON.

Bought the paper this morning, will do again if they keep this kind of reporting up.

(only one thing I didn't want - pull out of Royal Christening).

by plebgate 27.10.13 11:26

Mirage wrote: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.

Apparently the Press are launching a legal action against press regulation. A Peer in the House of Lords has said that it is illegal the way the Government have gone about it all, so no fat lady in sight yet re. the Hacked Off campaign.

by KellyLennon 27.10.13 11:27

Cherry Blossom wrote:Another good insight from:

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

snipped:

Silence of McCanns

“It’s a lot of money, but we cannot set limits, a child is priceless. We’ll pay whatever is necessary.”

Kate McCann,

Expresso Interview

Taken from article

Yet as we can see now – the McCanns didn’t pay what was necessary to help Madeleine.

Instead they paid Clarence Mitchell £70,000 per year to spin for them,promote the false sighting, and bury the E.FITS!

by plebgate 27.10.13 11:41

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

If I were one of their rich backers I certainly wouldn't. The bills will have to be paid by them as we have been told that they would not use the fund for legal fees.

Mortgage repayments well that was a different matter.

by Miraflores 27.10.13 11:46

Has anyone any idea why the Sunday Times have broken ranks now?
Presumably they can't be Carter Rucked if they can prove that what they have printed is true?

by sallypelt 27.10.13 11:49

Miraflores wrote:Has anyone any idea why the Sunday Times have broken ranks now?
Presumably they can't be Carter Rucked if they can prove that what they have printed is true?

Carter Ruck only has an interest in the McCann's as long as the Mc's can pay. When the money has gone, so will Carter Ruck. These people aren't friends. All they want is huge payment.

by susible 27.10.13 11:50

Miraflores wrote:Has anyone any idea why the Sunday Times have broken ranks now?
Presumably they can't be Carter Rucked if they can prove that what they have printed is true?

Shouldn't think so, SY will be well aware of the deliberate attempt to hide the information. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Mc's and Carter Ruck have parted ways by now, if only because I doubt the Mc's will be able to afford them.

by mouse 27.10.13 11:52

cssharp59 wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Newintown wrote:
kitchen wrote:
Searcher wrote:"It's all very well; but there we were hiring a crack team at vast expense - paying their wages we were for months on end. How do they repay our generosity? They've only gone and listed all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in our statements, and our friends', and they've made me the suspect. Can't anyone be trusted to do what they are damn well asked to do and get it right? No wonder we threatened to Ruck them. The whole world's gone crazy."
Credit must go to these guys not afraid to bite the hand that was feeding them..... And consider how did SY know there was a report that had been suppressed?
I was thinking about that last night as I was going to bed, but my brain was too tired to think any further.

I wonder if the McCanns have been stitched up by someone (phones hacked etc, although they kept telling us they hadn't been).

Phooey, I've got to go out for the day now, I expect they'll be a 100 pages on this blog when I get back.
Is it possible the same person who leaked the private photos also leaked some info?

Is it possible that one of the ex spy detectives contacted the police?
Just wondering how long Jim Gamble has known about this information and what he thinks of the McCanns suppressing it?

I think someone posted that he's skipped the country - how convenient! Anyone might think....Surely not....

I mean it was only the other day that he was chatting live with his very good pal Nicky Campbell and supporter of Team Mccann - when he was reinforcing his support for the Poor Mccanns and what they had had to put up with from, and I quote 'vile internet trolls' he said he hoped that the CW prog. would put an end to the trolling of them.

BTW - Campbell likes to hang out with the likes of Gamble and MWT - he actually visited where ever it is that Jim Gamble (separate to CEOP now) monitor internet paedeophile activity?? This was during a live breakfast program that Campbell did, but felt more like a feature piece that you would do later in the day. Could never understand, why he needed to be there doing an OB, rather than interview Jim and his colleagues from the studio, he would have got no more info than he got???? To me it all felt, at the time, very inappropriate for breakfast news, and a little creepy. Campbell, I believe, appeared at one of Mccanns fund raisers if I'm right...Sorry I'm really off topic now...

by juliet 27.10.13 11:53

It is hugely encouraging that Rupert Murdoch is sticking his paws in. It was his Fox News that got Wendy Murphy on a few weeks ago to blow the "new evidence" apart.

by pennylane 27.10.13 12:01

juliet wrote:It is hugely encouraging that Rupert Murdoch is sticking his paws in. It was his Fox News that got Wendy Murphy on a few weeks ago to blow the "new evidence" apart.

Well if he's behind it, it's definitely tick tock time! bomb

by nobodythereeither 27.10.13 12:08

pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:I can't see anything else relating to this in other newspapers.

I'm impressed with the Times for being the first newspaper, in a long time, to write something that isn't glowing about the McCanns.
Very impressed indeed!

I do hope the 'twitterers' start spreading this news far and wide!
Because it's behind a paywall, it is not that easy to link to it
Oh drats! I hope a kind techi finds a way to get it out there, because this needs to be seen by the world!

You can copy and paste it.

I've just posted it on Facebook.

by pennylane 27.10.13 12:12

nobodythereeither wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:I can't see anything else relating to this in other newspapers.

I'm impressed with the Times for being the first newspaper, in a long time, to write something that isn't glowing about the McCanns.
Very impressed indeed!

I do hope the 'twitterers' start spreading this news far and wide!
Because it's behind a paywall, it is not that easy to link to it
Oh drats! I hope a kind techi finds a way to get it out there, because this needs to be seen by the world!
You can copy and paste it.

I've just posted it on Facebook.

Superb!

by juliet 27.10.13 12:12

It was also Murdoch's Sun which helpfully spelled out the "outrageous claims" of Senor Amaral. I think he is playing with the McCanns now. If so no wonder they look like nervous wrecks.

by KellyLennon 27.10.13 12:15

nobodythereeither wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:I can't see anything else relating to this in other newspapers.

I'm impressed with the Times for being the first newspaper, in a long time, to write something that isn't glowing about the McCanns.
Very impressed indeed!

I do hope the 'twitterers' start spreading this news far and wide!
Because it's behind a paywall, it is not that easy to link to it
Oh drats! I hope a kind techi finds a way to get it out there, because this needs to be seen by the world!
You can copy and paste it.

I've just posted it on Facebook.

Ive got it on my facebook aswell.

by pennylane 27.10.13 12:16

KellyLennon wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tegan1973 wrote:I can't see anything else relating to this in other newspapers.

I'm impressed with the Times for being the first newspaper, in a long time, to write something that isn't glowing about the McCanns.
Very impressed indeed!

I do hope the 'twitterers' start spreading this news far and wide!
Because it's behind a paywall, it is not that easy to link to it
Oh drats! I hope a kind techi finds a way to get it out there, because this needs to be seen by the world!
You can copy and paste it.

I've just posted it on Facebook.
Ive got it on my facebook aswell.

by Monty Heck 27.10.13 12:18

bristow wrote:Cost of putting e-fits on their website - NOTHING!

It's like uploading an image to a forum like this.

So expense can be ruled out as reason for ignoring the Smith family sighting and continued promotion of JT's curiously similar looking Bundleman. With so many similarities that Smithman and Bundleman were portrayed in the McC sanctioned C4 documentary as one and the same. Having on the one hand portrayed both sightings as the same person while on the other suppressing e-fits of the suspect's features already to hand, is simply astounding.

Were they really that concerned about Mr Smith's 60 - 80% certainty the man he saw was GMcC? Four others in the group failed to connect the man they saw with GMcC and he also has some sort of alibi that he was at the Tapas table at the time. In tying the two sightings together the Team seemed confident the GMcC connection would not be much of an issue. The failure to promote this sighting has, IMO more to do with issues related to the timeline than any tenuous connection with GMcC. Smithman means, as SY are now saying that the timing of the "abduction" had to shift roughly half an hour later than posited by the T9. The question is, why have they been solidly insistent that the deed had been done at around 9.15am, even though that timing caused them all sorts of problems, not least of which was the child's father standing outside the premises, JT and JW ditto. Not to mention a further alleged "check" at 9.30 where it was not noticed the child had gone and various opening and closings of doors from 95 to 5 degrees. There seems to have been something very important about the Bundleman timings that they stuck with that despite police effectively ruling this out back in 2007. Yet instead of SY probing this issue we have AR on a European tour with a couple who commissioned, yet suppressed what may have been vital evidence.

by Hongkong Phooey 27.10.13 12:21

The emphasis on the web at the moment is all on the hidden e-fits, the other findings are actually just as big if not bigger. They concluded similar to Amaral that there was a distinct possibility of accidental death (then presumably a cover up ) Also the timeline and statements were not correct.

by bristow 27.10.13 12:26

Hongkong Phooey wrote:The emphasis on the web at the moment is all on the hidden e-fits, the other findings are actually just as big if not bigger. They concluded similar to Amaral that there was a distinct possibility of accidental death (then presumably a cover up ) Also the timeline and statements were not correct.

Yes I agree, the other findings are being given 2nd place on the web at the moment but it will only be a few hours after the main headlines are digested that the rest of the article will be scrutinised more closely.

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 12:28

Some further thoughts:-

1. Won't this provide tremendous backing for those complaining about the untruthful nature of the BBC Crimewash programme?

2. The Sunday Times took care to quote in big font the following in a panel within the article:

"The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends"

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