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

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.

pennylane 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.

Superb!

Searcher wrote:I find it interesting that the Oakley report includes mention of Madeleine's sleeping patterns as 'sensitive'.  I think a hearty breakfast is indicated this morning.  Well done Times, well done.

MRNOODLES wrote:Having a good look around the interweb.  It's actually rather surprising there's a number of people blowing this off as a non story. 

I would've thought even the most fanatic of McCann supporters will have the intelligence to read the article and conclude burying a genuine line of enquiry is highly suspicious.

bristow wrote:This is STILL on the McCanns website!!!

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

Bishop Brennan wrote:

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.

The problem for all the investigators though is that there doesn't seem to be enough hard evidence (and of course no Madeline) in order to prosecute anybody for anything.  And for as long as that is the case, the McCann's can say that at any point from 9:20pm onwards, an intruder could easily have gone into the apartment via the unlocked patio door, taken Maddie and disappeared into a waiting car. 

It would only take a few minutes and leave no real trace - thanks to the door being left unlocked and the fact that the patio steps lead directly to the road. 

Clearly it is almost beyond belief that anyone would leave the apartment unlocked in such circumstances, but that is the claim.  
As such, the "smithman" could be a red herring.

susible wrote:

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.

SeeIyay wrote:ST Insight is one of the few remaining old school journo's still in print media.  Back in the 60's they broke thalidomide and recently cash for votes at FIFA.  Sueing this lot is a  totally different proposition.  They have a reputation for old school criteria in journalism. 1. They don't release without the old criteria of validity. 2. They always give a right to reply before print ('Hi it's the insight team here we are planning to run a story tomorrow about ...and wondered if you would comment').
They are also known for campaigns and 3-4 parters on a big story.  Always look for the 'trailers' in the article.  Here's one:'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.'  
This means the team have material on inconsistencies ready for next week.  Expect stories in the week that 'the ST Insight team will say that...' When whistleblowers know the insight team will run their story it's a gamechanger.  These guys are corduroy jacketed, shoe leathered bloodhounds.  Sometimes you cant beat old media.

bristow wrote:This is STILL on the McCanns website!!!

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

nobodythereeither wrote:

pennylane 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.

Superb!

Only on my personal Facebook page, but the last time I posted (recently) a piece about Kate McCann not answering the 48 questions, there was interest from a number of people to whom this was news ......

Yep, finger definitely out of the dyke now, as somebody else said (that was exactly the image I had when I read this report in the early hours .....)

Okeydokey wrote: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"

Monty Heck wrote:

susible wrote:

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.

Yet despite being aware of the suppression of the e-fits AR, rather than pulling the McCs in for some detailed questioning, went along with the CW programme.  During which he stated that the e-fits and later abduction timing were new and and indeed revelatory, while knowing that the e-fits had been produced 5 years ago and had been in the hands of the McCs all that time.  The fact that what may have been vital evidence was kept back for 5 years and why that was done do not appear to have any significance for AR.  He seems to have accepted this unquestioningly and simply moved the timescale forward while ruling out the JT sighting, so feverishly promoted by the Team.  Meanwhile no-one has anything to say about the loss of this cherished sighting, when the fact they have been going up a blind alley on the strength of that testimony for 6+ years with a child still missing, is of major significance.  The way SY have handled this is frankly disturbing.

Monty Heck wrote:

susible wrote:

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.

Yet despite being aware of the suppression of the e-fits AR, rather than pulling the McCs in for some detailed questioning, went along with the CW programme.  During which he stated that the e-fits and later abduction timing were new and and indeed revelatory, while knowing that the e-fits had been produced 5 years ago and had been in the hands of the McCs all that time.  The fact that what may have been vital evidence was kept back for 5 years and why that was done do not appear to have any significance for AR.  He seems to have accepted this unquestioningly and simply moved the timescale forward while ruling out the JT sighting, so feverishly promoted by the Team.  Meanwhile no-one has anything to say about the loss of this cherished sighting, when the fact they have been going up a blind alley on the strength of that testimony for 6+ years with a child still missing, is of major significance.  The way SY have handled this is frankly disturbing.

nobodythereeither wrote:And not just not releasing vital information, but actually TAKING LEGAL STEPS TO SUPPRESS IT!!!

How on earth can anybody spin this to put a positive slant on it for the McCanns?


Yes - this is really difficult for them. They actually made an error by not releasing the e-fits, as then their story could have been that they suppressed only the "unhelpful" parts.  But by suppressing everything (for 5 years!), they have no story to spin...

Okeydokey wrote:One possible connection I made...Coulson and Brooks (ex Murdoch employees) are up for trial on Monday. If one thing could be done to help them in a way that didn't compromise judicial rules, it would be to undermine the testimony of those who appeared for the suppression of the free media at Leveson. The McCanns were of course prominent among those seeking to muzzle the press.

Ollie1 wrote:

Okeydokey wrote: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"

I beleive this was a deliberate ploy by SY and DCI Redmond. I also think relations between SY and the PJ are a lot closer than the McCanns have been led to believe. Remember DCI Redwood said on CW that this was for Madeleine, be won't cover up, he has put Madeleine first. He is no McCann supporter, he wants justice and the truth, the same as Goncalo Amaral wanted, so please posters treat him with the same respect.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:And not just not releasing vital information, but actually TAKING LEGAL STEPS TO SUPPRESS IT!!!

How on earth can anybody spin this to put a positive slant on it for the McCanns?


Yes - this is really difficult for them. They actually made an error by not releasing the e-fits, as then their story could have been that they suppressed only the "unhelpful" parts.  But by suppressing everything (for 5 years!), they have no story to spin...

Monty Heck wrote:

susible wrote:

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.

Yet despite being aware of the suppression of the e-fits AR, rather than pulling the McCs in for some detailed questioning, went along with the CW programme.  During which he stated that the e-fits and later abduction timing were new and and indeed revelatory, while knowing that the e-fits had been produced 5 years ago and had been in the hands of the McCs all that time.  The fact that what may have been vital evidence was kept back for 5 years and why that was done do not appear to have any significance for AR.  He seems to have accepted this unquestioningly and simply moved the timescale forward while ruling out the JT sighting, so feverishly promoted by the Team.  Meanwhile no-one has anything to say about the loss of this cherished sighting, when the fact they have been going up a blind alley on the strength of that testimony for 6+ years with a child still missing, is of major significance.  The way SY have handled this is frankly disturbing.

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

Okeydokey wrote:We must hope that in due course this development will help Tony Bennett get legal redress against the tremendous injustice done to him.

Okeydokey wrote:We must hope that in due course this development will help Tony Bennett get legal redress against the tremendous injustice done to him.