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

worriedmum wrote:

Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]










[ltr][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@TheyFearTheHare
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@CaroleShooter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
#McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/ltr]








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

Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!


Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?

ra18 wrote:Hi Everyone

Been lurking for a while but this is my first post. Seems the Huffington Post are picking up on this story now


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

mouse wrote:

susible wrote:

mouse wrote:

susible wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

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.

Sorry, I disagree.

SY have to get hard evidence, and they have to do whatever they have to do to get it, which probably includes keeping the McCanns sweet to some extent.

And carefully wording statements (as have the Portuguese police) to make it look as if they are following the abduction theory.

I do worry somewhat how the ST revelations today will affect the McCanns' stated willingness to take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, if they begin to realise that they have been well and truly rumbled.

What will they do now?

And why have none of the other papers taken this up, at least online?

Agree Nobodythereither...AR can question them til the cows come home and all the Mc's have to do is deny they had any involvement.  The fact that they buried a sighting is evidence of nothing, it just would not stand up in court and then the opportunity would be lost forever.  No there's still a lot of hard work to be done on the investigation side by both SY and the PJ and I do believe that they are working together and I still have faith that they will solve it.

I think the Mc's been hamstrung into the reconstruction now though, because if they back out combined with the public knowledge that they hid important information from the police, then AR might not need to use the softly softly approach anymore because the public will be baying for justice.

And I'd just like to agree with Monty again, and disagree with the poster/s above who obviously decided my support for Monty's opinion should just be edited out of this little convo. AR - was too, toor friendly with the MC's to be taken seriously....When are they packing for Germany?

??? I didn't edit out your response, I just quoted the conversation thread that I had been quoted in...Don't be so paranoid..

And I would thank you not to call me paranoid - as I didn't actually accuse you personally... I replied to Monty and whoever (don't want to point any fingers now) just decided to edit me out. I know that it is their choice, but it doesn't appear fair to edit out supporting posts to a members opinion, only to keep ones that strongly disagree. 

Are we, or are not allowed to question Andy Redwood's position on this? I'm quite happy to accept your difference of opinion with mine... And btw I did post immediately after Montyheck's good post, look a few pages back.

melisande wrote:Is this why esther mcvey jumped ship? What was the timing of her leaving the fund/the Fund receiving the Oakley report?  I recall at one point there were a lot of departures from the Fund at the same time. Would make sense if it was around about the same time as the receipt of the report.  

worriedmum wrote:

Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]



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

@CaroleShooter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
#McCan[/ltr]



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

Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO

Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?

Humanist wrote:Excuse me - this is the biggest missing person case ever.  And that missing person is a child - which makes it even bigger still.
So this detective agency uncovered information about this childs disappearance, gave the information to the parents who dismissed it
and told them to be quite otherwise.......

Now I don't know about any of you but if you tell to be quite when I know I actually stirred to action then nothing will keep my silence.
So this man had extra information, which he gave to the parents - who then decided not to act on it -  and then waited a considerable time until the story leaked.

Please.  Please this is becoming stupid now.
The biggest case in the world and he did not have the humanity, the balls, the conviction to go to someone else with this information to save a child.
He should be arrested on the spot for obstructing justice.
I again call bullshit.

Humanist wrote:Excuse me - this is the biggest missing person case ever.  And that missing person is a child - which makes it even bigger still.
So this detective agency uncovered information about this childs disappearance, gave the information to the parents who dismissed it
and told them to be quite otherwise.......

Now I don't know about any of you but if you tell to be quite when I know I actually stirred to action then nothing will keep my silence.
So this man had extra information, which he gave to the parents - who then decided not to act on it -  and then waited a considerable time until the story leaked.

Please.  Please this is becoming stupid now.
The biggest case in the world and he did not have the humanity, the balls, the conviction to go to someone else with this information to save a child.
He should be arrested on the spot for obstructing justice.
I again call bullshit.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

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

candyfloss wrote:

ra18 wrote:Hi Everyone

Been lurking for a while but this is my first post. Seems the Huffington Post are picking up on this story now


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

Welcome ra18, thank you for bringing us this.    It seems to be gathering pace.  I see no comments allowed on the story.


Madeleine McCann Suspect E-Fit Produced By Former Spies In 2008 And Suppressed By Parents


Huffington Post UK  |   Posted: 27/10/2013 13:59 GMT  |  Updated: 27/10/2013 14:10 GMT

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

Okeydokey wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]

[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@CaroleShooter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
#McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/ltr]

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

Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!


Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?

Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!

Humanist wrote: [...]
The biggest case in the world and he did not have the humanity, the balls, the conviction to go to someone else with this information to save a child. [...]

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]







[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@CaroleShooter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
#McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/ltr]







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

Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!


Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?

Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!

I suppose you read the Fund's statement in two ways

1. The Fund is passing the buck by claiming SY sat on this info for the last 5 years; or
2. They're stating the obvious in that they handed over all of their private investigator stuff as part of the review.

Woofer wrote:I thought Murdoch was palsy with Clarence.  They must have fallen out big time now.

melisande wrote:Is this why esther mcvey jumped ship? What was the timing of her leaving the fund/the Fund receiving the Oakley report?  I recall at one point there were a lot of departures from the Fund at the same time. Would make sense if it was around about the same time as the receipt of the report.  

SixMillionQuid wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

Beanie wrote:[ltr]Posted by Deuce on twitter, they really are in panic mode![/ltr]









[ltr]@TheyFearTheHare
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@CaroleShooter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] GA was removed from case for lack of integrity and PJ, dare I say, 'suppressed' Smith sighting.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
#McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/ltr]









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

Surely the information was gathered after the case was shelved, so how could Amaral 'suppress' it? And if it was before, they would be running a private investigation in parallel to the PJ one-a BIG NO-NO!


Quote''
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.'' unquote

But when?

Oh dear, now the Fund is trying to deliberately mislead the public through dodgy sentence structures!

I suppose you read the Fund's statement in two ways

1. The Fund is passing the buck by claiming SY sat on this info for the last 5 years; or
2. They're stating the obvious in that they handed over all of their private investigator stuff as part of the review.

Looks like its option 2 going by the Sunday Times report

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

End even when they got a review the Fund continued to lie through its teeth.

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Lance De Boils wrote:I say. This article is certainly one for the "Thread of HOPE."   


Now, remind me... who caused most damage to the "search" for Madeleine? Hmmm....?

Okeydokey wrote:

Woofer wrote:I thought Murdoch was palsy with Clarence.  They must have fallen out big time now.

Wasn't there some connection to the McCanns via Rupert Murdoch's daughter? I thought it was possibly through her influence that he came to change the approach of his papers to teh McCanns.

Found a link...

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

So something must have happened if the Murdoch papers are being allowed to pursue accurate reporting again.  It might be that there is now a split in the "Chipping NOrton set" since the arrest of Coulson and Brooks.

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.

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.

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.

candyfloss wrote:Quote Sunday Times:

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns' evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns
 
 
 
This I think is very telling.

Monty Heck wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

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.

Sorry, I disagree.

SY have to get hard evidence, and they have to do whatever they have to do to get it, which probably includes keeping the McCanns sweet to some extent.

And carefully wording statements (as have the Portuguese police) to make it look as if they are following the abduction theory.

I do worry somewhat how the ST revelations today will affect the McCanns' stated willingness to take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, if they begin to realise that they have been well and truly rumbled.

What will they do now?

And why have none of the other papers taken this up, at least online

I do hope you are right, but do wonder whether SY felt they could simply gloss over the fact that the e-fits had been languishing in McC hands for 5 years because they thought this would never be contradicted.  The Times article exposing the extent of SY's cosiness with the McC was surely unforseen?  Whether  SY's apparent support is all some kind of elaborate ruse remains to be seen but questioning people living within their jurisdiction seems an easier way of getting to the truth, rather than trailing around Europe with the McCsome on a roadshow of rather dubious merit.

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