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

by DonNewbery 27.10.13 16:08

lj wrote:
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.
Where do see proof he is not a McCann supporter?

Respect has to be earned, and up until now I have seen very little that would earn this respect.

Please reserve judgement. I believe DCI Redmond is handling this very carefully and cleverly, and that Ollie's comments are spot on. Of course he's going to hide that fact that he is not on the side of the McCanns.

by TellTheTruth 27.10.13 16:11

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 what jumped out at me. Sorry, hours behind... soz

by lj 27.10.13 16:14

Truthandjustice wrote:
notlongnow wrote:Never in history has a steak & wine meal caused so much misery,hurt,spin,lies,deception,intrigue,job losses slander & fortunes for the few etc.....
I know! 30 euros for a babysitter for the evening seems cheap now eh?

They got offered one for free by Sylvia Batista, after the crying incident.

by Cristobell 27.10.13 16:16

Okeydokey wrote:Just throwing this out -

Does anyone think there is any possibility that Brian Kennedy has abandoned them? Just wondering if this would explain why Exton is now blowing the whistle on Team McCann?

I think their backers have long since gone Okeydokey, and in fact I would go so far as to say they are probably near broke. They have quite literally spent a fortune on the world's top lawyers even billionaires would flinch at their costs of 26 libel actions. They remind me a little bit of that mad woman who won the pools all those years ago 'I'm going to spend spend spend' - unfortunately they spent spent, spent on ill advised law suits that have opened the floodgates to hundreds more. I suspect they have got through their fortune a lot quicker than aforesaid mad woman.

by plebgate 27.10.13 16:20

Dr What wrote:Makes you wonder what the point is of continuing to pay for a mouthpiece like Clarrie.

He is supposed to control the media for the McCanns.To manage their reputation.

Not doing a very good job of it at the moment ,is he? Perhaps he needs to keep an eye on his next career move, as an MP in Parliament.

It's been reported that BK is no longer going to pay Pinky Mitchell's wages despite reportedly being worth £300 million.

If he isn't paying Pinky's wages then I wonder whether he is prepared to foot the bill for anything else?

by margaret 27.10.13 16:23

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.

I've always said they were hacked, and that Halligen spilled what he knew before he was extradited to the USA, IMO both those pieces of info were what started SYs 'review'.

So many of the mcScams family and friends are going down now, the Mccanns will be lucky to see the light of day ever again.

Bye bye you nasty lot of bullies, how dare you treat Madeleine and her memory like this. We care more for her, all you lot do is try and keep yourselves out of jail. Too late now! byebye

by tiny 27.10.13 16:27

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.

I wonder how many more people have been threatened by the mccanns to keep their mouths shut

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 16:27

The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years, it seemed an explosive revelation to me but it never surfaced again. I suspect the lawyers were watching

Didn't mention any legal threats against Oakley though

Did anyone else on here see it? I was surprised we'd heard nothing since

But it shows that this info was widely known, it just had to be thoroughly checked out before publication in the ST today

by lj 27.10.13 16:28

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.

No, what is bullshit is that these pathetic parents are still being treated with kid gloves. They are the first in resposibility for their daughters safety, and as far we can see they gigantically failed before and after Madeleine's disappearance. So you want to have mr Exter arrested? Not after you have the parents arrested first.
Maybe you should have a little talk with Dr. Amaral and Tony Bennett. This conning couple you want to be treated more humane has a track record of devastating peoples life. There might very well have been earlier attempts to get this in the open, or at least with authorities.
Do you know how long that information has been in SY hands? Maybe before you start blaming you should take a look at that and put mr Redwood on your arrest list.

Deleted

by nobodythereeither 27.10.13 16:30

Okeydokey 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.
The media manipulation continues.

Been doing other things for a while and just come back, but it's headline on AOL/Huffington post.

Sorry if already posted.

Some strange things in there, but at least the main story is there:

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

Evidence recently presented as a "breakthrough" in the hunt for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was reportedly produced for her parents by a group of former spies in 2008.

Kate and Gerry McCann hand-picked a team of former MI5 agents after becoming fed up with the pace and direction of the original Portuguese investigation.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as it was deemed "hyper-critical" of the McCanns and their friends, reports the Sunday Times.

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

The e-fits

The contents were only made public after Scotland Yard investigators requested a copy when conducting a fresh review of the case
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]shown on a special edition of Crimewatch last week and presented as new evidence are in fact from the 2008 report.

Detectives also said the accepted version of events surrounding the disappearance the little girl in 2007 had "significantly changed".
One of the authors of the 2008 report said he was "utterly stunned" the evidence had been presented in such a way.

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

Madeleine and a computer generated image of how she may look now

Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief, who led the group, confirmed they had been silenced by the McCanns.
He said: "A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report."

The Crimewatch appeal prompted thousands of calls from the public.

The news comes in the same week as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The case was shelved in 2008 leaving detectives from the UK's Metropolitan Police Service to carry on the search.

Carrie-Marie Bratley of the Portugal news told Sky News: "There are people who are extremely supportive of the McCanns, there are people who are extremely sympathetic ... and they are very much interested in this case.

She added that officers in any new investigation would have had no involvement in the initial police operation and were chosen for "their emotional and physical distance from this case in the hope that maybe they could go over it with a fine-tooth comb and come up with something, which it seems they may have done."

by Cristobell 27.10.13 16:31

Bobby Peru wrote:
Having purchased the ST for their Insight report, I'm convinced this is merely the first rock of a massive landslide, the opening skirmish in a larger battle, a mere hors d'oeuvre to an evening of steak and wine.

Ok, enough mixed metaphors for the time being. I am confident in predicting that the ST Insight Team are sat on even more damning evidence implicating TM that will be exposed to the public in the weeks to come. This is what they do. And in the following year or two there will, no doubt, be a full exposé in book form. They are an investigative team of journalists of global repute with fifty years of provenance. Today's article merely sliced off the top of the egg shell; next week will involve dipping their soldiers into TM's yoke, before consuming the white, and finally discarding TM's hollow, empty shell. (Excuse my fourth different metaphor in two paragraphs).

Loved the mixed metaphors! lol

I hope we do not have to go into years before this is unravelled. In fact, I am thinking now in weeks, if not days. I have no doubt that several newspapers are waiting for the 'day'. Even without their backstabbing ways, the McCanns are an arrogant, demanding pair, and I very doubt they have on friends and influenced people with their charmless personalities.

by lj 27.10.13 16:33

MRNOODLES wrote:
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.
Reminds me of this gem.

That video always make me laugh. He is like a bad actor playing someone who lies. He is even bad in his body languages.

by nobodythereeither 27.10.13 16:36

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?

Eh? I'm just catching up on the thread, I hadn't even seen your "support for Monty's opinion" when I responded to Monty, let alone deliberately edited it out!!!

And I imagine the people who posted after me were quoting from my post, and so on.

Please don't get paranoid!!!!

by nobodythereeither 27.10.13 16:38

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..

Just seen this, so sorry to make exactly the same point just now .....

by plebgate 27.10.13 16:38

StraightThinking wrote:The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years, it seemed an explosive revelation to me but it never surfaced again. I suspect the lawyers were watching

Didn't mention any legal threats against Oakley though

Did anyone else on here see it? I was surprised we'd heard nothing since

But it shows that this info was widely known, it just had to be thoroughly checked out before publication in the ST today

Russian Doll did and posted about it on this thread somewhere.

by margaret 27.10.13 16:38

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.

I think Rebekah brooks knew what hacking had turned up and played the McScams to sell papers, she wanted the review and eventual investigation, arrests and trial - all to sell papers. Sadly the NoTW got shut down so brooks has told Murdoch and he's going to get the news out and make some money off it instead.

It won't be the last scoop I'm sure.

by TellTheTruth 27.10.13 16:39

SeeIyay wrote:
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.

Sorry, still catching up! Ready and waiting... Thank you. big grin

by lj 27.10.13 16:41

DonNewbery wrote:
lj wrote:
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.
Where do see proof he is not a McCann supporter?

Respect has to be earned, and up until now I have seen very little that would earn this respect.
Please reserve judgement. I believe DCI Redmond is handling this very carefully and cleverly, and that Ollie's comments are spot on. Of course he's going to hide that fact that he is not on the side of the McCanns.

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between giving a very generalized answer or fawning over them as he did, repeatedly, he was almost drooling. You of course can believe what you want. I can believe what I want and posts about that. I think his actions and statements up until now I have seen nothing that deserves the predicate "clever" or "careful'.

by wjk 27.10.13 16:42

plebgate wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years, it seemed an explosive revelation to me but it never surfaced again. I suspect the lawyers were watching

Didn't mention any legal threats against Oakley though

Did anyone else on here see it? I was surprised we'd heard nothing since

But it shows that this info was widely known, it just had to be thoroughly checked out before publication in the ST today
Russian Doll did and posted about it on this thread somewhere.

Yes, I saw it too.

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 16:48

plebgate wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years
Did anyone else on here see it?
Russian Doll did and posted about it on this thread somewhere.

Thanks PG and wjk, the cat is well and truly out of the bag then. Some of you have asked why the BBC and others haven't repeated the ST story, but it isn't as simple as that

This is an explosive development, but each media outlet will have to independently check the story before running it, to avoid the possibility of legal action. It isn't enough to say "the Sunday Times said it", or to include it as part of a newspaper review. If the ST is wrong, everyone mentioning the story would be guilty of defamation

However, we now have Channel 4 running the story the day after CW and then the ST going with an enhanced version nearly two weeks later, during which time I imagine the checking has been done. Who knows what else was unearthed in the process?

And the problem with cats is that once they are out of the bag, they are devilishly difficult to get back into the bag again

by Truthandjustice 27.10.13 16:59

plebgate wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years, it seemed an explosive revelation to me but it never surfaced again. I suspect the lawyers were watching

Didn't mention any legal threats against Oakley though

Did anyone else on here see it? I was surprised we'd heard nothing since

But it shows that this info was widely known, it just had to be thoroughly checked out before publication in the ST today
Russian Doll did and posted about it on this thread somewhere.

Yeah I saw it too, and thought it strange it was mentioned simply as an aside. Perhaps that's what the Mcs were hoping, that it would go unnoticed in all the brouhaha.

by mouse 27.10.13 17:01

mouse 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.
Totally agree with you on this Monty, as I said in one of my last posts, why sit on it this long, and why publically support the family and their friends - so much so - that it could deter anyone from coming forward with real evidence which might point the finger in TM's direction Or was this the whole point of CW?....And then to plan trips to Germany etc...He was far too Team Mccann friendly for my liking.

Just posted to show I did post this - your post came after I believe.... ,
I will thank you, as I asked somebody else not to call me paranoid. It's not nice and its not friendly. Every one has an opinion - I guess yours and mine differ.

by susible 27.10.13 17:07

mouse wrote:
mouse 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.
Totally agree with you on this Monty, as I said in one of my last posts, why sit on it this long, and why publically support the family and their friends - so much so - that it could deter anyone from coming forward with real evidence which might point the finger in TM's direction Or was this the whole point of CW?....And then to plan trips to Germany etc...He was far too Team Mccann friendly for my liking.
Just posted to show I did post this - your post came after I believe.... ,
I will thank you, as I asked somebody else not to call me paranoid. It's not nice and its not friendly. Every one has an opinion - I guess yours and mine differ.

MOUSE YOU ARE WRONG...GO BACK AND LOOK AT PAGE 32 AND YOU CAN SEE THE TRIPLE QUOTE POST THAT THE OTHER POSTER QUOTED. i REPLIED TO MONTY BEFORE YOU DID

Sorry for shouting but sheeeshh...One of the biggest developments in the McCann case and you're getting worked up over the forum quoting system..
Edit to say Monty replied to me and Miraflores...then you replied to that triple quote, but along came another poster and replied to the original triple quote from miraflores, myself and montyheck because they obviously hadn't got to your post yet!

by Guest 27.10.13 17:14

Well, there are many ways of derailing a thread ...
And this one is already charged enough as it is.

ETA you can call me whatever you like - I might have a laugh, depending on who says it, of course.

by Miraflores 27.10.13 17:17

Please mouse, susible et al. - please stop arguing, or if you want to do so, pm each other. This is an important development and it doesn't need to be sidetracked.

by susible 27.10.13 17:23

Miraflores wrote:Please mouse, susible et al. - please stop arguing, or if you want to do so, pm each other. This is an important development and it doesn't need to be sidetracked.

Apologies for that, but I don't like to be accused of censoring people whose opinions differ from mine and then being patronised I would have happily left it several pages ago because I had given my explanation, but the other poster just wouldn't let it go.

by mouse 27.10.13 17:24

susible wrote:
mouse wrote:
mouse 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.
Totally agree with you on this Monty, as I said in one of my last posts, why sit on it this long, and why publically support the family and their friends - so much so - that it could deter anyone from coming forward with real evidence which might point the finger in TM's direction Or was this the whole point of CW?....And then to plan trips to Germany etc...He was far too Team Mccann friendly for my liking.
Just posted to show I did post this - your post came after I believe.... ,
I will thank you, as I asked somebody else not to call me paranoid. It's not nice and its not friendly. Every one has an opinion - I guess yours and mine differ.
MOUSE YOU ARE WRONG...GO BACK AND LOOK AT PAGE 32 AND YOU CAN SEE THE TRIPLE QUOTE POST THAT THE OTHER POSTER QUOTED. i REPLIED TO MONTY BEFORE YOU DID

Sorry for shouting but sheeeshh...One of the biggest developments in the McCann case and you're getting worked up over the forum quoting system..
Edit to say Monty replied to me and Miraflores...then you replied to that triple quote, but along came another poster and replied to the original triple quote from miraflores, myself and montyheck because they obviously hadn't got to your post yet!

Apologies to all those who may think this thread is being derailed, that is the last thing I would want to do. But you call someone paranoid - it's not nice. Then have it done twice, when I had left this thread to do other things...and came back to read more news about you apprently being paranoid - it is not nice!

Yes I am very much interested in the big developments and I'm not getting myself worked up. So leave it out, as I had...

Sorry again to all others on here reading the thread.

Funny how friendly everyone can be when you first join....

by Ayniia 27.10.13 17:28

Rewatching Crimewatch after reading these news is just a treat for my eyes spin

by Guest 27.10.13 17:29

pauline wrote:
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.
Esther went January 2008. Oakley report much later in 2008, November I think.

obviously she realised then what was going on, and left. Another person left Jan 2008 - was an elderly solicitor I think. probably concerned at the amount of money going on lawyers.

Thanks. Makes you wonder doesn't it. They likely knew what was going on then and now yet couldn't blow the whistle.

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 17:36

StraightThinking wrote:
plebgate wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:The day after CW, Channel 4 News at 7pm had the story of the efits being compiled by private detectives and hidden for the last 5 years
Did anyone else on here see it?
Russian Doll did and posted about it on this thread somewhere.
Thanks PG and wjk, the cat is well and truly out of the bag then. Some of you have asked why the BBC and others haven't repeated the ST story, but it isn't as simple as that

This is an explosive development, but each media outlet will have to independently check the story before running it, to avoid the possibility of legal action. It isn't enough to say "the Sunday Times said it", or to include it as part of a newspaper review. If the ST is wrong, everyone mentioning the story would be guilty of defamation

However, we now have Channel 4 running the story the day after CW and then the ST going with an enhanced version nearly two weeks later, during which time I imagine the checking has been done. Who knows what else was unearthed in the process?

And the problem with cats is that once they are out of the bag, they are devilishly difficult to get back into the bag again

Nonsense, no one has ever been successfully sued for libel for reading off a front page from a newspaper on TV.

Latest topics