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

by Guest 27.10.13 17:37

Mouse, you just have to grow a bit of skin yes

One of the problems of internet discussions is that we do not know each other [though we may have a hunch about personality], we come from all walks of life, nationalities, professions, believes, religions and a lot of us are not native English speakers.
Thus the written word is a "dangerous" one, easily provoking misunderstanding [sometimes to be avoided by the use of emoticons, but even then ...].
So, take a deep breath. Re-phrase whenever it seems necessary. And then let it go by and concentrate on what you have to contribute to the debate, the exchange of ideas and knowledge.

And, last but not least, everyone please try and quote only the necessary parts of posts, when commenting winkwink

by mouse 27.10.13 17:44

Thanks for that Chateline (sorry if spelling wrong) but the name calling wasn't nice. And yes, it would have helped if quotes were done in context. That's probably why it happened. I always quote a thread if a convo is developing, or copy and paste a piece in quote marks/italics and quote the name so it makes it clear it is out of context. I guess we're all used to different ways of doing things

Apologies again - to all those this may disrupted.

by susible 27.10.13 17:49

I sent you a pm mouse

by justathought 27.10.13 18:04

The MCCann's via considerable media manipulation and deflection tactics "buried" their neglect of the children during the stay. they may well use similar tactic's now to "justify" their actions? maybe it has already started, with the excuse of expense being involved?
remember in reality very few members of the public are aware of the true background to the case. and the majority of those whom read about the case in the Uk media believe what they want to believe.

by Tangledweb 27.10.13 18:07

This latest news certainly explains their desire to be made 'Assistants' doesn't it? Suppose they think they can suppress what ever they like, if they can get involved in the new PJ investigation.

by Truthandjustice 27.10.13 18:16

justathought wrote:The MCCann's via considerable media manipulation and deflection tactics "buried" their neglect of the children during the stay. they may well use similar tactic's now to "justify" their actions? maybe it has already started, with the excuse of expense being involved?
remember in reality very few members of the public are aware of the true background to the case. and the majority of those whom read about the case in the Uk media believe what they want to believe.

I think the days of Mcmedia manipulation are nearly over. First they seduced the media into bed for their own ends, then proceeded to sue the pants off them and tried to tie em up with hacked off! Murdoch has thrown down the gauntlet, the others will surely follow.

by Miraflores 27.10.13 18:19

Murdoch has thrown down the gauntlet, the others will surely follow.

I certainly can't see the Express holding back, since they were dunned for ££££££ by the Tapas 7. Remember the pose with them and Clarrie outside the Royal Courts of Justice, when they had just reached an out of court settlement?

by Praiaaa 27.10.13 18:25

For the first time ever I have just seen that on Mumsnet, that self-appointed bellwether of middle class chattering classes opinion there is a discussion on this that has not been wooshed ( usually McC threads get rapidly wooshed)

by Monty Heck 27.10.13 18:27

suzyjohnson wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:'....... 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.'
I don't think so Monty Heck. I think SY have just been pulling together whatever evidence they can find, hence the Crimewatch programme, and the tour of Europe. SY want to re publicise MM's case and find new witnesses,

Exactly, they have been pulling together what evidence they can find and AR joined in the tour of Europe to publicise a supposedly new version of MM's case. The fact that the explosive new evidence was nothing of the kind was rather misleading on the whole. Information on which SY are now acting was in the McCs hands for 5 years unacted on yet the public were told this is new. SY may well want to keep the McCs onside but putting out information on national and European tv that is claimed to be new seems to serve no purpose other than to protect the McC's reputation which is probably stretching keeping them onside quite a bit. Following them around Europe with the same misinformation as part of some clever ruse or long game seems a rather ridiculous waste of effort and resources IMO, but time will tell as always. Thanks to people who posted their agreement with this view, and also to anyone who disagreed for taking time to explain why. What a dull forum it would be if all we did was agree with one another!

by Beanie 27.10.13 18:28

This surely is good news for Goncalo Amaral and hopefully also Tony Bennett. The McCanns have got away with this scam for far too long, but my heart goes out to their twins and family, at least those kept in the dark.

I hope someone in the know will now come forward and let Madeleine finally be found and put at peace, no matter what the outcome is. The truth will come out! yes

by justathought 27.10.13 18:28

Truthandjustice wrote:
justathought wrote:The MCCann's via considerable media manipulation and deflection tactics "buried" their neglect of the children during the stay. they may well use similar tactic's now to "justify" their actions? maybe it has already started, with the excuse of expense being involved?
remember in reality very few members of the public are aware of the true background to the case. and the majority of those whom read about the case in the Uk media believe what they want to believe.
I think the days of Mcmedia manipulation are nearly over. First they seduced the media into bed for their own ends, then proceeded to sue the pants off them and tried to tie em up with hacked off! Murdoch has thrown down the gauntlet, the others will surely follow.

One would think this will be the case. but the Uk media have been very loath to criticise the MCCann's. however it may be that the ST story will leave other papers feeling they dont want to "miss out". Nothing to do with whether they care as to the case, just not wanting to be seen as being upstaged.
how, the Uk media cover the story in the next few days will be pivotal?

by mouse 27.10.13 18:30

Praiaaa wrote:For the first time ever I have just seen that on Mumsnet, that self-appointed bellwether of middle class chattering classes opinion there is a discussion on this that has not been wooshed ( usually McC threads get rapidly wooshed)

WOW! That is a turn up. They were so supportive at the beginning, when it first happened - I remember them on the radio backing the Mccans. So this is defo a move towards more transparency in the press. I believe one of the women who started Mumsnet (can't stand the site myself) is married, or related to someone high up in 'The Guardian'.

by Ochosi 27.10.13 18:32

With regard to AR and the kid gloves/fawning - I'm not sure. I was a bit incredulous/baffled at the CW programme rather than outraged. More than anything, it seemed a bit shambolic/rushed to me, which is odd given the amount of hype prior.
I couldn't work out if AR was playing a clever game/muddying the waters/glossing over - or all three. I've also wondered if he was using the continental CW trips to follow connected lines of information, speaking to his continental counterparts.

What also struck me was the look of horror (or so it seemed to me) on KM's face. I don't think I've seen her like that before.
So - maybe SY are slowly getting there - we don't know what they're doing apart from what we see in the public domain. Time will tell, hopefully in the not too distant future. "This case has now gone on for far too long..."

sallypelt - I've contacted the ST to congratulate them on their article, hopefully others have too.

by Woofer 27.10.13 18:33

Can anyone work out the sequence of events of this recent scenario?

1. May 2011 - SY commence review - but the McCanns hold back some information reported by their PIs.

2. SY therefore working for past 2 years in partial ignorance.

3. How did they come to know about the e-fits being missing? Was it by interviewing the Smiths and the Smiths telling them about doing e-fits for Kennedy/Halligen/Exton?

I can`t figure out if this is when SY contacted Exton or Kennedy to get the e-fits.

4. SY do the Crimewatch programme and get Jane Tanner and bundleman off the hook and present the new e-fits.

5. Henri Exton watches Crimewatch and is astounded to see the very same e-fits he reported to the McCanns back in 2008. What can he do - he knows he is bound by threats from the McCanns not to reveal anything, so he decides to contact the Insight Team at Sunday Times.

Am I right here.

by KellyLennon 27.10.13 18:34

Looks like after years and years of lying and decieving,its finally caught up on TM.
Time to go Kate and Gerry.....
SHUT THE DOOR ON YOUR WAY OUT !!

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 18:36

Woofer wrote:Can anyone work out the sequence of events of this recent scenario?

1. May 2011 - SY commence review - but the McCanns hold back some information reported by their PIs.

2. SY therefore working for past 2 years in partial ignorance.

3. How did they come to know about the e-fits being missing? Was it by interviewing the Smiths and the Smiths telling them about doing e-fits for Kennedy/Halligen/Exton?

4. SY do the Crimewatch programme and get Jane Tanner and bundleman off the hook and present the new e-fits.

5. Henri Exton watches Crimewatch and is astounded to see the very same e-fits he reported to the McCanns back in 2008. What can he do - he knows he is bound by threats from the McCanns not to reveal anything, so he decides to contact the Insight Team at Sunday Times.

Am I right here.

Who knows! It might be that Exton has been in contact with the Insight Team for a long time - going back to when he was forced into legal silence. They might have gone back to him after the Crimewash programme.

by Miraflores 27.10.13 18:37

Praiaaa wrote:For the first time ever I have just seen that on Mumsnet, that self-appointed bellwether of middle class chattering classes opinion there is a discussion on this that has not been wooshed ( usually McC threads get rapidly wooshed)

Give them time. The threads don't last long - or at least those postings that mention Amaral, having doubt, jemmied shutters etc., get whooshed quick smart. Now those threads which tell the 'McCann doubters' to f*** off, or call them c***ts, well, they stay, because it's a sight which supports parents, don't you know? Speaking as one who has had threads whooshed from there. Cynical, moi?

by Prehensile 27.10.13 18:39

KellyLennon wrote:Looks like after years and years of lying and decieving,its finally caught up on TM.
Time to go Kate and Gerry.....
SHUT THE DOOR ON YOUR WAY OUT !!

And don't forget to lock it, or you may lose something of value.

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 18:42

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

It isn't nonsense actually, in my line of work I have to work within the laws of defamation and am only too aware of them, as you will find if you ask a specialist lawyer. But thanks for your input

Why can't you remember a case of someone being sued for reading off a front page? Simple - because if the story is potentially libellous and hasn't been checked out by the TV station in question, they don't read them out (and this morning was a prime example)

by Woofer 27.10.13 18:48

Okeydokey wrote:
Woofer wrote:Can anyone work out the sequence of events of this recent scenario?

1. May 2011 - SY commence review - but the McCanns hold back some information reported by their PIs.

2. SY therefore working for past 2 years in partial ignorance.

3. How did they come to know about the e-fits being missing? Was it by interviewing the Smiths and the Smiths telling them about doing e-fits for Kennedy/Halligen/Exton?

4. SY do the Crimewatch programme and get Jane Tanner and bundleman off the hook and present the new e-fits.

5. Henri Exton watches Crimewatch and is astounded to see the very same e-fits he reported to the McCanns back in 2008. What can he do - he knows he is bound by threats from the McCanns not to reveal anything, so he decides to contact the Insight Team at Sunday Times.

Am I right here.
Who knows! It might be that Exton has been in contact with the Insight Team for a long time - going back to when he was forced into legal silence. They might have gone back to him after the Crimewash programme.

He`d be running a risk if he was under threat from the McCanns, but who knows. It just seemed as though he was surprised by the Crimewatch programme, or perhaps he was just surprised over seeing his e-fits. Oh I suppose it`ll all come out in the wash !

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 18:48

StraightThinking wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
StraightThinking wrote: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
Nonsense, no one has ever been successfully sued for libel for reading off a front page from a newspaper on TV.
It isn't nonsense actually, in my line of work I have to work within the laws of defamation and am only too aware of them, as you will find if you ask a specialist lawyer. But thanks for your input

Why can't you remember a case of someone being sued for reading off a front page? Simple - because if the story is potentially libellous and hasn't been checked out by the TV station in question, they don't read them out (and this morning was a prime example)

They read out lots of potentially libellous stories. It's often an in joke on the press reviews - when they add the obligatory "allegedly". There wouldn't be a press review if they had to check them out with lawyers all the time. But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 18:52

Okeydokey wrote:They read out lots of potentially libellous stories. It's often an in joke on the press reviews - when they add the obligatory "allegedly". There wouldn't be a press review if they had to check them out with lawyers all the time. But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.

If the story turns out to be libellous, the use of the word "allegedly" is no defence whatsoever. Nor is the fact that you were quoting someone else.
Whether or not you are likely to be sued depends upon how serious the allegation is, and whether or not the offended party has the inclination or funds to pursue it

by Praiaaa 27.10.13 18:53

[quote="Okeydokey"][quote="StraightThinking"][quote="Okeydokey"]

StraightThinking wrote: But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.

by Miraflores 27.10.13 18:56

But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.

It was very similar with the Guardian: I expected at least a half page about Portugal reopening the case. This is what the parents wanted, right? But there was only one tiny paragraph which was primarily talking about the blond Roma children (abducted by the authorities) with just a passing reference to Kate McC. Very strange.

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 18:58

Praiaaa wrote:
But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.

I didn't say that Praiaaa, it was another poster, and I would like to make it clear that I don't agree with it
You will remember the furore when the BBC's Newsnight programme failed to check a defamatory story a year ago
The BBC don't want to make that mistake again

by Jambo 27.10.13 19:08

Woofer wrote:5. Henri Exton watches Crimewatch and is astounded to see the very same e-fits he reported to the McCanns back in 2008. What can he do - he knows he is bound by threats from the McCanns not to reveal anything, so he decides to contact the Insight Team at Sunday Times.

Am I right here.

Not sure about this last point. It doesn't necessarily say Henri Exton is the person quoted as watching CW. It just says "one of the investigators" and his surprise was that it was being "presented as a breakthrough".

Exton 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.

This part is confusing me. Even before the written permission, how can a legal threat prevent him from disclosing crucial evidence to SY?

Candyfloss, thanks for the earlier welcome. :)

by suzyjohnson 27.10.13 19:09

Ayniia wrote:Rewatching Crimewatch after reading these news is just a treat for my eyes

I was just thinking about that. I think SY wanted to see what the McCanns had to say about a 'new' suspect that they had actually already known about for 5 years.

by Cosmo 27.10.13 19:13

AOL is covering the story and Huffpost I think.... sorry new to this site but Hi to all smilie

by Woofer 27.10.13 19:16

Cosmo wrote:AOL is covering the story and Huffpost I think.... sorry new to this site but Hi to all

Hi Cosmo and welcome welcome

by Okeydokey 27.10.13 19:17

StraightThinking wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:They read out lots of potentially libellous stories. It's often an in joke on the press reviews - when they add the obligatory "allegedly". There wouldn't be a press review if they had to check them out with lawyers all the time. But obviously everyone is now aware of the McCanns' reputation as most litigious innocent parents on the planet. It was simple cowardice on the part of the BBC journos.
If the story turns out to be libellous, the use of the word "allegedly" is no defence whatsoever. Nor is the fact that you were quoting someone else.
Whether or not you are likely to be sued depends upon how serious the allegation is, and whether or not the offended party has the inclination or funds to pursue it

You can't quote a single case where someone was successfully sued for reading off a newspaper on a live press review programme. End of story.

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