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

by StraightThinking 27.10.13 22:01

sonic72 wrote:I see the BBC and most of the other media/newpapers are not reporting on this?!

Strange, especially considering they have been all been reporting on the recent news surrounding the case.

Seems to me that they are being very selective on what they are reporting on, which highlights how one-sided their reporting is.

I explained earlier that they will be checking the story out when they all get back to work on Monday morning. Besides, the Telegraph is already going with it, and the Times Online is now following on from its sister paper
Link here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Perhaps someone could let us know if they have developed the story?

by Guest 27.10.13 22:04

bluemoon wrote:What I don't understand is if Murdock owns the times why is this latest report not being given any air time on Sky News:

Have merged with this thread bluemoon

by Guest 27.10.13 22:05

ON FRONT PAGE OF THE STAR!!!!

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

by Prehensile 27.10.13 22:08

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:If the the ST have seen the report does it mean SY passed it to them? Sounds silly, but if Exton supplied it, he now could be facing being sued right? But what has changed all of a sudden after 5 years?
He did not suply it.
So SY did? Or where did ST get it....

By applying to the to the fund for info.

by Guest 27.10.13 22:09

rainbow1 wrote:From another forum mentioning this and Katie Hopkins on twitter.

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

She is only saying what the majority of us are thinking. She is a pain in the arse but have to give it to her for being a 'celeb' with the guts to speak out against them.

by lj 27.10.13 22:10

AndyB wrote:
garfy wrote:sorry if posted elsewhere

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

You've linked to a one and a quarter hour Spanish news program, the headline of which appears to be a demonstration about cuts.

IT leads to a video that states the SY believes that Madeleine's disappearance was a planned abduction.

Oops should have watched the whole video.

I guess soon the McCanns might be hanging missing posters on the antarctic.

by brixham 27.10.13 22:10

admin wrote:Yes, to our 383 new members who have registered this month

Hi from one of the 383!

In the ST it quotes "a McCann Fund Source as saying that it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings (Tannerman and Smithman) in full - so the E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors."
So how did that conversation go then?
"Yeah thanks for all your great work guys, here's your money, unfortunately we just can't afford to go any further with that, so keep it under your hats or we have plenty more money available for legal action."
Sightings from all over the world appeared to be given credence and enthusiastically followed up yet this sighting - descibed by DI Redwood in Crimewatch as a white man with brown hair, carrying a child 3 to 4 years old, possibly wearing pyjamas - is dismissed, in fact not dismissed, but is actually censored by threat of legal action.
This sighting was of a girl matching Madeleines description, on the night of Madeleines disappearance, 5 minutes from Madeleines apartment!!! Even if the fund really couldn't afford to follow this lead, why threaten legal action if it is disclosed. WHY?????

by Ayniia 27.10.13 22:10

candyfloss wrote:ON FRONT PAGE OF THE STAR!!!!

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

Anxiously wanting to see WHO they're going to say that withheld it... Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

by TheTruthWillOut 27.10.13 22:11

The article text on the Star conveniently doesn't mention the fact that it was the McCann's that suppressed the E-fits Candyfloss! But its a start I suppose...

by Hongkong Phooey 27.10.13 22:11

candyfloss wrote:ON FRONT PAGE OF THE STAR!!!!

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

Here we go, here we go, here we go..........

by johara 27.10.13 22:12

7

admin wrote:Yes, to our 383 new members who have registered this month

Thanks. I'm a mother with 2 children under 4 who are always waking up during the night which is why I could never understand how the mccans were so sure they were safe in an unlocked holiday apartment. Recently, i began to think that perhaps they had indeed sedated them and when they found she was missing they knew she wouldnt have gone wandering out on Her own and so were sure ''they've taken Her''. I also thought that none of the tapas lot ever checked inside the appartments but just listened for crying now and again so that was why the madeup timeline made nosense. Although this theory would have explained why KM didn't answer the 48 questions,the lie detector test, the recostruction refusal it still couln't explain the dog evidence. Finally this ST article has got me thinking how low they can go and if they willingly concealed an efit of a possible abductor which could have helped years ago to find maddie then there really couldnt ever have been an abductor. They wouldnt dismiss the sighting just so that their tannerman version of events would be believed if she really had been abducted and wanted to find her. This article to me gives more evidence that GA was right all along!

by rainbow1 27.10.13 22:13

melisande wrote:
rainbow1 wrote:From another forum mentioning this and Katie Hopkins on twitter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She is only saying what the majority of us are thinking. She is a pain in the arse but have to give it to her for being a 'celeb' with the guts to speak out against them.

I have to agree and she has guts to speak out. You are right many of us have followed this from the start on forums from the old AOL and Mirror forums to here. I hope times are changing and many more celebs speak out but I doubt it.

by Jackie Regan 27.10.13 22:14

I think we are entering into a new era of spin

FEST!!!!!

by Guest 27.10.13 22:14

Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:If the the ST have seen the report does it mean SY passed it to them? Sounds silly, but if Exton supplied it, he now could be facing being sued right? But what has changed all of a sudden after 5 years?
He did not suply it.
So SY did? Or where did ST get it....
By applying to the to the fund for info.

They (SY) had to apply to the fund so that it could be handed over, didn't they.? Slightly different. It looks like from this below that they asked the PI's for it but they couldn't hand it over until they had permission.

Quote ST:

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

by soundworks 27.10.13 22:15

all kicking off on katies twitter lol

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

by Guest 27.10.13 22:16

Just posting again, front page tomorrow of the Daily Star.

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

by lj 27.10.13 22:16

Sietah wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Hands up,who thinks that Spain is in Portugal?
OMG, everybody knows it is in Morocco

by Prehensile 27.10.13 22:17

brixham wrote:
admin wrote:Yes, to our 383 new members who have registered this month
Hi from one of the 383!

In the ST it quotes "a McCann Fund Source as saying that it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings (Tannerman and Smithman) in full - so the E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors."
So how did that conversation go then?
"Yeah thanks for all your great work guys, here's your money, unfortunately we just can't afford to go any further with that, so keep it under your hats or we have plenty more money available for legal action."
Sightings from all over the world appeared to be given credence and enthusiastically followed up yet this sighting - descibed by DI Redwood in Crimewatch as a white man with brown hair, carrying a child 3 to 4 years old, possibly wearing pyjamas - is dismissed, in fact not dismissed, but is actually censored by threat of legal action.
This sighting was of a girl matching Madeleines description, on the night of Madeleines disappearance, 5 minutes from Madeleines apartment!!! Even if the fund really couldn't afford to follow this lead, why threaten legal action if it is disclosed. WHY?????

All the Mc's had to do was to explain to the public they had no funds left to explore Mcsmithman, in order to boost the fund.

by Guest 27.10.13 22:18

brixham wrote:
admin wrote:Yes, to our 383 new members who have registered this month
Hi from one of the 383!

In the ST it quotes "a McCann Fund Source as saying that it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings (Tannerman and Smithman) in full - so the E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors."
So how did that conversation go then?
"Yeah thanks for all your great work guys, here's your money, unfortunately we just can't afford to go any further with that, so keep it under your hats or we have plenty more money available for legal action."
Sightings from all over the world appeared to be given credence and enthusiastically followed up yet this sighting - descibed by DI Redwood in Crimewatch as a white man with brown hair, carrying a child 3 to 4 years old, possibly wearing pyjamas - is dismissed, in fact not dismissed, but is actually censored by threat of legal action.
This sighting was of a girl matching Madeleines description, on the night of Madeleines disappearance, 5 minutes from Madeleines apartment!!! Even if the fund really couldn't afford to follow this lead, why threaten legal action if it is disclosed. WHY?????

What Clarence means is they couldn't afford the truth to get out, but not in a financial sense.

by oakeso 27.10.13 22:20

worriedmum wrote:
mt wrote:The Sun have put one and one together and 4993658 again

Beasts on a bus
- Maddie suspects lured kids on board
- Monsters run out of town by angry dad
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clues ... killer paedos Charles O'Neill and William Lauchlan

EXCLUSIVE
By GARY O’SHEA in Albir, Spain
Published: 22 hrs ago

TWO monsters probed over Madeleine McCann’s abduction prowled Spanish resorts for children in a battered red bus, says a former pal.
Killer paedos Charles O’Neill, 50, and William Lauchlan, 36, are feared to have lured kids on board with a puppy.
Hands up,who thinks that Spain is in Portugal?

Like eating in your own back garden?

by TheTruthWillOut 27.10.13 22:20

Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:If the the ST have seen the report does it mean SY passed it to them? Sounds silly, but if Exton supplied it, he now could be facing being sued right? But what has changed all of a sudden after 5 years?
He did not suply it.
So SY did? Or where did ST get it....
By applying to the to the fund for info.

Seriously? They just handed it over to a paper after threatening to sue the authors if they said anything.

Or is this sarcasm........

by sallypelt 27.10.13 22:20

Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You can rain libel on me all you want. I am not in the least bit afraid. Enough of the McCanns. Time someone stood up for Maddie [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Prehensile 27.10.13 22:20

candyfloss wrote:
Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Prehensile wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:If the the ST have seen the report does it mean SY passed it to them? Sounds silly, but if Exton supplied it, he now could be facing being sued right? But what has changed all of a sudden after 5 years?
He did not suply it.
So SY did? Or where did ST get it....
By applying to the to the fund for info.
They (SY) had to apply to the fund so that it could be handed over, didn't they.? Slightly different. It looks like from this below that they asked the PI's for it but they couldn't hand it over until they had permission.

Quote ST:

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

Ty cf

by Jackie Regan 27.10.13 22:21

The Katie Hopkins twitter link dos NOT have the blue tick sad1

Is it deffo official KH??

by Guest 27.10.13 22:22

Prehensile wrote:
brixham wrote:
admin wrote:Yes, to our 383 new members who have registered this month
Hi from one of the 383!

In the ST it quotes "a McCann Fund Source as saying that it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings (Tannerman and Smithman) in full - so the E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors."
So how did that conversation go then?
"Yeah thanks for all your great work guys, here's your money, unfortunately we just can't afford to go any further with that, so keep it under your hats or we have plenty more money available for legal action."
Sightings from all over the world appeared to be given credence and enthusiastically followed up yet this sighting - descibed by DI Redwood in Crimewatch as a white man with brown hair, carrying a child 3 to 4 years old, possibly wearing pyjamas - is dismissed, in fact not dismissed, but is actually censored by threat of legal action.
This sighting was of a girl matching Madeleines description, on the night of Madeleines disappearance, 5 minutes from Madeleines apartment!!! Even if the fund really couldn't afford to follow this lead, why threaten legal action if it is disclosed. WHY?????
All the Mc's had to do was to explain to the public they had no funds left to explore Mcsmithman, in order to boost the fund.

Its a stupid excuse. It cost nothing to publicise the efits in the media. How many efits have they produced and publicised since 2008? They had enough money for those.

by KenzieWenzie 27.10.13 22:23

Hi can someone who is on twitter please message Katie Hopkins a link to the pj files/dog videos and statements and show all the work the pj did, everything really! She has sat up and took notice of today's news and is tweeting her opinions to almost 70000 followers, can you imagine if she found out everything that has been suppressed by the mccanns and Uk media???
The woman lives for controversy but she also someone you would want to get the truth out, and to her credit, whatever you think of her views she just doesn't give a s@@t who she offends, bows down to no one but is a very clever woman with it xx

by Jackie Regan 27.10.13 22:25

Its a stupid excuse. It cost nothing to publicise the efits in the media. How many efits have they produced and publicised since 2008? They had enough money for those

Or on the website....Bundleman just wanted centre stage for way too long!!

by Bobby Peru 27.10.13 22:25

I shall be interested to see if GM raises his head above the parapet in the next few days to weeks in order to participate in any media interviews following this particular cat clawing its way out of the bag (though I'm sure he has a whole clowder of felines desperately trying to escape from the ~~bag~~, or should that be missing hold-all?)

GM likes control, and we've all seen how he responds to awkward questions.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.13 22:26

Jackie Regan wrote:
Its a stupid excuse. It cost nothing to publicise the efits in the media. How many efits have they produced and publicised since 2008? They had enough money for those
Or on the website....Bundleman just wanted centre stage for way too long!!

Bundleman is still there on the website along with Victoria Beckham looky likey

by Jackie Regan 27.10.13 22:27

Bundleman is still there on the website along with Victoria Beckham looky likey

Yeah I Know....But hes been demoted.

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