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

Jackie Regan wrote:

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

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

sallypelt wrote:RT [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: former met detective is doing press review on tomorrows papers on sky news at 10.30 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

aquila wrote:He should be removed surely - given the fact that Scotland Yard told several million viewers on Crimewatch he's not relevant.

roy rovers wrote:Any chance this will be tidied up in time for me to get DCI Redwood's book in my Christmas stocking?

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?????

TexMac wrote:First post - just to mention that already there are now 380 comments on the Mumsnet website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Most with views much like this forum, albeit stated with great care to avoid the thread being deleted.
People on there are referring others to Mccannfiles, this forum, etc, with links!
Apparently Mumsnet gets 4.3 million unique visitors each month!!

melisande wrote:

sallypelt wrote:RT [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: former met detective is doing press review on tomorrows papers on sky news at 10.30 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Its Jaqui Hames.  

sallypelt wrote: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.]

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


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

Karen Pinto wrote:WATCH - @ 1.45sec - Gerry's face super imposed onto E-Fit

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

TheTruthWillOut 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.

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

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

1.  Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
   
2. 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 #McCann
   

1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Katie with ALL due respect WE have been standing up for Maddie, its only NOW the MSM is reporting FACTS......little by little!
   

1. 
   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] agreed. I apologise.
   

suzyjohnson wrote:No, just got confusing I think.

Sounds like Exton told SY he couldn't hand over the file because he was under threat of legal action. So then SY asked the fund (which they could hardly refuse). The Sunday Times could have gotten a copy from SY, or possibly SY ot the Sunday Times could have guaranteed Exton he would not be prosecuted? The Sunday Times might know that the McCanns don't have the money to sue him / them?

fatimasantos77 wrote: I've been reading this forum for a while, and I support what you deffend here. But I wonder, why aren't these news be shown in Portugal... ( I'm portuguese)

mt wrote:SKY News is just about to do a review of tomorrow's papers if anyone's still here.

Woofer wrote:

fatimasantos77 wrote: I've been reading this forum for a while, and I support what you deffend here. But I wonder, why aren't these news be shown in Portugal... ( I'm portuguese)

Hello and welcome fatimasantos77.

It is maybe because its only just got into the news here.  Only the Sunday Times and the Telegraph so far, although The Star is supposed to be reporting it tomorrow (but how truthful it will be we don`t know).

sooner or later the circus that have involved this case, will END!

iamfreecanigo wrote:Daily star, has a front page on it, rest of the papers nothing, not the massive change being touted on here, ah well, most of us didn't expect it, people were getting carried away.