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

This is all very well, but the absolute key is evidence. There are already enough "circumstances" for most enlightened people to believe they understand who is responsible, but unless admissible evidence comes forward...well not much changes, apart from more people will become enlightened.

Remember it's all about what you can prove, not what you "know".

Found this link on Pat Browns page

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

Maddie Crimewatch pictures kept secret for five years
VITAL evidence about the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s abduction was kept secret for five years, it was reported yesterday.

Daily Star :

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]/Published 28th October 2013

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Crucial evidence that could hold the key to finding Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years [KATE MCCANN/PA WIRE]

The file was suppressed after being handed to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators, it is claimed.

It included two e-fits of a man seen carrying a sleeping blonde girl to the beach in Praia da Luz, Portugal, at the same time the then-three-year-old’s mum Kate, 45, found her missing.

That man is now the focus of a worldwide police hunt.

Scotland Yard detectives released the e-fits a fortnight ago in a Crimewatch special about Madeleine’s May 2007 disappearance.

The show prompted 2,400 calls from the public after being broadcast across Europe.

But yesterday it was reported the pictures were available five years ago.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Madeleine has been missing since 2007

A letter came from their lawyers binding us to confidentiality wrote:“Henri Exton”

Kate, husband Gerry, 45, and their advisers sidelined the private detectives’ file and instructed them not to divulge its contents.

The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, said the sighting by Irishman Martin Smith was “credible evidence”, had been “neglected for too long” and called on the e-fits to be immediately released.

Oakley International investigators were hired by the Find Madeleine fund set up to bankroll the McCanns’ search.

A source close to the McCanns said the report “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

They instead wanted to focus on a man seen by one of their friends and it would have been too expensive to conduct full investig-ations into both sightings, the source added.

Scotland Yard has since discovered that suspect was a dad carrying his own child.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The first e-fit released on Crimewatch

Former MI5 undercover operations chief Henri Exton, 62, who led the Oakley probe, said the fund took legal action to stop his team divulging its findings.

He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to confidentiality.”

It stopped him handing the report to Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange team until detectives had written permission from the fund, he added.

One Oakley investigator said he was “absolutely stunned” when he saw their theories and e-fits being unveiled on Crimewatch as a “new revelation”.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The second e-fit released by Crimewatch

A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time.

Portugal’s national police force last week reopened its own investigation.

A source close to the McCann fund said they had been wary of Oakley after allegations of financial irregularities.

A spokesman for Find Madeleine said “all information privately gathered” had been “fully acted upon where necessary” and passed on to Scotland Yard.

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment


 questions from me  : spokesman for the fund , saying info fully acted on where necessary, meaning of course that certain people not the police were making that decision as to " needed a follow -up or not ". Vested interests come to mind.

Also...withholding of report not an issue because case not under SY investigation at the time? Afaik while shelved the case was still receiving info in Portugal acc to D Edgar at the libel trial, so should the report not have been passed to Portugal? As it should have been handed to SY the moment the PI files were requested. Withholding evidence is a crime isn't it. even if the crime was not clear until a retrospective review was being carried out?

russiandoll wrote:The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment

His unavailability speak volumes more than anything he has ever spouted spun said.

Praiaaa wrote:

russiandoll wrote:The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment

His unavailability speak volumes more than anything he has ever spouted spun said.

He's taking his time thinking up an innocent explanation!!

Taken from The Star article

A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time.


I wonder if they really did say that?? Of course it's an issue, the public were mislead and the poor sheeples who were sending in donations were being duped!

"The Fund" is very much to the forefront in the article posted by Russiandoll above.  This seems like a new direction, not often its spoken about in that way.

Okeydokey wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Can't help but think this breaking with the start of the Brookes trial is significant. Tiger backed into a corner needs massive distraction to escape, sort of thing.  Or in this case, unleash an even bigger scandal.

I believe Murdoch would go to even greater lengths to protect Brookes than he seemingly has for the McCanns. I suspect he'd do anything for her survival, even if it meant showing that this particular 'end' (the solving of the Madeleine mystery) justifies the means (the accruing of information by less than salubrious methods). And possibly even if that meant sacrificing the McCanns. Certainly, it would take a power with the might of Murdoch to penetrate into the veil of protection that the McCanns have so far received.

A purely hypothetical question:  if the truth of what happened in this case lies within evidence obtained by phone hacking, would that somehow be seen to 'lessen' the seriousness of phone hacking?

I think you could be right. He clearly seemed to treat Brookes like a favoured daughter. 

Whatever, something has changed. I can't imagine the ST would run a story like that without clearance from Old Pa Murdoch in some way.

Answer to your question: yes.

However, I doubt that will be found to be the case.

Murdoch has nothing to lose and everything to gain by the tactics Dee Coy suggests. 
He may well have favoured the McCanns  at the subtle request of successive governments. 
I believe the Times is his favourite  paper. 
Blair  is Godfather to his youngest daughter. 

It may be more profitable for him to withdraw his support from TM. 

Re the Exron report, I would think that they could safely give it to the ST -  the forbidden information had already been broadcast - only thing we did not know is how it  stayed hidden and perhaps there was no clause to that effect in the lawyer's letter. 
By publishing it there is next to no chance that  they'd be prosecuted. Too late now.

Praiaaa wrote:

russiandoll wrote:The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment

His unavailability speak volumes more than anything he has ever spouted spun said.

  Doesn't it just ! Not even his usual comment that he won't dignify something with a comment ! 

 Silence is golden you know.

 Maybe someone will ask him how this withholding has added to the cost of the SY investigation. Yes the files had the Smith sighting, SY knew about that.
 Bit they did not know about the crucial e fits. How has that hindered THE SEARCH and added to the expense of their work?  How many of those MILLIONS OF POUNDS have been spent needlessly, while this [ as the Star puts it], VITAL information, was gathering dust in some filing cabinet?

bristow wrote:Taken from The Star article

A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time.


I wonder if they really did say that?? Of course it's an issue, the public were mislead and the poor sheeples who were sending in donations were being duped!

It's an issue also because we were brainwashed by team McCann telling us she had not come to harm, she was alive and findable.

Rather think TV stations will be thinking very carefully about employing Katie Hopkins over the next few days, especially itv's This Morning. They usually wheel her out at the drop of a hat to bolster viewing figures with her controversy. I'm thinking she will be kept well away.

I wonder if this will be covered by Matthew Wright who was scathing recently about the level of McCann reputation management, saying in response to a piece about the libel trial, it is more about them than about Maddie. This latest bombshell is about the same issue, so think he might just bring it to his viewers when newspapers are discussed.

Jon ‏@jontaito [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
An estimated 42.3m daily visitors to Huffington Post. New [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] bollocks just went global. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

bristow wrote:Taken from The Star article

A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time.


I wonder if they really did say that?? Of course it's an issue, the public were mislead and the poor sheeples who were sending in donations were being duped!

They may not have been investigating the case at the time but the Portugese Police were.

I am sure the Port. police would have been very interested to know that their PIs had produced such a report and that they had been sent a solicitor's letter banning them from disclosing it.

The e-fits could have been sent to the Port. police and they could have made sure that the pics were put on the Interpol site and any other sites needed.

bristow wrote:Taken from The Star article

A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time.


I wonder if they really did say that?? Of course it's an issue, the public were mislead and the poor sheeples who were sending in donations were being duped!

Legally speaking it probably isn't a (legal) issue.  

However under the current investigation, it's a chuffin' great big technical issue which needs to be questioned.

Jim Gamble not answering tweets re this latest news. Now there's a surprise. The PIs agreed with Amaral re this sighting.....the one to follow. What can Gamble say about the Mcs now to the vile trolls and haters he always criticises? That we base our "HATE" on guesswork , speculation and not facts?

 never mind Jimbo.

Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
E-fits of Met police's new’ suspect for Madeleine's disappearance wr drawn up 5yrs ago -& suppressed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] via SundayTimes



Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whole Madeleine case is such a mess- it's so sad because this should just b abt one thing a missing child- 2 find out what happened to her

candyfloss wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
E-fits of Met police's new’ suspect for Madeleine's disappearance wr drawn up 5yrs ago -& suppressed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] via SundayTimes



Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whole Madeleine case is such a mess- it's so sad because this should just b abt one thing a missing child- 2 find out what happened to her

Second tweet from MWT - isn't that what pro Maddies posters have been saying for years?

In the Daily Star article:

A source close to the McCann fund said they had been wary of Oakley after allegations of financial irregularities.

could certainly be read in  two ways

MikeH wrote:In the Daily Star article:

A source close to the McCann fund said they had been wary of Oakley after allegations of financial irregularities.

could certainly be read in  two ways

Hadn't thought of it that way, but yes it could given the report was "hypercritical" of the McCanns!

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So, Scotland Yard spent an estimated £5m on presenting us with what the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have already been sitting on for 5 years.

candyfloss wrote:Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So, Scotland Yard spent an estimated £5m on presenting us with what the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have already been sitting on for 5 years.

Dear old spudders.....

It's a pity that they are all concentrating on the e-fits, the most significant new news from the ST is that the report actually backs up some of Amaral's findings i.e. the irregular sleep patterns and the possibility of accidental death. All we are getting is the suppresion of the e-fits and even then most are not making it clear who is responsible. Hopefully this is just the beginning for The Times / Sunday Times as they stated they have seen the report (they probably have it in their possession). Will they expand on the other big issues?

PeterMac wrote:And they allowed this comment

GeoffCapesBudgie, London, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
And so, finally, the British press begins to ask the right questions...
228 green arrows   17red

Indeed.  Nearly 700 green arrows now!

DonNewbery wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:... 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!

I don't think you've interpreted this quite correctly. This whole exercise, surely, has been designed by SY (in coordination with PJ) to put maximum pressure on the McCs, in the hopes that one of them will crack, or failing that, they'll make even more foolish and incriminating mistakes. It also puts indirect pressure on T7 etc. iikewise to spill the beans.

In order for them to crack, why aren't they put on live tv and questioned properly Then? Instead of making the public believe they should search for that two faced abductor?
But no in their previous  interviews they Are well protected instead, nobody dare ask them proper questions!


The times has repeated the article again to day.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

MikeH wrote:In the Daily Star article:

A source close to the McCann fund said they had been wary of Oakley after allegations of financial irregularities.

could certainly be read in  two ways

Hadn't thought of it that way, but yes it could given the report was "hypercritical" of the McCanns!

Why not report it all to the police and let them deal with it then?

russiandoll wrote:Jim Gamble not answering tweets re this latest news. Now there's a surprise. The PIs agreed with Amaral re this sighting.....the one to follow. What can Gamble say about the Mcs now to the vile trolls and haters he always criticises? That we base our "HATE" on guesswork , speculation and not facts?

 never mind Jimbo.

He and Clarrie are hiding out together in a hellish layer.

admin wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So, Scotland Yard spent an estimated £5m on presenting us with what the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have already been sitting on for 5 years.

Dear old spudders.....

Yes good tweet and the bill is still rising, when all that would have needed doing presumably is put a copy of the report in an envelope and post it to the Portugese police.   If the case has been re-opened now because of this report was found in the files, surely it would have been re-opened then?

I keep reading " a spokesperson  for the McCann's", but I am also reading "Clarence Mitchell isn't available for comment".

So if CM is keeping his distance, who is speaking for the McCanns?

Is there a Clarence Mitchell page, where people can only post what CM has said over the years?  No opinions or debate, only what CM has said