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

by plebgate 28.10.13 10:58

Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?

Well said, the PIs backed up what Mr. A. has consistently said. Well said. clapping

by DIBarlow 28.10.13 11:01

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

This could save an awful lot of time and money in the Portuguese libel case.

by russiandoll 28.10.13 11:03

oh dear a certain someone not happy in her coven over the way... never mind bb1

"Even more nonsensical rehash of the Times. So much for the media listening to the Yard's plea to behave. They haven't printed so much crap since 2007. "

by Smokeandmirrors 28.10.13 11:05

What's the name of bb1"s secure ward? I might pop over and have a look

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:08

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!

I think he means that they (either Exton or the McCanns) were not required to hand the file to SY at the time because SY were not investigating the case. The McCanns could, for example, simply have publicised the Efits themselves on their website.

The question isn't really whether, by law, they had to hand the report to SY (or the PJ) in 2008, but why on earth they would want to withhold the Efits contained in it?

by bristow 28.10.13 11:09

Tangledweb wrote:
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!

Which article is this from?

by Sceptic 28.10.13 11:10

plebgate wrote:
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?

Its beginning to make sense now why the home office have an open cheque book for this case - logically thinking we are being fed snippets of probAbly 4-6 weeks in arrears - they have completed all the border pieces are telling us now they still have a lot of the picture to build up when in reality they only need to find the piece that someone they already know is hiding then that grand jigsaw of wormwood scrubs will be complete

by russiandoll 28.10.13 11:12

suzyjohnson wrote:
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!
I think he means that they (either Exton or the McCanns) were not required to hand the file to SY at the time because SY were not investigating the case. The McCanns could, for example, simply have publicised the Efits themselves on their website.

The question isn't really whether, by law, they had to hand the report to SY (or the PJ) in 2008, but why on earth they would want to withhold the Efits contained in it?

not an issue for SY re 2008, but as soon as they asked for the files in 2011, the withholding surely is a major issue? The review only happened due to pressure from those very parents doing the concealing !

by Guest 28.10.13 11:14

Sceptic wrote:
Its beginning to make sense now why the home office have an open cheque book for this case - logically thinking we are being fed snippets of probAbly 4-6 weeks in arrears - they have completed all the border pieces are telling us now they still have a lot of the picture to build up when in reality they only need to find the piece that someone they already know is hiding then that grand jigsaw of wormwood scrubs will be complete

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:18

Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?

The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:22

plebgate wrote:
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?

Not necessarily, the Portuguese would not be interested in the information they already knew.

However, they would be very interested that the McCanns tried to suppress the report of their own private investigator.

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:23

sallypelt wrote: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?

Trying reading it in Aunty Phil's accent and you may have found your answer

by Smokeandmirrors 28.10.13 11:23

suzyjohnson wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?
The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?

And if this report is as "hypercritical" as suggested then it is absolutely guaranteed to be shared at some point. If a newspaper has it, it is only a matter of time. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at the Times has forwarded it to the Libel judge and Amaral. Blimey, if I worked at the Times I'd damn well make sure it got out there.

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:25

bristow wrote:
Tangledweb wrote:
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!
Which article is this from?

Daily Mail I think

by sallypelt 28.10.13 11:26

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?
The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?
And if this report is as "hypercritical" as suggested then it is absolutely guaranteed to be shared at some point. If a newspaper has it, it is only a matter of time. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at the Times has forwarded it to the Libel judge and Amaral. Blimey, if I worked at the Times I'd damn well make sure it got out there.

Isn't there a redacted letter on Joana's site? I posted a link a few days ago, and it's on this thread, somewhere.........I think!

by Tangledweb 28.10.13 11:26

bristow wrote:
Tangledweb wrote:
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!
Which article is this from?

Today's Daily Mail (copy of article a few pages back)

by sallypelt 28.10.13 11:28

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

by jozi 28.10.13 11:30

suzyjohnson wrote:
bristow wrote:
Tangledweb wrote:
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!
Which article is this from?
Daily Mail I think

The MCs and Clarrie keep saying they have huge support from the public and its only a small percent of vile trolls on the internet........You wish ! lol!

by Guest 28.10.13 11:31

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

There's that "threat to national security" warning again. huh

by sallypelt 28.10.13 11:32

sallypelt wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?
The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?
And if this report is as "hypercritical" as suggested then it is absolutely guaranteed to be shared at some point. If a newspaper has it, it is only a matter of time. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at the Times has forwarded it to the Libel judge and Amaral. Blimey, if I worked at the Times I'd damn well make sure it got out there.
Isn't there a redacted letter on Joana's site? I posted a link a few days ago, and it's on this thread, somewhere.........I think!

Oops, should have posted it here:

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

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:32

sallypelt wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote: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?
The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?
And if this report is as "hypercritical" as suggested then it is absolutely guaranteed to be shared at some point. If a newspaper has it, it is only a matter of time. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at the Times has forwarded it to the Libel judge and Amaral. Blimey, if I worked at the Times I'd damn well make sure it got out there.
Isn't there a redacted letter on Joana's site? I posted a link a few days ago, and it's on this thread, somewhere.........I think!

PeterMac has sent it to Amaral in any case

by mouse 28.10.13 11:33

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.

If this was actually said by the Met - then surely the parents actions, the suppression of this report, should now be called into question by SY. And AR, if he wants the public to have confidence in in the investigation , surely, at the very least, he could release a statement regarding when they received this report. I mean, at the moment, as other posters have said - wrong info is still on the Mccann's website, and anyone watching CW from an uninformed opinion, could still feel it right to donate to this 'poor' family, having received so much support from AR. It all needs much more clarification. And that statement, again if true, almost sounds like jobsworth speak - wasn't our job, under some one else's watch at the time. Didn't it matter to them? ....Well it sure does now...

by Smokeandmirrors 28.10.13 11:36

mouse 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.

If this was actually said by the Met - then surely the parents actions, the suppression of this report, should now be called into question by SY. And AR, if he wants the public to have confidence in in the investigation , surely, at the very least, he could release a statement regarding when they received this report. I mean, at the moment, as other posters have said - wrong info is still on the Mccann's website, and anyone watching CW from an uninformed opinion, could still feel it right to donate to this 'poor' family, having received so much support from AR. It all needs much more clarification. And that statement, again if true, almost sounds like jobsworth speak - wasn't our job, under some one else's watch at the time. Didn't it matter to them? ....Well it sure does now...

More like it's "not an issue I wish to discuss in public, but it's a bloody big issue in Belgravia"

by Angelique 28.10.13 11:36

"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."

Dereliction of Duty.

by russiandoll 28.10.13 11:37

Smokeandmirrors wrote:What's the name of bb1"s secure ward? I might pop over and have a look

Special extra-secure ward, no visits allowed as not good for your own mental health, however on special occasions such as this big news a little look through the peep-hole in the door is allowed as it can be amusing and laughter is good for mental health. Just one more post from me re the secure ward as I am busy and must brave the wind and go out...

Pedro, the alter ego of bb1 was woken from his induced sleep [ the doctor sedates him regularly because of his unintelligible ravings about antis you stink amaral you belong behind bars yes I agree with you bb1 and all that crap] and so because he was calm he posted something we could understand. He posts this repetitively so we can safely say he has limited pretend English.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Pedro Silva Yesterday at 10:26 pm

what really matters is to solve this case, to find her, to bring her safe and sound to her home.

Pedro SilvaSlayer of scums

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] bb1 Today at 10:09 am

Ignore the current mudslinging, Pedro, it's a last-ditch attempt to smear the McCann family by some very unpleasant people with agendas of their own.

The truth will come out in time; the real police (as opposed to armchair defectives) know what actually happened with conman Halligen.

bb1 is regularly put into an induced sleep before she gets carried away with speaking to herself ; her attempts at trying to sound like a foreigner speaking English prove too much for her and she has to rest God bless her. Her brain hurts, you see.

by mouse 28.10.13 11:39

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
mouse 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.

If this was actually said by the Met - then surely the parents actions, the suppression of this report, should now be called into question by SY. And AR, if he wants the public to have confidence in in the investigation , surely, at the very least, he could release a statement regarding when they received this report. I mean, at the moment, as other posters have said - wrong info is still on the Mccann's website, and anyone watching CW from an uninformed opinion, could still feel it right to donate to this 'poor' family, having received so much support from AR. It all needs much more clarification. And that statement, again if true, almost sounds like jobsworth speak - wasn't our job, under some one else's watch at the time. Didn't it matter to them? ....Well it sure does now...
More like it's "not an issue I wish to discuss in public, but it's a bloody big issue in Belgravia"

Yep...Move along now, plenty more paedos to see....

by Mirage 28.10.13 11:46

mouse wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
mouse 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.

If this was actually said by the Met - then surely the parents actions, the suppression of this report, should now be called into question by SY. And AR, if he wants the public to have confidence in in the investigation , surely, at the very least, he could release a statement regarding when they received this report. I mean, at the moment, as other posters have said - wrong info is still on the Mccann's website, and anyone watching CW from an uninformed opinion, could still feel it right to donate to this 'poor' family, having received so much support from AR. It all needs much more clarification. And that statement, again if true, almost sounds like jobsworth speak - wasn't our job, under some one else's watch at the time. Didn't it matter to them? ....Well it sure does now...
More like it's "not an issue I wish to discuss in public, but it's a bloody big issue in Belgravia"
Yep...Move along now, plenty more paedos to see....

:

Yeah. Mostly dead uns!

by sami 28.10.13 11:48

Angelique wrote:"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."

Dereliction of Duty.

It is a moral issue though, no matter how you dress it up.

For now, that is as important as anything else. People who previously could not believe the parents were involved are stunned by this. They too are now questioning their actions. This will ensure more and more people need answers, and believable ones at that.

No more Redwood whooshing away bundleman. The more I look at that photograph he produced of the side view of a man, the more annoyed I get. Was that the best he could do or is it a reflection of his opinion on the intelligence of those who question this ridiculous story ? What an insult.

The McCanns can give every excuse in the book, but they failed their little girl on that holiday and they have failed her every single day since by not making public that information.

by Bishop Brennan 28.10.13 11:54

suzyjohnson wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:... 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?
The McCanns, and possibly members of the Tapas group, will be worrying a great deal that the Sunday Times has the Exton report in their possession.

What's next?

They should worry - the Sunday Times DO have the report. They stated as much in the written article yesterday.

"The report, seen by The Sunday Times, called for the E-Fits to be released immediately and said "anomalies" in statements by the McCanns and their friends must be resolved."

by Miraflores 28.10.13 11:59

597 responses on Mumsnet now, and only a few posts deleted. Posters are reporting how their eyes have been opened.

Latest topics