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

by Miraflores 31.10.13 18:45

TM trolls imo have managed to get the Mumsnet thread derailed so it has now been pulled, so the damage limitation operation is well under way.

Not quite true: 2 threads of 1001 posts each have been allowed to stand. They will go phtt soon anyway because they are in the chat section. Two more threads have been pulled but they weren't really discussing the ST article but just the usual rehashes. But still, quite a few people have had their eyes opened. If they read 'madeleine' and then 'the truth of the lie' and come down on the side of K & G then that's up to them. It's not being allowed to hear both sides that gets me and they now have heard of 'the truth of the lie'.

I couldn't help noticing thought that some posters declared that it was ghoulish, (or words to that effect) for referring to the McCann's sex life, or KM's comments on what peadophiles might do to her daughter and apparently being totally oblivious to the fact that this came from the book.

It was also useful to see that someone from Mumnset HQ offered the opinion that if you questioned whether an abduction took place you were implicitly criticising the McCanns. As was pointed out to them Judge Tugendhadt didn't allow a statement about abduction to stand from Carter Ruck, but obviously the chattering classes running Mumsnet know more than he does. I wish I had kept a copy of that particular post before the thread went phtt.

I hope the ST does run another article on Sunday.

by Guest 31.10.13 19:16

Sorry, can't read all the posts so far, if I'm a bit behind bear with me. Where can this report go apart from the offices of a libel lawyer, either a suit against the times or oakley international? I hope it doesn't fade away like so many other potential breakthroughs in this case. I'm surprised the times published the article, shouldn't this be confidential information for the police alone?

by jim nasium 31.10.13 20:38

Gollum wrote:Sorry, can't read all the posts so far, if I'm a bit behind bear with me. Where can this report go apart from the offices of a libel lawyer, either a suit against the times or oakley international? I hope it doesn't fade away like so many other potential breakthroughs in this case. I'm surprised the times published the article, shouldn't this be confidential information for the police alone?

I doubt very much that this report will go to the offices of a libel lawyer. This article surely must be regarded as 'In The Public Interest', when you consider the cost to the public purse, some £7 million to date plus the demand on police time and resources.

by ultimaThule 31.10.13 23:12

Gollum wrote:Sorry, can't read all the posts so far, if I'm a bit behind bear with me. Where can this report go apart from the offices of a libel lawyer, either a suit against the times or oakley international? I hope it doesn't fade away like so many other potential breakthroughs in this case. I'm surprised the times published the article, shouldn't this be confidential information for the police alone?

Where do you think the information which formed the basis of article came from?

As The Times would not have published the story unless they have the means to substaniate it in a court of law, it is highly unlikely they will be on the receiving end of a writ from any party to this matter.

by currio 01.11.13 9:40

This same article (more or less, same content) appeared in the printed version of two of the Irish red tops on Monday....headlines on front page and full article further in ...I think it was The Mirror and The Sun...not sure just picked them up in a café...drawn by the headlines..

Is it drip, drip, drip...to prepare public opinion before the Big Bang?

by StraightThinking 01.11.13 10:04

currio wrote:This same article (more or less, same content) appeared in the printed version of two of the Irish red tops on Monday

Is there any chance you could find out for sure which papers they were, currio? Would be interested to compare the Irish editions with the London ones.
Many thanks

by jozi 01.11.13 10:16

joyce1938 wrote:Hi jozi, the way it reads to me is that the FORUM REPRESENTS THE MACS .THEY COULD NOT BE RELEASE I DONT BELIEVE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION . BECAUSE THEY payed the company that had the info and the company had been threatened lawyers if they did reveale it ,so without permission from THE FUND so called could have been a problem . not sure if this is a good answer ,but that's how I have read it . joyce1938

OK thanks joyce, what I was trying to say is that the Mcs could not refuse SY to look at the info. They knew (Mcs) what was in the file but I don't think they knew it was going to be on CW as the main sighting and that JTs sighting thrown out. IMO.

by currio 01.11.13 21:59

StraightThinking wrote:
currio wrote:This same article (more or less, same content) appeared in the printed version of two of the Irish red tops on Monday
Is there any chance you could find out for sure which papers they were, currio? Would be interested to compare the Irish editions with the London ones.
Many thanks

Sorry, can't do ...was only passing through. ...Also the Irish Sunday Times ran the same story on Page 7...word for word (No mention on front page as with the UK version)

by Silver Shuffle 02.11.13 11:34

hoping that the ST's lets out a bit more tomorrow

by Guest 02.11.13 12:59

I cannot wait for Sunday Times ...

by Carver 02.11.13 19:24

Sorry but can I ask why everybody on here got so excited about this? WOW? MUST READ? Did it actually surprise any of you that the McCanns were aware of the Smith sighting years ago? There was no lying by the couple on Crimewatch either, the "new developments" they referenced were obviously the discovery of Tannerman's identity, thus shifting the focus onto the (less likely) abductor sighting away over the other side of town. If you were the McCanns and were presented with both of sightings, which one would you make priority? Perhaps the one that took place DIRECTLY outside the appartment where the child was left alone?

by currio 02.11.13 19:39

I suspect there is big news about to break:spin:

by Hongkong Phooey 02.11.13 19:51

Carver wrote:Sorry but can I ask why everybody on here got so excited about this? WOW? MUST READ? Did it actually surprise any of you that the McCanns were aware of the Smith sighting years ago? There was no lying by the couple on Crimewatch either, the "new developments" they referenced were obviously the discovery of Tannerman's identity, thus shifting the focus onto the (less likely) abductor sighting away over the other side of town. If you were the McCanns and were presented with both of sightings, which one would you make priority? Perhaps the one that took place DIRECTLY outside the appartment where the child was left alone?

I don't think too much was actually made of the e-fits or bundleman, there was more interest in the fact that their own PI's came up with much the same theories and issues as Dr Amaral. All this information was supressed.

by Cristobell 02.11.13 20:00

Carver wrote:Sorry but can I ask why everybody on here got so excited about this? WOW? MUST READ? Did it actually surprise any of you that the McCanns were aware of the Smith sighting years ago? There was no lying by the couple on Crimewatch either, the "new developments" they referenced were obviously the discovery of Tannerman's identity, thus shifting the focus onto the (less likely) abductor sighting away over the other side of town. If you were the McCanns and were presented with both of sightings, which one would you make priority? Perhaps the one that took place DIRECTLY outside the appartment where the child was left alone?

Of course we knew about the Smith sighting and the fact that the McCanns never publicised it, it has been discussed here and on other sites for many years. What we didn't know was that the McCanns had taken action to prevent the report of the ex MI5 investigators becoming public knowledge, nor did we know that e-fits had been prepared at the time. Details, such as the report was critical of the parents was also new to us and I am sure, new to millions of others.

As for prioritising, I am astonished at your statement. In the case of a missing child, ever lead should be prioritised, why risk losing any fresh lead. by prioritising one over the other? Even following the logic of your argument, we are now 6+ years on, and still Tannerman remained the focus of the McCann campaign even though it had patently led nowhere. At what point do you move on?

Even the most sympathetic of McCann supporters must by now be asking questions. How many times have the publicity hungry McCanns begged the public for information, anything, no matter how small, that just might be the missing piece of the puzzle that would bring their little girl home. All the while knowing full well that THEY, the parents, had vital evidence, including e-fits of the most accurate sighting from a group of people who were close enough to speak to the 'abductor', and they were withholding it because it was critical of them! Hardly the actions of parents willing to anything to get their daughter back.

There are plenty of reasons this news falls into the WOW category, not least because it appeared in the Sunday Times, a respected British newspaper, and it published a story critical of the McCanns. This is a major breakthrough in the reporting of this case in the UK, the report from the original private investigators was not the only thing the McCanns have been suppressing these last few years.

by canada12 02.11.13 20:09

Cristobell wrote:Of course we knew about the Smith sighting and the fact that the McCanns never publicised it, it has been discussed here and on other sites for many years. What we didn't know was that the McCanns had taken action to prevent the report of the ex MI5 investigators becoming public knowledge, nor did we know that e-fits had been prepared at the time. Details, such as the report was critical of the parents was also new to us and I am sure, new to millions of others.

As for prioritising, I am astonished at your statement. In the case of a missing child, ever lead should be prioritised, why risk losing any fresh lead. by prioritising one over the other? Even following the logic of your argument, we are now 6+ years on, and still Tannerman remained the focus of the McCann campaign even though it had patently led nowhere. At what point do you move on?

Even the most sympathetic of McCann supporters must by now be asking questions. How many times have the publicity hungry McCanns begged the public for information, anything, no matter how small, that just might be the missing piece of the puzzle that would bring their little girl home. All the while knowing full well that THEY, the parents, had vital evidence, including e-fits of the most accurate sighting from a group of people who were close enough to speak to the 'abductor', and they were withholding it because it was critical of them! Hardly the actions of parents willing to anything to get their daughter back.

There are plenty of reasons this news falls into the WOW category, not least because it appeared in the Sunday Times, a respected British newspaper, and it published a story critical of the McCanns. This is a major breakthrough in the reporting of this case in the UK, the report from the original private investigators was not the only thing the McCanns have been suppressing these last few years.

by Tangledweb 02.11.13 20:10

Carver wrote:. If you were the McCanns and were presented with both of sightings, which one would you make priority? Perhaps the one that took place DIRECTLY outside the appartment where the child was left alone?

Sorry trying really hard to imagine being a McCann, and leaving three kids repeatedly in that apartment. Not working.
However, if we go along with the 'sightings' do you really think, for one moment, that an abductor, who had presumably watched the apartment, knew the area, and planned to take Madeleine, would take her ON FOOT? Really? What with night time creches, and the start of a holiday season, a planned abduction and NO CAR? How ludicrous, as they say.

by currio 02.11.13 20:34

Where did the article on Page 1 from the Sunday Times go?

by Guest 02.11.13 20:39

currio wrote:Where did the article on Page 1 from the Sunday Times go?

curriio, threads automatically lock at 100 pages, so it is on the other locked thread. I shall put the article on the first post of this new thread

by jd 02.11.13 20:42

The mccanns have been using their elite friends and the press to promote 'if you have the missing piece of the puzzle'...when all the time they had it themselves!...and used their money to silence people instead, rather than to promote it! big grin

by Guest 02.11.13 20:43

Full article from ST now on page 1 of this new thread.

by Guest 02.11.13 20:45

Cristobell wrote:
Carver wrote:Sorry but can I ask why everybody on here got so excited about this? WOW? MUST READ? Did it actually surprise any of you that the McCanns were aware of the Smith sighting years ago? There was no lying by the couple on Crimewatch either, the "new developments" they referenced were obviously the discovery of Tannerman's identity, thus shifting the focus onto the (less likely) abductor sighting away over the other side of town. If you were the McCanns and were presented with both of sightings, which one would you make priority? Perhaps the one that took place DIRECTLY outside the appartment where the child was left alone?
Of course we knew about the Smith sighting and the fact that the McCanns never publicised it, it has been discussed here and on other sites for many years. What we didn't know was that the McCanns had taken action to prevent the report of the ex MI5 investigators becoming public knowledge, nor did we know that e-fits had been prepared at the time. Details, such as the report was critical of the parents was also new to us and I am sure, new to millions of others.

As for prioritising, I am astonished at your statement. In the case of a missing child, ever lead should be prioritised, why risk losing any fresh lead. by prioritising one over the other? Even following the logic of your argument, we are now 6+ years on, and still Tannerman remained the focus of the McCann campaign even though it had patently led nowhere. At what point do you move on?

Even the most sympathetic of McCann supporters must by now be asking questions. How many times have the publicity hungry McCanns begged the public for information, anything, no matter how small, that just might be the missing piece of the puzzle that would bring their little girl home. All the while knowing full well that THEY, the parents, had vital evidence, including e-fits of the most accurate sighting from a group of people who were close enough to speak to the 'abductor', and they were withholding it because it was critical of them! Hardly the actions of parents willing to anything to get their daughter back.

There are plenty of reasons this news falls into the WOW category, not least because it appeared in the Sunday Times, a respected British newspaper, and it published a story critical of the McCanns. This is a major breakthrough in the reporting of this case in the UK, the report from the original private investigators was not the only thing the McCanns have been suppressing these last few years.

by currio 02.11.13 21:00

candyfloss wrote:
currio wrote:Where did the article on Page 1 from the Sunday Times go?
curriio, threads automatically lock at 100 pages, so it is on the other locked thread. I shall put the article on the first post of this new thread

Thanks!...that might help answer the question from Carver!

by Jambo 02.11.13 21:05

Carver wrote:Sorry but can I ask why everybody on here got so excited about this? WOW? MUST READ? Did it actually surprise any of you that the McCanns were aware of the Smith sighting years ago?

I think much of the surprise was the fact that the Sunday Times actually printed it.

by Carver 02.11.13 21:33

Tangledweb wrote:Sorry trying really hard to imagine being a McCann, and leaving three kids repeatedly in that apartment. Not working.
However, if we go along with the 'sightings' do you really think, for one moment, that an abductor, who had presumably watched the apartment, knew the area, and planned to take Madeleine, would take her ON FOOT? Really? What with night time creches, and the start of a holiday season, a planned abduction and NO CAR? How ludicrous, as they say.

Doesn't this explain precisely why the McCann's may have dismissed Smithman before?

by Carver 02.11.13 21:36

jd wrote:The mccanns have been using their elite friends and the press to promote 'if you have the missing piece of the puzzle'...when all the time they had it themselves!...and used their money to silence people instead, rather than to promote it!

"all the time they had it themselves"

Perhaps they didn't think Smithman was a vital piece of the puzzle at all until recently when Tannerman was found? You've all said yourself how ludicrous it would be for an abductor to roam through the town on foot with the child.

Maybe now that Tannerman is out of the picture it's the only 'lead' they're left with.

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