Sunday Times apology

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


Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

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


Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

That doesn't sync with their own quotes direct from the PI's saying they were gagged by Carter Ruck etc. Something stinks once again, it's pretty unbelievable that so many have been frightened off, is this really just a case involving ordinary doctors, it does make you wonder.

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


Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

Ooer, they are apologising. Has anyone seen full article is it a 'big splash'? I wonder if K&G got another payout?

Hmm. Looks as though their lawyers have been earning their money again.  My reading of the original article was more that the efits had been held back from the public for 5 years (rather than from the police).  And the main thrust of the article was that the report itself was not made public (due to its mention of how unreliable Tanner's sighting was / the inconsistencies in the T9 statements / Maddie's night-time history of getting up).  Certainly the report was not given to the police perhaps until last year.  

So the apology is carefully worded as best the lawyers could come up with.  Perhaps they suppressed the report with legal threats, but offered up the efits?

Bishop Brennan wrote:Hmm. Looks as though their lawyers have been earning their money again.  My reading of the original article was more that the efits had been held back from the public for 5 years (rather than from the police).  And the main thrust of the article was that the report itself was not made public (due to its mention of how unreliable Tanner's sighting was / the inconsistencies in the T9 statements / Maddie's night-time history of getting up).  Certainly the report was not given to the police perhaps until very recently.  

So the apology is carefully worded as best the lawyers could come up with.  Perhaps they suppressed the report with legal threats, but offered up the efits?  

My thoughts exactly. I'd be more interested in this apology if the McCanns had forced a turnaround on the suggestion that the report was "hypercritical". This particular element was the most interesting part of the original article, because it makes one wonder what the detectives observed/uncovered in order for their report to be considered "hypercritical" and it's public release "distracting".

You have to be a subscriber to see the actual article.

But   .......   "We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."   .....  sounds as though this is what they`ve been told to say in order to bat the ball into the PJ and LP`s court.

Woofer wrote:You have to be a subscriber to see the actual article.

But   .......   "We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009."   .....  sounds as though this is what they`ve been told to say in order to bat the ball into the PJ and LP`s court.

So, they withheld the e-fits from the police for one year, withheld them from the public for five years, and threatened Henri Exton with legal action if he exposed their existence - have I got that right?

No, I'm afraid you haven't got it quite right.

They are blaming the Police for sitting on it for 4 years.

It isn't them, they are faultless.

The search had nothing to do with them. They are not interested in the Search, just the Fund that comes with it.

Posted by nobodythereeither

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE FROM SUNDAY TIMES - November 2013

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
T
HE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

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

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:Hmm. Looks as though their lawyers have been earning their money again.  My reading of the original article was more that the efits had been held back from the public for 5 years (rather than from the police).  And the main thrust of the article was that the report itself was not made public (due to its mention of how unreliable Tanner's sighting was / the inconsistencies in the T9 statements / Maddie's night-time history of getting up).  Certainly the report was not given to the police perhaps until very recently.  

So the apology is carefully worded as best the lawyers could come up with.  Perhaps they suppressed the report with legal threats, but offered up the efits?  

My thoughts exactly. I'd be more interested in this apology if the McCanns had forced a turnaround on the suggestion that the report was "hypercritical". This particular element was the most interesting part of the original article, because it makes one wonder what the detectives observed/uncovered in order for their report to be considered "hypercritical" and it's public release "distracting".

But story's now had a second airing - which must make people wonder - just when news is slow and lots of people with time off.
Nice!  

Yes, very nice. Because some people, if paying attention can also count and calculate. Remember, It's a 2008 intelligence report:

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

ETA October 2009 there was no active investigation. 2011 there was ...

tigger wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:Hmm. Looks as though their lawyers have been earning their money again.  My reading of the original article was more that the efits had been held back from the public for 5 years (rather than from the police).  And the main thrust of the article was that the report itself was not made public (due to its mention of how unreliable Tanner's sighting was / the inconsistencies in the T9 statements / Maddie's night-time history of getting up).  Certainly the report was not given to the police perhaps until very recently.  

So the apology is carefully worded as best the lawyers could come up with.  Perhaps they suppressed the report with legal threats, but offered up the efits?  

My thoughts exactly. I'd be more interested in this apology if the McCanns had forced a turnaround on the suggestion that the report was "hypercritical". This particular element was the most interesting part of the original article, because it makes one wonder what the detectives observed/uncovered in order for their report to be considered "hypercritical" and it's public release "distracting".

But story's now had a second airing - which must make people wonder - just when news is slow and lots of people with time off.
Nice!  

And just in time for the conclusion of the libel trial

tigger wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:Hmm. Looks as though their lawyers have been earning their money again.  My reading of the original article was more that the efits had been held back from the public for 5 years (rather than from the police).  And the main thrust of the article was that the report itself was not made public (due to its mention of how unreliable Tanner's sighting was / the inconsistencies in the T9 statements / Maddie's night-time history of getting up).  Certainly the report was not given to the police perhaps until very recently.  

So the apology is carefully worded as best the lawyers could come up with.  Perhaps they suppressed the report with legal threats, but offered up the efits?  

My thoughts exactly. I'd be more interested in this apology if the McCanns had forced a turnaround on the suggestion that the report was "hypercritical". This particular element was the most interesting part of the original article, because it makes one wonder what the detectives observed/uncovered in order for their report to be considered "hypercritical" and it's public release "distracting".

But story's now had a second airing - which must make people wonder - just when news is slow and lots of people with time off.
Nice!  

Especially with the Mirrors copy and paste effort too. Just over a week til next bit of the Libel Trial, papers are jostling into place for the next instalment!!

Cross posted same thing with Tasperin there!!

And of course by the time they handed over the efits (october 2009), the case had already been shelved. So it's not like the police were expected to do anything with it.

The McCann's, on the other hand, could have published the efits at ANY time over the past 5 years on their website, or indeed included them in the recent "Madeleine" book. The fact that they chose to do neither is as significant as it always has been. Choices which are changed not one iota by the clarification (!) published today.

E-fits of a potential suspect were prepared by the McCanns' private investigators in 2008 but were not made available to Portuguese or UK police until October 2009? 

By my reckoning that's a delay of some 10 months, plus however many months remaining in 2008 after the e-fits were made, which requires explanation for the tardiness with which this matter was treated by TM and, more particularly, as the bill for this work was paid from donations made by a public who doubtless expected the 'search' would be conducted with a degree of urgency commeasurate with the need to restore a child to her parents. 

An apology from a mainstream newspaper with no mention of a sum having been donated to a worthy cause?  My oh my, how the once mighty have fallen.

These things make me lose hope at times
They seem to be able to get anyone to back down

So it wasn't a "New Lead" then !
Nor a revelation moment ?
More of a bit of paper in the files ?
Worth waiting for though, to see Tannerman finally trashed, (which Dr Amaral had done by 4th May 2007, incidentally)

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, very nice. Because some people, if paying attention can also count and calculate. Remember, It's a 2008 intelligence report:

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

ETA October 2009 there was no active investigation.  2011 there was ...

Nail on head Chatelaine  

Bishop Brennan wrote:And of course by the time they handed over the efits (october 2009), the case had already been shelved.  So it's not like the police were expected to do anything with it.

The McCann's, on the other hand, could have published the efits at ANY time over the past 5 years on their website, or indeed included them in the recent "Madeleine" book.  The fact that they chose to do neither is as significant as it always has been.  Choices which are changed not one iota by the clarification (!) published today.  

Exactly. The apology means nothing, it's just lip service because the Times want to keep them sweet for getting further stories IMO. It matters not a jot whether the McCanns gave the e-fits to the police or not, the point still remain that without showing them to the rest of the world, there was no opportunity for members of the public to come forward with an ID. Which begs the question, why?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:And of course by the time they handed over the efits (october 2009), the case had already been shelved.  So it's not like the police were expected to do anything with it.

The McCann's, on the other hand, could have published the efits at ANY time over the past 5 years on their website, or indeed included them in the recent "Madeleine" book.  The fact that they chose to do neither is as significant as it always has been.  Choices which are changed not one iota by the clarification (!) published today.  

Exactly. The apology means nothing, it's just lip service because the Times want to keep them sweet for getting further stories IMO. It matters not a jot whether the McCanns gave the e-fits to the police or not, the point still remain that without showing them to the rest of the world, there was no opportunity for members of the public to come forward with an ID. Which begs the question, why?

All those ludicrous press conferences and not one dedicated to the Smith efits.

Rufus T wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, very nice. Because some people, if paying attention can also count and calculate. Remember, It's a 2008 intelligence report:

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

ETA October 2009 there was no active investigation.  2011 there was ...

Nail on head Chatelaine  

More good observations Chatelaine and Cristobell.
Why wait to hand the e-fits to the police? Even if there was no active investigation, the McCanns could have gone to SY, Leicester Police or the PJ and BEGGED them to look at the material. The PJ always maintained the investigation would be re-opened should anything worthwhile come to light.

Even if no police were listening, think of the scoop if the McCanns had got to the british press and begged for their help - no newspaper would have refused.

As per usual it sounds rather "off".

PeterMac wrote:So it wasn't a "New Lead" then !
Nor a revelation moment ?
More of a bit of paper in the files ?
Worth waiting for though, to see Tannerman finally trashed, (which Dr Amaral had done by 4th May 2007, incidentally)

NOTHING new. Anyone who has followed this case new the Efits were old and had been passed to PJ way back when, and also that the Tannerman sighting was bogus too.

There is NOTHING new on this case, its all rubbish. Scotland Yard trawled through 2 years worth of files and came up with NOTHING.

ultimaThule wrote:E-fits of a potential suspect were prepared by the McCanns' private investigators in 2008 but were not made available to Portuguese or UK police until October 2009? 

By my reckoning that's a delay of some 10 months, plus however many months remaining in 2008 after the e-fits were made, which requires explanation for the tardiness with which this matter was treated by TM and, more particularly, as the bill for this work was paid from donations made by a public who doubtless expected the 'search' would be conducted with a degree of urgency commeasurate with the need to restore a child to her parents. 

An apology from a mainstream newspaper with no mention of a sum having been donated to a worthy cause?  My oh my, how the once mighty have fallen.

Yes, Ultima Thulea, unbelievable shenanigans and an awful lot of jostling going on.

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case
But it was the case - they still withheld the efits from the police for almost a year
We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009
They finally handed the efits over after announcing their £1M lawsuit against Amaral for 'hindering the search'

We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
And it seems they withheld the Oakley report for 3 years - eventually handing it over three months after the May 2011 launch of the £6M review - after threatening Henri Exton to keep schtum or face legal action

I can't believe that parents of a missing child - and all those around them - would be party to the endless game-playing that's gone on in this case if their child was really 'taken'/abducted by a stranger.

I was just writing a post when I saw this tweet which sort of sums it up succinctly.


N.M ‏@AdirenM
Apparently it was the NSY that was sitting on those e-fits.The question is why? If they believe a child is alive, why did they wait?#mccann

And it doesn't explain why they have now withdrawn the e-fits from the Find Madeleine web site and replaced them with a "Disney" picture of tree
Nor why Tannerman is STILL being promoted, despite Redwood's saying to the entire world that he had been ELIMINATED
There seems to be no one in charge of their strategy - if they still have one.
They are twisting and turning like "twisty-turney things'

tasprin wrote:I can't believe that parents of a missing child - and all those around them - would be party to the endless game-playing that's gone on in this case if their child was really 'taken'/abducted by a stranger.

I think we CAN believe it after observing this for years, but don't really WANT to IYKWIM.   

There most certainly HAS been some sort of a game played and it is not very nice.

The McCanns should have, if they had more sense, spent less time talking to vacuous Lorraine on the sofa, sticking their nose into Leveson, trotting round the world and doing fun runs and so forth, and done a great deal MORE to rectify inaccuracies, set the record straight properly i.e. provided evidential support rather than Kate's rather self destructing book.

They have created each and every negative feeling to them, and it is well documented on what grounds. Appearing in public with their biggest mistake period, because clearly, hundreds of thousands of people don't like what they see and hear. Repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum just m,aces it worse for them.

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund


The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

Not readable unless you subscribed.

Take note of the interesting heading title! Fund ?

I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.