Sunday Times sued by McCanns

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police
William Turvill
19 September 2014
 


The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.

According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled.

Kate and Gerry McCann took issue with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their daughter".

In addition to the article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until 8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left on the article - in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette.

The story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “The 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 title reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged its contents”.

The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.

In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".

They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".

On 1 November, the couple sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter – urgent”.

They said that the email, outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”, was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later.

The McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely rejected their complaint.

They said Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.

On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below.

The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

In articles dated October 27 ("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."

The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.

In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".

They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.


Interesting so they are saying they didn't withhold the efits then?  I never saw them anywhere.

*According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled*

Please don't tell me the Times has rolled over and coughed up into the McCann's pockets..

It's all me me me. Again!
IMO

According to this article the case hasn't been settled yet:
International Business News
By Dominic Gover
September 19, 2014 16:16 BST

Kate and Gerry McCann Suing Sunday Times over 'Madeleine Clue' Defamation
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are suing the Sunday Times newspaper for libel over claims printed in 2013.

"Kate and Gerry McCann began legal proceedings against the Rupert Murdoch-owned title after it claimed they had kept secret from police "a crucial piece of evidence" in the investigation.

That alleged evidence was an e-fit of a potential suspect which was created by a former British spy for the McCanns' own probe in to their daughter's disappearance.

Also cited by the McCanns in their complaint were comments posted by readers below the online version of the article, which was pulled down by News UK just under two weeks after publication.

But it caused the couple "severe embarrassment and distress," they claimed in court documents.

Alleging the Sunday Times' article damaged their reputation, the McCann's said that the story implied they had allowed "the trail to go cold," reported Press Gazette.

The Sunday Times later apologised for the article, which had carried the headline "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago."

The McCanns are seeking unspecified damages."

Would this be the same Murdoch group that serialised the book for them, that published the letter on the front page of the Sun and got the PM to open Operation Grange after Ms Brookes 'persuaded' him.  All that help from Murdoch and now they are suing him, dearie me that is not nice.

Strange this hasn't been picked up by the MSM yet

Would be a shame if they *have* rolled over.

I seem to recall discussion (possibly on JH forum) which suggested that the weasel words about passing the photos to UK police and Portuguese police might only have meant they passed them to their liaison officer with Leics police (who would be the contact with Portugal) - and of course we don't know if, even then, they passed them on saying "these are important" or "these are not important, just file them"...

The fact that they did NOT hold one of their customary high profile press conferences, or put them on their website or in Kate's book - or indeed, make a noise at them not being made public by whoever they may have passed them to - suggests that they did not want them publicised.

That something Redwood finds extremely important did not merit a press conference, the likes of which they have done for idiotic artists impressions and daft suspects, I find highly suspicious.

I was impressed at the Times' complete 'non apology' which merely clarified a couple of matters on timescale - whatever may have been settled, at least that is out there and still highlighted the quite special treatment the McCanns afforded this special piece of their own investigators' research.

I too was impressed by the non-apology and am thus inclined to think the word"settled" need not necessarily mean the McCanns have received any sort of settlement at all...

From a legal viewpoint it would make sense for the Times to settle. Their printed 'apology' gives Carter Ruck the only ammunition they need to win the case.

The cost to the Times to challenge the suit would be enormous and not financially viable.

I look forward to the day when answers will have to be given in a courtroom setting, but we'll have to wait a while yet.

@ Dee Coy: I agree.

“The buck stops with the guy who signs the checks.”
Rupert Murdoch

ChillyHeat wrote:“The buck stops with the guy who signs the checks.”
Rupert Murdoch

Correct ChillyHeat

Rupert Murdoch, is a staunch supporter of the McCanns and he carried on supporting them, after they vilified his and other newspaper groups, in the Leveson Inquiry. All I can think of is he is privy to the secret that the McCanns hold, that stops them from being brought to justice.

KathyBelle wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:“The buck stops with the guy who signs the checks.”
Rupert Murdoch

Correct ChillyHeat  

Rupert Murdoch, is a staunch supporter of the McCanns and he carried on supporting them, after they vilified his and other newspaper groups, in the Leveson Inquiry. All I can think of is he is privy to the secret that the McCanns hold, that stops them from being brought to justice.

And IMO its not about Freemasonry. For me its religion...The Jewish faith

What would that have to do with those "devout Catholics" (depending on whether it suits them) the McCanns?

Freedom wrote:What would that have to do with those "devout Catholics" (depending on whether it suits them) the McCanns?

Totally agree
In Kate Healy McCann's book she claims: "My Father's line are a mix of Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews. IMO not necessary for anyone to know...
Crypto-Jews who are outwardly Christian maybe ?

I think she is talking of way back in her father's family.

She herself was certainly raised as a Catholic.

Freedom wrote:I think she is talking of way back in her father's family.

She herself was certainly raised as a Catholic.

Like one step forward, but two steps back....

IMO Murdoch is a hard nosed businessman, he wants to make money and selling the news is what makes him money. It suited his money making agenda to back the McCanns initially, but that turned once Grange changed from a review to an investigation. His money making senses detecting that perhaps there was more money to be made by exposing the McCanns, so at the same time as Redwood's revelation moment, the Times, publishes an article giving the background to those e-fits and the sighting that produced them, categorically stating that it was the McCanns themselves that held them back from the investigation. Okay so the "apology" ironed out a few details in terms of when the police got the information, but still makes it clear that the McCanns knew about the sighting well before they gave the information to the police.

the McCanns are not Murdoch favourites now and mostly their garbage is spun in the Mirror and the Mail..not Murdoch owned papers. As for it being anything to do with freemasnonry, or religion, I highly doubt that.

ChillyHeat wrote:

Freedom wrote:What would that have to do with those "devout Catholics" (depending on whether it suits them) the McCanns?

Totally agree
In Kate Healy McCann's  book she claims: "My Father's line are a mix of Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews. IMO not necessary for anyone to know...
Crypto-Jews who are outwardly Christian maybe ?

You are a Jew if your mum is a Jew. Safest thing.
Fathers and their bloodlines don't count.

parapono wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

Freedom wrote:What would that have to do with those "devout Catholics" (depending on whether it suits them) the McCanns?

Totally agree
In Kate Healy McCann's  book she claims: "My Father's line are a mix of Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews. IMO not necessary for anyone to know...
Crypto-Jews who are outwardly Christian maybe ?

You are a Jew if your mum is a Jew. Safest thing.
Fathers and their bloodlines don't count.

@ ChillyHeat. Agreed but I'd go further. If your child is missing, your religion and bloodlines are not only unnecessary for anyone to know but also completely irrelevent.

Julia Hobsbawm...Editorial Intelligence
http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/63300/interview-julia-hobsbawm

Brian Kennedy...Jehovah's Witnesses are UNIQUE among self-described Christians in that they actually *DO* believe in the same monotheistic, non-trinitarian Almighty Father as Jews did and typically still do.

Sir Phillip Green...Julia Hobsbawm is also a trustee of the Jewish Community Centre for London - supported by none other than Sir Philip Green - loaner of jet and reward provider to the McCanns

Julia Hobsbawm was a partner in Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications with Sarah Macaulay, now known as Sarah Brown, the wife of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown


'Editorial Intelligence' specialises in analysing and exploiting comment and opinion in both print and online media. In simple terms, 'Editorial Intelligence' helps realise the potential of controlling the shape and fabric of public opinion and (d)ebate by controlling what is published in comment areas, forum areas, letters pages and message boards.

Murdoch's Deeply Hidden Jewish Roots -- A Biography
By Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press

Christopher Bollyn is an investigative journalist who has written extensively on the events of September 11, 2001 in the Washington-based American Free Press. He has researched different aspects of the 9/11 attacks and uncovered facts and evidence that challenge the official version of events. tried to smear Bollyn as an “anti-Semite” in order to discredit him and diminish the significance of his work. At the helm of both organizations, the ADL and Fox News, is an Australian-born Zionist named Keith Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch's Jewish Roots

Murdoch “became an American citizen for business reasons,” according to Richard H. Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Keith Rupert was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. “Rupert’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew,” Curtiss wrote, “although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies.”

Sir Clement Freud...He was born Clemens Raphael Freud in Berlin,the son of Jewish parents. Sir Clement Freud, grandson of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, had a holiday home in Praia da Luz, in Portugal.

In July 2007, Clement Freud helped the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann by cooking them dinners in Praia da Luz and offering them drinks.
Initially when he wrote to them offering assistance they thought it was a hoax. Sir Clement Freud's son Matthew Freud is married to Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert Murdoch.



Still looking....But it is possible that religion could be a factor. Maybe Jeremy Wilkins religion got a ball rolling...

BTW....David Cameron has Ashkenazi roots
While speaking to a 500-strong group of Jewish lobbyists in London in 2007, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared, “I am a Zionist“. He went on to add, “I’m not just a good friend of Israel but I am, as you put it, good for Jews.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10692757/David-Cameron-speaks-of-Jewish-ancestors-including-great-great-grandfather-and-Yiddish-novelist.html

Gordon Brown....Brown’s Jewish credentials go beyond the mere “some of my best friends and advisers...” category. His sympathy for Israel is deep-rooted and authentic. His father, the Rev John Brown, was a Church of Scotland minister in the era when such men were automatic believers in the Christian strain of Zionism. Brown has often recalled his father’s slide-shows of the holy land presented to the congregants of Kirkcaldy, each image offered as evidence of the Jewish return to Zion foretold in the Bible.

favourite Brown line, a crowd-pleaser to Jewish and Scottish audiences alike, is to insist that “I knew the names of the Kings of Israel before I knew the Kings of England”

I certainly agree that people with, shall we say, a shared interest look out for each other but I personally do not think that religion of any denomination or kind is relevant to this story.

ChillyHeat wrote:

KathyBelle wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:“The buck stops with the guy who signs the checks.”
Rupert Murdoch

Correct ChillyHeat  

Rupert Murdoch, is a staunch supporter of the McCanns and he carried on supporting them, after they vilified his and other newspaper groups, in the Leveson Inquiry. All I can think of is he is privy to the secret that the McCanns hold, that stops them from being brought to justice.

And IMO its not about Freemasonry. For me its religion...The Jewish faith

Oh? Murdoch and the McCanns are suddenly Jewish? What is your proof of that?

Freedom wrote:I certainly agree that people with, shall we say, a shared interest look out for each other but I personally do not think that religion of any denomination or kind is relevant to this story.

I am actually finding this thread quite disturbing. It's thinly veiled antisemitism IMHO.