[Kizzy]

It's ok i'm on a mobile thing will have a look when i'm on a PC though

[Vicky.]

I wonder how (other) people who donated to the fund feel that their money was used to hush up vital leads rather than follow all leads as promised..

[chuff me dizzy]

EXACTLY what I said had happened which some laughed at ,eat your words folks ....... http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1332785.ece

[Kizzy]

The full article is in the comments in the link posted by fingers chuff

[user104658]

The press have been all over this like flies around ****e for the last month or so, despite there being nothing genuinely new... And a lot of the press attention has gone from being "pro McCann", the generally indifferent, to McCann-skeptical.

My opinion? the mass press has started to realise that it was being hoodwinked by a "simple" story all those years ago, that there's clearly more to it than meets the eye, and they're now slowly softening up the public for more "revelations" to keep outrage to a minimum.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

EXACTLY what I said had happened which some laughed at ,eat your words folks ....... http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1332785.ece

Can you stop making such inflammatory posts in here please, members are having a discussion and are learning new things about this case it's not some kind of competition to get one up one people because you think you know more than others.

[Vicky.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ed-report.html

Telegraph running with this now too. Interesting parts..

But the report was sidelined for five years by Gerry and Kate McCann because it was critical of people involved and would have caused a distraction if made public, The Sunday Times reported.

The team of hand-picked former MI5 agents was hired by the McCanns in the spring of 2008, 10 months after their daughter disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.

A report they produced was “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends and the authors were threatened with legal action if it were ever published, the paper reported.

SY had to actually contact the author too..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Josy

Can you stop making such inflammatory posts in here please, members are having a discussion and are learning new things about this case it's not some kind of competition to get one up one people because you think you know more than others.

I would say I told you so too!

There were some rather rude objections to chuffs views earlier in the thread.
So she's been vindicated as far as I can see.

[MTVN]

Been vindicated in what, the article might cause a bit of suspicion but it still doesn't prove anything and is not unexplainable

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Been vindicated in what, the article might cause a bit of suspicion but it still doesn't prove anything and is not unexplainable

Can you think of an explanation of why they would willingly conceal valuable info like that if they were serious about finding their daughter? Genuinely curious.

They have had E-fits of the prime suspect for the past 5 years. They have shoved E-fits of Jane Tanners sighting down our throats at every opportunity..ITS STILL ON THEIR SITE (10 days later) DESPITE SY SAYING HE IS INNOCENT. http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaig...ed_people.html

They said they were following all leads, yet buried this.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Can you think of an explanation of why they would willingly conceal valuable info like that if they were serious about finding their daughter? Genuinely curious.

They have had E-fits of the prime suspect for the past 5 years. They have shoved E-fits of Jane Tanners sighting down our throats at every opportunity..ITS STILL ON THEIR SITE (10 days later) DESPITE SY SAYING HE IS INNOCENT.

They said they were following all leads, yet buried this.

The Sunday Times article offers some explanations:

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.

[Vicky.]

LOL at too expensive. Thats a pathetic excuse

The rest seems to be..it made the parents look guilty :S

[Vicky.]

Even without the rest of the report..she somehow found the cash to publish efits of various people in her book. Funny how it suddenly ran out for the smith sighting eh?

Also it costs nothing to add a photo to your webpage.

Or they could have passed the photos on to the police. But no, they sat on them until the police had to REQUEST them. NOT the actions of parents who want to find their daughter. By any stretch of the imagination.

[Kazanne]

I am glad Chuff posted those links as it has opened my eyes to the case,I was never overly interested in this case until she posted them,and now I have read some stuff I am confused as to why they were so bloody 'awkward' in helping all they could.

[MTVN]

So publishing the findings of a private investigation implying possible guilt at a time when they are being very highly scrutinised and suspected would harm what they considered to be the real search for the truth (this is obviously presuming their innocence)

And the firm does sound a bit dodgy, it's a private investigation so none of its findings are official or necessarily reliable and there is not as much accountability either, if what they say is true the other private investigators didn't trust the firm and its findings either, and presumably Scotland Yard didn't either if again it is true that all information was passed on to them

Yes it does seem suspicious but it's not as simple as just a blatant attempt to hide the truth and knowingly hinder the search. Easy to say with hindsight that they should have publicised the e fits but it seems that not many people considered the Smith sighting as important at the time, he himself has accused the Portuguese police of not taking it seriously

[Vicky.]

They didnt have to publish the findings, handing them over to the police would have sufficed.

Or at least mentioning it when asking for our police to reassess the case..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Been vindicated in what, the article might cause a bit of suspicion but it still doesn't prove anything and is not unexplainable

Vindicated in that there is questions that haven't been answered. That there were things covered up, withheld, and undisclosed that could have impacted on the case at the time.
They do not reopen cases to cause suspicion, it has not been explained for several years so i'm hoping it can be explained now.

[Vicky.]

Surely the libel case must be thrown out now? (not that they would win anyway)

Afterall, their 'problem' with the book is that it hindered the search for Madeleine apparently. However, they themselves have hindered the search more than anyone else, by allowing the police to focus on the wrong person all of these years, and purposely withheld Efits of what has now turned out to be the prime suspect.

I await them suing themselves for hindering the investigation

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Can you think of an explanation of why they would willingly conceal valuable info like that if they were serious about finding their daughter? Genuinely curious.

They have had E-fits of the prime suspect for the past 5 years. They have shoved E-fits of Jane Tanners sighting down our throats at every opportunity..ITS STILL ON THEIR SITE (10 days later) DESPITE SY SAYING HE IS INNOCENT. http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaig...ed_people.html

They said they were following all leads, yet buried this.

McCanns made Maddie a ward of court DAYS after her demise (not expecting her home?) By doing this her medical records can never be shown and McCanns get to see all paperwork from the case ,why would anyone go to these lenghts? whats in her medical records they have got to keep hidden ?Under ward of court law Maddie medical records will not be available to see until 2052 ,a bit drastic in an "abduction "case dont you think ?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

McCanns made Maddie a ward of court DAYS after her demise (not expecting her home?) By doing this her medical records can never be shown and McCanns get to see all paperwork from the case ,why would anyone go to these lenghts? whats in her medical records they have got to keep hidden ?Under ward of court law Maddie medical records will not be available to see until 2052 ,a bit drastic in an "abduction "case dont you think ?

Really good point Chuff,I for one thankyou for bringing so much of this to light,I never knew half of what happened in this case,so many unanswered questions.

[Livia]

If only the Portuguese and British police were privvy to the information that some forum members seem to have access to, the case would be cut and dried. If only the police services in both countries were as smart and savvy as some of our amateur detectives and conspiricy theorists. Unless... these theories and this information is awash with conjecture and inaccuracy, of course.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Really good point Chuff,I for one thankyou for bringing so much of this to light,I never knew half of what happened in this case,so many unanswered questions.

Lots more to come Kaz ,Today they have dug up another dead Patsy ,everytime the heat gets hot they drag out another

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Lots more to come Kaz ,Today they have dug up another dead Patsy ,everytime the heat gets hot they drag out another

It's fascinating Chuff,one day hopefully ,all will be clear.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So publishing the findings of a private investigation implying possible guilt at a time when they are being very highly scrutinised and suspected would harm what they considered to be the real search for the truth (this is obviously presuming their innocence)

And the firm does sound a bit dodgy, it's a private investigation so none of its findings are official or necessarily reliable and there is not as much accountability either, if what they say is true the other private investigators didn't trust the firm and its findings either, and presumably Scotland Yard didn't either if again it is true that all information was passed on to them

Yes it does seem suspicious but it's not as simple as just a blatant attempt to hide the truth and knowingly hinder the search. Easy to say with hindsight that they should have publicised the e fits but it seems that not many people considered the Smith sighting as important at the time, he himself has accused the Portuguese police of not taking it seriously

McCanns hired them ,even though they had never worked on a missing child case before and were charged with money laundering ,the firm still owes the"fund" £300,000 ,the McCanns have never sued to get it back ,you have to question why they thought pensioners money should be wasted and not even tried to retrieve it back even when the boss of the firm Kevin Halligen was arrested to be deported on money laundering offences , hush money by any chance

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It's fascinating Chuff,one day hopefully ,all will be clear.

For the first time Im hopeful it is all going to come out ,and when they win libel case next month(as they will) it will all become so much clearer, IF the Uk press grow a pair in time to print the result of the case, something theyve not done in the other 4 cases they have lost against the same man