VIDEO - Leveson Inquiry (Update Dec 21) David Pilditch - Diary - Colin Myler & Dan Sanderson

I'm sure there's something sinister going on behind the scenes which prohibits the newspapers from printing anything detrimental to the Macs. I think that anything pointing towards them not telling the whole and nothing but, the truth, will be quietly ignored and Clarrie will pop up with some damage limitation/rubbish to offset anything which has put a gleam of doubt about their sincerity, holiness, martyrdom.

IAMBAZZA wrote:from the Mail - my italics

Speaking after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/NoW-Editor-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-personal-diary.html#ixzz1gaFFu1bc

Well spotted. Hence the word "ambiguous" used in the enquiry. So, we have to deduce that Edmondson hinted that they had purchased the diary and that they were on the point to publish some of it.And Clarence didn't object ,thinking that the chosen passages would paint Kate in a good light and the PJ in a bad one. And he didn't say a "no" that would have probably stopped the publication.

dazedandconfused wrote:I'm sure there's something sinister going on behind the scenes which prohibits the newspapers from printing anything detrimental to the Macs. I think that anything pointing towards them not telling the whole and nothing but, the truth, will be quietly ignored and Clarrie will pop up with some damage limitation/rubbish to offset anything which has put a gleam of doubt about their sincerity, holiness, martyrdom.

In my opinion, the reason why the newspapers aren't printing any adverse comments about the McCanns, is because there is a feeling they will be prosecuted in the near future. If they are prosecuted and the press have printed any adverse comments about the McCanns, the McCanns will say they have been tried by the media and the case against them could collapse and the McCanns will be inline for a huge compensation payout.

The Telegraph 15/12

Leveson Inquiry


Leveson Inquiry: journalist who obtained Kate McCann's diary to appear

Daniel Sanderson, the former News of the World reporter who wrote stories based on Kate McCann's diaries, will give evidence to the inquiry today.


Photo: Reuters







By Donna Bowater

8:50AM GMT 15 Dec 2011





Mr Sanderson's name was the byline on the News of the World front page that revealed Mrs McCann's private diary.


She has already told the inquiry how publication of the diary, written after her daughter Madeleine went missing, without her consent left her feeling "totally violated".


In their evidence, Mrs McCann said she gave the diary to Portuguese police but it was later returned.


She said she believed a copy had been made before it was translated into Portuguese and then back to English and given to the press.


Mr Sanderson is expected to face questions over how he got hold of the diary.



Related Articles

NOTW legal chief:' I showed James Murdoch hacking email'
15 Dec 2011

Mystery over missing News International 'hacking' emails
14 Dec 2011

Tom Crone: 'James Murdoch was aware of 'for Neville' email'
14 Dec 2011

Colin Myler: 'Max Mosley ruling humiliated me'
14 Dec 2011


Former police detective turned private investigator Derek Webb, who was hired by News International, will also give evidence to the inquiry.

Mr Webb was the only private detective former News of the World editor Colin Myler admitted hiring yesterday.

The inquiry heard Mr Webb was arrested over work with a journalist in Thames Valley and was barred for working for the tabloid.

But when the case collapsed, he was rehired but was told he should register as a journalist with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

Asked about Mr Webb's work, Mr Myler said yesterday: "I never had any reason to be asked or questioned about the work he had done via an issue or a payment or a complaint or a problem."

Can someone find the thread which showed the NOTW report on the Diary........Iv"e just had a look for the past couple of weeks but can"t find it. TA

I just wanted to read it again and confirm the date and that Kate received a payment.

IAMBAZZA wrote:from the Mail - my italics

Speaking after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/NoW-Editor-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-personal-diary.html#ixzz1gaFFu1bc

Oops pinky so you did know about them having the diary and that they were going to print it!!

You're gonna take the blame for this one, the Mcs will throw you to the wolves.

margaret wrote:

IAMBAZZA wrote:from the Mail - my italics

Speaking after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/NoW-Editor-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-personal-diary.html#ixzz1gaFFu1bc

Oops pinky so you did know about them having the diary and that they were going to print it!!

You're gonna take the blame for this one, the Mcs will throw you to the wolves.

i think you are right margeret , kate wrote this diary and all the time her daughter was missing , most folks woouldnt be able to talk never mind write . it was a treasure so to speak to her , id have thought it might have been used as a prop like cuddle cat . so we are now to believe its contents got into the press and she had no knowllage . oh dear

IAMBAZZA wrote:from the Mail - my italics

Speaking after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/NoW-Editor-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-personal-diary.html#ixzz1gaFFu1bc

Looks like Clarence has been over-egging his pudding again.

It's a bit like:

Mother: Where are my jam tarts?
Little Boy: Well I never ate four jam tarts!

It seems strange to me that two men with years of professional experience who were used to interacting on a regular basis could misinterpret each other's words and thoughts in this rather important instance.

One might almost suspect a backroom deal.
If one was an old cynic, that is.
Perish the thought ......

kathybelle wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I'm sure there's something sinister going on behind the scenes which prohibits the newspapers from printing anything detrimental to the Macs. I think that anything pointing towards them not telling the whole and nothing but, the truth, will be quietly ignored and Clarrie will pop up with some damage limitation/rubbish to offset anything which has put a gleam of doubt about their sincerity, holiness, martyrdom.

In my opinion, the reason why the newspapers aren't printing any adverse comments about the McCanns, is because there is a feeling they will be prosecuted in the near future. If they are prosecuted and the press have printed any adverse comments about the McCanns, the McCanns will say they have been tried by the media and the case against them could collapse and the McCanns will be inline for a huge compensation payout.

If that's the case, it's shutting the stable door after the horse bolted, plenty said about them in the beginning, before whatever came into force to gag the press. If they're going to use the trial by media card, they have plenty to go at as there was an awful lot said in the early days. I still think there's something sinister which has made the newspapers turn, to be so totally biased towards the Dastardly Duo and for them to roll over and bow to their version of events against all odds and evidence to the contrary.

almostgothic wrote:

IAMBAZZA wrote:from the Mail - my italics

Speaking after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/NoW-Editor-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-personal-diary.html#ixzz1gaFFu1bc

Looks like Clarence has been over-egging his pudding again.

It's a bit like:

Mother: Where are my jam tarts?
Little Boy: Well I never ate four jam tarts!

It seems strange to me that two men with years of professional experience who were used to interacting on a regular basis could misinterpret each other's words and thoughts in this rather important instance.One might almost suspect a backroom deal.
If one was an old cynic, that is.
Perish the thought ......

Very true AMG, this is there profession they would no it inside out, mistakes like these just wouldn't happen, not with editors and ex head of Government media management.

Daniel Sanderson at 12.18 now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/dec/15/leveson-inquiry-derek-webb-colin-myler-live

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/

video live

guardian:

"12.29 Sanderson says he believed the McCann's agent would be asked to consent at the end of the week. He says if they did not give the green light - even after he had finished the story - it would not be published.

Jay asks how the story was changed by editors after Sanderson had sent it to Ian Edmondson.

Sanderson says his commentary was taken out, and they just published extracts from the diary with a short introduction on the front page.

Sanderson says in his statement he wishes to give a public apology to the McCanns, having seen how it made them feel.

I did feel very bad that my involvement in the story made Mrs McCann feel the way that it had. Why was it the wrong decision to publish? Because they didn't have the permission. They didn't have Mrs McCann's permission to publish.

Leveson says it was an "intensely personal document."

"As you read it for the first time did you think you had any business writing a word of it without making sure it was truly what they wanted?"

Sanderson said it wasn't in his "sphere of responsibility". He said Edmondson spoke to Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesman, every day. He did not have Mitchell's phone number. The first time he spoke to Mitchell was three weeks ago, to say he would apologise. "That's not just for this inquiry. That's because I'm genuinely sorry," he says.

12.24 Sanderson says the diary had been translated from English to Portuguese. Thinking back, he says, it was obvious it had come from the Police - he thinks there were comments written on certain pages. "The whole thing caused me concern," he says, crestfallen. Did he share that with Edmondson?

"My thinking was this story was going to be published with the co-operation of the McCanns. We were translating the document, we were checking with the McCanns, that was my understanding throughout.

"Don't forget, I wasn't aware necessarily what the newspaper was planning to do with the document once it was in the NOTW offices."

Sanderson says he arranged for the document to be translated and he wrote up the story as it came through section-by-section. He checked the translation against internet sources to ensure it was not a fake - such as the family meeting the Pope.


Daniel Sanderson, former NOTW reporter

12.14 Leveson is now hearing from Daniel Sanderson, a former NOTW reporter whose name appeared on the McCann diaries story. He was the most junior reporter at the newspaper

Yet more about the pain and suffering the printing of the diary caused. Makes me so angry, I'd best shut up before I say something I shouldn't.

Daniel Sanderson:

12.19pm: Sanderson explains how he got in touch with a Portuguese journalist and they discussed payment for a copy of the diary. Sanderson then liaised with the news editor at the time, Ian Edmondson.

Edmondson hired a freelancer, Gerard Couzens, who is based in Spain to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the diary.

Sanderson says he wasn't aware at the time that the ultimate source was the Portuguese police.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/dec/15/leveson-inquiry-derek-webb-colin-myler-live


What intrigues me about this segment is that the freelance journo/diary courier is mentioned by name, but the Portuguese journalist,who was paid for the diary, isn't.

And btw, I don't want to be a semantic nit-picker here, but what does 'Portuguese journalist' mean?
A journalist who is Portuguese or a journalist who works in Portugal?
Pardon my pedantry ...

" frameborder="0" loading="lazy" allowfullscreen >

HiDeHo wrote:" frameborder="0" loading="lazy" allowfullscreen >

I don't think this junior journalist knows what provenance means...

Indeed.

And as an aside to that (and no disrespect to Mr Sanderson), why was the most junior journalist in the office put in charge of this big and highly saleable story (only to have his own words whooshed save for the introduction)?
A case of 'the big ones would be pan fried but the little ones would be thrown back'? (see my sig)


"We were translating the document; we were writing the story; we were checking with the McCanns and (if?) they were happy with the story; we would publish it."

Who was helping with the translation?
Just askin' ......

For Distribution To CP’s
Statement of Daniel Sanderson
In response to the numbered questions set out in the letter from the Leveson Inquiry dated
2nd December 2011.


1. Please explain exactly how NoW obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann’s diary: you are not
required to name any sources, but you are required to identify the precise provenance of
the diary, explain the circumstances in which NoW received it, and confirm (if it be the
case) that it was of the original which had been seized by the Portuguese authorities.
A story appeared in The Sun newspaper on July 28, 2008, which said that extracts of Kate
McCann’s diary had emerged in Portugal, covering the first weeks after her daughter
Madeleine disappeared.
In the article there were two extracts that Mrs McCann had made in her diary.
I was asked by my news editor lan Edmondson to track down the person who was in
possession of the diary and was leaking extracts of it in Portugal.
After Mr Edmondson agreed, I called several newspapers in Portugal to ascertain who had
the diary.
I was put in touch with a journalist in Portugal who confirmed that they were in possession
of a copy of the diary and were willing to sell it to the NoW for, if my memory serves me
correctly, 18,000 Euros.
I believe the newspaper agreed to pay something like 9,000 Euros immediately and the rest
on publication of the story. The purchase was authorised by Mr Edmondson.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson and was told to ask a freelance journalist called Gerard
Couzens, who is based in Spain, to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the
diary.
From there my involvement ended until the diary reached the offices of the NoW.
My understanding is that Mr Edmondson took control of the diary’s delivery to our offices.
I believe that Mr Couzens met the journalist on Friday September 5, 2008 in Portugal and
paid her Euro 9,000 for a copy of the diary.
It’s my understanding that Mr Couzens delivered the diary to the NoW’s offices on Saturday
September 6, 2008.
I was first made aware that the newspaper had the document when I returned to the office
after the weekend on Tuesday September 9, 2008.
Mr Edmondson showed me the diary that morning.
It did not appear to be the original diary, but a copy that had been translated from English
into Portuguese.
MOD100052723
For Distribution To CP’s
2. Was the copy NoW obtained in English or Portuguese?
The NoW copy was in Portuguese.
3. What steps, if any, did you take to establish its authenticity and that it was a document
which you were entitled to possess?
Over the course of the working week commencing on Tuesday September 9th 2008, I
organised for the diary to be translated back into English using a London-based translation
service (I cannot recall the name).
It was a laborious task and the final section was completed on Friday September 12, 2008 -
two days before the story was published.
I spent the week writing the story as and when sections had been successfully translated.
In terms of its authenticity, we approached the diary from the viewpoint that it was a fake.
We had to cross check every entry against our online cuttings system to check that each
entry was correct and the diary was genuine.
For example, if there was an entry where it said the McCanns had met The Pope that day,
I had to check in cuttings that newspapers had reported that the McCanns had indeed met
The Pope on the corresponding date.
My understanding of the situation was that the news editor, Mr Edmondson, would also
confirm with the McCann’s press spokesman Clarence Mitchell that the diary was genuine.
4. What was paid for the diary and to whom?
I believe 18,000 Euros were paid to the Portuguese journalist (the P J). It was paid in two
parts; 9,000 Euros up front and 9,000 Euros on publication. I can’t be certain of this figure,
but it is certainly a fairly accurate estimate. I am aware of the approximate figure because
that is the price that had been agreed with the PJ in my initial phone conversations with the
PJ. The PJ set the price, which I had communicated to Mr Edmondson. Mr Edmondson then
authorised both payments to the source. The PJ then contacted me after publication to
organise the second payment, which was authorised by Mr Edmondson.
5. By what reasoning process did you and others at News International (whom the Inquiry
requires you to identify) deem it appropriate to publish extracts from the diary given its
the obvious privacy implications, including the fact that you knew or must have know that
the diary was confidential (if it is your position that you did not know this, please explain
its basis)?
In order to answer this question, I need to explain how a national newspaper works. As a
reporter, I reported to my line manager Mr Edmondson, the news editor or assistant editor
(news) as was his official title. Mr Edmondson reported to the editor, Colin Myler, and other
senior executives.
Once I had obtained the diary, obviously there were a number of discussions between
myself and Mr Edmondson as to how the piece should be written sensitively.
MOD100052724
For Distribution To CP’s
Then after I had written it, the decision to publish ultimately rested with Mr Myler.
I feel that it is appropriate to note that in my role as a reporter, I did not have any say as to
whether the story was published.
But I think in terms of considering it being appropriate to publish Mrs McCann’s diary and
the obvious considerations over privacy, the view taken by senior executives was that there
were all sorts of false allegations being made about the McCanns and they really were being
pilloried in the press, that this account gave a true picture of the McCanns and dispelled
some of the lies being written about them.
The NoW had always been wholly supportive of the McCanns’ search for their daughter. Two
weeks after she went missing in 2007, the newspaper teamed up with wealthy businessmen
to pledge £1.5 million to anyone who could help with information leading to Madeleine’s
safe return.
However, with hindsight, the decision to publish Mrs McCann’s diary was clearly the wrong
one. Having read how the article made Mrs McCann feel, I intend to apologise to her for
writing the story once I have given evidence.
Although I feel it is important to point out that I had no say in whether or not the diary was
published.
6. Why did you not contact the Dr Kate McCann in advance of publication in order to check
the facts and in particular to obtain her consent to publication?
It was clear to me that we could not publish the story without the McCanns permission.
My understanding of the situation was that Mr Edmondson had sought permission to
publish the diary from Mr Mitchell.
I acquired this understanding because Mr Edmondson told me that he was going to speak to
Mr Mitchell about the story at the end of the week.
It is only natural Mr Edmondson sought that permission because he had an on going
relationship with Mr Mitchell. As I understand it, they spoke almost daily on the phone to
talk about stories connected to the case.
[I have only spoken to Mr Mitchell once about three weeks ago to inform him of my
intention to apologise to the McCanns for my involvement in the story that upset Mrs
McCann.]
I didn’t actually ever have the conversation with Mr Edmondson specifically that he had
received permission to publish from the McCanns.
I assumed that because that is what he said he intended to do and the story was published,
that he had received permission from Mr Mitchell.
However, following publication, News International released a statement saying they
published the extracts in the belief held in good faith that that they had permission to do so.
MOD100052725
For Distribution To CP’s
They said it was now clear that their belief was misplaced and that Kate neither approved of
nor knew that the extracts were to be published.
I believe that the newspaper agreed to make a donation to be used in the search for
Madeleine and published a correction on September 21, 2008.
It is clear from that statement that Mr Myler believed that the newspaper had permission to
publish by the McCanns when it had not.
I was not responsible for contacting Mr Mitchell to obtain permission to publish Mrs
McCann’s diary.
7. What consideration if any was given by you to any public interest considerations; and if
so, what were they?
As I said in response to question five, I think the view at the NoW was that there were a lot
of lies being published about the McCanns and this was a supportive piece that put the
record straight.
It was part of the Portuguese police case into the disappearance of Madeleine and it was an
account of how Mrs McCann was feeling after her daughter vanished.
8. What legal advice, if any, did you take on any of foregoing issues?
As I understand it, Mr Edmondson, Mr Myler and other senior executives would have taken
advice from Tom Crone, News International’s former legal affairs manager. In his absence,
they would have sought advice from Justin Walford, The Sun’s legal manager.
I wasn’t party to any of the legal conversations concerning publication.
9. Please outline any discussions you had, if any, at sub-editorial and editorial level on the
foregoing issues.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson about how the piece should be written in terms of sensitivity
and the evidence I had gathered over its authenticity.
It is normal for a reporter to discuss with his news editor how he (the news editor) wants a
story written.
It was my job to seek to determine that the diary was genuine and ensure that it was written
as sensitively as possible.
Daniel Sanderson

Cui bono?
Who and what benefited from this confused and mysterious story?


The NoTW did - their diary story would have guaranteed increased sales.

The 'Fund' did, most certainly.

The McCanns did - the 'poor me' diary appeared in print by way of such a tortuous, labyrinthine and circuitous route which ensured that they could not be accused of money-grubbing by pimping an intimate journal. Indeed, their 'outrage' must have encouraged more public sympathy.

Ah, are you perhaps postulating a conspiracy of sorts? Nothing would surprise me.

can someone tell me please exactly where it is definitely said that the copy of the diary notes came from the Portuguese police.

If Clarrie has all the answers, should he not be questioned at the Levison Enquiry? Why is he not being put on the spot in court?

Both Mitchell and Edmondson should be called to appear before Leveson asap, IMO.

In this article of the Pressgazette today ( link provided by Joana on her blog), Mitchell is trying to disculp himself furthermore:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48450&c=1


Colin Myler: I did not berate the McCanns over Hello story
15 December 2011

By Andrew Pugh

Former News of the World editor Colin Myler yesterday claimed he would not have published excerpts from Kate McCann’s diary without permission – but was told by his news editor Ian Edmondson that the family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell had given them the go-ahead.

The claim has since beeny denied by Mitchell.

At the Leveson Inquiry last month Kate McCann said she felt “mentally raped” after the NoW published transcripts from her personal diary on 14 September 2008 under the headline “Kate’s Diary: In her own words”, and said it was done without prior notice.

The McCanns claimed that before the article was published Edmondson told Mitchell they were writing a “positive piece” but did not mention the diary, and if they had known they would have considered taking legal action to prevent publication.

Also speaking to the Leveson Inquiry, Gerry McCann said that Myler had "berated" him in an "angry" phone call because the McCanns gave an exclusive story to Hello magazine - rather than the News of the World.

Yesterday Myler revealed the diaries came from a female Portuguese journalist.

He insisted that Edmondson told him he had cleared the story with Mitchell, telling the inquiry: "Ian Edmondson had assured me on more than one occasion that Clarence was aware of what we were intending to do and had said, 'good'.


"I think it was very clear from Mr Edmondson's point of view how he had spelt out what he was doing."

On the subject of the "angry" phone call too Gerry McCann, Myler said: "I don't have a reputation for berating people." He added that he "simply pointed out" his "surprise" that they took their story to Hello with a circulation, he said, of around 300,000 compared with the News of the World's three million plus sale.

Responding to the diary claims, Mitchell said: "At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.

"I told him that we were in no way encouraging any such coverage of a diary, or even confirming that any diary existed.

"However, I said if they were planning to run a positive piece that was up to them and it would be fine as long as it was positive.

"All of my contemporaneous emails at the time are now with lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, and I am more than happy to give my side of the conversation with Ian Edmondson if required.

"You only need to look at the fact that the News of the World subsequently rolled over a few days later and not only published an apology in the following week's paper but also paid more than £120,000 to the Madeleine Fund by way of compensation. That speaks for itself."

Related articles
Myler calls for tabloids and broadsheets to unite McCanns: Express worst but not only offenders McCanns: 'Angry' Colin Myler 'berated' us over interview All the news from The Leveson Inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal
Comments


Disqus LoginAbout DisqusLike Dislike
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Facebook

Twitter

ShareNo thanksSharing this page …

Thanks! Close
Sort by popular now Sort by best rating Sort by newest first Sort by oldest first Showing 3 comments
Reed 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
Hardly any mention of this story today.
Interesting that a story about new leads in the Madeleine case should emerge on the same day. Any PR would know which would achieve more column inches.
Just saying..
A Like Reply 9 hours ago 3 Likes F IAMBAZZA 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
in the eyes of the British mainstream media the McCanns can do no wrong. It is a strange state of affairs.

Mr Mitchell's quote is full of classic PR guff: "At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did." I am saddened, but not surprised, that the press are unable to spot the oddities in this statement.

And as an aside - there appears to be no mention anywhere of the name of the Portugese journalist involved nor any evidence that the diary did actually come from the Portugese police. But once again, sadly, the British media take as gospel anything spouted by Team McCann.
A Like Reply 7 hours ago 2 Likes F Unbeliveable 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
Wow IAMBAZZA - 'gospel spouted by Team McCann' - yeah they may have been trying as best they could to get the story of their daughter's disappearance in the papers to keep the interest alive, but surely your vilification of them is totally out of order ! INCREDIBLE
A Like Reply 5 hours ago in reply to IAMBAZZA 0 Like F