The Sunday Times has seen the Oakley report

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/madeleine-mccann-e-fit-pictures-overlooked-for-5-years/story-fnb64oi6-1226748119500#

I wonder how the Times got the report - it was closed until the Fund gave permission for SY to have it; the Fund certainly didn't give permission for the Sunday Times to have it.

Did Exton provide the report to the Times, angry that he hadn't been paid nor received the credit, despite being the one who actually got the efit of the suspect?

Will Sunday Times reveal more of what is in that report that is hyper critical and suggests a possible death in the apt?

Who will be sued next?

I'd be willing to bet the Sunday Times has much much more to come and thanks be to God!!!!

I'll give everyone here a shiny dollar if Carter Ruck hasn't been on the phone to them before the ink on the paper was dry.

Giving Oakley permission to hand their boxes, including this report to SY had to be done, otherwise the couple would look dreadful. Maybe it was even part of the deal of not looking at them as suspects.

But who provided it to the Times?

I picture Exton watching Crime Watch to see what SY had come up with that would allow them to reopen the case - and hitting the roof when he saw his efit positioned as new information, and being furious getting in touch with someone from the Times at that instant. A matter of outraged pride.

Neither the Fund nor SY would give that report to the paper so it had to be him; I wonder what made Exton feel it was safe to risk the fury of TM at this point after keeping quiet for 5 years?

Perhaps he was fed up & had had enough - or possibly his efit work being made public, he felt he had a right to make the rest of it public?

The Times could trickle this out little by little in the most damning way possible and face the fines, if any - or could hold it over someone's head. It is a Murdoch paper after all.

Why would they be carter rucked.


It's the truth that's in those files anyway


Carter ruck can hardly say it's defamatory when SY has shown 'part off' which is the efit to the public and the mccanns have backed it up.


The parts which haven't come out is elaborating on the stuff that's already out now...i.e. Madeleines sleep patterns, death after leaving the apt and what was actually said re the threat off being sued if blabbing.

My understanding is that Halligen was paid £300,000 but did nothing. The guys who actually did the work were Exton and his mates, but they never got paid for it. Next thing they know, their work is plastered all over Crimewatch and the MSM without so much as a credit. No wonder they're pee'd off. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd kept copies of their work and thought right, we never got paid for this, so it's still ours and we will sell it to whoever we like. And that would include the Sunday Times, who have presumably snapped up this bargain and stand to make a huge amount of money from it, because that's how newspapers work. A fine is nothing but an occupational hazard to them.

Wonder if Exon made a copy off what's in those files lol.....

Snap Iris....we both thought the same thing..

kitti wrote:Wonder if Exon made a copy off what's in those files lol.....

Well, I've kept copies of everything I've ever done and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I wonder if Amaral's lawyers or the P.J could require from Oakley or S.Y a copy, as evidence in the Maddie case?

Call me naive, but I would think The Sunday Times lawyers would have been consulted before the article was published, especially regarding this high interest indeed sensitive case. Their lawyers would be aware of the McCanns' propensity to call in Carter Ruck when things don't go their way. I'm sure The Sunday Times lawyers, all things considered, determined it was in the best interest of the public to make this revelation public. By all things considered, I am including the public donations to the Fund as well as the cost to taxpayers for the SY investigation. Perhaps "fraud" came to mind and they will follow the money trail.

interested wrote:Call me naive, but I would think The Sunday Times lawyers would have been consulted before the article was published, especially regarding this high interest indeed sensitive case.  Their lawyers would be aware of the McCanns' propensity to call in Carter Ruck when things don't go their way.  I'm sure The Sunday Times lawyers, all things considered, determined it was in the best interest of the public to make this revelation public.  By all things considered, I am including the public donations to the Fund as well as the cost to taxpayers for the SY investigation.  Perhaps "fraud" came to mind and they will follow the money trail.

I think there are times when you do print information that you feel you should, and you take the Carter Rucking if you get it. I'm not very impressed by the journalistic integrity of the Murdoch papers but this may be one of those times.

I think it is a certainty that they will be called in. Defamation and libel as I understand it in the UK are not about whether what is said is true or not it's whether it harms the person and so on.

Exton if he were wise, and I think he is - he kept this under wraps for 5 years at fear of being in breach of a confidential contract - probably consulted HIS lawyer as well and they may have said, this is now in the public domain, it was on Crime Watch for God's sake, it's hardly meant to be kept a secret.

The public certainly does have a right to know that their tax money to re open the case came up with several important clues although not the child herself - that Tanner was truthful but her sighting was mistaken. that the parents are not suspects as they are following leads of an abductor or ring of them - that they had a sighting, albeit swept under the rug by TM we do have a suspect - it's not just wasted money.

And if people still want to send money to the Fund rather than to legitimate charities that help missing children rather than suppress information about the case, they can choose to do so.

interested wrote:Call me naive, but I would think The Sunday Times lawyers would have been consulted before the article was published, especially regarding this high interest indeed sensitive case.  Their lawyers would be aware of the McCanns' propensity to call in Carter Ruck when things don't go their way.  I'm sure The Sunday Times lawyers, all things considered, determined it was in the best interest of the public to make this revelation public.  By all things considered, I am including the public donations to the Fund as well as the cost to taxpayers for the SY investigation.  Perhaps "fraud" came to mind and they will follow the money trail.

team mccann commissioned the report and therefore own it. when they didn't like what it had to say they filed it. that was and is their right. as part of the current review it either came to light or its existence was known and thus was requested by the police. information contained therein formed part of the crimewatch program with the police playing an active part in the production of and all done with team mccanns' blessing. that information is now in the public domain. my guess is the sunday times reporter decided to follow up which may have included a briefing from the police and of course the authors of the report. no doubt the paper's lawyers may have run their eye over the final draft but given the salient information, information team mccann chose to file away, was already in the public domain there appears little if any risk of legal action by team mccann.

the reporter did what he is paid to do. he wrote a story which asked questions. questions no one wanted asking. leveson must be furious.

Kennedy was underwriting the cost and it was he who apparently terminated their contract as he wasn't satisfied with their progress for the amount being paid.
Exton seemed to have good credentials.

Mr Exton, of Bury, Lancashire, has the Queen’s Police Medal and an OBE. During the Seventies and Eighties his work included uncovering organised crime rings and recruiting supergrasses.

you beat me to it Lioned. I understood also that it was B Kennedy who employed Halligan/Oakley International, and it was mooted previously that the reason the McCs didn't sue Halligan was because they couldn't as they didn't employ him.

Well the exact contractual arrangement isn't clear.But what is clear is that Kennedy was paying for it.It is said that Kennedy was moved by their (mccanns) predicament and wanted to help them as it was being said at the time they risked loosing their house because they didnt want to dip into the fund to pay for their increasing legal costs.
Kennedy is clearly a macheoveleon type who at the time was looking for another 'interest' and was most likely the driving force here.
Also he clearly believed the mccanns to be innocent.And presumably it was Kennedy who commisioned the report and the first to read how critical of the mcc's it was.
So,with plenty of egg on his face,i suspect it was Kennedy who buried it.
Where is Kennedy now i wonder.



"However, with Mr Kennedy's help, the McCanns have in recent weeks been able to take on former BBC reporter Clarence Mitchell and lawyers Kingsley Napley to fight their case. One of Britain's leading lawyers, Michael Caplan, QC, has also been employed.

Last week the couple's Portuguese legal team was strengthened with their lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu being joined by one of the country's brightest legal brains, Rogerio Alves.

Ed Smethurst, the in-house lawyer and legal director of Mr Kennedy's plastics firm, Latium, will also be on hand to assist the family. Despite not having a background in criminal law, it is understood his legal acumen and contacts could be of value.o

In addition, funds will be made available for the continued efforts by the McCanns to find Madeleine. A leading international security firm founded by former SAS soldiers has been taken on to 'do the work that the Portuguese have failed to do'.

In a move that underlines the couple's despair at the Portuguese police's handling of the inquiry, they have turned to Control Risks Group, which began 30 years ago by helping kidnap victims in Latin America. Using CRG is costing tens of thousands of pounds a week.

The McCanns' benefactor - who shares his name with Kate's uncle, but to whom he is not related - is the son of an Edinburgh window cleaner, who was brought up a Jehovah's Witness."

Lots of info here. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id285.html

Most suggests Oakley were paid by The Fund.

Does anybody recall if payments appeared in the year end accounts.

mossman wrote:Lots of info here.  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id285.html

Most suggests Oakley were paid by The Fund.

Does anybody recall if payments appeared in the year end accounts.

I thought that Oakley was a subcontractor of Halligen, and even though Halligen may have been paid by the fund, Oakley did not get paid by Halligen. This would fit along the lines of Halligens other scams and would not look badly on Oakley. So perhaps if Oakley never got paid, they may feel that they own the report, rather than the McCanns.

My guess is that Kennedy paid the money into the fund but wanted to be 'hands on' involved with it.Probably getting bored with Stockport County at the time and needed a new hobby.

Lioned wrote:My guess is that Kennedy paid the money into the fund but wanted to be 'hands on' involved with it.Probably getting bored with Stockport County at the time and needed a new hobby.

If that is so, then that is good. I think it important for lots of reasons not least because if the money was paid directly by Kennedy to Halligan /Oakley or whomever, it's a nice get out of jail free card for Healy and McCann. They would definitely use that to their advantage and claim they knew nothing.

There's an interesting comment in the link which states it was Gerry who wanted to part company, him being super clever and all. Kennedy felt they were expensive but was happy to continue, not Gerry though. Recent revelations might explain that one. Hindsight is great.

Some snippets from McCannfiles http://www.mccannfiles.com/id285.html:
 
Madeleine McCann: Investigators axed after being paid £500,000 Telegraph (no longer available online)
 
A firm of private investigators hired to hunt for Madeleine McCann have been dropped after being paid £500,000.
 
By Subhajit Banerjee
Last Updated: 10:46AM BST 24 Aug 2008
 
The US-based team had been given a six-month contract earlier this year and were paid from money donated to the Find Madeleine Fund.
 
Their contract will not be renewed after double-glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy - who is underwriting the fund's search - became unhappy with the progress it was making.
 
Oakley International, which boasts former British security service and FBI contacts, was hired to monitor the Madeleine Hotline, carry out detective work and review CCTV footage of possible Madeleine sightings.
 
Mr Kennedy reportedly believes the agency's bills - estimated to be over £80,000 a month - were not justified by their results, the Mail on Sunday reports.
 
Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate McCann have been kept informed all along and agree with the decision.
 
Oakley International Group, a company registered in Washington DC as the manufacturer of search and navigation equipment, is run by Briton Kevin Halligen.
 
Madeleine McCann had disappeared from the resort of Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007, nine days short of her fourth birthday.
 
A spokesman for the McCanns refused to comment on 'personnel, financial or operational details'.
 
 
Oakley International FindMadeleine.com (no longer available online)
 
Oakley International statement, 26 August 2008  
 
Date Released: 26/08/2008
 
In the light of articles in some UK Sunday newspapers this weekend, we feel it is appropriate to comment briefly on our relationship with the investigation company Oakley International.
 
We appointed them several months ago to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We continue to work with them to this end. The working relationship is managed by Brian Kennedy, who also confirms the relationship with Oakley International continues to be good and that it remains entirely focused on the search for Madeleine.
 
 
Evening Standard Magazine (ES)
 
ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:
 
 
* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour 'stake out'.
 
* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.
 
* Key witnesses (probably the Smith family) were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police
 
* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work.

Wow, Kennedy and his SON got into a stake out? Everyone's a detective I guess. All it takes is watching a couple movies and suddenly you're an expert. that is until a local cop wonders why these people are lurking suspiciously in their car for an entire day, peeing into a coffee tin.

What on earth, I guess once you have made some money you feel like you can do any job better than those who trained for it.

I wonder whether Exton and his group appreciated these bunglers trying to be involved when they were doing surveillance (illegally) themselves.

I should have highlighted this part:

Evening Standard Magazine (ES)

ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour 'stake out'.

* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.

* Key witnesses (probably the Smith family) were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police

* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work

So, what it sounds like is that the private investigators themselves, hired by the McCanns, who have hindered the search for Madeleine. In addition to the McCanns and their friends of course who refused to do the reconstruction leading to the shelving of the case. Amaral is sure to win the libel trial.

jinvta wrote:I should have highlighted this part:

Evening Standard Magazine (ES)

ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:
 
* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour 'stake out'.

* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.

* Key witnesses (probably the Smith family) were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police

* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work

So, what it sounds like is that the private investigators themselves, hired by the McCanns, who have hindered the search for Madeleine. In addition to the McCanns and their friends of course who refused to do the reconstruction leading to the shelving of the case. Amaral is sure to win the libel trial.

So they are guilty of witness tampering and perverting the course of justice. When are they going to be charged?

jinvta wrote:I should have highlighted this part:

Evening Standard Magazine (ES)

ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:
 
* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour 'stake out'.

* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.

* Key witnesses (probably the Smith family) were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police

* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work

So, what it sounds like is that the private investigators themselves, hired by the McCanns, who have hindered the search for Madeleine. In addition to the McCanns and their friends of course who refused to do the reconstruction leading to the shelving of the case. Amaral is sure to win the libel trial.

How dare Kennedy's goons bully the Smith family and "question" them? They are not entitled to be doing this at all, or conducting private under cover surveillance. I recall reading at the time that they'd been over to pay the Smiths a visit.

They surely did interfere and hinder the search.

be careful whom you retain as a detective - handing over the control of this to Kennedy meant they had little control over it, he could play James Bond or Jason Bourne if he saw fit, conducting his own (pathetic!) 24 hour surveillance (of what?!) and they were not in a position to control him or his hirelings, then when he gets information back he does not like from real investigators he throws the toys out of the pram and takes his money and goes away.

What a cluster f**k.

I hope Amaral does win his trial but more so, that we look at the people McCanns were using and how they "helped" -

mossman wrote:Lots of info here.  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id285.html

Most suggests Oakley were paid by The Fund.

Does anybody recall if payments appeared in the year end accounts.

Enid o'dowd reviewed the 'transparent' limited company accounts.....

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html

"The 2009 and 2010 accounts give no breakdown of income. Expenditure is given as below

Merchandising and Campaign Costs.
2010 = £421,236
2009 = £974,786

Administrative Expenses
2010 = £29,868
2009 = £30,865

It is impossible to know from this what percentage of expenditure went on searching for Madeleine because there is no analysis of Merchandising and Campaign costs. From the analysis filed relating to 2008, it is likely that substantial costs and in particular legal fees are included here that may have no direct relationship to the search for Madeleine."

Besides, you would only get a gross figure for whatever you're looking for, you can't see each individual payment or who it was paid to when you buy company accounts, only the company concerned would have all the invoices (and the accountants need to see them to complete the year end accounts)