McCanns could face court over report

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Control Risk is not MI5, by another name. They are a legitimate private business. Then and now. They may have foremer MI5 people working there, that's a reasonable assumption but  we know Oakley had former MI5 guys, Henri Exton for one -  and Exton was a sub to Oakley and the one who came up with the efits.

Why do you like Control Risk and Tony Blair for these efits Panda? Is it not resonating for you that Kennedy managed Oakley and they managed the subs and the efit was produced between March 2008 and Sept 2008 by the team led by Exton, which was when Kennedy sacked Oakley, and the team's laywers prevented the info coming to light?

I don't see bringing Tony Blair into it as it is amply explained otherwise. Do you suspect Blair of involvement with the disappearance and the need to hide the information?

 

Widowan, for starters Oakley International was I believe owned by Halligen who served 2 years in a Jail in the UK for fraud, he was a one man band who promised satellite dishes and was "paid " £300,000 by the Fund....nothing to do with MI5 and Kennedy was "working" with him.  Tony Blair wouldn't have paid MI5 , he was the prime Minister , all he had to do was ask Exton to supply a couple of Agents  to help the McCanns. Kate says "Benefactor" appeared 9 days after Madeleine went missing and paid the Agency.

I do know what I am talking about because I was heavily involved in trying to get the Accounts investigated which obviously required research. and I think there is a bit of niotpicking going on here, I posted Gerry's blog here to show the Fund employed Oakley Intl. maybe you never noticed it.

HE (Halligen) DID have something to do with MI5, his SUBCONTRACTOR Henri Exton was a former MI5 employee. Halligen as a coordinator of Oakley would do the commercials and have subs do the sleuthing.
Exton worked for Oakley.

He is one of the subs whom Oakley did not pay.

benefactors could appear 9 days after MM went missing that had nothing to do with Exton, MI5, Halligen or Oakley.

Control Risk was brought in early, and a businessman would likely bring in CR because they typically assess risk in certain areas, setting up a business there, kidnappings of executives, etc.

I am not trying to nitpick but we do have evidence that Henri Exton, former MI5, is the one who provided the efits and did so while retained by Oakley.

This is from mccannfiles, Control Risk is a Private Company and either Kate or Gerry are telling porky pies. kate says "A Benefactor" paid for their services, Gerry says he approached them. We know the McCanns were a bit broke, so maybe someone did pay. Exton and MI% seem to have nothing to do with this, unless they recommended CR.

I will not be commenting any more on this topic, if you check out mccannfiles there is plenty of info about Control Risk, but I have established that Metodo 3 were employed before Oakley which was the original dispute.

for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

widowan wrote:

Lioned wrote:Panda,for the eleventh time,here it is from the horses mouth....

This from Madeleine Mccann.Org....(6th Aug 2008) (from one of gerrys blogs i think)

"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.
- See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/2008/1669/oakley-international/#sthash.uZK7DT03.dpuf

This from the Mail article

"2008, the McCanns used money from their charity fund to hire investigators from a firm called Oakley International, led by  former MI5 surveillance officer Henri Exton, to look into the mystery – and they focused on the Smith sighting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz2jCelf3n0

It's clear that the efits were done by Exton and Control Risk had nothing to do with it, nor did Metodo.

Kennedy managed that account and he is supposedly the one who wanted them dropped - their prices were very high and he or the Team did not like the nature of the feedback they were getting.

I can picture it now - I've spent £300,000 to find out who took Madeleine not to get a report on the McCanns' neglect. !

I am sure that report also did not sit well with Gerry, Kate and their lawyers.

If Kennedy subsequently stopped "backing" them they might want to blame the suppression of the efit on him, but it was their lawyers who "reminded" Exton of the confidentiality of the report. Lawyers may be paid by kennedy but represent McCanns. I think Gerry and Kate can argue they had no knowledge of those efits and this was all done by their "team" but that opens another can of worms.

Thank you widowan,that is just how i see it.

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

Sure. But the report emanates from Oakley International.

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

The content is certainly important,who chose to suppress this information and why is also important,and possibly criminal.

And why Scotland Yard and in particular Andy Redwood chose to pass it off as a new revelation somehow found as a result of their exceptional investigative skills begs a big question does it not ?

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

The content is certainly important,who chose to suppress this information and why is also important,and possibly criminal.

And why Scotland Yard and in particular Andy Redwood chose to pass it off as a new revelation somehow found as a result of their exceptional investigative skills begs a big question does it not ?

team mac buried the report because they didn't like what it had to say. as they had paid for it; please don't start; it was theirs to do with whatever pleased them the most. criminal? not sure. as for redwood, maybe a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?

 

Claudia79 wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

Sure. But the report emanates from Oakley International.

sure, its just the argument about who seems to be missing the real issue. ah well,...

 

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

The content is certainly important,who chose to suppress this information and why is also important,and possibly criminal.

And why Scotland Yard and in particular Andy Redwood chose to pass it off as a new revelation somehow found as a result of their exceptional investigative skills begs a big question does it not ?

team mac buried the report because they didn't like what it had to say. as they had paid for it; please don't start; it was theirs to do with whatever pleased them the most. criminal? not sure. as for redwood, maybe a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?

 

We know the mccanns pretty much do as they like,that is not the issue here.They are claiming to move heaven and earth and every stone in between to find their daughter.
Here they are presented with information that could help with that search.So important infact that Scotland Yard pass it off as their own revelation now,possibly the abductor !
To say the mccanns can choose to do as they like is a little simplistic,like choosing to leave their kids home alone and loosing one !
Why would the mccanns choose not to put this into the public domain is the question ?

Marky wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

Sure. But the report emanates from Oakley International.

sure, its just the argument about who seems to be missing the real issue. ah well,...

 

Facts are important, Marky. There's too much myth around. And myth is incompatible with the truth.  

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

The content is certainly important,who chose to suppress this information and why is also important,and possibly criminal.

And why Scotland Yard and in particular Andy Redwood chose to pass it off as a new revelation somehow found as a result of their exceptional investigative skills begs a big question does it not ?

team mac buried the report because they didn't like what it had to say. as they had paid for it; please don't start; it was theirs to do with whatever pleased them the most. criminal? not sure. as for redwood, maybe a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?

 

We know the mccanns pretty much do as they like,that is not the issue here.They are claiming to move heaven and earth and every stone in between to find their daughter.
Here they are presented with information that could help with that search.So important infact that Scotland Yard pass it off as their own revelation now,possibly the abductor !
To say the mccanns can choose to do as they like is a little simplistic,like choosing to leave their kids home alone and loosing one !
Why would the mccanns choose not to put this into the public domain is the question ?

why? the report cast doubt over team macs timeline and brought the smith sighting to the fore and as for the e-fits...well. it's pushed the focus back at them. it wasn't supposed the see the light of day.

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

The content is certainly important,who chose to suppress this information and why is also important,and possibly criminal.

And why Scotland Yard and in particular Andy Redwood chose to pass it off as a new revelation somehow found as a result of their exceptional investigative skills begs a big question does it not ?

team mac buried the report because they didn't like what it had to say. as they had paid for it; please don't start; it was theirs to do with whatever pleased them the most. criminal? not sure. as for redwood, maybe a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?

 

We know the mccanns pretty much do as they like,that is not the issue here.They are claiming to move heaven and earth and every stone in between to find their daughter.
Here they are presented with information that could help with that search.So important infact that Scotland Yard pass it off as their own revelation now,possibly the abductor !
To say the mccanns can choose to do as they like is a little simplistic,like choosing to leave their kids home alone and loosing one !
Why would the mccanns choose not to put this into the public domain is the question ?

why? the report cast doubt over team macs timeline and brought the smith sighting to the fore and as for the efits...well. it's pushed the focus back at them. it wasn't supposed the see the light of day.

Infact i have just been thinking about that and i am moving in your direction.

Why would Mr Redwood 'plagiarise' these E fits and move the timelines and trash the tanner sighting.A mixture of justifying his hard work and being as cunning as a professor of cunning ?

the issue is about the suppression of information which might have helped in the search for Madeleine.  The search for Madeleine is a criminal investigation because whatever way you look at it, the unexplained disappearance of a 3 year old suggests a criminal act.  so essentially the McCs have withheld information which could have aided a criminal investigation.  I question Marky's assertion that as the McCs commissioned the report they could do what they wanted with it. The people who did the investigation and report were not paid, so in essence any work that they did remains theirs also, and I think this on the basis that it is reported that they had to sign to release the report to SY.  It also seems it was after the event that they received solicitors letters threatening them with legal action if they divulged details of the report, this being removed when they signed release to SY.  If there was no need for them to sign release the McCs could have just given it over.  So are there legal implications for the McCs actions in suppressing the report into a criminal act.. so not quite cut and dried as to there being only one issue.

Marky wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Marky wrote:for my buck the content of the report is the important issue here.  

Sure. But the report emanates from Oakley International.

sure, its just the argument about who seems to be missing the real issue. ah well,...

 

Who matters because you can't figure out why, unless you know who.

I think simple explanation is the best - it is a clue, Redwood put it out there as new to the public, which is certainly true. Exton took great umbrage because it's not a new efit but it is new information to the public.

I don't think Redwood was plotting against McCanns hoping someone would come forward and cause trouble for them as Exton subsequently has, nor do I believe he erased Bundleman as some sort of conspiracy to help them in some way - by saying Jane did see someone, so they weren't all lying.

I think his team did some digging and came up with some clues and they want people to recall if they saw Smith man, not Bundle man now.

Everything else is just noise, in terms of the investigation to get people to held find out who took her which is the point of Crime Watch.

The papers, those involved with the libel trial, McCanns' spokesman, internet fora etc will all question and have opinions and create distractions as they can but the remit of SY is to find out about the abduction.

It really would be better for SY and PJ to work in parallel by sharing, this must be embarrassing for both sides to have the other announcing that they themselves have the suspect identified - given that it is not the same person.

tanszi wrote:the issue is about the suppression of information which might have helped in the search for Madeleine.  The search for Madeleine is a criminal investigation because whatever way you look at it, the unexplained disappearance of a 3 year old suggests a criminal act.  so essentially the McCs have withheld information which could have aided a criminal investigation.  I question Marky's assertion that as the McCs commissioned the report they could do what they wanted with it. The people who did the investigation and report were not paid, so in essence any work that they did remains theirs also, and I think this on the basis that it is reported that they had to sign to release the report to SY.  It also seems it was after the event that they received solicitors letters threatening them with legal action if they divulged details of the report, this being removed when they signed release to SY.  If there was no need for them to sign release the McCs could have just given it over.  So are there legal implications for the McCs actions in suppressing the report into a criminal act..  so not quite cut and dried as to there being only one issue.

The efit can't belong to two people. Either it's part of a report McCanns paid for (and they did - they paid Oakley for this) or it's not. If it is, the issue of Exton being paid is between him and Oakley. I am sure McLawyers made that amply clear to him, from their perspective and if he had a leg to stand on in terms of his work product he could have done himself a big financial favor and done the world a favor by selling that report to the papers long ago, so folks could see the efits of the abductor when it might have mattered more. That he didn't get paid and didn't sell the report tells me his own lawyers probably agreed that he'd lose that fight. that is a lot of money to simply walk away from when you've done your job.

Legally I don't know the answer but ethically especially as £500,000 of other people's money went into producing that efit, I think the donors have the right to know, even if nothing says McCanns have to publicize the reports they get.

Still it's funny to pay that much for a report, say that the Oakley team were "streets ahead" in the methods they used, did a god job in phase I and II - & then fire them and quash the report. All of it, not just the bits that were hyper critical of them. Even the abductor's efit.

Now, however, it's been handed over to SY and subsequently to Crime Watch and is in the public domain so I think Exton's in the clear in discussing the efit. The rest of the findings I think would cause him a problem if he can't out lawyer Carter Ruck - I wouldn't want to sell the report to the Times for £500,000 to get my money back and then end up losing a £1M libel or breach of contract suit.

A contracts lawyer could tell you if the client is indemnified if they pay their prime contractor and he fails to pays subs - I am sure it would depend on how the contract was written but that is what lawyers are good at doing so they probably put all kinds of language in there to not let their client get burned. Exton wasn't a lawyer, just a detective.

Marky wrote:why? the report cast doubt over team macs timeline and brought the smith sighting to the fore and as for the efits...well. it's pushed the focus back at them. it wasn't supposed the see the light of day.

Lioned wrote:Infact i have just been thinking about that and i am moving in your direction. Why would Mr Redwood 'plagiarise' these  E fits and move the timelines and trash the tanner sighting.A mixture of justifying his hard work and being as cunning as a professor  of cunning ?

given that the report surfaced during the current police review i guess he can claim credit for it and it would appear he sees its findings as somewhat significant or at least worthy of further investigation however that may displease anyone.

widowan wrote:

tanszi wrote:the issue is about the suppression of information which might have helped in the search for Madeleine.  The search for Madeleine is a criminal investigation because whatever way you look at it, the unexplained disappearance of a 3 year old suggests a criminal act.  so essentially the McCs have withheld information which could have aided a criminal investigation.  I question Marky's assertion that as the McCs commissioned the report they could do what they wanted with it. The people who did the investigation and report were not paid, so in essence any work that they did remains theirs also, and I think this on the basis that it is reported that they had to sign to release the report to SY.  It also seems it was after the event that they received solicitors letters threatening them with legal action if they divulged details of the report, this being removed when they signed release to SY.  If there was no need for them to sign release the McCs could have just given it over.  So are there legal implications for the McCs actions in suppressing the report into a criminal act..  so not quite cut and dried as to there being only one issue.

The efit can't belong to two people. Either it's part of a report McCanns paid for (and they did - they paid Oakley for this) or it's not. If it is, the issue of Exton being paid is between him and Oakley. I am sure McLawyers made that amply clear to him, from their perspective and if he had a leg to stand on in terms of his work product he could have done himself a big financial favor and done the world a favor by selling that report to the papers long ago, so folks could see the efits of the abductor when it might have mattered more. That he didn't get paid and didn't sell the report tells me his own lawyers probably agreed that he'd lose that fight. that is a lot of money to simply walk away from when you've done your job.

Legally I don't know the answer  but ethically especially as £500,000 of other people's money went into producing that efit,  I think the donors have the right to know, even if nothing says McCanns have to publicize the reports they get.

Still it's funny to pay that much for a report, say that the Oakley team were "streets ahead" in the methods they used, did a god job in phase I and II - & then fire them and quash the report. All of it, not just the bits that were hyper critical of them. Even the abductor's efit.

Now, however, it's been handed over to SY and subsequently to Crime Watch and is in the public domain so I think Exton's in the clear in discussing the efit. The rest of the findings I think would cause him a problem if he can't out lawyer Carter Ruck - I wouldn't want to sell the report to the Times for £500,000 to get my money back and then end up losing a £1M libel or breach of contract suit.

A contracts lawyer could tell you if the client is indemnified if they pay their prime contractor and he fails to pays subs - I am sure it would depend on how the contract was written but that is what lawyers are good at doing so they probably put all kinds of language in there to not let their client get burned. Exton wasn't a lawyer, just a detective.

am broadly in agreement with this.