why did SY use the efit constructed from his evidence as the centrepiece for their Crimewatch appeal ?At the moment I am struggling on this simple point, let alone whether Martin Smith flip-flopped.
At the moment I am struggling on this simple point, let alone whether Martin Smith flip-flopped.
Then of course we have Brian Kennedy, who 'contacted' Mr. Smith.
That could be viewed as interfering with a key witness.
Not sure why you struggling. Weren't the efits constructed by the Smith family, and almost certainly Martin's, recollections ?I am not struggling as to the source of such e-fits. I think it is an FOI that attributes them to two members of an Irish family (without actually naming that Irish family as the Smiths).
I am not struggling as to the source of such e-fits. I think it is an FOI that attributes them to two members of an Irish family (without actually naming that Irish family as the Smiths).
I am not questioning the motives of the Smith family. I would be interested in the who, when and how of the process. On when, we have it that it was 8 months or more, possibly a year later.
E-fits made very quickly after such an event are reputed to be useful in about 20% of cases. E-fits made 2 days after such an event are reputed to be almost worthless.
So I am struggling to understand why OG would run with e-fits made 8 to 12 months after the event. Given they had the statements saying those Smith members would not be able to recognise the man again, why place any reliance in e-fits?
The media in Portugal were left to their own devices when reporting Crimewatch and the e-fits - they were not managed. I have not done a comprehensive survey of every media source. Those I have seen simplify Smithman to being OG's new suspect. They omitted the part Redwood noted, that Smithman may well have an entirely innocent explanation.
Basically, if Smithman is an innocent local or an innocent Portuguese man, he has been highly incentivised to NOT reveal who he is.
All in all, a bit of a disaster for the effort in Portugal.
Redwood unveiled the e-fits on Crimewatch. He gave the impression they were produced by two of the Smiths.
Then the Oakley people spoke to the Sunday Times. The gist of what they said was that they had produced the e-fits and a report, which they gave to the McCanns in November 2008. Obviously they kept a copy which, Exton said, they were told to keep confidential and threatened by lawyers if they didn't do that. His direct quote was;
“A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” The article went on to say 'He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund'.
The Sunday Times claimed to have seen the report which said there were serious inconsistencies in Jane Tanners evidence and “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends. It concluded that “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”.
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.
So what did the McCanns deny and ask for the Sunday Times to correct? They denied that they kept the e-fits secret, saying they passed them to LP and the PJ by October 2009. They also said they passed the report and the e-fits to the Met in August 2011.
What did the McCanns not deny? They didn't deny what the report contained, they didn't deny the legal threats made and they didn't deny giving SY written permission to get the information from the PI's.
So if SY got written permission to get the report and e-fits from the Oakley investigators, why did they need to do that if they already had the e-fits which had been given to LP, and the report and the e-fits which the McCanns gave them in August 2011?
Why did the PI's decide to speak out? Did the legal threats no longer apply? Although the e-fits had now emerged into the public sphere, they also chose to give the report to the Times, with all it's ramifications.
the legal restraint is absolutely commonplace...my employees are legally forbidden to discuss anything that takes place in the workplace,,,it's a confidentiality clause
ASAIK they were employed (or subcontracted) by Oakley, not by the McCanns or Kennedy. Any confidentiality clause in the Oakley contract would have been signed by Halligen. They decided to ignore the threat, too, after the Crimewatch programme. Explain that.
Now tell me why SY had to ask for the info if they already had it?
It's clear as the light of day.
Martin Smith changed his mind.
In his original statement (to the Irish Gardia Police at the end of January 2008) Mr Smith was careful to reflect the opinions of all his family with him, as well as his own, and ALL his children disagreed with their father that the man was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, along with her father, the most observant witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
What possible (other) reason (than that he changed his mind) would Mr Smith have for originally refusing to produce an efit (end of January 2008), then agreeing to produce one?
It is self-evident that Mr Smith would not produce an e-fit of a man he thought was Gerry ....
What does that any of that have to do with the fact that Martin Smith changed his mind (about producing an e-fit, after initially declining to do so)?
Perhaps it was the way Oakley approached him ?
It?
Oakley?
Brian Kennedy asked Martin Smith to produce an e-fit (at the end of January 2008) and he refused.
Then he changed his mind and agreed to produce an efit.
That can only be because he also changed his mind about the identity of the man he and his family saw that night ....
Supposition.
No, fact.
NOPE.
Just your biased belief as always.
Give the logical and reasoned rationale that refutes what I have stated.
It's clear as the light of day.
Martin Smith changed his mind.
In his original statement (to the Irish Gardia Police at the end of January 2008) Mr Smith was careful to reflect the opinions of all his family with him, as well as his own, and ALL his children disagreed with their father that the man was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, along with her father, the most observant witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
What possible (other) reason (than that he changed his mind) would Mr Smith have for originally refusing to produce an efit (end of January 2008), then agreeing to produce one?
It is self-evident that Mr Smith would not produce an e-fit of a man he thought was Gerry ....
You haven't provided any rational argument.
Kennedy had no business going near the Smith family.
He was interfering in a criminal case, following his own agenda.
Direct quote by Martin Smith on 16th October 2013 in which he stands by his original police statements;
“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
In case you hadn't noticed, the title of this thread invites us to discuss whether Martin Smith changed his mind (about producing an e-fit).
But to address your (off-topic) point, is there any evidence Brian Kennedy approached Martin Smith in Portugal?
Martin Smith saw no reason to amend the efit.
And has said (in a separate statement) that he no longer believes he saw Gerry.
In case you hadn't noticed the thread is about whether Mr Smith changed his mind about his 60-80% certainty of the identity of the man he saw.
Martin Smith saw no reason to amend the efit.
And has said (in a separate statement) that he no longer believes he saw Gerry.
It?
Oakley?
Brian Kennedy asked Martin Smith to produce an e-fit (at the end of January 2008) and he refused.
Then he changed his mind and agreed to produce an efit.
That can only be because he also changed his mind about the identity of the man he and his family saw that night ....
He refused to produce an efit for Kennedy. He did however produce one for Oakley/Exton, the efit featured on the Crimewatch appeal. We know from the report produced by Exton that his investigators had found some serious anomalies in the McCann's and their friend's evidence. Perhaps the fact that Exton was not taking the McCann's story at face value encouraged the Smiths to produce the efits ? One thing is for sure though, we have not one scintilla of proof that Martin Smith changed his mind about his identification. In fact, if you believe the direct quote from Smith in the Mirror article above, quite the opposite.What were the "serious anomalies" and why didn't Smith just ask the e-fit compiler to simply reproduce Gerry McCann's face exactly?
He refused to produce an efit for Kennedy. He did however produce one for Oakley/Exton, the efit featured on the Crimewatch appeal. We know from the report produced by Exton that his investigators had found some serious anomalies in the McCann's and their friend's evidence. Perhaps the fact that Exton was not taking the McCann's story at face value encouraged the Smiths to produce the efits ? One thing is for sure though, we have not one scintilla of proof that Martin Smith changed his mind about his identification. In fact, if you believe the direct quote from Smith in the Mirror article above, quite the opposite.
What were the "serious anomalies" and why didn't Smith just ask the e-fit compiler to simply reproduce Gerry McCann's face exactly?
I have no idea what the 'serious anomalies' were, simply that Exton said that several had been identified in Oakley's report and no idea about your second question either.Has Exton hinted that he believed the parents were involved? If so please provide a cite. As for my second point, don't you think it would have been logical if, when asked to provide an e-fit of someone whose picture you had readily to hand you simply said "here - copy that" rather than try and describe the face verbally?
Has Exton hinted that he believed the parents were involved? If so please provide a cite. As for my second point, don't you think it would have been logical if, when asked to provide an e-fit of someone whose picture you had readily to hand you simply said "here - copy that" rather than try and describe the face verbally?
I think Exton is professional, and canny, enough not suggest anything that he could no comprehensively prove and to your second question I have already given you my answer.So you are unable to say what would be logical to do given the situation where you are asked for the description of the person you thought you saw, knowing that the internet was already bulging with pictures of the person you thought you saw? OK. I understand. 8((()*/
So you are unable to say what would be logical to do given the situation where you are asked for the description of the person you thought you saw, knowing that the internet was already bulging with pictures of the person you thought you saw? OK. I understand. 8((()*/
You haven't provided any rational argument.
Kennedy had no business going near the Smith family.
He was interfering in a criminal case, following his own agenda.
We're discussing whether Martin Smith changed his opinion (about whether he believed he had seen Gerry).
We're discussing whether Martin Smith changed his opinion (about whether he believed he had seen Gerry).
He refused to produce an efit for Kennedy. He did however produce one for Oakley/Exton, the efit featured on the Crimewatch appeal. We know from the report produced by Exton that his investigators had found some serious anomalies in the McCann's and their friend's evidence. Perhaps the fact that Exton was not taking the McCann's story at face value encouraged the Smiths to produce the efits ? One thing is for sure though, we have not one scintilla of proof that Martin Smith changed his mind about his identification. In fact, if you believe the direct quote from Smith in the Mirror article above, quite the opposite.
Answers on a post card.
Why would Martin Smith, or, (we now know) his wife, Mary, have produced e-fits of a man either thought was Gerry?
It is always possible the he was repeatedly pressed to produce an e-fit of the person he had already identified to a significant extent as Gerry and to get rid of the pressure produced an e-fit accordingly.
Crap (at most charitable).
Idle speculation (based on what)?
Good to see a considered rebuttal.
You need to produce something to rebut.
So far, you have failed ...
The police use a software programme called Efit-V and then they use Adobe Photoshop to add features such as ageing lines etc. They begin by choosing a face shape from nine possibles, then a hairstyle. Other features follow. I don't know if Oakley would have had access to such a computer system.
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/west-yorkshire-police-e-fit-9064751
No, you made the claim, that Smith had changed his mind.
I have stated a fact.
That you seem not to like very much ....
It is always possible the he was repeatedly pressed to produce an e-fit of the person he had already identified to a significant extent as Gerry and to get rid of the pressure produced an e-fit accordingly.wot?
So still no rational explanation of why either Martin Smith or his wife would have produced e-fits of a man either thought was Gerry?
The police use a software programme called Efit-V and then they use Adobe Photoshop to add features such as ageing lines etc. They begin by choosing a face shape from nine possibles, then a hairstyle. Other features follow. I don't know if Oakley would have had access to such a computer system.Smith would have had access to hundreds of photos of Gerry though...
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/west-yorkshire-police-e-fit-9064751
wot?
For some curious reason, idle speculation (that denigrates the McCanns or anyone who supports them) is allowed.We're all equal on this forum, it's just that some are more equal than others.
Meanwhile, hard facts (about a certain dog-handler) tend to incur sin-bin points, and posts (of hard fact) removed.
All by the same moderator.
Curious way to run a board ....
We're all equal on this forum, it's just that some are more equal than others.
so he doesnt see the mans face clearly but thinks its gerry based on the way he held the child...then he sees gerry's face plastered all over the press...then lo and behold he produces an efit that looks like gerry
For some curious reason, idle speculation (that denigrates the McCanns or anyone who supports them) is allowed.
Meanwhile, hard facts (about a certain dog-handler) tend to incur sin-bin points, and posts (of hard fact) removed.
All by the same moderator.
Curious way to run a board ....
I have stated a fact.
That you seem not to like very much ....
The police use a software programme called Efit-V and then they use Adobe Photoshop to add features such as ageing lines etc. They begin by choosing a face shape from nine possibles, then a hairstyle. Other features follow. I don't know if Oakley would have had access to such a computer system.Do you have any thoughts on why the two e-fits appear to have been constructed by two entirely different methods (one like a diagram/carton, the other like a photo composite)?
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/west-yorkshire-police-e-fit-9064751
You stated something from a newspaper. Not a fact, no source quoted. Newspapers don't always get it right, did you know that?
Martin Smith has changed his opinion.
He no longer believes he saw Gerry McCann.
Martin Smith has changed his opinion.
He no longer believes he saw Gerry McCann.
Cite or withdraw.
Cite or withdraw.
Provide something more solid than idle (indeed defamatory) speculation about why Martin Smith might have produced an e-fit of a man he believed was Gerry (or, for that matter, why his wife would have done the same)
It would appear Martin Smith was one of the individuals who participated in the construction of the Oakley efits. Martin Smith claimed that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw that night was Gerry and he has never publicly wavered from that opinion, in fact in a direct quote from the Mirror he actually said that nothing had changed from the time he had first talked to the police. Now we can speculate as much as we like as to why he constructed the efits if he believed them to be Gerry McCann but that's all it will ever be, speculation.How come a direct quote in the Mirror is to be believed, but direct quotes and photos of documents from the police files in the Telegraph are to be doubted?
It would appear Martin Smith was one of the individuals who participated in the construction of the Oakley efits. Martin Smith claimed that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw that night was Gerry and he has never publicly wavered from that opinion, in fact in a direct quote from the Mirror he actually said that nothing had changed from the time he had first talked to the police. Now we can speculate as much as we like as to why he constructed the efits if he believed them to be Gerry McCann but that's all it will ever be, speculation.
That Martin Smith might have been coerced into producing an efit is idle speculation.
That he changed his mind (about the man being Gerry) and acknowledged that he had been mistaken (in that belief) following publication of the files is opinion based on both fact and common sense.
Wrong again.
Martin Smith no longer believes he saw Gerry, as is self-evident from the fact that he produced an efit of the man he saw ...
No ferryman that is simply what you're reading into a set of actions.
Try again.
No need to try again.
Do you have any thoughts on why the two e-fits appear to have been constructed by two entirely different methods (one like a diagram/carton, the other like a photo composite)?Because the 2 efits were done on two different computers, using different software, with two unrelated witnesses from different countries IMO.
Agreed.
The argument (that Martin Smith changed his mind) has been won, hook, line and sinker.
Why would MS choose to make an efit for a firm of PI's yet conceal this fact from Leics police & the PJ?
Why would MS choose to make an efit for a firm of PI's yet conceal this fact from Leics police & the PJ?
Martin Smith did not change his mind with regard to his identification in fact quite the opposite :
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Where's the evidence that anything was concealed?
Neither LP nor the PJ knew anything about them within the duration of the PJ investigation?
Martin Smith (and his family) each gave one statement.
No one altered the details of those statements.
And your point is?
Probably read Mr McCluskey's addition to his statement as a result of watching a news programme showing the McCann family disembarking from a plane ... and thought ... hmmm??IMO the McCluskey sighting, the Smith sighting, and the JT sighting, are all irrelevant.
Martin Smith made two statements. He gave a statement to the Garda that he was 60-80% sure the man he saw on the night of the 3rd was Gerry McCann. He has never publicly wavered from that belief.
Yes he has.
John provided the quote.
Because the 2 efits were done on two different computers, using different software, with two unrelated witnesses from different countries IMO.There has been an FOI (I think) that both e-fits were produced by 'the Irish family'.
Probably one efit is by one of the Irish group, possibly one of the children? It was children in the group who (unlike the adults) observed the girl's long sleeves, and her bare feet, and the man's black jacket/coat.
And one efit is probably is by the english female tourist, who reportedly saw a man walking along carrying a child and at the same time speaking on his mobile phone in english language, with a british (not foreign) accent. Source is a paper edition of Correio da Manha in July 2014.
IMO the McCluskey sighting, the Smith sighting, and the JT sighting, are all irrelevant.
All open carrying sightings are irrelevant IMO - it would be contrary to all the instincts of a perpetrator.
The Hatton Garden crooks were low IQ but even they didn't carry armfuls of gold openly along the streets of London did they?
Yet the whole of this PDL investigation is focussed on that farcical assumption.
Then you'll be able to provide it.
The McCluskey sighting was investigated and the incident and the people involved checked ... therefore it may indeed have been irrelevant.Yes the sleeping girl and the man who was carrying her, who were seen and reported by the McClusky's, were later both identified by the PJ.
The interest in it lies in the fact that people who witnessed a child being carried would as a result probably pay a great deal more attention to how the case developed than most.
After months of negative press reports and after months of viewing the McCann family these witnesses became reluctantly convinced when viewing exactly the same news clip that the man they had witnessed carrying the child was the child's father, the man whose image they had been exposed to for months.
The wording of what they made of that in additions to their original statements is remarkably similar.
Whether you think it farcical or not, witnesses saw what they saw in three separate sightings, only one of which was effectively ruled out at the time.
Looks as if John has removed his post.
I have a subscription to the Telegraph site. I'll dig it out another time.
In the meanwhile, Martin Smith has replaced opinion (that he and his family saw Gerry) with fact (that they did not) ...
Yes the sleeping girl and the man who was carrying her, who were seen and reported by the McClusky's, were later both identified by the PJ.
In the meanwhile, Martin Smith has replaced opinion (that he and his family saw Gerry) with fact (that they did not) ...
Looks as if John has removed his post.
I have a subscription to the Telegraph site. I'll dig it out another time.
In the meanwhile, Martin Smith has replaced opinion (that he and his family saw Gerry) with fact (that they did not) ...
Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim – just as Portuguese police have officially told the McCanns they are no longer suspects for their daughter’s disappearance.
The couple have also won libel damages for false suggestions that they were in any way involved.
Numerous witnesses have also given statements making clear that Mr McCann was at his holiday complex at the moment the sighting occurred – which was at the very time when he and his wife started calling for help looking for Maddie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz40r8h5x8Q
We are still waiting for credible proof that Smith withdrew the claim.
In what way did the Rebelo investigation progress Mr Smith's addition to his statement?I don't know, but one thing the Rebelo investigation certainly didn't do is fly the witness to Portugal to make a formal identification.
Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim – just as Portuguese police have officially told the McCanns they are no longer suspects for their daughter’s disappearance.
The couple have also won libel damages for false suggestions that they were in any way involved.
Numerous witnesses have also given statements making clear that Mr McCann was at his holiday complex at the moment the sighting occurred – which was at the very time when he and his wife started calling for help looking for Maddie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz40r8h5x8Q
Looks as if John has removed his post.Yep, I saw the "quote" from Martin Smith that he did not believe that Smithman was Gerry. I think it was in The Times, ferryman
I have a subscription to the Telegraph site. I'll dig it out another time.
In the meanwhile, Martin Smith has replaced opinion (that he and his family saw Gerry) with fact (that they did not) ...
We are still waiting for credible proof that Smith withdrew the claim.
The efits (one produced by Martin Smith) is credible proof.
No one would seriously believe Mr Smith would produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry, for obvious reasons.
Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborate evidence that Martin Smith was correct.
Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborative evidence that Martin Smith was correct.
Why not ? If a second witness also recognised the efit as Gerry that would be corroborative evidence that Martin Smith was correct.Can you explain to me why someone would need to produce an e-fit on someone who is internationally famous, with pictures all over the internet? If I was 60-80% certain I saw Ant and Dec shoplifting from Morrisons would I have to create an e-fit that looked a bit like them, or simply tell the police who I think I saw and let them get on with it?
Can you explain to me why someone would need to produce an e-fit on someone who is internationally famous, with pictures all over the internet? If I was 60-80% certain I saw Ant and Dec shoplifting from Morrisons would I have to create an e-fit that looked a bit like them, or simply tell the police who I think I saw and let them get on with it?
Whatever you think Redwood went with it.Only if you have convinced yourself that Redwood and the police believe that Martin Smith was describing Gerry McCann to them!
It doesn't even look like Gerry.
Only if you have convinced yourself that Redwood and the police believe that Martin Smith was describing Gerry McCann to them!
As he was 80-80% certain it was Gerry McCann he saw it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that the e-fits were similar.the e-fits should have been virtually identical, not vaguely similar.
the e-fits should have been virtually identical, not vaguely similar.
As he was 80-80% certain it was Gerry McCann he saw it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that the e-fits were similar.
Depends how they do them, full face or feature by feature. They're near enough for lots of people to have recognised someone. Particularly two people who never bothered to book a press conference to publicise the exciting new e-fits.you've missed the point, repeatedly. Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit. But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?! What rubbish.
The efits (one produced by Martin Smith) is credible proof.
No one would seriously believe Mr Smith would produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry, for obvious reasons.
you've missed the point, repeatedly. Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit. But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?! What rubbish.
you've missed the point, repeatedly. Smith tells the police "the man I saw was Gerry McCann" the e-fit guys have a million pics of Gerry McCann on the internet to refer to when doing the e-fit. But actually when you think about it, the premise is completely absurd: you tell the police you're 60-80% sure the men you saw shoplifting were Ant and Dec and they ask you for a decription for an e-fit?! What rubbish.
Why the e-fits in the first place then? (not done by the police by the way). What were Oakley's men trying to achieve?doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry. It's glaringly obvious, surely?!
doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry. It's glaringly obvious, surely?!
There was always at least a 20% doubt in Matin Smith's identification. I assume it was this small doubt that made the efits necessary.LOL, so he really wasn't certain about it right from the get-go, is that what you're saying? That coupled with the fact that he never saw the guy's face anyway and that none of the rest of his family thought it was Gerry, and yet people like you consider his claim of utmost importance and have built your wobbly theories around it -
LOL, so he really wasn't certain about it right from the get-go, is that what you're saying? That coupled with the fact that he never saw the guy's face anyway and that none of the rest of his family thought it was Gerry, and yet people like you consider his claim of utmost importance and have built your wobbly theories around it -
Washup of 9 pages.
Answer to the opening post:
YES!
Has John got back to you yet with that quote ?
I found it myself.
Care to share ?
No point.
It was posted (and removed) once by the owner of the board.
I'm sure he had his reasons for removing it ....
If they were "almost certain" then e-fits were unnecessary. The end.
Where have I ever said Martin Smith was any more than 80% sure that the nan he saw was Gerry and BTW I know you supporters don't like it but Martin's wife Mary also agreed with his feeling that the man they had seen was Madeleine's father. It is interesting that you are willing to endorse a theory that hangs on an individual who has been ruled out of the case yet scoff at a theory involves the almost certainty of two eyewitness's identification.
Washup of 9 pages.
Answer to the opening post:
YES!
If they were "almost certain" then e-fits were unnecessary. The end.
NOPE
Thinking or wishing never makes it so
Of course they weren't. There was still a small chance they were wrong.It's like trying to reason with mud. I give up.
It's like trying to reason with mud. I give up.
I like a man who knows when he's beaten ! 8(0(*unreasonable people always win in an online argument.
unreasonable people always win in an online argument.
Not to worry Mercury I'm sure ferryman will prove us all wrong in a moment by furnishing us with that direct quote from Martin Smith.
I hope so as its been trumpeted over two threads..I have pmd John to reproduce it and settle this ....after all this is a fact based forum admin tells us all the time, we want facts not utterances to be taken in faith as facts!!
LOL, so he really wasn't certain about it right from the get-go, is that what you're saying? That coupled with the fact that he never saw the guy's face anyway and that none of the rest of his family thought it was Gerry, and yet people like you consider his claim of utmost importance and have built your wobbly theories around it - bonkers mate!
Indeed Mercury. I'm sure ferryman will produce the quote rather than face the igmony of being thought a fool.
Of course he saw his face but it was dark.No recall of any relevant facial details apart from the lack of glasses and facial hair. Well that certainly narrows it down then.
"He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good." MS
I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.
ST:
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.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0
However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:
Joana Morais
@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …
Jason Farrell @JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
If those comments (in bold) don't make it crystal clear that the Smiths don't think it was Gerry they saw - then I don't know what will. Anyone who thinks Mrs Smith meant something different is deluding themselves that black is white IMO.The "Sceptic" defensive position will be - it's in the Mail on Sunday so they must've made it up.
The "Sceptic" defensive position will be - it's in the Mail on Sunday so they must've made it up.
I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.
ST:
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.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0
However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:
Joana Morais
@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …
Jason Farrell @JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
This is the whole article the quotes were taken from :
Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared The Irish Mail on Sunday (no online link, appears in paper edition)
10 August 2008
Father-of-six gave garda a signed statement saying he and his wife were ''60 to 80% sure'' that the man they saw holding the child was Maddie's father.
The claim, which was taken seriously by the Portuguese police, was made almost four months after Maddie disappeared on May 3rd this year.
Since then the McCanns have been totally exonerated of any involvement.
Mr. Smith had initally told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses. The following September, however, the businessman saw clips of the McCanns returning from their holidays and said the footage of Mr McCann carrying his younger child had instantly reminded him of the mystery man.
''I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann that I met that night carrying a child," Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.
''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''
Mr Smith's claim was passed to the Portuguese police who took it as more evidence in support of their mistaken belief that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearence.
Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may.
One said ''Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland.
"The McCanns returning to England - It was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry.
''By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what??
''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese,who were clearly desperate to get something against them."
The extraordinary saga began on the night of May 3rd 2007, as Martin and his wife, Mary, walked back from a local pub in Praia da Luz to their apartment with members of his family. They had decided to return to their apartment within an hour of dining out becasue their son, Peter, was catching an early morning flight the next day.
As they made their way back, they crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.
It was 9.55 pm and the man was carrying a sleeping little blonde girl of about 4-years of age. The child's head was was resting on the man's left shoulder.
At this stage Maddie had already disappeared but the Smiths were unaware that a child had gone missing from PDL.
It was not until the following morning that a family member living in Ireland told them of Madeleine's disappearence. Mr Smith returned to Ireland six days after the litle girl went missing and it was another 2 weeks before he travelled back to Portugal to make a statement about what he saw that night.
In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather -who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw.
Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.
After making his statement, Mr Smtih returned to Drogheda and it was not until four months later that that he made contact with the police again.
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
No word of either Martin Smith or his wife changing their minds. In fact it could be argued that if Mary or her husband felt that they had made a mistake identifying Gerry then she had the perfect platform to tell the world about it. She was not hog tied by judicial secrecy any more so what was stopping her ?
Like I said - anyone who thinks Mrs Smith didn't make it crystal clear from those comments that they don't think it was Gerry they saw - is deluding themselves.
The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
Like I said - anyone who thinks Mrs Smith didn't make it crystal clear from those comments that they don't think it was Gerry they saw - is deluding themselves.
The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
She could have made it crystal clear by admitting that they made a mistake. Why do you think she didn't ?
Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them. It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter..8@??)(
If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.
(Have to go out now)
Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them. It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter..
If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.
(Have to go out now)
This is the whole article the quotes were taken from :
Drogheda businessman told police he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach the day Maddie disappeared The Irish Mail on Sunday (no online link, appears in paper edition)
10 August 2008
Father-of-six gave garda a signed statement saying he and his wife were ''60 to 80% sure'' that the man they saw holding the child was Maddie's father.
The claim, which was taken seriously by the Portuguese police, was made almost four months after Maddie disappeared on May 3rd this year.
Since then the McCanns have been totally exonerated of any involvement.
Mr. Smith had initally told police he had seen a man carrying a child that night, but that he couldn't identify him because he had not been wearing his glasses. The following September, however, the businessman saw clips of the McCanns returning from their holidays and said the footage of Mr McCann carrying his younger child had instantly reminded him of the mystery man.
''I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann that I met that night carrying a child," Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.
''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''
Mr Smith's claim was passed to the Portuguese police who took it as more evidence in support of their mistaken belief that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearence.
Friends of the McCann family said last night that the decision of the Portuguese police to pursue Mr Smith's claims prove that they were determined to pin the blame on Maddie's parents come what may.
One said ''Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished. He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland.
"The McCanns returning to England - It was this image that alerted Mr Smith in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is, other than a basic description. A further three, almost four months go by before, after seeing him on television, he feels it could be Gerry.
''By now the police have dozens of statements putting Gerry back at the apartment complex at that time. Yet the Portuguese ask a combination of the Leicestershire police and the Garda to re-interview this witness. About what??
''And why? The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese,who were clearly desperate to get something against them."
The extraordinary saga began on the night of May 3rd 2007, as Martin and his wife, Mary, walked back from a local pub in Praia da Luz to their apartment with members of his family. They had decided to return to their apartment within an hour of dining out becasue their son, Peter, was catching an early morning flight the next day.
As they made their way back, they crossed paths with a slim man with a full head of chestnut coloured hair and dressed in beige trousers coming in the opposite direction.
It was 9.55 pm and the man was carrying a sleeping little blonde girl of about 4-years of age. The child's head was was resting on the man's left shoulder.
At this stage Maddie had already disappeared but the Smiths were unaware that a child had gone missing from PDL.
It was not until the following morning that a family member living in Ireland told them of Madeleine's disappearence. Mr Smith returned to Ireland six days after the litle girl went missing and it was another 2 weeks before he travelled back to Portugal to make a statement about what he saw that night.
In the statement to Portuguese police on May 26th, the grandfather -who wears glasses but was not wearing them at the night in question - said he would not be able to identify the man he saw.
Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.
After making his statement, Mr Smtih returned to Drogheda and it was not until four months later that that he made contact with the police again.
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
No word of either Martin Smith or his wife changing their minds. In fact it could be argued that if Mary or her husband felt that they had made a mistake identifying Gerry then she had the perfect platform to tell the world about it. She was not hog tied by judicial secrecy any more so what was stopping her ?
Grasping. At. Straws. The Smiths obviously saw a man carrying a child. There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact. That two of the group once upon a time thought it might be Gerry then changed their minds does not invalidate the sighting or its possible significance.
doing the e-fits in the first place ONLY makes sense if The Smiths changed their minds about it being Gerry. It's glaringly obvious, surely?!
Grasping. At. Straws. The Smiths obviously saw a man carrying a child. There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact. That two of the group once upon a time thought it might be Gerry then changed their minds does not invalidate the sighting or its possible significance.Nonsense. 3 of the group gave statements. It looks like some stuff has been attributed to Mary in various media reports.
The two of the group who provided the efits.Oh hello! I thought I was on ignore...?
Nonsense. 3 of the group gave statements. It looks like some stuff has been attributed to Mary in various media reports.What is nonsense exactly? That nine individuals saw a man carrying a child that night? Can you please explain to me how that is nonsense?
That means we are missing 5 of 9.
You are forgetting that the e-fits were allegedly connected to a report which was 'hypercritical' of Jane Tanner and the parents. We don't know when or why it was done, but it wasn't handed over during the life of the contract, which finished in September 2008.
Kate's book;
The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light.
Kate doesn't say if they acceded to the investigator's demand, but as his problem was with Oakley the Fund was under no obligation at all to reimburse him. (Demand is a very strong word by the way, much stronger than ask or request).
What it is claimed happened was that the hypercritical report and the e-fits were handed over in mid-November 2008 and the investigators at some point received a legal threat re confidentiality.
Three questions arise.
1. Why were the report and e-fits produced?
Because they were commissioned by the McCanns..?
2. Why were they handed over after the investigators were sacked?
Why wouldn't they have been?
3. Why did Redwood publicise the e-fits.
Why wouldn't he? They may or may not be relevant, he cannot be sure either way at this time, so better to put the info in the public domain I would have thought...
You are forgetting that the e-fits were allegedly connected to a report which was 'hypercritical' of Jane Tanner and the parents. We don't know when or why it was done, but it wasn't handed over during the life of the contract, which finished in September 2008.
Kate's book;
The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light.
Kate doesn't say if they acceded to the investigator's demand, but as his problem was with Oakley the Fund was under no obligation at all to reimburse him. (Demand is a very strong word by the way, much stronger than ask or request).
What it is claimed happened was that the hypercritical report and the e-fits were handed over in mid-November 2008 and the investigators at some point received a legal threat re confidentiality.
Three questions arise.
1. Why were the report and e-fits produced?
2. Why were they handed over after the investigators were sacked?
3. Why did Redwood publicise the e-fits.
What is nonsense exactly? That nine individuals saw a man carrying a child that night? Can you please explain to me how that is nonsense?I gave you the quote of your claim the first time. Here it is again.
Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them. It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter..
If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.
(Have to go out now)
I gave you the quote of your claim the first time. Here it is again.I think you're being unduly pedantic. There were 9 individuals. 4 (?) of the group said that a man carrying a child passed the group. Is there any question that 5 others of the group also saw the man, or do you think it's possible that these 5 did not see and would not be able to confirm that a man passed them that night?
"There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact."
You stated that. I said it's nonsense. Because it's nonsense.
@AlfredI don't get this. Why would Oakley undertake an investigation into anything that was not part of their remit and which they were not paid to investigate?
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 sightings of the missing girl around the world.
Why would the McCanns ask Oakley to investigate and report on their own part in the case? If they did specifically ask them to do it, why not ask for the report before sacking Oakley?
What did the investigators stand to gain by handing over a report which was hypercritical of the parents and their friends and two e-fits which had a look of the father? They were chasing payment at the time, and the report was unlikely to persuade the parents to pay them, quite the reverse really. The McCanns were not keen on being investigated, as the PJ discovered.
DCI Redwood publicised the e-fits, knowing they were connected to a report criticising the parents and Jane Tanner's sighting. At the same time he largely got rid of the Tanner sighting.
I don't get this. Why would Oakley undertake an investigation into anything that was not part of their remit and which they were not paid to investigate?
I think you're being unduly pedantic. There were 9 individuals. 4 (?) of the group said that a man carrying a child passed the group. Is there any question that 5 others of the group also saw the man, or do you think it's possible that these 5 did not see and would not be able to confirm that a man passed them that night?There is a big difference between '9 confirmed it' and '5 or 6 didn't but would be able to'.
There is a big difference between '9 confirmed it' and '5 or 6 didn't but would be able to'.You've concentrated on a debateable detail which does not alter in any way the thrust of my original point, but thanks for taking us on the detour.
If you believe a child of 4 and a child of 6 would be able to confirm it, your understanding of how memory works is quite different to my understanding.
The other members fall into the debateable category, other than the fact that they did not give statements. 9 down to 3 is hardly pedantic.
Oh hello! I thought I was on ignore...?
Now you're getting there. Concentrating on the e-fits tells us nothing. Add a report hypercritical of the group to the e- fits with a look of the father and you have a package which the McCanns are unlikely to have asked for and didn't want in the public domain. In fact they were said to have suppressed the report;I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread. Has Martin Smith changed his opinion? All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has. Next.
Critical new evidence at the centre of the reinvigorated hunt for Madeleine McCann came from a suppressed report by ex-MI5 investigators.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html
The report and associated e-fits didn't surface while Oakley were still working for the parents, they surfaced in November 2008 around the time when unpaid investigators were 'demanding' payment from the McCanns.
Only when mocking and deriding ?{)(**I was mocking you then but you responded. Ooops!
I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread. Has Martin Smith changed his opinion? All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has. Next.
I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread. Has Martin Smith changed his opinion? All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has. Next.
No, there is no evidence that he changed his mind. It's immaterial anyway because they still look like Gerry McCann.
I was mocking you then but you responded. Ooops!
Aside from xenophobic cheap shots about the Irish, there is no other reason that could be offered why Martin Smith would have produced an efit of a man he believed was Gerry ....
IMO it was an excellent way to get the McCann PI's to stop pestering the Smith family.
Aside from xenophobic cheap shots about the Irish, there is no other reason that could be offered why Martin Smith would have produced an efit of a man he believed was Gerry ....
He refused to produce one when approached by Brian Kennedy, but he agreed when approached by Oakley's investigators. I don't know what Kennedy hoped to achieve but I have some idea what Oakley were up to.
They kept the e-fits in or with a report they produced. The report was hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends and it didn't think the Tanner sighting was credible. Can you see the direction they were taking? A clue; it wasn't an attempt to demonstrate the innocence and honesty of the T9.
He refused to produce one when approached by Brian Kennedy, but he agreed when approached by Oakley's investigators. I don't know what Kennedy hoped to achieve but I have some idea what Oakley were up to.
They kept the e-fits in or with a report they produced. The report was hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends and it didn't think the Tanner sighting was credible. Can you see the direction they were taking? A clue; it wasn't an attempt to demonstrate the innocence and honesty of the T9.
Forget the crap about Oakley's quibbles with the (estimable) Jane Tanner; a red-herring.
For the moment, forget, also, the thoughts of the PJ. At least, at that juncture, efits was foreign territory for them. They never used them in their own investigations and didn't really understand their purpose or the rationale of their use.
Think about the English police and English rationale for the use and purpose of efits.
Efits are used to highlight (most commonly) likely suspects in crime and to aid identification of criminals.
It is conceivable that the Smiths might have seen Madeleine's abduction and Madeleine's abductor.
Therefore, that efit could only, ever, be released into the public domain in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
Scotland Yard, themselves, kept hold of the efits for a considerable period (after taking custody of them) before releasing them into the public domain during the Crimewatch programme.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquires.
They long have.
Nothing new about the Madeleine enquiry (at least in that respect).
Not rocket-science ....
There was a live & ongoing PJ inquiry at the time the Smiths were approached by Kennedy. They could be accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice in light of their statements.
Forget the crap about Oakley's quibbles with the (estimable) Jane Tanner; a red-herring.
For the moment, forget, also, the thoughts of the PJ. At least, at that juncture, efits was foreign territory for them. They never used them in their own investigations and didn't really understand their purpose or the rationale of their use.
Think about the English police and English rationale for the use and purpose of efits.
Efits are used to highlight (most commonly) likely suspects in crime and to aid identification of criminals.
It is conceivable that the Smiths might have seen Madeleine's abduction and Madeleine's abductor.
Therefore, that efit could only, ever, be released into the public domain in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
Scotland Yard, themselves, kept hold of the efits for a considerable period (after taking custody of them) before releasing them into the public domain during the Crimewatch programme.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquires.
They long have.
Nothing new about the Madeleine enquiry (at least in that respect).
Not rocket-science ....
Oakley's investigators have claimed they produced the e-fits and have not been contradicted.
The Oakley investigator's report is not crap or a red herring, it's linked to the e-fits. The investigator's said so and no-one has denied that either.
As the UK police didn't produce the e-fits I don't see the relevance of bringing them into the debate?
Then I can only assume that you're very bad at it because i didn't even notice.You know what they say about ASSuming don't you...? 8(0(*
Why obfuscate the salient fact with red-herrings?
No, there is no evidence that he changed his mind. It's immaterial anyway because they still look like Gerry McCann.Would you say your hearts were breaking for the McCanns, whilst simultaneously suspecting them of all sorts of heinous deeds?
Would you say your hearts were breaking for the McCanns, whilst simultaneously suspecting them of all sorts of heinous deeds?
G Unit's heart is breaking while suspecting them of heniuos crimes? wow, really, do share. Or are you implying that is the conflicting status of Mr Smith? in that case a wee cite would be great.
G Unit's heart is breaking while suspecting them of heniuos crimes? wow, really, do share. Or are you implying that is the conflicting status of Mr Smith? in that case a wee cite would be great.read back. Mrs Smith said that their hearts were breaking for Madeleine's parents, is this the kind of comment you would make if you suspected the self-same parents were guilty of covering up the death of a child and perpetuating a huge fraud?
One wonders why there are two threads on Martin Smith.
- Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
- Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?
In all events, the one-word answer to both title-threads is yes.
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would , in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."
Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.
137 Handwritten Richard McCluskey statement
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
... something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Mr Smith's statement in blue.
Two credible witnesses.
Two witness statements in which it is stated that neither witness is able to identify the man seen carrying a child.
Two additions to witness statements months after the event ... both as a result of exposure to the media.
Two changed statements ... but the other witnesses present at the events have not changed theirs.
Mr Smith was only 60 to 80% sure that he recognised the carrier.
Mr McCluskey was in effect 100% sure that he too recognised the carrier.
The difference lies in the fact the PJ had ruled out one sighting and not the other: otherwise think what powerful 'evidence' that would have been for sceptics ... not only a 60 to 80% but a 100% surety with which to make mischief.
The perception which caused Mr McCluskey to erroneously make an additional statement must be measured against Mr Smith's statement.
The Rebelo investigation which had access to both the Smith and McCluskey statements chose not to follow up on the Smith changes and I very much doubt they were in ignorance particularly as Ricardo Paiva was involved.
In my opinion it is perfectly obvious why not ... and why we discuss Mr Smith ad nauseam is one of life's mysteries.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
(snip) ...The Rebelo investigation which had access to both the Smith and McCluskey statements chose not to follow up on the Smith changes and I very much doubt they were in ignorance particularly as Ricardo Paiva was involved. ...(snip)It was Paiva who made the Sept 27th international phonecall to Mr Smith in Ireland and asked him if he would be willing to return to Portugal.
It could have been a spur of the moment thing. Local child-stealer comes across small child wandering in street, snatches her and disappears off into the darkness, only to be spotted close up by pesky tourists.Yeah that would make a lot of sense I guess. But we are continually told there is absolutely no possibility Madeleine could have left the apartment herself...which kind of diminishes the chance of this considerably.
The Smith sighting always perplexes me. I do not understand how he can decide 4 months on, and simply because of the way the child was being held, that it was likely to be Gerry,Hi and welcome.
I also don't believe (if Gerry was hiding a dead child) he would parade through the streets carrying said child.
Same as I have never believed Tannerman could be the abductor. As it would have been preplanned, and as such, there would have been some other means of getting the child away than boldly marching through the streets at (what I assume would be) a busy time of night.
The Smith sighting always perplexes me. I do not understand how he can decide 4 months on, and simply because of the way the child was being held, that it was likely to be Gerry.At last! - A voice of sheer common sense on the alleged Smith sighting. It is just astonishing how gullible people can be to swallow Martin Smith's nonsense - and when he made his statement on 20 September 2007 it was nearer 5 months on than 4. The fact that he has very clearly co-operated with the McCann Team since around January 2008 also fatally undermines the extraordinary claim he made to the Irish police on 20 September.
It was Paiva who made the Sept 27th international phonecall to Mr Smith in Ireland and asked him if he would be willing to return to Portugal.
Hi and welcome.Heh, I may actually take you up on that someday. Portugal is somewhere I have wanted to go for a while.
If you ever make it out to Luz, I'll be happy to show you the Tannerman scene at that time of the evening. It is an area of Luz that has no bars or restaurants, except for what was then the Tapas restaurant. Take out the Tapas 9 traffic, and what you have is a very quiet area.
There were other people, according to reports, but not a lot.
At last! - A voice of sheer common sense on the alleged Smith sighting. It is just astonishing how gullible people can be to swallow Martin Smith's nonsense - and when he made his statement on 20 September 2007 it was nearer 5 months on than 4. The fact that he has very clearly co-operated with the McCann Team since around January 2008 also fatally undermines the extraordinary claim he made to the Irish police on 20 September.Thank you. I haven't read the whole thread or anything but I would have thought I was not the only person to point out how ridiculous the Smith signing was. Not the sighting in itself, but the identification of Gerry some months on. You cannot identify someone by the way they carry a child, as if each way of holding is unique to each person...its crazy
Someone up the thread said that Scotland Yard had certified Martin Smith as a 'credible witness'.
Sorry, don't buy it.
Watch the Panorama programme on BBC on Monday and see how widespread police corruption in the U.K. is these days
Heh, I may actually take you up on that someday. Portugal is somewhere I have wanted to go for a while.
Thank you. I haven't read the whole thread or anything but I would have thought I was not the only person to point out how ridiculous the Smith signing was. Not the sighting in itself, but the identification of Gerry some months on. You cannot identify someone by the way they carry a child, as if each way of holding is unique to each person...its crazy
Not to smear Smith or anything, but my gut feeling was that Gerry was fingered purely to get the blame off Murat (who I also think is innocent, weird, but innocent) given part of his statement was that the person he saw was definitely NOT Murat...
I don't think Smith had to finger anyone to just state it wasn't Murat and IIRC (I could be wrong) he said it wasn't Murat before he said the man reminded him of GerryYeah I guess thats true. I just always found the Smith thing weird because he said he was so sure it was Gerry then went on to say it was the way the child was being held. Which is...strange. I could not identify someone I saw months ago by the way they held something, I don't think @)(++(*
Yeah I guess thats true. I just always found the Smith thing weird because he said he was so sure it was Gerry then went on to say it was the way the child was being held. Which is...strange. I could not identify someone I saw months ago by the way they held something, I don't think @)(++(*
Yeah I guess thats true. I just always found the Smith thing weird because he said he was so sure it was Gerry then went on to say it was the way the child was being held. Which is...strange. I could not identify someone I saw months ago by the way they held something, I don't think @)(++(*
I see what you mean, but sometimes a small thing that is especially standing out might trigger a memoryand all the people who were with Gerry at the time of the sighting.
Thepolice said he was shaken when he made the phone call....I don't doubt his honesty! no one knows if it was Gerry or not, apart from Gerry and the abductor if he exists
and all the people who were with Gerry at the time of the sighting.
None of who were independent witnesses.independent of what?
and all the people who were with Gerry at the time of the sighting.
a bunch of probBly half drunk people? Who couldn't remember what day it was half the time in their statements, yea, okHow drunk were the Smiths then?
How drunk were the Smiths then?
How drunk were the Smiths then?
Irrelevant isn't it and changing goalposts again?No it's not irrelevant. You have made an unsubstantiated claim that the Tapas Group were "half-drunk" and therefore their witness testimony that Gerry was with them at the time of the Smith sighting cannot be relied on. My question is: how reliable is the Smiths testimony if they had been drinking too? After all, they seemed to have very severe short term memory problems in the aftermath of the disappearance!
independent of what?
Oh, very drunk, I would say.yeah, at least half-drunk, maybe three-quarters even!
The McCanns of course.so now it's a conspiracy involving seven accomplices.
yeah, at least half-drunk, maybe three-quarters even!
Wasn't Aofie under the legal drinking age and another member of the group pregnant ?Who cares, let's smear them anyway!
Who cares, let's smear them anyway!
so now it's a conspiracy involving seven accomplices.
yeah, at least half-drunk, maybe three-quarters even!
At least as drunk as The McCanns, who were nearly legless, according to popular opinion.
No it's not irrelevant. You have made an unsubstantiated claim that the Tapas Group were "half-drunk" and therefore their witness testimony that Gerry was with them at the time of the Smith sighting cannot be relied on. My question is: how reliable is the Smiths testimony if they had been drinking too? After all, they seemed to have very severe short term memory problems in the aftermath of the disappearance!
So at least half the group, children and pregnant women, hadn't touched a drop. Is the correct ?
Not legless but certainly over the drink drive limit.
You seen the smith family bar statements...hardly a drunken bawl! The tapas group are on record from waiter statements of having 8 bottles of wine a night...that's before they had anything at home before going out...to call them half drunk is not wild speculation when trying at the end of the fight to remember who was where and what was happening
So at least half the group, children and pregnant women, hadn't touched a drop. Is the correct ?Who knows? In any case who were the ones who pointed the finger at Gerry? The tee-totallers, or the ones who'd been on the sauce?
I said the McCann's friends weren't independent witnesses. I said nothing about them being involved.If there werent' "involved" then they're testimony is independent and valid.
You seen the smith family bar statements...hardly a drunken bawl! The tapas group are on record from waiter statements of having 8 bottles of wine a night...that's before they had anything at home before going out...to call them half drunk is not wild speculation when trying at the end of the fight to remember who was where and what was happeningFine they were all pissed as newts and that explains all the inconsistencies in the statements -will that do you then?
How much did The Smiths drink while they were eating? Tell me that.How much had they had before eating, they might have been drinking all day long!
Who knows? The children could have been drinking, just for fun. But most of them weren't interviewed.
How much did The Smiths drink while they were eating? Tell me that.
Who knows? In any case who were the ones who pointed the finger at Gerry? The tee-totallers, or the ones who'd been on the sauce?
If there werent' "involved" then they're testimony is independent and valid.
How much had they had before eating, they might have been drinking all day long!
Well, they must have had a couple or ten before they went out. This is what the Irish do. And I am half Irish, by the way. The other half of me is Welsh, but The Welsh call it medicinal.
I think you have been drinking Eleanor. One of the children was 4.
I'm half Irish and half Scottish and I don't drink at all so that knocks that stereotype on the head !
I'm half Irish and half Scottish and I don't drink at all so that knocks that stereotype on the head !
As old as that?
Me drinking? I never touch a drop. Other than medicinal, occasionally, but not very often. How about you?
Yeah I guess thats true. I just always found the Smith thing weird because he said he was so sure it was Gerry then went on to say it was the way the child was being held. Which is...strange. I could not identify someone I saw months ago by the way they held something, I don't think @)(++(*Well, I have never seen a statement where he said that he was sure that it was Gerry.
a bunch of probBly half drunk people? Who couldn't remember what day it was half the time in their statements, yea, okHalf drunk on what little they consumed? Dont exagerate mercury.
How much did The Smiths drink while they were eating? Tell me that.I'd guess something like 2 rosé 5 cokes and a sprite Eleanor
You seen the smith family bar statements...hardly a drunken bawl! The tapas group are on record from waiter statements of having 8 bottles of wine a night...that's before they had anything at home before going out...to call them half drunk is not wild speculation when trying at the end of the fight to remember who was where and what was happeningAt the time that Madeleine was found missing, just four bottles of wine had been opened. They were not finished and judging by the way they rushed off, the glasses were not all empty either
I'd guess something like 2 rosé 5 cokes and a sprite Eleanor
I was being facetious, Pegasus. I am so tired of hearing of how much the McCanns and friends drank.
And the accusations are all myths , made up stuff.
No evidence of heavy drinking at all.
(snip) assuming that they were 4 different wines ... Not one bottle had been finished! (snip)There were only two choices of free wine "tinto" and "branco"
There were only two choices of free wine "tinto" and "branco"
No it isn't. A wife may not be involved in her husband's nefarious activities but wouldn't be considered independent.were all seven married to Gerry also?
Wot? No Rose? Good heavens.
were all seven married to Gerry also?
From spencerssolicitors.com :
"What does 'Independent Witness' mean?
A witness is a term used to refer to someone who is not directly involved in a situation, but who sees with their own eyes what happened or is currently happening.
An independent witness means that the person seeing the situation does not know any of the parties involved.
If there is a dispute over the facts of an accident or assault, independent witness evidence can be crucial to the parties and the court to help them to get to the bottom of what actually happened. Often the people directly involved cannot remember all of the detail as they were wrapped up in dealing with the incident itself.
An independent witness can give clarity and an unbiased viewpoint"
Who would be "independent witnesses" in this case, if the criterion is someone who "didn't know any of the parties involved"?
Does that apply to the Tapas staff? The nannies? Anyone who'd taken part in sports activities? Anyone who'd chatted to any of the T9 at some point? Jez?
Who would be "independent witnesses" in this case, if the criterion is someone who "didn't know any of the parties involved"?
Does that apply to the Tapas staff? The nannies? Anyone who'd taken part in sports activities? Anyone who'd chatted to any of the T9 at some point? Jez?
From spencerssolicitors.com :On that basis kindly list all the independent witnesses from that evening.
"What does 'Independent Witness' mean?
A witness is a term used to refer to someone who is not directly involved in a situation, but who sees with their own eyes what happened or is currently happening.
An independent witness means that the person seeing the situation does not know any of the parties involved.
If there is a dispute over the facts of an accident or assault, independent witness evidence can be crucial to the parties and the court to help them to get to the bottom of what actually happened. Often the people directly involved cannot remember all of the detail as they were wrapped up in dealing with the incident itself.
An independent witness can give clarity and an unbiased viewpoint"
Wot? No Rose? Good heavens.At tapas evening 3rd May only two types of free wine were served and they were tinto (red) and branco (white).
Who 'independent witnesses' wouldn't be is close friends of the McCanns and it would seem that no one else actually puts Gerry in the Tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting.
On that basis kindly list all the independent witnesses from that evening.
I have previously given you six independent witnesses who put the whole group away from the Tapas at the time of the Smith sighting.Yes, what if the rush from the table is 4 minutes before the smith sighting?
I have previously given you six independent witnesses who put the whole group away from the Tapas at the time of the Smith sighting.so the alarm was raised how much earlier than the Smith sighting according to these independent witnesses?
Answering the OP again
- a newspaper printed that he had
- Smith was not quoted so we don't know how the newspaper knew that he had stressed he didn't think it could have been GM he saw (if indeed he did)
- if he did there is no way of knowing if he did really change his mind - perhaps he didn't want the hassle and told x y z what they wanted to hear
- its not impossible what the newspaper printed was a fabrication, history proves this and indeed, Smith has received apologies in the past for exactly this
If smithman was carrying missing child and came straight from apartment, he left apartment only 3 minutes before passing the irish group. It's only 375 metres. For example if smith sighting was at 10, man leaves apartment at 9.57.What time wasthe Smith sighting?
Yes, what if the rush from the table is 4 minutes before the smith sighting?So they all rush to the apartment, one of them picks up a dead body and rushes away to the site of the Smith sighting with it...? &%+((£
So they all rush to the apartment, one of them picks up a dead body and rushes away to the site of the Smith sighting with it...? &%+((£
It would have to be hidden somewhere else away from the crime scene before being moved a second time and seen by the Smiths.
He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
It was ritually important to close the eyes quickly, being that they are the first to rigidify in rigor mortis, and it was thought that a corpse with open eyes posed a threat to its kin. As has long been the case in many cultures, they used coins to keep the corpse's eyes closed. The practice of using coins endures, representing a feeling that money, so important in life, may also be important in death.
http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html#ixzz41VWOzQxg
Nothing unusual about the pale child being carried was noticed by any of the three whose statements we have read.
Suggesting that there was nothing unusual and that she was not dead as you imagine, but sleeping.
He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
It was ritually important to close the eyes quickly, being that they are the first to rigidify in rigor mortis, and it was thought that a corpse with open eyes posed a threat to its kin. As has long been the case in many cultures, they used coins to keep the corpse's eyes closed. The practice of using coins endures, representing a feeling that money, so important in life, may also be important in death.
http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html#ixzz41VWOzQxg
Nothing unusual about the pale child being carried was noticed by any of the three whose statements we have read.
Suggesting that there was nothing unusual and that she was not dead as you imagine, but sleeping.
Common sense dear. If they couldn't see his face clearly in the dark then they wouldn't notice her tiny eyelids. The child's eyes would be facing down on his shoulder and in the opposite direction when he was heading towards them.
One wonders how any of them saw her eyes at all, as her hair had probably flopped forward, covering most of the side of her face.
They didn't need to see her eyes to know she was out for the count.
Two of them said they saw her eyelids closed. Why say that if they were merely making an assumption from the child's body position?
It would have to be hidden somewhere else away from the crime scene before being moved a second time and seen by the Smiths.so they all rush back. to the apartment when the alarm is raised, except for one (the most important one) who instead rushes off "somewhere else"?
so they all rush back. to the apartment when the alarm is raised, except for one (the most important one) who instead rushes off "somewhere else"?
But only after changing his clothes. I wonder when he did that. Or when he changed back into the clothes he was wearing at the restaurant after he'd done the deed.
so they all rush back. to the apartment when the alarm is raised, except for one (the most important one) who instead rushes off "somewhere else"?
What was he wearing at the restaurant then?
From memory - Blue jeans, trainers, and a polar top. No dark jacket, gold trousers or ordinary shoes.
Anyway - we're off topic so I'll leave it at that.
Memory? I didn't realise you were there. If he was wearing completely different clothes the question arises as to why he didn't publicise the e-fits which Martin Smith was 60-80% sure were Gerry McCann. All he had to do was demonstrate that he wore the same clothes all evening on 3rd May. His PI's should have been able to find witnesses to that effect.
Common sense dear. If they couldn't see his face clearly in the dark then they wouldn't notice her tiny eyelids. The child's eyes would be facing down on his shoulder and in the opposite direction when he was heading towards them.@ Pathfinder. The witness states he saw the eyes were closed.
Aoife's statement is more believable.
I am not at all sure that it is, actually.
She first saw the bloke when he was about two metres in front of her.
If so, they would have crossed, at normal walking pace, about 1.0 to 1.5 seconds later.
It was dark. The lighting was described by the Smiths as 'weak'.
I question whether in the space of a maximum of 1.5 seconds in the dark she could have recalled all that she claimed to have recalled.
Relevant parts of her statement bolded:
--------------------
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
— Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres. At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with stairs that give access to Rua 25 de Abril. As they were a large group (four adults and five children) they travelled apart from each other along the street with some more to the front and the others more behind. She does not remember how they were divided [who was where].
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
To have deduced the fabrics of both the man's trousers and the girl's pyjamas from seeing the man and child for 1.0 to 1.5 seconds is an amazing feat of observation, if true.
As for Aoife Smith saying of the man, on 26th May in Portimao, "she saw his face but now cannot remember it", that is exactly what one would expect after encountering a strange bloke in the dark for about one to one-and-a-half seconds.
Quite why anyone at all should believe that any of the Smith family could conjure up an e-fit one whole year later (well, two e-fits, actually), utterly defeats me
Totally agree with blink on this occasion
I am not at all sure that it is, actually.
She first saw the bloke when he was about two metres in front of her.
If so, they would have crossed, at normal walking pace, about 1.0 to 1.5 seconds later.
It was dark. The lighting was described by the Smiths as 'weak'.
I question whether in the space of a maximum of 1.5 seconds in the dark she could have recalled all that she claimed to have recalled.
Relevant parts of her statement bolded:
--------------------
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
— Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres. At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with stairs that give access to Rua 25 de Abril. As they were a large group (four adults and five children) they travelled apart from each other along the street with some more to the front and the others more behind. She does not remember how they were divided [who was where].
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
To have deduced the fabrics of both the man's trousers and the girl's pyjamas from seeing the man and child for 1.0 to 1.5 seconds is an amazing feat of observation, if true.
As for Aoife Smith saying of the man, on 26th May in Portimao, "she saw his face but now cannot remember it", that is exactly what one would expect after encountering a strange bloke in the dark for about one to one-and-a-half seconds.
Quite why anyone at all should believe that any of the Smith family could conjure up an e-fit one whole year later (well, two e-fits, actually), utterly defeats me
Totally agree with blink on this occasion
Totally agree with blink on this occasionI've been 'blank', 'bonk' and 'bonkers' on this forum so far.
I've been 'blank', 'bonk' and 'bonkers' on this forum so far.James Blonk?
Now 'blink'.
I'm bunking off now.
Name's 'blonk' by the way
If Scotland Yard wished to review the Smith family evidence in my opinion it would be to dot the i's and cross the t's of exactly what they had witnessed.
I doubt very much if they would have requested any further facial identification details ... unless they have been reading different files than those to which we have access.
I think any notion that the Smith family had any input to efits is a red herring.
Despite months of exposure to seeing Dr Gerry McCann's face from all angles in photographs and moving pictures it was not the features he thought he recognised, but the way he was holding his son.
There is no information of a meeting with Scotland Yard and the Smith family. Just as there is no written or video statement recording the realisation of his mistaken identification of Madeleine's father.
However I am sure he is not a stupid man and his and his wife's supportive statements for Madeleine and her family would tend to indicate his opinion has indeed changed.
The Smith family may have been unable to assist with efits ... but other witnesses were not and had already provided contemporaneous examples.
Reading of James Murray's article gives a slightly different 'take' on the one which cost the Sunday Times a substantial contribution to Madeleine's fund.
New photo clue to Madeleine McCann case
DETECTIVES are using the latest computer technology to try to create a new image of a “prime suspect” who might have been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By JAMES MURRAY
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Mar 11, 2012
They are also working on a “computerised reconstruction” of the night she disappeared by putting thousands of pieces of information into the police Holmes computer.
The developments come at a significant time with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal announcing it has a cold case team working on the investigation in Porto, north Portugal.
The Portuguese officers will work closely with the Scotland Yard detectives and will have “primacy” in the investigation.
The Sunday Express understands the Yard team have been examining all photofits, e-fits and drawings of people suspected of being involved in the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine from an apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
One of the best known drawings was based on a description given by a friend of Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate.
Jane Tanner claimed she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but did not get a good look at his face.
Other images were created from witnesses who saw people acting suspiciously in the vicinity around the time of the crime.
Irishman Martin Smith and members of his family saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10pm, about 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting.
However, he was not asked to help produce a photofit.
The Met refuses to discuss the details but it is expected that officers will approach Mr Smith and his family for help.
Yard experts are looking at ways of improving the images to end with one pristine likeness of the “suspect”.
Officers are using the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System for computer logging of all relevant information and have tailored it to help create what is described as a “computer reconstruction” of the key events of the night of May 3.
It is hoped that eventually there will be an almost minute by minute account, which will assist officers.
The Yard launched its review last year after Kate and Gerry McCann appealed directly to David Cameron.
Officers have visited Portugal several times and are said to have a good relationship with their Portuguese counterparts.
PJ deputy chief Pedro do Carmo said: ‘‘The Porto team is very experienced in these cases.”
Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, hope the review will lead to a full scale reopening of the case.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/307369/New-photo-clue-to-Madeleine-McCann-case
Disagree.
I don't think you can really take anything (much) as 'read' from statements taken in reported rather than verbatim form.
I think the efits were produced, one by Martin, the other by his wife, Mary ....
Disagree.
I don't think you can really take anything (much) as 'read' from statements taken in reported rather than verbatim form.
I think the efits were produced, one by Martin, the other by his wife, Mary ....
Well, according to the 'professionals';
It was here at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club heading that way towards the beach.
Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw.
The e-fits are clear and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward.
Well at 10pm, we can see a man walking down towards the sea. A white man in his thirties with brown hair, and in his arms is a child three to four years of age, blonde hair, wearing pyjamas very close description to that of Madeleine McCann.
Two e-fits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual. Really important for us to understand who he is.
Crimewatch 2013
Transcript by
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/madeleine-crimewatch-2013-english-transcript-pt-44/
Unsure why you have put the word professionals in speechmarks?
it's not my opinion. It has been used repeatedly by others on the forum to describe the Met police. That's why I'm surprised that they are now choosing to cast doubt on the veracity of what DCI Redwood said.
What's not your opinion?
nevertheless
That the Met are 'the professionals', particularly as the word has often been used as an attempt to highlight the perceived failings of the PJ. Some on here have persistently praised the Met and now are refusing to believe what Redwood has told them.
Was Redwood being economical with the truth about the e-fits which, he said, were now 'the centre of his focus'? the e-fits of a man seen 'walking towards the sea' which 'have never been in the public domain before' and which were produced by two of the witnesses who saw that man?@ G-Unit One point we have to weigh up in our minds here is whether this (Operation Grange) was ever a genuine investigation to seek the truth to begin with. It certainly had a strictly limited remit.
IF there is a cover up, that's quite a wall someone will have to drill through to expose it, media, govt, police and all the "top knobs" involved...blimeyAMEN.
AMEN.
I have three books on my shelves:
BENT COPPERS, The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's battle against Police Corruption (2004), Graeme McLagan
SUPERGRASSES & INFORMERS AND BENT COPPERS: OMNIBUS (764 pages)(2002 ed), James Morton
and
THE UNTOUCHABLES, Dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard (2012), Michael Gillard & Laurie Flynn.
And quite a few others along the same lines.
If you read them, you would see how right you are that a 'wall' of career criminals and corrupt senior police officers is almost impossible to break down.
One of the criminals named in the film, Dave Hunt, was said by the Sunday Times back in 2010 to be 'too powerful for the Met to deal with'.
AMEN.
I have three books on my shelves:
BENT COPPERS, The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's battle against Police Corruption (2004), Graeme McLagan
SUPERGRASSES & INFORMERS AND BENT COPPERS: OMNIBUS (764 pages)(2002 ed), James Morton
and
THE UNTOUCHABLES, Dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard (2012), Michael Gillard & Laurie Flynn.
And quite a few others along the same lines.
If you read them, you would see how right you are that a 'wall' of career criminals and corrupt senior police officers is almost impossible to break down.
One of the criminals named in the film, Dave Hunt, was said by the Sunday Times back in 2010 to be 'too powerful for the Met to deal with'.
...as a quick aside, does anyone know the difference between ex-police officers and retired police officers?Retired is sort of "not out".
@ G-Unit One point we have to weigh up in our minds here is whether this (Operation Grange) was ever a genuine investigation to seek the truth to begin with. It certainly had a strictly limited remit.
A few weeks ago I expressed the view on this forum that Grange was NOT a genuine search for the truth. I was then pressed by several people to explain why. I did so. I gave 10 specific reasons. Or may be it was 12. There were a lot.
I mentioned last week that there would be a Panorama programme on Metropolitan Police corruption on Monday. Here is the link to it, I think it is available on BBC i-player for another 28 days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b072s2r5/panorama-cops-criminals-corruption-the-inside-story
It has to be watched to see how dirty and corrupt the Met Police is capable of being, and at a very senior level. One example was the fate of Det Chief Insp Dave McKelvie. When he stumbled on a ring of scrap metal thieves in Newham, connected to one of Britain's most notorious drugs lords, and successfully charged three of the ringleaders, senior Met officers hounded him out of the force by trumped-up charges that He was corrupt. The depth to which senior Met Officers can sink to in order to defend their corrupt relationships with major criminals is exposed in the programme. Knowing the capabilities of these corrupt police officers, some of them would do almost anything for money and promotion.
...as a quick aside, does anyone know the difference between ex-police officers and retired police officers?
...as a quick aside, does anyone know the difference between ex-police officers and retired police officers?
Ex police could mean sacked/pushed out or left of own accord to do somethng else
"Retired"could also mean sacked unofficially or retired properly at a retirable age with or without a new career outside the police
...just don't call a retired police officer an ex-police officer, they get upset,
...just don't call a retired police officer an ex-police officer, they get upset,
I know your opinions on the Met, so I don't expect you to accept what Redwood said. I am addressing people on here who have insisted loud and long that the Met are the best and that they are carrying out a full, unbiased and professional investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Then they discard what Redwood said and agree with you about the Smith e-fits. I agree with you about the remit (which some on here have also disputed). If the OG starting point was 'the abduction' then the investigation didn't start at the beginning.
I do think it's interesting that the e-fits didn't exist in a vacuum, though. They came with a report which was, allegedly, hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends' testimony.Taking the two things together, Redwood may have been influenced by the report, which urged that Tannerman be ditched and Smithman investigated.
..."She first saw the bloke when he was about two metres in front of her."
She first saw the bloke when he was about two metres in front of her.
If so, they would have crossed, at normal walking pace, about 1.0 to 1.5 seconds later.
It was dark. The lighting was described by the Smiths as 'weak'.
I question whether in the space of a maximum of 1.5 seconds in the dark she could have recalled all that she claimed to have recalled.
Relevant parts of her statement bolded:
--------------------
...
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
...
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
...
To have deduced the fabrics of both the man's trousers and the girl's pyjamas from seeing the man and child for 1.0 to 1.5 seconds is an amazing feat of observation, if true.
As for Aoife Smith saying of the man, on 26th May in Portimao, "she saw his face but now cannot remember it", that is exactly what one would expect after encountering a strange bloke in the dark for about one to one-and-a-half seconds.
Quite why anyone at all should believe that any of the Smith family could conjure up an e-fit one whole year later (well, two e-fits, actually), utterly defeats me
I do think it's interesting that the e-fits didn't exist in a vacuum, though. They came with a report which was, allegedly, hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends' testimony. Taking the two things together, Redwood may have been influenced by the report, which urged that Tannerman be ditched and Smithman investigated.
We are probably not too far apart on this.
However, dealing with your point above, bolded, you used the word 'allegedly' and I think that was a wise choice of word.
This allegedly hypercritical report was from Henri Exton.
We know this about him. He was the former Head of the Covert Intelligence for MI5. He also shoplifted a bottle of expensive perfume from Manchester Airport, was convicted after pleading guilty, but then had his conviction set aside. From what we have been told many times, Exton was recruited to the McCann Investigation Team by the corrupt fraudster, con-man and crook Kevin Halligen. Therefore to take ANYTHING which emerges from Exton's mouth as gospel would be very unwise.
Moreover, again from what we learn in dribs and drabs (see, e.g. the 2014 Channel 5 film featuring Halligen and Exton), Halligen didn't pay Exton for his work. Possibly the McCanns didn't pay him properly either. In which case, he would have a very sharp axe to grind and a motive for 'dropping Halligen and Exton right in it'.
To summarise my position on the efits in 8 words: 'They are not what they purport to me'. To which I would add these 5: 'Redwood and Wall know this'.
@ Carana asked (I paraphrase): "What has evidence of widespread senior level corruption in the Met got to do with Operation Grange?"
REPLY: Everything. If people right at the top of the Met are capable of the wicked things shown in the Panorama programme, and much, much more than that, then they are also, prima facie, well capable of conducting a hoax investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
We are probably not too far apart on this.
However, dealing with your point above, bolded, you used the word 'allegedly' and I think that was a wise choice of word.
This allegedly hypercritical report was from Henri Exton.
We know this about him. He was the former Head of the Covert Intelligence for MI5. He also shoplifted a bottle of expensive perfume from Manchester Airport, was convicted after pleading guilty, but then had his conviction set aside. From what we have been told many times, Exton was recruited to the McCann Investigation Team by the corrupt fraudster, con-man and crook Kevin Halligen. Therefore to take ANYTHING which emerges from Exton's mouth as gospel would be very unwise.
Moreover, again from what we learn in dribs and drabs (see, e.g. the 2014 Channel 5 film featuring Halligen and Exton), Halligen didn't pay Exton for his work. Possibly the McCanns didn't pay him properly either. In which case, he would have a very sharp axe to grind and a motive for 'dropping Halligen and Exton right in it'.
To summarise my position on the efits in 8 words: 'They are not what they purport to me'. To which I would add these 5: 'Redwood and Wall know this'.
@ Carana asked (I paraphrase): "What has evidence of widespread senior level corruption in the Met got to do with Operation Grange?"
REPLY: Everything. If people right at the top of the Met are capable of the wicked things shown in the Panorama programme, and much, much more than that, then they are also, prima facie, well capable of conducting a hoax investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
We are probably not too far apart on this.
However, dealing with your point above, bolded, you used the word 'allegedly' and I think that was a wise choice of word.
This allegedly hypercritical report was from Henri Exton.
We know this about him. He was the former Head of the Covert Intelligence for MI5. He also shoplifted a bottle of expensive perfume from Manchester Airport, was convicted after pleading guilty, but then had his conviction set aside. From what we have been told many times, Exton was recruited to the McCann Investigation Team by the corrupt fraudster, con-man and crook Kevin Halligen. Therefore to take ANYTHING which emerges from Exton's mouth as gospel would be very unwise.
Moreover, again from what we learn in dribs and drabs (see, e.g. the 2014 Channel 5 film featuring Halligen and Exton), Halligen didn't pay Exton for his work. Possibly the McCanns didn't pay him properly either. In which case, he would have a very sharp axe to grind and a motive for 'dropping Halligen and Exton right in it'.
To summarise my position on the efits in 8 words: 'They are not what they purport to me'. To which I would add these 5: 'Redwood and Wall know this'.
@ Carana asked (I paraphrase): "What has evidence of widespread senior level corruption in the Met got to do with Operation Grange?"
REPLY: Everything. If people right at the top of the Met are capable of the wicked things shown in the Panorama programme, and much, much more than that, then they are also, prima facie, well capable of conducting a hoax investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
The report was seen by the Sunday Times. They said;
The report, seen by the Sunday Times, called for the E-Fits to be released immediately and said "anomalies" in statements by the McCanns and their friends must be resolved......
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.....
they [the Oakley team] focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay......
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
The reason why the e-fits could not see light of day in public until there was a live and on-going police enquiry has been explained, over and over ....
The facts don't change just because some people choose not to accept them.
There was nothing stopping the McCanns from releasing the e-fits when they got them. That's a fact for you.
A challenge (to anyone who would choose to accept it).Your challenge is extremely easy Ferryman
Obviously there won't be any examples in Portuguese police investigations, because the Portuguese do not use e-fits in their criminal enquiries.
But from English police investigations, find an example of where an efit was released of a suspect before an official police enquiry was launched.
A challenge (to anyone who would choose to accept it).
Obviously there won't be any examples in Portuguese police investigations, because the Portuguese do not use e-fits in their criminal enquiries.
But from English police investigations, find an example of where an efit was released of a suspect before an official police enquiry was launched.
We have examples of this couple and their PI's by-passing existing police inquiries and releasing e-fits to the press. Why you think they couldn't do exactly the same thing when there was no existing police inquiry is beyond me.
AMEN.Would it be fair to say that we can rule out racism as a motivating factor in the huge Establishment cover up in the McCann case? What are the other key motivating factors in the corruption described on the books you list above?
I have three books on my shelves:
BENT COPPERS, The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's battle against Police Corruption (2004), Graeme McLagan
SUPERGRASSES & INFORMERS AND BENT COPPERS: OMNIBUS (764 pages)(2002 ed), James Morton
and
THE UNTOUCHABLES, Dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard (2012), Michael Gillard & Laurie Flynn.
And quite a few others along the same lines.
If you read them, you would see how right you are that a 'wall' of career criminals and corrupt senior police officers is almost impossible to break down.
One of the criminals named in the film, Dave Hunt, was said by the Sunday Times back in 2010 to be 'too powerful for the Met to deal with'.
There are no examples of the sort you imagine ....
There are no examples of the sort you imagine ....Yes there are. I posted one example - the BarcelonaBeckhamLookalike efit released by Mitchell at a time when there was no active police investigation. I have beaten your challenge Ferryman and claim my prize.
Yes there are. I posted one example - the BarcelonaBeckhamLookalike efit released by Mitchell at a time when there was no active police investigation. I have beaten your challenge Ferryman and claim my prize.
That's been dealt with ....... do you mean you've dispatched my prize already?
... do you mean you've dispatched my prize already?
The BarcelonaChildVendor efit beats your challenge so please pay up.
No it doesn'tBut Ferryman here is photographic proof that an efit was released in Aug 2009 when there was NO active police investigation. Read your challenge - I have beaten it and expect you to pay up with a prize.
But Ferryman here is photographic proof that an efit was released in Aug 2009 when there was NO active police investigation. Read your challenge - I have beaten it and expect you to pay up with a prize.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/09/article-0-05F939CB000005DC-75_468x286.jpg
BTW hadn't the 2 smithman efits already been made by this date?
I think somebody has been moving the goalposts ?{)(**
Would it be fair to say that we can rule out racism as a motivating factor in the huge Establishment cover up in the McCann case? What are the other key motivating factors in the corruption described on the books you list above?
Three key points:
1. Spain is not Portugal.
2. The witness of that sighting did not witness Madeleine's abduction.
3 The efit was released by private detectives, not English police.
I think somebody has been moving the goalposts ?{)(**Goalposts with wheels on?
Would it be fair to say that we can rule out racism as a motivating factor in the huge Establishment cover up in the McCann case?
Yes
What are the other key motivating factors in the corruption described on the books you list above?
Greed. Money. Sexual favours. Drugs. Power. Perks. Swifter promotion prospects. A higher pension when you retire.
Please explain why each of those points are relevant?
Would it be fair to say that we can rule out racism as a motivating factor in the huge Establishment cover up in the McCann case?OK - so which of the above do you think pertain to this case then? Two doctors from Rothley lose a child on holiday, the UK Establishment goes to huge lengths to cover up the real reason for the disappearance because of:
Yes
What are the other key motivating factors in the corruption described on the books you list above?
Greed. Money. Sexual favours. Drugs. Power. Perks. Swifter promotion prospects. A higher pension when you retire.
If it isn't self-evident, then well ....
(snip) ... the e-fits could not see light of day in public until there was a live and on-going police enquiry ... (snip)So are you making an exception for the the Barcelona efit?
So are you making an exception for the the Barcelona efit?
Private detectives (not the English police) released them.In March 2010 (when there was no active police investigation) Mr Mitchell put a lot of work into circulating amongst the press the images of dozens of potential suspects, which were obtained from a police file.
English police (who, themselves, had the efits in their possession for a considerable time before releasing them) chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release the Smith efits (Martin and Mary) publicly.
That's how English police work.
They always have.
In March 2010 (when there was no active police investigation) Mr Mitchell put a lot of work into circulating amongst the press the images of dozens of potential suspects, which were obtained from a police file.
But not the English police ....
Forget the English Police. The McCanns had the e-fits in November 2008. No police force had them. No police force was investigating the case. Why didn't the McCanns release the e-fits themselves????
Why do you want to forget the only fact that matters?
The efits were passed on to Scotland Yard (English police) who, themselves, hung on to the efits for a considerable period before releasing them into the public domain.
Why?
Because that's how English police work.
ETA: there are (potentially) innocent reasons why, after an abduction, a parent or a couple might take (adoptive) custody of an abducted child.
There is no innocent explanation of an abduction.
The Smith efits (potentially) accuse someone named of an abduction.
The Barcelona e-fits (potentially) accused someone of paying others to abduct a child for them. In both cases the people concerned could have innocent reasons for what they were doing. You are clutching at straws in your attempts to excuse the McCanns for not releasing the e-fits.
Explain the innocent explanation for being caught red-handed abducting a child?
So you believe smithman is the abductor?
Explain the innocent explanation for being caught red-handed abducting a child?
Is this the Barcelona episode involving the 'Victoria Beckham lookalike and who was in fact never investigated (Hall got that right in his first set of videos).
Revealing blatant incompetence by Mitchell, Edgar and Co., or of course a badly organised attempt to divert attention away from the mccanns.
Think you might be off-topic.
Has Martin Smith changed his opinion?
Yes.
Explain the innocent explanation for being caught red-handed abducting a child?
You give me an innocent explanation for not immediately publicising two new e-fits of the potential abductor of your child.
Think you might be off-topic.
Has Martin Smith changed his opinion?
Yes.
You give me an innocent explanation for not immediately publicising two new e-fits of the potential abductor of your child.
Have done so.
Ad nauseam.
Your turn.
Ad nauseam yes.
Logically explained, NO.
Oh well, it kept us amused for a while. It's clear the McCanns just didn't want to publicise the e-fits. It's also clear that Mr Smith didn't change his mind. Saying he did is just guesswork.All of Ferryman's conditions are now satisfied (there is an active UK police investigation, which approves publicising the 2 efits). And if you look at the official fund site do you not see the 2 efits prominently displayed on the front page?
All of Ferryman's conditions are now satisfied (there is an active UK police investigation, which approves publicising the 2 efits). And if you look at the official fund site do you not see the 2 efits prominently displayed on the front page?
Oh well, it kept us amused for a while. It's clear the McCanns just didn't want to publicise the e-fits. It's also clear that Mr Smith didn't change his mind. Saying he did is just guesswork.guesswork supported by the fact that he has been reported as having changed his mind by various newspapers, with no word subsequently from Smith contradicting the reports.
guesswork supported by the fact that he has been reported as having changed his mind by various newspapers, with no word subsequently from Smith contradicting the reports.
OK - so which of the above do you think pertain to this case then? Two doctors from Rothley lose a child on holiday, the UK Establishment goes to huge lengths to cover up the real reason for the disappearance because of:
a) Greed
b) money
c) sexual favours
d) drugs
e) power
f) perks
g) swifter promotion prospects
h) better pension deal.
Here's a challenge
Find the 2 smithman efits on the portuguese pages of the MF site.
This challenge is easy.
Which of these 5 efits are on the official search website's home page?
Smithman efit1, Smithman efit2, BarcelonaChildSellerWoman, VerySpottyMan, RuledOutBySYCrecheMan.
How true. Mr Smith's practice to threaten legal action against newspapers who misrepresented him is a proven fact - and the evidence to show that to be true has been posted here before. But not a word from him on this occasion even though the statement made in the Sunday Times was huge as it claimed Mr Smith no longer believed it was Gerry he saw
Add to that the following comments from Mrs Smith and it's clear (to anyone who isn't completely blinkered) that the Smiths do not believe that Gerry McCann was complicit in the disappearance of his daughter.
Quote
We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
End quote
Anyone who can read that and still claim that it's clear that Martin Smith did not change his mind is suspending all common sense and logic and is taking 'wishful thinking' to a whole new level IMO.
Last three retain primacy...I'll take the coconut and in the meantme await the logical explanations from the apologistsYes you correctly identified the 3 efits on the home page of the official search site Merc.
Last three retain primacy...I'll take the coconut and in the meantme await the logical explanations from the apologists
SY & the PJ are not pursuing Smithman as a significant line of inquiry IMO.
Perhaps he did not want to get dragged into all the crap again...after all he has a life......
SY & the PJ are not pursuing Smithman as a significant line of inquiry IMO.I never understood why they focussed on the unlikely method of open uncontained carrying.
IMO Martin Smith was determined that his family would not be dragged into 'all that crap again' and that is the main reason why he very quickly jumped on anyone who misrepresented him in the press. It's obvious that he did not make any complaints to the Sunday Times about their claim that he had since changed his mind about GM - and IMO if that was an incorrect claim he would have contacted them and demanded a retraction - in the same way as he did on previous occasions. The fact that he didn't do that speaks for itself imo.
I never understood why they focussed on the unlikely method of open uncontained carrying.
IMO Martin Smith was determined that his family would not be dragged into 'all that crap again' and that is the main reason why he very quickly jumped on anyone who misrepresented him in the press. It's obvious that he did not make any complaints to the Sunday Times about their claim that he had since changed his mind about GM - and IMO if that was an incorrect claim he would have contacted them and demanded a retraction - in the same way as he did on previous occasions. The fact that he didn't do that speaks for itself imo.
I can see a very obvious reason why an innocent smithman would not come forward, particularly if he was portuguese. He would fear he might be persuaded to confess
You mean he has also managed to mislay the little girl he was carrying that night?
nope...as sl has pointed out...and she lives in portugal...he would be required to prove his innocencve...read her post
They all said the girl looked British white not Portuguese. Actually a Madeleine clone.
aren't there lots of blonde portuguese girls, and it was dark...they never mentioned a madeleine clone
If he had corrected it that would have been tantamount to accusing Gerry McCann of being Smithman. The media would have had a field day with that. Much wiser to let it pass imo.
Anyone who thinks Mrs Smith would say the following if she and her husband still thought the McCanns may be complicit in their daughter's disappearance is being completely illogical IMO.
Why would they be expressing such heartfelt sympathy for the couple who they still believed may have disposed of their own daughter's body in such a callous manner? That simply makes no sense at all imo.
Quote
We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
End quote
IMO Martin Smith was determined that his family would not be dragged into 'all that crap again' and that is the main reason why he very quickly jumped on anyone who misrepresented him in the press. It's obvious that he did not make any complaints to the Sunday Times about their claim that he had since changed his mind about GM - and IMO if that was an incorrect claim he would have contacted them and demanded a retraction - in the same way as he did on previous occasions. The fact that he didn't do that speaks for itself imo.
Anyone who thinks Mrs Smith would say the following if she and her husband still thought the McCanns may be complicit in their daughter's disappearance is being completely illogical IMO.
Why would they be expressing such heartfelt sympathy for the couple who they still believed may have disposed of their own daughter's body in such a callous manner? That simply makes no sense at all imo.
Quote
We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
End quote
If he had corrected it that would have been tantamount to accusing Gerry McCann of being Smithman. The media would have had a field day with that. Much wiser to let it pass imo.Why do you think the Smiths' hearts are breaking for the McCanns if they also believe they are guilty of covering up the death of their child?
Why do you think the Smiths' hearts are breaking for the McCanns if they also believe they are guilty of covering up the death of their child?
You are referring to one Smith - the Mrs. The Mr declined to comment.She appeared to be speaking for both of them. But OK, let's rephrase the question: given that Mrs Smith's heart is breaking for the McCanns do you think she still agrees with her husband that the man walking through PdL that night was Gerry carrying off his little daughter?
Obviously witnesses are often told to keep secret their communications with police.
And that is exactly what this witness correctly did.
Proof see Mail Jan 2008 witness quote
"We ... have had no contact with the investigating police since May 26 last year".
In fact the witness was correctly keeping secret the various important communications with Gardai, with Leics Police, and a phonecall with the PJ, in Sept 2007.
The Policia Judiciaria under Amaral paid scant attention to the sighting by the Smith family between May and September of 2007.I'm actually on your side on this Brietta.
Appropriately, when Mr Smith made an addendum to his original statement, in the September, they were interested particularly as he declared that the manner in which their prime suspect carried his child reminded him etc etc etc.
Subsequently the PJ under Rebelo showed as much interest as the PJ under Amaral had in the previous five months in anything Mr Smith and his family had to say.
That suggests something to me if not to you.
I'm actually on your side on this Brietta.
IMO it's obvious the smith sighting was not of GM and was not of MM.
Very obvious because the man they saw was wearing white or cream trousers, and the girl they saw was wearing long sleeved top.
The sighting has nothing to do with the case IMO.
She appeared to be speaking for both of them. But OK, let's rephrase the question: given that Mrs Smith's heart is breaking for the McCanns do you think she still agrees with her husband that the man walking through PdL that night was Gerry carrying off his little daughter?
I've no idea what Mrs Smith ever thought nor do I care. It's Mr Smith's opinion we're discussing isn't it? He made no comment.Was she not in agreement with her husband originally? Why is her opinion of no value to you? When she talks about "our hearts" do you think she is using the Royal We?
I've no idea what Mrs Smith ever thought nor do I care. It's Mr Smith's opinion we're discussing isn't it? He made no comment.
Only Martin Smith knows what martin Smith believes.
his wife would have a good idea
IMO everyone (including all the SIOs) have been tricked into the "open carrying of visible child" mantra, to the complete exclusion of all realistic theories. Time to look at some realistic leads instead IMO.
If this is true,(and I don't dispute it), have OG any credible leads left to pursue?
So the point established that Martin Smith has changed his mind, we morph back to (yet more) theMcCannsdunit conspiracy theory.
Most odd ....
I'm actually on your side on this Brietta.
IMO it's obvious the smith sighting was not of GM and was not of MM.
Very obvious because the man they saw was wearing white or cream trousers, and the girl they saw was wearing long sleeved top.
The sighting has nothing to do with the case IMO.
I'm actually on your side on this Brietta.
IMO it's obvious the smith sighting was not of GM and was not of MM.
Very obvious because the man they saw was wearing white or cream trousers, and the girl they saw was wearing long sleeved top.
The sighting has nothing to do with the case IMO.
The Smith sighting has gained the notoriety it has because of a very nebulous connection made to Madeleine's father.
The Amaral investigation gave it little weight or attention as far as the missing child herself was concerned; the Rebelo investigation gave it no weight as far as the investigation into the 'prime suspect' was concerned.
Just another coincidence of this sighting is that Murat, who had just been made an arguido was definitely 'ruled out' by Mr Smith; while McCann, who had just been made an arguido was nebulously 'ruled in'.
Both statements were made while Amaral was co-ordinator of the case ... which raises interesting speculation as to what might have been made of Mr Smith and the event which "triggered" the addition to his statement and "showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events." Paiva
I would have classed it as a non-event.
Whether or not Martin Smith has changed his opinion is a total irrelevance.
The people who matter have concentrated on the original alleged sighting by a family of nine; three of whom have statements in the public domain.
What CCTV footage? The one the PJ missed wouldn't have got his face. Smithman kept his head down.
" It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him." MS
Nothing has been established. Martin Smith was directly quoted as saying that nothing had changed since he first gave his statements to the police.
Nothing has been established. Martin Smith was directly quoted as saying that nothing had changed since he first gave his statements to the police.
You actually think Martin Smith would have produced an efit of a man he thought was Gerry?
You probably do.
You actually think that Martin Smith's wife, Mary, on record as stating (long after the files were released) that they stand ready to help the McCanns in any way they can, is (now) at loggerheads with her husband, who persists in believing that the man he and his family saw that night was Gerry?
You probably do.
You actually dismiss the inference of plain common sense that in giving voice to the disagreement (of all his children) in his statement to the Irish Gardia police at the end of January 2008, Mr Smith was prepared to entertain contrary opinion (to his own, held then!) that the man might not be Gerry?
You probably do.
....
..........and in common sense terms, if Mr. Smith's sighting has no value, why do you and your fellow supporters seem so concerned about it ?
Let's face it, there is no evidence MS changed his mind apart from a repeated (Discredited according to the supports) article in a news paper.
..........and in common sense terms, if Mr. Smith's sighting has no value, why do you and your fellow supporters seem so concerned about it ?
Let's face it, there is no evidence MS changed his mind apart from a repeated (Discredited according to the supports) article in a news paper.
..........and in common sense terms, if Mr. Smith's sighting has no value, why do you and your fellow supporters seem so concerned about it ?
No value?
The Smiths might have seen Madeleine's abductor.
If Martin Smith hasn't changed his opinion, then he is the only one of a group of nine who thinks the man they passed that evening *might* have been Gerry McCann. Why should this be of any concern whatsoever to Gerry McCann or any McCann supporter? As has been agreed on this threadby sceptic and supporter alike he is almost certainly wrong anyway. Time to move on.
If Martin Smith hasn't changed his opinion, then he is the only one of a group of nine who thinks the man they passed that evening *might* have been Gerry McCann. Why should this be of any concern whatsoever to Gerry McCann or any McCann supporter? As has been agreed on this threadby sceptic and supporter alike he is almost certainly wrong anyway. Time to move on.
That answers the question. They are left with that one credible lead. The other leads investigated with the full team came to nowt.
Are you forgetting Mary Smith ?You mean the woman who said "our hearts are breaking for the McCanns"? No, haven't forgotten her.
Are you forgetting Mary Smith ?
You mean the woman who said "our hearts are breaking for the McCanns"? No, haven't forgotten her.
There was a huge team in place to plough through all the loose ends and sort the wheat from the chaff. As well as the files we have seen some of ... there was the continuation of evidence from the case archiving in 2008 till the start of the review in 2011.
One supposes that having caught up on all of that, they are now free to follow current relevant leads. No need for a cast of thousands to do that, but if reinforcements are required to suit developments, I am sure proper provision will be made.
None of that I am sure rides on whether Mr Smith has changed his mind or whether he has not, it all depends on the relevance in the first instance. The PJ didn't move on it - so probably no relevance at all out with the blogosphere.
Mary Smith?
Who is on record that she supports the McCanns, hook, line and sinker, in their quest to find out what happened to their abducted daughter?
Why would we forget her?
The only credible record we have of the Smith's opinion is their police statements.
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
Martin Smith (end of January 2008).
Of course, we know what Mary Smith now thinks ....
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
Martin Smith (end of January 2008).
Of course, we know what Mary Smith now thinks ....
and there is a signed quote from Mary Smith ?
I can remember someone not that long ago claiming that that Smith's daughter could see better than her father.
Now who was that ? &%+((£
So has she made another police statement then ?
So has she made another police statement then ?I thought verbatim quotes in newspapers were allowed, or is that only when it suits you?
The only credible record we have of the Smith's opinion is their police statements.
I thought verbatim quotes in newspapers were allowed, or is that only when it suits you?
They certainly have more veracity than a non-direct quote but I'm afraid a police statement trumps both.LOL, once again we're reduced to a game of Top Trumps. Never mind common sense, "my police statement trumps your verbatim quote in the Irish Times, I win!!"
I said, from reading all the Smith Statements, that the most observant witness (so far as it is possible to judge these things from reports taken in verbatim, rather than reported, form) was Aofe (and her father).
That seemed (and seems still) a fair assessment .....
From the statements we read on-line who, aside from Aofe or her father, was a more observant witness witness of what the Smiths saw?
My guess would be Mr Smith's wife but, of course, we don't see her statement.
I'm not even sure such a statement exists.
There is no record of Mrs Smith making a statement in Portugal, nor I think would she have since no-one remembered what they had seen until a fortnight later when they were no longer in Portugal.
Nor is there a record of a statement given to the Guards subsequently being passed to the PJ for it to be placed in the files nor is there any reference to her statement in the files or a formal request from the PJ for one.
The only reference is that she was stated to be unwilling to change her statement.
[/b]
It's common to use the word 'THEY' when you don't know a person's name or sex.
For example:
Child: Mum there's someone at the door for you.
Mum: Who is it?
Child: I don't know.
Mum: Well tell them THEY will have to come back later - I'm busy now.
--------------
It's something everyone does - we just don't notice it.
Somewhere there is an index of all statements made (including statements that don't appear on line) and that may include a record of a statement given by Mrs Smith.
I don't know, though ....
May ?
Or they do mean 'they';
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
Id like to see this list which isnt in the files also...how did I miss this post
Quote from: ferryman on March 05, 2016, 08:09:19 PM
Somewhere there is an index of all statements made (including statements that don't appear on line) and that may include a record of a statement given by Mrs Smith.
I don't know, though ....
I don't see any connection between what Kate said in a state of panic a few minutes after finding Madeleine had disappeared - and her ensuing thoughts when Madeleine wasn't found - on what could have happened to her and why - the following day.
Two completely separate and unconnected events IMO.
Of course she denies saying it. 'Someone' she said, not 'they'; easy to mistake the two words in the excitement I guess.I wonder what Kate would stand to gain from deliberately lying about such a thing? Perhaps she is guilty of hyperbole, perhaps she thought that's what her friends were doing when in reality they were simply mooching around outside gazing at the stars, maybe some random people actually were asked to call the police but being Portuguese speakers didn't understand what they were being asked. Or maybe they understood but did nothing, and felt too guilty to admit doing nothing, etc etc etc. Not that any of this matters a tiny jot but carry on worrying about it if you've nothing better to do.
I wonder why her friends forgot to mention how they ran back and forth to the Tapas begging people to phone the police? I wonder why none of those at the Tapas mentioned this flow of desperately begging people? I wonder why they ignored them? So many things to wonder about in this case.
I wonder what Kate would stand to gain from deliberately lying about such a thing? Perhaps she is guilty of hyperbole, perhaps she thought that's what her friends were doing when in reality they were simply mooching around outside gazing at the stars, maybe some random people actually were asked to call the police but being Portuguese speakers didn't understand what they were being asked. Or maybe they understood but did nothing, and felt too guilty to admit doing nothing, etc etc etc. Not that any of this matters a tiny jot but carry on worrying about it if you've nothing better to do.
I wonder what Kate would stand to gain from deliberately lying about such a thing? Perhaps she is guilty of hyperbole, perhaps she thought that's what her friends were doing when in reality they were simply mooching around outside gazing at the stars, maybe some random people actually were asked to call the police but being Portuguese speakers didn't understand what they were being asked. Or maybe they understood but did nothing, and felt too guilty to admit doing nothing, etc etc etc. Not that any of this matters a tiny jot but carry on worrying about it if you've nothing better to do.
What would Kate stand to gain from the alleged deception ? Perhaps to mitigate the impression that while a small child was missing the tapas bunch were more interested in saving their own backsides by writing timelines etc rather than actually doing anything proactive to find her ?So is it your belief that when they all got back to the apartment 5a they all sat down and started writing a timeline?
Morning Alfred! There's nothing wrong with literary exaggeration, it makes a better story. The book isn't supposed to be a story though, it's meant to be an account of the truth.I note you gave no time to consider any of the options I proffered apart from hyperbole, any reason for that?
It seems strange how interested some people are in discussing Martin Smith's alleged change of opinion but are completely disinterested when others in the case are shown to be departing from a true account of what was said and done.
Morning Alfred! There's nothing wrong with literary exaggeration, it makes a better story. The book isn't supposed to be a story though, it's meant to be an account of the truth.Is it true to say that none of the McCann friends asked anyone outwith the group to call the police and if so how would you prove it?
It seems strange how interested some people are in discussing Martin Smith's alleged change of opinion but are completely disinterested when others in the case are shown to be departing from a true account of what was said and done.
Is it true to say that none of the McCann friends asked anyone outwith the group to call the police and if so how would you prove it?
I'm sure you'll be able to prove they did by posting the numerous statements from waiters, nannies etc who mention the requests.I'm not the one making a claim either way. G-Unit (and you) are claiming that Kate McCann made this up, so over to you to prove it is a fiction.
I'm not the one making a claim either way. G-Unit (and you) are claiming that Kate McCann made this up, so over to you to prove it is a fiction.
The fact that no one that was around at that time mentions this frantic activity by the McCanns and their friends kind of proves the point. A bit like Kate claiming she voiced her concerns about the twins unresponsive state to several police officers on the night of the third yet not one witness mentions it. Either the eye witnesses were all very absent-minded or all spoke a foreign language or Kate has simply 'misremembered'. What do you think the most likely reason is ?I have no idea, and neither do you, though you might like to think you do.
Question 1) were there any other holidaymakers staying at the OC that evening who were out and about on the evening of 3rd May, either dining in the restaurant or sitting on their patios, or generally present in one way or another?
Question 2) if so can someone please direct me to their statements?
Is it true to say that none of the McCann friends asked anyone outwith the group to call the police and if so how would you prove it?
Mrs Fenn offered her phone to call the police but Gerry said they had been when they hadn't. This was at 10:30. Police call was 10:41.
Gerry was under the impression that the police had already been called at that stage - and was getting anxious because they hadn't arrived.
Gerry was under the impression that the police had already been called at that stage - and was getting anxious because they hadn't arrived.
The McCanns should have called instead of presuming it. They said we knew she had been abducted straight away but it takes 45 minutes to call the police. That doesn't add up. Deleting phone call history by the 4th doesn't either. You must think detectives are born yesterday to believe Carry On Madeleine. They should be able to rip that timeline apart by the time this case is over.
Any particular reason you think Mrs Fenn waited 45 mins before venturing onto her balcony to investigate the mass hysteria going on underneath her apartment?Because there was no mass hysteria apparently. They all got back to the apartment and started planning the timeline according to Faithlilly.
Any particular reason you think Mrs Fenn waited 45 mins before venturing onto her balcony to investigate the mass hysteria going on underneath her apartment?
Because there was no mass hysteria apparently. They all got back to the apartment and started planning the timeline according to Faithlilly.
Because there was no mass hysteria apparently. They all got back to the apartment and started planning the timeline according to Faithlilly.
Or running about like headless chickens asking for the police to be called, a claim there is no evidence for. Perhaps if you concentrated on finding evidence for Kate's claims rather than picking holes in mine you may actually get somewhere.I'm not interested in getting anywhere in particular, picking holes in your daft statements is sufficient diversion for me today thanks. 8(0(*
Mrs Fenn heard nothing until the end of News at 10 - Kate wailing outside. She came out and asked what is all this noise and Kate and Fiona told her to get lost. She then talked to Gerry and he said a little girl had been abducted. She offered her phone to call the police and he said it was done.
The McCanns should have called instead of presuming it. They said we knew she had been abducted straight away but it takes 45 minutes to call the police. That doesn't add up. Deleting phone call history by the 4th doesn't either. You must think detectives are born yesterday to believe Carry On Madeleine. They should be able to rip that timeline apart by the time this case is over.
The McCanns should have called instead of presuming it. They said we knew she had been abducted straight away but it takes 45 minutes to call the police. That doesn't add up. Deleting phone call history by the 4th doesn't either. You must think detectives are born yesterday to believe Carry On Madeleine. They should be able to rip that timeline apart by the time this case is over.What are they waiting for then?
I'm not interested in getting anywhere in particular, picking holes in your daft statements is sufficient diversion for me today thanks. 8(0(*
So when do you start ?According to your last post I had already started. I have also started a whole new thread to pick holes in your daft statement, and so far not a peep from you to defend your claim that there was no frantic activity from the Tapas group after the alarm was raised as they were all huddled together writing out the timeline.
Are you saying that she didn't hear a rumpus outside until she'd finished watching the News at 10?
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
The very detectives whom you yourself state weren't born yesterday don't have a problem with the timelines. That should tell you something. Unless of course you believe there is a huge conspiratorial bluff in progress and the PJ/ SY are suddenly going to pounce on the McCanns and arrest them. If so - don't hold your breath.
That's what her statement says.
"During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out "we have let her down" which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30."
"When asked, she replied that on 3rd May she did not hear any noise from the McCann apartment, not even the opening of doors. She also said that before hearing the shouts she was watching television, as she often stays up late."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
A friend of Mrs Fenn told The Daily Express last night:
"She remembers the times because she was talking to a friend back home on the phone and she was watching the news at 10.30pm.
"On the night Madeleine disappeared the first she knew of it was when there was a commotion downstairs.
"She looked over the balcony and saw the child's mother. She was in a state of panic. She was repeatedly saying 'We've let her down. We've let her down.'
"All the people in their group were running in and out of the apartment. She asked someone if she should call the police and was told it had already been done."
Widow with vital clues was never questioned Daily Express (no longer available online)
BRAVERY: Mrs Fenn challenged intruder
By David Pilditch in Praia da Luz
Saturday August 18,2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id331.html
I wonder what Kate would stand to gain from deliberately lying about such a thing? Perhaps she is guilty of hyperbole, perhaps she thought that's what her friends were doing when in reality they were simply mooching around outside gazing at the stars, maybe some random people actually were asked to call the police but being Portuguese speakers didn't understand what they were being asked. Or maybe they understood but did nothing, and felt too guilty to admit doing nothing, etc etc etc. Not that any of this matters a tiny jot but carry on worrying about it if you've nothing better to do.
She didn't talk to any journalists. It was a friend but the facts are correct.
She [Mrs Fenn] strenuously denied having talked to journalists.
Who was this "friend back home"?
Or was this the cousin of her hairdresser's shop assistant?
She didn't talk to any journalists. It was a friend but the facts are correct.
I quoted Kate McCann's account of what her friends did. There's not one person who agreed with her. You have made some suggestions as to why, but they're just excuses which you have made up as per usual. How do you expect me to answer excuses which you have made up? Make some up of my own? Try giving me some facts and I will be able to answer you.They were not excuses, they were suggestions including the suggestion that she had been given to hyperbole. You seemed only to consider this option, how strange.
I think it's important to link in the hairdresser's shop assistant.
The sequence of event:
Mrs Fenn blabs to hairdresser.
Hairdresser blabs to the rest of the world.
Rest of the world descends on Mrs Fenn (eager for the follow-up story).
Mrs Fenn, aghast, and realising the (potential) implications of breaching Portuguese secrecy laws, clams up and denies saying anything.
No doubt stern words between and Mrs Fenn and said hairdresser (and Mrs Fenn probably took her custom elsewhere).
Something I hadn't realised until quite late on is that Mrs Fenn was interviewed by Joao Carlos, whom I've long regarded as one of the more honest PJ officers engaged in the shelved enquiry.
The only reason to think Mrs Smith made any statement is the comment by the Irish policeman that she didn't wish to make another one. She didn't attend when the other three made their first statements so it's unlikely she ever made one. Perhaps he just assumed she had.
Here is the link to the missing pages lists;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
It's ridiculous to base an investigation on unenclosed carrying sightings.
Sit down for 10 minutes with a coffee, and ask yourself seriously - would any perp even mega low IQ be so utterly stupid?
Since you appear to be saying that an open carry is obviously innocent then it is the perfect way to do it when not innocent.It is far from perfect, especially if you're the father of the child to whom the body belongs, considering you will be plastered on international news bulletins within 24 hours.
It is far from perfect, especially if you're the father of the child to whom the body belongs, considering you will be plastered on international news bulletins within 24 hours.
So there was TWO innocent fathers, all most identical in appearance, carrying a child around PDL who looked very similar to Madeleine that night. Is that what you think ?
So there was TWO innocent fathers, all most identical in appearance, carrying a child around PDL who looked very similar to Madeleine that night. Is that what you think ?There was a night crèche wasn't there? How many kids were in the night crèche that night? Say there were 6 (you probably know the exact number, I don't not having yet sat my McCann A-Level). Say half of the 6 were girls. That's 3 young girls asleep in a night crèche. Given that their parents are likely to be holiday makers staying in PdL without cars, then that's 3 girls that need to be collected and taken back to their holiday apartments. This would mean carrying them. Dads rather than mums tend to do the carrying in such circumstances. That means there would have been not 2 but 3 young girls being carried home that evening by their dads potentially, maybe more if there were more girls sleeping in the night crèche that night. PJs for young girls tend to be pink. What more can I say?
Oh no! not Whicker Island again.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he [Mr Smith] added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
I posted this some time back Alice. Kind of knocks the 'Smith changed his opinion' school of thought on the head.......or should do !
There was a night crèche wasn't there? How many kids were in the night crèche that night? Say there were 6 (you probably know the exact number, I don't not having yet sat my McCann A-Level). Say half of the 6 were girls. That's 3 young girls asleep in a night crèche. Given that their parents are likely to be holiday makers staying in PdL without cars, then that's 3 girls that need to be collected and taken back to their holiday apartments. This would mean carrying them. Dads rather than mums tend to do the carrying in such circumstances. That means there would have been not 2 but 3 young girls being carried home that evening by their dads potentially, maybe more if there were more girls sleeping in the night crèche that night. PJs for young girls tend to be pink. What more can I say?
There was a night crèche wasn't there? How many kids were in the night crèche that night? Say there were 6 (you probably know the exact number, I don't not having yet sat my McCann A-Level). Say half of the 6 were girls. That's 3 young girls asleep in a night crèche. Given that their parents are likely to be holiday makers staying in PdL without cars, then that's 3 girls that need to be collected and taken back to their holiday apartments. This would mean carrying them. Dads rather than mums tend to do the carrying in such circumstances. That means there would have been not 2 but 3 young girls being carried home that evening by their dads potentially, maybe more if there were more girls sleeping in the night crèche that night. PJs for young girls tend to be pink. What more can I say?
Dream on.
Oh no! not Whicker Island again.
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he [Mr Smith] added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Not sure why you have responded in that way. Alice has posted a direct quote, which you like, stating that Martin Smith stands behind the evidence he gave in 2007. Surely that puts the thread to bed ?
"...Everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time."
He never told the media about his Gerry-doubt, did he? If not, when is "at the time"? Has he spoken to the media since the not-Murat episode?
"...Everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time."
He never told the media about his Gerry-doubt, did he? If not, when is "at the time"? Has he spoken to the media since the not-Murat episode?
"...Everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time."
He never told the media about his Gerry-doubt, did he? If not, when is "at the time"? Has he spoken to the media since the not-Murat episode?
I think the 'said to the police' may be more pertinent, don't you ?
Martin Smith evidently doesn't.
What does it matter what anyone else thinks?
"Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add." "
Notice the 'we'.
So two almost identically dressed fathers were carrying two almost identical looking young girls, both with their feet uncovered, around PDL that night. Two fathers without a buggy. Do you really believe that ?As one of these fathers has been positively ID'ed and eliminated then the answer must be either that there was another similar looking father, or that the same father decided to take his child for an evening walk 45 minute later or the Smiths had a mass hallucination. What explanation do you have?
SY would have investigated every parent at the creche. Not one matches to Smithman.You know for a fact that they have investigated every parent at the crèche and been able to eliminate them all do you? Did they inform you of this fact?
Doesn't he ?
You know for a fact that they have investigated every parent at the crèche and been able to eliminate them all do you? Did they inform you of this fact?
As one of these fathers has been positively ID'ed and eliminated then the answer must be either that there was another similar looking father, or that the same father decided to take his child for an evening walk 45 minute later or the Smiths had a mass hallucination. What explanation do you have?
If Martin Smith is loosely interpreting private investigators as the police (highly plausible), then what he told them (that he no longer believes he saw Gerry) hasn't changed.
Similar looking father. Really ?Again, what explanation do you have? You seem to think it's highly plausible that a father should carry the uncovered corpse of his dead child through a holiday town past holidaymakers in order to find a suitable bin to throw it in, so clearly your threshold of credibility is quite high.
Same father who didn't then eliminate himself again from the enquiry. Really ?
I think you're now clutching at straws ferryman.
Again, what explanation do you have? You seem to think it's highly plausible that a father should carry the uncovered corpse of his dead child through a holiday town past holidaymakers in order to find a suitable bin to throw it in, so clearly your threshold of credibility is quite high.
This is not about me. You have stated two scenarios which are implausible by any stretch of the imagination.So give me a black mark and sit me in the corner.
The straw-clutching is by those who think Martin Smith (or, for that matter, his wife, Mary) would have produced efits of a man either thought was Gerry (and Mrs Smith is on record, since publication of the files) as saying that they stand ready to help the McCanns in any way they can.
And Martin Smith is on record as saying the evidence given to the police in 2007 still stands. Sooooo where do we go from here ?
Educate yourself on what Martin Smith is on record as saying, and what he is not:
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he [Martin Smith] added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
At the time covers the period 2008.
ETA: We know that at the end of January 2008 he hadn't produced an efit, because he said (in his statement to Gardia police at that date) that he hadn't ....
Martin Smith didn't speak to the police after his statement to the Irish police.
So he was interpreting private investigators as police.
And your point is? ....
Was he ? Perhaps you can supply an example where he has used the word police when actually talking about the McCann's PIs ?
Perhaps you can provide an example of where he talks about the McCanns' PIs?
Perhaps you can provide an example of where he talks about the McCanns' PIs?
"...Everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time."
He never told the media about his Gerry-doubt, did he? If not, when is "at the time"? Has he spoken to the media since the not-Murat episode?
I'm no making the claim. You claimed the Smiths had used the word 'police' to describe the McCann's PIs. To know that you'd have to have an example of them doing it previously. So on you go.......!
The time covers the period 2008.
At the end of January 2008 Martin Smith still hadn't produced an efit.
What changed (after the end of January 2008) to prompt him to do so?
Do you have an example of the Smiths using the word 'police' to mean the McCann's PIs ferryman ?
Do you have an example of Mr Smith referring to PIs?
I am not claiming he did. You are making the claim that he used the word police instead of private investigator. Now unless you are Mr Smith the only way you could know he did that was by seeing him do it in the past. Now do you have such an example ?
So you agree with me that Martin Smith might well have loosely referred to private investigators as 'police'. That's good.
Why would Martin Smith have produced an efit of a man he thought was Gerry.
No I don't. I have never read an article where he has used the word police instead of PI so have no basis to make that claim. You, it seems, have so let's be having it.
Since you appear to be saying that an open carry is obviously innocent then it is the perfect way to do it when not innocent.Do any solved Met cases support your perfect way theory Slarti?
So you still can't provide a plausible explanation of why (after the end of January 2008, when was asked to provide an efit, but refused) he changed his mind and decided, after all, to produce an efit?
Or why he would have produced an efit of a man he thought was Gerry?
I don't believe Martin Smith has changed his mind in respect of what he may or may not have seen the night Madeleine disappeared. My own view is the poor man has been criticised and castigated so much he's afraid to say anything anymore.Bless him. If he's afraid to speak, just imagine how courageous the McCanns must be for continuing to keep their daughter's disappearance in the spotlight despite having being constantly and viciously lambasted for it for the last 9 years.
Do any solved Met cases support your perfect way theory Slarti?
Bless him. If he's afraid to speak, just imagine how courageous the McCanns must be for continuing to keep their daughter's disappearance in the spotlight despite having being constantly and viciously lambasted for it for the last 9 years.
The big difference being he was never a suspect?so what?
No idea. It's called hidden in plain sight.So if you needed to dispose of your own child's body in order to save your skin you think the best course of action would be to walk through town carrying it uncovered, that way no one would know it was you who dunnit?
The big difference being he was never a suspect?
And I believe the fact that they went out as a family means they still have all their children.Going out together as a family doesn't guarantee that one of your children won't come to harm in some way. Just saying like, but don't let me stop you from using yet another golden opportunity to twist the knife.
Going out together as a family doesn't guarantee that one of your children won't come to harm in some way. Just saying like, but don't let me stop you from using yet another golden opportunity to twist the knife.
No idea. It's called hidden in plain sight.The Met have solved many transportations by pedestrians Slarti and 0% of them used that method.
The distinct impression given over the years is that representatives of the mccanns have been harassing the Smith family.
Now if they have nothing to fear, why did they bother ?
I have no doubt that Martin Smith came forward and said what he did out of a moral duty. He did what he thought was the right thing at the time. In hindsight however and armed with the facts of the case as now exist in the public domain he would be entitled to revoke his original comments should he now choose to do so. The strange thing though is, why doesn't he?What do you suggest he does? Hold a press conference to say he changed his mind? Why would he do that? It just makes him look foolish.
1) It was an unfortunate fluke that Gerry was spotted by the Smiths. As he said himself he had not seen anyone while checking any other evening. Any plan to negate the sighting was constructed between the sighting and the arrival of the police.1) why would you describe the Smithman sighting as "a fluke"? If you're walking through a holiday resort whilst all the bars and restaurants are still open then it can hardly be called a fluke if you pass at least one person in the street, more like a cast-iron certainty. I'd be interested in why you think Gerry asked Jane Tanner to lie for him, and not someone he was closer to - any ideas? What opportunity did the two of them have to be alone together that evening in order to hatch the cunning plan?
2) Gerry's alibi was that he was in the same place as Tanner's sighting ( who of course he relentlessly pushed as being the abductor). Link, as the McCanns attempted to do, the Tanner and Smith sighting and Gerry couldn't be the man seen by the Smiths.
3) Until we know exactly what happened that night we can't know how much Tanner knew before she gave details of her 'sighting' or why she did it.
4) We have no idea whether Tanner has 'cracked'.
1) why would you describe the Smithman sighting as "a fluke"? If you're walking through a holiday resort whilst all the bars and restaurants are still open then it can hardly be called a fluke if you pass at least one person in the street, more like a cast-iron certainty. I'd be interested in why you think Gerry asked Jane Tanner to lie for him, and not someone he was closer to - any ideas? What opportunity did the two of them have to be alone together that evening in order to hatch the cunning plan?
2) Gerry's relentless pushing of his alibi is somewhat negated by his claim not to have seen JT as she walked by, thus throwing into complete doubt the veracity of her alibi in the first place. Hardly sensible is it?
3) Meh
4) So you think it's possible JT has "cracked"? I would have thought that would have resulted in an arrest of Gerry McCann by now wouldn't you? Why do you think this hasn't happened? Are they tick-tocking and catching the monkey softly as usual?
Come to think of it, if JT had cracked and confessed to inventing the man she claimed to have seen I would have thought she would be facing prosecution for wasting police time at the very least.
But only if the Portuguese judiciary decided to press charges.Well d'uh.
The Met have solved many transportations by pedestrians Slarti and 0% of them used that method.
The Met have solved many transportations by pedestrians Slarti and 0% of them used that method.
Does anyone know when the Smith sighting was first reported in the media?
Well d'uh.
You made a claim ferryman, a claim you have yet to provide one scintilla of proof for. Can you provide proof ?
I'll leave you to work that out for yourself Homer or are you the one with the little yellow head like a paper bag?If I were Homer I would have written d'oh! but as I'm not I didn't, and I have worked it out, thanks.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
Local family may have seen missing Maddy, 06 June 2007
Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent
By Angela McCormick
Wednesday June 06 2007
Not a PJ leak for a change then.
Your inability (or, more likely, refusal) to accept the obvious and logical conclusion that Martin Smith would not produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry (and neither his wife) is your problem, not mine.
Do you understand the process of producing an e-fit? The features are chosen (eyes, hair, ears, nose, mouth) from templates and then assembled into a complete face. So the witness may not see the whole face until the end of the process.
What does that have to do with the question of whether Martin Smith has changed his opinion?
How many in seaside resorts?
If I were Homer I would have written d'oh! but as I'm not I didn't, and I have worked it out, thanks.
Your inability (or, more likely, refusal) to accept the obvious and logical conclusion that Martin Smith would not produce an efit of a man he thought was Gerry (and neither his wife) is your problem, not mine.I agree with Ferryman, the 2 efits are not by M and M Smith
You said he wouldn't produce an e-fit of Gerry McCann, but it may not have looked like that until it was finished. Think of it as a jigsaw without a picture to work from, you see the complete picture only at the end.
Well I did have you down being more sort of I.R. 8(0(*if that 's meant to be a put down I'm afraid I'm too dumb to get it, soz la!
I agree with Ferryman, the 2 efits are not by M and M Smith
We are not quite in agreement, because I think they did produce the efits after (both) being persuaded that they were mistaken (in their initial impressions!) that the man might be Gerry; and with the intention of assisting efforts to establish the identity of the man the Smiths all saw ....Ok Ferryman I understand now.
We are not quite in agreement, because I think they did produce the efits after (both) being persuaded that they were mistaken (in their initial impressions!) that the man might be Gerry; and with the intention of assisting efforts to establish the identity of the man the Smiths all saw ....
Ok Ferryman I understand now.
Do you think both efits are of the same man?
Ok Ferryman I understand now.
Do you think both efits are of the same man?
Who 'persuaded' them?
Who?
Revelation of the facts of the case, and the utter absurdity of assumption of McCann-guilt (especially based on the reactions of the dogs).
When were the e -fits produced and by whom?
By the Smiths
After the end of January 2008.
The Smiths and who else? Who produced the e-fits from their descriptions?
By the SmithsWhy were the 2 efits produced by 2 different technologies?
After the end of January 2008.
Why were the 2 efits produced by 2 different technologies?
Why were the 2 efits produced by 2 different technologies?
Where does information come about what technology was used?From looking closely at the 2 efits
From looking closely at the 2 efits
Why does the technology used have a bearing on whether Martin Smith changed his mind (about the man being Gerry, or not being Gerry)?2 diferent efit technologies means 2 efits done at different times probably by different PI subcontractors so it is unlikely they done by M and M Smith because then they would be same technology
So you agree, then, that Martin Smith almost certainly no longer believes he saw Gerry?
You have still to provide a previous example of where Martin Smith has used the term police to mean PIs.
In January 2008 he was 60-80% certain that he saw Gerry McCann. In late 2013 he said nothing had changed except the Tanner sighting had been eliminated. The e-fits were produced with the help of a team of investigators who were not convinced by the Tanner sighting and who thought there were inconsistencies in the group's statements. That may be why Mr Smith cooperated with them but not with Brian Kennedy. The McCanns threatened those investigators with legal action if they disclosed the e-fits and their report. There is no proof he changed his mind about who he saw, just wishful thinking by some people.
A simple question.MS said in press early 2008 he had no contact with investigating police since May 2007. But in the files is proof that he had contacted Gardai and LP in Sept 2007 and the PJ phoned him in late Sept 2007 and he agreed to fly to Portugal. This is proof that witnesses keep secret their real communications with police Ferryman.
Why would Martin Smith (or his wife, on record verbatim as saying she no longer believes the man the family saw that night was Gerry) produce efits (by whatever technology) of a man they believed was Gerry?
MS said in press early 2008 he had no contact with investigating police since May 2007. But in the files is proof that he had contacted Gardai and LP in Sept 2007 and the PJ phoned him in late Sept 2007 and he agreed to fly to Portugal. This is proof that witnesses keep secret their real communications with police Ferryman.
What Ferryman is trying to say is - why would you need to draw an efit of a man you say is THE man in the video clip?A agree and I don't think he did either of the efits. For example the 2 efits could be by the eldest two children.
A agree and I don't think he did either of the efits. For example the 2 efits could be by the eldest two children.
I'm not so sure about that. MS was the one who was pressing to identify the man as GM....and MS was the only one Amaral wanted to recall to Portugal.That link was excellent on so many counts. Many thanks!
My gut feeling is, had Amaral remained in charge, MS would have altered the time of his sighting to well past 10pm.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2034661/EvoFIT-technology-revolutionising-way-police-catch-criminals.html
I scored a sad 0/10 on the famous faces.
A simple question.
Why would Martin Smith (or his wife, on record verbatim as saying she no longer believes the man the family saw that night was Gerry) produce efits (by whatever technology) of a man they believed was Gerry?
Why do you perpetuate the lie that Mr. Smith has changed his mind, when there is no verified statement from him that he has ?
Why do you perpetuate the lie that Mr. Smith has changed his mind, when there is no verified statement from him that he has ?The answer is quite clear, as 'ferryman' has clearly set out in post after post after post.
In January 2008 he was 60-80% certain that he saw Gerry McCann. In late 2013 he said nothing had changed except the Tanner sighting had been eliminated. The e-fits were produced with the help of a team of investigators who were not convinced by the Tanner sighting and who thought there were inconsistencies in the group's statements. That may be why Mr Smith cooperated with them but not with Brian Kennedy. The McCanns threatened those investigators with legal action if they disclosed the e-fits and their report. There is no proof he changed his mind about who he saw, just wishful thinking by some people.His wife has stated explicitly that they are hugely sympathetic to the McCanns, a sentiment she's highly unlikely to utter IMO if her husband (who she once agreed with) was adamant that he is still 60-80% certain he saw Gerry. Anyone ignoring this fact is trying hard to avoid the elephant in the room.
His wife has stated explicitly that they are hugely sympathetic to the McCanns, a sentiment she's highly unlikely to utter IMO if her husband (who she once agreed with) was adamant that he is still 60-80% certain he saw Gerry. Anyone ignoring this fact is trying hard to avoid the elephant in the room.
' Additional statement by Martin Smith, 30 January 2008
Cover note
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
L*** H****
Did you expect her to tell the press that she and her husband were pretty sure it was Gerry McCann they saw? Now that would have been foolish. Imagine the reaction in the press and from the litigious McCanns.Was she forced at gunpoint to give a comment to the press? I doubt it. She didn't have to say anything, or could have been a lot less effusive in her sympathy gush. You know it.
Did you expect her to tell the press that she and her husband were pretty sure it was Gerry McCann they saw? Now that would have been foolish. Imagine the reaction in the press and from the litigious McCanns.
She didn't have to say anything at all to the Press if she didn't want to - and yet she expressed their heartfelt sympathy for Kate and Gerry. That was her own choice.yup, I'm surprised at G-Unit to be honest. Thought she at least had the intellectual honesty to admit this fact, instead of desperately trying to avoid it.
How can anyone have any sympathy - let alone heartfelt sympathy for someone they believed had disposed of the body of their own child as if it was no more important than a bag of rubbish? Anyone who can't see how nonsensical that would be - has suspended all logic and common sense IMO.
So where is Mr. Smith's sworn statement recanting his original statement.As far as I know witnesses aren't obliged to provide sworn statements recanting their original statements, but it is clear from reports in the press including from Mrs Smith's own mouth that she and her husband no longer believe they saw Gerry that night, and no amount of "sceptic" foot-stamping can alter that fact.
As to what Kennedy did, that is called, interfering with a witness in a criminal case.
As far as I know witnesses aren't obliged to provide sworn statements recanting their original statements, but it is clear from reports in the press including from Mrs Smith's own mouth that he and his wife no longer believe they saw Gerry that night, and no amount of "sceptic" foot-stamping can alter that fact.
yup, I'm surprised at G-Unit to be honest. Thought she at least had the intellectual honesty to admit this fact, instead of desperately trying to avoid it.
I'm surprised given the amount of media coverage, misinformation and sensationalism attached to the case that people swallow media stories without any critical thought at all.
It's unlikely that Mrs Smith approached the Mail on Sunday to speak about the case. Her husband was determined not to speak to the press and was prepared to act against them if they wrote about his involvement. I assume, therefore, that a reporter from the Mail somehow contacted Mrs Smith. Having done so I would expect him to ask questions. The first question was probably asking to speak to Mr Smith, judging by the answer;
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
A guess at the next question. Something like 'Do you think it was Gerry McCann that he saw?' Mrs Smith becomes defensive;
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
The next question probably became emotive; 'How do you think the McCanns felt when your husband said it was Gerry he saw?'
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
Mrs Smith clearly didn't want to go on record saying she and her husband saw Gerry McCann, and I for one don't blame her. If she went a little bit further the other way who can blame her. Until you've been cornered by the press yourself you don't know what you might say to get rid of them.
I'm not saying that's what she did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Given the ways of the press I'm not prepared to accept anything they print as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I'm not so sure about that. MS was the one who was pressing to identify the man as GM....and MS was the only one Amaral wanted to recall to Portugal.
My gut feeling is, had Amaral remained in charge, MS would have altered the time of his sighting to well past 10pm.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2034661/EvoFIT-technology-revolutionising-way-police-catch-criminals.html
I scored a sad 0/10 on the famous faces.
I'm surprised given the amount of media coverage, misinformation and sensationalism attached to the case that people swallow media stories without any critical thought at all.This is called "putting it through the "sceptic" spin machine" in order to make it more palatable for the sceptic audience. Why should anyone pay any heed whatsoever to your highly speculative interpretation of this article? Let Mrs Smith's words speak for themselves and it's clear she and her husband only have utmost sympathy for the McCanns. The end.
It's unlikely that Mrs Smith approached the Mail on Sunday to speak about the case. Her husband was determined not to speak to the press and was prepared to act against them if they wrote about his involvement. I assume, therefore, that a reporter from the Mail somehow contacted Mrs Smith. Having done so I would expect him to ask questions. The first question was probably asking to speak to Mr Smith, judging by the answer;
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
A guess at the next question. Something like 'Do you think it was Gerry McCann that he saw?' Mrs Smith becomes defensive;
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
The next question probably became emotive; 'How do you think the McCanns felt when your husband said it was Gerry he saw?'
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
Mrs Smith clearly didn't want to go on record saying she and her husband saw Gerry McCann, and I for one don't blame her. If she went a little bit further the other way who can blame her. Until you've been cornered by the press yourself you don't know what you might say to get rid of them.
I'm not saying that's what she did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Given the ways of the press I'm not prepared to accept anything they print as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
' Additional statement by Martin Smith, 30 January 2008
Cover note
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
L*** H****
Additional statement by Martin Smith, 30 January 2008
I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10” in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct. '
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/missing-information.html
Now where is any signed and verified statement by Mr. Smith showing any change to the above ?
We are aware of the content of the Smith family statements only because Madeleine's case was archived and the files containing them posted illegally on the internet.
By the looks of it had Mr Smith had anything to do with it we would have heard nothing about it at all otherwise.
We have seen nothing of statements made either to SY or the PJ in the current investigations ... which is exactly as it should be. But as has been pointed out, Mr Smith appears to be perfectly content with newspaper content to the effect that he has 'changed his mind' else there would have been litigation or at the least a printed apology made to him.
We are aware of the content of the Smith family statements only because Madeleine's case was archived and the files containing them posted illegally on the internet.
By the looks of it had Mr Smith had anything to do with it we would have heard nothing about it at all otherwise.
We have seen nothing of statements made either to SY or the PJ in the current investigations ... which is exactly as it should be. But as has been pointed out, Mr Smith appears to be perfectly content with newspaper content to the effect that he has 'changed his mind' else there would have been litigation or at the least a printed apology made to him.
If Martin Smith's evidence is front and centre of an ongoing investigation could that perhaps be the reason he has not made any comment ?
Sorry, it is laughable to think that Martin Smith's evidence could be the 'front and centre' of an ongoing investigation.
What would his evidence actually amount to? What facts can he contribute?
Plainly DCI Redwood and Operation Grange didn't make the Smithman sighting 'the centre of our focus' because of his tentative identification of Gerry McCann, 4 months later, as the man he saw - based on seeing a bloke carrying a child in exactly the same way as most other parents carry an infant.
So why was that sighting the centre of Operation Grange's focus? - always remembering that DCI Redwood had those two efits (of different-looking men) in his hands as far back as mid 2011, well over two years before the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special was aired in October 2013?
It can surely only have been for the specific purpose of influencing public perception of what happened to Madeleine.
Only when his 'Crechemen' brainwave hit him, in that wondrous 'revelation moment', was he able to proceed to co-operate with the BBC in producing a £2 million publicity stunt, aired to 7 million people
Did DCI Redwood actually say that Crecheman was walking in the same direction as Tannerman was seen heading?
Did DCI Redwood actually say that Crecheman was walking in the same direction as Tannerman was seen heading?No he didn't.
Did DCI Redwood actually know which way Crecheman was going? Did he actually know where he was supposed to have come from? If he did he underestimated the knowledge of some of the UK public and made himself look extremely silly.
If DCI Redwood did know what he was saying made no was he trying to deceive the UK public?
Either way he did himself and the Metropolitan Police no favours.
I'm surprised given the amount of media coverage, misinformation and sensationalism attached to the case that people swallow media stories without any critical thought at all.
It's unlikely that Mrs Smith approached the Mail on Sunday to speak about the case. Her husband was determined not to speak to the press and was prepared to act against them if they wrote about his involvement. I assume, therefore, that a reporter from the Mail somehow contacted Mrs Smith. Having done so I would expect him to ask questions. The first question was probably asking to speak to Mr Smith, judging by the answer;
He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.
A guess at the next question. Something like 'Do you think it was Gerry McCann that he saw?' Mrs Smith becomes defensive;
''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.
The next question probably became emotive; 'How do you think the McCanns felt when your husband said it was Gerry he saw?'
"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.
''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
Mrs Smith clearly didn't want to go on record saying she and her husband saw Gerry McCann, and I for one don't blame her. If she went a little bit further the other way who can blame her. Until you've been cornered by the press yourself you don't know what you might say to get rid of them.
I'm not saying that's what she did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Given the ways of the press I'm not prepared to accept anything they print as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Let's re-cast that with different emphasis, shall we?
It is quite clear that Mrs Smith no longer believes she and her husband saw Gerry.
And the only inference why she and her husband agreed to produce efits is that neither (now) do.
We know none of their children ever did (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge back in 2008)
You seem very keen on stating your opinion as fact?
Ah! the old "it must be true because no one has sued" ploy.
Let's re-cast that with different emphasis, shall we?
It is quite clear that Mrs Smith no longer believes she and her husband saw Gerry.
And the only inference why she and her husband agreed to produce efits is that neither (now) do.
We know none of their children ever did (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge back in 2008)
You know the e-fits were produced by Mr and Mrs Smith and not by other members of the Irish family do you? Or is that another one of your guesses being posted as fact?
Of those whose statements read on line, the two most observant witnesses were Martin Smith and his daughter Aofe.
For a long time, on that basis, I took it that the second e-fit was produced on Aofe.
The press credits his wife (whose statement we don't read on line) with the second e-fit.
Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two witnesses (whom he didn't name).
I see absolutely no reason not to credit Martin and Mary Smith with the efits.
You are saying you don't know, but you see nothing wrong with guessing? Neither do I, but an imo would let others know you didn't have some secret source.
Quote
He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
End Quote
It would appear that Martin Smith having form for taking successful legal action to being misquoted confirms "the old "it must be true because no one has sued" ploy."
If he hadn't said it ... he would have insisted it was withdrawn just as he did formerly.
There is a difference between guesswork and sound inference from available information ....
If only your inferences were sound. Unfortunately your reasons for believing Martin Smith changed his mind are very weak.And your reasons for believing he hasn't changed his mind are weaker still, supported by NOTHING.
The fact that this witness made a proposed identification in Sept 2007 was documented by Irish, English, and Portuguese police.But his proposed identification is absolutely worthless. It would be ripped apart in seconds by questions such as:
And your reasons for believing he hasn't changed his mind are weaker still, supported by NOTHING.
Supported by a direct quote from the man himself.So, you have a quote from Martin Smith saying "I haven't changed my opinion - I'm still 60-80% sure it was Gerry I saw" have you? Let's see it then.
So, you have a quote from Martin Smith saying "I haven't changed my opinion - I'm still 60-80% sure it was Gerry I saw" have you? Let's see it then.
So what do you think he meant by this direct quote ?Which police? Which media? Which time? Details please.
''Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: "The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner's sighting.
"Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add." "
So what do you think he meant by this direct quote ?
''Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: "The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner's sighting.
"Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add." "
But his proposed identification is absolutely worthless. It would be ripped apart in seconds by questions such as:
* you were only '60% to 80%' certain?
* what was your opinion based on - the way he was carrying Sean?
* don't parents usually carry their infant children the same way?
* why did it take you 13 days to report your sighting?
* did you report it only because your son Peter 'phoned you up and said: 'Am I dreaming...?'
* which of the four separate reasons you have given for delaying reporting your sighting is the true one?
* or are none of them true?
* you have co-operated with the McCann Team since early 2008, haven't you?
* you have called for people to help find 'the abductor', haven't you?
* you drew up one of the-fits, didn't you?
* but another member of your family has drawn up a totally different-looking man?
* you co-operated with the McCann Team by changing the age of the man you saw twice, from '35 to 40' to '40', then down to '34 to 35'. Why did you do that?
* when you saw DCI Redwood twice, in 2012 and 2013, did you tell him that you still thought the man you said you saw was Gerry McCann?
Really, there are people on this forum who doubt that Madeleine was abducted. There is a significant majority that believe that she WAS abducted. Given the many reasons for doubting the abduction claim, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who doubts the abduction claim should spend one further second thinking that any of the Smiths can contribute to those doubts. To persist in thinking that the Smiths have valuable evidence that it was Gerry McCann carrying his dead child through the streets of Praia da Luz - at the very time his wife was raising the alarm - is one of the clearest examples I can remember of 'flogging a dead horse'.
Two key facts remain:
Martin Smith Smith and his wife both produced efits (of a man neither, any longer, believed/ believes, is Gerry).
Mrs Smith is on record, very recently, (way after public release of the files) as expressing great sympathy with the McCanns .....
Two key facts remain:
Martin Smith Smith and his wife both produced efits (of a man neither, any longer, believed/ believes, is Gerry).
Mrs Smith is on record, very recently, (way after public release of the files) as expressing great sympathy with the McCanns .....
Neither are facts, and your post is quite unfathomable. August 2008 was neither "way after public release of the files" ...it was the same month ..... And her being quoted in a newspaper in the same month /year is not "very recently" unless you think 8 years ago is a very recent time...is there any point in expecting you not to embroider? the facts in this case and call your embroidering "facts"?
By all means make your case, but make sure its truthful!!
Eta GU beat me to it
Hyperbole does not for an untruthful case make.
After release of the files (remains true).
Use of hyperbole (to accentuate valid points) is an acceptable writing style, I would argue.
Go argue ahead, you must hold the record for extreme use of said hyperbole...i cant thnk of a single person who calls 8 years "very recently" , and i personally would class your use of the facts as distorted on purpose (as you seem to actually know the real undistorted elements of the facts) ...take your pick
Hyperbole does not for an untruthful case make.
After release of the files (remains true).
"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''
Would you not agree that these are very odd words for Mary Smith to have uttered if she thought Kate and Gerry to be culpable?
Do you dispute that after release the files Mrs Smith is on record as expressing sympathy with the McCanns?
She also said in the same quote that the man they saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. Perhaps in answer to the reporter asking her why her husband said he was 60-80% certain the man was Gerry McCann.
Madeleine's abductor had the same stature as Gerry.
Lots of men do.
Almost certainly the cause of the confusion.
Lots of men have the same stature as Gerry McCann but it was his name which was mentioned. The only person confused is you. Martin Smith was quite clear about his opinion and why he held it. Mannerisms, not stature. 'Like an action replay' of his sighting.
Madeleine's abductor had the same stature as Gerry.
Lots of men do.
Almost certainly the cause of the confusion.
Smith can think what he likes ...it is of no importance,,,as evidence his opinion is worthless
So your view is that a witness identifying someone with a high degree of certainty is worthless.
So your view is that a witness identifying someone with a high degree of certainty is worthless.Since when has 60-80% EVER been considered "a high degree of certainty"?!
Redwood liked the irish family's sighting enough to publicise it, so he obviously didn't agree with davel.
Redwood liked the irish family's sighting enough to publicise it, so he obviously didn't agree with davel.I don't remember Davel ever disputing that the motionless child the Irish group saw was possibly the missing child?
Lots of men have the same stature as Gerry McCann but it was his name which was mentioned. The only person confused is you. Martin Smith was quite clear about his opinion and why he held it. Mannerisms, not stature. 'Like an action replay' of his sighting.
The whole Smith TV thingy was not about WHO the man was, but the way the man carried the little girl ... and it happened to be Gerry who carried his little son in a similar manner that triggered the memory. Could have been anyone.
Leading questions would have been asked, probably twisting the scenario in Mr Smiths mind. We have all witnessed twisting techniques used on here! My bet is that a fair bit of pressure was put on Smith by Amaral to get that 60-80% figure
BTW,
Gerry is NOT 5'9 - 5'11" tall. He is a damned sight taller. I have stood right next to him, talking to him. I remember him as being well over 6ft tall.
? 6'1"
The whole Smith TV thingy was not about WHO the man was, but the way the man carried the little girl ... and it happened to be Gerry who carried his little son in a similar manner that triggered the memory. Could have been anyone.
Leading questions would have been asked, probably twisting the scenario in Mr Smiths mind. We have all witnessed twisting techniques used on here! My bet is that a fair bit of pressure was put on Smith by Amaral to get that 60-80% figure
BTW,
Gerry is NOT 5'9 - 5'11" tall. He is a damned sight taller. I have stood right next to him, talking to him. I remember him as being well over 6ft tall.
? 6'1"
I thought Amaral was long gone by the time Mr Smith gave his 60-80% statement.
Last time you mentioned this Sadie , you mentioned 6' 2''.
Is he shrinking or just coming up short @)(++(*
So your view is that a witness identifying someone with a high degree of certainty is worthless.
Redwood liked the irish family's sighting enough to publicise it, so he obviously didn't agree with davel.
Last time you mentioned this Sadie , you mentioned 6' 2''.from memory, I would have an educated guess at over 6' 1" ... so 6'2" fits the bill ... cos it is just an educated guess.
Is he shrinking or just coming up short @)(++(*
That doesn't make the Smith sighting any less important.
from memory, I would have an educated guess at over 6' 1" ... so 6'2" fits the bill ... cos it is just an educated guess.
Shall we say, 6' 1 - 6'2 ? imo
Maybe sometimes wears high heels 8(0(*
The man on the right and the woman on the left are tall.The man at the back is very tall.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/17/article-2249350-04FD7FE6000005DC-653_634x690.jpg)
The man on the right and the woman on the left are tall.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/17/article-2249350-04FD7FE6000005DC-653_634x690.jpg)
The man in yellow jacket certainly is tall and appears to be about 4 inches taller than Gerry.
The woman in red shoes is wearing highish heels so is probably no taller than Kate.
Jeremy Wilkins described Gerry McCann as between 5'10" and 6'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
he didn't see his face...would you call 60% a high degree of certainty.....he isn't sure,...that is not a high degree of certainty
The man in yellow jacket certainly is tall and appears to be about 4 inches taller than Gerry.
The woman in red shoes is wearing highish heels so is probably no taller than Kate.
The centreline of the top rail of the balustrade will be 1000mm above walkway level.As we all know, inn the UK there has to be a minimum height for railings, so that people cannot accidentally topple over or accidentally be pushed over. I have forgotten the minimum height and do we know this photo was taken in the UK? And when.
Anyone have dividers and a calculator ? 8(0(*
I don't know how tall Sadie is, but I'm short so most people look tall to me. I think Jez was tall himself so was probably better able to judge. I have noticed that Kate and Fiona are fairly close in height and their husbands are about the same amount taller compared to them. David Payne is around 5'10".
As we all know, inn the UK there has to be a minimum height for railings, so that people cannot accidentally topple over or accidentally be pushed over. I have forgotten the minimum height and do we know this photo was taken in the UK? And when.
The same with railings, the uprights have to be within certain boundaries a prescribed distance apart these days. so that children can neither fall thru nor can they get their heads stuck between them. The railings to the balcony on 5A look too far apart tio me. Maybe they were pre any rulings or maybe PT has no such regulations?
Sorry Alice, but without actually measuring them you cannot blandly state that they are a metre high.
So you are suggesting the balustrades are not in accordance with regulations which have been kicking around for about 30 years ?
I am not 'suggesting' anything, just commenting.
They may have been taller than a metre high; we dont know, do we?
Where was the photo taken ?
How old are the railings ... over 30 Y.O.?
How far in front of the railings are they standing, for this photograph taken from a low level?
Not enough definite information there to make anything other than a guess.
I am not 'suggesting' anything, just commenting.
They may have been taller than a metre high; we dont know, do we? Eurocodes 0,1 & 3 will apply
Where was the photo taken ? Doesn't matter see above
How old are the railings ... over 30 Y.O.? No look at the construction
How far in front of the railings are they standing, for this photograph taken from a low level? Doesn't matter
Not enough definite information there to make anything other than a guess. I'll stick with 1000 datum to centre line of top rail as a fairly accurate sense check. You could use 150mm width of treads as a sense check too. Or of course you can use anthropometry norms to assess the height of the big guys dactylion above datum to give a sense check. Plenty of stuff there to do better than guess
...You could use 150mm width of treads as a sense check ...Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?
Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?
It's absurd to base the investigation on a sighting of a child being carried visibly. When the Met solve cases in London involving transportation by a pedestrian, they never even consider such a ludicrously visible method.
Would it be possible to work out people's shoe sizes by comparing with the stair tread width?
It's absurd to base the investigation on a sighting of a child being carried visibly. When the Met solve cases in London involving transportation by a pedestrian, they never even consider such a ludicrously visible method.
So what is the difference between the hiding in plain sight carrying a child home from creche, where it was a normal sight in PDL at night, and hiding in plain sight when someone abducts a baby from hospital?Why is it ludicrous?why is it ludicrous? I'll tell you why it's ludicrous. Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction". The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time. Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?
As for GMs height, he tells us Jez Wilkins was 6 ' 3" and he had to look up at him, when he crossed the road to chat, so he cant be 6'1 -6'2 can he?
I suppose one can take the pavement height and add it on to 6'3" and then, well, speculate on how much one tilts their head upwards lol
Have a looky here at just before 2 mins in
why is it ludicrous? I'll tell you why it's ludicrous. Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction". The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time. Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?
Going from being unable either to describe the man or pick him out from photographs to a few months later when usually memory has faded even more to being able to identify a particular individual is something indeed.
For a start when first encountered it was after darkness on an ill lit street.
The misidentification took place in daylight in very good lighting conditions.
Almost identical circumstances to the McCluskey misidentification.
The common factor was in my opinion the fact that both of Madeleine's parents had been made arguidos in her disappearance and both men would have been exposed to the propaganda being put about against them in the Portuguese press and picked up by the world's press.
I think they were simply brainwashed and when they witnessed a man carrying a child down steps it was sufficient to trigger a false memory turning the man both already believed to have been carrying Madeleine into her father.
There is provenance in Mr McCluskey's case that he actually saw a man and child - reported his suspicions to the police - who investigated - and who without Mr McCluskey's knowledge was exonerated - subsequently saw Madeleine's father carrying a twin - and recalled the event he had witnessed but this time transposing and misidentifying the innocent man he had seen as someone else.
The man seen and subsequently misidentified by Mr Smith has not been similarly eliminated from the inquiry ... but I would assume that Martin Smith will have changed his mind about his identity, given that he hasn't taken time out to rectify the Sunday Times definitive statement that he has done just that.
It is not a fact Smith misidentified GM, it is likely, possible, arguable but NOT probable or definite...
why is it ludicrous? I'll tell you why it's ludicrous. Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction". The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time. Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
Isn't that the clincher?
It might be if it were possible to prove itEight other rersponsible people witnessed him there and almost certainly they would all be prepared to confirm.
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
Isn't that the clincher?
Not proven, as they say.
Eight other rersponsible people witnessed him there and almost certainly they would all be prepared to confirm.
Most people would think that proof enough !!!
If the photo had been taken from below the height of the railing, it would have appeared to point downwards from front to back. As it appears to point upwards from front to back the photo must have been taken from above railing height. Assuming they are not in front of a trompe l'oeil.
No they didnt, at least they never said so...and all we have to go on is statements, not what you or others might thinkThey were 8 responsible people. It is my understanding that Doctors can be struck off if they contravene the Law.
They were 8 responsible people. It is my understanding that Doctors can be struck off if they contravene the Law.
There was no need at the point that the statements were being made to confirm or disagree with the fact that Gerry was there at 10pm. No public disbelief had been expressed at that stage, so it would never occur to them to make the statement "Gerry was here at that time", Although some of them might have said "Gerry wasn't there", if he wasn't, as that would have been against the norm.
All the propaganda that was put about really made life impossible for The Mccanns ... and on top of everything else !!. So many people believed the rubbish.
So sad.
Although I am fairly sure that in one of the statements it said that they all got up when Kate came back distressed and shouting ... and that Gerry led the Tapas group as they ran back to 5A
He had eight people who would swear he was in the tapas bar or at the least wouldn't contradict his claim and a friend who was willing to put him and the abductor in the same street at the same time. Certainly seems to have worked as the doubt surrounding the sighting testifies to.How could he know in advance that he could rely on any one of them to cover for him for 9+ years? Come on Faithlilly, be honest, you're not stupid - what you're expecting us to accept happened is utterly ludicrous!
How could he know in advance that he could rely on any one of them to cover for him for 9+ years? Come on Faithlilly, be honest, you're not stupid - what you're expecting us to accept happened is utterly ludicrous!
The truth is he couldn't but that chance was better than the alternative.Why do you cling so doggedly to such an idiotic theory? Surely there are others you can come up with that don't rely on such a deeply improbable series of events?
Eight other rersponsible people witnessed him there and almost certainly they would all be prepared to confirm.
Most people would think that proof enough !!!
Five of the group said the alarm was raised at 10pm (six if you include the man himself). It's a fact that they collaborated on times also. I have six people who didn't collaborate and who suggest it wasn't 10pm.But you don't think the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine so...?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm
Why do you cling so doggedly to such an idiotic theory? Surely there are others you can come up with that don't rely on such a deeply improbable series of events?
I'm sure it's not hard to get friends to say almost anything when scared that they will be charged with neglecting their children. They don't necessarily need to be aware of what exactly has happened.Read my sig line, it's not impossible, just deeply improbable additionally so when you add in the need for a cover-up involving additional people. deep down I'm sure you realise this.
So what else is impossible ?
Why do you cling so doggedly to such an idiotic theory? Surely there are others you can come up with that don't rely on such a deeply improbable series of events?
Read my sig line, it's not impossible, just deeply improbable additionally so when you add in the need for a cover-up involving additional people. deep down I'm sure you realise this.
You think that's improbable? Some find the idea of a successful abduction being achieved in the circumstances described as close to impossible.but we've established that there were a total of 15 minutes over two time slots during which an abduction could have taken place, and the Met have verified that there WAS an opportunity in the timeline for an abduction, so far from impossible.
but we've established that there were a total of 15 minutes over two time slots during which an abduction could have taken place, and the Met have verified that there WAS an opportunity in the timeline for an abduction, so far from impossible.
What additional people would you need for a cover-up ?the "on holiday" bit has no bearing on the likelihood or otherwise of an abduction from a house or home. It has happened before and examples have been posted on this forum.
A young child being abducted from her bed while on holiday is deeply improbable. In fact so deeply improbable that supporters have yet to give this forum one example of this happening before, yet still you believe it. So what's the difference ?
Gerry could have said hes popping to the loo....who times it?Faithlilly has JT in on it at the very least, and has just claimed that a number of the Tapas group were prepared to vouch for Gerry's wherabouts at the time of the alarm, and G-Unit concluded that they had colluded to set the alarm at 10pm.
none of the t7 had to be " in on it"
He is definitely under 6 ft.
(http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz357/JillyCL/gerrymccann.png)
why is it ludicrous? I'll tell you why it's ludicrous. Some would have us believe that the father of the missing child carried her DEAD BODY uncovered, with no disguise to himself, through a holiday town during opening hours to find a hiding place for the body, whilst simultaneously his wife was screaming "abduction". The same father, the next day after having supposedly been seen by NINE individuals carrying his child's DEAD BODY then goes on TV to be broadcast to the 4 corners of the earth to highlight her disappearance, and subsequently becomes one of the most recognisable men in the world at the time. Is that ludicrous enough for you, or not so much?
Faithlilly has JT in on it at the very least, and has just claimed that a number of the Tapas group were prepared to vouch for Gerry's wherabouts at the time of the alarm, and G-Unit concluded that they had colluded to set the alarm at 10pm.
Bwhahah
which one is supposed to be Gerry? The narrow shoulderd and narrow chested one? LOL
Come on PFinder, you can't expect us to fall for that one !!!
... which one ...?As Merc says, it's Number **9 Sadie.
Bwhahah
which one is supposed to be Gerry? The narrow shoulderd and narrow chested one? LOL
Come on PFinder, you can't expect us to fall for that one !!!
Behind car wearing a fake George V beard?
No car wears a fake beard, but yeah that bloke..dead ringedYes I meant the man not the car Merc please try to be serious.
*&*%£
Oh my days
Faithlilly has JT in on it at the very least, and has just claimed that a number of the Tapas group were prepared to vouch for Gerry's wherabouts at the time of the alarm, and G-Unit concluded that they had colluded to set the alarm at 10pm.
I spotted him immediately and I haven't met him. Second from left! I thought you were the expert at recognising people (well Madeleine anyway).Yep, made the same mistake as I did before. I honed in on the center of the picture and took no notice of the outer part. Maybe that is because of my eyesight problems, periferal vision weak? Dunno
Yep, made the same mistake as I did before. I honed in on the center of the picture and took no notice of the outer part. Maybe that is because of my eyesight problems, periferal vision weak? Dunno
I see who you all mean. When was that taken? ... and what event was that?
And now i am off to bed
Nigh night.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic19399.html
THE HARES AND HOUNDS CLUB - 1986-1987 - page 112
Even with the name underneath ... I think it looks nothing like him.
No collusion was necessary. From each rog except Jane who wasn't there.but you believe DP is in on it!
"Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes."
"Because you see within seconds it was, you know, everybody split up and did a quick, quick search in a different direction'.
"Again I wasn’t looking at the time but just thinking to what happened is that err Russell came back to table and err they’d actually cooked him a fresh steak and he was just starting to tuck into it when err Kate had obviously gone back to check on the children, came running in you know, as far as I can recollect she said you know she’s gone, Gerry, Madeleine’s gone, screaming you know.” i.e. doesn't know the time!
"‘I think it would have been about ten o’clock’, I didn’t have a watch." i.e. doesn't know the time!
"he was eating his dinner and Kate said that she you know was, must have been about five to ten then or ten o'clock, so Kate said you know, she'd go up and check, do her check and within a couple of minutes later she came back and shouting Madeleines gone." i.e. doesn't know the time!
"Kate left, I hadn't realised that she'd, you know, left the table again just busy chatting, then Kate came back just after ten o' clock, you know absolutely distraught err you know just, you know her face I'll never forget. It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said." Claims to know the time. Guess who &%+((£
Faith and others have their own theories, theres no crime in that, what we are discussing is who definitely places GM at the Tapas Bar at exactly the tme the alarm was raised...not much if anythng at all thereI never said Faithlilly's theory was a crime (though come to think of it, it is a crime against logic and sense).
but you believe .... ...... is in on it!Absurd that I'm not even allowed to write the initials. This forum is already chokkablock of explicit accusations and insinuations, so why remove the initials from my post?
but you believe .... ...... is in on it!
He has to be investigated and is not ruled out. The others didn't know the time except for the one who had a watch and gave an earlier time.your theory is just as barmy as Faithlilly's, no offence like. It involves paedophilia, a violent death, one parent willing to overlook the crimes of the other parent and a friend, and who willingly covers up their crimes AND it involves the ludicrous notion of said parent parading through town with a corpse. Puh-lease.
your theory is just as barmy as Faithlilly's, no offence like. It involves paedophilia, a violent death, one parent willing to overlook the crimes of the other parent and a friend, and who willingly covers up their crimes AND it involves the ludicrous notion of said parent parading through town with a corpse. Puh-lease.
Eddie indicated a corpse was inside the apartment. If death happened it leads to the night of 3 May and yes the many inconsistencies of that visit only hours before she disappeared could suggest a cover-up. If there was a corpse then it was removed that night and the unidentified man who the eye-witnesses think was with Madeleine is the prime and only credible suspect in this case.
p.s. I know what normally happened at 6:30. It's in their statements.
Eddie indicated a corpse was inside the apartment. If death happened it leads to the night of 3 May and yes the many inconsistencies of that visit only hours before she disappeared could suggest a cover-up. If there was a corpse then it was removed that night and the unidentified man who the eye-witnesses think was with Madeleine is the prime and only credible suspect in this case.
p.s. I know what normally happened at 6:30. It's in their statements.
Eddie 'indicated' in the garage ... there was no corpse there.
Eddie 'indicated' in the villa ... there was no corpse there.
Eddie 'indicated' all over the place in the apartment ... there was no corpse there.
Eddie 'indicated' all over the place in Haute de la Garenne ... there was no corpse there.
Eddie's indications were no doubt of interest to investigators, until they were checked out ... Eddie's documented proven alerts when a body was present did just that ... his unproven alerts could have been to anything and nothing.
As far as being evidential goes that is exactly what they are ... nothing. Unfortunately the PJ of the time were a bit disoriented by the PR and didn't bother with the warning in the small print.
Eddie indicated a corpse was inside the apartment. If death happened it leads to the night of 3 May and yes the many inconsistencies of that visit only hours before she disappeared could suggest a cover-up. If there was a corpse then it was removed that night and the unidentified man who the eye-witnesses think was with Madeleine is the prime and only credible suspect in this case.Perhaps you can explain why Eddie did not alert to ANY of Gerry McCann's clothes, despite the fact that you believe this individual moved a corpse at least twice, possibly 3 times?
p.s. I know what normally happened at 6:30. It's in their statements.
The dogs only examined the clothes that were present 3 months after the fact.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers.
IIRC - according to Martin Grime - washing clothes - even in a washing machine doesn't remove cadaverscent.
The dogs only examined the clothes that were present 3 months after the fact.How do you explain the fact that the dog DID alert to clothes belonging to Kate and the children then? How do you account for the fact that Gerry's jacket which was photographed on the back of the sofa, the one you claim he wore when carrying out his wicked deed, and against which a corpse would have been held tight, did not leave cadaver scent on the sofa itself?
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers.
That's not the point. Would they know it? He wanted to identify the clothes that were washed.Yes it IS the point. CLothes worn by the body carrier = no cadaver scent. Explain it.
Yes it IS the point. CLothes worn by the body carrier = no cadaver scent. Explain it.
The forensic testing, did not confirm anything, one way or the other.Explain why the dog did not alert to any item of Gerry's clothing, which would have been contaminated with cadaver scent, which cannot be removed by washing but which can be transferred from one item of clothing to another, or to fabric on a sofa? Can you explain it? No you cannot.
Explain why the dog did not alert to any item of Gerry's clothing, which would have been contaminated with cadaver scent, which cannot be removed by washing but which can be transferred from one item of clothing to another, or to fabric on a sofa? Can you explain it? No you cannot.
It would depend on several factors Alfred.None, so tell me what it would depend on then, off you go...
What kind of training have you had in Science ?
None, so tell me what it would depend on then, off you go...
Again, I have given you a few examples of variables before.Stop patronizing me and just tell me now.
You need to pay attention and learn.
Stop patronizing me and just tell me now.
Are you incapable of working it out for yourself.Yes I am incapable of working it out so please tell me why the dogs did not alert to the back of the sofa, nor to any of Gerry's clothes, whilst alerting to items of clothing belonging to other family members.
Yes I am incapable of working it out so please tell me why the dogs did not alert to the back of the sofa, nor to any of Gerry's clothes, whilst alerting to items of clothing belonging to other family members.
Look it up Alfred.Where would I look? Why are you incapable of simply telling me now? Here's a perfect opportunity for you to shine and put me in my place, to demonstrate your superior scientific and logic skills - over to you.
Where would I look? Why are you incapable of simply telling me now? Here's a perfect opportunity for you to shine and put me in my place, to demonstrate your superior scientific and logic skills - over to you.
I gave you a few points the other day.Cite please.
It is not my responsibility if you are incapable of looking them up and apply logic to the situation.
That's not the point. Would they know it? He wanted to identify the clothes that were washed.[/b]
[/b]
So why didn't he give instructions that nothing was to be disturbed or removed - unless it was with prior permission? No good blaming the parents for his own shortcomings.
The McCanns do what they want like showing an innocent man cleared by SY as the prime suspect on their website. Any normal person wouldn't be deleting phone call history before meeting the police @)(++(*
I know nothing about mobile phones but I've had my (very basic) mobile for some years. A while back I had a message to say I couldn't receive any more messages because my message box was full. This had never happened before. As soon as I deleted one of my old messages - a new message which was waiting to be delivered - was delivered. In 2007 that may have been the case with the mobiles in use by the McCanns and they were deleting old calls so that new calls could get through.
I know nothing about mobile phones but I've had my (very basic) mobile for some years. A while back I had a message to say I couldn't receive any more messages because my message box was full. This had never happened before. As soon as I deleted one of my old messages - a new message which was waiting to be delivered - was delivered. In 2007 that may have been the case with the mobiles in use by the McCanns and they were deleting old calls so that new calls could get through.
My mobile is an antique but more up to date than circa 2007 ... I need to keep deleting so that I can receive new messages.
I have never thought there is anything suspicious about it.
Also in particular circumstances when I expect more traffic than usual I make sure all unnecessary messages are deleted ... I would imagine that a couple whose child had just been kidnapped in a foreign land would be especially anxious to ensure all lines of communication were open.
Yeah right Benice. This is wiping your call history logs like perps wipe their internet browser history before meeting the police.
But it doesn't work like that does it? The police only have to check with the provider to find out who has been calling who ... and nobody had a smart phone to browse the internet with in those days anyway, so why mention it?
But it doesn't work like that does it? The police only have to check with the provider to find out who has been calling who ... and nobody had a smart phone to browse the internet with in those days anyway, so why mention it?Yes deleting call history on phone is pointless because call history is also stored in provider data files.
Why mention it? When they looked at their phones it showed neither had used their phone in Portugal until after 11pm on 3 May. Whoosh!
It suggests trying to hide evidence from the police, tampering with the crime scene before they arrived, statements changing, timelines changing, confusion is good for some......I don't need to go over old ground.
But you have done just that ... and the confusions you mention appears to affect only those posting on fora populated by amateur detectives.
Fortunately for justice the real detectives of the PJ and SY have investigated and moved way beyond ground hog day and are continuing their investigation into what may have happened to Madeleine.
Martin Smith is behind them in that 100% and Mary has no reservations about it either.
Try citing evidence for that last line, direct and verified from the Smiths.
My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.
"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.
from the sky news site
http://news.sky.com/story/593646/missing-madeleine-mccann-irish-witness-clears-murat
How do you explain the fact that the dog DID alert to clothes belonging to Kate and the children then? How do you account for the fact that Gerry's jacket which was photographed on the back of the sofa, the one you claim he wore when carrying out his wicked deed, and against which a corpse would have been held tight, did not leave cadaver scent on the sofa itself?
Could it be that the clothes worn by Gerry on the night had been taken home on one of his visits back ? After all the clothes he had worn on a less than sweltering May are certainly not the clothes he would be wearing in August, certainly not a heavy jacket/shirt and long trousers.What you are suggesting is that by Summer 2007 NONE of Gerry's clothes were ones he'd had with him in May 2007, seems highly implausible to me.
What you are suggesting is that by Summer 2007 NONE of Gerry's clothes were ones he'd had with him in May 2007, seems highly implausible to me.
Could it be that the clothes worn by Gerry on the night had been taken home on one of his visits back ? After all the clothes he had worn on a less than sweltering May are certainly not the clothes he would be wearing in August, certainly not a heavy jacket/shirt and long trousers.
Whether he did that or not - doesn't explain why the settee which - if it had been in contact with a heavily contaminated jacket - maybe for hours - was not alerted to by Eddie. Cross contamination is instant according to M. Grime.
IMO the logical answer can only be that the jacket was not contaminated - because it had not been in contact with a corpse and therefore cross-contamination was not a possibility when it came to the settee.
Whether he did that or not - doesn't explain why the settee which - if it had been in contact with a heavily contaminated jacket - maybe for hours - was not alerted to by Eddie. Cross contamination is instant according to M. Grime.
IMO the logical answer can only be that the jacket was not contaminated - because it had not been in contact with a corpse and therefore cross-contamination was not a possibility when it came to the settee.
Not none just the heavier ones which he would have been wearing in, we are told, a rather changeable May.So why no transferral between those clothes and all the other clothes that he had in his wardrobe / cupboard?
It is obvious to most that the body location would produce the strongest scent being the source.
I totally agree Brietta. The expectation by some that the McCanns should have been thinking like policemen and regarding their phone traffic as 'evidence' - instead of thinking and behaving like the distraught terrified parents they were - is ludicrous IMO.
We're off topic PF. Can you post on the appropriate thread - and I will reply.
Deleting messages is necessary so new ones can be received or sent. Deleting the history of numbers called and of those who have called you is unnecessary because leaving the list there doesn't stop the phone from working. The only reason to do that is so people can't see who you have been calling or who has called you. Why 'distraught and terrified parents' would take the trouble in the first hour after their child disappeared to do that is therefore a valid question.
I really don't know enough about how mobiles work to comment G,
However, what sort of a plan was it that involved having incriminatory 'evidence' on their phones - which was apparently still there after they'd raised the alarm when as far as they knew the police could arrive within minutes.
Surely it would be a major part of their cunning plan to make sure there was no incriminatory 'evidence' on their phones in the first place?
Police arrive within minutes. You need to call them for that to happen. It took Fiona to get the ball moving. It's not hard to work out why when everything connects.
You child has died accidentally one evening and you and your wife decide to cover up the death. What incriminating phone messages do you suppose they sent each other that evening, and when?
They deleted the whole week's call records. As to the evening in question, who knows? I've never been able to work out whether the PJ got the complete records from the phone companies or whether they identified all the numbers. With regard to Kate McCann she left numbers she called or who called her before 28th April, but deleted all calls except two from 28th April to 23.17 on 3rd May.There can be no logical reason I can think of for deleting phone records in the event of your child's unforeseen and accidental death, unless it has been done in order to free up space on the phone or in the belief that it would be necessary to do so, anticipating a hig volume of incoming messages. Or unless the McCanns had been subjecting Madeleine to all sorts of grim activities prior to her death, the sort of activities which contributed to her death, and which they felt compelled to message other people about - do you think that's very likely?
Her mobile memory held details of 39 calls from 18.28 on Wednesday 25th April to 16.35 on 27th April 2007. After her arrival in Portugal on 28th April 2007, with the exception of one incoming call on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 at 11.21 (which, very interestingly, was the Swansea 'wrong number'), and one call from her husband at 23.17 on Thursday 3rd May 2007, everything else has been 'whoosh-clunked' from memory.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
IMO the only calls of any interest that night areWhy would those be particularly interesting to you?
23:14 G calls K (8 seconds)
23:17 G calls K (31 seconds)
There can be no logical reason I can think of for deleting phone records in the event of your child's unforeseen and accidental death, unless it has been done in order to free up space on the phone or in the belief that it would be necessary to do so, anticipating a hig volume of incoming messages. Or unless the McCanns had been subjecting Madeleine to all sorts of grim activities prior to her death, the sort of activities which contributed to her death, and which they felt compelled to message other people about - do you think that's very likely?
There can be no logical reason I can think of for deleting phone records in the event of your child's unforeseen and accidental death, unless it has been done in order to free up space on the phone or in the belief that it would be necessary to do so, anticipating a hig volume of incoming messages. Or unless the McCanns had been subjecting Madeleine to all sorts of grim activities prior to her death, the sort of activities which contributed to her death, and which they felt compelled to message other people about - do you think that's very likely?
Logs don't take up any memory to be effective. It's only a list of calls. Funny how the older logs before Portugal weren't cleared. It suggests that they knew what they were clearing.Perhaps they only cleared stuff that they knew they wouldn't need to refer to again? And perhaps you can give one good example of the kind of incriminating message you believe they would have needed to delete from days prior to Madeleine's disappearance, that wouldhave any bearing on her disappearance.
The dogs only examined the clothes that were present 3 months after the fact.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers.
if you were sitting around waiting trying to kill time...deleting phone records is exactly the type of pointless things people might do
There is no evidence at all that MS has changed his mind.
It is obvious that he was very serious when he spoke with Garda, LP and Paiva in Sept 2007.
And he was willing to fly back to Portugal to make a formal identification.
There is no evidence at all that MS has changed his mind.
It is obvious that he was very serious when he spoke with Garda, LP and Paiva in Sept 2007.
And he was willing to fly back to Portugal to make a formal identification.
He was willing to fly back to Portugal but Rebelo who was aware of the McCluskey misidentification among other things, didn't ask him to ...MS would certainly have been flown back to Portugal in early October 2007 to make a formal identification had someone not engineered to stop it by discarding Mr Amaral. MS was asked to fly back and expressed his willingness to fly back in a phone conversation with Amaral's PJ on about Sept 27th 2007, this is documented in the files, I can post it if you want. The idea that MS later studied the PJ files and miraculously reversed his Sept 2007 identification is pure conjecture IMO.
Martin Smith would read the files on their release - and don't tell me he didn't - and realised that he shared in almost each detail his misidentification with Mr McCluskey. That would give him food for thought and he would work it out from there.
MS would certainly have been flown back to Portugal in early October 2007 to make a formal identification had someone not engineered to stop it by discarding Mr Amaral. MS was asked to fly back and expressed his willingness to fly back in a phone conversation with Amaral's PJ on about Sept 27th 2007, this is documented in the files, I can post it if you want. The idea that MS later studied the PJ files and miraculously reversed his Sept 2007 identification is pure conjecture IMO.
Unless MS (& the other members of his family) also altered the reported time of the sighting, the formal identification would have been worthless.None of the Irish group gave an exact time from a clock. The exact time we do know is the card transaction at Dolphin, which makes it likely the sighting was some time after 10pm.
None of the Irish group gave an exact time from a clock. The exact time we do know is the card transaction at Dolphin, which makes it likely the sighting was some time after 10pm.
AS had the time of departure from the Dolphin spot on. How do you think she did that?The point is, the time of the sighting is known only very approximately, it depends whose estimate you chose to read.
The point is, the time of the sighting is known only very approximately, it depends whose estimate you chose to read.
For example PS said that they left Kellys 50 to 60 minutes after they left Dolphin, and we know they left Dolphin after 21:27, therefore the sighting was after 22:17, at earliest. So purely hypothetically you could have table alarm 22:00, rushers arrive back at apartment 22:01, leave apartment 22:14, sighted 22:17.
MS would certainly have been flown back to Portugal in early October 2007 to make a formal identification had someone not engineered to stop it by discarding Mr Amaral. MS was asked to fly back and expressed his willingness to fly back in a phone conversation with Amaral's PJ on about Sept 27th 2007, this is documented in the files, I can post it if you want. The idea that MS later studied the PJ files and miraculously reversed his Sept 2007 identification is pure conjecture IMO.
I don't know where you are coming from thinking that Mr Amaral's removal from the case was "engineered" he managed to do it all by himself by becoming an embarrassment and nearly causing a diplomatic incident with his loose talk.Do you really believe that one phone call with a journo on evening 1st October, in which he commented on UK police, was the real reason he was disposed of on 2nd October? Nothing with someoneelse's post-arguido phone chats with high up people then?
None of the Irish group gave an exact time from a clock. The exact time we do know is the card transaction at Dolphin, which makes it likely the sighting was some time after 10pm.
Hypothetical timing does not stand up in a court of law. The witness with the only accurate time for departure from the Dolphin begs to differ with the witness who changed his mind about not being able to recognise the man he allegedly saw at a different stated time.
Do you really believe that one phone call with a journo on evening 1st October, in which he commented on UK police, was the real reason he was disposed of on 2nd October? Nothing with someoneelse's post-arguido phone chats with high up people then?
I believe it was the instrument used to sort out a loose cannon ... in his book he says as much.(answered re phones on "wandering off topic" thread)
Part and parcel of that was probably the embarrassing mumbo jumbo of dream interpretations and total misunderstanding of forensics which precipitated the premature rush to have Madeleine's parents constituted arguidos ... particularly as eight days later a change in the law would not have allowed it.
I think flying Martin Smith in to explain how a man he could not identify carried a child would have been the final straw for him if his indiscreet phone call hadn't already done it ... Rebelo didn't do it, probably after he had investigated what Martin Smith had to say ...
Interesting you mention high powered phone calls ... from whom to whom??
N.B. complaints about Moderators are to be addressed to the Forum owner and not posted on the boards.
Indeed, it might not have been Madeleine.
Until the man is identified mr smiths 60-80% sure stands...and thats the end of it..no evidence or proof that he ever changed hs mind
Indeed, it might not have been Madeleine.
It can stand... Who cares ... It is of no significance
Bit like the dogs and anythng else which doesnt suit, lol, who cares? Mccanns certainly didnt cardpe about a very important sightng or a cadaver dog alerting
&%+((£
I think they did, actually, but tried to pass it all off as rubbish.
Two exact times.
"Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left."
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 22H03. Both are still unidentified 8 years later.
I think they did, actually, but tried to pass it all off as rubbish.
as I have said many times...sceptics simply do not understand the evidence
What a curious phenomenon, do extrapolate on this theory of yours
you are a prime example.....recently you referred to the alerts as not being evidential evidence...where did you get that from....the alerts are evidence of nothing....
Lol at prime example
Your sentence makes no sense btw
my sentence makes perfect sense...it is your comprehension that is at fault
There you go again nsulting others, go reread your post
my post makes perfect sense...the problem is with you and you comprehension
If you say so
>>>>>>>> your post
you are a prime example.....recently you referred to the alerts as not being evidential evidence...where did you get that from....the alerts are evidence of nothing....
Anyway we dont really want to do the 301st dog thread do we? So best leave it there
I say so
Whch usually means unadulterated biased childish abusive rubbish, oh well, nothng to see here folks, move on >>>>
which would describe your comment that my sentence made no sense
Pathetic#
The dog alerts are at least evidence of a cadaver dog alerting to what he has been trained to alert to, ie scent of decomposing bodies, do I have to hone it down more for you to understand? No? Good.
#
which part of no evidential reliability do you not understand...as I have said you are a prime example of a sceptic who does not understand the evidence..the dog alerts to blood too by the way
Until the man is identified mr smiths 60-80% sure stands...and thats the end of it..no evidence or proof that he ever changed hs mind
Reread your original post to me on evidential reliability and evidence
No, it doesn't.
Unless you think Martin Smith would have produced an efit of a man he was 60 to 80% sure was Gerry.
Which is absurd ....
shall we not do groundhog day again and again and again? It must be weary for the soul lol
Would he?
And if so, why?
I haven't made an original post on evidential reliability...the thread is re smith man...
Would he?
And if so, why?
how can you produce an e fit of a face you admit you did not see
Are you slow or playing dumb? Your post 871 as i said about evidential reliablity, made to ME!
actually dont worry, im bored of you already
871 doesn't mention evidential reliability.......someone is certainly dumb and slow
Ah yes it mentioned "evidential evidence"
@)(++(*
dumb and slow were the words you used
And evidential evidence is the oxymoron you used
I don't place much store on the PJ reports, not because I have disrespect for the officers who took them, but because they were taken in reported form, delivered in one language, translated into another, then re-translated back into English and in the form we (finally) read on line.
I believe 'Watcher' on Amazon has the low-down on the technology that can be used for the production of efits as detailed as those produced by the Smiths.
How good it is (at enabling eye-witnesses to produce images that lead to identification of their subjects) I have no idea.
But Watcher suggests that's what they used.
She may be right.
I've no idea.
Perhaps the efits are, ultimately, not very useful (in helping to identify anyone named).
But they are the best shots, of an honest couple, both desperate to assist efforts to identify and nail the abductors of Madeleine, the best way they can.
We should applaud their efforts (I think) .....
I was quoting you from one of your now removed posts
The McCanns spent 100K to get the files translated. If that was paid by the fund they should be released.
"Gonçalo Amaral went on air on CMTV to say Gerry McCann had also been seen on the beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but that the witness who placed him there (a British tourist) had her testimony wiped from police records."
The McCanns spent 100K to get the files translated. If that was paid by the fund they should be released.
"Gonçalo Amaral went on air on CMTV to say Gerry McCann had also been seen on the beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but that the witness who placed him there (a British tourist) had her testimony wiped from police records."
No clue what you are driving at.
.....
Oh really, nice try, as pathetic as your squirming and avoiding, par for the course
seeing as it took you 40 mins to read the post correctly you should consider you words of dumb and slow are self inflicted
You're not very perceptive. Somebody unidentified was seen heading towards the beach.
Do explain to the forum what "evidential evidence " means
Ta
as you coined the phrase you should
Prove it or shut up hey?
You're not very perceptive. Somebody unidentified was seen heading towards the beach.
why should I bother...you have proved you cannot read a post properly
To prove your not telling little porkies whch WILL be the assumption wthout proof
You are also unable to read documents properly as proven on an older thread but lets forget about that
8((()*/
who cares what you think
you are a prime example.....recently you referred to the alerts as not being evidential evidence...where did you get that from....the alerts are evidence of nothing....
The wash-up is that Martin Smith has changed his mind, as has wife, on record as saying so.if true
Both now believe they (and their family) may have seen Madeleine's abductor ....
dont know, but suredly hardly anyone cares what you thnk as youre a terrible debater and that turns people OFF
8((()*/
Now go play elsewhere if anyone will have u, moral of the story, dont dish it out, u wont then get it slung back, simple lesson to learn really
Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
if true
Maybe someone threatened them, highly plausible
Correct, and all those that say the dog alert is meangless have no basis for sayng so, so slam dunk
my basis for saying the alerts are meaningless is the statement by Martin Grime who you may have heard of
Betcha like the fact that Scotland Yard used the dogs before the McCann case with positive results. That's an eye-opener for ya 8(>((
Smith saw a man carrying a childBut Davel his testimony about the colour of the man's trousers is not unreliable at all.
That much we know for sure
His opinion of who it was seems very unreliable
Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
A classic example, and one that highlights the difference between evidence and intelligence, is the Kate Prout murder case.
The evidence against (Adrian) Prout was that Kate had not used her credit cards and her bank accounts were untouched, for the whole period she was reported missing (and she would have needed money to live).
But a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted in the lounge of the matrimonial home, leading detectives to hypothesise that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the matrimonial home.
An erroneous detail.
In a safe conviction.
And (the essential point) an illustration of the difference between intelligence and evidence.
Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime. MG
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
#from your link...
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too
#from your link...
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too
#from your link...
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
did they not understand eddie alerts to blood too
Probably why they used a blood dog that didn't alert.
Eddie's alert provided no forensic evidence in the Prout case but it gave the police the intelligence to know who was the murderer.
No, it didn't. The police would have brought the prosecution with, or without, the dog's alert, which was never produced in court to the jury (uncorroborated dog-alerts are excluded as evidence in English courts).
But the police used the dog-alert as their (untested and unpresented, to the jury, assumption that Prout had murdered his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial home.
He murdered Kate several hundred yards away, in an outhouse.
Eddie's cadaver alert was correct. You believe what a serial liar tells you which figures. Maybe he hates dogs like you @)(++(*
No, it didn't. The police would have brought the prosecution with, or without, the dog's alert, which was never produced in court to the jury (uncorroborated dog-alerts are excluded as evidence in English courts).
But the police used the dog-alert as their (untested and unpresented, to the jury) assumption that Prout had murdered his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial home.
He murdered Kate several hundred yards away, in an outhouse.
You dont know what happened when and where, before durng and after, ergo, pointless trying to diss eddie
It so happens I don't.
I don't dismiss the possibility that the dog alerted to residual scent from Prout's clothes, cross-transferred to the matrimonial home, after he had buried Kate.
But I don't take that for granted .....
And if that's wrong, then dog alerted falsely ....
You dont know what happened when and where, before durng and after, ergo, pointless trying to diss eddie
eddie finds cadaver scent quickly.....so why did he have to be repeatedly brought back to areas he had previously ignored...the alerts are a complete joke
in order for the alerts to be of any value they need independent scientific verification...even Grime does not confirm them
How many times do u have to be told that there is no such thing as scientific confrmation for a cadaver scent alert?
There is for blood and as we know the forensics were inconclusive
Even if conclusive, blood forensics on their own dont prove a thing, its a matter of cumulative intelligence/Evidence
In order for the alerts to be of value there needs to be forensic verification.
Note, carefully, that in the above sentence there is no reference to cadaver alert ...
My dear Pfinder, you keep repeating that Smithman checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 22H03. How do you know if Smithman checked his watch or not? You weren't there ... and nobody saw him after he passed the Smith Family..
Please can you tell us where you got this "information" from.
It's not disinformation, is it?
In order for the alerts to be of value there needs to be forensic verification.
Note, carefully, that in the above sentence there is no reference to cadaver alert ...
During a police investigation all sorts of material is amassed. Statements, CCTV images. photographs,forensics, and, in some cases, dog alerts. Detectives analyse the material as they go along. Some of it leads in one direction, some in another. Some of it requires confirmation such as appeals for further witnesses. Not all of it will be used as evidence in any subsequent court case, but all of it is potentially important until eventually detectives decide to follow one particular line of inquiry. Until then all the material remains possibly important. Anyone who thinks multiple dog alerts would be completely discounted because no definitive forensic evidence was found to support them is fooling themselves imo. They remain a part of the picture until evidence is found proving that they were wrong.
During a police investigation all sorts of material is amassed. Statements, CCTV images. photographs,forensics, and, in some cases, dog alerts. Detectives analyse the material as they go along. Some of it leads in one direction, some in another. Some of it requires confirmation such as appeals for further witnesses. Not all of it will be used as evidence in any subsequent court case, but all of it is potentially important until eventually detectives decide to follow one particular line of inquiry. Until then all the material remains possibly important. Anyone who thinks multiple dog alerts would be completely discounted because no definitive forensic evidence was found to support them is fooling themselves imo. They remain a part of the picture until evidence is found proving that they were wrong.
During a police investigation all sorts of material is amassed. Statements, CCTV images. photographs,forensics, and, in some cases, dog alerts. Detectives analyse the material as they go along. Some of it leads in one direction, some in another. Some of it requires confirmation such as appeals for further witnesses. Not all of it will be used as evidence in any subsequent court case, but all of it is potentially important until eventually detectives decide to follow one particular line of inquiry. Until then all the material remains possibly important. Anyone who thinks multiple dog alerts would be completely discounted because no definitive forensic evidence was found to support them is fooling themselves imo. They remain a part of the picture until evidence is found proving that they were wrong.
Grime himself acknowledges that handler-bias can influence a dog's reactions, and I know Alfred has found a study (nothing to do with Grime) where precisely that phenomenon accounted for all a dog's reactions.
Handler-bias: the findMadeleine stickers on the back of the Renault Scenic. Proves nothing
The disproportionate time spent in apartment 5a compared with any other apartment. Not disproportionate as explained umpteen times, eddie alerted in 5a wihin 4 minutes, iirc, not forgetting his "immediate" interest on entering the flat, absent otherwise elsewhere, that is why the flat was more thoroughly searched, as opposed to other places not alerted to in 5 mins
The re-examination of clothing (in the gym) present during the inspection in the villa, but not evincing any interest from Eddie. There was no re-examination, if an item is stuffed somewhere it might not elicit a response, seeing as it would be at least secondary if not more contamination
The interest in the toy, only after it had been hidden, not while he could see it, sniff it and play with it.
Grime himself acknowledges that handler-bias can influence a dog's reactions, and I know Alfred has found a study (nothing to do with Grime) where precisely that phenomenon accounted for all a dog's reactions.
Handler-bias: the findMadeleine stickers on the back of the Renault Scenic.
The disproportionate time spent in apartment 5a compared with any other apartment.
The re-examination of clothing (in the gym) present during the inspection in the villa, but not evincing any interest from Eddie.
The interest in the toy, only after it had been hidden, not while he could see it, sniff it and play with it.
Grime himself acknowledges that handler-bias can influence a dog's reactions, and I know Alfred has found a study (nothing to do with Grime) where precisely that phenomenon accounted for all a dog's reactions.
Handler-bias: the findMadeleine stickers on the back of the Renault Scenic.
The disproportionate time spent in apartment 5a compared with any other apartment.
The re-examination of clothing (in the gym) present during the inspection in the villa, but not evincing any interest from Eddie.
The interest in the toy, only after it had been hidden, not while he could see it, sniff it and play with it.
I would imagine that the police know more about dog handling and how they work than you do. They use dogs for all sorts of reasons and treat them with respect. No matter how much you criticise the dogs and their handler you really have no idea what value the police place on their conclusions.
We know that SY believe Maddie may still be alive which confirms that they do not accept that the alerts signify maddies death
The team [Redwood's] is also pursuing the line of inquiry that after five years Madeleine might be dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
The team [Redwood's] is also pursuing the line of inquiry that after five years Madeleine might be dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
(snip) ... I had worked that one out myself ... (*snip)can you narrow that down geographically a little?
can you narrow that down geographically a little?QUE
Given what (tragically) all too often happens to abducted children, it stands to reason that the second joint enquiry will be simultaneously pursuing the line of enquiry that Madeleine might be dead ....
The team [Redwood's] is also pursuing the line of inquiry that after five years Madeleine might be dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
He also said she may not have been alive when removed from the apartment. Now, IF the dogs figure into that line of thnking, then it follows that his comment has zero to do with a burglary gone wrong simply for the timing element involved vis a vis cadaver scent formation
We know that SY believe Maddie may still be alive which confirms that they do not accept that the alerts signify maddies death
Lets face it, SY believe many things but have nothing to substantiate any of it. They haven't even ruled out Tannerman and as for Smithman... pah
Lest anyone be in doubt, Martin Smith has changed his opinion ....
65 pages in and you have yet to provide definite proof of your claim.
Lest anyone be in doubt, Martin Smith has changed his opinion ....
Could it be that events which have occurred post 2007 have influenced his perception?
I don't know why he said 60 to 80% sure. It's not exactly sure, is it. But surely, everyone carries small children in the same way.
The only thing I can think of is that he was trying to be helpful, never realising that his statement would later be released. But then a lot of them didn't.
Would he have been a bit more careful if he had known?
I would say there would be many events which occurred which would not have cccurred had the witnesses and arguidos known that further down the line their every word and actions would be disseminated infinitum.
Off topic I know but isn't the quietness a welcome relief ?
I would say there would be many events which occurred which would not have cccurred had the witnesses and arguidos known that further down the line their every word and actions would be disseminated infinitum.
Off topic I know but isn't the quietness a welcome relief ?
The usual Saturday night bundle did not take place. Word must have got around there are two new bouncers on the door.
The usual Saturday night bundle did not take place. Word must have got around there are two new bouncers on the door.
The after hours slanging match is something which we have always tried to curtail as it only generates work for the mods and editors. Onward and upward...
What a dreadful thing to say. Surely our mods are all sweetness and light and complete beyond reproach @)(++(*
Give them half a chance, please. I spend most of my time hoping I won't have to delete or edit anything. There is no reason to suppose that Brietta and Shining will be any different.
Or to suppose that someone will come up with positive proof that Martin Smith totally changed his already dubious mind.
Positive proof?
He produced an e-fit.
It is the height of absurdity to suppose he would have done so of a man he thought was Gerry.
And I can quite understand, in context, why he might have (initially!) formed the view he did.
(snip) He produced an e-fit (snip).Where do SY ever state that Mr M Smith produced an efit Ferryman?
Certain mods were at the root of it
Imo
Where do SY ever state that Mr M Smith produced an efit Ferryman?
Andy Redwood said the efits were produced by two tourists (whom he did not name) ...Thanks Ferryman for confirming that Mr Redwood did not name the two people who did those two efits.
... Martin and Mary Smith.So, to clarify, these two names you post are just your conjecture?
Thanks Ferryman for confirming that Mr Redwood did not name the two people who did those two efits.So, to clarify, these two names you post are just your conjecture?
Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
(sic)
Do you believe the newspapers tell the whole truth? You can see what he actually said, it's enclosed by quotation marks;
“It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
“We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.
“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
We're discussing who produced the efits: Martin and Mary Smith.
It is the height of absurdity to suppose either would produce efits of a man either thought was Gerry ....
Martin Smith once believed he might have seen Gerry.
He no longer does.
His wife Mary, also, once believed she might have seen Gerry.
She no longer does.
That's why both produced efits.
In answer to AP
The investigation.
I'm afraid I don't follow the logic, could you explain please?
Is Gerry in need of identification?
Is that supposed to be an explanation? How about being a little less cryptic?
Is it not self-evident that no one would produce an efit of a someone they thought was Gerry?
Martin Smith once believed he might have seen Gerry.
He no longer does.
His wife Mary, also, once believed she might have seen Gerry.
She no longer does.
That's why both produced efits.
In answer to AP
The investigation.
I think you should stop making unverified assertions ferryman. You are unable to produce any evidence that Martin Smith changed his opinion and you are unable to produce any evidence as to who produced the e-fits.
Martin Smith once believed he might have seen Gerry.
He no longer does.
His wife Mary, also, once believed she might have seen Gerry.
She no longer does.
That's why both produced efits.
In answer to AP
The investigation.
Presumably by "the investigation" you mean the efits were produced for the Portuguese police? there being no other official investigation.
Did the Smiths return to Portugal to produce the efits? or did the Portuguese police visit Ireland? or did the Portuguese police use a proxy agency? if the latter which agency?
The efits were produced by the McCanns' private investigators.
The efit is evidence.
In fact, it's more than that.
It's irrefutable proof.
Martin Smith has changed his mind.
So has his wife, Mary.
The Smiths' children have not changed their minds.
None ever believed they had seen Gerry.
They still don't.
Isn't there an FOI response, or similar, that the e-fits were produced by two members of the "Irish family"? Which narrows it to the Smiths, but no further.
Then there is the Daily Telegraph, which ascribes the e-fits to Martin and Mary. Trouble is the DT also asserts that there is only one fact in the case that we can be sure of. And that is the alarm was raised at 10.14pm.
The records show the first call to the GNR was 10.41pm. And the records are stuffed with many more facts, no matter what the DT asserts.
Trust 'Martin and Mary', source DT, at your peril. Might be, might not.
From the statements that we read on line, the two most observant witnesses of what the family saw were Martin and his daughter Aofe.
We don't see Mary Smith's statement.
The press confirms the efits to have been Martin and Mary.
Still nothing convincing, sorry.
The efit is evidence.
In fact, it's more than that.
It's irrefutable proof.
Martin Smith has changed his mind.
So has his wife, Mary.
The Smiths' children have not changed their minds.
None ever believed they had seen Gerry.
They still don't.
Not so. He wasn't 100% it was Gerry because it was dark when he saw the man.
Martin Smith was never completely certain he'd seen Gerry.
That point is not in dispute (so far as I'm aware).
Unsure what you are driving at?
Have you read his signed statement?
This is the start of it and it hasn't changed to our knowledge.
"I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true." MS
We know he never had the slightest clue what he told police in confidence would be plastered all over the internet.
We know his wife is on record, since release of the files, as saying she has upmost sympathy with the McCanns.
Common sense decrees neither Martin nor his wife would have produced e-fits of a man either thought was Gerry.
Martin Smith, clearly, has changed his mind.
We know he never had the slightest clue what he told police in confidence would be plastered all over the internet.
We know his wife is on record, since release of the files, as saying she has upmost sympathy with the McCanns.
Common sense decrees neither Martin nor his wife would have produced e-fits of a man either thought was Gerry.
Martin Smith, clearly, has changed his mind.
You are relying on a journalist's incorrect text Ferryman, not on an actual quote in "" by the withess.
Here's another example of how absolutely wrong a journalist can be - look at the map in this article, it shows the supposed body remover approaching the sighting from exactly the opposite direction to what the witnesses said. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-suspected-2436903
It's a real shame no-one thought to take photograph of GM carrying a child of similar physical characteristics to Madeleine & showing that to MS. The body position of Madeleine would have been rather different to that of S, given their relative heights.I wonder why he
IMO MS was sure he'd seen GM but not sure enough to put his name to a positive identification (something which had already been discounted by the PJ because of the time of the sighting).
I wonder why he
MS on 27 Sept stated his full availablity to travel to Portugal to make statements etc re his identification of 20 Sept.
MS would not have known at that stage GM had been placed elsewhere by various witnesses for the time of the Smithman sighting (unless someone from within the investigation had told him, which would not make any real sense).It is a witness's duty to state what and who he saw, not to analyse other people's alibis.
IMO there would have been an alteration to the time of the sighting had MS returned to Portugal rather than making an additional statement via the Gardai.
It is a witness's duty to state what and who he saw, not to analyse other people's alibis.
If Amaral had been permitted to bring MS back to Portugal in mid October, the PJ would have shown MS the Kelly bar till records (which PJ obtained on 10 Oct), and asked him to identify the relevant transactions, and this IMO would have resulted in the time of the sighting being determined exactly (and probably later than 10pm IMO).
You are relying on a journalist's incorrect text Ferryman, not on an actual quote in "" by the withess.It is the graphic that is totally mangled, rather than the description.
Here's another example of how absolutely wrong a journalist can be - look at the map in this article, it shows the supposed body remover approaching the sighting from exactly the opposite direction to what the witnesses said. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-suspected-2436903
It is the graphic that is totally mangled, rather than the description.Thanks Shining. Yes your look at the textual description of route is reasonable. Where are the 11 steps the journalist goes down (before reaching Teixeira)? Or does he mean up?
He comes out the rear onto Martins and heads down the hill past the Tapas entrance. He turns R to go round the south of Tapas and tennis courts. He pops down the side of the block onto the W end of Teixeira. He turn S onto Primeira and goes down as far as what is now Spar. He crosses Primeira and heads W on Alvernaz. Presumably it is down the steps onto Escola Primaria. He passes Peter, then Martin, then Aoife, as per the Smith sighting.
Rather oddly, he does not have Smithman head E on 25 de Abril. I wonder if he thought that was a bit strange.
Thanks Shining. Yes your look at the textual description of route is reasonable. Where are the 11 steps the journalist goes down (before reaching Teixeira)? Or does he mean up?I've been thinking about that a bit. Isn't it one that got trotted out very early on and is simply a stock graphic they plonk on many a story? I'm sure I've seen this from a report dating well before Crimewatch 2013.
As for the map it bears no resemblance to the textual route and I suspect it was probably drawn by someone else, possibly in the slug and lettuce cartography institute over the road.
I've been thinking about that a bit. Isn't it one that got trotted out very early on and is simply a stock graphic they plonk on many a story? I'm sure I've seen this from a report dating well before Crimewatch 2013.Yes probably an earlier stock graphic plonked into the reasonable text (but it was a good opportunity to make a Canary Wharf cartography joke)
We know what time they left the Dolphin - 2128hrs.Yes IMO sighting was probably about 22:15. But isn't it obvious from the child's long sleeves that this sighting was nothing to do with the missing child?
Both MS & PS said they had "a few" drinks at Kelly's. ie, more than one round.
Any sighting 10pm or after was not GM.
So what did Amaral hope to achieve if those facts remained constant?
Thanks Shining. Yes your look at the textual description of route is reasonable. Where are the 11 steps the journalist goes down (before reaching Teixeira)? Or does he mean up?Steps down are from the rear of the tennis courts beside Primeira into the set of shops in front of Baptista. In Google StreetView, go to the W end of Teixeira and look N. I'd stick a screen cap in but I need to press FN and PRTSC at the same time, and for the moment I am still one-handed.
As for the map it has no resemblance to the textual route and I suspect it was probably draughted by someone else, possibly in the slug and lettuce cartography department over the road.
We know what time they left the Dolphin - 2128hrs.
Both MS & PS said they had "a few" drinks at Kelly's. ie, more than one round.
Any sighting 10pm or after was not GM.
So what did Amaral hope to achieve if those facts remained constant?
On the 10 May 2007 when Matt Oldfield was accused of being involved by the PJ, Matt came out with an important time that Kate left at 9:50 not 10 which corroborates with the waiter's statement. The others didn't know the time. It is clearly stated in their rogs as I've shown in a previous post. 10pm is presumed by many and is a fundamental error. A forensic analysis of the timeline will reveal all.
Why did no one comment on Gerry's absence from the table at the time of Kate's alert?
I repeat my question.
Why did no one comment on Gerry's absence from the table at the time of Kate's alert?
He is Madeleine's father.
You wouldn't just expect comment on his absence.
You would expect extensive commentary in the files on efforts to find him to tell him what had happened (as Madeleine's father), including where he was when found and who found him.
No trace.
Why?
Gerry wasn't absent from the table when Kate raised the alarm by 9:55. They were all present except Jane Tanner. Smithman was seen after the alarm time.
"Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left." AS
So Kate alerted at the Tapas Restaurant at around 2200.
The sighting of the Smiths was around 2200.
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
So who did the Smiths see?
You presume Kate raised the alarm at 10 but after analysing statements I put it at 9:54/55. A sighting near by is easily achievable within that time discrepancy.
At what point were Kate and Gerry simultaneously absent from the restaurant.
What are you going on about? Kate left alone. Gerry was at the table. No sighting happened until they were out searching after the alarm was raised.
I don't agree with Amaral's theory and this was probably done before he knew about the KG statement.
Steps down are from the rear of the tennis courts beside Primeira into the set of shops in front of Baptista. In Google StreetView, go to the W end of Teixeira and look N. I'd stick a screen cap in but I need to press FN and PRTSC at the same time, and for the moment I am still one-handed.Thanks Shining for locating these 11 steps leading down from the back of the tennis courts.
Then it is up a few steps onto Teixeira, or to be more accurate, onto Primeira.
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of Kate's alert and also the time of the Smith sighting.
Odds are that the Smiths might have seen Madeleine's abductor.
Which is why the Smith sighting is so important (potentially) ....
Which is why the Smith sighting is so important (potentially) ....But Ferryman both parents clearly state that the missing child was wearing a very short sleeved top.
But Ferryman both parents clearly state that the missing child was wearing a very short sleeved top.
The girl seen by the 9 irish witness had full-length sleeves. How do you explain that?
Shame that the McCanns didn't think so and concentrated on Tannerman.
The McCanns handed the efits to the Metropolitan police and let them decide the best time to release them (the efits).
(By Amaral's theory) ....(snip)I'm impressed that you understand his theory Ferryman.
In summary, Martin Smith has most certainly changed his mind ....
The McCanns handed the efits to the Metropolitan police and let them decide the best time to release them (the efits).I thought the Met were not involved in the case at the date in 2008 when the privately contracted investigators did those 2 efits?
I thought the Met were not involved in the case at the date in 2008 when the privately contracted investigators did those 2 efits?
Then prove it.
Meanwhile what we do know is, people acting on behalf of the mccanns interfered with a possibly key witness.
It's a real shame no-one thought to take photograph of GM carrying a child of similar physical characteristics to Madeleine & showing that to MS. The body position of Madeleine would have been rather different to that of S, given their relative heights.
IMO MS was sure he'd seen GM but not sure enough to put his name to a positive identification (something which had already been discounted by the PJ because of the time of the sighting).
The McCanns handed the efits to the Metropolitan police and let them decide the best time to release them (the efits).
The report and the e-fits were given to Operation Grange in 2011. The McCanns never said they handed them over.
In fact it was Henri Exton who claimed he handed them over;
Former MI5 undercover operations chief Henri Exton, 62, who led the Oakley probe, said the fund took legal action to stop his team divulging its findings.
He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to confidentiality.”
It stopped him handing the report to Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange team until detectives had written permission from the fund, he added.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/347672/Maddie-Crimewatch-pictures-kept-secret-for-five-years
That's a re-hash of the story for which The Times was sued.This efit was released with great fanfare by Mitchell in Aug 2009.
Scotland Yard chose the the timing of the release of the efits (the Crimewatch programme) because they wanted its release coordinated with a live and on-going police enquiry.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquiries.
They long have.
Spain.Here is Mitchell releasing two efits of a man seen in Portugal, in PDL, who the PIs regarded as the most important person to be identified
Not Portugal.
Not at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted.
There are (potentially) innocent reasons why someone might come into custody of a child they don't know has been abducted.
The Smiths might, actually, have witnessed Madeleine's abduction.
That's the difference ....
That's a re-hash of the story for which The Times was sued.
Scotland Yard chose the the timing of the release of the efits (the Crimewatch programme) because they wanted its release coordinated with a live and on-going police enquiry.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquiries.
They long have.
No we don't.
All the proof has been provided.
18 January 2008, about 7 months before the first enquiry was shelved, and while it was in full swing.Yes the investigation was in full swing Ferryman so why didn't Mitchell & Co ask the Polícia Judiciária and Leics Police whether or not they wanted the cooperman photofit released?
That's why it was released.
And (in part) why the Smith efits, produced much later, were not released until the Crimewatch programme (by Scotland Yard, who had the efits in their possession for some considerable time before they released them).
Spain.
Not Portugal.
Not at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted.
There are (potentially) innocent reasons why someone might come into custody of a child they don't know has been abducted.
The Smiths might, actually, have witnessed Madeleine's abduction.
That's the difference ....
Yes the investigation was in full swing Ferryman so why didn't Mitchell & Co ask the Polícia Judiciária and Leics Police whether or not they wanted the cooperman photofit released?
We're discussing the Smith sightings.
The met released the efits during the Crimewatch programme (October 2013).
The met were in receipt of the efits well before then and (themselves) chose the moment of their release ....
So you actually think that Mary Smith (on record as saying that they want to help the McCanns in any way they can) and her husband, Martin, are at loggerheads, with Martin Smith steadfast in belief that he saw Gerry (whom he produced an efit of)?
How would the Smiths help the mccanns ferryman ?
Moral support?
Helping to try to identify the man the Smiths saw (potentially) Madeleine's abductor ....
That's a re-hash of the story for which The Times was sued.Talking about co-ordinating with a live and ongoing police enquiry Ferryman, what's this phone number on these two sketches?
Scotland Yard chose the the timing of the release of the efits (the Crimewatch programme) because they wanted its release coordinated with a live and on-going police enquiry.
That's how English police conduct criminal enquiries.
They long have.
Talking about co-ordinating with a live and ongoing police enquiry Ferryman, what's this phone number on these two sketches?
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mccann-family-spokesman-clarence-mitchell-holds-two-artists-of-the-picture-id79130105
Talking about co-ordinating with a live and ongoing police enquiry Ferryman, what's this phone number on these two sketches?
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mccann-family-spokesman-clarence-mitchell-holds-two-artists-of-the-picture-id79130105
Martin Smith produced the efit after the end of January 2008. In his statement to the Irish Gardia police, at that date, he said he had been approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit, but had refused.
It is clear that at some point later, he changed his mind and decided, after all, to produce an efit (because he realised he had been mistaken to suppose he had seen Gerry).
When isn't exactly clear, but it would have been pretty much at the point that the first, joint, enquiry was winding down.
Very obviously, as the Smiths might well have witnessed Madeleine's abduction, that efit could only be released in the context of a live and on-going enquiry, and the Met (clearly in possession of the efits well before their release) chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them ....
Was mustachio guy ever identified, or is he still on the at large list?
We can do better that surely?
The case was not archived until July 2008. Oakley were given elbow (allegedly) in August 2008.
It's reasonable to assume that if Mr Smith changed his mind while the kosher investigation remained live he would have advised the PJ one way or another and it would be recorded somewhere. So if he changed his mind it likely would have between the archiving and Oakley being given the elbow. If Mr & Mrs Smith worked on efits for Oakley it was between the archiving of the kosher investigation and the termination of Oakley's contract. At that time according to press reports it was becoming very messy between Brian Kennedy/Oakley and "The Fund".
Have SY ever mentioned them again since that Crimewatch programme?
We don't know the sequence of events between the deterioration of relations between the McCanns and the contractors, the production of the efits and the transfer of the efits from the private investigators (who produced them) to the McCanns.
We do know that Scotland Yard had the efits in their possession before the Crimewatch programme (how else would they have been able to produce them on the programme)? and that they chose the moment of the programme to release the efits.
It's clear that they (Scotland Yard) regarded the efits as (potentially) useful in the quest to track down Madeleine's abductor ....
That has no bearing on what I posted.
Metodo3? Whatever it is a Spanish number.Yes that number was possibly M3 (but is this the number that was diverted to Maryland??? This was during a very serious and active police investigation by PJ with Leics Police and SOCA also involved. So why are these efits, which neither PJ nor LP wanted releasing, being presented at a non-police press conference, with the PJ and LP phone numbers conspicuously missing from the efits, and a Spanish phone number in its place? So much for the claim that this was "co-ordination" with an active police investigation! http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mccann-family-spokesman-clarence-mitchell-holds-two-artists-of-the-picture-id79130105
Under Nicola Wall, the British side of the enquiry has been taciturn.
The PJ have not said much, either.
Exactly as the shelved enquiry ought to have been conducted.
Under Nicola Wall, the British side of the enquiry has been taciturn.Yes very taciturn. All we have is a few photos of an initial visit to Portugal, and an FOI response. But IMO this boss might solve it - with all that excellent experience in the London area, for example a case where the police got exit time completely wrong, and a case of transportation by pedestrian.
The PJ have not said much, either.
Exactly as the shelved enquiry ought to have been conducted.
What you posted seems to have no bearing on either question of when the efits were handed to Scotland Yard or why Scotland Yard chose the moment they did (the Crimewatch programme) to release the efits into the public domain.
And the answer (to the opening post) is that it is the height of absurdity to suppose he would have produced an efit of a man he thought was Gerry; the height of implausibility to suppose that (now) Martin Smith still thinks he saw Gerry while his wife, Mary, publicly declares her support for the McCanns ....
I'll make it easy for you.
Your proposition is that Martin Smith changed his mind. So we can put three stakes in the ground.
You concur it was not before Jan 2008 ................stake 1
The process was live until July 2008 so it is unlikely to be before that otherwise he would have
notified the cops and it would be on file ................................................. stake 2
Oakley were elbowed in Aug 2008 ....................... stake 3.
Now if the Smiths took part in efits that were at the behest of Oakley it would have been between stakes 2 and 3 ie July/August 2008 which likely would also be when he changed his mind if your proposition is correct. Quite why he changed his mind (if indeed he did) is open to speculation.
So the efits were produced by end August 2008 (if by Oakley) and "were in the possession of the police" about September 2009, if we are to believe the Times apology. The force dealing with the case at that time was Leicestershire Constabulary, O.G not being in existence. Presumably The Met released the efits when O.G ceased to be a review and became an investigation which was roughly Q4 2013.
Make it easy?
Not so sure about that.
The facts:
At the end of January 2008, Mr Smith still believed he might have seen Gerry.
Mr Smith's wife (then!) also believed she might have seen Gerry.
None of Mr Smith's children (then as now) believed the same. (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge the last point in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January).
At the end of January, Mr Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy, representing the McCanns, invited to produce an efit, but refused.
It is plain common sense that all the time Mr Smith believed he might have seen Gerry, he would refuse (to produce an efit).
At some point between the end of January and the Crimewatch programme, Mr Smith changed his mind and agreed to produce an e-fit, as did his wife who (we now know) produced the second efit.
Why did Martin Smith change his mind?
It can only have been because he no longer believes the man he and his family all saw that night was Gerry.
So the answer to the opening post (of this thread) is yes!
Saying something over and over and over and over again still doesn't make it true. There is no verification that Smith changed his mind or that he and his wife helped to produce e-fits.
Provide a logical explanation of why Martin Smith would have produced an efit of a man he thought was Gerry ...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Retired businessman Martin Smith, 64, provided details for an e-fit of the prime suspect after spotting the mystery man carrying a child at 10pm close to where the three-year-old vanished more than six years ago.
It doesnt matter as he never got a good look in the dark anyway...what matters is that the mccanns kept it quiet for a year from the police...imo that is odd
You're bound to concede, almost anyone might have run an investigation better than Amaral ....Extremely poor apologist remark, wonder how you would do lol
Make it easy?
Not so sure about that.
The facts:
At the end of January 2008, Mr Smith still believed he might have seen Gerry.
Mr Smith's wife (then!) also believed she might have seen Gerry.
None of Mr Smith's children (then as now) believed the same. (Mr Smith was honest enough to acknowledge the last point in his statement to Irish Gardia police at the end of January).
At the end of January, Mr Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy, representing the McCanns, invited to produce an efit, but refused.
It is plain common sense that all the time Mr Smith believed he might have seen Gerry, he would refuse (to produce an efit).
At some point between the end of January and the Crimewatch programme, Mr Smith changed his mind and agreed to produce an e-fit, as did his wife who (we now know) produced the second efit.
Why did Martin Smith change his mind?
It can only have been because he no longer believes the man he and his family all saw that night was Gerry.
So the answer to the opening post (of this thread) is yes!
One can only speak for oneself of course but my reaction under those circumstances when a police investigation was ongoing would be F.O. and sit on a sharp stick or I'll call a real policeman.
Your proposition is based on a gross assumption.
So you don't think Martin Smith (or his wife) might have spoken out since if that had happened?
And (assuming that speculation to be right) you don't find it odd that Mrs Smith is on record (since release of the files) as saying that they are full-square behind the McCanns?
Who are you addressing?
And stop misquoting witnesses in this case
I misquote no one ...
So you agree that Martin Smith has changed his mind?
That's good ....
If that post is addressed to me then your assumption is incorrect.
My opinion is that your analysis of the situation is incorrect and founded on an erroneous assumption.
I misquote no one ...
Martin Smiths latest word on the subject, October 2013;
“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Some folk may wish to cling tenaciously to the opinion that Martin Smith and his wife (on record since the first enquiry was shelved as saying that the Smiths stand solidly set to support the McCanns in their quest to establish the truth of what happened to Madeleine) are now at loggerheads (with Mary of the view that they did not see Madeleine; her husband -- still -- of the view that they did).
But that, frankly, is plain silly.
As is the notion that Martin Smith (or his wife, Mary) would (either) have produced efits of a man they thought was Gerry.
There can be no doubt.
Martin has changed his opinion ...
Yet you cannot produce any proof at all.
Martin Smith produced an efit of a man he clearly no longer believed was Gerry.
What more proof do you need?
How do you know what he thinks ?
How do you know what he thinks ?
The efit.
He produced one.
Simple as that.
Now where has he stated he changed his mind ?
Let's not remember either, people working on behalf of the mccanns interred with a possible witness to a crime.
You just need to apply common sense to the fact that he produced an efit (along with his wife, who stands ready to support the McCanns in any way she can; ditto, the entire family (including Martin).
I know what Mr. Smith said originally.
He did not see the man's face clearly.
Having seen mccann holding a child, the same way the man he observed holding a child, then came the 60 to 80 %.
History.
Martin Smith has moved on since then.
He is now persuaded that his children (who disagreed with their father that the man might be Gerry) were/are right ...
Prove it.
Common sense.
Yet there is no signed and verified statement to that effect from Mr. Smith.
His efit will do.
What a spiffingly scintillating thread:
There a hole in my bucket dear Liza dear Liza........................
Tune in next week same time same place on the dial........
*&*%£
What a spiffingly scintillating thread:
There a hole in my bucket dear Liza dear Liza........................
Tune in next week same time same place on the dial........
*&*%£
Yup, somehow repeating a shaky "argument" enough will make people accept it. The only fact here is no one knows if MS changed his mind, and no one cares, the only imprtant thng is what he told police not what some paper claimed and didnt back up
it seems the forum is becoming something of a laughing stock....good news is there is little on here I would wish to post about
Repeated truths do start to get boring for some, who are determined to deny/mock/pillory/deride (take your pick) the truth.
All makes the truth no less true.
Martin Smith has changed his opinion.
He no longer believes he saw Gerry.
Repeated truths do start to get boring for some, who are determined to deny/mock/pillory/deride (take your pick) the truth.
All makes the truth no less true.
Martin Smith has changed his opinion.
He no longer believes he saw Gerry.
Repeated truths do start to get boring for some, who are determined to deny/mock/pillory/deride (take your pick) the truth.
All makes the truth no less true.
Martin Smith has changed his opinion.
He no longer believes he saw Gerry.
If they were truths, demonstrably, in an official way, no ne would have a problem, but you have posted a summation of why you personally thnk x y z, its not the same
IMO this is a classic case of arguing about a completely irrelevant event.
Here is one fact which shows that the Smith sighting is irrelevant:
The child which all nine irish witnesses saw being carried was wearing a long-sleeved top.
IMO this is a classic case of arguing about a completely irrelevant event.Makes you wonder, then, why one of the Met's top crack detectives, Andy Redwood, made the Smith sighting 'the centre of our focus'?
Here is one fact which shows that the Smith sighting is irrelevant:
The child which all nine irish witnesses saw being carried was wearing a long-sleeved top.
Makes you wonder, then, why one of the Met's top crack detectives, Andy Redwood, made the Smith sighting 'the centre of our focus'?Yes just because something is currently SY's "centre of our focus" doesn't mean it's anything to do with the solution Blonk. Before the "revelation" SY's centre of focus was the JT sighting, and how much relevance did that have? None. IMO the Smith sighting will possibly turn out to have exactly the same non-relevance.
Whilst on this issue I have to agree with ferryman that it really is obvious that Martin Smith is batting FOR the McCanns and not against them, and has been doing since January 2008, over eight years ago, I can't accept the Smith sighting as entirely irrelevant.
Highly relevant is the fact that in so many respects (I counted 17) the Smiths' descriptions exactly matched the ones given by Nuno Lourenco in his patently obvious fabrication of Wojcheich Krokowski allegedly trying to kidnap his daughter...which in turn matched the descriptions given hours earlier by Jane Tanner of 'Tannerman'.
Unusual, cloth clothes, beige/creamy coloured trousers, classic shoes, similar height, age, build etc. and also all using that silly phrase they used which really gives the game away that they were all working to a common script: "Didn't look like a tourist".
As if people can tell what tourists and non-tourists look like, walking about in the dark!
All these three sightings are a complete nonsense. I'm with that prominent former prosecutor and now child abuse expert Wendy Murphy, who said to a startled Fox News interviewer two years ago, on Scotland Yard's claims that Smithman might be the abductor, not Tannerman:
"I'M NOT BUYING IT'.
(snip)..All these three sightings are a complete nonsense ... (snip)It would be a ridiculous method (for abductor or concealor) to transport all the way from apartment for 400 metres without any attempt to conceal what they were carrying.
It would be a ridiculous method (for abductor or concealor) to transport all the way from apartment for 400 metres without any attempt to conceal what they were carrying.
Makes you wonder, then, why one of the Met's top crack detectives, Andy Redwood, made the Smith sighting 'the centre of our focus'?http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm
Whilst on this issue I have to agree with ferryman that it really is obvious that Martin Smith is batting FOR the McCanns and not against them, and has been doing since January 2008, over eight years ago, I can't accept the Smith sighting as entirely irrelevant.
Highly relevant is the fact that in so many respects (I counted 17) the Smiths' descriptions exactly matched the ones given by Nuno Lourenco in his statement to the PJ of Wojcheich Krokowski allegedly trying to kidnap his daughter...which in turn matched the descriptions given hours earlier by Jane Tanner of 'Tannerman'.
Unusual, cloth clothes, beige/creamy coloured trousers, classic shoes, similar height, age, build etc. and also all using that silly phrase they used which really gives the game away that they were all working to a common script: "Didn't look like a tourist".
As if people can tell what tourists and non-tourists look like, walking about in the dark!
All these three sightings are a complete nonsense. I'm with that prominent former prosecutor and now child abuse expert Wendy Murphy, who said to a startled Fox News interviewer two years ago, on Scotland Yard's claims that Smithman might be the abductor, not Tannerman:
"I'M NOT BUYING IT'.
Agreed better to be concealed away from the crime scene and because that happened much earlier than the actual sighting there's your answer.There are hundreds of cases involving a bag or suitcase Pathfinder, but oddly none of them then switch to open carrying.
Misty a mantion of sagresman not looking like a tourist is truth of lie chapter 3
IMO this is a classic case of arguing about a completely irrelevant event.
Here is one fact which shows that the Smith sighting is irrelevant:
The child which all nine irish witnesses saw being carried was wearing a long-sleeved top.
Who said Madeleine was wearing a short-sleeved top? The last people to see her.Yes the 2 sources are father and mother and IMO they are both telling the truth that she was wearing a very short-sleeved top. What are you proposing instead GUnit- are you claiming a long-sleeved top at bedtime?
it seems the forum is becoming something of a laughing stock....good news is there is little on here I would wish to post about
There are hundreds of cases involving a bag or suitcase Pathfinder, but oddly none of them then switch to open carrying.
I'm quite certain Scotland yard will have read the files, and haven't dismissed the Smith sightings so readily.
I think the mistake is to suppose that what we read on line is word-for-word the same (as the files held by the McCanns and the police).
You don't bring an abducted child to staff quarters where she could be seen. A ridiculous notion.
Perchance they are thinking, as I am thinking, that Tannerman stopped off en route, quite possibly at the Staff Quarters just a few metres up the road from the forward Smith, (was it Peter?). Madeleine was very cold and a cardy, or cotton long sleeved top, was found to keep their precious, money making little one warm.
To remind you, A scream was heard coming from the Staff quarters according to the 3 A's
I originally thought that Tannerman might have stopped off there because he had been abandoned by his get-away driver and had nowhere to go, but there is another possibility.
Maybe he was to go there to send out a signal to sea thta the mission, part 1 was completed ....and await a return signal from a boat at sea that a "pick-up" boat was coming in. ... and he was to leave to "connect" with that boat?
This may be completely incorrect but the staff quarters are high and I would have thought from the roof there would have been good visability of the ocean.
This is just an alternative idea to my original one, both are possibilities.
And once again, to remind you, it seems that
A scream was heard coming from the Staff Quarters
I agree about Tannerman and the boat, Sadie. Not so sure about the Staff Quarters. There are other places he could have hid while waiting for a signalOf all people, you Eleanor with your naval background, would kinow about signals from ships, boats at sea.
Of all people, you Eleanor with your naval background, would kinow about signals from ships, boats at sea.
The question is,
What buildings presumable north of the Smith sightings, would be tall enough to have ocean views?
The only two that I am aware of are Estrela da luz and the Staff Quarters. However if Estrela were used, then it was in good visibility of the staff quarters and other apartments. The signals might have been seen and comments made about flashing lights on the Estrela buikldings.
Conversely, it appears to me, that the Staff Quarters were a good deal higher than adjoining properties and pretty close to the nearest Buildings. Someone standing a wee bit back could signal in total safety, unseen by anyone other than boats at sea .... or so it seems to me
But altho I have been past the staff quarters, I have never been inside to test out my idea.
Further more it could be that there is a fire escape set of steps, externally, right to the roof top ... but I am only speculating
I think it is more likely to have been done by Cell Phone, Sadie, hence the interest in phone pings. And people were very ignorant of those in 2007, still are to some extent.
The recipient of the child would not have known if the abduction was successful until after it was accomplished, so there would have been a need for some communication. No one would have wanted to hang around on a beach while they were waiting for a pick up, hence the need to hide somewhere.
I still think Tannerman was Smithman. And taken off by boat the most likely.
Mainly agreed Ellie.
But if it had been by cell phone, would we not have heard about it? Weren't all the cell phone records investigated? I haven't followed the cell phone records, but I thought that the Police had triangulated and identified the sources of calls along with times. Perhaps I am wrong?
Taken from that little rocky beach, just after the tide had changed out to a larger vessel and whisked up to Sines imo. arriving at dawn ready to be loaded into a white van and up to Porto/ Vila Nova de Gaia (VNG). Stopping at the Carlos Moreira Snack Bar on the main trunk route North just about 10, or so, miles east of Lisboa. .. and just a few miles short of the bridge crossing the River Tagus
I think it is more likely to have been done by Cell Phone, Sadie, hence the interest in phone pings. And people were very ignorant of those in 2007, still are to some extent.
The recipient of the child would not have known if the abduction was successful until after it was accomplished, so there would have been a need for some communication. No one would have wanted to hang around on a beach while they were waiting for a pick up, hence the need to hide somewhere.
I still think Tannerman was Smithman. And taken off by boat the most likely.
Really?
I rather think the criminal fraternity had it well sorted in the late 1990s.
Yes the 2 sources are father and mother and IMO they are both telling the truth that she was wearing a very short-sleeved top. What are you proposing instead GUnit- are you claiming a long-sleeved top at bedtime?
Did they have Cell Phones in those days?
But then I'm not talking about the same criminal fraternity that you are
PS. You don't half know some very strange people.
Perchance they are thinking, as I am thinking, that Tannerman stopped off en route, quite possibly at the Staff Quarters just a few metres up the road from the forward Smith, (was it Peter?). Madeleine was very cold and a cardy, or cotton long sleeved top, was found to keep their precious, money making little one warm.
To remind you, A scream was heard coming from the Staff quarters according to the 3 A's
I originally thought that Tannerman might have stopped off there because he had been abandoned by his get-away driver and had nowhere to go, but there is another possibility.
Maybe he was to go there to send out a signal to sea thta the mission, part 1 was completed ....and await a return signal from a boat at sea that a "pick-up" boat was coming in. ... and he was to leave to "connect" with that boat?
This may be completely incorrect but the staff quarters are high and I would have thought from the roof there would have been good visability of the ocean.
This is just an alternative idea to my original one, both are possibilities.
And once again, to remind you, it seems that
A scream was heard coming from the Staff Quarters
How were they going to make money out of Madeleine?
How were they going to make money out of Madeleine?Slarti
Clearly not by ransom.No, not by ransom
I don't know if they are telling the truth or not. What makes you so sure they are?In the entire history of the Met, including the many cases our current SIO worked on, can you quote me a single case that involved a directly visible (not enclosed) transportation by a pedestrian? There isn't not even one case in many decades. And there is a reason for that - no perp (abductor or concealor) would be that stupid.
(snip) a scream (snip)Sadie that was in Sol article . Very odd because it was Saturday night (not Thursday). That is the blue and white building.
Slarti
As you will know if you have bothered to read any of my posts, I believe that Madeleine was selected for some reason ... and ordered by an elite. They were paid by the elite.
In other words it was a paid abduction by others for the purchaser, an elite. Bet the actual lifters and carry her off people didn't even know who they were working for. My bet is that each stage of the abduction was isolated from the next stage and no-one apart from the purchaser/master planner knew anyone other than within their stage and one adjacent stage. That way, nobody could grass the elite purchaser up.
Slarti
As you will know if you have bothered to read any of my posts, I believe that Madeleine was selected for some reason ... and ordered by an elite. They were paid by the elite.
In other words it was a paid abduction by others for the purchaser, an elite. Bet the actual lifters and carry her off people didn't even know who they were working for. My bet is that each stage of the abduction was isolated from the next stage and no-one apart from the purchaser/master planner knew anyone other than within their stage and one adjacent stage. That way, nobody could grass the elite purchaser up.
In the entire history of the Met, including the many cases our current SIO worked on, can you quote me a single case that involved a directly visible (not enclosed) transportation by a pedestrian? There isn't not even one case in many decades. And there is a reason for that - no perp (abductor or concealor) would be that stupid.
So there is no reason to question the veracity of the short sleeved pyjama top.
But what reason to choose such a risky target?
If Madeleine was targeted it wasn't realised she might be a 'risky' target.
She was just an ordinary little girl from a professional family whose kidnapping would have been newsworthy at the time but would soon fade from public perception as most 'sensational' cases eventually do.
The only reason that wasn't the outcome is entirely due to the efforts of her parents to make sure that did not happen; if those who perpetrated and participated in the crime had had a crystal ball, I think it entirely possible they would have by passed Madeleine and sooner or later the opportunity would have arisen for a different child to be taken.
Sadie that was in Sol article . Very odd because it was Saturday night (not Thursday). That is the blue and white building.I read it on the 3A's ... and I preferred that (believe it or not!) to a ?newspaper article. Especially in a paper with the name "SOL". I dont intend to explain that.
The fact that she would have been newsworthy at all would have made her a risky target.
I read it on the 3A's ... and I preferred that (believe it or not!) to a ?newspaper article. Especially in a paper with the name "SOL". I dont intend to explain that.'... On the days right after the disappearance of Madeleine, a muffled cry that came from that location raised suspicions. "On Saturday, around half past midnight, two inspectors from the Judiciaria asked to enter my home" ...' (Source: Sol 15 Sept 2007)
'... On the days right after the disappearance of Madeleine, a muffled cry that came from that location raised suspicions. "On Saturday, around half past midnight, two inspectors from the Judiciaria asked to enter my home" ...' (Source: Sol 15 Sept 2007)
So that search was on Sat 5th May.
And it resulted presumably from someone hearing a muffled cry somewhere in that building and reporting it to police.
Was it heard on Sat 5th?
Or was it heard on the night of Thu 3rd but not reported until Sat 5th?
Irish witnesses walked straight past here.
I think the answer to that is in the quote ' on the days right after ' ie not on the 3rd.How might a muffled cry on Sat 5th be relevant to a disappearance on Thu 3rd?
How might a muffled cry on Sat 5th be relevant to a disappearance on Thu 3rd?
I think the answer to that is in the quote ' on the days right after ' ie not on the 3rd."on the days right after" is Sol's text, not a direct quote of what the lady said, therefore IMO it's possible the muffled cry was heard on night of 3rd but not reported until 5th.
Was it a childs muffled cry? As opposed to say an adult being abused?It just says muffled cry, not whether child or adult Merc
It just says muffled cry, not whether child or adult Merc
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html
"on the days right after" is Sol's text, not a direct quote of what the lady said, therefore IMO it's possible the muffled cry was heard on night of 3rd but not reported until 5th.
@GUnit the report you posted is about a search on Wed 9th May due to a conversation overheard on Tue 8th May.
The Sol report is about an earlier search on Sat 5th May in same building due to an overheard muffled cry.
Of which there is no record in the official files, so did Sol make a mistake? Their report was 15th May I believe. It wouldn't be the first time a newspaper got it wrong in this case.This Sol report was Sept 15th. It states IMO that there was a search in that building on Sat 5th May due to a report of a muffled cry. Why would journalist MM invent that SS had told her this? IMO it is true.
This Sol report was Sept 15th. It states IMO that there was a search in that building on Sat 5th May due to a report of a muffled cry. Why would journalist MM invent that SS had told her this? IMO it is true.
The fact that she would have been newsworthy at all would have made her a risky target.
There was a lot of misinformation in the media. The UK newspapers paid out a lot of money to the McCanns, in part for repeating untrue stories copied from the Portuguese press, allegedly. The PJ have no record of a muffled scream or of a visit to that building on 5th May. Why would they not record that particular diligence when they recorded the one on the 9th?There are many diligences and details not in the published files GUnit. For example the 9th May search is in the published files (although omitting the fact that british police were included), but another search at same building 2 weeks later is not in the published files.
There are many diligences and details not in the published files GUnit. For example the 9th May search is in the published files (although omitting the fact that british police were included), but another search at same building 2 weeks later is not in the published files.
"on the days right after" is Sol's text, not a direct quote of what the lady said, therefore IMO it's possible the muffled cry was heard on night of 3rd but not reported until 5th.
Do you have cites for what you say about the British police and the later visit please?"entraram na minha casa seis polícias, alguns dos quais ingleses"
"entraram na minha casa seis polícias, alguns dos quais ingleses"
= 6 police officers, some of them british, entered my home
"na quarta-feira voltou a ser visitada pelos inspectores da PJ"
= on wednesday PJ officers visited again
Diário de Notícias 02 Jun 2007
It's possible that muffled cries were heard all over Luz every night but that's not what the report says.There was a 5th May search due to a report of a muffled cry, that's what a lady told the Sol journalist, it's not part of any theory Faithliily.
Anything is possible and it is perfectly acceptable to offer an interpretation of evidence already in the public domain but to second guess that evidence just to suit your particular theory is not.
That's a bit sparse with no link to anything.Female occupant. DN journalist. Anon phonecall. 9 and 30 May IMO.
Who said it, who to, what was the reason for the visits, what were the dates of the visits?
Female occupant. DN journalist. Anon phonecall. 9 and 30 May IMO.
Unverifiable rumour IMO.The 9 May search and the reason for it are in the files G-unit.
The 9 May search and the reason for it are in the files G-unit.
I know pegasus. I posted it and provided a link also. It had nothing to do with muffled cries. Two PJ people attended and that's all.You asked for cite for UK police at the 9 May search and I posted it.
You asked for cite for UK police at the 9 May search and I posted it.
The search on 5 May was same building different apartment 2 PJ officers no UK.
There was a 5th May search due to a report of a muffled cry, that's what a lady told the Sol journalist, it's not part of any theory Faithliily.
But you have no evidence a cry was heard on the 3rd do you ?What that lady told Sol indicates IMO that there was a muffled cry probably on the 5th, latest.
What that lady told Sol indicates IMO that there was a muffled cry probably on the 5th, latest.
The lady refers to a search on saturday and from the context the way I read it that means the 5th IMO.
She also refers to Luis Antonio, who wasn't even on the PJ radar on the 5th May. Maybe the dates were incorrect or it was another piece of duff information being leaked to Sol by the source close to the investigation.
What that lady told Sol indicates IMO that there was a muffled cry probably on the 5th, latest.
The lady refers to a search on saturday and from the context the way I read it that means the 5th IMO.
So we're agreed. There is no evidence a cry was heard on the 3rd.There's no evidence released anywhere of a muffled cry. All there is is this unofficial indication in a press article. The date is open to interpretation and IMO the most probable interpretation is 5th, but there is not enough information to be sure of that.
There's no evidence released anywhere of a muffled cry. All there is is this unofficial indication in a press article. The date is open to interpretation and IMO the most probable interpretation is 5th, but there is not enough information to be sure of that.
We don't see the statement of Stephen Carpenter's wife.
But didn't Stephen Carpenter comment that she heard a cry of some sort?
No,he said his wife vaguely remembered someone callng "Madeleine, Madeleine" on their way home from Tapas between 9.30-9.45 pm on 3rd May
@Misty, that SOL article was written in sept 07 (re pool cleaner)
OK, thank you.
Yes, you're right.
We don't see the statement of Stephen Carpenter's wife.Yes SC states that his wife, on way home from Tapas restaurant to their apartment, thought she heard someone shouting the girls name.
But didn't Stephen Carpenter comment that she heard a cry of some sort?
Yes SC states that his wife, on way home from Tapas restaurant to their apartment, thought she heard someone shouting the girls name.
The C family left Tapas very soon after the T7 arrived at Tapas http://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=7m14s
GM says CC left tapas soon after at least some of T7 arrived at tapas.
?? And?
GM says CC left tapas soon after at least some of T7 arrived at tapas.
Therefore if CC on way home did hear someone searching, it would mean someone discovered child missing long before KM did.
GM says CC left tapas soon after at least some of T7 arrived at tapas.
Therefore if CC on way home did hear someone searching, it would mean someone discovered child missing long before KM did.
GM says CC left tapas soon after at least some of T7 arrived at tapas.
Therefore if CC on way home did hear someone searching, it would mean someone discovered child missing long before KM did.
MO?
But no, why wouldnt he say anything..or perhaps he didnt discover she was missing, just didnt LOOK in her room but LOOKED for her in her parents bedroom...why did he do that?
Fact remains if CC was correct in her recollection someone was calling Madeleine at 9,15-9.30 pm whch needs explaining...
Source, his and his wifes rogatory interviews
We haven't seen Carolyn Carter's interviews therefore we have no idea what she may have said in them.
We have her husband's statement about what she told him she heard. I would say we have a more reliable basis for judging what Mrs Carpenter heard than we have for suggesting that Martin Smith changed his mind.
Hearsay.
We have her husband's statement about what she told him she heard. I would say we have a more reliable basis for judging what Mrs Carpenter heard than we have for suggesting that Martin Smith changed his mind.
Direct witness testimony.
He said his wife said. This is Hearsay.It may be legally defined as hearsay, but it is very probably correct, that his wife on their way home heard someone shouting the girl's name. Does he remember the time they walked home as about 21:30?
It may be legally defined as hearsay, but it is very probably correct, that his wife on their way home heard someone shouting the girl's name. Does he remember the time they walked home as about 21:30?
He said his wife said. This is Hearsay.
I doubt he would have mentioned it if she hadn't said it, so it's likely to be in her statement.
There are now (since 2003) provisions for allowing hearsay evidence in court.
He said his wife said. This is Hearsay.
Gerry claimed Kate told him the window and shutters were open when she arrived. Is that statement to be treated with suspicion too ?
He witnessed it.
We also have heard a first hand account of the situation from the person who experienced it.
He wasn't there when she arrived at the apartment. As far as he knew she could have opened them herself.
Are you questioning the truthfulness of what Kate said or whether she actually said it?
I'm doing neither. I'm simply pointing out that Gerry's statement is hearsay.
We haven't seen Carolyn Carter's interviews therefore we have no idea what she may have said in them.It will have been close to the truth.ie of her hearing someone calling madeleine...thats all
He wasn't there when she arrived at the apartment. As far as he knew she could have opened them herself.
He witnessed it.Cite ? Please
We also have heard a first hand account of the situation from the person who experienced it.
Cite ? Please
But that hearsay is confirmed by KM's own statement. It is not GM's statement which should be deemed suspicious.
He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm#p10p2567
... and numerous interviews since.
And I'd assume Mr Carpenter's statement is confirmed by his wife too.
No you said "he witnessed it"
GM statement 10 May 2007 "When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised"
GM statement 10 May 2007 "When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised"
So? Why shouldnt thebedroom door be completely open when he arrived?
The point being no one told him about the window and shutter (hearsay) he saw it for himself.
Still hearsay as he wasnt there at the time technicallyThe print supposedly positioned where it proves KM opened the window is complete rubbish.
Then again no one knows who if anyone was telling the truth about that night so ie no one knows anything much
The print supposedly positioned where it proves KM opened the window is complete rubbish.
Therefore there is no reason to doubt that KM is telling the truth about finding the window and shutter open.
No other prints were found, not even glove prints so how did a burglar or anyone else open the window?There were lots of prints and marks revealed by the "dragon's blood" dust which were too smudged to be identified. For example there were numerous marks on the outside of the child's bedroom shutter.
There were lots of prints and marks revealed by the "dragon's blood" dust which were too smudged to be identified. For example there were numerous marks on the outside of the child's bedroom shutter.
I repeat that the supposed print, which supposedly indicated that KM opened the window, is complete and utter rubbish.
Later on, yes.
These were the shutters handled by Gerry & Diane, I presume.
But before prints were taken, so no one knows for sure when they were placed there. These smudged prints may well have occurred be post alarm.IMO the marks on shutter are some by GM and DW and some earlier.