Sunday Times claim that Smith e-fits had been suppressed for 5 years.

[stephen25000]

That is a very kind analysis of the situation VIXTE, and is I am sure true of quite a few simple minded people, but there are people who have whipped themselves, and others, up into a frenzy of hatred against The Mccann Family.

And they cannot wait but to put the boot in.  They take no notice of facts, but manipulate everything by twisting to create myths and lies  [see Carlos tonight.  How he has twisted facts and told lies] in order to bully the people they hate.

The frenzy and illogic is viewable in your post.

Merely because an ever increasing number of people don't believe the McCann's story.

Then, one of the McCann's supporters classic insults to others, calling them 'simple minded'.

 Nasty and predictable.

[Mr Gray]

The title of the thread is"It is claimed..."
So that confirms that as yet..it is not  a fact

[Apostate]

The title of the thread is"It is claimed..."
So that confirms that as yet..it is not  a fact

There seems no reason to doubt it - there's been no denial and comment would not prejudice any legal proceedings. In fact the comments from the Fund would seem to verify it. Let's face it it's true.

[Mr Gray]

There seems no reason to doubt it - there's been no denial and comment would not prejudice any legal proceedings. In fact the comments from the Fund would seem to verify it. Let's face it it's true.

Then why is the title of the thread not definite...if you can please answer the question

[Benice]

There seems no reason to doubt it - there's been no denial and comment would not prejudice any legal proceedings. In fact the comments from the Fund would seem to verify it. Let's face it it's true.

So do you also assume it's true that Martin Smith has stressed that the man he saw was not Gerry McCann - as reported in the same article?

Quote

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.
Unquote

[stephen25000]

So do you also assume it's true that Martin Smith has stressed that the man he saw was not Gerry McCann - as reported in the same article?

Quote

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.
Unquote

It has been stated that representatives of the McCann's visited the Smith family.


Now why would they do that ?


It amounts to interference with witnesses. >@@(*&)

[Mr Gray]

It has been stated that representatives of the McCann's visited the Smith family.


Now why would they do that ?


It amounts to interference with witnesses. >@@(*&)

When was the visit..was it after the case was shelved

[Benice]

It has been stated that representatives of the McCann's visited the Smith family.


Now why would they do that ?


It amounts to interference with witnesses. >@@(*&)

The usual deflection tactics Stephen? 

Do you believe that Mr Smith has stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry or not? 


 

[Cariad]

Then why is the title of the thread not definite...if you can please answer the question

I wrote a long post to you about this yesterday, which you ignore. You then spent 4 pages going on about how absolutely fine it is to leave babies alone.

If the pictures were not suppressed, why weren't they posted on the MM website or published in KM's book, or presented to a press conference as countless other images were?

[stephen25000]

The usual deflection tactics Stephen? 

Do you believe that Mr Smith has stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry or not? 


 

Defection ?

No way.

The only people who should have been interviewing the Smith family are the relevant police authorities.

It was interference with a witness, in a case that was shelved.

As to the sighting, invariably the first sightings and observations are the most reliable.

[imustpointout]

stephen says

"The only people who should have been interviewing the Smith family are the relevant police authorities."

Why did the PJ not complete the interviews that Amaral say were organised in 2007?

Reading the case files - do you believe that the Smiths sighting was thoroughly investigated at the time?

[imustpointout]

stephen says:

"As to the sighting, invariably the first sightings and observations are the most reliable."

really - would you apply that to all the statements made in the files?

[Montclair]

According to today's Correio da Manhã the PJ are now searching for Maddie's body. The whole article is only available in the paper edition which I have not gotten yet. 

[stephen25000]

stephen says

"The only people who should have been interviewing the Smith family are the relevant police authorities."

Why did the PJ not complete the interviews that Amaral say were organised in 2007?

Reading the case files - do you believe that the Smiths sighting was thoroughly investigated at the time?

Well that remains a matter of opinion.

We also have to view it in context of the Tanner sighting which contradicted the Smith one.

Which of course was erroneous.

Also, the PJ were not not looking solely at an abduction were they, at this point ?

Additionally, why would an abductor casually  walk across an area where they could be seen by other people ?

However, the bottom, line remains. Nobody representing the mccanns, should have been 'visiting' the Smiths, as it could have amounted to intimidation of witnesses. >@@(*&)

[Mr Gray]

I wrote a long post to you about this yesterday, which you ignore. You then spent 4 pages going on about how absolutely fine it is to leave babies alone.

If the pictures were not suppressed, why weren't they posted on the MM website or published in KM's book, or presented to a press conference as countless other images were?

Must have missed your posts having to answer so many answers..my post was not about the right and wrongs of leaving babies alone it was about the rights of posters to dicate to other parents as to how they should look after their children.

The question I ask is why is the title of the thread as it is...obviously it is as yet unable to confirm the accusation as true