Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[misty]

I have to agree with 'ferryman' here and respectfully suggest that it is far from 'speculation' that Martin Smith 'changed his mind'.

Surely it is obvious that he did for these among the following reasons:

1. He was publicly quoted in the media in 2008 as supporting the abduction, asking people to help in the search for Madeleine and look for the abductor (forget the exact quote)

2. He agreed as early as December 2007 or January 2008 to speak to Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3, knowing that they were acting for the McCanns

3. He clearly subsequently agreed to at least put his name to the two e-fits (whatever doubts I and not a few others have about his capacity to do so, a year after the event

4. Almost certainly he consented to the McCanns suggesting twice, within the May 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary, strongly suggesting that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same   

5. Again he must be presumed to have consented to an audio summary of his evidence being placed on the McCanns' website in May 2009 (and it's still there today, 7 years later)

6. His evidence was used by Kate McCann again in 7 pages of her book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) to advance the case that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same, and finally

7. His two admitted meetings with DCI Andy Redwood, one in 2012 and the other in 2013, must again be taken as presumed, if not proactive, co-operation with BBC Crimewatch, who in their show of 14 October 2013 made the two efits, quote, 'the centre of our focus'.

The only way in which you can argue @ John that he did not willingly 'change his mind' would be to suggest that he has been threatened, or otherwise forced, to change his mind.

(I leave out from this post all the many obvious issues that arise from his controversial evidence, given 4.5 months after the event, that he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry McCann that he had seen 4.5 months earlier, based basically on his claim that Gerry was carrying Sean over his shoulder the same way as the man he alleged that he'd seen)           

Presumably SY had not told MS at the time of his meetings with them that Tannerman had been identified.

[ferryman]

Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed"

Before the inspections, though.

What I cite is the penultimate sentence of Harrison's third report (after he had witnessed all the inspections).

[pegasus]

My eyes glaze over at accountancy.

However, have you taken into account the payouts from various newspapers?


 Wednesday 19 March 2008 08.20 GMT
Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016 15.47 GMT


The Daily Express and Daily Star carried unprecedented front page apologies to Gerry and Kate McCann today for publishing more than 100 articles on the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, some of which suggested the couple were involved in her death .

After being threatened with legal action over the articles dating back almost 11 months to when their daughter first went missing, the newspapers, owned by Richard Desmond, also agreed to pay out what it called "a very substantial sum".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar

In the financial year ending 31 March 2009, there was no partition of the limited company's money into "money donated by ordinary people to be spent on actual searching" and "money obtained by threatening civil legal action, to be spent on initiating civil legal action abroad".

Money donated by ordinary people was in part used to pay the legal expenses of obtaining the injunction against
Mr Amaral.

[Carana]

Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed"

It MAY suggest... that's one possibility. What are the others?

[Carana]

In the financial year ending 31 March 2009, there was no partition of the limited company's money into "money donated by ordinary people to be spent on actual searching" and "money obtained by threatening civil legal action, to be spent on initiating civil legal action abroad".

Money donated by ordinary people was in part used to pay the legal expenses of obtaining the injunction against
Mr Amaral.

When was this payout actually made? Is the fiscal year of major importance?

[pegasus]

(snip)... have you taken into account the payouts from various newspapers? ... (snip)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar

The payouts from newspapers were all spent on actual search Carana
 
chairman's statement year ending 31 Mar 2008:
"... the Express Group ... substantial cash donation ... has enabled us to continue our search for Madeleine..."   

chairman's statement year ending 31 Mar 2009:
"... other newspapers followed suit with accompanying donations ... this has enabled us to continue our search for Madeleine..."

The proceeds from newspapers were spent on search, therefore the costs of getting the injunction against Mr A was paid from ordinary donations?

[pegasus]

It MAY suggest... that's one possibility. What are the others?

Another possibility might be that an absorbent object, which had been in sufficient contact with a body outside the property, had then been brought into the property, and had sufficient contact with some part of the property (a shelf, a floor, etc) and then the object was removed from the property?

My main point is that the NPIA expert uses the phrase "dead body scent", but probably some posters would claim there is no such thing?

[slartibartfast]

Another possibility might be that an absorbent object, which had been in sufficient contact with a body outside the property, had then been brought into the property, and had sufficient contact with some part of the property (a shelf, a floor, etc) and then the object was removed from the property?

My main point is that the NPIA expert uses the phrase "dead body scent", but probably some posters would claim there is no such thing?

Careful, you will upset the cynophobes.

[Mr Gray]

Careful, you will upset the cynophobes.

I think this is one of the main things that seperate the sceptics from supporters...sceptics think the alerts have some significance...supporters having a better understanding...do not

[Alfred R Jones]

Careful, you will upset the cynophobes.

This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?

[slartibartfast]

This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?

It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?

[Mr Gray]

This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?

I think it reveals a certain mentality

[Mr Gray]

It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?

then you do not understand the meaning of the word

[Mr Gray]

It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?

On balance i think I will simply report it as goading...John has asked for better behaviour on here posts and its a shame as a mod you are not willing to comply

[slartibartfast]

then you do not understand the meaning of the word

Oh I do.