I've no idea.
They were brought to us by Levy.
I've no idea.
They were brought to us by Levy.
Is this He?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html (top right)
Yep, that's him: a brief dilettantes with Morais, and the man who tried to fleece a UK tabloid for sums of tens of thousands of pounds for "photographs" that would blow the case apart and "prove" the guilt of the McCanns.
He also got hold of the rogatory DVDs, separate from the DVD on which the rest of the files are held.
What? He has the only copy in existence and has altered it to suit his own agenda before distributing it?
Is that what you're implying? Cause that seems like something that might've come up in conversation before now.
Ferryman, can you be clear please? What are you trying to say?
For certain, that Duarte Levy got hold of the rogatory DVD; that possibly (given his marked "anti-McCann" bias and proven propensity for corruption) he might have tampered with what we read.
I dunno what to make of this? Is this something that everybody knows other than me, or is this a Sadiesque style conspiracy theory?
Surely if there was any truth in this Dr and Mrs libel would've done something about it?
So where did the rogs come from..does anyone know
I'm confused too Cariad
It seems ferryman is suggesting the 'source' of the rogatory interviews is not the police files, but some fellow called Levy
Most odd
The source of the Tapas Group Rogatory Interviews is categorically not the Police Files as contained in the DVD which Pamalam reproduces on her blog.
If you disagree with that statement. please show where in those files they are to be found.
I will even give you a link to the files to make your life easier.
This site contains the contents of the main DVD which the PT authorities released to journalists after the archival of the case. That DVD contains 1.07 GB of data which is reproduced on the site below.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAGE_ORDER.htm
This is the only time that the files of a case have been released in this way in Portugal. The normal system is that the files are released but only to be viewed by the journalists through an appointment system at the relevant police staion. The journalists are not normally allowed to copy directly information or to take away information from the office where they are allowed to see it. They can simply make notes and report on it.
In this case there was such a demand for access to the files that the normal system could not cope. Therefore the journalists were issued with DVDs containing the files. On being issued with the copies of the DVDs though, the assembled journalists were reminded that the rule relating to the copying wholesale of the material was forbidden. It could be quoted and reported upon but remained copyright and was not to be published as a complete file.
Clearly that rule has not been upheld since as two clear breaches are known.
First, the extremely "mysterious" journalist Duarte Levy broke the rule and released copies of the DVD with which he had been issued. This was the 1.07 GB version which Pamalam has produced which contained four files - Apensos, Cartos Rogatorias, Outros Apensos and Processo. The DVD was released to the world by Levy not in the press or on his own blog which was very active at the time but literally by hand to various chosen people who he had seen posting derogatory statements about the McCanns.
You might think that the Tapas group Rogatories were in that Cartos Rogatorias section of that DVD with the list of questions to be posed to them and the other witnesses. But you would be wrong. All the other witness statements are there but not theirs. That seems very odd. Why include the questions to be asked of them but forget to include the answers? All the other witness statements are there with the list of questions each was to be asked.
The document containing the list of questions for all the witnesses (Tapas Group and others) is there but the responses are only from the Non Tapas group members.
Something, as an aside, that not many people know is that only one other witness besides the Tapas group who was questioned at the Rogatories was videoed. The remainder were not.
Now, did Levy tamper with the original DVD and remove the Tapas rogatories to be released later or where they on a separate DVD which he then released later?
The Tapas group interviews were contained in video format on 26 separate DVDs.
It wasn't till December 2008 when the Tapas Rogatories were released by Levy. Again he chose someone who had been posting online about the McCanns, this time in a more bipartisan way but who nevertheless was associated with anti McCann feeling. Her online ID was Nicked and she came from Northern England. To this day it is only that copy of the Tapas Rogatories which exists in public. No other source more direct than Levy and this poster exists.
It has always amused me that those who rely on the PJ Files as the fount of all knowledge, forget the route which that information took before they were allowed to clap eyes on it. They talk of the files as though they are exactly as the PT Prosecutor released them into the hands of the journalists but they may well not be.
Levy, a great friend of Amaral, could possibly have released the material on these two occasions without the slightest alteration. That is true. But just as possible is the other option, that he tampered with that material. And before anyone asks why that might have been, don't forget that Levy was one of Amaral's greatest supporters. A motive could lie in that support especially as by the end of 2008 it was clear that the McCanns were not entirely happy with the work of Amaral on the case or the book he wrote and published just as the case was archived.
I am saying that the ONLY copy of the PJ Files which is in the public domain is that handed to a selected band of individuals by the journalist Duarte Levy.
In the initial DVD which he handed over to those people the Tapas Rogatory Interviews were nowhere to be found (although all the other Rogatory interviews were present).
The originald DVD which he handed over to those people is on the Pamalam site linked to above.
Not till later did the Tapas Group Rogatory interviews get released via Levy again, this time via another poster on a blog/forum.
All this happened, of course, after the archival of the case in June 2008 when Levy and other journalists received their copies of the DVD from the PT authorities.
Levy then backdated these particular rogatories to May 2008 on his own blog in some kind of pretence that he had the information back then.
The PJ FILES were never released to the public by the Portuguese Authorities. It is not within the law there for them to do that. And no other journalist has broken the law in the way that Duarte Levy did by releasing the whole document.
So the rogatory interviews ARE in the police files that were released to the public ? ( the 'press' ARE the public, by the way )
For heaven's sake then ... how can you possibly make a 'conspiracy' out of that ?
"In this post I will expose and prove how the so called journalist 'Duarte Levy' is nothing more than a con man, a swindler and a dangerous pathological liar". Joanna Morais.Yes, this con man, swindler and dangerous pathological liar (in the words of Joana Morais who is not known for her pro Gerry and Kate feelings) is the only source of the PJ OFFICIAL FILES. No other source has ever come forward to illegally distribute them as he did.
Is this the same Levy person?
"Your understanding of the status of the press in Portuguese law is simply flawed.
They were not put in the public domain by the Portuguese authorities.
They were provided as a tool for research for journalists which were specifically not to be reproduced"
This case gets more bizarre each day, if this Levy business is true it's shocking.
"Your understanding of the status of the press in Portuguese law is simply flawed.
They were not put in the public domain by the Portuguese authorities.
They were provided as a tool for research for journalists which were specifically not to be reproduced"
What the hell is that supposed to mean ? ... provided as a tool for research for journalists !
You talk rubbish gilet
You dress it up to 'sound' impressive ... but you talk rubbish
oh gawd ... another one with the vapours !
I don't even know who this 'Levy' character is, but are we seriously being asked to believe that the anomolies in the tapas crew's statements don't really 'exist' ... and are actually ( and 'shockingly' ) nothing more than his dastardly invention ?
Xrist ! talk about a conspiracy too far
Really?
Perhaps if you bothered to actually read the first post I made, instead of simply dismissing it and read it more than once if you need to to understand it, then you might realise what the normal practice is in Portugal and why this was an exceptional situation.
But to simplify if for you as you struggled with the long post earlier.
Journalists do NOT get a copy of the files released to them at the end of a case.
They get limited access by appointment to VIEW the files and they are allowed to make notes about those files. They are NOT allowed to make direct copies of those files.
They are allowed to use them only as a tool to assist their research into the case in question and its outcome.
You said :
"They ( the police files ) were provided as a tool for research for journalists"
What does that MEAN ? ... explain it
It is one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever read on this forum ( and I've read a few )
But to simplify if for you as you struggled with the long post earlier.
Journalists do NOT get a copy of the files released to them at the end of a case.
They get limited access by appointment to VIEW the files and they are allowed to make notes about those files. They are NOT allowed to make direct copies of those files.
They are allowed to use them only as a tool to assist their research into the case in question and its outcome.
Having explained it twice for you on this thread in the last hour or so, and having tidied up the quotes you bungled in your post when I replied to you) I think I have done enough of the work. Perhaps if you slowed down and tried to take it all in and actually read the explanation you would learn something.
Thanks for sorting out my making a mess of the quote function
Now, would you please explain where you got the impression that the police files were released with the intention of them being used as 'a tool for research for journalists'
Where did you get that idea from ? ... and what does it mean ?
Here, in case you missed it in the post you quoted.
I'll add a bit more to help you. Something else you appear to be unaware of, is that when a case goes to court in Portugal, a great deal of information is not given in open court where journalists can see and hear it. Much is dealt with in submissions directly to the Judge.
When a journalist wants to do research after a case has ended then they can make an appointment with the person who holds the records of the case, they can then go and see those records (including the submissions and other information not previously revealed in court) and use them as a tool (in much the same way a historian uses archive material as the basis of his research) for developing an article or book even about the case.
But the law prevents that journalist from copying the material directly. They can only make notes and refer to it, not offer it all, lock stock and barrel as part of their article or book.
Where do the McCann lawyers come into this 'tool provision' ?
They weren't journalists doing 'research' afterall ... so how far reaching is this alluded to 'special dispensation' required to get hold of those files
The question really is one of evidential value.
If a document's history can be traced precisely and there are no situations in which that document can have been altered then its evidential value can be judged as very high indeed.
If, for example, we had seen the OFFICIAL FILES posted in dozens of newspapers with the journalists stating that they are an exact record as handed over by the Portuguese, more reliability could be placed on them.
As it is, they have never been sourced in the main-stream media.
As it is NO reputable journalist has ever offered a set of them to the public in any form.
The Portuguese authorities have never issued a copy for the public to read online, for example.
ALL we have is a copy which was posted on blogs and whose source is an extremely dodgy so-called journalists who has no credentials to call himself such a thing.
There is no way of knowing how reliable they are.
They may be 100% genuine of course.
But then again they may have been tampered with in any possible way.
Neither you nor I can know with any certainty whether they are 100% genuine, have been tampered with slightly or have been tampered with more seriously.
We just don't know.
A particular cause for concern is the series of Tapas Group Rogatory Interviews which were not released in the format or at the time of the other material. The original paperwork has not been produced, nor any paging references as with all the other material. There is simply no way of knowing if they are entirely real or not.
And you think Carter Ruck would let that go unchallenged ?
[ censored word ] stuff this is
You really do not get it do you?
You are placing all your faith in a WUM called Levy who began distributing this material at the same time as the McCanns began to suggest that the content of Amaral's book was going to be challenged.
Why go for the monkeys when the organ grinder can be more effectively dealt with?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Placing your faith in a WUM is a foolish thing to do.
If you think that demanding reliable evidence and assessing carefully, the evidential value of that evidence is "[ censored word ] stuff" then somewhere your wires have crossed.
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories ... and that it was you are presenting
If you cannot see that there is a difference between my accurate statement that there is a reliability issue with the PJ Files and a conspiracy theory then that is your problem not mine.
If you choose to place your faith in files for which the only source is a WUM called Levy then that is your problem not mine.
If you choose to ignore the fact that there is no original scan available of the Tapas Rogatory Statements on which you base your questions about inconsistencies then that is your problem not mine.
If you choose to ignore the fact that unlike all the other PJ Files these Tapas Rogatory statements have no official PJ page referencing then that is your problem not mine.
If you choose to ignore the fact that the Tapas Rogatory Statements were not released by Levy when he released ALL the other information but deliberately delayed by him for unknown reasons then that is your problem not mine.
I know that there is a potential serious flaw in them.
I have not claimed that there is definitely such a flaw but till I am sure it does not exist, then I am very wary of the content being precisely as recorded by Leicestershire Police. You carry on with your faith in a WUM as long as you like. Its no skin off my nose.
@)(++(*
You are funny gilet
You put such effort into presenting your posts in a suitably serious way ... when what you are actually saying is a load of old [ censored word ] nonsense
The whole accusation against the McCanns is a conspiracy theory...with talk of notices,freemasons...involvement of governments.. you would have to be blind not to see that. I see nothing wrong with questioning evidence and its sources.
This development is very interesting and explains alot
@)(++(*
You are funny gilet
You put such effort into presenting your posts in a suitably serious way ... when what you are actually saying is a load of old [ censored word ] nonsense
@)(++(*
You are funny gilet
You put such effort into presenting your posts in a suitably serious way ... when what you are actually saying is a load of old [ censored word ] nonsense
The whole accusation against the McCanns is a conspiracy theory...with talk of notices,freemasons...involvement of governments.. you would have to be blind not to see that. I see nothing wrong with questioning evidence and its sources.
This development is very interesting and explains alot
That's part of what I don't get. Why is this coming out now? Is this something that is well known and I've just been unaware, or has it passed everyone by?
If those documents aren't accurate, why haven't the Mccanns commented on that?
Would altering police statements then reproducing them be a crime?
Are the originals still available for journalists to get copies of?
Obviously I take everything Gilet says with a pinch of salt after the uniform incident, but the idea that everything I've based my knowledge on may be flawed is making me uncomfortable. Is that what this is designed to do or is there possibly an element of truth to it?
I wondered about that too, which leads me to think that its just McCannites trying to spread more myths.
What, you didn't know that gerry is a member of the strange handshake brigade ?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Well, after musing on it for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that if even one word wasn't faithfully reproduced, the Mccanns or Mr Mitchell would be able to say something like " We feel that the public should be aware that the rog's on the internet are not accurate. We are unable to correct the inaccuracies as it is against the law to publish the files" Or something of that ilk.
Given that the discrepancies in the rog's don't look great for the Mccanns and their friends, if they could have discredited them in some way, I reckon they would have.
Following that logic, I don't think they've been tampered with.
All imneo of course and I welcome anyone else's interpretation of the situation.
By commenting they would be directing millions of people to statements that may well be false whereas at the moment they have only been read by a handful of people. The internet is almost impossible to police and if the rogs were removed they would simply pop up somewhere else. As you know there is a facebook group with 20,000 followers telling blatant lies that Carter ruck choose to ignore...for the reasons I have just given
As participants, the arguidos in the case the McCanns and Robert Murat were entitled under Portuguese Law to a full copy of the files.
No special dispensation needed. Its standard practice in most countries (exceptions would include North Korea and China) for those directly involved in a case and their lawyers to have copies of all the files in the case. Don't you remember Tony Bennett in his case talking about the tens of thousands of pages which he had to get through, all the big ring binders full of pages and pages of stuff?
How do you think a case would work if the lawyers and those involved in the case could not see the documents relating to the case. It would either become a very Kafkaesque situation or revert to a kind of legal Brian Rix farce.
Great so if the files on the web were incorrect, and if the original presumably correct files were given to the McCann's, why haven't they through Carter Ruck, sought to have any incorrect or altered versions removed from the web?
After all they have/had an internet monitoring group and have removed plenty of stuff from the web already.
Can we conclude that as they haven't removed the PJ or McCann files sites that the information is therefore correct?
That's part of what I don't get. Why is this coming out now? Is this something that is well known and I've just been unaware, or has it passed everyone by?
This has been known by me since 2008. I cannot comment on the knowledge of others. It has always surprised me that people take no notice of the fact that these files were never officially released to the public in general. Indeed I notice that the Pamalam Blog states that they were released in that way. It is not true. They were released to journalists only for purposes of researching the case.
My initial reaction to Levy came from the fact that he appeared from nowhere shortly after the disappearance of Madeleine. He was only on a couple of occasions credited in the MSM as a journalist (in bylines where he assisted the main writer of articles). His dominant presence was through a series of blogs which he ran called Enfants Kidnappes, SOS Madeleine, http://duartelevypt.wordpress.com/, etc. He ran at least six or seven blogs in Portuguese, French and English about missing children and paedophilia in the main part. Some of these still remain but others have vanished over the years.
To me he never seemed to be a serious journalist but someone who commented on the journalism of others and who blogged about cases. In that respect he was very similar to Joana Morais who he had a personal liaison with at the height of the case.
After that close encounter with the man she declared him to be "nothing more than a con man, a swindler and a dangerous pathological liar"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/06/exposing-swindler-truth-about.html
Levy was seen at events with Amaral on a number of occasions and described by others who were present as close to Amaral. At no point could he ever be described as an independent journalist reporting on this case. His bias was always to Amaral and against the McCanns.
Whether that bias was behind his illegal release of the files I have no idea, but it is a distinct possibility and I believe it should be taken into account when looking at anything written or released by the man.
He was a sensationalist too. I realise that we are not supposed to use blog material but as we are discussing Levy and this is from his own blog, Enfants Kidnappes, then it may be permitted (mods, please remove if you feel the need to do so).
This came from the Enfants Kidnappes blog of Levy in mid November 2008. It is no longer available there but was repeated on a range of sites including Havern's blog, Websleuths and McCann Files where it remains today.
From McCann Files - 17th November http://www.mccannfiles.com/id182.htmlQuoteAnomalies in the case file on DVD
For some time, a small part of the complete case file (5,000 out of 30,000 pages!!!) has been accessible to the public. We have published some it it here, noting that it is necessary to be careful in publishing its contents. In fact, this DVD is not complete and only represents around 17% of the total. Our association, like probably all the other professionals in the field of police work, detected anomalies in the case file. In fact, some documents appeared doubtful, seen as suspicious. Some signatures, annotations, drew our attention. We addressed them to whom it may concern to take the information back to Portugal. Following that, and even though we had been aware for several weeks, the journalist Duarte Levy, in statements, yesterday on Portuguese television, revealed that there were documents in the case file which had been tampered with and manipulated. It is there, neither more nor less than errors in writing. No comment. So, be careful what you read on various forums.
Death threats!
At the start of the broadcast in which the journalist we spoke about above, Duarte Levy, was participating, the director of the Portuguese television channel informed the viewers that Mr Levy had just, at that moment, received death threats on his mobile phone following his latest revelations. These threats are being taken seriously. According to our information, the journalist received two different calls. One from Portugal and the other from the UK, both threatening to kill him! If the revelations made by SOS Madeleine are false, and as a result the parents have nothing to hide, why threaten to kill people? Why does the McCann clan brandish, at the slightest opportunity, a threatening finger towards anyone who would not say the same things as them? Why try to silence the press?
It is not so odd that the man who released the files to the public fails to mention that fact, after all it was probably an illegal act. But it is odd that he tries to claim that the files as released by the Portuguese Authorities had been tampered with. Double bluff, maybe?
If those documents aren't accurate, why haven't the Mccanns commented on that?
I would suggest the answer to that is quite simple. They would be drawing attention to these (probably illegally posted files) if they commented on them. What would any comment by them achieve other than drawing that extra attention? They cannot prove they are inaccurate as they would have to defy the release rules and post the version they have. The complexity of removing everything they received which journalists did not receive and then defying the rules under which they received their copy would make it a mad exercise.
An additional point I would make as to why they have not attempted to have them removed. I don't actually know why but the suggestion of a previous poster does make some sense. The McCanns made an initial attempt to take down material which they owned with a cease and desist letter. I think they found that the law does not make such actions easy. Indeed the protection of copyright online is nigh on impossible to achieve in any context. On top of the fact that in the case, the McCanns would have the added problem in that they do not own the files and have no copyright law to assist them. Portuguese authorities would also find it nigh on impossible to restrict online publication in other domains. And as soon as one site was prevented from hosting them, another would appear.
Would altering police statements then reproducing them be a crime?
Not being a lawyer and more particularly not being a Portuguese lawyer I could not answer that definitively but it would seem likely. Even reproducing them wholesale without alteration may well be a crime in Portugal. It certainly goes against the spirit in which they were released to journalists.
Are the originals still available for journalists to get copies of?
I don't know for certain. But I would suspect not. The case has been reopened and therefore there is possibly no access for anyone other than those involved in the current investigation at the moment. There is a chance that the re-opened case is not listed as the same case as the original one and therefore the files are available but I don't know the intricacies of Portuguese law well enough to comment on that.
Obviously I take everything Gilet says with a pinch of salt after the uniform incident, but the idea that everything I've based my knowledge on may be flawed is making me uncomfortable. Is that what this is designed to do or is there possibly an element of truth to it?
Interesting turn of phrase, "uniform incident". I posted a comment from a professional handler. Our interpretation of the meaning of that comment differed. To me that is a difference of opinion. To you, an incident. Mmm...
If you doubt my word about Levy, read Joana Morais about him. You may or may not be more comfortable trusting her.
If you doubt my word about Levy and the documents, do some research, and ask yourself some questions.
Here are a few questions that I might suggest.
Why has no other journalist or source has ever produced copies of these files for the public to read?
Why do they only exist on blogs run by anti-McCanns and not on any official site or MSM site?
Would you trust a friend of Gerry McCann if he had posted the files online? (Levy was (and maybe still is) a friend of Amaral back in 2008.)
How did Levy choose the people he delivered the copies of the original DVD to?
Why did he deliberately delay the second batch of information he released till the very time when the McCanns at the end of November 2008 were meeting Isabel Duarte to start proceedings to sue Amaral? What prevented the Tapas Rogatories from being released back in the middle of the year when he handed over the original DVD to various people?
Who is Levy? He still does not appear to be a real journalist. His "work" seems to be commenting on journalism on his FB page and on blogs.
Obviously I take everything Gilet says with a pinch of salt after the uniform incident, but the idea that everything I've based my knowledge on may be flawed is making me uncomfortable. Is that what this is designed to do or is there possibly an element of truth to it?
Interesting turn of phrase, "uniform incident". I posted a comment from a professional handler. Our interpretation of the meaning of that comment differed. To me that is a difference of opinion. To you, an incident. Mmm...
Since the bloody line has been attributed to me in it's own thread, it's been upgraded from an incident to a 'serious incident'.
I take note of you post. I don't really know what to think about it all. As I said, it makes me uncomfortable. I shall do some more research.
Is Levy the latest ENEMY - to be trashed in his turn like Amaral and Grime ?
Is it just coincidence that Duarte (Levy) removed all the internet links to the dog videos?
I think his former g/f, Joana Morais - got there first. ?{)(**
Is it just coincidence that Duarte (Levy) removed all the internet links to the dog videos?
This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
I couldn't say, but considering that Kate has had everything translated to her satisfaction and hasn't once complained about misrepresentation, one can conclude that they must be reasonably accurate.
You may make that supposition. I most certainly do not.
Do you really think that Kate McCann or anyone else who has access to her copies of the files has gone through both sets side by side to check whether they are the same. Really? Personally, I don't imagine for one minute that she has wasted her time in that way.
I doubt she has the remotest interest these days in what people host on blogs such as that where the files are held. She has the more reassuring knowledge that the Police of two countries are investigating the case based entirely on the full, complete and real files.
She may be now, but these files have been out for a long time and given the litigious nature of the McCanns, I'm sure they would have been unwilling to let blatant injustices lie unchallenged.
The old "well, nobody has challenged it / sued / corrected - so it must be true" chestnut. 8(0(*
It makes a lot more sense than the opposite viewpoint. After all one would think LP could easily scupper the authenticity if the rogs were untrue.
as neither Gerry nor Payne have denied the gaspar statements then they must be true too
Gapar statements are merely observations of conduct perceived to be something else imo.
Back on topic, re Duarte. We have no alternative but to be grateful to him for releasing the files into the public domain otherwise there would have been very little known about what went on in this case. His conduct over other undertakings is certainly to be condemned but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the released files. One has to take a sensible position in all of this and strike a balance. If Joana Morais was in any way suspicious that the files were corrupted she wouldn't have spent the time promoting them.
My dear John. You are relatively new to this case, so you may not be aware of some of the history. Joana Morais no doubt has many fine qualities. But being a source of unbiased information on the McCann case is not one of them. She will happily post anything which either supports Amaral or denigrates the McCanns. For an example, you have only to look at the banner for her blogspot, and the quote from article 37.
I am on record as stating she is biased as recently as a few days ago. That said though, I doubt very much whether she would waste her time on case files if they were knowingly corrupted. Gilet has raised a very good point about the rogatory statements but others have responded with equally persuasive responses.
Fair enough. I think all material from such sources should be treated with caution. And where an suspected conman is involved, then doubly so.
A totally different set of circumstances that amounts to GM/DP's word against the Gaspars.
As far as the rog's are concerned we have a stabilising factor with LP's association. If the Tapas 9 were to claim the truth was a lie then it would drag LP into the argument as verification. If disproven it would most likely not get the information removed from the Internet but it would also be all over the Internet that they are not to be trusted.
Has that happened........no. Just a bunch of hopeful McCann apologists clutching at straws.
Argue about Levy's behaviour all you like but discrediting his personality does not in turn discredit what's in the rog's. He simply leaked the information.
Thers no need to clutch at straws...the mccanns are not suspects in either SY or the PJ investigation...that's a very clear signal that only the blind cannot see
The case ain't over til the fat lady sings.
...and I don't mean Philomena. @)(++(*
in my opinion the case will almost certainly never be solved...but...the McCcanns are not suspects
Is that all that matters to you?
Actually you was, as usual deflecting from the matter in hand. The discussion was the validity of the rog's not the validity of the McCanns as suspects which you have inexplicably chosen to drop into the thread. Perhaps because you didn't have a clear enough counter argument to the post of mine which you commented on?
Still no argument then regarding the validity? Thought so. Never mind I'm sure if you keep arguing about off topic nonsense the post will soon drop a few pages down......that is your usual tactic isn't it?
Much better Davel. Thank you.
What changes and what difference do those changes make?
Theres no argument because we simply don't know...my view is that on the whole they are genuine but with some changes that may make a huge difference. As I have already posted the mccanns seem to be ignoring a lot of libel on the net..it really isnt worth bothering now they have been declared not suspects
And it's very strange that Redwood didn't rule Gerry out of the Smith sighting at the same time he cleared Tannerman as being an innocent man. Why didn't Redwood rule Gerry out of the sighting (named by a witness) if he thinks they're not suspects? Why didn't he say an eye witness named Gerry McCann as possibly being this man we're looking for but we can confirm that this wasn't Mr McCann and the witness was mistaken. Maybe you should contact them and ask why he hasn't been cleared from that sighting?
I wont be contacting anyone...Redwood said the mccanns aren't suspects...I understand smith has now said he doesn't think it was Gerry...
It doesn't matter what he thinks now as it's on record that he couldn't sleep for days with worry before contacting the authorities and saying the man he seen was possibly the father of Madeleine. And the child the suspect was carrying was a spitting image of her.
I wont be contacting anyone...Redwood said the mccanns aren't suspects...I understand smith has now said he doesn't think it was Gerry...
...I understand smith has now said he doesn't think it was Gerry...
How could he be certain it wasn't Gerry he saw, when he wasn't certain it was Gerry he saw in the first place.
have another look...I used the word think and you use the word certain
Yes, I did notice that, I seem to remember writing those very words.
So Mr Smith now thinks it wasn't Gerry he saw, I wonder what his wife thinks.
You didn't write those words...you copied and pasted mine
You can't prove that, I'm totally innocent of this alleged plagarism until proven guilty in a court of law.
This terrible allegation is an unwarranted attack on my decent, honourable name & reputation.
Bump......for Davel.
don't need to clutch at straws...mccanns not suspects...groundhog afternoon
Because they were brought to us by a man, both with a known propensity for corruption, and, with opportunity to tamper with the files if he felt so inclined.
Also, because same said man is known to have a pronounced anti-McCann bias.
Will that do?
Are you working on the principal that if you say something often enough, others might eventually believe it ? 8(0(*
Because they were brought to us by a man, both with a known propensity for corruption, and, with opportunity to tamper with the files if he felt so inclined.
Also, because same said man is known to have a pronounced anti-McCann bias.
Will that do?
Just because you, or some other say they are suspect doesn't actually alter their status, except in your mind.
You would have to prove where they are incorrect in order to devalue them.
They don't have any value full stop
I wont be contacting anyone...Redwood said the mccanns aren't suspects...I understand smith has now said he doesn't think it was Gerry...
Can you provide a statement or cite from him to that effect Dave?
no I cant...but perhaps someone else can...certainly if redwood thought it was Gerry then Gerry would be a suspect
Not necessarily - he might have a very tight and specific remit
Can you provide a statement or cite from him to that effect Dave?
It was claim made in the Sunday Times article about the Efits - (I believe there is a thread about it)
This is the relevant part of the article.
QUOTE
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
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
True!
And a further, significant, point to make about Smith's original statement, where he said he believed the man he saw was Gerry.
He also said that none of his children agreed with him, including his daughter Aofe who, in my opinion, was the most astute observer of all the Smiths of what they saw that night.
True!
And a further, significant, point to make about Smith's original statement, where he said he believed the man he saw was Gerry.
He also said that none of his children agreed with him, including his daughter Aofe who, in my opinion, was the most astute observer of all the Smiths of what they saw that night.
Mr Smith did not identify Dr McCann as the man he saw carrying the child in his original statement.
-- Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.
-- States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Yes those statements were done months earlier than when he contacted the police again in September.
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
Rec by: TPHONE Serial: 241 Ident:BC19-8286 1055 20/09/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNG: QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Closed
Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
The report (as you have copied it) doesn't say that - that's your spin.
He says he thought it was Gerry by the way he carried the child...doesn't mention seeing his face...it seems he has changed his mind now and SY do not believe it was Gerry.....
QUOTE
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
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
Do we have a direct quote from Mr. Smith,or is this all verbatim yet again ?
is any of the information re Smith reliable
i.e. There isn't any evidence that Mr. Smith changed his mind.
i.e. there isn't any evidence that smith saw the suspects face...but of course as Gerry is not a suspect...it appears SY have ruled him out
It is already well known and documented what Mr. Smith saw the first time and what made him think in all probability, that the man he saw carrying a child was none other than gerry mccann.
He says he thought it was Gerry by the way he carried the child...doesn't mention seeing his face...it seems he has changed his mind now and SY do not believe it was Gerry.....
QUOTE
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
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
He says he thought it was Gerry by the way he carried the child...doesn't mention seeing his face...it seems he has changed his mind now and SY do not believe it was Gerry.....
QUOTE
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
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
Do we have a direct quote from Mr. Smith,or is this all verbatim yet again ?
Verbatim means in exactly the same words as were used originally.
jean pierre.doesn't make any sense
I was referring to the alleged source of Mr. Smith's 'statement'.
So we have statements from Mr. Smith saying he had a strong impression that it was Gerry and reports saying he changed his mind.
doesn't make any sense
Mr. Smith it seems has the good sense to steer clear of the mccanns circus.
He's not the only one either. >@@(*&)
So we have statements from Mr. Smith saying he had a strong impression that it was Gerry and reports saying he changed his mind.
Reports?
The clearest indication that he changed his mind is that he agreed to produce e-fits.
Before that, he had been approached by Brian Kennedy (representing the McCanns) to produce an e-fit and had refused.
It is plain common sense that all the time he entertained a notion that the man might have been Gerry, he was not going to produce an e-fit.
Here are the efits if you haven't seen them yet 8-)(--) Martin Smith probably can't believe he would be involved but a newspaper report is not from the source.
(http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/2013/10/1381817236-9.jpg)
so why are SY spending 6 million and not just arresting Gerry
Perhaps its not within their remit.
and who decides their remit...do you seriously think they would spend 6 million if they knew Gerry was smithman
I imagine their remit was drawn up by the Home Office, as they are footing the bill (on behalf of the taxpayer)so do you think the home office would spend 6 million if SY thought Gerry was smithman
so do you think the home office would spend 6 million if SY thought Gerry was smithman
I would suggest that due consideration has been given to the fact that Mr Smith was the sole eyewitness from his party who wished to change the original statement given to the police.
I think it is naïve to assume that all the circumstances of his sighting and the whereabouts of others at that time have not been exhaustively pursued: leading to the conclusion that Mr Smith’s identification of Gerry McCann as the man he had seen was in error.
Mr Smith says his wife is the only one who felt the same as him, yet she will not change her original statement, nor is she quoted as being in agreement with him.
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
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.
4135 to 4139 Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm