it is interesting to see Jane was aware her memories were being altered by the post event information, but she was not able to identify her first memory but just said refer to her first statement.
I've never heard a logical explanation as to why Jane would have invented Tannerman...
She states that she was given a cognitive interview, and I posted a link (post #6) to what cognitive interviews involve.
I am not saying Jane didn't see a man carrying a child, she may have done. but what she didn't see was an abductor carrying off Maddie. this came later when someone mentioned abductor- Jane claims she saw it happen.
It is indeed strange that JT passed Gerry and Jez, and they never saw her!
I am not saying Jane didn't see a man carrying a child, she may have done. but what she didn't see was an abductor carrying off Maddie. this came later when someone mentioned abductor- Jane claims she saw it happen.
It is indeed strange that JT passed Gerry and Jez, and they never saw her!
In my opinion false memory syndrome played an inordinate amount of influence in Madeleine's case.
Mr Smith's mistaken identification of Gerry which was subject to exactly the same influences which affected Mr McCluskey's mistaken identification of both Kate and Gerry has become the stuff of internet legend (one has, the other tends to be ignored).
And the Murat "sightings".Would you be able to explain yourself a little more?
In all these cases, false memories could be a factor as they were arguidos.
That doesn't seem to apply to Jane, though, at least not regarding who the man could have been.
A quite interesting article on the topic:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory
Would you be able to explain yourself a little more?
"In all these cases, false memories could be a factor as they were arguidos."
"That doesn't seem to apply to Jane, though, at least not regarding who the man could have been."
I'm a little lost on both of those sentences.
Thanks Carana, I understand now, even though still I struggle with all of the Smith family's statements.
I think the best example of false memory is the Smith sighting... M S saw Gerry walking down the plane steps and that triggered his belief that the man he saw in Luz was Gerry
I think the best example of false memory is the Smith sighting... M S saw Gerry walking down the plane steps and that triggered his belief that the man he saw in Luz was GerryThe thing about false memories is that as an outsider you can't tell if it is true or false or whether these factors brought it on. They have shown in studies it is possible to induce false memories, but I think that is all we can say, to limit the evidential value of the Smith sighting, that Martin Smith seeing Gerry leaving Portugal while being an arguido (thought by some as fleeing the country) carrying a child in his arms may have induced a false memory.
The thing about false memories is that as an outsider you can't tell if it is true or false or whether these factors brought it on. They have shown in studies it is possible to induce false memories, but I think that is all we can say, to limit the evidential value of the Smith sighting, that Martin Smith seeing Gerry leaving Portugal while being an arguido (thought by some as fleeing the country) carrying a child in his arms may have induced a false memory.
In my opinion false memory syndrome played an inordinate amount of influence in Madeleine's case.
Mr Smith's mistaken identification of Gerry which was subject to exactly the same influences which affected Mr McCluskey's mistaken identification of both Kate and Gerry has become the stuff of internet legend (one has, the other tends to be ignored).
And Mrs Smith's agreement with her husband's identification? Collective mistaken identity perhaps ?
And Mrs Smith's agreement with her husband's identification? Collective mistaken identity perhaps ?
Well as MS now, says it wasn't Gerry it must have been mistaken... He didn't even see his, face
It is called collective consciousness.
It is the principle on which electric fences around animal paddocks work.
They dont all have to "cop a jolt from the electrode" before they work out it's not a bright idea to lean against the fence.
Maybe Rob will start a thread on it?
?{)(**
And Mrs Smith's agreement with her husband's identification? Collective mistaken identity perhaps ?
In the version of events I know about ... Mr Smith appears to be on his own with his memories. Why else did Mrs Smith refuse to back him up officially by refusing to make a statement to that effect?
Why did everyone else disagree with his change of statement ... even the perspicacious Aoife? Certainly nowhere near a collective but I would say more a case of false memory syndrome.
As to why Mrs Smith didn't make another statement there could be several reasons and speculation that it was because she didn't agree with her husband is just that, speculation and as to why none of the rest of the holiday party agreed with him I have no idea but, as we are constantly told by supporters, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
It is not speculation that Mrs Smith refused to alter her statement ... nor is it speculation that no other witnesses in his party agreed with Mr Smith.He says initially the woman spoke Portuguese, the Police said they were Ukrainians so she could hardly become Kate McCann a a later date. The women may lookalike but unless Kate has the hidden talent of speaking Portuguese it wasn't her IMO.
The only other person who did agree with him being Mr McCluskey who watched the same news broadcast and arrived at exactly the same erroneous conclusion that Mr Smith did. Which in my opinion makes the alterations to their original statements by these witnesses if not notorious most certainly ... unreliable.
It is not speculation that Mrs Smith refused to alter her statement ... nor is it speculation that no other witnesses in his party agreed with Mr Smith.
The only other person who did agree with him being Mr McCluskey who watched the same news broadcast and arrived at exactly the same erroneous conclusion that Mr Smith did. Which in my opinion makes the alterations to their original statements by these witnesses if not notorious most certainly ... unreliable.
I can't help but wonder...
Have the Smith family been reinterviewed & given new statements to Operation Grange, like Kate & Gerry haven't.
We were told from the beginning that SY would not be giving a running commentary on their investigations.
Any suggestion that SY officers would sit pondering over anything at all which could be clarified or established by speaking again to witnesses - and then not do that - is nonsense IMO. It is only armchair detectives who don't have that ability.
AIMHO
I can't help but wonder...
Have the Smith family been reinterviewed & given new statements to Operation Grange, like Kate & Gerry haven't.
It is not speculation that Mrs Smith refused to alter her statement ... nor is it speculation that no other witnesses in his party agreed with Mr Smith.
The only other person who did agree with him being Mr McCluskey who watched the same news broadcast and arrived at exactly the same erroneous conclusion that Mr Smith did. Which in my opinion makes the alterations to their original statements by these witnesses if not notorious most certainly ... unreliable.
Yet armchair detective theories on how an abduction could have occurred are actively encouraged and supported,hmmm.
I can't help but wonder...You do not know as a fact that Kate and Gerry have not been interviewed..... I would say that the definitely would have Bern
Have the Smith family been reinterviewed & given new statements to Operation Grange, like Kate & Gerry haven't.
You do not know as a fact that Kate and Gerry have not been interviewed..... I would say that the definitely would have Bern
In the version of events I know about ... Mr Smith appears to be on his own with his memories. Why else did Mrs Smith refuse to back him up officially by refusing to make a statement to that effect?
Why did everyone else disagree with his change of statement ... even the perspicacious Aoife? Certainly nowhere near a collective but I would say more a case of false memory syndrome.
I would say that they haven't.
And Mr Rowleys comments, suggest they haven't.
In the version I know about Mrs Smith said and I paraphrase:
"I have nothing to add so p**s off Sooty".
Which is some distance from your version.
On which version I wonder will the sportsmen lay their purses?
None of the kids thought it was Gerry and quite a few people around that night stated that they never saw Murat...
It is hard from the statements to tell if they thought it wasn’t Gerry or if they just couldn’t clearly identify smithman.
He says initially the woman spoke Portuguese, the Police said they were Ukrainians so she could hardly become Kate McCann a a later date. The women may lookalike but unless Kate has the hidden talent of speaking Portuguese it wasn't her IMO.
I would say that they haven't.
And Mr Rowleys comments, suggest they haven't.
When was "innocent dad man" interviewed? I don't think there is the slightest doubt he was.
1) Frankly my dear, I don't....
& 2) Yes there is some doubt, as I personally, believe he is a creation of false memory.
Who by? Potential Crècheman and his wife? By the Met?
I believe Jane Tanner saw a man & child, but that she knew both, & they weren't where she said they were.
1) Frankly my dear, I don't....
& 2) Yes there is some doubt, as I personally, believe he is a creation of false memory.
I reserve the right to believe as I wish, & explain only if I feel like it.
I reserve the right to believe as I wish, & explain only if I feel like it.
You are required by this Forum to state that these are only your opinions, unless you can provide proof.
This Forum is not a bear garden, and it is never going to be.
According to Paul Moyes, Kate screamed...
'THE F***ING B******S HAVE TAKEN HER' Kate McCann’s tormented screams on night Madeleine went missing revealed by witnesses who told how Gerry sobbed on pals shoulder and frantic friends launched search
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/
According to Paul Moyes, Kate screamed...
'THE F***ING B******S HAVE TAKEN HER' Kate McCann’s tormented screams on night Madeleine went missing revealed by witnesses who told how Gerry sobbed on pals shoulder and frantic friends launched search
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/
...and what they get up to!
That's your proof, is it? You have just committed Libel. Silly Billy.How Eleanor? It seems to be a quote from a newspaper article.
How Eleanor? It seems to be a quote from a newspaper article.
The newspaper article was Libellous Repeated Libel is Libel.
Was the Sun taken to court, or retract and offer an apology ?
I have no idea. Do you? Probably not.
I have no idea. Do you? Probably not.
Quite right, so probably not libel, otherwise we would have heard and someone would able to provide a cite.
Being unable to clearly identify someone excludes nobody.
Open to interpretation, I suppose.
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
I take that as meaning that they didn't think it was him, otherwise he could have said that any of the others wasn't sure either way.
There's an audio recording of Peter, interviewed quite some time later. Not sure where to find that now.
But none of them said that it wasn't him. Not being sure isn't an exclusion.
Good grief - this is taking nitpicking to whole new level IMO. He rang all of his family to tell them what he now thought having seen Gerry carrying Sean on TV - and not one of them felt the same as he did - and told him so. IOW - they all disagreed with him. Full stop.Not quite all of them disagreed, his wife agreed.
IMO
5 mods and two posters onlineIt takes a lot of effort to get some people to comply with the rules!
No wonder this forum is now being referred to as the joke forum
Good grief - this is taking nitpicking to whole new level IMO. He rang all of his family to tell them what he now thought having seen Gerry carrying Sean on TV - and not one of them felt the same as he did - and told him so. IOW - they all disagreed with him. Full stop.
IMO
So you extrapolate not felt the same to disagree?
Open to interpretation, I suppose.
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
I take that as meaning that they didn't think it was him, otherwise he could have said that any of the others wasn't sure either way.
There's an audio recording of Peter, interviewed quite some time later. Not sure where to find that now.
But none of them said that it wasn't him. Not being sure isn't an exclusion.
So the "only other person" who agreed doesn't exclude the others, in your view?
5 mods and two posters online
No wonder this forum is now being referred to as the joke forum
I can clear that one up, they didn't.
The defamation laws changed in 2013 which sems to have escaped some peoples attention...
How many writs of defamation in respect of this case were actually heard by a judge and ruled as libelous by the courts?
As opposed to the massed ranks of the very rich press saying let's settle out of court ?
I can't recall any in the UK that involved a trial.
Only a pretendy one with a photo-shoot on the steps of the High Court
Was that the sartorial elegance jobby?
I think so, but I can't remember a full-blown trial. If there had been one, it would have been dissected to death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/3209361/Tapas-Seven-accept-damages-in-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
Murat, Michaela and Malinka also got a pay-out from the UK media, but I don't remember a trial, either. Just a pic in front of a court house.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/17/medialaw.pressandpublishing
They were both settled out of court.
Only a pretendy one with a photo-shoot on the steps of the High CourtThat would send the right message to some.
That would send the right message to some.
Which means both side relinquish the right to get the case tried in law.
Indeed.
Furthermore in the event something the plaintiff relied upon was hooky the defendant has redress to have his ackers returned.
See Lance Armstrong v The Sunday Times.
Probably only if it had gone to trial?
There were a few out of court settlements, weren't there? Wasn't Amaral given the chance to take that option also? He didn't do it though.He was a tough nut.
Probably only if it had gone to trial?
He was a tough nut.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00659/news-graphics-2008-_659609a.jpg)
What all of this has to do with false memory syndrome I have no idea, however in the spirit of if you can't beat 'em ...
Snip
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
And rightly so. The Express published some truly awful articles with little or no foundation.
In my opinion false memory syndrome played an inordinate amount of influence in Madeleine's case.
Mr Smith's mistaken identification of Gerry which was subject to exactly the same influences which affected Mr McCluskey's mistaken identification of both Kate and Gerry has become the stuff of internet legend (one has, the other tends to be ignored).
As long as the man seen by the Smiths remains unidentified stating that Mr Smith was mistaken is an opinion, isn't it?I have a recollection of the PJ determining Mr Smith was mistaken in thinking Smithman was Gerry. If that is true I'd say that is a "fact" and no longer Brietta's opinion. If you disagree that is your opinion.
I have a recollection of the PJ determining Mr Smith was mistaken in thinking Smithman was Gerry. If that is true I'd say that is a "fact" and no longer Brietta's opinion. If you disagree that is your opinion.
Then a cite to the recollection would resolve it.If only it was as easy as that.
If only it was as easy as that.
Not sure what you're thinking of.
There's this from Pedro do Carmo:
Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?
Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
in Expresso, May 2, 2017
https://joana-morais.blogspot.ch/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
And the extract from an interview with him on Panorama:
That's not directly in reference to Martin Smith, clearly, but I can't think of any scenario in which they could still believe that MS was correct, but in which Gerry wouldn't be a suspect.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00659/news-graphics-2008-_659609a.jpg)
What all of this has to do with false memory syndrome I have no idea, however in the spirit of if you can't beat 'em ...
Snip
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
Bearing in mind how CFAs work it could be the press pitched the offer in exactly the right place.
As long as the man seen by the Smiths remains unidentified stating that Mr Smith was mistaken is an opinion, isn't it?
Then a cite to the recollection would resolve it.
Nice round number eh?
Nothing is certain in law, so, having been caught out, newspaper was going to go for cheapest , low risk option.
Probably recouped the costs in increased circulation
A nice round one that makes saying "nah it's not enough we'll see you in court for more" very flaky on the financial front wrt who becomes liable for the plaintiffs costs beyond the point of refusal then going to court only to be awarded less than the offer that was turned down.
Nothing is certain in law, so, having been caught out, newspaper was going to go for cheapest , low risk option.
Probably recouped the costs in increased circulation
I presume you missed the part of the Leveson inquiry which dealt with the media abuse suffered by Kate and Gerry McCann.
The Express Group amongst many others abused the power of the press to libel and defame ... in my opinion they knew they hadn't a leg to stand on as English Law is quite clear on that issue ... therefore you are correct they chose the path of least resistance because the alternative could have been disastrous for them.
The Real McCann Scandall
23 OCTOBER 2008
Brian Cathcart details how the British press set out to systematically destroy the parents of Madeleine
Snip
Error on this scale, involving hundreds of "completely untrue" news reports, published on front pages month after month in the teeth of desperate denials, can only be systemic. Judging by what appeared in print, it involved a reckless neglect of ethical standards, a persistent failure to apply even the most basic journalistic rigour, and plenty of plain cruelty.
No explanation has emerged besides the obvious one: that this was all done to sell newspapers. Seeing the scale of public interest, it looks as though editors were ready to publish stories, and reporters were ready to write them, even when they had no merit whatsoever.
https://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2008/10/madeleine-mccann-daily-british
I liked the bit in the link where it says...
Brian Cathcart is a director of Hacked Off...
Brian Cathcart is also an expert on journalism and ethics which makes it worthwhile to give his opinion some consideration, at least I would have thought so.
The Policia Judiciaria certainly thought Mr Smith's addition to his statement was on a par with Mr McKluskey's addition to his after investigating both and finding the evidence proved the contrary.
Who do you know capable of the phenomenon of bi-location else why would you bring the PJ assessment into question?
I shouldn't have to point this out again but here goes......there is not one independent witness who puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. Further if seven witnesses ( his friends ) gave Gerry an alibi for that time then it would have been very difficult for the PJ to prove otherwise.
I shouldn't have to point this out again but here goes......there is not one independent witness who puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. Further if seven witnesses ( his friends ) gave Gerry an alibi for that time then it would have been very difficult for the PJ to prove otherwise.Arlindo does he talks of 3 couples there and we know the only couple not there are Jane and Russell.
I shouldn't have to point this out again but here goes......there is not one independent witness who puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. Further if seven witnesses ( his friends ) gave Gerry an alibi for that time then it would have been very difficult for the PJ to prove otherwise.
In your opinion is that just something else to add to the list of things the Policia Judiciaria got wrong in Madeleine's case?
I think they had no choice.
You mean they followed the evidence then, and wrote their final report accordingly. Bearing in mind they did not have to rely on 'false memory', dreams or pejorative press leaks, having to hand the information which it is reported they had to digitise and coordinate from the dishevelment they inherited.
In your opinion is that just something else to add to the list of things the Policia Judiciaria got wrong in Madeleine's case?
Let's start from a new premise.Logic. "Everything the PJ did was blx but they only did it for fourteen months +/_ before filing the case for want of evidence." Isn't going to help the case status. IMO on what you wrote "blx".
Everything the PJ did was blx but they only did it for fourteen months +/_ before filing the case for want of evidence.
Everything that OG has done is "polished mahogany and naval brass" , has been for 7 years +/- and continuing for the immediate future even.
Case status............remains unsolved. Or to be precise no one has been charged with any offence wrt the childs disappearance.
Why should that be?
I shouldn't have to point this out again but here goes......there is not one independent witness who puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. Further if seven witnesses ( his friends ) gave Gerry an alibi for that time then it would have been very difficult for the PJ to prove otherwise.
IMO the chances of seven normal people - of even average intelligence, agreeing to lie to the police and give an alibi to someone who had told them their child was dead and they needed to dispose of the body are NIL imo. They would all have to have been out of their minds to even consider it IMO. This is a dead child they were supposedly talking about - not the demise of a pet goldfish.
Common sense please.
AIMHO
I don't believe some of the friends actively gave Gerry an alibi, some simply didn't appear to remember who went when.
Gerry had only been missing for a few minutes longer than normal - and they all noticed and wondered what was keeping him (he was talking to Jez). The idea that he could have disappeared again so shortly after his return for long enough to dispose of the dead body of a child and no-one noticed his prolonged absence is a non-starter IMO.
DW believed both Gerry and Matt weren't at the table when she arrived at 9. Gerry's 9.05pm check makes no sense if Matt has just listened at the window ( remember Gerry only intended to listen at the bedroom door). Wilkins gave a timeframe for his chat between 8.45 and 9.15. Matt's visit to 5a at 9.30 is all over the place.That is not what Dianne really says but it is how you understand it. I thought it meant "by the time she got around to seeing who was there Matt and Gerry appear to have left the table". She is not describing the very instant she arrives at the table. Her memory for these matters is rather suspect as it was only during the 3rd interview that she recalls Matt passing them up by the apartments and she blames her memory for that lapse.
9pm Gerry checks on children. Everything is fine. Chats to Wilkins on the way back to the tapas.
9.30pm. Gerry checks again, finds Madeleine missing from her bed.
IMO
That is not what Dianne really says but it is how you understand it. I thought it meant "by the time she got around to seeing who was there Matt and Gerry appear to have left the table". She is not describing the very instant she arrives at the table. Her memory for these matters is rather suspect as it was only during the 3rd interview that she recalls Matt passing them up by the apartments and she blames her memory for that lapse.
According to the McCann narrative, Gerry did not leave the table until after Matt had returned and they had had a conversation.
According to the McCann narrative, Gerry did not leave the table until after Matt had returned and they had had a conversation.They are people, Gerry may have stood up and moved about when Matt returned They were not glued to the table. There isn't some frame by frame analysis of what we could see like a series of CCTV images.
They are people, Gerry may have stood up and moved about when Matt returned They were not clued to the table. There isn't some frame by frame analysis of what we could see like a series of CCTV images.
In which case Gerry might have been anywhere, not even in the Tapas areaAnywhere within a minute or two walking distance (so not exactly "anywhere"). Matt talks to Gerry on his return so he was somewhere reasonably close.
It certainly blows the false memory syndrome on the head. There was NO checking every 30 minutes at all, so nothing to have a false memory at all if there was a schedule of sorts. There was no physical checks-apart from that one night MBM disappeared. Is this also the only night the twins slept right through? Strange! What a night for changes to routines?your view is so different I wonder if we are talking about the same case!
your view is so different I wonder if we are talking about the same case!
That is not what Dianne really says but it is how you understand it. I thought it meant "by the time she got around to seeing who was there Matt and Gerry appear to have left the table". She is not describing the very instant she arrives at the table. Her memory for these matters is rather suspect as it was only during the 3rd interview that she recalls Matt passing them up by the apartments and she blames her memory for that lapse.
It certainly blows the false memory syndrome on the head. There was NO checking every 30 minutes at all, so nothing to have a false memory at all if there was a schedule of sorts. There was no physical checks-apart from that one night MBM disappeared. Is this also the only night the twins slept right through? Strange! What a night for changes to routines?ORLY?
I suspect we are indeed. I am saying that it has nothing to do with false memory syndrome all the changes to the stories. They claimed the checks were every 30 mins. SO lets do just that. time starts 8.pm...
1st check begins at 8.30 by whom
2nd check begins at 9.00 by whom
3rd check begins at 9.30 by whom
4th check begins at 10.00 by whom
you see no need to guess a time they all know who did what check.
However, if there was no planned schedule it would look like it was made up- everyone coming and going,no one can keep a track. Therefore there was no 30min check structure IMHO.
also I find it a bit weird that people wondered what was keeping Gerry? how long was he actually gone to be missed?
Oh, the first check was at 8.30, was it?
The first people to arrive were Kate and Gerry and they arrived at 8.30 - 8.35
Do try and get your facts right, Mistaken
... and how's about reading the statements instead of relying on false words friom members of other forums (IMO). If you had bothered to read the statements, you would know who had checked ... and at what times.
Everyone else on the forum know, cos they have taken the trouble to read the statements.
Everyone has read the statements and knows that neither Wilkins or Gerry mentions moving back to the kerb to avoid a car yet you insist that's what happened. So have we missed it or is it just wishful thinking on your part ?Have you misposted, or something? Have flicked thru all the pages of this thread and can find no mention of Jez and Gerry moving back to the kerb.
Everyone has read the statements and knows that neither Wilkins or Gerry mentions moving back to the kerb to avoid a car yet you insist that's what happened. So have we missed it or is it just wishful thinking on your part ?