Will anyone launch a legal challenge to what Miss O'Doherty has written ?
Anyone interested in what the relatives and children of Mr. Smith had to say?
For the argument to come;
It's a fact that Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.
It's a fact that the media reported that he later retracted that statement.
It now seems that the media were wrong. Mr Smith didn't retract his statement.
Mr Smith's claim was his opinion. Anyone who disagrees with him is also expressing an opinion.
(https://i.imgur.com/Yvk2rBV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iHqWnmT.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/11m5ll5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uk6zWHl.jpg)
It doesn't really matter if MS hasn't changed his mind about the sighting possibly being Gerry. Smithman remains formally unidentified and therefore indicates that there is a potential abductor still at large. However, I don't think SY have been treating the sighting as a critical line of inquiry.
DCI Redwood Crimewatch Oct 2013
24 20
"This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward."
Is this all she has come up with..... Of no importance whatsoever
Thank you for that - an interesting read.
Response seems muted today. Is there a footie match ?
Awaiting the latest songsheet from The Brill Building I shouldn't wonder ?{)(**
As for footy The Toffees play as we speak.
Is this all she has come up with..... Of no importance whatsoever
Pity she didn't show a response from Bilton
We may have just had it.
Yet, as was pointed out a long time ago, MS never appeared to ask for a correction from the Sunday Times who published the same retraction of opinion as the BBC.
Could be the the Smith family wish to keep their heads down and ignore the whole sorry saga as much as possible.
Yet, as was pointed out a long time ago, MS never appeared to ask for a correction from the Sunday Times who published the same retraction of opinion as the BBC.
The pertinent point being 'a long time ago'. As of this morning we know that MS did ask the BBC for a retraction and they obliged.
I do wonder if as well as asking MS and his wife to help in the construction of efits Oakley interviewed them as well. Perhaps that is the reason the the PI's report was withheld ?
Yet, as was pointed out a long time ago, MS never appeared to ask for a correction from the Sunday Times who published the same retraction of opinion as the BBC.
The pertinent point being 'a long time ago'. As of this morning we know that MS did ask the BBC for a retraction and they obliged.Do we have a written text transcript version of the request for a retraction and the transcript text of the retraction?
I do wonder if as well as asking MS and his wife to help in the construction of efits Oakley interviewed them as well. Perhaps that is the reason the the PI's report was withheld ?
According to the article, it was actually the journalist who asked why the BBC had refused to correct the programme content, based on what MS had told her. The BBC obliged the journalist, not Martin Smith.
It is not my opinion that the Oakley report was withheld because of the Smiths.
Martin Smith contacted Panorama after the programme was broadcast and complained that he had been misrepresented. The BBC refused. Perhaps the Times did too. Thankfully the BBC has no corrected their mistake. It does make you wonder though where Bilton got the information from and why he didn't verify that information instead of attempting to interview some poor bewildered Portuguese citizen.
Of course. That explains why they spoke to Gemma O'Doherty recently - according to what she wrote; they also apparently confirmed that Mary Smith did address Smithman in passing. No direct quotes, though.
Do you have an alternative cite for MS contacting Panorama prior to Gemma O'Doherty interview?
Do you think that the BBC would have issued a retraction if MS had retracted his identification?
Martin Smith contacted Panorama after the programme was broadcast and complained that he had been misrepresented. The BBC refused. Perhaps the Times did too. Thankfully the BBC has no corrected their mistake. It does make you wonder though where Bilton got the information from and why he didn't verify that information instead of attempting to interview some poor bewildered Portuguese citizen.What! did he try and interview Goncalo?
I think the BBC would be more likely to issue a retraction following a formal complaint by MS than via an email from a journalist who had spoken to him. What do you think?
No doubt she asked nicely, and being fellow Irish, they were happy to oblige ?{)(**Since you have "no doubt" I must presume that is an opinion, but I'm not sure it is all that PC.
I really don't care. What does interest me is that the retraction was made.
I really don't care. What does interest me is that the retraction was made.
And the retraction is absolutely irrelevant as MS stated in his original deposition to the PJ that he would be unable to recognise the man he saw again. If an innocent father was to come forward, the Smith family would be unable to confirm that he was definitely the man they saw.Who said that Misty? No one person should be allowed to say that for a group. IMO there is a problem here.
Who said that Misty? No one person should be allowed to say that for a group. IMO there is a problem here.
And the retraction is absolutely irrelevant as MS stated in his original deposition to the PJ that he would be unable to recognise the man he saw again. If an innocent father was to come forward, the Smith family would be unable to confirm that he was definitely the man they saw.
You have no way of knowing that.
In answer to the OP... No we have not been lied to by the BBC
Group collaboration does not seem to be an issue in certain quarters when it comes to the evidence of the Smith family IMO. Certainly the description of Smithman's clothing was a collective effort.And how do you feel about it? I feel very uncomfortable about it myself, having being raised by a very dictatorial father myself.
And how do you feel about it? I feel very uncomfortable about it myself, having being raised by a very dictatorial father myself.
And the retraction is absolutely irrelevant as MS stated in his original deposition to the PJ that he would be unable to recognise the man he saw again. If an innocent father was to come forward, the Smith family would be unable to confirm that he was definitely the man they saw.
MS said because of the way Gerry carried Sean from the plane he was 60 to 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry. We were told he had retracted that identification. That has now shown to be untrue.
MS said because of the way Gerry carried Sean from the plane he was 60 to 80% sure the man he saw was Gerry. We were told he had retracted that identification. That has now shown to be untrue.
Are you suggesting that Mr Smith is a dictatorial father?No I'm asking whether anyone else sees it like that. They all gave statements but what Mr Smith thinks dominates the headlines. Why doesn't Emma go and interview the rest of them?
Really? The Sunday Express had seen Oakley International report. Gemma O'Doherty hasn't. Where did the BBC obtain their original information from when making Panorama?
No I'm asking whether anyone else sees it like that. They all gave statements but what Mr Smith thinks dominates the headlines. Why doesn't Emma go and interview the rest of them?
No I'm asking whether anyone else sees it like that. They all gave statements but what Mr Smith thinks dominates the headlines. Why doesn't Emma go and interview the rest of them?
It’s a good question. Someone fed them duff info.
Really? The Sunday Express had seen Oakley International report. Gemma O'Doherty hasn't. Where did the BBC obtain their original information from when making Panorama?
Are you talking now. If the person came forward now, after the 11 years. I hadn't seen a person for 40 years and he still recognised me, but I wouldn't have recognised him. So I would not make predictions about that.
They would need a few photos showing the man's appearance nearly 11 years ago - plus pictures of the child. too.
Are you talking now. If the person came forward now, after the 11 years. I hadn't seen a person for 40 years and he still recognised me, but I wouldn't have recognised him. So I would not make predictions about that.
Would he still have recognised you if his only previous meeting with you had been a fleeting glance in the dark 11 years ago?With what we discussed about the generation of false memories, you might "remember" if the person had featured in the media.
With what we discussed about the generation of false memories, you might "remember" if the person had featured in the media.
Or someone fed Gemma duff info......and she acted upon it.
You mean went to the source and asked the question?
You mean went to the source and asked the question?We do not have a quote from Martin Smith.... Just hearsay from GO.. I would like to know exactly what he said...
We do not have a quote from Martin Smith.... Just hearsay from GO.. I would lime to know exactly what he said...
A bit of straw clutching going on?
Straw clutching by sceptics who somehow see this as important... Yes I agree
I wonder who started the rumour that Martin Smith had changed his mind about who he saw that night and what they were trying to achieve?
I wonder who started the rumour that Martin Smith had changed his mind about who he saw that night and what they were trying to achieve?
Well is that all she has to come up with?
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he saw, going by the way HE CARRIED HIS CHILD OFF THE PLANE!! Oh come on, for gods sake that is ridiculous.
So he says he never changed his mind, ok, so the papers got it wrong, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it was Gerry he saw by identifying him by his looks it was by the way he carried his child off the plane, which is the way thousands of people carry their child.
So sorry, it means absolutely nothing.
Well is that all she has to come up with?
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he saw, going by the way HE CARRIED HIS CHILD OFF THE PLANE!! Oh come on, for gods sake that is ridiculous.
So he says he never changed his mind, ok, so the papers got it wrong, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it was Gerry he saw by identifying him by his looks it was by the way he carried his child off the plane, which is the way thousands of people carry their child.
So sorry, it means absolutely nothing.
Well is that all she has to come up with?
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he saw, going by the way HE CARRIED HIS CHILD OFF THE PLANE!! Oh come on, for gods sake that is ridiculous.
So he says he never changed his mind, ok, so the papers got it wrong, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it was Gerry he saw by identifying him by his looks it was by the way he carried his child off the plane, which is the way thousands of people carry their child.
So sorry, it means absolutely nothing.
Thousands of others may well do,but its likely GM was the only one out of those thousands who was in Luz at the time,so it may mean something.
not according to the portuguese and SY investigation. Smiths identification seems extremely weak imo
It was good enough for Redwood to change the timeline.Smithman is known IMO,there is nothing on the MET site pertaining to any appeals for info.
Thousands of others may well do,but its likely GM was the only one out of those thousands who was in Luz at the time,so it may mean something.
It is very Unlikely that Gerry was the only one in PdL at the time. How else does one carry a sleeping child?
It is very Unlikely that Gerry was the only one in PdL at the time. How else does one carry a sleeping child?
Mr Smith isn't quoted as saying he was 60/80% sure it was any one of the thousands of others is he?
He just didn't see Smithman's face. So who was it?
He just didn't see Smithman's face. So who was it?
I wasn't there,so I don't try to second guess.
Good for you. Many do just that.
Good for you. Many do just that.
As dave & I have pointed out McCanns neither persons of interest or suspects.
As has been discussed in previous threads, there are witnesses who claim the alarm was raised before 10pm.
Gerry suggested splitting up during the confusion of the first searches.
He searched alone, rather than calling the police & informing them immediately of his daughters abduction.
Investigators would be well aware of all of this, so, my question is, how might the Met & PJ have been able to reach a position of certainty with regards to this sighting not being Gerry?
I wasn't there,so I don't try to second guess,as far as I am concerned I've read an article where its quoted that Mr Smith is/was 60%/80% certain of who he saw.
All that planning gone to waste ! Making sure by hook or by crook that you are put on the same street at the same time as the abductor and Redwood goes and finds the 'abductor' !
As dave & I have pointed out McCanns neither persons of interest or suspects.
As has been discussed in previous threads, there are witnesses who claim the alarm was raised before 10pm.
Gerry suggested splitting up during the confusion of the first searches.
He searched alone, rather than calling the police & informing them immediately of his daughters abduction.
Investigators would be well aware of all of this, so, my question is, how might the Met & PJ have been able to reach a position of certainty with regards to this sighting not being Gerry?
If Gerry was going to hide Madeleine's body, he didn't exactly rush to do it, he was seen searching around the pool area by one of the waiters, so how could he have been there around by the pool if he was Smithman? By the time the waiter had left the Tapas bar, there were groups of people out searching for Madeleine.
If the story supposed to have been Jane seeing the abductor when Gerry was in the street, how did she know Gerry was going to meet Jeremy? Also why would Gerry say he didn't see Jane?
If the story supposed to have been Jane seeing the abductor when Gerry was in the street, how did she know Gerry was going to meet Jeremy? Also why would Gerry say he didn't see Jane?
If he said he had seen Jane and it was later proved that she wasn't there, he would be shown to have lied.
By saying that he didn't see her, he is not saying she wasn't there, just that he didn't see her, so he is covering his options.
She didn't, Gerry told her later.
If someone overlooking the chat had claimed later that the had not seen Jane walk by how would that have made Gerry look if he had said that he had seen her ? Deniability....Gerry's watchword.
So are you saying that Gerry and Jane concocted a story about an abductor? Why? Jane hardly knew Gerry.
So are you saying that Gerry and Jane concocted a story about an abductor? Why? Jane hardly knew Gerry.
Perhaps the waiter was mistaken & had confused one of the other group members for Gerry. Maybe that.
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
She certainly seems to be the most malleable of the group. Look how Gerry undermined her in Madeleine Was Here.
All this before 10pm, excellent, that fits nicely with my theory, thank you very much.
If you read the statement properly, you will see the waiter wasn't certain of the time. You need to read the other waiters statement about ordering dinner.
Really, I think you are clutching at straws. Jane didn't appear stupid to me and in my opinion I can't see her lying to the police about seeing a man carrying a child. Jane was in her apartment when the alert was raised, she only learned about Madeleine being missing from another one of the friends, she hadn't seen Gerry, so how was she menat to have got together with him to concoct that story?
All this before 10pm, excellent, that fits nicely with my theory, thank you very much.
Really, I think you are clutching at straws. Jane didn't appear stupid to me and in my opinion I can't see her lying to the police about seeing a man carrying a child. Jane was in her apartment when the alert was raised, she only learned about Madeleine being missing from another one of the friends, she hadn't seen Gerry, so how was she menat to have got together with him to concoct that story?
If you read the statement properly, you will see the waiter wasn't certain of the time. You need to read the other waiters statement about ordering dinner.
"I do not remember with certainty."
Are you saying that you missed this? Or are you deliberately trying to mislead?
So smith thinks the man he saw may have been gerry but hes not sure
The waiter who served Russell his steak said it was as early as 9:50pm. This case has never been difficult to connect all the pieces together. The timeline is key because there is so much BS.
I didn't say she was stupid just easily frightened ( note her overreaction to the van surveillance). I don't think it would have been too difficult to convince her to 'remember' seeing Gerry and Wilkins, perhaps he sold it to her that if he and Kate went down the whole group would be implicated. IMO.
As to Jane being in the apartment perhaps it was one of those 'translation' errors ?
Waiter -
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
So he is saying the guest returned about quarter to 10, he managed to eat most of his dinner so add another five minutes or so that's about 10 to 10 it could easily have been about 5 to 10 or even 10 when Kate came back.
Gerry then went to the apartment to search it again, then he went outside to test the blind, how long would that take? Then he was seen searching around the pool area, he couldn't possibly have been the person the Smith family saw at 10 o'clock.
Jane had already mentioned she saw the man carrying the child before she saw Gerry again. Jeremy would say that he saw Gerry about that time and chatted to him. So why did Gerry have to get together with Jane to say she saw him chatting with Gerry?
How do we know she being entirely accurate?
I didn't say she was stupid just easily frightened ( note her overreaction to the van surveillance). I don't think it would have been too difficult to convince her to 'remember' seeing Gerry and Wilkins, perhaps he sold it to her that if he and Kate went down the whole group would be implicated. IMO.
As to Jane being in the apartment perhaps it was one of those 'translation' errors ?
How do we know anyone is being entirely accurate? and by that I mean the Smith family.
Why has it always have to be the McCann's and their friends who are not being accurate?
Can I ask you Faithlilly what would the whole group would be implicated for what?
How do we know anyone is being entirely accurate? and by that I mean the Smith family.
Why has it always have to be the McCann's and their friends who are not being accurate?
I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!
Not to me.
I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!
I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!
Me too. I would expect someone to say fairly sure or very sure, not to try and give it some sort of score.
Actually, 60% to 80% isn't very sure at all. Certainly not in a Court of Law. I doubt that sort of percentage would even be considered.
Agreed but even if giving a percentage score, surely someone would say about sixty per cent or about eighty percent depending on their certainty. It's just such a strange way of indicating their strength of belief. Imo.
If Madeleine had met her death through some kind of accident while alone the police would look far differently on all the children being left alone than if it was claimed she was abducted. That could definitely cause pressures within the group, pressures that Gerry may have exploited IMO.
Do we care, it is an indication of certainty.
Are you speaking on behalf of the forum?
It is a very wide margin of certainty.
Big difference in sixty percent and eighty percent.
I find it an unusual way of indicating how sure someone is of their belief, whether you care or not!
Do we care, it is an indication of certainty.
60 % is not much more than 50/50...80% is quite sure....
his idea of 60 to 80 % has no real benchmark.....
he simply isnt sure whether the man he saw is Gerry or not
Are you speaking on behalf of the forum?
It is a very wide margin of certainty.
Big difference in sixty percent and eighty percent.
I find it an unusual way of indicating how sure someone is of their belief, whether you care or not!
....but was more sure than not.
Do we care, it is an indication of certainty.
But certainly on the certain side when measured on the Certainometer. 8(>((
was he....is he fairly sure the man he saw was gerry mccann...based simply on the way he was holding the child hes fairly sure it was Gerry Mccann.....I dont think he would make a very good witness
Agreed but I can't imagine he would ever be used as a credible witness.
I would have said an indication of uncertainty.
It could be someone's Liberty at stake here.
It’s the same thing.
This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?
Agreed but I can't imagine he would ever be used as a credible witness.
was he....is he fairly sure the man he saw was gerry mccann...based simply on the way he was holding the child hes fairly sure it was Gerry Mccann.....I dont think he would make a very good witness
This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?
This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?
Someone who is 60% to 80% sure of a person whose face he didn't see Not very sure, is it.
Have you forgotten Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
Someone who is 60% to 80% sure of a person whose face he didn't see Not very sure, is it.
Why do you keep claiming he didn't see his face?
That's a myth.
He recalled the man had neither glasses nor beard, ergo, he saw his face.
Most of the "quibbling" about this identification is taking place on another forum where those sceptics who adhere to the theory that Madeleine met with her fate on the previous Sunday/ Monday, are really not best pleased with this article.
Not at all!
Why do you keep claiming he didn't see his face?
That's a myth.
He recalled the man had neither glasses nor beard, ergo, he saw his face.
I require a Cite for this.
Their opinion is the same as on here,it means diddly squat.
Are you new to this case?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
An interesting statement is that. If you read on a bit. Not only did Mr. Smith not notice much at all, he also stated that he wouldn't be able to recognise him by photo or in person.
Thanks for that. That's what I call a Cite.
An interesting statement is that. If you read on a bit. Not only did Mr. Smith not notice much at all, he also stated that he wouldn't be able to recognise him by photo or in person.
Thanks for that. That's what I call a Cite.
So will you be going back & deleting your demonstrably false claim?
I won't hold my breath.
The point in question was, did he see the mans face?
Evidently, he did.
just seeing a small part of the side of the face would show if glasses or a beard was present
The side of his face is still his face. That's why it's got the word face in it.
So, he saw his face.
no he saw the side of his face...thats why its got the word side in....it seems he didnt see his face
Are you new to this case?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Martin Smith -
— 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. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
So, the man didn't look like a tourist and held the child in an uncomfortable position, well Gerry was a tourist and would be used to carrying his children and so they wouldn't have looked uncomfortable when he was carrying them.
Waiter -
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
So he is saying the guest returned about quarter to 10, he managed to eat most of his dinner so add another five minutes or so that's about 10 to 10 it could easily have been about 5 to 10 or even 10 when Kate came back.
Gerry then went to the apartment to search it again, then he went outside to test the blind, how long would that take? Then he was seen searching around the pool area, he couldn't possibly have been the person the Smith family saw at 10 o'clock.
I don't believe he meant it was the child that looked uncomfortable, I doubt the child knew much of the situation at all.
The witness was asked to keep Russell's meal warm[/b]."
"Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
I took it to mean he was carrying the child in an uncomfortable way as if he was used to carrying children, my point was Gerry was used to carrying his children so he wouldn't look as if he was carrying them in an uncomfortable way.
I took it to mean he was carrying the child in an uncomfortable way as if he was used to carrying children, my point was Gerry was used to carrying his children so he wouldn't look as if he was carrying them in an uncomfortable way.IMO Sean looks perfectly comfortable coming off the plane.
They all said they had left their children alone. Being abducted and maybe murdered, is that not worse than having an accident? Who in their right mind would go along with a story of abduction if there wasn't one? Madeleine could have been found and then what?
Oh I think they knew she wouldn't be found Misty.
Accident while alone the blame sits squarely with her parents. Abduction the blame shifts to the abductor.
Really?
So if abduction is proven all blame will be lifted from the McCanns in your opinion?
That's quite different from the thinking of some sceptics.
I think it was Lace whose post you are replying too.
Indeed, sorry you all tend to merge into one.I thought he was a "heart surgeon".
Remember decisions were being made at breakneck speed that night. I'm sure Gerry or his wife never imagined that the public wouldn't believe them......after all they were doctors.
Really?
So if abduction is proven all blame will be lifted from the McCanns in your opinion?
That's quite different from the thinking of some sceptics.
I think it was Lace whose post you are replying too.
Indeed, sorry you all tend to merge into one.
Remember decisions were being made at breakneck speed that night. I'm sure Gerry or his wife never imagined that the public wouldn't believe them......after all they were doctors.
Following on from the opening post ...
We really do require some verifiable facts and appropriate cites. Without back up, I'm afraid GO'D's opinion just doesn't cut the mustard.
Where is the proof we were "lied to by the BBC"? Where can I have sight of the BBC "apology"? Because in my opinion if there ain't one capable of being subject to a cite, claims that we have been lied to are libellous.
Don't investigative journalists carry recording facilities around with them? I can assure you that any resemblance between my mobile and an iphone would only be in my dreams ... but it does audio and video recordings and it does both quite well.
Any reason why we can't hear the one the investigative journalist made of Mr Smith? Sure now if Mr Smith doesn't mind someone putting words into his mouth he would hardly object to broadcast to the world in person, so to speak.
Until Ms O'Doherty can prove her allegations ... all they remain are unsubstantiated allegations and as such are not worth the bandwith which has been wasted on them.
I don't believe he meant it was the child that looked uncomfortable, I doubt the child knew much of the situation at all.How about checking the twice translated statement for what it actually says.
Following on from the opening post ...
We really do require some verifiable facts and appropriate cites. Without back up, I'm afraid GO'D's opinion just doesn't cut the mustard.
Where is the proof we were "lied to by the BBC"? Where can I have sight of the BBC "apology"? Because in my opinion if there ain't one capable of being subject to a cite, claims that we have been lied to are libellous.
Don't investigative journalists carry recording facilities around with them? I can assure you that any resemblance between my mobile and an iphone would only be in my dreams ... but it does audio and video recordings and it does both quite well.
Any reason why we can't hear the one the investigative journalist made of Mr Smith? Sure now if Mr Smith doesn't mind someone putting words into his mouth he would hardly object to broadcast to the world in person, so to speak.
Until Ms O'Doherty can prove her allegations ... all they remain are unsubstantiated allegations and as such are not worth the bandwith which has been wasted on them.
Bit difficult to do in a printed magazine.
Indeed, sorry you all tend to merge into one.
Remember decisions were being made at breakneck speed that night. I'm sure Gerry or his wife never imagined that the public wouldn't believe them......after all they were doctors.
Following on from the opening post ...
We really do require some verifiable facts and appropriate cites. Without back up, I'm afraid GO'D's opinion just doesn't cut the mustard.
Where is the proof we were "lied to by the BBC"? Where can I have sight of the BBC "apology"? Because in my opinion if there ain't one capable of being subject to a cite, claims that we have been lied to are libellous.
Don't investigative journalists carry recording facilities around with them? I can assure you that any resemblance between my mobile and an iphone would only be in my dreams ... but it does audio and video recordings and it does both quite well.
Any reason why we can't hear the one the investigative journalist made of Mr Smith? Sure now if Mr Smith doesn't mind someone putting words into his mouth he would hardly object to broadcast to the world in person, so to speak.
Until Ms O'Doherty can prove her allegations ... all they remain are unsubstantiated allegations and as such are not worth the bandwith which has been wasted on them.
I think you'll find she's called O'Doherty and you believe what you chose Brietta but please allow other members to do the same.
Doesn't Ms O'Donnell use social media? Doesn't she make You tube videos? There you are then ... and here was me thinking she was an adept.
Where is the proof to substantiate her allegations? No-one else's word is apparently good enough to get a get out of jail card ... so why should hers be?
Apart from the fact her opinion is pejorative towards hate figures for some. Pathetic on both counts!
Doesn't Ms O'Doherty use social media? Doesn't she make You tube videos? There you are then ... and here was me thinking she was an adept.
Where is the proof to substantiate her allegations? No-one else's word is apparently good enough to get a get out of jail card ... so why should hers be?
Apart from the fact her opinion is pejorative towards hate figures for some. Pathetic on both counts!
Thank you for that. Just goes to show she's hardly a household name though.
No one is allowed to post unsubstantiated allegations on this forum. Where is the proof of Ms OD's assertions?
You forgot IMO.No matter how many retractions he makes I'd only believe him if he went to the PJ the next day not several weeks later.
As to the retraction I'm sure if MS didn't retract his retraction he'll make sure we know that he didn't retract his retraction as he did with his original retration.
Are you saying the she's lying ? Now that is against forum rules.The title of the thread accuses the BBC of lying. Pot - kettle situation here.
You forgot IMO.
As to the retraction I'm sure if MS didn't retract his retraction he'll make sure we know that he didn't retract his retraction as he did with his original retration.
In the part of his statement that I quoted the waiter said that Russell returned to the table at 21.45, so Russell would have eaten most of his dinner before Kate give the alert so when he is saying the table was empty that would mean Dianne Webster would have left the table and she stayed there for at least 5 minutes or so I think.
Are you saying the she's lying ? Now that is against forum rules.
No ... I forgot nothing.
I want to see proof of Ms OD's assertions. She will have them or she would not have published without ... in my opinion ... no professional worth the name would.
Good question, but was there any suggestion by the Smith's they were looking at a man carrying a dead child?
The title of the thread accuses the BBC of lying. Pot - kettle situation here.
Faithlilly is not asking "were we lied to by the BBC?" but "why were we lie to by the BBC?"
No ... I forgot nothing.
I want to see proof of Ms OD's assertions. She will have them or she would not have published without ... in my opinion ... no professional worth the name would.
Good question, but was there any suggestion by the Smith's they were looking at a man carrying a dead child?
Following on from the opening post ...
We really do require some verifiable facts and appropriate cites. Without back up, I'm afraid GO'D's opinion just doesn't cut the mustard.
Where is the proof we were "lied to by the BBC"? Where can I have sight of the BBC "apology"? Because in my opinion if there ain't one capable of being subject to a cite, claims that we have been lied to are libellous.
Don't investigative journalists carry recording facilities around with them? I can assure you that any resemblance between my mobile and an iphone would only be in my dreams ... but it does audio and video recordings and it does both quite well.
Any reason why we can't hear the one the investigative journalist made of Mr Smith? Sure now if Mr Smith doesn't mind someone putting words into his mouth he would hardly object to broadcast to the world in person, so to speak.
Until Ms O'Doherty can prove her allegations ... all they remain are unsubstantiated allegations and as such are not worth the bandwith which has been wasted on them.
There is a copy of the original Panorama programme on You Tube. In it Richard Bilton says 'the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'
At 20:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq-1YrpZsuU
That statement has been cut from the BBC iplayer version, as Gemma O'Doherty reported.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08pmtb1/panorama-madeleine-mccann-10-years-on#
Watched the whole thing now.
Nowhere can I find any claim that Mr Smith ever changed his mind.
Readers are invited to watch the programme & correct me if I'm wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08pmtb1/panorama-madeleine-mccann-10-years-on#
He must have, since he knew he wasn't wearing glasses or had a beard.No you can tell this from the side, you don't have to see the full face to see "he wasn't wearing glasses or had a beard".
No you can tell this from the side, you don't have to see the full face to see "he wasn't wearing glasses or had a beard".
Won't really matter. When Smithman is arrested it will be because of additional evidence.
Indeed.Your apostrophe was in the wrong place.
It only proves again that you can please some of the people some of the time ...........etc
As G'OD is about to find out!
Ms O'Doherty has failed to point out in her article that the child the Smith family saw was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
Madeleine was wearing short-sleeved, cropped-leg pyjamas according to the information given to the PJ by the McCanns.
It would be fascinating to understand how detailed research has led her to believe the Smith family sighting, in its original form, is so important that it should not be misrepresented by the BBC.
Watched the whole thing now.Link is for UK only.
Nowhere can I find any claim that Mr Smith ever changed his mind.
Readers are invited to watch the programme & correct me if I'm wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08pmtb1/panorama-madeleine-mccann-10-years-on#
Your apostrophe was in the wrong place.
Link is for UK only.
So you believe she is telling the truth? So why do you want her to prove it?
From the side of what.....?Side view of head.
(ETA....The answer was face. You can tell from the side of his face)
Side view of head.
Ms O'Doherty has failed to point out in her article that the child the Smith family saw was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
Madeleine was wearing short-sleeved, cropped-leg pyjamas according to the information given to the PJ by the McCanns.
It would be fascinating to understand how detailed research has led her to believe the Smith family sighting, in its original form, is so important that it should not be misrepresented by the BBC.
Where are glasses worn?I think the word "head" can correctly answer those questions too.
Around the eyes, on the face.
Where does a moustache grow?
On the upper lip, which is part of a face.
Where do beards grow?
On the chin & cheeks...
Which are part of what?
Answer......a face!.
Link is for UK only.
I think the word "head" can correctly answer those questions too.
Trust me, it's been cut.
You have posted misinformation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg444957#msg444957.
Please amend your post ... or are you able to prove it by providing a cite?
The article wasn't about pyjamas. It was about the BBC saying a witness had retracted his statement, which was untrue.
So why the need to write a whole article about a supposed error made by the BBC without a single direct quote from the person who was allegedly misrepresented?
That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.
That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.
So why the need to write a whole article about a supposed error made by the BBC without a single direct quote from the person who was allegedly misrepresented?
What new information have the public gleaned from 4 magazine pages of investigative journalism that wasn't already known back in August 2008?
You implied her story wasn’t true, that is libel unless you have proof.
That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.Note: The scenario mentioned is a completely imaginary scenario, I'm not claiming it happened. Not Libel,
I implied nothing. I said her statements were unsubstantiated. I can't find a direct quote within quotation marks anywhere from Mr Smith. Nor have I seen or heard a recording of his interview. Therefore her statements are unsubstantiated.Maybe the same is happening for Gemma, she has a conversation and sees a change in the documentary but doesn't have the black and white evidence of it other than the memory of the conversation.
Interestingly I have noticed a few alterations to the BBC Panorama programme ... the reason for none of which have been explained ... so the programme just doesn't work as a cite for anything other than the rumour mill and supposition.
I have already said, a professional will have proof to hand ... particularly if the source has already been revealed.
So what exactly is the hold up?
Is it true that Gemma has not spoken to Martin Smith to confirm his current view? I can see why Brietta wants proof of the current view of Martin Smith.
Jesus wept.
Readers here can watch the two different versions.
They might notice how the words ''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' have been edited out.
They might ponder why this claim has been removed, then perhaps, read Ms O'Dougherty's article &
'ta da'...there's the answer.
Am I missing something here?
Why else might the BBC have chosen to remove this particular claim since the original broadcast, other than because that claim was demonstrably false?
Maybe they just wanted to cut the running time down or something.
That must be it.
Is it true that Gemma has not spoken to Martin Smith to confirm his current view? I can see why Brietta wants proof of the current view of Martin Smith.
I implied nothing. I said her statements were unsubstantiated. I can't find a direct quote within quotation marks anywhere from Mr Smith. Nor have I seen or heard a recording of his interview. Therefore her statements are unsubstantiated.
Interestingly I have noticed a few alterations to the BBC Panorama programme ... the reason for none of which have been explained ... so the programme just doesn't work as a cite for anything other than the rumour mill and supposition.
I have already said, a professional will have proof to hand ... particularly if the source has already been revealed.
So what exactly is the hold up?
This brings us back to the secret Oakley International report which Dubliner Halligen made reference to, one wonders if Mr Smith gave the same response to Halligen?
With respect Robitty, I consider past and present views of Mr Smith to be a total irrelevance.I didn't quite understand you fully but as I read your reply I thought of the e-fits.
An opinion apparently shared with the PJ conducting the first investigation who didn't bother to check out either of the establishments allegedly visited by the family on the third of May until the tenth of October.
Bit remiss or what?
You are perfectly correct though we have a whole thread on the forum constructed around a statement for which there is no provenance and in my opinion that isn't good enough.
Doesn't she state in her article posted by pathfinder that she spoke to Martin Smith senior a few weeks ago.It definitely does. Ok so it still might be possible for Gemma to put that up as a YouTube video with just a sound track
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg444665#msg444665
Is this particular bunfight of any real importance?
It appears to boil down to 2 different versions of the Panarama special, one on YouTube, one on iPlayer, with a dash of G O'D on the side.
I cannot access iPlayer content, so I must rely on reports that it is different.
Before the Panorama programme, I was in touch with the producer and one of the researchers. The other researcher in contactable on the Algarve.
So if this discrepancy is seen as significant, I can enquire as to why the BBC did this.
The other route is to enquire via G O'D, but then, we already have her article.
Finally, there is Mr Smith. Somehow I feel he has better things to do than responding to this forum.
We can only wonder why it has taken 9 months to bring this highly significant matter to the attention of the GBP.
M/S O'Doherty does not appear to want to engage with anyone who asks her awkward questions on Twitter.
She doesn’t seem to engage with either side, so nothing really to see there.
as she is quite clearly anti mccann..teh awkward questions only come from one side....the sceptics on her site are very supportive
Why did the BBC remove that particular part when requested to by a journalist but not when asked by the very person to whom the statement was attributed? As we have heard nothing directly from Martin Smith, are we to just assume that Ms O'Doherty has represented him honestly & correctly?
I thought that too. They certainly thought that Smithman had more credibility than Tannerman.
I fail to see the relevance of what she has to say. Mr. Smith didn't change his mind? Is that it?
Yes. Supposedly he maintains his position of 60-80, & never claimed that he now believes he saw someone else.
Although, Miss O'D might be lying about that, allegedly, because we don't have a direct quote from Mr Smith himself.....
Sheesh.
This whole saga is made utterly irrelevant by .....Neither persons of interest or suspects.
Obviously he didn't see someone else. The question is, who did he see? Difficult to answer since even he isn't sure.
Obviously he didn't see someone else. The question is, who did he see? Difficult to answer since even he isn't sure.
Table witnesses disagree that Russell had ate most of his meal when Kate raised the alarm. Keep trying to make stuff up but I will be here to correct you.
"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.
They’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
"I remember just before Kate returned to the table having, having gone to check on, erm, on their kids, because that was pretty much when Russell's steak arrived, I remember that being at that point'."
00.43.59
1485
'Sorry, his steak arrived when Kate went to go and check or when Kate came back''
Reply
'I remember the steak being here sort of just before Kate came back'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
To clarify...
The BBC Panaroma programme had originaly contained these words......
''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'. (as in, definitely not Gerry)
That part has now been removed from the programme.
I'm quite satisfied that whomever they saw was carrying Madeleine.
Except for the awkwardness of those pyjama sleeves, the sighting appears to match Madeleine's description.
So, SY still need to pull their fingers out & find this innocent father, or abductor, if this sorry tale is ever going to be put to bed.
Martin Smith's evidence has remained constant throughout. On 16th October 2013 the Daily Mail published a direct quote from Mr Smith;
“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.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
All the arguments have arisen because certain people didn't like what he said and attempted to suggest he changed his mind. He didn't, so hopefully people will accept his evidence so we don't have another 84 page thread discussing something that never happened.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.0
Mr Smith saw a man in the dark who definitely wasn't Murat but he was unable to provide enough information about him to be able to recognise him from a photograph or supply sufficient detail for an efit.
I'm more than happy to accept his belief... Because that's all it is.... His opinion and belief. Those that matter do not seem to think it was Gerry he saw
Pray tell who they may be?cite?
No Cite required. No one has mentioned any names.
No Cite required. No one has mentioned any names.
Mr Smith saw a man in the dark who definitely wasn't Murat but he was unable to provide enough information about him to be able to recognise him from a photograph or supply sufficient detail for an efit.(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/748000/madeleine-mccann-news-missing-found-parents-smith-sighting-2007-1057748.jpg)I think this is appx where Peter Smith described where his family had their encounter ... dark isn't it.
Then Mr Smith became 60 to 80% sure some months down the line that the man he had originally been unable to describe was that man.
Despite witnesses affirming that the man belatedly fingered was sitting in a restaurant eating a meal.
Has there been any word since yesterday about the provenance of Ms O'Ds world shattering observation?
Martin Smith's evidence has remained constant throughout. On 16th October 2013 the Daily Mail published a direct quote from Mr Smith;
“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.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
All the arguments have arisen because certain people didn't like what he said and attempted to suggest he changed his mind. He didn't, so hopefully people will accept his evidence so we don't have another 84 page thread discussing something that never happened.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.0
In my opinion the thread is about whether the BBC were justified in saying Smith changed his mind about the evidence he gave. It's not about whether we should believe his evidence or not.
Makes one wonder about Biltons piece where did he get his misinformation from and why not check the veracity of it,it was clearly wrong which is shown in the links you provided.
Somebody liasing with the press/media from some quarter I shouldn’t wonder.
What are you using as your cite for that?
Jesus wept.
Readers here can watch the two different versions.
They might notice how the words ''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' have been edited out.
They might ponder why this claim has been removed, then perhaps, read Ms O'Dougherty's article &
'ta da'...there's the answer.
1) Am I missing something here?
Why else might the BBC have chosen to remove this particular claim since the original broadcast, other than because that claim was demonstrably false?
2) Maybe they just wanted to cut the running time down or something.
That must be it.
Witness testimony of Martin Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting
Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00
He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
— 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
Mr Smith saw a man in the dark who definitely wasn't Murat but he was unable to provide enough information about him to be able to recognise him from a photograph or supply sufficient detail for an efit.
Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?
Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?
Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?
In my opinion the thread is about whether the BBC were justified in saying Smith changed his mind about the evidence he gave. It's not about whether we should believe his evidence or not.
Perhaps they believed the misinformation spread by the MSM? They do say some people never learn. 8(>((
There's still no direct quote from Mr Smith, so there.
Mind you, there was never any direct quote that he had changed his mind either, but that was never an issue then.
It's difficult to know what to believe in this era of fake news.
That's fine if it is your opinion ... it simply does not fit the facts which basically have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Mr Smith's evidence is credible or not.
In fact it is my opinion that it all seems to be more about an investigative journalist and her opinion than anything to do with Mr Smith at all.
Those accusations made require their provenance to be affirmed, or the allegations mean nothing at all. The journalist must have recorded all her interviews and correspondence. So why doesn't she share?
I wonder why some 'expert' in FOI hasn't fired one off to the BBC to 'investigate' why the Panorama programme was edited ... must be at least one licence payer out there who gives a damn. Or maybe not.
How difficult is it for provenance to be delivered. A quick reminder of the OP for this thread ...
Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann
https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/959745836145135616
It would appear that Miss O'Doherty approached the BBC and asked why they misled the public over the Smith sighting. The BBC admitted their mistake and have issued a retraction within the iPlayer edition of their 10th Anniversary programme.
This is what the waiter says -
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
So his meal was half eaten.
So how long do you think it took before Russells meal was half eaten? Five minutes? Plus Dianne was sat at the table for what another five minutes? That would be almost gone 10 o'clock in my calculations. Then Gerry was seen searching around the pool by a waiter. So sorry Smithman was not Gerry.
Theres's something missing here.......
Ah yes, it's this bit......
"or supply sufficient detail for an efit."
The cite for that part of your claim is missing.
Was it abducted?
What is truly risible is the fuss my post has engendered with demands for cites. Yet not a single cite is required from the investigative journalist Gemma O'Doherty for any claim she has made.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Now, that's somewhat different to...."or supply sufficient detail for an efit", really, isn't it.
If you're not too keen on being asked for cites you can't actually provide in order to support your assertions,
I suggest you might try sticking to facts.
Thanks.
That's fine if it is your opinion ... it simply does not fit the facts which basically have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Mr Smith's evidence is credible or not.
In fact it is my opinion that it all seems to be more about an investigative journalist and her opinion than anything to do with Mr Smith at all.
Those accusations made require their provenance to be affirmed, or the allegations mean nothing at all. The journalist must have recorded all her interviews and correspondence. So why doesn't she share?
I wonder why some 'expert' in FOI hasn't fired one off to the BBC to 'investigate' why the Panorama programme was edited ... must be at least one licence payer out there who gives a damn. Or maybe not.
How difficult is it for provenance to be delivered. A quick reminder of the OP for this thread ...
Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann
https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/959745836145135616
It would appear that Miss O'Doherty approached the BBC and asked why they misled the public over the Smith sighting. The BBC admitted their mistake and have issued a retraction within the iPlayer edition of their 10th Anniversary programme.
Did you read Mr Smith's statement? what information could he have supplied to enable an efit? so make the logical deduction from that ... starting with Mr Smith's assertion that he definitely didn't look like Robert Murat.
Did you believe the reports in the MSM that Smith had changed his mind? There was no provenance for them.
Did you believe the reports in the MSM that Smith had changed his mind? There was no provenance for them.
As I recall the whole "Smith changed his mind thingy" was driven on here by Charon trapping off. As he was saying what supporters wanted to hear they did not question it [no surprise there].
What we are now looking at is whether, on comparison of two beeb videos there is a bit missing from one that isn't on the other. As Worshipnderfulspam demonstrated this to be so a few posts ago ....... join up the dots.
Hint: whether there is a cite for Ms O'Doherty talking to anyone becomes an irrelevance.
What I may or may not think is irrelevant. I am not making a living from it ... apparently Gemma O'Doherty does as an investigative journalist.
She has already told us about Martin Smith and the BBC therefore there can be no question of her having to protect her sources. They are already revealed. So why the shyness about letting us in on what convinced her? Didn't she keep a record I wonder.
What I may or may not think is irrelevant. I am not making a living from it ... apparently Gemma O'Doherty does as an investigative journalist.
She has already told us about Martin Smith and the BBC therefore there can be no question of her having to protect her sources. They are already revealed. So why the shyness about letting us in on what convinced her? Didn't she keep a record I wonder.
I just compared the two running times.
The difference between the two is, the edited version runs around 3 to 4 seconds shorter than the original.
Coincidently, this is roughly the same amount of time it took for Richard Bilton to say:
'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'
How Extraordinary!
As Mr. Smith made it quite obvious quite some time ago that he was not prepared to discuss this with The Media. I suspect that The BBC and GO'D would have gotten short shrift if they had approached him.
But the revelation itself, supported or not, is just too pathetic for words. A bit like Amaral and his Ace.
Who cares if Martin Smith never retracted. He would never have been a witness anyway.
What I may or may not think is irrelevant. I am not making a living from it ... apparently Gemma O'Doherty does as an investigative journalist.
She has already told us about Martin Smith and the BBC therefore there can be no question of her having to protect her sources. They are already revealed. So why the shyness about letting us in on what convinced her? Didn't she keep a record I wonder.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Indeed and one must trust that the logical process of the police investigation will result in a conviction.
Did you read Mr Smith's statement? what information could he have supplied to enable an efit? so make the logical deduction from that ... starting with Mr Smith's assertion that he definitely didn't look like Robert Murat.How did Martin Smith know it wasn't Robert Murat? Had he seen RM carrying a child?
Yes.When did he last see Robert Murat? Was there enough time for RM to grow longer hair or grow facial hair? Was there enough time to change his appearance?
He could have supplied information such as, the person didn't have glasses, or moustache or beard, & had short brown hair in a basic male cut, for starters.
Perhaps when they put him back in the moment, like they did with Jane, he could later have remembered more.
Granted, he perhaps didn't have the same power of recall as Ms Tanner, her being able to observe, from a distance of 5 metres, the individual bits of hair coming from creche-dads head.
I can't even begin to imagine why Henri Exton might have been sceptical about her evidence.
While you may not be able to recall facial details of someone you didn't know, I'm pretty sure sure you could tell if it was someone you knew by sight.
Murat wears glasses, whereas Smithman didn't.
When did he last see Robert Murat? Was there enough time for RM to grow longer hair or grow facial hair?
I just compared the two running times.I note you have the word "Smiths" in plural, so that judgement is based on the majority of the Smiths not just the patriarch.
The difference between the two is, the edited version runs around 3 to 4 seconds shorter than the original.
Coincidently, this is roughly the same amount of time it took for Richard Bilton to say:
'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'
How Extraordinary!
Do you seriously think it was Murat?
Do you seriously think it was Murat?I didn't say that. From what I recall MS said it wasn't Murat. How was he so sure?
I note you have the word "Smiths" in plural, so that judgement is based on the majority of the Smiths not just the patriarch.
'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' Martin still could have stuck out and that statement still be true.
Are you really able to pin her down on that? I find she never did this, in fact she never says she knew RM in my opinion. Is that possible - she never knew RM at all? What did she know before the event?
Sylvia Batista knew Murat by sight after the event but apparently she made a mistake in identifying him as being near 5A on the night of the 3rd May 2007.
I note you have the word "Smiths" in plural, so that judgement is based on the majority of the Smiths not just the patriarch.
'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' Martin still could have stuck out and that statement still be true.
Confirmation that the Smith's 2 efits were compiled with the assistance of Martin & PETER Smith.
That's just Spammy trying to slip one over.It would be different if it was said in the program 'Martin Smith himself now believes he saw someone else' but it was 'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' and from recollection that was true, Mrs Smith and Peter and Aoife all thought it wasn't Gerry. Those Smiths believe they saw someone other than Gerry.
Your criticism of Gemma Doherty is surprising to me because you have never demanded that the MSM adhere to the standards you are demanding from her. I have noticed that you tend to reproduce MSM articles on here as if they were factual even though they contain no named or verifiable sources.
Thanks Misty.
Omega memo 08/09/08: "the SMITH family are now (and should always have been treated as) the investigation’s most important witnesses".
And what happened? *%87
It would be different if it was said in the program 'Martin Smith himself now believes he saw someone else' but it was 'The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' and from recollection that was true, Mrs Smith and Peter and Aoife all thought it wasn't Gerry. Those Smiths believe they saw someone other than Gerry.
Martin Smith could tell somehow it wasn't Robert Murat. Height could be a factor, build, or style of walking, and one that keeps getting mentioned - sweaty (body odour?).
If you bother to watch Panorama, you'll understand the context & notice that was the precise wording used.It is easy to think all the Smiths agree but it isn't essential. It could have just been a majority verdict.
Thanks.
(20:40)
https://youtu.be/Aq-1YrpZsuU
If the comment were true, then, why edit it from the programme?I agree it is easily construed that Martin Smith had changed his mind. It actually didn't say he changed his mind.
Probably because it wasn't.
I agree it is easily construed that Martin Smith had changed his mind. It actually didn't say he changed his mind.
So to keep the peace the BBC cut out those words.
The PJ didn't consider that the family were the investigation's most important witnesses - either because GM was placed elsewhere at the time or because there really, really was an abductor.
Thanks Misty.
Omega memo 08/09/08: "the SMITH family are now (and should always have been treated as) the investigation’s most important witnesses".
And what happened? *%87
Remind me, when did the PJ receive the report pointing this out ?
If you bother to watch Panorama, you'll understand the context & notice that was the precise wording used.
Thanks.
(20:40)
https://youtu.be/Aq-1YrpZsuU
There is agood article in the guardian which gives the background to the panorama programme. The initial producer lookes at all the evidence and delivered a script that was critical of the pj and the press which led people to believe the mccanns may be guilty. The BBC would not accept this and the producer resigned ...they then went on to produce a programme that was far more critical of the mccanns. So far from suppressing evidence of the smith sighting the bbc supressed evidence of the mccanns innocence....seems that im a better investigative journalist than odowd
There is agood article in the guardian which gives the background to the panorama programme. The initial producer lookes at all the evidence and delivered a script that was critical of the pj and the press which led people to believe the mccanns may be guilty. The BBC would not accept this and the producer resigned ...they then went on to produce a programme that was far more critical of the mccanns. So far from suppressing evidence of the smith sighting the bbc supressed evidence of the mccanns innocence....seems that im a better investigative journalist than odowdWas there a cite? Just the phrase "in the guardian" is hardly enough? When was this "in the guardian"?
The PJ knew about the sighting in May 2007. Why would they have wanted or needed a report from a team of UK PI's to tell them what was important?
That was the 2007 Panorama.
Congratulations.
There is agood article in the guardian which gives the background to the panorama programme. The initial producer lookes at all the evidence and delivered a script that was critical of the pj and the press which led people to believe the mccanns may be guilty. The BBC would not accept this and the producer resigned ...they then went on to produce a programme that was far more critical of the mccanns. So far from suppressing evidence of the smith sighting the bbc supressed evidence of the mccanns innocence....seems that im a better investigative journalist than odowd
New information may have led them to re-evaluate the sighting - had they been aware of it.
so we have proof that the bbc is not supportive of the mccanns...congratulations are in order....
I agree with your previous point though.
Evidence of the McCanns innocence, or rather, the proof of it, is being suppressed.
SY won't tell us what it is. It might have been useful evidence at the SC.
if you agree then you would see I said it was supressed by the BBC ...for those who like me understand what evidence is then it is clear the mcanns are innocent...those who belong to the ...dogs dont lie brigade ...have no understanding of what evidence is imo...and therefore have reached the wrong conclusions...i would put you in taht group...in order that this post will not be removed...all in my opinion
Yes, I saw you said BBC.
I also understand what evidence is, but I'm yet to see any that convinces me the McCanns didn't do it.
then you dont understand how justice works...justice works by having evidence which shows a suspect committed a crime ...not by the suspect having to prove that they did not commit the crime..its quote a basic concept but a concept that you and other sceptics do not seem to have grasped
I understand how justice works.
The McCann's are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But, that still doesn't convince me they didn't do it.
if you understand how justice works then you will understand what you think is of no consequence
When I write what I'm thinking, then there are consequences, usually a warning.
Thankfully, my mind is free from legal constraints.
Right now, for example, I'm still thinking it was them.
(https://i.imgur.com/Yvk2rBV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iHqWnmT.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/11m5ll5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uk6zWHl.jpg)
Well, look here it mentions a COLD night and Chill in the air.. not a warm night at all as per Gerry's claim his daughter was outside the covers when he/they left her as it was a warm night during his 'beautiful daughter moment'. oh but that's nothing Tsk.
I find it amusing that people hold the BBC in high regard, WTF. Do we not recall the protection of paedophiles and do we not recall the Dr David Kelly hounding. Pandered to the IRA cause, support the EU (because they get money from them). sexual discrimination-recent pay imbalance- What a company- full of s...ks, talentless wonders.IMO.
I mean this is a company who gets ,money from poor people and pensioners to pay that Irish eejit dj 1million pounds to host a children in need 'charity' event- the shear audacity to demand people open their purses and wallets to help the children???? Seriously! BBC have an agenda...look closely.
I am so not surprised but well done those who sought to put them right- to dispel a myth.
Reading your post it made me think...how much had smith had to drink that night..any ideas
Why don't you read his statement, they went out for a meal...
the receipt gives the PJ a time stamp, and all is itemised on the bill.
Aoife saw Smithman's face at the time so she could be a crucial witness in this case.
Maybe something triggered her memory. I believe there's a good possibility.
Martin Smith said they left the Dolphin at9...aoefie days 9.30..They are two individuals.
Who is telling the truth... And who isn't.. And why the discrepancy
You have nothing to worry about then.
Erm, my food had arrived, well my food had arrived I think by this point. And, and then Kate, erm, erm, returned, erm, obviously Jane wasn’t there but the rest of us were still there, and she came through and, you know, into the portal, I didn’t see her arrive, but the first thing really we recall then is, erm, is, is Kate shouting across from the, from the reception area and perhaps she didn’t come particularly close.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
They are two individuals.
Aoife saw Smithman's face at the time so she could be a crucial witness in this case. He passed her underneath the light at the top of the stairs.But she was not one of the Smiths who made the E-fits. Very strange.
Maybe something triggered her memory. I believe there's a good possibility.As happened To Dianne Webster after talking to the others. Either collaboration or generation of false memories could play a big factor here with Aoife.
They are relating to the, same event... So who is, telling the, truth and who isn't.... Simple questionAoife could have stayed a little longer.
Aoife could have stayed a little longer.
Aoife could have stayed a little longer.
None of the group admit in their statements to being in separate locations for a half-hour period.They seem be allowed to make omissions in statements. It would also generate an opportunity to do other things altogether in that half hour. I wouldn't say everything they did is written in their statement.
No explanation for this massive discrepancyIMO - "I think there is but the statement was withheld possibly IMO. The reported incident of Aoife seeing Gerry and Jez talking has some veracity (there are hints of it, (a bit like Carol Carpenters statement) whispers of it), but for that to have happened there had to be opportunity and 30 minutes is more than enough opportunity."
Someone suggested Mr Smith had changed his mind. Whoever told the MSM that had a reason for doing it. Who had enough influence to persuade them to print that? Why did none of them check with Mr Smith as the Mirror did?
30/1/2008
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
14/10/2013
Crimewatch show e-fits of the above man
16/10/2013
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.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
28/10/2013
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
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz56Gpy9Neo
If Martin Smith hadn't changed his mind, why did he produce an efit back in 2008 which bore no resemblance to Gerry McCann?
IMO as an efit it does look like him.
The shape of the face & jawline are totally wrong for starters. I always thought the efit looked more like Jurgen Klinsmann.
Best practice is to conflate the two images.Who determined "best practice"? Cite please?
If the forum started explaining things to you that you don't undestand Rob there would be no time for discussion.
To be honest I think when John made you a moderator he was having a laugh......unfortunately it's at our expense.
That is my opinion being a moderator. Do you disagree? I'm just asking Alice in cases where she writes GISS and other coded messages as a post to be somewhat more self explanatory.
If Martin Smith hadn't changed his mind, why did he produce an efit back in 2008 which bore no resemblance to Gerry McCann?
I think you need to accept that Smith never changed his mind, Misty. That argument is over. Someone told the media he had, but it wasn't true.
As to that e-fit are you serious suggesting that your opinion of it amounts to evidence of some sort? Secondly, do you have a cite that it was made by Martin Smith?
Two points were stressed in media reports at the time and what interests me is this. If 'numerous witnesses' were able to give Gerry McCann an alibi it didn't matter what Mr Smith thought. Whoever told the media that Mr Smith had changed his mind must have suspected that Gerry's alibi wasn't unbreakable.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim
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.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz56JYEp1s5
I think you need to accept that Smith never changed his mind, Misty. That argument is over. Someone told the media he had, but it wasn't true.
As to that e-fit are you serious suggesting that your opinion of it amounts to evidence of some sort? Secondly, do you have a cite that it was made by Martin Smith?
Two points were stressed in media reports at the time and what interests me is this. If 'numerous witnesses' were able to give Gerry McCann an alibi it didn't matter what Mr Smith thought. Whoever told the media that Mr Smith had changed his mind must have suspected that Gerry's alibi wasn't unbreakable.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim
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.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz56JYEp1s5
I think you need to accept that Smith never changed his mind, Misty. That argument is over. Someone told the media he had, but it wasn't true.
As to that e-fit are you serious suggesting that your opinion of it amounts to evidence of some sort? Secondly, do you have a cite that it was made by Martin Smith?
Two points were stressed in media reports at the time and what interests me is this. If 'numerous witnesses' were able to give Gerry McCann an alibi it didn't matter what Mr Smith thought. Whoever told the media that Mr Smith had changed his mind must have suspected that Gerry's alibi wasn't unbreakable.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim
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.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz56JYEp1s5
The options I can guess at are,
The Insight reporters invented the claim to cover their asses.
Or, the claim was made by one of the 3 sources quoted in the article, which were...
The source from Oakley.
Henri Exton.
The source from the fund.
Take your pick.
So you think someone started the rumour over fear for Gerry's alibi... You even state it as fact..
That is wild speculation with no evidence of truth and shows how, far you are, willig to bend the truth to make it fit your theories.... All my opinion
I should have made it clear that it is my opinion, sorry. I don't see Gerry's alibi as a fact, you see, so I thought perhaps others didn't either.
Why then, in your opinion, was the misinformation about Mr Smith given to the media?
Do we know if the withdrawal claim was in the original Sunday Times article?
Maybe something triggered her memory. I believe there's a good possibility.
The shape of the face & jawline are totally wrong for starters. I always thought the efit looked more like Jurgen Klinsmann.
Best practice is to conflate the two images.
I should have made it clear that it is my opinion, sorry. I don't see Gerry's alibi as a fact, you see, so I thought perhaps others didn't either.
Why then, in your opinion, was the misinformation about Mr Smith given to the media?
You mean like something triggered Jane's memory? How many times has Jane been attacked for what she later said she saw?
I've no idea... Could be a simple misunderstanding
A misunderstanding of what? Something they read or were told?We don't know do we
We don't know do we
That is a fact... You speculated it was deliberate which I find ridiculous
We still do not have a direct quote from Mr smith
there is a whole thread about it on the forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134562#msg134562 "Who was the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking?"
In this article it even gives the reason she doesn't mention it in her statement. http://www.anorak.co.uk/177197/reviews/madeleine-mccann-irish-teenger-saw-gerry-mcann.html/
How do you think it happened then ?
I've no idea and I'm not particularly bothered as very is not a suspect in either investigation MS did not see Gerry McCann
We don't know do we
That is a fact... You speculated it was deliberate which I find ridiculous
We still do not have a direct quote from Mr smith
SY has found and cleared that man so have confirmed that Jane saw him carrying his 2 year old smaller than Madeleine child like she said.
Take a look at the timeline below. Russell got back at 9:55 - 5 minutes before Kate left to check and raise the alarm.
Russell actually got back at 9:45 - 10 minutes earlier so that would suggest Kate left at 9:50 to check which tally's with Matt's statement and the waiter who served Russell.
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
The timeline is key in this case! Gerry's time of 9:15 is infact 9:05 according to him. Yet again a 10 minute discrepancy. You cannot hide the truth from me.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/gerrynotwtimeline2.jpg)
MS certainly seems to be the main prop of this investigation now. Do you really think that some of his evidence would be taken seriously and the rest not ?
For me the fact that we were told that MS had retracted his identification TWICE without a word of truth in it speaks volumes.
SY has found and cleared that man so have confirmed that Jane saw him carrying his 2 year old smaller than Madeleine child like she said.If the two guys were walking past at different times or in different directions they are not the same person, so without that information I don't think you can be sure Tannerman has been identified fully.
Take a look at the timeline below. Russell got back at 9:55 - 5 minutes before Kate left to check and raise the alarm.
Russell actually got back at 9:45 - 10 minutes earlier so that would suggest Kate left at 9:50 to check which tally's with Matt's statement and the waiter who served Russell.
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
The timeline is key in this case! Gerry's time of 9:15 is infact 9:05 according to him. Yet again a 10 minute discrepancy. You cannot hide the truth from me.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/gerrynotwtimeline2.jpg)
The so-called ciggie incident is a Levy/ Reis special. IMO, it's fairly safe to discount it as ever happening. Along with the infamous "24 photos" and quite a few other "scoops" that never materialised for those of us old enough to remember.Did Amaral fall for it too then?
Did Amaral fall for it too then?
It can't be denied that Operation Grange found the Smith sighting worthy of their attention and used their evidence to change the time of a suspected abduction.I'm sure they would get somethings wrong in the short term. Listen to the O Enigma video and try and say the police never get it wrong.
Others with no known experience of police work are suggesting that the Smith's evidence is neither reliable or important.
I do wish people would make their minds up. Are Operation Grange expert professionals who know better than we do or do they get things wrong?
It can't be denied that Operation Grange found the Smith sighting worthy of their attention and used their evidence to change the time of a suspected abduction.
Others with no known experience of police work are suggesting that the Smith's evidence is neither reliable or important.
I do wish people would make their minds up. Are Operation Grange expert professionals who know better than we do or do they get things wrong?
It can't be denied that Operation Grange found the Smith sighting worthy of their attention and used their evidence to change the time of a suspected abduction.
Others with no known experience of police work are suggesting that the Smith's evidence is neither reliable or important.
I do wish people would make their minds up. Are Operation Grange expert professionals who know better than we do or do they get things wrong?
You don't seem to understand... Imo
Smith saw smithman... Of that there is no doubt and is a useful lead... But it seems neither investigation believe it was Gerry he saw
It really is that simple
The so-called ciggie incident is a Levy/ Reis special. IMO, it's fairly safe to discount it as ever happening. Along with the infamous "24 photos" and quite a few other "scoops" that never materialised for those of us old enough to remember.
I understand perfectly thank you. In particular I understand that you have provided no cite for "neither investigation believe it was Gerry he saw", so I assume that's your opinion?
No as Gerry is not a suspect then both investigations do not think he is smithman... Their opinion not mine
Neither are you, but if someone identified you as Smithman you'd need an alibi.
Who actually identified anyone? So who do you think was identified?
I am getting so tired of supposition. And No, I don't care if you think I am a Supporter. I need some proof of whom I am supposed to accuse. And so far, I haven't seen any.
Who actually identified anyone? So who do you think was identified?
I am getting so tired of supposition. And No, I don't care if you think I am a Supporter. I need some proof of whom I am supposed to accuse. And so far, I haven't seen any.
Neither are you, but if someone identified you as Smithman you'd need an alibi.Very good point G-unit. I was thinking there would be hundreds of people who would struggle to have a hard alibi for an event minutes away from the 5A apartment. It is really unsolvable from that aspect for it is rather difficult to pin down the time of the alarm precisely. One with more precision than the time it would take for a man to walk from 5A to where Smithman was seen.
I understand perfectly thank you. In particular I understand that you have provided no cite for "neither investigation believe it was Gerry he saw", so I assume that's your opinion?Pedro do Carmo made that perfectly clear. We have to presume he wasn't lying.
Very good point G-unit. I was thinking there would be hundreds of people who would struggle to have a hard alibi for an event minutes away from the 5A apartment. It is really unsolvable from that aspect for it is rather difficult to pin down the time of the alarm precisely. One with more precision than the time it would take for a man to walk from 5A to where Smithman was seen.
If we say it would take 5 minutes to get there and 5 minutes to do anything and 5 minutes to return, adding up to 15 minutes. We are then saying that it takes a minimum of 15 minutes to abduct Madeleine and to deposit her in some location near where the Smiths saw the man. Can every male around PdL provide a strong alibi for every 15 minute period between 9:45 and 10:15 that night. Or even a soft alibi if asked for an alibi. Robert Murat seems to be OK for he was at home with his mother, and his mother confirmed that.
But the emphasis came on RM at a time when Smithman was not even known about. We would really have to consider why it took 2 weeks for the Smiths to come forward and then only after RM was made a suspect.
Did Amaral and the PJ consider the Smith's sighting as a genuine event? In O Enigma he does, but that doesn't really count for it depends on what happened at the time. The PJ didn't drop RM's arguido status, can we read anything into that? No that 's alright for RM was more the Tannerman suspect and there is no real proof Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same person.
I get the feeling it is unsolvable from the point of view of alibis.
Neither are you, but if someone identified you as Smithman you'd need an alibi.Would Gerry just need a 60/80 alibi
It certainly wasn't Aoife. Too far away, and hardly likely to disappear without being noticed, and just to have a fag.It wasn't Aoife doing what? No was there a half hour she was away from her parents? If it takes only 5 minutes, or less if there is a motorbike or a car involved, how can we just discount the possibility of her doing something like having her first cigarette.
Look, Love. We weren't lied to by The BBC. Like every other Media outlet they were a bit careless.I don't get your point, is that reference to the OP rather than my post? I never mentioned the BBC.
If you can suggest anyone else who has been identified, please do so.Would the fact that Martin Smith publicly identifies a person make the case against Gerry even more difficult to pursue?
Would the fact that Martin Smith publicly identifies a person make the case against Gerry even more difficult to pursue?
Why? He would be a witness.There are some types of evidence that would be inadmissible in court, IMO his identification would be one piece of evidence that the defence would claim as inadmissible. I'm not a lawyer.
As I've said before, if it gets to court it will be because there is a lot more evidence than that. The Smith identification is merely a pointer.
As I've said before, if it gets to court it will be because there is a lot more evidence than that. The Smith identification is merely a pointer.It is relevant evidence.
I would say the Smiths are keeping their heads down for fear of being sued. Poor Aoife has had to leave Ireland and now lives in San Diego.Nothing wrong with San Diego.
There are some types of evidence that would be inadmissible in court, IMO his identification would be one piece of evidence that the defence would claim as inadmissible. I'm not a lawyer.
This covers an interesting aspect of inadmissible evidence https://youtu.be/CfoSA0lUU_w
I would say the Smiths are keeping their heads down for fear of being sued. Poor Aoife has had to leave Ireland and now lives in San Diego.
Why would it be inadmissible?
I doubt it would be inadmissible but I think his identification would be torn apart under cross examination
That would depend on the relative skills of the prosecution and defence. You would need more evidence.
Many young people leave, rural Ireland where there are, few to no decent career opportunities and, seek a, better life abroad... That's, how, it is
Didn't the Smiths live in Drogheda?
Yes and to suggest a move to California is, a backward step is, more than a tax ridiculous
Well your knowledge of the Republic Ireland is about as useless as the rest of your purported mine of knowledge.
A town of 40,000 plus pop is not accurately described as "rural"; you being the one who is perpetually trapping off about accuracy and precision.
Well your knowledge of the Republic Ireland is about as useless as the rest of your purported mine of knowledge.
A town of 40,000 plus pop is not accurately described as "rural"; you being the one who is perpetually trapping off about accuracy and precision.
I wonder why Gemma O'Doherty used only the efit prepared by Peter Smith, rather than the one by Martin Smith, inShe may not have been informed which E-fit was made by each person. The one that looks most like Gerry would have been a good guess but in fact that is wrong.
her article? (see post #14).
Images obtained by Oakley International in 2008 as per journalist Adrian Gatton, an acquaintance of Halligen
She may not have been informed which E-fit was made by each person. The one that looks most like Gerry would have been a good guess but in fact that is wrong.
I had always thought the Smiths waited 2 weeks before they made a statement but in fact it was 3 weeks 1 day. I struggle with that actually.
The other thing to consider is whether there would be any benefit in re-interviewing all the Smith family members.
There was 9 of them (??? I think) yet only 3 have made a full statement.
From Goncalo's book "- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine. - The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed. " So the date that the Smith's reported the incident must have been before the date of the statement. When did they make first contact with the PJ?
You must wonder if the lighting wasn't better than they first said. Aoife describes the possibility of buttons on beige trousers. If they were anything like the photo that is surprising. That photo is taken in broad daylight. How could they be seen at night?The buttons comment interests me and suggests teh PJ putting words into witnesses mouths. Saying did the trousers have buttons..answer possibly.....so the non verbatim statemnet says...trousers possibly had buttons
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kf3NX5ySH7g/WCdsyAqiTgI/AAAAAAAAGP8/gKBq_S1qSdUz37aleEZKNdwA5ajv-8xGACEw/s640/beige%2Btrousers.png)
What is written here doesn't sound like what we know but it is what Goncalo says "Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199 "
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/2016/11/the-smiths-sighting.html for the text.
"- We make the decision to bring the Smiths back to Portugal. They will be heard, and in legal and procedural terms, will give their identification using televised images, since a personal identification [of Gerry] is out of the question.
- A reconstitution of that night, with the Smiths, is seriously considered.
- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal.
- The Portuguese police changed their minds after GA leaves the team; they decide to use the international request mechanism [letters rogatory]
- This leads to absurd delays
- In the meantime, rumours abound that strangers to the investigation have found about about this witness and his family and, supposedly, have tried to talk to Smith, though their intentions in doing so are unknown"
Were the Smiths part of the re-enactment? Once the re-enactment was abandoned by the Portuguese they opted for the rogatory interviews. Were rogatory interviews done with the Smiths as well?
How the Smiths can sit on this information for 2 weeks is surprising and worrying. It would be crucial to know how the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz knew about Madeleine going missing at the airport needs discovering too
The buttons comment interests me and suggests teh PJ putting words into witnesses mouths. Saying did the trousers have buttons..answer possibly.....so the non verbatim statemnet says...trousers possibly had buttons
What is written here doesn't sound like what we know but it is what Goncalo says "Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199 "
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/2016/11/the-smiths-sighting.html for the text.
"- We make the decision to bring the Smiths back to Portugal. They will be heard, and in legal and procedural terms, will give their identification using televised images, since a personal identification [of Gerry] is out of the question.
- A reconstitution of that night, with the Smiths, is seriously considered.
- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal.
- The Portuguese police changed their minds after GA leaves the team; they decide to use the international request mechanism [letters rogatory]
- This leads to absurd delays
- In the meantime, rumours abound that strangers to the investigation have found about about this witness and his family and, supposedly, have tried to talk to Smith, though their intentions in doing so are unknown"
Were the Smiths part of the re-enactment? Once the re-enactment was abandoned by the Portuguese they opted for the rogatory interviews. Were rogatory interviews done with the Smiths as well?
I didn't know the PJ included the Smiths in their rogatory requests. Do you have a cite for that please?I was quoting a cite in my post who were supposedly quoting from Amaral's book. Did Amaral write that or have they misquoted him? That is why I raised the point and "asked did it happen?" with the words "Were the Smiths part of the re-enactment?". It was news to me but it was supposedly quote from GA's book. It isn't me who is making the claim.
They probably didn't think too much about what they saw at the time, if at all.Was that a father carrying a living daughter or his deceased daughter? I ask this since you "think" so well like Martin Smith?
Mr Smith thought the sighting was father & daughter, I don't think he was wrong.
Wrong Country. The Rogatory Letters only covered Britain. The Smiths live in Southern Ireland which is not part of The United Kingdom.Did GA write in his book "- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal."? That is the crucial point, for to say that it appears they were asked to return - but the Smiths don't return to Portugal. It is possible the PJ asked them to return, and they didn't bother. Was this going to one of the scenes to be re-enacted by the PJ? That would be a rather interesting scene for they had the positions and times mapped out pretty well. What would have been gained? They could hardly ask Gerry to walk past the Smiths carrying a child in his arms. For that bit they would have to use an actor surely. They could then ask them later what did you see during the re-enactment? Did the man (actor) have buttons on his pants?
When The PJ discovered this they didn't bother to reapply. So therefor it can't have been that important to them.
Only Smithman knows that for certain. The rest of us can only guessSo are you saying Wonderfulspan is "only guessing" not actually "thinking"? I read it as thinking and not only that but thinking just like Martin Smith did.
So are you saying Wonderfulspan is "only guessing" not actually "thinking"? I read it as thinking and not only that but thinking just like Martin Smith did.
Spammy may be privy to information not available to the likes of you and IHas there been any proof or hint of "special treatment" for 'Spammy'? Does he claim it himself?
Has there been any proof or hint of "special treatment" for 'Spammy'? Does he claim it himself?
Its a joke robA joke!
I was quoting a cite in my post who were supposedly quoting from Amaral's book. Did Amaral write that or have they misquoted him? That is why I raised the point and "asked did it happen?" with the words "Were the Smiths part of the re-enactment?". It was news to me but it was supposedly quote from GA's book. It isn't me who is making the claim.
Do you have his book chapter 21.
The cite was to an article posted by someone 'unknown', no doubt with the intention of making a point. Amaral didn't mention rogatorys and I don't think Smith was included. The Irish Police were asked to interview him and they did so.I don't have a copy of Amaral's book, do you? From that reply am I to take it you think that quote was entirely wrong in saying Amaral thought of involving the Smiths in a re-enactment? Are you reading from his book?
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020Thanks Misty now I understand the quote from the blog. The blog had taken the main points only but reasonably correctly IMO. There is obviously a lot of contact between the PJ and the Smiths that is not released in the file IMO. It could be in this period ("several months later") where Martin Smith changes his mind IMO.
snipped from Chapter 20.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.
================================================================
3 of the Smiths had already done a reconstruction back in May 2007 in Luz. (see photos beside & under Peter Smith's statement, one of which shows the 3 with their back to the camera ascending some steps)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020
snipped from Chapter 20.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.
================================================================
3 of the Smiths had already done a reconstruction back in May 2007 in Luz. (see photos beside & under Peter Smith's statement, one of which shows the 3 with their back to the camera ascending some steps)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Why didn't Amaral get e-fits done while the Smiths were over in May 07?
Who did he intend to bring over? Just Martin and possibly his wife (who seemingly agreed with the stature of the man)? Or all the rest of the family as well who didn't think it was Gerry at all?
IMO, Rebelo did the right thing: he asked for clarification of what led Mr Smith to think that it might have been Gerry, and, as it turned out, it was just Martin's perception that the man held the child in a similar way (as most parents do).
The validity of Martin Smith's identification is not the issue. The issue is whether the BBC mislead the public when claiming that he had withdrawn that identification and as they have now cut that claim from the Panorama programme it would appear they did.No you have failed to mention the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths and there subsequent interviews which a mentioned by Amaral but are not in the file. There are huge gaps in the story you are telling IMO.
The validity of Martin Smith's identification is not the issue. The issue is whether the BBC mislead the public when claiming that he had withdrawn that identification and as they have now cut that claim from the Panorama programme it would appear they did.
Re-read my post, Faith.
2nd colum, 3rd full paragraph
“…But then the story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that their potentially critical development was just another red herring. “
Where was it alleged that the family had retracted their statements?
Statements concerning what? That they’d seen a man carrying a child? If so, news to me.
Next… re the Panorama programme: “Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.
Smith or Smiths? Which ones?
What IS plausible (although I haven't had time to double-check) is that Bilton may have said that Martin now felt he may have been mistaken about being convinced that it was Gerry without checking with him personally.
If ever that's the case, and if that's all that it's about, it doesn't mean that Martin or anyone else "retracted" their statements.
Russ later wondered if Murat was indeed the person he initially stated he'd seen, but in the end chose to stick with his earlier statement, presumably based on his impression at the time.
What did Bilton actually originally say, and what was supposedly edited? She doesn't say (at least in the part I've read so far).
Why hasn't she provided a copy of the original and edited versions? That way, we'd all be clear as to what any potential edits actually were.
No you have failed to mention the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths and there subsequent interviews which a mentioned by Amaral but are not in the file. There are huge gaps in the story you are telling IMO.
and what precisely did Martin Smith say
No you have failed to mention the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths and there subsequent interviews which a mentioned by Amaral but are not in the file. There are huge gaps in the story you are telling IMO.
i find his calim of being 60/80 sure it was gerry...based on the way the child was carried ...totally ridiculous and without proper foundation...
i find his calim of being 60/80 sure it was gerry...based on the way the child was carried ...totally ridiculous and without proper foundation...
I don't, Davel. I've read and posted quite a lot about how post-event "information" can make people subliminally reconsider what they think they saw at the time. The Menendes case is one in point.
IMO, the issue is for the police to recognise that witness memories may or may not be accurate, or that they could be accurate on some details but not on others, and to work through it all.
I posted an article the other day about getting witnesses to ID someone. Apparently, a current recommendation is no longer to present a witness with several potential suspect photos at the same time, but to present them individually. And to avoid a physical ID parade in favour of a video (to avoid the added stress of a physical confrontation).
Why?
I haven't found anything in the files about this supposed planned event that was allegedly given the green light by the head of the PJ.There is nothing in the file about changing their minds either but we are still discussing it.
The Smiths kindly going over in secret in May 07 to go over where exactly they saw their Smithman is one thing, but getting any of the Smiths over to sign on the dotted line as to a formal identification of a specific person would seem to require just a wee bit of paperwork. IMO.
What would this "reconstruction" have actually involved? A video projection on a truck of Gerry walking down the plane steps while the Smith family walked up towards home watching said video?
Re-read my post, Faith.
2nd column, 3rd full paragraph
“…But then the story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that their potentially critical development was just another red herring. “
Where was it alleged that the family had retracted their statements?
Statements concerning what? That they’d seen a man carrying a child? If so, news to me.
Next… re the Panorama programme: “Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.
Smith or Smiths? Which ones?
What IS plausible (although I haven't had time to double-check) is that Bilton may have said that Martin now felt he may have been mistaken about being convinced that it was Gerry without checking with him personally.
If ever that's the case, and if that's all that it's about, it doesn't mean that Martin or anyone else "retracted" their statements.
Russ later wondered if Murat was indeed the person he initially stated he'd seen, but in the end chose to stick with his earlier statement, presumably based on his impression at the time.
What did Bilton actually originally say, and what was supposedly edited? She doesn't say (at least in the part I've read so far).
Why hasn't she provided a copy of the original and edited versions? That way, we'd all be clear as to what any potential edits actually were.
The piece about the Smiths saying they believe they saw some else is still on the signed version.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08pmtb1/sign/panorama-madeleine-mccann-10-years-on#
Seemingly it's OK to mislead the deaf.That is likely to be an oversight. Lol
In my opinion the McCluskey 'recognition' of Gerry carrying his son from the plane is a prime example as explained in many of the contents of your posts. One wonders if there was any influence on the misconception of Smith and McCluskey as the result of the arguido status which had been conferred on Kate and Gerry making the unthinkable thinkable.
What has that got to do with anything?Think about it Slarti
What has that got to do with anything?What I am thinking that if the interviews the PJ had with the Smiths did occur, (as detailed in GA's book but not in the file), it is possible that during those interviews Martin Smith expressed a view that he changed his mind. We have no evidence what was said during those interviews but the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths did not go ahead so it is prudent to think the answers were not supportive of Amaral's desire to finger Kate and Gerry (in particular Gerry in this case, for it was clearly not Kate carrying the child).
snip ...Gerry states in his arguido statement: "When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." This must mean he denies being Smithman.
In fact I will have to examine them closely, but do any of Gerry's arguido questions allude to, in any way, Gerry possibly being Smithman?
What I am thinking that if the interviews the PJ had with the Smiths did occur, (as detailed in GA's book but not in the file), it is possible that during those interviews Martin Smith expressed a view that he changed his mind. We have no evidence what was said during those interviews but the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths did not go ahead so it is prudent to think the answers were not supportive of Amaral's desire to finger Kate and Gerry (in particular Gerry in this case, for it was clearly not Kate carrying the child).
In fact I will have to examine them closely, but do any of Gerry's arguido questions allude to, in any way, Gerry possibly being Smithman?
Amaral said he was going to get them over - but then he got sacked and it didn't happen (aside from Rebelo asking for clarification).
Agreed but even if giving a percentage score, surely someone would say about sixty per cent or about eighty percent depending on their certainty. It's just such a strange way of indicating their strength of belief. Imo.
As OG thought it was a main lead, surely that must cast doubt on Rebelo's skills?Perhaps Rebelo and SY decided he had told them all he knew. Smith said he would not be, able to recognise smithman again.
Perhaps Rebelo and SY decided he had told them all he knew. Smith said he would not be, able to recognise smithman again.
Amaral said he was going to get them over - but then he got sacked and it didn't happen (aside from Rebelo asking for clarification).The Tapas 9 are criticised for not attending the reconstruction but we don't get the same criticism levelled at the Smiths. I have just realised what could be the driver behind the whole process. Trouble is saying it.
And yet OG considered MS’s efit a very important lead, as did Exton before them.
The Tapas 9 are criticised for not attending the reconstruction but we don't get the same criticism levelled at the Smiths. I have just realised what could be the driver behind the whole process. Trouble is saying it.
The Tapas 9 are criticised for not attending the reconstruction but we don't get the same criticism levelled at the Smiths. I have just realised what could be the driver behind the whole process. Trouble is saying it.
The Smiths weren't asked to attend a reconstitution as far as I know.Misty had given us that quote from Amaral's book, A lot of communication with the Smiths is not covered in the file but there was a reference to it in "the Truth of the Lie".
The Smiths had already been over in May 07. If there had been a firm request, perhaps they would have gone over again. What on earth could they have re-enacted apart from what they'd already done the first time?
According to his book, Amaral's main idea was to get the "Smiths" (without specifying who amongst them) back over to make a "formal identification" of Gerry.
IMO, it was a much better idea for Rebelo to seek clarification via their local police force first. At least there wouldn't have been any interpretation issues. Even if they'd all been adamant that it was indeed Gerry after all, they could have signed affidavits from there, which would have then been translated for the PJ files.
What intrigues me is whether he only intended to bring over Martin and possibly his wife or all of them (including those who didn't think it was Gerry).
Answers on a postcard...
Misty had given us that quote from Amaral's book, A lot of communication with the Smiths is not covered in the file but there was a reference to it in "the Truth of the Lie".
The second reconstruction was going to involve images of Gerry carrying a child. Something creative like that.
Amaral planned to bring them back again, but he got removed. The idea was dropped and as they weren't asked how can you say they refused?Can you be sure they weren't asked? I can't. OK refused maybe OTT.
Can you be sure they weren't asked? I can't. OK refused maybe OTT.
PF posted on a different thread ages ago that Paiva had called them to ask if they'd be willing to come over (I've no idea where PF picked that up from, nor whether that's accurate). If so, it may well have been simply an informal call to check if they'd be willing to do so in principle, if needed.well even if informal question and answer went like this: "Are willing to come over?" "No not really" Is that a refusal?
I've never seen anything to suggest that they'd refused.
As OG thought it was a main lead, surely that must cast doubt on Rebelo's skills?
well even if informal question and answer went like this: "Are willing to come over?" "No not really" Is that a refusal?
Can you be sure they weren't asked? I can't. OK refused maybe OTT.
The Smiths appear to be only ones willing to cooperate with the Portuguese.
Jez refused. The Tapas 7 refused. What were they accused of ?http://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s190.html
MS was asked to go back again in Sept. '07.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
*snipped*
Processos Vol XI Page 2875
Policia Judiciaria
NUIPC 201-070 GALGS
NOTE
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting 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.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s190.html
Maddie has been missing six months
Sunday November 4,2007
By Matt Drake
FOUR friends of Kate and Gerry McCann expect to be named as prime suspects over the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
Dr Russell O’Brien and his partner Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr David Payne were last night forced to bring in their own lawyers after increasing fears that Portuguese police were preparing to implicate them in the case of the vanished four-year-old girl.
It has emerged that the four, all members of the “Tapas Nine” dining party, have been warned detectives are prepared to make them official suspects in the next few days.
The latest dramatic development follows the discovery by Portuguese investigators of contradictions in key statements made in the first few hours after Madeleine vanished. ........cont.
JW insisted on handwriting his own witness statement in the UK. Was he wary of the Portuguese police after his initial encounter with them?
Why would that cast doubt on Rebelo's skills?
Identifying Smithman may well still be an issue (unless the guy has since been identified and eliminated and it simply hasn't been announced in the media).
However, Rebelo sought clarification as to why Martin thought it might have been Gerry: it was just the way the man held his child. There aren't 10k ways of carrying a small child, particularly heading downwards where you need to make sure you won't trip.
IMO, the equivalent is discovering that a white van was a suspected vehicle in an armed robbery. The fact of having briefly seen a white van passing within the vicinity doesn't offer any more information as to whether it was the white van of interest or not. Particularly if others present at the same moment contest whether the vehicle was white or actually a van.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s190.html
Maddie has been missing six months
Sunday November 4,2007
By Matt Drake
FOUR friends of Kate and Gerry McCann expect to be named as prime suspects over the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
Dr Russell O’Brien and his partner Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr David Payne were last night forced to bring in their own lawyers after increasing fears that Portuguese police were preparing to implicate them in the case of the vanished four-year-old girl.
It has emerged that the four, all members of the “Tapas Nine” dining party, have been warned detectives are prepared to make them official suspects in the next few days.
The latest dramatic development follows the discovery by Portuguese investigators of contradictions in key statements made in the first few hours after Madeleine vanished. ........cont.
JW insisted on handwriting his own witness statement in the UK. Was he wary of the Portuguese police after his initial encounter with them?
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s190.htmlWho's hand writing was JW statement if he "insisted on handwriting his own witness statement"? Is it his or the interviewing police officer?
snip ...
JW insisted on handwriting his own witness statement in the UK. Was he wary of the Portuguese police after his initial encounter with them?
MS was asked to go back again in Sept. '07.So was Martin Smith the only one of the Smiths being returned to Portugal for this exercise? 4 of the Smiths made statements didn't they.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
*snipped*
Processos Vol XI Page 2875
Policia Judiciaria
NUIPC 201-070 GALGS
NOTE
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting 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.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
Who's hand writing was JW statement if he "insisted on handwriting his own witness statement"? Is it his or the interviewing police officer?
My mistake - it would appear to be the interviewing officer's handwriting. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that JW had insisted on handwriting his own statement.There was that, but I think it just meant it wasn't to be recorded by video or tape recording. OK the witness has the right but hand written statements are inferior. There are sections in there that can't be read and mistakes are made.
MS was asked to go back again in Sept. '07.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
*snipped*
Processos Vol XI Page 2875
Policia Judiciaria
NUIPC 201-070 GALGS
NOTE
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting 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.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
Sorry the cite you post says the the Smith said they could return, not that they were asked to?
Which part of this should be added to the list of half-truths?
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020
snipped from Chapter 20
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness.
No where in what you post does it say the Smiths were asked to return?
There is now a searchable transcript (i.e. text) of Gemma O'Doherty's article in Village Magazine appearing on my blog. Did the BBC bend the truth?I'd better copy it before it gets deleted!
This transcript is intended for research purposes only.
If I get a complaint from Gemma O'Doherty or Village Magazine I will remove it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have been withholding this transcript for days. I am of the opinion that publishing the text now will not adversely impact the circulation of Village Magazine.
There is now a searchable transcript (i.e. text) of Gemma O'Doherty's article in Village Magazine appearing on my blog. Did the BBC bend the truth?
This transcript is intended for research purposes only.
If I get a complaint from Gemma O'Doherty or Village Magazine I will remove it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have been withholding this transcript for days. I am of the opinion that publishing the text now will not adversely impact the circulation of Village Magazine.
Sorry the cite you post says the the Smith said they could return, not that they were asked to?
John approved links to your blog some time ago so I am posting one to accompany the above post.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting 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.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Open to interpretation, no doubt, but I understand that as an informal enquiry as to whether he'd be willing / available to go over possibly prior to a formal request, unless there wasn't going to be a more formal one and he'd just be asked to pop over on a certain date.
Open to interpretation, no doubt, but I understand that as an informal enquiry as to whether he'd be willing / available to go over possibly prior to a formal request, unless there wasn't going to be a more formal one and he'd just be asked to pop over on a certain date.
No consultations with lawyers or reassurances for Martin Smith. He seems simply to have wanted to help the PJ to find a missing child. How different his behaviour was to those closest to the child.
How strange! A thread was deleted not long ago because there was a link to SIL's blog. Something about links to blogs written by members being against the rules, if I remember correctly. but apologies if I've got that wrong.
I'd better copy it before it gets deleted!Hurry ! Hurry ! &^^&*
As the communication appears to have stopped there (according to the files), there's no way of knowing whether or not he consulted a lawyer or not.
Did it ever occur to him or other members of the family why he was the only one consulted about his availability to make a formal statement?
What would he have needed reassurance about?
Hmmm .... a whole thread deleted because of one link ... bit draconian in my opinion? However, if my recollection is correct no harm done ... if it is wrong my post containing the link will join the deleted thread in the fullness of time and no harm done.Ooops, another one (a big one it seems, a whole thread !), deleted
Ooops, another one (a big one it seems, a whole thread !), deletedI remember and it may have been my thread.
I wonder what was particularly interesting about that one ? What was is about? Anyone remember ?
MS was asked to attend as a witness, exactly the same status as the tapas friends yet they sought assurances.
As MS and his wife were the only ones to cautiously identify the sighting as Gerry it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to work out why he was invited.
As to consulting a lawyer it would appear MS was immediately willing to go back to Portugal no matter what the inconvenience to himself.
Is it rocket science as to why the others weren't, do you think?
The others ?That is terrible logic. IMO.
It would appear the request was prompted by MS identification. If the others didn’t agree what would be the point of bringing them back ?
MS was asked to attend as a witness, exactly the same status as the tapas friends yet they sought assurances.
As MS and his wife were the only ones to cautiously identify the sighting as Gerry it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to work out why he was invited.
As to consulting a lawyer it would appear MS was immediately willing to go back to Portugal no matter what the inconvenience to himself.
The others ?
It would appear the request was prompted by MS identification. If the others didn’t agree what would be the point of bringing them back ?
MS said it was Gerry, the others disagreed. Did any of them say it wasn't Gerry, or was it a case of not being able to say what the man looked like?
So another case of not being cleared 8(0(*
Perhaps he only wanted to speak for himself.
Possibly. But why was he the only person Paiva asked to go over?
Could any of the others have added anything?
Was there dispute over where or when they saw Smithman?
Perhaps that the person they saw didn't resemble Gerry, in their view? Not terribly useful if you just want to hand over statements for a prosecution case...
Have they said that?How would we know what was said?
How strange! A thread was deleted not long ago because there was a link to SIL's blog. Something about links to blogs written by members being against the rules, if I remember correctly. but apologies if I've got that wrong.The little button under my "Total Likes" row is a link to my blog, and has been permitted ever since I joined.
How would we know what was said?
Well, you wouldn't but that doesn't stop supporters from making things up to fit an agenda.
I cannot believe this mans sighting is causing so much discord with people who want justice for MBM.
what was that saying... ah... every stone unturned. Yeah I don't think they believed what they said, and were not expectingmany people would be turning over stones and looking into the case as they have done.
Well, you wouldn't but that doesn't stop supporters from making things up to fit an agenda.
I cannot believe this mans sighting is causing so much discord with people who want justice for MBM.
what was that saying... ah... every stone unturned. Yeah I don't think they believed what they said, and were not expecting many people would be turning over stones and looking into the case as they have done.
Very true, you would expect anyone wanted the case solved to want the Smith sighting seriously investigated.
smith thinks he may have seen gerry.....Gerry is not a suspect which would indicate both police forces do not think it was gerry. What I would like to see is an appeal in portugal for smithman...it appears there has never been one
smith thinks he may have seen gerry.....Gerry is not a suspect which would indicate both police forces do not think it was gerry. What I would like to see is an appeal in portugal for smithman...it appears there has never been one
The McCanns could have done that themselves, if they wanted, instead, the e-fits were kept private.
They chose to continue investigating Tannerman, because of expense, as was explained by a source from the fund.
The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
smith thinks he may have seen gerry.....Gerry is not a suspect which would indicate both police forces do not think it was gerry. What I would like to see is an appeal in portugal for smithman...it appears there has never been one
The Crimewatch programme;Clips from the program could be vastly different to broadcasting the whole program.
Clips of the programme are available from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Press Bureau and have been shown on Portuguese television this week.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Portugal_17_10_2013.htm
The Crimewatch programme;
Clips of the programme are available from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Press Bureau and have been shown on Portuguese television this week.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Portugal_17_10_2013.htm
I think someone said 'no appeal in Portugal', but if the Met didn't include the e-fits in their releases I would be very surprised.
Two Portuguese TV stations offered to show the programme but the BBC refused;
“The BBC said they are not selling the rights”, Martim Cabral told The Portugal News, “therefore we cannot show it.”
Another Portuguese news channel, TVI, told The Portugal News that it had contacted the British national broadcaster prior to the airing of the show, as it sought to “acquire the programme for Portugal, which was denied.”
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Portugal_17_10_2013.htm
A very strange decision.
Quite why the BBC would allow other countries except Portugal to show the programme is beyond me.
One for the investigative journalists.
Who said that the BBC wouldn't allow Portugal to show it?
“The BBC said they are not selling the rights”, Martim Cabral told The Portugal News, “therefore we cannot show it.”
Another Portuguese news channel, TVI, told The Portugal News that it had contacted the British national broadcaster prior to the airing of the show, as it sought to “acquire the programme for Portugal, which was denied.”
The BBC wouldn't sell the rights to Portuguese TV stations, ergo they weren't allowed to show it.
What's confusing for you about that?
Read above.
I read it.
They wouldn't allow Portuguese stations to buy the rights.
Seems pretty clear to me.
The Portuguese TV programmes seemed to have no need to consult the PJ about which programmes they chose to buy and show.
They had access to the clips for free - and used them (I watched them).
Including the e-fits?
A very strange decision.
Quite why the BBC would allow other countries except Portugal to show the programme is beyond me.
One for the investigative journalists.