Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?

[Estuarine]

Up until October 2013 the abductor was Tannerman. To some it was:- obviously therefore an abduction, case closed QED.
Then that nice Mr Redwood stuck a bit of Semtex under Tannerman. Nary a thought along the lines of "Oh! the Tannerman sighting was bum steer maybe there was no abduction". Perish the thought; it WAS an abduction so another perp is required.
But that is off the topic. There is still no convincing argument for making off with a child from a holiday apartment rather than an easier location. Smacks of looking for a likely tale to add credence to a preconceived idea.

[Silkywhiskers]

Andy Redmond quite chirpily blew Tannerman and all of the associated lies, completely out of the water and replaced them with the suppressed efit.

All while smiling and appearing to be fairly gormless.  Just like he appeared on his morning tv "Madeleine may be alive" burble.

Look over here! See what I did?  Basic magic - trick the audience into staring at the box, meanwhile the dove is being shoved in unseen to explode with a glamorous flutter.

I expect more sleight of hand from Andy before he's done. 

[Silkywhiskers]

What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.

That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.

Which he was.  Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.

Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit.  He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before. 

I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving.  Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

Seriously, what are the chances?

We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.

It's like the DNA. 

15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.

Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.

That's why they have trials.  Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.

Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.

[Mr Gray]

If you believe that. you're a bigger fool than the rest of them.

Andy Redmond quite chirpily blew Tannerman and all of the associated lies, completely out of the water and replaced them with the suppressed efit of Gerry.

All while smiling and appearing to be fairly gormless.  Just like he appeared on his morning tv "Madeleine may be alive" burble.

Look over here! See what I did?  Basic magic - trick the audience into staring at the box, meanwhile the dove is being shoved in unseen to explode with a glamorous flutter.

I expect more sleight of hand from Andy before he's done. 


-- moderated for possible libel -- SH

I don't believe  the McCanns have fooled SY  I was being ironic...no more than I believe what you post...I believe SY have effectively cleared the McCanns as they are no longer considered to be suspects.

[Mr Gray]

What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.

That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.

Which he was.  Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.

Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit.  He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before. 

I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving.  Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

Seriously, what are the chances?

We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.

It's like the DNA. 

15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.

Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.

That's why they have trials.  Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.

Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.

75% is not a good indicator..its NO indicator at all...particularly as family members who would have similar dna profiles were present

[Wonderfulspam]

What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.

That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.

Which he was.  Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.

Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit.  He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before. 

I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving.  Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

Seriously, what are the chances?

We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.

It's like the DNA. 

15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.

Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.

That's why they have trials.  Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.

Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

What are the chances? 

Obviously very high indeed because SY have 'effectively cleared' the McCanns.

[Cariad]

What people fail to realise is he rated his recognition of Madeleine as 60% certainty, but Gerry he rated at 80%.

That is pretty high, certainly not something I would be reporting to the police and signing my name to, myself, unless I was 99.9%.

Which he was.  Just not enough to be absolutely convinced he wasn't imagining things.

Also, he didn't recognise Gerry The Face, when the news first hit.  He only recognised Gerry when he saw him on tv carrying one of the twins, not before. 

I suggest he recognised his physicality primarily, by which I mean way of walking, stride, how the shoulders are moving.  Very very difficult to imitate someone else's way of moving, just ask any actor.

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

Seriously, what are the chances?

We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.

It's like the DNA. 

15/19 Alleles, around about 75%.

Not enough to be absolutely stated as fact, but a damn good indicator.

That's why they have trials.  Alone you can argue away a coincidence or two, but threaded together it just begs belief that things happened the way it was alleged.

Add in Eddie and that's one compelling set of evidence.

I'm picking you up on this again SW. Those 15/19 markers were in a mixed bag of 38 (?) . A mixed sample is virtually meaningless. I spent ages trying to get my head around it, with the help of my husband and an ex member of the forum named Dhingra,

DNA was contributed from possibly 5 individuals* and there's no way of knowing if those 15 markers came from one person or bits from all five.

It's possible that I share DNA with Madeline, say 2 markers, you share 3, Joe Bloggs shares 10. we all leave DNA together and it's impossible to rule out that Madeleine Mccann was there.


I agree with your comments re Andy Redwood. I don't believe he's half as green as he's cabbage looking. I have much more faith in him since his crime watch stunt.

[Mr Gray]

I'm picking you up on this again SW. Those 15/19 markers were in a mixed bag of 38 (?) . A mixed sample is virtually meaningless. I spent ages trying to get my head around it, with the help of my husband and an ex member of the forum named Dhingra,

DNA was contributed from possibly 5 individuals* and there's no way of knowing if those 15 markers came from one person or bits from all five.

It's possible that I share DNA with Madeline, say 2 markers, you share 3, Joe Bloggs shares 10. we all leave DNA together and it's impossible to rule out that Madeleine Mccann was there.


I agree with your comments re Andy Redwood. I don't believe he's half as green as he's cabbage looking. I have much more faith in him since his crime watch stunt.

So the 15 marker is meaningless and Redwood is a smart bloke....and he's said the McCanns are not suspects

[AnneGuedes]

There is not too much doubt that the e-fit was suppressed - that wasn't the libelous part -  but it is not the case that Martin Smith 'positively identified him', as you say.

MS said he was 60% - 80% certain, a nonsensical comment considering his initial statement that he would not recognise the person if he saw him again.

They all and rightly said so and, frankly, would you be able to identify someone you never met and you crossed in the day time ? A fortiori in the darkness ! You would perhaps be able to say it's not this one nor that one, but positively recognizing is imo impossible.
Unless you noted some special feature.
And that's what happened in the case of the Smith couple. What stroke them wasn't related to the face (such a detail would have permitted to exclude eventually Mr McCann) but to something extra-ordinary in the way of carrying that was difficult to describe, being uncommon. Saying that the carrier seemed not to be at ease, Mr Smith attributed the "odd" thing to the carrier. But it could be related to the carried. If the child was deeply sedated or in a coma, her muscles would still be tense. If she was dead, they wouldn't.

[Benice]

They all and rightly said so and, frankly, would you be able to identify someone you never met and you crossed in the day time ? A fortiori in the darkness ! You would perhaps be able to say it's not this one nor that one, but positively recognizing is imo impossible.
Unless you noted some special feature.
And that's what happened in the case of the Smith couple. What stroke them wasn't related to the face (such a detail would have permitted to exclude eventually Mr McCann) but to something extra-ordinary in the way of carrying that was difficult to describe, being uncommon. Saying that the carrier seemed not to be at ease, Mr Smith attributed the "odd" thing to the carrier. But it could be related to the carried. If the child was deeply sedated or in a coma, her muscles would still be tense. If she was dead, they wouldn't.

IMo Mr. Smith would have pricked up his ears/eyes - as soon as the McCanns were mentioned on TV and would already be relating back to his own part in the case -  by the time he saw Gerry coming down the steps.    He was struck by the similarity of how the child was being carried - but I ask you - how many different ways ARE there of carrying a sleeping child down steps?    And anyone would be careful not to trip or fall whilst carrying a child in that way - nothing extraordinary about that at all IMO.     

If it had been  a stranger of similar build, age, height  he had seen coming down the steps carrying a child,  I doubt if he would have made the same connection.    It was only because it was Gerry that it reminded him of what he had seen on 3rd May.  imo.

I would be very surprised if M. Smith still believes it was Gerry he saw that night.


 -- modified to shorten blank space. No alteration to original text -- SH

[AnneGuedes]

IMo Mr. Smith would have pricked up his ears/eyes - as soon as the McCanns were mentioned on TV and would already be relating back to his own part in the case -  by the time he saw Gerry coming down the steps.    He was struck by the similarity of how the child was being carried - but I ask you - how many different ways ARE there of carrying a sleeping child down steps?    And anyone would be careful not to trip or fall whilst carrying a child in that way - nothing extraordinary about that at all IMO.     

If it had been  a stranger of similar build, age, height  he had seen coming down the steps carrying a child,  I doubt if he would have made the same connection.    It was only because it was Gerry that it reminded him of what he had seen on 3rd May.  imo.

I would be very surprised if M. Smith still believes it was Gerry he saw that night.

Please first read what I wrote about the child's muscles and remember Mr Smith meditated three days before calling the Gardai.

[Benice]

Please first read what I wrote about the child's muscles and remember Mr Smith meditated three days before calling the Gardai.

I'm afraid I don't see your point Anne.  You've lost me.

IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep.  I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.

If Mr Smith had been certain - then IMO he wouldn't have wasted any time in contacting the Garda.  And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.

Anyone who is claiming that any of the Smith family 100% identified Gerry as the man they saw -  is re-writing history -  in the name of 'wishful thinking' IMO.

 

   

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm afraid I don't see your point Anne.  You've lost me.

IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep.  I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.

If Mr Smith had been certain - then IMO he wouldn't have wasted any time in contacting the Garda.  And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.

Anyone who is claiming that any of the Smith family 100% identified Gerry as the man they saw -  is re-writing history -  in the name of 'wishful thinking' IMO.

 

   

IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep.  I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.

Nobody believes that Sean is dead.


And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.

With the exception of Mrs Smith.

[AnneGuedes]

IIRC The Smiths thought the child they saw on 3rd May was asleep - and Gerry's son was definitely asleep.  I'm at a loss to see what is significant about that.

Nobody believes that Sean is dead.


And let's not forget that other members of his family did not agree with him.

With the exception of Mrs Smith.

Mr Smith's son and his wife didn't state that they didn't think Mr McCann could be Smithman.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What are the chances that a person with a face like Gerry (efit) and a physicality like Gerry (carrying a child) just happened to be in PDL that night, just happened to take Madeleine, and just happened to be a virtual carbon copy of her father?

Seriously, what are the chances?

We can rule Euclides out, for a start...a fact which seems to have eluded the media.

I bow to your superior powers of deduction.