« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 44   Go Down

Author Topic: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?  (Read 133491 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Silkywhiskers

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2014, 05:14:41 PM »
Quote from: Sherlock Holmes on March 03, 2014, 04:59:09 PM
Moving in the direction of a sighting of a man with a young girl, corroborated in some detail by several witnesses, at a time when the Tapas nine were all in the Ocean Club.

Sorry?

Can you please guide me to where the whereabouts of the Tapas is confirmed at every point during the night?

For example, Gerry was allegedly OUTSIDE the OC when Tannerman stole Madeleine, chatting to Wilkins.
Logged

Offline John

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2014, 05:18:04 PM »
Contrary to what was suggested earlier as being a rumour, Martin Smith does not now believe that Gerry McCann was Smithman.  From the elusive Sunday Times article which was whooshed we have the following stated...

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.msg95381#msg95381
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 05:22:29 PM by John »
Logged
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #77 on: March 03, 2014, 05:46:18 PM »
Quote from: John on March 03, 2014, 05:18:04 PM
Contrary to what was suggested earlier as being a rumour, Martin Smith does not now believe that Gerry McCann was Smithman.  From the elusive Sunday Times article which was whooshed we have the following stated...

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.msg95381#msg95381
If it's not a rumour, John, what do you call a rumour ?
Logged

Offline John

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #78 on: March 03, 2014, 05:55:35 PM »
Quote from: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 05:46:18 PM
If it's not a rumour, John, what do you call a rumour ?

If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.  SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
Logged
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #79 on: March 03, 2014, 05:59:19 PM »
Quote from: Sherlock Holmes on March 03, 2014, 04:59:09 PM
Moving in the direction of a sighting of a man with a young girl, corroborated in some detail by several witnesses, at a time when the Tapas nine were all in the Ocean Club.

Only if you're working from an incorrect timeline. What did DCI Redwood say about the timeline on CW? I can't believe that bringing the timeline forward can easily con so many people. Extraordinary  @)(++(*
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #80 on: March 03, 2014, 05:59:45 PM »
Quote from: John on March 03, 2014, 05:55:35 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.  SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.

And if he hadn't said they not suspects it might have all kicked off again in the papers (or courts). I expect he says what lawyers say to say.
Logged

Online Wonderfulspam

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #81 on: March 03, 2014, 06:01:20 PM »
Quote from: John on March 03, 2014, 05:55:35 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.  SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.

If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.

Or would they... >@@(*&) 


 
Logged
Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline Carana

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #82 on: March 03, 2014, 06:10:17 PM »
Quote from: John on March 03, 2014, 05:55:35 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.  SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.

By "original assertion", are you referring to the 60-80% issue?

If so, they would also presumably be quite familiar with the effects of suggestibility and I'd be very surprised if SY hadn't interviewed the family.

If the SY had remaining doubts, I would assume that they would be adept enough at giving waffly non-committal answers, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Logged

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #83 on: March 03, 2014, 06:10:22 PM »
2nd September 2007 :

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".

"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said "I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #84 on: March 03, 2014, 06:14:45 PM »
Quote from: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 06:10:22 PM
2nd September 2007 :

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".

"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said "I don't know where the newspaper got this information from but it is not true."
And he was right, they were not witnesses then, but victims.
Logged

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #85 on: March 03, 2014, 06:18:57 PM »
Quote from: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 06:14:45 PM
And he was right, they were not witnesses then, but victims.

Deja Vu.
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #86 on: March 03, 2014, 06:21:56 PM »
Quote from: John on March 03, 2014, 05:55:35 PM
If SY thought for a minute that Mr Smith was correct in his original assertion they would not have stated publicly that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.  SY don't operate on the basis of rumours, at least I sincerely hope they don't.
Mr Smith wasn't 100% sure (how could he be ?), then why should DCI Redwood try to find a possible innocent father ?
Logged

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #87 on: March 03, 2014, 06:22:40 PM »
Quote from: pathfinder73 on March 03, 2014, 06:18:57 PM
Deja Vu.
Why do you mean with this déjà vu ?
Logged

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #88 on: March 03, 2014, 06:24:51 PM »
Quote from: AnneGuedes on March 03, 2014, 06:22:40 PM
Why do you mean with this déjà vu ?

We've been here before - first in 2007 and again now with the McCann's being victims and not persons of interest.
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #89 on: March 03, 2014, 06:25:08 PM »
Quote from: Lyall on March 03, 2014, 05:59:45 PM
And if he hadn't said they not suspects it might have all kicked off again in the papers (or courts). I expect he says what lawyers say to say.
Absolutely.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 44   Go Up
« previous next »