I am getting the idea, perhaps wrongly, that you think that I fit into pro-McCann mould or anti-McCann mould, when I fact I do neither.
Technically, I am not even pro-Madeleine. Did I just say that ? Ouch!
I happen to be pro-evidence, wherever said evidence should lead.
Therefore - fact. Sentiment in Portugal happens to be strongly anti-McCann. This proves NOTHING except that sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case.
And - fact. The book made money plus it kept the case high profile, so at least we agree on that. Neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, and it has a very limited relevance to the case. Compare and contrast the actual statements (to which Kate had plentiful access) and Kate's book on those very same statements and I can say without fear of censure that Kate varied between poor and sloppy on the details.
I can accuse her of no more. I have no evidence to accuse her of more. Poor to sloppy on the details.
So, what can we agree on? We appear to agree on the ideas that the book made money for the fund and kept Madeleine high profile.
I choose to disagree that it was necessary to make money for the fund. I choose this on the basis that I cannot yet see whatever is beneficial the fund may have found out, though I am aware that it appears to have ignored perfectly good information (the Smith sighting) because the McCanns preferred (?) the Tanner sighting.
No stone unturned? If only some of the unturned stones were turned over, we might make some progress.
One of those posts which really did make me smile ... and another point for agreement is that the value of your blog is your even handed approach and your determination on the value of evidence and your relentless search for it.
You remind me a bit of one of my favourite posters here whose analytical mind is second to none and who is tireless in rooting out information.
You sound a bit miffed that I may be pinning labels on you; please be assured that I would not be so presumptive; I think what you may be tapping into is 'respect'.
I hope I haven't damaged your 'street cred' in the process particularly as I have a particular dislike of arbitrary labels.
I am also of the opinion you are a very valuable poster here because of what you can tell us first hand about the environs of PDL and the opinions of the people you speak with.
You say that ... "sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case."
If the feeling is anti-McCann but not related to the case ... what is it related to ... and do you have any idea what caused them to form it?
Initially we are told people were very sympathetic. Why did that change?
You seem to think the book adds nothing to the case, I am in agreement and I don't think it was ever meant to; however I am not convinced about the 'sloppiness' of what was written in comparison to the statements (which I take to be the PJ files) for the simple reason she had access to files we have not seen and the translations she used were professional, payment for which was another necessary drain on the fund.
We must also agree to disagree on the value of keeping the fund going for two reasons
(a) we do not know what information the PIs may have uncovered. We do know the files from these source were passed to Operation Grange.
(b) I think the authorities here and in Portugal may have been shamed by the fact that the family of a missing child had been forced to employ people to do what they should have been doing.
It acted as a lever to have the case reviewed with the result that resources not available to the private sector were put in place with the decision to reopen the case.
Without that pressure provided by the fund and parents who were not going away ... I don't think that would have happened.
Another point of disagreement is the Smith sighting ... have you found any independent evidence to substantiate their account?
I think you will find that the majority of people make the assumption the sighting was reported contemporaneously with Jane Tanner's.
I know I did.
I was therefore bemused at the delay in contacting the police to make the report.
It is also worth remembering that the PJ and SY had the referred to efits.
Nevertheless the Smith sighting was not ignored by Dr McCann ...
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" (hardback):-
Kate McCann devotes no fewer than 4 pages in her book to the significance of the Smith sighting – pp 98, 328-329 & 365
She says:-
Quote:
“The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their skepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me, the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing”.
She goes on to remark on the similarities between these two completely independent sightings saying
Quote:
“(…remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.”
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20SightingI think it possible that stones are not being moved at the moment because of the shake up in the judicial system where current cases are being prioritised ... we shall just have to wait it out.
