Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[pegasus]

I believe it was the instrument used to sort out a loose cannon ... in his book he says as much.

Part and parcel of that was probably the embarrassing mumbo jumbo of dream interpretations and total misunderstanding of forensics which precipitated the premature rush to have Madeleine's parents constituted arguidos ... particularly as eight days later a change in the law would not have allowed it.

I think flying Martin Smith in to explain how a man he could not identify carried a child would have been the final straw for him if his indiscreet phone call hadn't already done it ... Rebelo didn't do it, probably after he had investigated what Martin Smith had to say ...

Interesting you mention high powered phone calls ... from whom to whom??

(answered re phones on "wandering off topic" thread)

[slartibartfast]

N.B. complaints about Moderators are to be addressed to the Forum owner and not posted on the boards.

[Angelo222]

N.B. complaints about Moderators are to be addressed to the Forum owner and not posted on the boards.

I will add, continued posting of off topic comment on this thread will attract penalties.

[Mr Gray]

Smith saw a man carrying a child
That much we know for sure
His opinion of who it was seems very unreliable

[mercury]

Until the man is identified mr smiths 60-80% sure stands...and thats the end of it..no evidence or proof that he ever changed hs mind

[jassi]

Indeed, it might not have been Madeleine.

[mercury]

Indeed, it might not have been Madeleine.

Indeed, thats probably why the mccanns never made any big deal of it or the efits...oh hang on...theymade a big deal of other "ridiculous sightings"

[Mr Gray]

Until the man is identified mr smiths 60-80% sure stands...and thats the end of it..no evidence or proof that he ever changed hs mind

It can stand... Who cares ... It is of no significance

[Alice Purjorick]

Indeed, it might not have been Madeleine.

Very true but there  are those who prefer to argue Smithman is "the man who wasn't there" rather than another variant of "crecheman" .............................?!

[mercury]

It can stand... Who cares ... It is of no significance

Bit like the dogs and anythng else which doesnt suit, lol, who cares? Mccanns certainly didnt cardpe about a very important sightng or a cadaver dog alerting

 &%+((£

[jassi]

Bit like the dogs and anythng else which doesnt suit, lol, who cares? Mccanns certainly didnt cardpe about a very important sightng or a cadaver dog alerting

 &%+((£

I think they did, actually, but tried to pass it all off as rubbish.

[mercury]

I think they did, actually, but tried to pass it all off as rubbish.

Yes, Kate Mccann was particularly scathing in her book too....interesting that they have never stated that Smith was wrong

[sadie]

Two exact times.

"Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left."

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 22H03. Both are still unidentified 8 years later.

My dear Pfinder, you keep repeating that Smithman checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 22H03.  How do you know if Smithman checked his watch or not?   You weren't there ... and nobody saw him after he passed the Smith Family..

Please can you tell us where you got this "information" from.

It's not disinformation, is it?

[Mr Gray]

I think they did, actually, but tried to pass it all off as rubbish.

as I have said many times...sceptics simply do not understand the evidence

[mercury]

as I have said many times...sceptics simply do not understand the evidence

What a curious phenomenon, do extrapolate on this theory of yours