Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[ShiningInLuz]

What is nonsense exactly?  That nine individuals saw a man carrying a child that night?  Can you please explain to me how that is nonsense?

I gave you the quote of your claim the first time.  Here it is again.

"There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact."

You stated that.  I said it's nonsense.  Because it's nonsense.

[mercury]

Why would she think she had to spell it out as if she was addressing the feeble minded who had to have every syllable explained to them.   It's perfectly clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that she would not have made those comments if she and her husband believed the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their  daughter..

If you want to believe she meant the opposite of what she said - then that's your problem.

(Have to go out now)

clutching at straws?

comments allegedly made to a journalist do not prove very much, notwithstanding the fact that at the time the smiths would have had no idea their statements were about to be put out over the Internet .....meanwhile, still awaiting ferrymans proof/smith's verbatim confirmation that he went from 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann to zero %


Signed....feeble minded

[G-Unit]

@Alfred
Oakley International, which boasts former British security service and FBI contacts, was hired to monitor the Madeleine Hotline, carry out detective work and review CCTV footage of possible sightings of the missing girl around the world.

Why would the McCanns ask Oakley to investigate and report on their own part in the case? If they did specifically ask them to do it, why not ask for the report before sacking Oakley?

What did the investigators stand to gain by handing over a report which was hypercritical of the parents and their friends and two e-fits which had a look of the father? They were chasing payment at the time, and the report was unlikely to persuade the parents to pay them, quite the reverse really. The McCanns were not keen on being investigated, as the PJ discovered.

DCI Redwood publicised the e-fits, knowing they were connected to a report criticising the parents and Jane Tanner's sighting. At the same time he largely got rid of the Tanner sighting.

[Alfred R Jones]

I gave you the quote of your claim the first time.  Here it is again.

"There were 9 individuals that confirm this fact."

You stated that.  I said it's nonsense.  Because it's nonsense.

I think you're being unduly pedantic.  There were 9 individuals.  4 (?) of the group said that a man carrying a child passed the group.  Is there any question that 5 others of the group also saw the man, or do you think it's possible that these 5 did not see and would not be able to confirm that a man passed them that night?

[Alfred R Jones]

@Alfred
Oakley International, which boasts former British security service and FBI contacts, was hired to monitor the Madeleine Hotline, carry out detective work and review CCTV footage of possible sightings of the missing girl around the world.

Why would the McCanns ask Oakley to investigate and report on their own part in the case? If they did specifically ask them to do it, why not ask for the report before sacking Oakley?

What did the investigators stand to gain by handing over a report which was hypercritical of the parents and their friends and two e-fits which had a look of the father? They were chasing payment at the time, and the report was unlikely to persuade the parents to pay them, quite the reverse really. The McCanns were not keen on being investigated, as the PJ discovered.

DCI Redwood publicised the e-fits, knowing they were connected to a report criticising the parents and Jane Tanner's sighting. At the same time he largely got rid of the Tanner sighting.

I don't get this.  Why would Oakley undertake an investigation into anything that was not part of their remit and which they were not paid to investigate?

[G-Unit]

I don't get this.  Why would Oakley undertake an investigation into anything that was not part of their remit and which they were not paid to investigate?

Now you're getting there. Concentrating on the e-fits tells us nothing. Add a report hypercritical of the group to the e- fits with a look of the father and you have a package which the McCanns are unlikely to have asked for and didn't want in the public domain. In fact they were said to have suppressed the report;

Critical new evidence at the centre of the reinvigorated hunt for Madeleine McCann came from a suppressed report by ex-MI5 investigators.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html

The report and associated e-fits didn't surface while Oakley were still working for the parents, they surfaced in November 2008 around the time when unpaid investigators were 'demanding' payment from the McCanns.


 

[ShiningInLuz]

I think you're being unduly pedantic.  There were 9 individuals.  4 (?) of the group said that a man carrying a child passed the group.  Is there any question that 5 others of the group also saw the man, or do you think it's possible that these 5 did not see and would not be able to confirm that a man passed them that night?

There is a big difference between '9 confirmed it' and '5 or 6 didn't but would be able to'.

If you believe a child of 4 and a child of 6 would be able to confirm it, your understanding of how memory works is quite different to my understanding.

The other members fall into the debateable category, other than the fact that they did not give statements.  9 down to 3 is hardly pedantic.

[Alfred R Jones]

There is a big difference between '9 confirmed it' and '5 or 6 didn't but would be able to'.

If you believe a child of 4 and a child of 6 would be able to confirm it, your understanding of how memory works is quite different to my understanding.

The other members fall into the debateable category, other than the fact that they did not give statements.  9 down to 3 is hardly pedantic.

You've concentrated on a debateable detail which does not alter in any way the thrust of my original point, but thanks for taking us on the detour.

[faithlilly]

Oh hello!  I thought I was on ignore...?

Only when mocking and deriding 

[Alfred R Jones]

Now you're getting there. Concentrating on the e-fits tells us nothing. Add a report hypercritical of the group to the e- fits with a look of the father and you have a package which the McCanns are unlikely to have asked for and didn't want in the public domain. In fact they were said to have suppressed the report;

Critical new evidence at the centre of the reinvigorated hunt for Madeleine McCann came from a suppressed report by ex-MI5 investigators.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html

The report and associated e-fits didn't surface while Oakley were still working for the parents, they surfaced in November 2008 around the time when unpaid investigators were 'demanding' payment from the McCanns.

I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread.  Has Martin Smith changed his opinion?  All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has.  Next.

[Alfred R Jones]

Only when mocking and deriding 

I was mocking you then but you responded.  Ooops!

[ferryman]

I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread.  Has Martin Smith changed his opinion?  All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has.  Next.

Indubitably ....

[G-Unit]

I don't see what any of this has got to do with the subject of this thread.  Has Martin Smith changed his opinion?  All the evidence seems to point to the fact that he has.  Next.

No, there is no evidence that he changed his mind. It's immaterial anyway because they still look like Gerry McCann. 

[Eleanor]

No, there is no evidence that he changed his mind. It's immaterial anyway because they still look like Gerry McCann.

No they don't.  Although one of them looks remarkably like Cristovao.

[faithlilly]

I was mocking you then but you responded.  Ooops!

Then I can only assume that you're very bad at it because i didn't even notice.