Has Martin Smith Changed his Opinion ?

[Mr Gray]

Try citing evidence for that last line, direct and verified from the Smiths.

My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.

"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.

from the sky news site

http://news.sky.com/story/593646/missing-madeleine-mccann-irish-witness-clears-murat

[pathfinder73]

My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.

"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.

from the sky news site

http://news.sky.com/story/593646/missing-madeleine-mccann-irish-witness-clears-murat

"He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn't think he was Portuguese."

Not from reading their statements.

He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. MS

About 35 years, or older. PS

20/30 years of age. AS (witness 12 years old - age 30 seems ancient to a child)

[faithlilly]

How do you explain the fact that the dog DID alert to clothes belonging to Kate and the children then?  How do you account for the fact that Gerry's jacket which was photographed on the back of the sofa, the one you claim he wore when carrying out his wicked deed, and against which a corpse would have been held tight, did not leave cadaver scent on the sofa itself?

Could it be that the clothes worn by Gerry on the night had been taken home on one of his visits back ? After all the clothes he had worn on a less than sweltering May are certainly not the clothes he would be wearing in August, certainly not a heavy jacket/shirt and long trousers.

[Alfred R Jones]

Could it be that the clothes worn by Gerry on the night had been taken home on one of his visits back ? After all the clothes he had worn on a less than sweltering May are certainly not the clothes he would be wearing in August, certainly not a heavy jacket/shirt and long trousers.

What you are suggesting is that by Summer 2007 NONE of Gerry's clothes were ones he'd had with him in May 2007, seems highly implausible to me. 

[faithlilly]

What you are suggesting is that by Summer 2007 NONE of Gerry's clothes were ones he'd had with him in May 2007, seems highly implausible to me.

Not none just the heavier ones which he would have been wearing in, we are told, a rather changeable May.

[Benice]

Could it be that the clothes worn by Gerry on the night had been taken home on one of his visits back ? After all the clothes he had worn on a less than sweltering May are certainly not the clothes he would be wearing in August, certainly not a heavy jacket/shirt and long trousers.

Whether he did that or not - doesn't explain why the settee which - if it had been in contact with a heavily contaminated jacket  - maybe for hours - was not alerted to by Eddie.     Cross contamination is instant according to M. Grime.

IMO the logical answer can only be that the jacket was not contaminated - because it had not been in contact with a corpse and therefore cross-contamination was not a possibility when it came to the settee.

[faithlilly]

Whether he did that or not - doesn't explain why the settee which - if it had been in contact with a heavily contaminated jacket  - maybe for hours - was not alerted to by Eddie.     Cross contamination is instant according to M. Grime.

IMO the logical answer can only be that the jacket was not contaminated - because it had not been in contact with a corpse and therefore cross-contamination was not a possibility when it came to the settee.

Grime explained that scent pools. Perhaps it pooled behind the sofa.

[pathfinder73]

Whether he did that or not - doesn't explain why the settee which - if it had been in contact with a heavily contaminated jacket  - maybe for hours - was not alerted to by Eddie.     Cross contamination is instant according to M. Grime.

IMO the logical answer can only be that the jacket was not contaminated - because it had not been in contact with a corpse and therefore cross-contamination was not a possibility when it came to the settee.

Poor logic. Eddie finds the strongest scent source. He wasn't barking all over the underground car park when he had found the scent. MG said his behaviour changed as soon as he got to the apartment. Scent was in the apartment so his job was to find the strongest source and he alerted in two areas.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not none just the heavier ones which he would have been wearing in, we are told, a rather changeable May.

So why no transferral between those clothes and all the other clothes that he had in his wardrobe / cupboard?

[Eleanor]

We've already got a Thread concerning Gerry's Uncontaminated Clothes.  Could we use it, please.

I will be deleting Off Topic Posts.

[Benice]

It is obvious to most that the body location would produce the strongest scent being the source.

We're off topic PF.  Can you post on the appropriate thread - and I will reply.

[G-Unit]

I totally agree Brietta.   The expectation by some that the McCanns should have been thinking like policemen and regarding their phone traffic as 'evidence'  - instead of thinking and behaving like the distraught terrified parents they were - is ludicrous IMO.   

Deleting messages is necessary so new ones can be received or sent. Deleting the history of numbers called and of those who have called you is unnecessary because leaving the list there doesn't stop the phone from working. The only reason to do that is so people can't see who you have been calling or who has called you. Why 'distraught and terrified parents' would take the trouble in the first hour after their child disappeared to do that is therefore  a valid question.

[Eleanor]

We're off topic PF.  Can you post on the appropriate thread - and I will reply.

Thank You, Benice.  I don't actually enjoy deleting Posts that are often of some use.  But I will if I must.

[Benice]

Deleting messages is necessary so new ones can be received or sent. Deleting the history of numbers called and of those who have called you is unnecessary because leaving the list there doesn't stop the phone from working. The only reason to do that is so people can't see who you have been calling or who has called you. Why 'distraught and terrified parents' would take the trouble in the first hour after their child disappeared to do that is therefore  a valid question.

I really don't know enough about how mobiles work to comment G,

However, what sort of a plan was it that involved having incriminatory 'evidence' on their phones  - which was apparently still there after they'd raised the alarm when as far as they knew the police could arrive within minutes.   

Surely it would be a major part of their cunning plan to make sure there was no incriminatory 'evidence' on their phones in the first place?     

[Alfred R Jones]

You child has died accidentally one evening and you and your wife decide to cover up the death.  What incriminating phone messages do you suppose they sent each other that evening, and when?