Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[G-Unit]

Mr Smith saw a man in the dark who definitely wasn't Murat but he was unable to provide enough information about him to be able to recognise him from a photograph or supply sufficient detail for an efit.

I think this is appx where Peter Smith described where his family had their encounter ... dark isn't it.

Then Mr Smith became 60 to 80% sure some months down the line that the man he had originally been unable to describe was that man.
Despite witnesses affirming that the man belatedly fingered was sitting in a restaurant eating a meal. 

Has there been any word since yesterday about the provenance of Ms O'Ds world shattering observation?

In my opinion the thread is about whether the BBC were justified in saying Smith changed his mind about the evidence he gave. It's not about whether we should believe his evidence or not.

[faithlilly]

Martin Smith's evidence has remained constant throughout. On 16th October 2013 the Daily Mail published a direct quote from Mr Smith;

 “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

All the arguments have arisen because certain people didn't like what he said and attempted to suggest he changed his mind. He didn't, so hopefully people will accept his evidence so we don't have another 84 page thread discussing something that never happened.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.0

From Adrian Gatton who made the McCanns  and the Conman and has seen the Oakley report.

Operation Omega: Smiths first interviewed by team 02/08/08. E-fits done 4th Sept 2008. Omega memo 08/09/08: "the SMITH family are now (and should always have been treated as) the investigation’s most important witnesses". Met release e-fits 2013 #OperationOmega #McCann #Halligen

[barrier]

In my opinion the thread is about whether the BBC were justified in saying Smith changed his mind about the evidence he gave. It's not about whether we should believe his evidence or not.

Makes one wonder about Biltons piece where did he get his misinformation from and why not check the veracity of it,it was clearly wrong which is shown in the links you provided.

[slartibartfast]

Makes one wonder about Biltons piece where did he get his misinformation from and why not check the veracity of it,it was clearly wrong which is shown in the links you provided.

Somebody liasing with the press/media from some quarter I shouldn’t wonder.

[faithlilly]

Somebody liasing with the press/media from some quarter I shouldn’t wonder.

I believe the same claim was in the Times efit article. Obviously this subject is too hot to handle for some.

[Brietta]

What are you using as your cite for that?

Witness testimony of Martin Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00

He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

Jesus wept.

Readers here can watch the two different versions.

They might notice how the words ''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else' have been edited out.

They might ponder why this claim has been removed, then perhaps, read Ms O'Dougherty's article &
'ta da'...there's the answer.

1) Am I missing something here?

Why else might the BBC have chosen to remove this particular claim since the original broadcast, other than because that claim was demonstrably false?

2) Maybe they just wanted to cut the running time down or something.

That must be it.

1) No
2) I was going to post something in a similar vein with the added bit that supporters will expect us to swallow the running time was to the second equal the reduction that had to be made   .
Of course removing  Mr Bilton's comments about what did or did not the Smiths do or say completely nullifies its importance, either way. Good innit?

[jassi]

Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?

[Wonderfulspam]

Witness testimony of Martin Smith taken 2007/05/26 with map of sighting

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00

He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Theres's something missing here.......

Mr Smith saw a man in the dark who definitely wasn't Murat but he was unable to provide enough information about him to be able to recognise him from a photograph or supply sufficient detail for an efit.

Ah yes, it's this bit......

"or supply sufficient detail for an efit."

The cite for that part of your claim is missing.

Was it abducted?

[G-Unit]

Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?

Perhaps they believed the misinformation spread by the MSM? They do say some people never learn. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?

With this one they are in danger of winding up with neither bun nor ha'penny.
On reflection they are there already.
How to paint yourself into a corner in one easy lesson.....

[Mr Gray]

Ain't it amazing how something of little importance has provoked such a negative response from the supporter gang ?

You don't seem to have been reading the posts
The reaction I've seen is that it's of no importance and is this the best that this investigative journalist has been able to cone up with after all the hype

[Brietta]

In my opinion the thread is about whether the BBC were justified in saying Smith changed his mind about the evidence he gave. It's not about whether we should believe his evidence or not.

That's fine if it is your opinion ... it simply does not fit the facts which basically have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Mr Smith's evidence is credible or not.
In fact it is my opinion that it all seems to be more about an investigative journalist and her opinion than anything to do with Mr Smith at all.

Those accusations made require their provenance to be affirmed, or the allegations mean nothing at all. The journalist must have recorded all her interviews and correspondence.  So why doesn't she share?

I wonder why some 'expert' in FOI hasn't fired one off to the BBC to 'investigate' why the Panorama programme was edited ... must be at least one licence payer out there who gives a damn.  Or maybe not.

How difficult is it for provenance to be delivered.  A quick reminder of the OP for this thread ...



Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/959745836145135616

It would appear that Miss O'Doherty approached the BBC and asked why they misled the public over the Smith sighting. The BBC admitted their mistake and have issued a retraction within the iPlayer edition of their 10th Anniversary programme.

[Wonderfulspam]

Perhaps they believed the misinformation spread by the MSM? They do say some people never learn. 

There's still no direct quote from Mr Smith, so there.

Mind you, there was never any direct quote that he had changed his mind either, but that was never an issue then.

It's difficult to know what to believe in this era of fake news.

[Mr Gray]

There's still no direct quote from Mr Smith, so there.

Mind you, there was never any direct quote that he had changed his mind either, but that was never an issue then.

It's difficult to know what to believe in this era of fake news.