Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[Carana]

I haven't had time to read through all of this yet. I've only just read a part of the article so far.

Is her article supposed to be "investigative journalism"?

I'll find time to read through the rest of it before commenting, except to say that I stopped to wonder about how neutral it was at around the 5th paragraph.

[Lace]

The waiter who served Russell his steak said it was as early as 9:50pm. This case has never been difficult to connect all the pieces together. The timeline is key because there is so much BS.

Waiter -   
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.

So he is saying the guest returned about quarter to 10,   he managed to eat most of his dinner so add another five minutes or so that's about 10 to 10  it could easily have been about 5 to 10 or even 10 when Kate came back.

Gerry then went to the apartment to search it again,  then he went outside to test the blind,  how long would that take?   Then he was seen searching around the pool area,   he couldn't possibly have been the person the Smith family saw at 10 o'clock.

[Lace]

I didn't say she was stupid just easily frightened ( note her overreaction to the van surveillance). I don't think it would have been too difficult to convince her to 'remember' seeing Gerry and Wilkins, perhaps he sold it to her that if he and Kate went down the whole group would be implicated. IMO.

As to Jane being in the apartment perhaps it was one of those 'translation' errors ?

Jane had already mentioned she saw the man carrying the child before she saw Gerry again.    Jeremy would say that he saw Gerry about that time and chatted to him.   So why did Gerry have to get together with Jane to say she saw him chatting with Gerry?

[Wonderfulspam]

Waiter -   
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.

So he is saying the guest returned about quarter to 10,   he managed to eat most of his dinner so add another five minutes or so that's about 10 to 10  it could easily have been about 5 to 10 or even 10 when Kate came back.

Gerry then went to the apartment to search it again,  then he went outside to test the blind,  how long would that take?   Then he was seen searching around the pool area,   he couldn't possibly have been the person the Smith family saw at 10 o'clock.

Didn't I see a thread somewhere about stating opinion as fact?

[jassi]

Jane had already mentioned she saw the man carrying the child before she saw Gerry again.    Jeremy would say that he saw Gerry about that time and chatted to him.   So why did Gerry have to get together with Jane to say she saw him chatting with Gerry?

How do we know she being entirely accurate?

[Lace]

How do we know she being entirely accurate?

How do we know anyone is being entirely accurate?   and by that I mean the Smith family. 

Why has it always have to be the McCann's and their friends who are not being accurate?

[Lace]

I didn't say she was stupid just easily frightened ( note her overreaction to the van surveillance). I don't think it would have been too difficult to convince her to 'remember' seeing Gerry and Wilkins, perhaps he sold it to her that if he and Kate went down the whole group would be implicated. IMO.

As to Jane being in the apartment perhaps it was one of those 'translation' errors ?

Can I ask you Faithlilly what would the whole group would be implicated for what?

[jassi]

How do we know anyone is being entirely accurate?   and by that I mean the Smith family. 

Why has it always have to be the McCann's and their friends who are not being accurate?

Because they had the most to lose  IMO

[faithlilly]

Can I ask you Faithlilly what would the whole group would be implicated for what?

If Madeleine had met her death through some kind of accident while alone the police would look far differently on all the children being left alone than if it was claimed she was abducted. That could definitely cause pressures within the group, pressures that Gerry may have exploited IMO.

[Erngath]

How do we know anyone is being entirely accurate?   and by that I mean the Smith family. 

Why has it always have to be the McCann's and their friends who are not being accurate?

I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!

[faithlilly]

I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!

Not to me.

[Erngath]

Not to me.

It is to me.

[jassi]

I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!

Me too. I would expect someone to say fairly sure or very sure, not to try and give it some sort of score.

[Eleanor]

I find the 60% to 80% accuracy part rather strange.
Quite a difference in being sixty per cent sure to being eighty percent sure.
Like passing an exam with sixty percent which is pretty average to passing with eighty percent which is pretty good.
Why not say sixty to sixty five or about sixty or seventy percent sure.
It just seems strange to me!

Actually, 60% to 80% isn't very sure at all.  Certainly not in a Court of Law.  I doubt that sort of percentage would even be considered.

[Erngath]

Me too. I would expect someone to say fairly sure or very sure, not to try and give it some sort of score.

Agreed but even if giving a percentage score, surely someone would say about sixty per cent or about eighty percent depending on their certainty. It's just such a strange way of indicating their strength of belief. Imo.