Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[Wonderfulspam]

Side view of head.

Where are glasses worn?

Around the eyes, on the face.

Where does a moustache grow?

On the upper lip, which is part of a face.

Where do beards grow?

On the chin & cheeks...

Which are part of what?

Answer......a face!.

[G-Unit]

Ms O'Doherty has failed to point out in her article that the child the Smith family saw was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
 Madeleine was wearing short-sleeved, cropped-leg pyjamas according to the information given to the PJ by the McCanns.
 It would be fascinating to understand how detailed research has led her to believe the Smith family sighting, in its original form, is so important that it should not be misrepresented by the BBC.

The article wasn't about pyjamas. It was about the BBC saying a witness had retracted his statement, which was untrue.

[Robittybob1]

Where are glasses worn?

Around the eyes, on the face.

Where does a moustache grow?

On the upper lip, which is part of a face.

Where do beards grow?

On the chin & cheeks...

Which are part of what?

Answer......a face!.

I think the word "head" can correctly answer those questions too.

[G-Unit]

Link is for UK only.

Trust me, it's been cut.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think the word "head" can correctly answer those questions too.

What utter pedantry.

This kind of nonsense coming from a Mod.

What is on the side of ones head?

Why, it's the face!

It's on both sides & the front, encompassing that very surface area on ones head.

[Wonderfulspam]

Trust me, it's been cut.

He won't believe you because it doesn't suit his own theory, whatever the * that is.

Something about Maddie wandering out & an abductor hiding in a ridiculously exposed place, or getaway cars that nobody saw & something or other.

[slartibartfast]

You have posted misinformation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg444957#msg444957.

Please amend your post ... or are you able to prove it by providing a cite?

You implied her story wasn’t true, that is libel unless you have proof.

[misty]

The article wasn't about pyjamas. It was about the BBC saying a witness had retracted his statement, which was untrue.

So why the need to write a whole article about a supposed error made by the BBC without a single direct quote from the person who was allegedly misrepresented?

[G-Unit]

So why the need to write a whole article about a supposed error made by the BBC without a single direct quote from the person who was allegedly misrepresented?

That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.

[misty]

That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.

What new information have the public gleaned from 4 magazine pages of investigative journalism that wasn't already known back in August 2008?

[Alice Purjorick]

That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.

The beeb is frequently on the wrong end of criticism for being a publicly funded body that expresses biased and not necessarily factually accurate programmes*.
This business with the Smiths is a mere bagatelle compared with some of the garbage the beeb has peddled over the past 20 years or so.
* no cites mods. If you haven't clocked it without me providing a cite I would question where you have had your 'eads for last 20 years....

p.s I note the blue pencil gang are out again. It occurred unto me : if a Supporter Mod runs the blue pencil over a Sceptic Post what credence can be placed on the final post actually conveying the message the poster had originally intended?

[Robittybob1]

So why the need to write a whole article about a supposed error made by the BBC without a single direct quote from the person who was allegedly misrepresented?

Is it true that Gemma has not spoken to Martin Smith to confirm his current view?  I can see why Brietta wants proof of the current view of Martin Smith.

[Wonderfulspam]

What new information have the public gleaned from 4 magazine pages of investigative journalism that wasn't already known back in August 2008?

That Mr Smith hasn't changed his mind, as has been claimed on various fora since that Sunday Times article of 2013.

[Brietta]

You implied her story wasn’t true, that is libel unless you have proof.

I implied nothing.  I said her statements were unsubstantiated.  I can't find a direct quote within quotation marks anywhere from Mr Smith.  Nor have I seen or heard a recording of his interview.  Therefore her statements are unsubstantiated.

Interestingly I have noticed a few alterations to the BBC Panorama programme ... the reason for none of which have been explained ... so the programme just doesn't work as a cite for anything other than the rumour mill and supposition.

I have already said, a professional will have proof to hand ... particularly if the source has already been revealed.

So what exactly is the hold up?

[Robittybob1]

That's not at all unusual, is it? The MSM do it all the time. The BBC backed down, so they obviously had no evidence to support their claim.

Note: The scenario mentioned is a completely imaginary scenario, I'm not claiming it happened.  Not Libel,
In my scenario the BBC went off what "Bilton" reported.  If the had had a conversation and it was recent that is sufficient to confirm Martin had changed his mind. 
In my scenario it was never in the form of a statement. 

I implied nothing.  I said her statements were unsubstantiated.  I can't find a direct quote within quotation marks anywhere from Mr Smith.  Nor have I seen or heard a recording of his interview.  Therefore her statements are unsubstantiated.

Interestingly I have noticed a few alterations to the BBC Panorama programme ... the reason for none of which have been explained ... so the programme just doesn't work as a cite for anything other than the rumour mill and supposition.

I have already said, a professional will have proof to hand ... particularly if the source has already been revealed.

So what exactly is the hold up?

Maybe the same is happening for Gemma, she has a conversation and sees a change in the documentary but doesn't have the black and white evidence of it other than the memory of the conversation.