Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

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?

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

That must be it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Maybe the Smith family will launch a legal action against Miss O'D for falsely representing them.

Watch this space, but don't hold your breath.

[Brietta]

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.

With respect Robitty, I consider past and present views of Mr Smith to be a total irrelevance. 

An opinion apparently shared with the PJ conducting the first investigation who didn't bother to check out either of the establishments allegedly visited by the family on the third of May until the tenth of October.
Bit remiss or what?

You are perfectly correct though we have a whole thread on the forum constructed around a statement for which there is no provenance and in my opinion that isn't good enough.

[misty]

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.

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?

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

That must be it.

Why did the BBC remove that particular part when requested to by a journalist but not when asked by the very person to whom the statement was attributed? As we have heard nothing directly from Martin Smith, are we to just assume that Ms O'Doherty has represented him honestly & correctly?

[John]

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.

Doesn't she state in her article posted by pathfinder that she spoke to Martin Smith senior a few weeks ago.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg444665#msg444665

[faithlilly]

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?

Perhaps you can give us some examples of what other alterations have been made to th programme ?

[John]

This brings us back to the secret Oakley International report which Dubliner Kevin Halligen made reference to. One wonders if Mr Smith gave the same response to Halligen as is now being reported by Miss O'Doherty?

[faithlilly]

This brings us back to the secret Oakley International report which Dubliner Halligen made reference to, one wonders if Mr Smith gave the same response to Halligen?

I thought that too. They certainly thought that Smithman had more credibility than Tannerman.

[ShiningInLuz]

Is this particular bunfight of any real importance?

It appears to boil down to 2 different versions of the Panarama special, one on YouTube, one on iPlayer, with a dash of G O'D on the side.

I cannot access iPlayer content, so I must rely on reports that it is different.

Before the Panorama programme, I was in touch with the producer and one of the researchers. The other researcher in contactable on the Algarve.

So if this discrepancy is seen as significant, I can enquire as to why the BBC did this.

The other route is to enquire via G O'D, but then, we already have her article.

Finally, there is Mr Smith.  Somehow I feel he has better things to do than responding to this forum.

[Robittybob1]

With respect Robitty, I consider past and present views of Mr Smith to be a total irrelevance. 

An opinion apparently shared with the PJ conducting the first investigation who didn't bother to check out either of the establishments allegedly visited by the family on the third of May until the tenth of October.
Bit remiss or what?

You are perfectly correct though we have a whole thread on the forum constructed around a statement for which there is no provenance and in my opinion that isn't good enough.

I didn't quite understand you fully but as I read your reply I thought of the e-fits.

I was thinking the Oakley detectives when the got Martin Smith to do the E-fits, how could they not have asked Martin whether he  still stood by his 60 -80% certainty.  They didn't need  an e-fit if it was just rehash of Gerry.

I know we haven't got proof but surely they made notes, and these would be handed to SY.

Doesn't she state in her article posted by pathfinder that she spoke to Martin Smith senior a few weeks ago.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg444665#msg444665

It definitely does.    Ok so it still might be possible for Gemma to put that up as a YouTube video with just a sound track

[misty]

Is this particular bunfight of any real importance?

It appears to boil down to 2 different versions of the Panarama special, one on YouTube, one on iPlayer, with a dash of G O'D on the side.

I cannot access iPlayer content, so I must rely on reports that it is different.

Before the Panorama programme, I was in touch with the producer and one of the researchers. The other researcher in contactable on the Algarve.

So if this discrepancy is seen as significant, I can enquire as to why the BBC did this.

The other route is to enquire via G O'D, but then, we already have her article.

Finally, there is Mr Smith.  Somehow I feel he has better things to do than responding to this forum.

We can only wonder why it has taken 9 months to bring this highly significant matter to the attention of the GBP.
M/S O'Doherty does not appear to want to engage with anyone who asks her awkward questions on Twitter.

[slartibartfast]

We can only wonder why it has taken 9 months to bring this highly significant matter to the attention of the GBP.
M/S O'Doherty does not appear to want to engage with anyone who asks her awkward questions on Twitter.

She doesn’t seem to engage with either side, so nothing really to see there.

[Mr Gray]

She doesn’t seem to engage with either side, so nothing really to see there.

as she is quite clearly anti mccann..teh awkward questions only come from one side....the sceptics on her site are very supportive

[slartibartfast]

as she is quite clearly anti mccann..teh awkward questions only come from one side....the sceptics on her site are very supportive

Same on here, supporters have attempted unsuccessfully to cast doubt on her findings with no evidence. Not exactly awkward, more in the have you stopped beating your wife mode questions. IMO

[Wonderfulspam]

Why did the BBC remove that particular part when requested to by a journalist but not when asked by the very person to whom the statement was attributed? As we have heard nothing directly from Martin Smith, are we to just assume that Ms O'Doherty has represented him honestly & correctly?

In answer to your first question....I don't know. That's a question for the BBC.

Secondly,  I fail to see how Miss O'D would benefit from making a false claim, other than filling column inches.

I can't see why she would stick her neck out & lie about talking to Mr Smith, since she has more to lose in doing so, including risking a legal action & with it, possibly losing her job, &, any credibility she might have as a journalist.