Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[Eleanor]

I fail to see the relevance of what she has to say.  Mr. Smith didn't change his mind?  Is that it?

[barrier]

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

Exactly Redwood (remember he who said the parents nor their friends are suspects,so his word is his bond) changed the timeline from tannerman to the time of smithman.r

[Wonderfulspam]

I fail to see the relevance of what she has to say.  Mr. Smith didn't change his mind?  Is that it?

Yes. Supposedly he maintains his position of 60-80, & never claimed that he now believes he saw someone else.

Although, Miss O'D might be lying about that, allegedly, because we don't have a direct quote from Mr Smith himself.....

Sheesh.

This whole saga is made utterly irrelevant by .....Neither persons of interest or suspects.

[Eleanor]

Yes. Supposedly he maintains his position of 60-80, & never claimed that he now believes he saw someone else.

Although, Miss O'D might be lying about that, allegedly, because we don't have a direct quote from Mr Smith himself.....

Sheesh.

This whole saga is made utterly irrelevant by .....Neither persons of interest or suspects.

Obviously he didn't see someone else.  The question is, who did he see?  Difficult to answer since even he isn't sure.

[barrier]

Obviously he didn't see someone else.  The question is, who did he see?  Difficult to answer since even he isn't sure.

Scotland yard were appealing for info back in 2013,they aren't now,they know who it was/is imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

Obviously he didn't see someone else. The question is, who did he see?  Difficult to answer since even he isn't sure.

To clarify...

The BBC Panaroma programme had originaly contained these words......

''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'. (as in, definitely not Gerry)

That part has now been removed from the programme.

I'm quite satisfied that whomever they saw was carrying Madeleine.

Except for the awkwardness of those pyjama sleeves, the sighting appears to match Madeleine's description.

So, SY still need to pull their fingers out & find this innocent father, or abductor, if this sorry tale is ever going to be put to bed.

[Lace]

Table witnesses disagree that Russell had ate most of his meal when Kate raised the alarm. Keep trying to make stuff up but I will be here to correct you.

"Russell came back to table and err they’d actually cooked him a fresh steak and he was just starting to tuck into it when err Kate had obviously gone back to check on the children, came running in you know, as far as I can recollect she said you know she’s gone, Gerry, Madeleine’s gone, screaming you know.

They’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm

"I remember just before Kate returned to the table having, having gone to check on, erm, on their kids, because that was pretty much when Russell's steak arrived, I remember that being at that point'."

 00.43.59
 1485
 'Sorry, his steak arrived when Kate went to go and check or when Kate came back''
 
 Reply
 'I remember the steak being here sort of just before Kate came back'.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

This is what the waiter says -


He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.

So his meal was half eaten.

So how long do you think it took before Russells meal was half eaten?    Five minutes?    Plus Dianne was sat at the table for what another five minutes?   That would be almost gone 10 o'clock in my calculations.   Then Gerry was seen searching around the pool by a waiter.    So sorry Smithman was not Gerry.

[G-Unit]

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

[Brietta]

To clarify...

The BBC Panaroma programme had originaly contained these words......

''the Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else'. (as in, definitely not Gerry)

That part has now been removed from the programme.

I'm quite satisfied that whomever they saw was carrying Madeleine.

Except for the awkwardness of those pyjama sleeves, the sighting appears to match Madeleine's description.

So, SY still need to pull their fingers out & find this innocent father, or abductor, if this sorry tale is ever going to be put to bed.

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

I'm more than happy to accept his belief... Because that's all it is.... His opinion and belief.  Those that matter do not seem to think it was Gerry he saw

[slartibartfast]

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.

What are you using as your cite for that?

[barrier]

I'm more than happy to accept his belief... Because that's all it is.... His opinion and belief.  Those that matter do not seem to think it was Gerry he saw

Pray tell who they may be?cite?

[Eleanor]

Pray tell who they may be?cite?

No Cite required.  No one has mentioned any names.

[barrier]

No Cite required.  No one has mentioned any names.

Then there is no "those that matter".

[slartibartfast]

No Cite required.  No one has mentioned any names.

No, it’s a simple “appeal to authority” fallacy.