Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[Robittybob1]

Wrong Country.  The Rogatory Letters only covered Britain.  The Smiths live in Southern Ireland which is not part of The United Kingdom.

When The PJ discovered this they didn't bother to reapply.  So therefor it can't have been that important to them.

Did GA write in his book "- But the Smiths don't return to Portugal."?    That is the crucial point, for to say that it appears they were asked to return - but the Smiths don't return to Portugal.  It is possible the PJ asked them to return, and they didn't bother.  Was this going to one of the scenes to be re-enacted by the PJ?  That would be a rather interesting scene for they had the positions and times  mapped out pretty well.  What would have been gained?  They could hardly ask Gerry to walk past the Smiths carrying a child in his arms.  For that bit they would have to use an actor surely.  They could then ask them later what did you see during the re-enactment?  Did the man (actor) have buttons on his pants?

[Robittybob1]

Only Smithman knows that for certain. The rest of us can only guess

So are you saying Wonderfulspan is "only guessing" not actually "thinking"? I read it as thinking and not only that but thinking just like Martin Smith did. 

[jassi]

So are you saying Wonderfulspan is "only guessing" not actually "thinking"? I read it as thinking and not only that but thinking just like Martin Smith did.

Spammy may be privy to information not available to the likes of you and I

[Robittybob1]

Spammy may be privy to information not available to the likes of you and I

Has there been any proof or hint of "special treatment" for 'Spammy'?  Does he claim it himself?

[Mr Gray]

Has there been any proof or hint of "special treatment" for 'Spammy'?  Does he claim it himself?

Its a joke rob

[Robittybob1]

Its a joke rob

A joke!

[G-Unit]

I was quoting a cite in my post who were supposedly quoting from Amaral's book.  Did Amaral write that or have they misquoted him?  That is why I raised the point and "asked did it happen?"  with the words "Were the Smiths part of the re-enactment?".  It was news to me but it was supposedly quote from GA's book.  It isn't me who is making the claim.
Do you have his book chapter 21.

The cite was to an article posted by someone 'unknown', no doubt with the intention of making a point. Amaral didn't mention rogatorys and I don't think Smith was included. The Irish Police were asked to interview him and they did so.

[Robittybob1]

The cite was to an article posted by someone 'unknown', no doubt with the intention of making a point. Amaral didn't mention rogatorys and I don't think Smith was included. The Irish Police were asked to interview him and they did so.

I don't have a copy of Amaral's book, do you?  From that reply am I to take it you think that quote was entirely wrong in saying Amaral thought of involving the Smiths in a re-enactment?  Are you reading from his book?

[misty]

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020

snipped from Chapter 20.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

================================================================

3 of the Smiths had already done a reconstruction back in May 2007 in Luz. (see photos beside & under Peter Smith's statement, one of which shows the 3 with their back to the camera ascending some steps)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm   

[Robittybob1]

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020

snipped from Chapter 20.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

================================================================

3 of the Smiths had already done a reconstruction back in May 2007 in Luz. (see photos beside & under Peter Smith's statement, one of which shows the 3 with their back to the camera ascending some steps)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Thanks Misty now I understand the quote from the blog.  The blog had taken the main points only but reasonably correctly IMO.  There is obviously a lot of contact between the PJ and the Smiths that is not released in the file IMO.  It could be in this period ("several months later") where Martin Smith changes his mind IMO. 
We will never know unless all the files are released.

[Robittybob1]

the bit that Amaral writes about "That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later."  That interview is not in the PJ file released to us when the case was archived.

Without the complete record how can we ever be sure if the BBC lied to us.
The mere fact that they removed the disputed line from an old documentary is not actual proof.

[Carana]

I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, let alone all of the thread.

What exactly is the BBC supposed to have "lied" about?

I'm just reading the first page of the article http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.0
and find the way it's written somewhat ambiguous.

No particular problem with the first 5 paragraphs.

6th -
“… Much to his frustration, it was not given the attention it seemed to deserve.”

What’s “it”? That family’s sighting or his sudden thought that it might have been Gerry?

If it's the family's sighting, the PJ did take it seriously, as they got 3 of them over to PT, but didn't ask them to do an e-fit. The McCann's detectives did "about a year later", so they were taking it seriously as well. I can't see why he'd have done an e-fit as opposed to simply producing a photo of Gerry if he'd been certain, but anyway.

What is true, is that the e-fits weren't publicised until much later. I'd have found that frustrating as well, if ever that  was the reason.

The e-fits were handed over to the police, who didn't publicise them. "About a year later", the PJ investigation had been archived and Paiva was the desk officer.

The McCanns had released an e-fit of the Beckam-look-alike, but that was when the investigation was still open. Could they have released those e-fits with no police to chase up leads? Would they have simply landed themselves in another media circus over the Gerry-look-alike one, again with no active investigation?

2nd colum, 3rd full paragraph

“…But then the story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that their potentially critical development was just another red herring. “

Where was it alleged that the family had retracted their statements?
Statements concerning what? That they’d seen a man carrying a child? If so, news to me.

Next… re the Panorama programme: “Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

Did Bilton say that? Only Martin Smith held that view, as allegedly did his wife concerning the stature, according to one media report. According to MS himself, the other family members didn't think it was Gerry.

Next… "He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting."

Was it ever stated that he'd withdrawn his statement? Which one? Re the sighting - what of, seeing a man, or his perception that it was Gerry? Or neither?

"He is frustrated by media claims the now says he was mistaken; and remains “60-80 per cent” convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann."

Ok - but going back to the opening paragraphs, that was based on a flashback of how the child was being carried.

I haven’t had time to go over the Panorama programme again to listen to what Bilton actually said.

Then she talks about the Smith sighting (which one?), then goes on to write  “… they [the BBC] didn’t check their story about the Smiths before they aired the programme."

Why does she keep jumping from Smith (singular) to Smiths (plural)?

Then we get into Colin Sutton's opinion...

That's as far as I've got so far.

[Carana]

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2020

snipped from Chapter 20.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

================================================================

3 of the Smiths had already done a reconstruction back in May 2007 in Luz. (see photos beside & under Peter Smith's statement, one of which shows the 3 with their back to the camera ascending some steps)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Why didn't Amaral get e-fits done while the Smiths were over in May 07?

Who did he intend to bring over? Just Martin and possibly his wife (who seemingly agreed with the stature of the man)? Or all the rest of the family as well who didn't think it was Gerry at all?

IMO, Rebelo did the right thing: he asked for clarification of what led Mr Smith to think that it might have been Gerry, and, as it turned out, it was just Martin's perception that the man held the child in a similar way (as most parents do).

[faithlilly]

Why didn't Amaral get e-fits done while the Smiths were over in May 07?

Who did he intend to bring over? Just Martin and possibly his wife (who seemingly agreed with the stature of the man)? Or all the rest of the family as well who didn't think it was Gerry at all?

IMO, Rebelo did the right thing: he asked for clarification of what led Mr Smith to think that it might have been Gerry, and, as it turned out, it was just Martin's perception that the man held the child in a similar way (as most parents do).

The validity of Martin Smith's identification is not the issue. The issue is whether the BBC mislead the public when claiming that he had withdrawn that identification and as they have now cut that claim from the Panorama programme it would appear they did.

[Robittybob1]

The validity of Martin Smith's identification is not the issue. The issue is whether the BBC mislead the public when claiming that he had withdrawn that identification and as they have now cut that claim from the Panorama programme it would appear they did.

No you have failed to mention the planned reconstruction involving the Smiths and there subsequent interviews which a mentioned by Amaral but are not in the file.  There are huge gaps in the story you are telling IMO.