The Smithman e-fits

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely not.  There are but 2 points in question.

DCI Redwood's actions may pass your standard - that is for you to tell 'us', not me.  Are they woefully inadequate in mine? Yes.  FACT.

That takes us to the Smith sighting.  You said something along the lines of the e-fits not being worth the paper they were written on.  Basically I agree.  What they tell us is minuscule.  FACT.

I see you now do not describe the hash comment as fact... Because it isn't.... And your standards are again your opinion and nothing more... And almost certainly of no interest to anyone apart from your small group of like minded supporters.. IMO of course

[G-Unit]

That's not how the forum works and you should know that

So if I say maddie was, abducted.. It's a fact... Others have to prove me wrong

If you say 'Madeleine was abducted' that's your opinion.

[Mr Gray]

If you say 'Madeleine was abducted' that's your opinion.

Yes and if sil days redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting that's her opinion
I thought we, had rules on the forum

[G-Unit]

Given that the release of the Policia Judiciaria files have revealed that the PJ dismissed Mr Smith's later identification and we know that HOLMES was programmed to collate all the available information on the case inclusive of the files I am afraid I do not understand why you ask that particular question.

Just a device to question the professionalism of the professionals perhaps?  As it certainly cannot be implied by anything I have posted.
You really have lost me on this one ... in relation to my post, what is it you consider they have failed to do?

Firstly I would like to know why you think the PJ dismissed Smith's evidence.

Secondly, you have chosen to reject the Smith e-fits. OG have chosen to publicise them. Assuming they had access to the same information as you did, one of you interpreted it incorrectly.

[G-Unit]

Yes and if sil days redwood made a hash of the Smith sighting that's her opinion
I thought we, had rules on the forum

I agree.

[Robittybob1]

That's not how the forum works and you should know that

So if I say maddie was, abducted.. It's a fact... Others have to prove me wrong

You would end up with two facts  - 1. She was abducted and
2. she was not abducted

and neither can be proven wrong at the moment.

[Robittybob1]

I agree.

It might sound easy but it is difficult sorting out fact from opinion.  If you say Madeleine was abducted, you agreed that was opinion but what about "Madeleine was abducted, that is a fact, in my opinion".  Is that fact or opinion?
There have been several posts claiming one's opinion is based on or the same as the fact.  Which makes it like a judgement in some way.  Like someone saying: "in my judgement my opinion and the facts of the matter are one and the same."  Is that opinion or claiming opinion as fact?

would this then correct it?  ""in my judgement my opinion and the facts of the matter are one and the same, IMO."

[Brietta]

Absolutely not.  There are but 2 points in question.

DCI Redwood's actions may pass your standard - that is for you to tell 'us', not me.  Are they woefully inadequate in mine? Yes.  FACT.

That takes us to the Smith sighting.  You said something along the lines of the e-fits not being worth the paper they were written on.  Basically I agree.  What they tell us is minuscule.  FACT.

You answered my post in blue.  Please allow me to explain why you have turned "FACT" to reflect not the bare facts but what is ... in my opinion ... entirely your opinion.

Dig up central Luz?  FACT
In my opinion having read your many pejorative comments regarding Scotland Yard's efforts this is again a pejorative statement ... note the question mark ... absolutely in line with your well publicised opinion on the fact of ...
Therefore ... your opinion.

Make another 4 people arguidos, then state they are longer persons of interest?    FACT
Scotland Yard ... in accordance with the Portuguese Penal Code ... had no option but to request arguido status for those they wished to question (under what we would have known as under caution) to rule them in or out of the investigation.
It is worthwhile mentioning at this juncture that the Portuguese Penal Code was changed days after the McCanns were made arguidos, making it impossible for anyone to be made an arguido unless there is firm evidence such a status is warranted.  Quite obviously the Portuguese magistrates were convinced that as far as these individuals are concerned the law was observed.

Yet again your well publicised prejudice concerning these individuals and the fact they were subject to questioning backs up my opinion that you are not stating fact per se but your opinion of the fact without really having any knowledge of what the facts actually are.

Make a hash of the Smith sighting? * see below

Fail to get Crimewatch 2013 aired in Portugal?  FACT
That requires a cite, you might find one on the forum because we have discussed this at a time it might have been relevant ... without which it is merely your opinion.

Since even my blog has a transcript of that in Portuguese,  FACT
I did not question what you have posted on your blog ... so immaterial.

DCI Redwood's action may pass your standard but they are woefully inadequate in mine. FACT
Very much a matter of your opinion but again in my opinion an irrelevance.

In my opinion each and every one of the above sentences, some of which refer to actual events without knowledge of the why or wherefores or the outcomes ... are all opinion ... and should have been referred to as such.

OK then ... there appears to be some accord as far as opinion on the Smith sighting is concerned.  What I cannot fathom is why in your opinion that is DCI Redwood's fault?

[Brietta]

Firstly I would like to know why you think the PJ dismissed Smith's evidence.

Secondly, you have chosen to reject the Smith e-fits. OG have chosen to publicise them. Assuming they had access to the same information as you did, one of you interpreted it incorrectly.

Are you seriously suggesting that I am privy to the same information the investigating authorities hold?  Oh dear!

NB: Do not attempt to put words into my mouth ... that will not be tolerated ... which is why your incorrect implication is removed.  Do not do that again either to me or any other member.

[Mr Gray]

You would end up with two facts  - 1. She was abducted and
2. she was not abducted

and neither can be proven wrong at the moment.

Just as sils has given her opinion on redwood on the Smith sighting but stated it as fact... Which just about everyone can see apart from you

[Robittybob1]

Just as sils has given her opinion on redwood on the Smith sighting but stated it as fact... Which just about everyone can see apart from you

In coding logic you would have to express that as - 1. She was abducted or she was not abducted so that is basically one or the other.  I don't know but it might be possible to have both being true at the same time, in some sort of quantum state.   If you think some later event negates one of them then tell me please.

An example of that could be this exchange
Sadie: ""I happen to have information that CONVINCES me that Madeleine was alive and healthy in 2012.  No-body else has that info, although a very few have seen it"
MTI: "just because you sent this to SY doesn't mean they took it seriously."

From that Sadie in her case has opened the box and determined Madeleine was abducted, the other state is closed for her.
Whereas MTI feels it is open or closed because of another quantum state of whether they took Sadie seriously or not.

[Mr Gray]

In coding logic you would have to express that as - 1. She was abducted or she was not abducted so that is basically one or the other.  I don't know but it might be possible to have both being true at the same time, in some sort of quantum state.   If you think some later event negates one of them then tell me please.

An example of that could be this exchange
Sadie: ""I happen to have information that CONVINCES me that Madeleine was alive and healthy in 2012.  No-body else has that info, although a very few have seen it"
MTI: "just because you sent this to SY doesn't mean they took it seriously."

From that Sadie in her case has opened the box and determined Madeleine was abducted, the other state is closed for her.
Whereas MTI feels it is open or closed because of another quantum state of whether they took Sadie seriously or not.

Do you not realise I was simply stating opinion

[Robittybob1]

Just as sils has given her opinion on redwood on the Smith sighting but stated it as fact... Which just about everyone can see apart from you

I see it alright, but SiL's answers are too complex for me.  Brietta has attempted to rebut her arguments. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9168.msg447113#msg447113

I can only wonder if it is correct.  I don't know the full history behind SiL's post.

[Alice Purjorick]

Given that the release of the Policia Judiciaria files have revealed that the PJ dismissed Mr Smith's later identification and we know that HOLMES was programmed to collate all the available information on the case inclusive of the files I am afraid I do not understand why you ask that particular question.

Just a device to question the professionalism of the professionals perhaps?  As it certainly cannot be implied by anything I have posted.
You really have lost me on this one ... in relation to my post, what is it you consider they have failed to do?

We know what HOLMES will do provided the data is entered correctly in the first place. If the info has not been entered up it cannot be retrieved or utilised...simples . When instructed the system will spew out options based on the info that is in the data base, those options then require analysis and interrogation by an expert.

http://www.opkenova.co.uk/intelligence-and-analysis

[Mr Gray]

I see it alright, but SiL's answers are too complex for me.  Brietta has attempted to rebut her arguments.  I wonder if it is correct.  I don't know the full history behind SiL's post.

Even G has agreed sil is posting opinion as, fact
I thought you were, an expert on the, case... And sil thinks, she's, a, world expert... All in your inflated opinions.. Imo