Wandering Off Topic

[faithlilly]

Yes thats right, Faith! I think Luke comments about that in MIAST doesn't he?

He does. He said that that gave him hope that he?d be found innocent.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well the Bryson sighting is the only really damaging witness sighting, Vertigo!
And as Faith was saying, Bryson failed to identify LM at his trial.

Well this thread is about the Madeleine McCann case and the sceptics on here are convinced, based on one rather unconvincing witness statement given months after event that Gerry carried his daughter?s body through PdL. 
I wonder why those following both this case and the Mitchell case have such double standards when it comes to such matters, it?s all very puzzling but don?t worry, I?m not expecting an answer on that

[faithlilly]

Well the Bryson sighting is the only really damaging witness sighting, Vertigo!
And as Faith was saying, Bryson failed to identify LM at his trial.

The thing that?s always puzzled me about the Bryson sighting is why was no CCTV ever asked for which would certainly have made the timings of Bryson?s journey more precise? Videos of both Corrine Mitchell and Jodi?s stepfather were both acquired from a small shop and garage. Why not from the large supermarket that Bryson went to? Further when giving her statements she couldn?t remember the route she had driven home on the afternoon of the murder so surely street CCTV could have clarified that too?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Should you not perhaps be having this discussion on the relevant forum?

[Joe Blogs]

Should you not perhaps be having this discussion on the relevant forum?

Yes, will do, Vertigo!
There should soon be more to discuss when we discover what the game changing evidence is that the CT have been talking about!

[Joe Blogs]

Well this thread is about the Madeleine McCann case and the sceptics on here are convinced, based on one rather unconvincing witness statement given months after event that Gerry carried his daughter?s body through PdL. 
I wonder why those following both this case and the Mitchell case have such double standards when it comes to such matters, it?s all very puzzling but don?t worry, I?m not expecting an answer on that?

Well I suppose every case has to be viewed differently, Vertigo!
Try watching MIAST, you've nothing to lose!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well I suppose every case has to be viewed differently, Vertigo!
Try watching MIAST, you've nothing to lose!

True, but the principle question remains the same whatever the case  - how much weight should be given to a witness who claims to have had a fleeting glimpse of a person and then makes a statement about what they saw days, weeks or even months later? 

How is it that you can completely trust the memory of a witness in one case (even though he himself admits not being certain) but be adamant that the memory of a witness in another case must definitely be faulty?  Surely the default position should be - human memory is fallible and as such it should alway be backed up by other credible witness statements and supporting evidence in order to be taken seriously.

[Joe Blogs]

The thing that?s always puzzled me about the Bryson sighting is why was no CCTV ever asked for which would certainly have made the timings of Bryson?s journey more precise? Videos of both Corrine Mitchell and Jodi?s stepfather were both acquired from a small shop and garage. Why not from the large supermarket that Bryson went to? Further when giving her statements she couldn?t remember the route she had driven home on the afternoon of the murder so surely street CCTV could have clarified that too?

Yes, Bryson came forward quite quickly didn't she? So the CCTV shouldn't have been wiped at that stage!

[faithlilly]

Yes, Bryson came forward quite quickly didn't she? So the CCTV shouldn't have been wiped at that stage!

Absolutely. I really can't think of any reason why the videos weren't retrieved.

[Joe Blogs]

Absolutely. I really can't think of any reason why the videos weren't retrieved.

Who knows, maybe LM new legal team have unearthed a video! Maybe that's their explosive new evidence, Faith?

[faithlilly]

Who knows, maybe LM new legal team have unearthed a video! Maybe that's their explosive new evidence, Faith?

I can?t see it, not after all these years but who knows!

[Joe Blogs]

I can?t see it, not after all these years but who knows!

No, probably not, Faith! Oh well, we will soon find out hopefully.

[Joe Blogs]

True, but the principle question remains the same whatever the case  - how much weight should be given to a witness who claims to have had a fleeting glimpse of a person and then makes a statement about what they saw days, weeks or even months later? 

How is it that you can completely trust the memory of a witness in one case (even though he himself admits not being certain) but be adamant that the memory of a witness in another case must definitely be faulty?  Surely the default position should be - human memory is fallible and as such it should alway be backed up by other credible witness statements and supporting evidence in order to be taken seriously.

Ah! Didn't notice this post, Vertigo! Yes, witnesses are indeed fallible, and in Andrina Brysons case there was no one to back her up, hers was the only sighting of Luke and Jodi [allegedly] at the Easthouses end of RDP!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah! Didn't notice this post, Vertigo! Yes, witnesses are indeed fallible, and in Andrina Brysons case there was no one to back her up, hers was the only sighting of Luke and Jodi [allegedly] at the Easthouses end of RDP!

What?s your view of Martin Smith?s claim (made 4 months after the incident and following almost daily news coverage of the case in the intervening months) that the man he saw might be Gerry McCann (a claim not backed up by 7 of the 8 people he was with  who also passed the man on the street)?   Does this strike you as strong evidence upon which to base a near 18 year belief that Gerry McCann carried his daughter?s dead body through town the night she went missing, bearing in mind this incident occurred at roughly the same time as Kate McCann raised the alarm?   

[Vertigo Swirl]

Also, if what I have written about the Smithman sighting over the last few days was absurd or illogical then why has no one yet pointed out the problems with my logic?  Instead the two members here arguing hard in favour of Gerry being Smithman (both with differing opinions about what time the alarm was raised) have both decided they no longer wish to engage with me, having completely failed to defend their position with anything approaching a logical argument.  What does that tell you?