The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Page 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by sharonl on 11.12.14 22:05

@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.


Is there any credible, verifiable and independent evidence to say that Madeleine was around after tea time on Sunday?

On Monday, the McCanns behaviour changes.  
They started to have breakfast in their own apartment.  
They started leaving the apartment via different doors.  
The ate lunch in their own apartment when the rest of the group were on Paynes' Balcony 

Did anyone actually see the McCanns, all together, as a family of five after Sunday?


IMO, the statements of nannies Cat Baker, Amy Tierney and actress Charlotte Pennington cannot be relied upon

Magaret Hodges Nephew, Phil Edmonds, could not produce the photographs that he allegedly took.

Pamela Fenn says she heard crying, this could have been any child.

So, with the exception of these witnesses, is there any evidence of Madeleine being around after Sunday?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3565
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Realist on 11.12.14 22:50

@jeanmonroe wrote:

He actually thinks 'time' between 5:30pm (from 'creche') till 10pm.......... ergo 4 1/2 HOURS.

He 'queries' DP's 'visit' time  as 'unreliable'

Only being what DP, GM and KM 'said' (NO 'witness')

But hey, this £10+ MILLION ongoing, unlimited 'funding', 'investigation' is BASED ENTIRELY ON ONLY WHAT TWO PEOPLE 'SAID'!

I may be wrong on this matter, Jean, its a long time since I viewed the video, but isn't Goncala's theory based on the fact that a fatal accident occurred due to the neglect of the McCanns leaving their daughter alone. If so, this doesn't correlate with the timeline of 5.30 pm through 10. pm, because Madelaine would have been in the presence of at least one of her parents between 5.30 pm through 8.30 pm.

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by whatsupdoc on 11.12.14 23:07

Here's what I posted on the Blacksmith thread...
.............................................................
I think there is a possibility that the girl everyone saw that week was a substitute and they assumed it was Madeleine.

Surely some parents would have pictures of the group "Madeleine" was in that week and the PJ could determine whether it was really Madeleine. There were short trips out so no prob with taking pictures. I always had lots of pics of my children on holiday. Coupled with this line of enquiry and the creche register scribbling, theories could be ruled in or out...not starting on the Thursday when the horse may well have bolted. The wrong zero point imo.

Just think if Madeleine was put to bed and the parents went out, how did cadaver odour get on Kate's clothes and the rental car if there was an abductor???
Madeleine must have died before 8.30pm on the Thursday and I think it was either the Saturday night or Sunday. We can't assume Madeleine was alive on the Monday without proof.
............................................................

Some family holiday... kids bunged in a creche all day and in bed early. They had a digital camera so where are all the pictures recording the happy week?  Just nothing but excuses.Surely the tapas 7 members took decent pictures of the group that week? Seems not.
I suggest the police ask Mrs. Fenn's friend about seeing the McCanns at Chaplins on the Tuesday night. There should be a recoding of an interview she had with Antenna 3 TV. Chaplins is 800 yards from 5A so I can't see anyone nipping back frequently.It was said that staff from OC were sent to Chaplins to inform them that a baby had been crying for some considerable time so those people could also verify that the McCann's were at Chaplins on the Tuesday. I don't think checking took place at all. Simple enquiries but have they been made? Strange OC staff were moved out.

Are there any pics from other parents on the trips out possibly including Madeleine? Is there any proof whatsoever that it was Madeleine on the Sunday to Thursday?  One of the biggest ehh? moments is when Gerry has to return to UK for a pillow purporting to be one of Madeleine's for dna testing purposes...strange since she was supposed to have been in 5A all week...no other items of Madeleine in 5A. Kate had the man round to get the washing machine working early in the week...as you do on a week's holiday...LOL.

The McCanns seem to have covered their tracks on exactly what happened to Madeleine but they haven't shown any proof regarding what all the families did.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 11.12.14 23:08

@Realist wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:

He actually thinks 'time' between 5:30pm (from 'creche') till 10pm.......... ergo 4 1/2 HOURS.

He 'queries' DP's 'visit' time  as 'unreliable'

Only being what DP, GM and KM 'said' (NO 'witness')

But hey, this £10+ MILLION ongoing, unlimited 'funding', 'investigation' is BASED ENTIRELY ON ONLY WHAT TWO PEOPLE 'SAID'!

I may be wrong on this matter, Jean, its a long time since I viewed the video, but isn't Goncala's theory based on the fact that a fatal accident occurred due to the neglect of the McCanns leaving their daughter alone. If so, this doesn't correlate with the timeline of 5.30 pm through 10. pm, because Madelaine would have been in the presence of at least one of her parents between 5.30 pm through 8.30 pm.
Don't wish to interrupt your post here Realist but may I make a polite request that you take the trouble to spell Madeleine's name correctly and also Gonçalo Amaral's name - if you can't manage the cedilla you can always write Goncalo.  roses

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by margaret on 11.12.14 23:09

@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.

I agree with these points but the only stickler for me is the Smith sighting, if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets. I did once suggest he may have used a different child to force sightings of an abductor?

margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by whatsupdoc on 11.12.14 23:18

@margaret wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.

I agree with these points but the only stickler for me is the Smith sighting, if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets. I did once suggest he may have used a different child to force sightings of an abductor?


Until the idea of a substitute can be ruled out I think if Gerry was carrying a small child it could have been him returning the sub to her parents.  I would really like to know what the PJ made of the creche register. There seems to be many incorrect entries.
I'll be happy to go along with whatever the truth is but whether we ever get it is another matter.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Realist on 11.12.14 23:22

@aquila wrote:
Don't wish to interrupt your post here Realist but may I make a polite request that you take the trouble to spell Madeleine's name correctly and also Gonçalo Amaral's name - if you can't manage the cedilla you can always write Goncalo.  roses

I'm terrible with spelling names correctly, Aquila, but I promise I'll make a greater effort in future. You may wish to reciprocate in kind by placing a comma before and after Realist when using the name in a similar context to your above posting. thumbsup

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Realist on 11.12.14 23:32

@whatsupdoc wrote:


Until the idea of a substitute can be ruled out I think if Gerry was carrying a small child it could have been him returning the sub to her parents.  I would really like to know what the PJ made of the creche register. There seems to be many incorrect entries.
I'll be happy to go along with whatever the truth is but whether we ever get it is another matter.
I tend to rule out the substitute theory, if for no other reason than it would involve others. With the amount of monetorial reward that's been offered and the undoubted guarantees of immunity from prosecution deals that would be on offer, I think that had there been the involvement of others, the aforementioned would have flushed them out long ago.

Besides which, where does one acquire such substitutes in the event that one's child goes missing whilst on vacation, are there child escort agencies at all european resorts should such an unfortunate event occur. big grin

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 11.12.14 23:34

@Realist wrote:
@aquila wrote:
Don't wish to interrupt your post here Realist but may I make a polite request that you take the trouble to spell Madeleine's name correctly and also Gonçalo Amaral's name - if you can't manage the cedilla you can always write Goncalo.  roses

I'm terrible with spelling names correctly, Aquila, but I promise I'll make a greater effort in future. You may wish to reciprocate in kind by placing a comma before and after Realist when using the name in a similar context to your above posting. thumbsup
Profound apologies for my lack of English grammar Realist. I only attained O level English and I'm not great at spelling either empathy . However, as Madeleine and Gonçalo Amaral's names are written just about everywhere I do find I don't need a reminder and I'm always conscious of affording this little girl and the man who tried to find her the courtesy and dignity of spelling their names correctly. I find it strange that Madeleine's mother for reasons best know to her chose to write a book that didn't afford Madeleine's name a capital M.

Apologies to the forum for a minor interruption.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by spider on 11.12.14 23:46

@aquila wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@aquila wrote:
Don't wish to interrupt your post here Realist but may I make a polite request that you take the trouble to spell Madeleine's name correctly and also Gonçalo Amaral's name - if you can't manage the cedilla you can always write Goncalo.  roses

I'm terrible with spelling names correctly, Aquila, but I promise I'll make a greater effort in future. You may wish to reciprocate in kind by placing a comma before and after Realist when using the name in a similar context to your above posting. thumbsup
Profound apologies for my lack of English grammar Realist. I only attained O level English and I'm not great at spelling either empathy . However, as Madeleine and Gonçalo Amaral's names are written just about everywhere I do find I don't need a reminder and I'm always conscious of affording this little girl and the man who tried to find her the courtesy and dignity of spelling their names correctly. I find it strange that Madeleine's mother for reasons best know to her chose to write a book that didn't afford Madeleine's name a capital M.

Apologies to the forum for a minor interruption.




Aquila, is Portugal really adjacent to France?
What happened to Spain because I have a holiday booked there next year.
Has it been whooshed?

spider

Posts : 5
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.12.14 23:47

@margaret wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.

I agree with these points but the only stickler for me is the Smith sighting, if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets. I did once suggest he may have used a different child to force sightings of an abductor?


This connects to part of astro's report on the libel trial yesterday where she writes:

He [prosecution barrister for the McCanns] also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis...

On the specific point of attacking the Smith's credibility, the McCanns' lawyer was undoubtedly right IMO, and Goncalo Amaral was badly in error in placing so much faith in the Smiths' claims. For a start, he and his team did not probe the Smiths on why they'd taken an extraordinary 13 days to tell anyone about their sighting. And he should have been much more careful before 'buying' the Smiths' claims about 'recognising' Gerry McCann as the man carrying a child, simply because he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder. I know some others disagree, but it's absurd to base an identification on that, especially after none of the Smtihs said they'd recognise the man glimpsed in the dark again if they saw him.

But of course Goncalo Amaral and his team were right to question Jane Tanner's sighting, as they did from the moment they first heard their unlikely story. DCI Andy Redwood rescued Jane Tanner on 14 October 2013 when on CrimeWatch he produced 'Crecheman'.

Who IMO does not exist and is yet another fabrication, along with Sagres Man (Wojciech Krokowksi), Tannerman and Smithman. FOUR fabricated abductors - my opinion based on all the available evidence.

So, how to resolve this conundrum - how come the McCanns' lawyer was rubbishing the Smiths' sighting, whilst at the same time Smithman is (quote) DCI Andy Redwood's 'central focus' and has for a year been on the websites of the Metropolitan Police and the McCanns 'Find Madeleine' website as the abductor we are all searching for?

To answer this requires a careful examination of the entire history of the McCanns' use of Smithman...

...from Brian Kennedy's approach to Martin Smith as early as December 2007...

...to the visit of Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence, to the Smiths, probably in the spring of 2008...

...to Smithman being introduced in the May 2009 Channel 4 documentary as possibly the same man that Tanner saw...

...to featuring on the McCanns' Find Madeleine' website for the next 5 years...

...to featuring Smithman on 6 pages of Dr Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' in 2011...

...soon after which the McCanns gave two e-fits to DCI Andy Redwood...

...who sat on them for two years...

...but not before he had twice interviewed Martin Smith...

...once, according to DCI Andy Redwood, in 2012...

...and again in 2013.

Then, after producing Crecheman, Redwood tried to get away with convincing the 6.7 million people who watched CrimeWatch that these two very different e-fits were actually the same bloke - the bloke apparently seen for a second or two in the dark with his face partly hidden, and said to have been drawn up by the Smiths a year after they'd seen him and told police they'd never be able to recognise him again.

@ margaret

You wrote: "...if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets?"

Precisely. The very idea is IMO utterly absurd. It wasn't Gerry - and in all probability it wasn't anyone.

Smithman is clutched as tightly to Redwood as Cuddle Cat was to Dr Kate McCann.

Without him, there is no abductor

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by whatsupdoc on 11.12.14 23:54

I think the visit to Martin Smith by Brian Kennedy shows TM were very worried. Totally out of order for him to do such a thing.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 11.12.14 23:56

@spider wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@aquila wrote:
Don't wish to interrupt your post here Realist but may I make a polite request that you take the trouble to spell Madeleine's name correctly and also Gonçalo Amaral's name - if you can't manage the cedilla you can always write Goncalo.  roses

I'm terrible with spelling names correctly, Aquila, but I promise I'll make a greater effort in future. You may wish to reciprocate in kind by placing a comma before and after Realist when using the name in a similar context to your above posting. thumbsup
Profound apologies for my lack of English grammar Realist. I only attained O level English and I'm not great at spelling either empathy . However, as Madeleine and Gonçalo Amaral's names are written just about everywhere I do find I don't need a reminder and I'm always conscious of affording this little girl and the man who tried to find her the courtesy and dignity of spelling their names correctly. I find it strange that Madeleine's mother for reasons best know to her chose to write a book that didn't afford Madeleine's name a capital M.

Apologies to the forum for a minor interruption.




Aquila, is Portugal really adjacent to France?
What happened to Spain because I have a holiday booked there next year.
Has it been whooshed?
What's this got to do with the libel trial?

Another thread being derailed?

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 12.12.14 0:08

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@margaret wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.

I agree with these points but the only stickler for me is the Smith sighting, if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets. I did once suggest he may have used a different child to force sightings of an abductor?


This connects to part of astro's report on the libel trial yesterday where she writes:

He [prosecution barrister for the McCanns] also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis...

On the specific point of attacking the Smith's credibility, the McCanns' lawyer was undoubtedly right IMO, and Goncalo Amaral was badly in error in placing so much faith in the Smiths' claims. For a start, he and his team did not probe the Smiths on why they'd taken an extraordinary 13 days to tell anyone about their sighting. And he should have been much more careful before 'buying' the Smiths' claims about 'recognising' Gerry McCann as the man carrying a child, simply because he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder. I know some others disagree, but it's absurd to base an identification on that, especially after none of the Smtihs said they'd recognise the man glimpsed in the dark again if they saw him.

But of course Goncalo Amaral and his team were right to question Jane Tanner's sighting, as they did from the moment they first heard their unlikely story. DCI Andy Redwood rescued Jane Tanner on 14 October 2013 when on CrimeWatch he produced 'Crecheman'.

Who IMO does not exist and is yet another fabrication, along with Sagres Man (Wojciech Krokowksi), Tannerman and Smithman. FOUR fabricated abductors - my opinion based on all the available evidence.

So, how to resolve this conundrum - how come the McCanns' lawyer was rubbishing the Smiths' sighting, whilst at the same time Smithman is (quote) DCI Andy Redwood's 'central focus' and has for a year been on the websites of the Metropolitan Police and the McCanns 'Find Madeleine' website as the abductor we are all searching for?

To answer this requires a careful examination of the entire history of the McCanns' use of Smithman...

...from Brian Kennedy's approach to Martin Smith as early as December 2007...

...to the visit of Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence, to the Smiths, probably in the spring of 2008...

...to Smithman being introduced in the May 2009 Channel 4 documentary as possibly the same man that Tanner saw...

...to featuring on the McCanns' Find Madeleine' website for the next 5 years...

...to featuring Smithman on 6 pages of Dr Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' in 2011...

...soon after which the McCanns gave two e-fits to DCI Andy Redwood...

...who sat on them for two years...

...but not before he had twice interviewed Martin Smith...

...once, according to DCI Andy Redwood, in 2012...

...and again in 2013.

Then, after producing Crecheman, Redwood tried to get away with convincing the 6.7 million people who watched CrimeWatch that these two very different e-fits were actually the same bloke - the bloke apparently seen for a second or two in the dark with his face partly hidden, and said to have been drawn up by the Smiths a year after they'd seen him and told police they'd never be able to recognise him again.

@ margaret

You wrote: "...if that was Gerry why was he carrying a child round the streets?"

Precisely. The very idea is IMO utterly absurd. It wasn't Gerry - and in all probability it wasn't anyone.

Smithman is clutched as tightly to Redwood as Cuddle Cat was to Dr Kate McCann.

Without him, there is no abductor
Bravo.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.12.14 0:08

@whatsupdoc wrote:I think the visit to Martin Smith by Brian Kennedy shows TM were very worried. Totally out of order for him to do such a thing.
@ whatsupdoc

That is certainly one possible explanation for the involvement of Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team.

But there are most certainly other explanations.

But what cannot be doubted for one second is that Kennedy's contacting Martin Smith and Exton's visait to Drogheda to see him in the spring of 2008 set off a whole chain of events ending up where we are today - with DCI Redwood having roped the Smiths in to:

* accept that they drew up two e-fits of very different-looking men, and

* change their testimony - no longer does Martin Smith stand by his 'recognition' of Gerry McCann - NO, now he is on message...after his two chats with DCI Andy Redwood in 2012 and 2013 he's swung fully behind the claims of Redwood, the entire team of Met Police Officers, the BBC, and all the mainstream media, that Smithman is the mystery abductor.

A year and two months after that CrimeWatch McCann Special, he remains Redwood's 'central focus'.

Except for one thing.

After this week, Smithman will be the central focus of glamour-girl, Vogue-featured, 'I-paint-my-nails-to-impress-the-men' DCI Nicola Wall

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by whatsupdoc on 12.12.14 0:29

Quote
After this week, Smithman will be the central focus of glamour-girl, Vogue-featured, 'I-paint-my-nails-to-impress-the-men' DCI Nicola Wall


I find that funny , Tony.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Guest on 12.12.14 2:41

@whatsupdoc wrote:Quote
After this week, Smithman will be the central focus of glamour-girl, Vogue-featured, 'I-paint-my-nails-to-impress-the-men' DCI Nicola Wall


I find that funny , Tony.
I find it disgusting - extremely sexist, and showing a dreadful bias and a total lack of respect for DCI Wall even before she starts her new role.
If we all want justice for Madeleine, shouldn't EVERYONE be 100% supportive and encouraging of DCI Wall?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Joss on 12.12.14 4:04

@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.
I have been told that a corpse does not have to be in place for very long at all for dogs to detect cadaver evidence? I would of thought at least an hour or two, but that is not accurate. I have researched it on the internet but could not find much that says accurately how long it would take for dogs to detect that kind of evidence, so it seems there are some discrepencies with it.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Guest on 12.12.14 8:33

@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.
I have been told that a corpse does not have to be in place for very long at all for dogs to detect cadaver evidence? I would of thought at least an hour or two, but that is not accurate. I have researched it on the internet but could not find much that says accurately how long it would take for dogs to detect that kind of evidence, so it seems there are some discrepencies with it.
I've seen mentioned that cadaver scent can start after just 10 minutes,the trouble is,no one knows just how sensitive the dogs noses are and we have no way of telling exactly.Also along the same lines.There are variables in age,sex,cause of death,which is why one supposes the dogs can't be relied upon alone.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Bishop Brennan on 12.12.14 9:34

WMD wrote:
I've seen mentioned that cadaver scent can start after just 10 minutes,the trouble is,no one knows just how sensitive the dogs noses are and we have no way of telling exactly.Also along the same lines.There are variables in age,sex,cause of death,which is why one supposes the dogs can't be relied upon alone.

Right, but these variables don't actually matter in this case.  We know for a fact that the dogs can be relied upon to signal the presence of cadaver scent.  Whether it took mere minutes or over an hour for the scent to accumulate, the net result is the same - a death in 5a.   Which means either she was killed and abducted, or that she died and was taken away.  

And the dogs can also be relied upon to tell us which of these two possibilities actually happened.  The scent on Kate's clothes, the car, the cuddle cat and the keys tell us that these were all involved somehow.  This does not fit with a burglar kill scenario.  It does however fit with the Amaral theory.

So whilst not enough to convict, it is certainly enough to inform the police as to what happened and who was involved.  

Good dogs!  big grin

Bishop Brennan

Posts : 695
Reputation : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.12.14 9:37

TexMac wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:Quote
After this week, Smithman will be the central focus of glamour-girl, Vogue-featured, 'I-paint-my-nails-to-impress-the-men' DCI Nicola Wall

I find that funny , Tony.
I find it disgusting - extremely sexist, and showing a dreadful bias and a total lack of respect for DCI Wall even before she starts her new role.
If we all want justice for Madeleine, shouldn't EVERYONE be 100% supportive and encouraging of DCI Wall?
NO.

Instead, they should be writing to the Independent Police Complaints Commission demanding that DCI Andy Redwood be investigated for perverting the course of justice for his IMO obviously bogus attempt to try to pass off two e-fits of very different blokes as the same man - and moreover claiming that any of the Smiths could possibly produce such clear e-fits as those two, given that

* they had seen him over a year before (allegedly) drawing up those e-fits
* it was dark when they saw him
* the street lighting was week
* they only saw him for a few seconds
* his face was down and partly hidden
* they all waited 13 days in the midst of an international publicity blitz before telling the police about their sighting.

Moreover, as we all know:

1. DCI Andy Redwood accepted a remit - given by someone the Met Police refuses to reveal - that he was only to investigate an abduction, and
2. His boss, Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, was the disgraced detective who fitted up Barry Bulsara/George for the killing of Jill Dando by a professional hit-man, a crime never solved, and quite possibly carreid out by Britiosh secuirty services.

As for DCI Nicola Wall, IF she had insisted on the remit being changed before being appointed, yes, I would support her.

But she did not. She is stuck with a remit only of investigating an abduction, therefore IMO she has accepted the poisoned chalice, and no good will come of her appointment.

And I stand by my comments about DCI Nicola Wall, which were not in any way sexist. I would have said exactly the same had any male admitted - as Wall did - that she glammed up herself up to impress the males in her office, and appeared in a celebrity magazine - as Wall did in Vogue.  

I do not think these are the actions of a police officer that we should take seriously. She has been in the Met 25 years, her career has obviosuly stalled at the modest level of DCI, and she has less than 5 years to go to retirement. What better option than to do the bidding of boss-of-the-Met Bernard Hogan-Howe and continue to run this corrupt investigation, which is clearly getting nowhere, for another two years - then get a handy promotion to Detective Superintendent and so nicely enhance her police pension, wnhich she can take in 2019.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13953
Reputation : 2139
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 12.12.14 9:45

WMD wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.
I have been told that a corpse does not have to be in place for very long at all for dogs to detect cadaver evidence? I would of thought at least an hour or two, but that is not accurate. I have researched it on the internet but could not find much that says accurately how long it would take for dogs to detect that kind of evidence, so it seems there are some discrepencies with it.
I've seen mentioned that cadaver scent can start after just 10 minutes,the trouble is,no one knows just how sensitive the dogs noses are and we have no way of telling exactly.Also along the same lines.There are variables in age,sex,cause of death,which is why one supposes the dogs can't be relied upon alone.
The fact remains that the dogs, Eddie and Keela alerted to the scent of blood and cadaver. It's an indesputable fact. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so much energy is spent on 'dissing' the dogs' findings.

For the purposes of the libel trial, Gerry McCann himself tried to bring it up in court but was knocked back by the judge. In the final session, lawyers have brought it up in court. That's because it serves a particular purpose in the setting of the libel trial.

For the purposes of finding Madeleine, her parents swept aside the findings of the dogs easily and swiftly - 'ask the dogs Sandra'.

For the purposes of PR, Winters & Goose and Jim Gamble also question the findings of the dogs and set about 'dissing' the dogs albeit in a supposedly fair, professional and expert manner.

The fact remains that dogs don't lie. What's up for grabs is the interpretation of the dogs' findings and haven't so many people made a big meal (and a pile of money) out of that.

As for finding Madeleine, well those dogs alerted to the scent of blood and cadaver and it's recorded on video.

There's no getting away from the dogs.

Just my opinion.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Guest on 12.12.14 9:54

@aquila wrote:
WMD wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@Realist wrote:The part of Goncala's theory that I've always found to be implausible (at least according to his video and I presume the book is the same) is that he appears to be of the opinion that the McCann's daughter died accidentally and her body was disposed of between the hrs. of 8.30 and 10 pm. on the third inst. May 2007.

As previously stated, it just isn't realistic that such a series of serious events could occur in so short a time span. There just wasn't the opportunity for Madelaine to meet with a fatal accident, one of the McCanns returning to the apt. to find her dead,  clean up the apt, concoct a phoney kidnapping story, make the decision to dispense with the body in the presence of their friends,  and dispose of it with no apparent means of transport so methodically that it would never be found. Again, as previously stated, maybe he had libel in mind when writing the book and was giving the McCanns a certain degree of the benefit of the doubt as opposed to what he really thinks occurred.

As for Gerry McCann stating what other than an abduction could have been the reason for his daughter's disappearance  is naivety personified, because there could be any number of other obvious reasons, all of which by default would involve himself, his wife and their friends.
I agree.

IMO Tuesday night was the start of the demise.

Precisely and it flies in the face of the dog's scentings, because a corpse would have had to have been in the apt. for a longer period of time than Goncala's synopsis allows for.
I have been told that a corpse does not have to be in place for very long at all for dogs to detect cadaver evidence? I would of thought at least an hour or two, but that is not accurate. I have researched it on the internet but could not find much that says accurately how long it would take for dogs to detect that kind of evidence, so it seems there are some discrepencies with it.
I've seen mentioned that cadaver scent can start after just 10 minutes,the trouble is,no one knows just how sensitive the dogs noses are and we have no way of telling exactly.Also along the same lines.There are variables in age,sex,cause of death,which is why one supposes the dogs can't be relied upon alone.
The fact remains that the dogs, Eddie and Keela alerted to the scent of blood and cadaver. It's an indesputable fact. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so much energy is spent on 'dissing' the dogs' findings.

For the purposes of the libel trial, Gerry McCann himself tried to bring it up in court but was knocked back by the judge. In the final session, lawyers have brought it up in court. That's because it serves a particular purpose in the setting of the libel trial.

For the purposes of finding Madeleine, her parents swept aside the findings of the dogs easily and swiftly - 'ask the dogs Sandra'.

For the purposes of PR, Winters & Goose and Jim Gamble also question the findings of the dogs and set about 'dissing' the dogs albeit in a supposedly fair, professional and expert manner.

The fact remains that dogs don't lie. What's up for grabs is the interpretation of the dogs' findings and haven't so many people made a big meal (and a pile of money) out of that.

As for finding Madeleine, well those dogs alerted to the scent of blood and cadaver and it's recorded on video.

There's no getting away from the dogs.

Just my opinion.
I agree,but that doesn't matter does,the buggers are still free so the dogs count for nowt at the moment.IMO of course.

I've read here I think that the OG haven't mentioned the dogs in the nigh on 4 yrs of investigation,more importantly they haven't dissed them,which is what matters.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by Montclair on 12.12.14 9:59

You all seem to forget that the final allegations made by Ricardo Afonso, the lawyer representing the McCann children, were totally irrelevant to the case that was being discussed, that is the damages done by the book to the family. So, I doubt that the judge will even take into consideration what he said. This is proof that their lawyers have no arguments to prove that the family suffered from the book.

The court case was not about the viability of the investigation by the PJ, or whether the Smith's sighting was relevant (which TB in his attempt to implicate Robert Murat wants to discredit so badly) or the credibility of the dogs, etc.

All the arguments brought forward by RA read practically word for word like all the arguments of the pros in their efforts to diss all the evidence against the parents. I can imagine Gerry McCann writing up the allegations and saying to the lawyer: "Here, this is what you are going to say, since I wasn't allowed to discredit the dogs in court myself".

Montclair

Posts : 156
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 70
Location : Algarve

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

Post by aquila on 12.12.14 10:11

@Tony Bennett wrote:
TexMac wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:Quote
After this week, Smithman will be the central focus of glamour-girl, Vogue-featured, 'I-paint-my-nails-to-impress-the-men' DCI Nicola Wall

I find that funny , Tony.
I find it disgusting - extremely sexist, and showing a dreadful bias and a total lack of respect for DCI Wall even before she starts her new role.
If we all want justice for Madeleine, shouldn't EVERYONE be 100% supportive and encouraging of DCI Wall?
NO.

Instead, they should be writing to the Independent Police Complaints Commission demanding that DCI Andy Redwood be investigated for perverting the course of justice for his IMO obviously bogus attempt to try to pass off two e-fits of very different blokes as the same man - and moreover claiming that any of the Smiths could possibly produce such clear e-fits as those two, given that

* they had seen him over a year before (allegedly) drawing up those e-fits
* it was dark when they saw him
* the street lighting was week
* they only saw him for a few seconds
* his face was down and partly hidden
* they all waited 13 days in the midst of an international publicity blitz before telling the police about their sighting.

Moreover, as we all know:

1. DCI Andy Redwood accepted a remit - given by someone the Met Police refuses to reveal - that he was only to investigate an abduction, and
2. His boss, Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, was the disgraced detective who fitted up Barry Bulsara/George for the killing of Jill Dando by a professional hit-man, a crime never solved, and quite possibly carreid out by Britiosh secuirty services.

As for DCI Nicola Wall, IF she had insisted on the remit being changed before being appointed, yes, I would support her.

But she did not. She is stuck with a remit only of investigating an abduction, therefore IMO she has accepted the poisoned chalice, and no good will come of her appointment.

And I stand by my comments about DCI Nicola Wall, which were not in any way sexist. I would have said exactly the same had any male admitted - as Wall did - that she glammed up herself up to impress the males in her office, and appeared in a celebrity magazine - as Wall did in Vogue.  

I do not think these are the actions of a police officer that we should take seriously. She has been in the Met 25 years, her career has obviosuly stalled at the modest level of DCI, and she has less than 5 years to go to retirement. What better option than to do the bidding of boss-of-the-Met Bernard Hogan-Howe and continue to run this corrupt investigation, which is clearly getting nowhere, for another two years - then get a handy promotion to Detective Superintendent and so nicely enhance her police pension, wnhich she can take in 2019.
@Tony,

As a female, I didn't find your remarks sexist. Since when did being a relatively senior female police officer lead to an interview with Vogue? It's not professional, it undermines the role of female officers and to my mind brings the uniform into celebrity status. I'm surprised Nicola wasn't carpeted for that interview - well that's of course if the powers within the MET give a toss.

Theresa May with Kitten heels and a new head of OG with an interview about her femininity in Vogue under her belt arriving in PDL with long blonde hair not tied back.

Gawd help Madeleine. The media circus goes on and on.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1173
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum