Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?'

@ Verdi. the P.J. did not find the Smiths' delay in reporting their sighting in the least suspicious.
 After receiving news of Martin Smith's claim that he believed it was Gerry that he had seen, Dr. Amaral clearly shows that, rather than being of the belief that Smithman might have been Tannerman, or that this information was worthless, ( as claimed by 24horas ) the P.J. was of the opposite opinion.

(from the truth of the lie, my capitals)
 
"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 events of that cold night of May 3rd in Vila de Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner "sent" the abductor in the opposite direction of 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"

So there it is is black and white, straight from the man who lead the investigation during this period. Far from thinking Tannerman was Smithman, the P.J. felt vindicated in their convinction that Tannerman was a ruse. And, far from believing that the Smiths' evidence was worthless, the P.J. believed, at that point anyway, that it was very important. Since Dr. Amaral's book is an account of the case during his tenure as lead detective I see no need to doubt him.

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. Since Dr. Amaral's book is an account of the case during his tenure as lead detective I see no need to doubt him.

This sentence reveals an attitude of: "Everything Amaral says must be true, we can't question it or go beyond it, even if new information is unearthed".

Since his book was published, we have e.g.

Virtual proof the Last Photo was taken Sunday not Thursday

Lizzy Hideho not being able to find any credible, independent evidence of Maddie being alive after Sunday

Dr Martin Roberts' evidence that Maddie's actual pyjamas were used in press conferences in June 2007, and

Several analyses showing multiple contradictions in the claims made about an alleged high tea (with Maddie present) on Thursday.

Is this all evidence you just ignore?

@ Tony Bennett. The article you proffered by "24horas" is not "new"  nor about any "newly uncovered" information. It claims that the P.J. were dismissive of the value of the Smiths' sighting and their claim that the man they saw was Gerry McCann. Dr. Amaral's book is his account of the investigation under his leadership - the very time this sighting was being actively investigated. NO ONE is better informed than him about what was going in the investigation under his leadership, which is when this lead emerged. 

With respect - there is no hard "proof" of when the last photo was taken.
Nor is there "proof" that Madeleine was not seen after Sunday.
 Proof is indisputable and irrefutable.
 Nor does Dr. Roberts "prove" that the Eeyore pyjamas were Madeleine's. What he does prove is that they would, most likely, have  been purchased when Amelie was much too young to wear them, nothing more.

I have never claimed that Dr. Amaral is infallible in his opinions or theories. What I do believe is that his account of the investigation under his leadership is perfectly accurate and truthful!!

What in Heaven’s name is “virtual proof” ?
And just because HiDeHo “isn’t able to find credible evidence” doesn’t mean it’s not there (and that is in no way meant to devalue her incredible work - I’m merely pointing out the choice of words)

polyenne wrote:What in Heaven’s name is “virtual proof” ?
And just because HiDeHo “isn’t able to find credible evidence” doesn’t mean it’s not there (and that is in no way meant to devalue her incredible work - I’m merely pointing out the choice of words)

Could you please inform me and the forum of any sighting of Madeleine after Sunday that you consider to be both credible and independent, and at the same time provide relevant links - that would be much appreciated.

That will give us some actual evidence to discuss

Phoebe wrote:All the evidence IS in the files I agree, but in my opinion, I am not one who is ignoring it and looking instead to the Media for "evidence".

Neither am I.

If Smith had seen photos of Madeleine, he must also have seen photos of Gerry, at least in the media. So how could he possibly state:

it is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.  (see below) and later assist with an e-fit & claim that it may have been Gerry? 

Besides, what he did see was a man carrying a child which was perfectly normal and did not arouse suspicion.

Quote: From the PJ files
 As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

@Phoebe

Sorry to say but I find it very difficult to respond to your posts, your comments lack consistency making it difficult to identify specific points that are worthy of notice and require a response.  

Rather than sticking to a particular point with evidence or logic to support your argument, you lump a variety of points together taken from various posts, media reports, police docmentation etc.,  adding your own free interpretation interspersed with generalisations about average human behaviour, all passed off as fact and/or informed knowledge.

By way of example, you indicate that Martin Smith was called to Portugal by the PJ along with family members, to give witness statements on 26th May 2007.  I have never seen any indication that Martn Smith or any of his family was asked to return to Portugal in May 2007.  In addition, as I've said repeatedly, the content of Dr Amaral's book and/or his various interviews since being removed from the case, are not entirely consistent with the PJ files.  I have come across a number of glaring differences over a period of time, plus, the book is not written as an official document, it's more of a personal reflection of his days as case coordinator - not a precise account of the investigation.  Besides, he was case coordinator which means he wouldn't have been involved in the ground work, just an overseer - as the title implies, a coordinator.

The Truth of the Lie states that Martin Smith was secretly returned to Portugal in May 2007 to give his statement - there is no confirmation contained within the files to verfiy Dr Amaral's words.  The Truth of the Lie states they were on the verge of getting Martin Smith back to Portugal to formally identify Gerry McCann as the stranger seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007, and to give another statement.  There is no confirmation contained with the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  The PJ files are the official account of the PJ's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - they are the only source that can be used as an accurate account of proceedings.

As I've said previously, there is a regulated international policing protocol in existence for one country to request such information from another country by the rogatory process.  

You state quite categorically that the PJ were not suspicious about the delay between Madeleine's alleged time of disappearance and the date Martin Smith and family gave their witness statements - how do you know?  Not that I even suggested the PJ were suspicious - you see?  This is one reason I find it so difficult to cope with your posts, you add things that have never been stated - in abundance.

This not the first time we've been this way so again, I'll leave you to post your views uninterrupted - unless a point of technicality is required.

Life is short.

@ Verdi. I'm sorry you find my style of posting tedious but we all have different styles of expressing ourselves and I do always try to ensure that my posts are cordial and civil and make clear what is just an opinion or theory of mine and what is actually evidence. 
I shall endeavour to make this post as clear as possible without reproducing reams of unnecessary reference (something I myself find quite tedious) 
  The P.J. files are, I agree, the most reliable source of evidence, hence my consternation when they are dismissed in favour of media reports  which contradict them.
With regard to the wisdom of ignoring anything which is not in the files, even if it is the account of the chief investigator himself then I confess myself confounded.  
I find your criticism of Dr. Amaral's veracity re. "The Truth Of The Lie" breathtakingly arrogant. While the files give us just a limited picture of how the case progressed, much of the investigation, such as informal interviews (which we know took place) police discussions and evolving theories are not included. We know about these thanks to Dr. Amaral's book and live interviews. To suggest that he is a liar in what he has written therein must gladden McCann supporters' hearts.
I strongly suspect that what irks you most about my posts is their content rather than their style.  Be that as it may, I'm afraid we will have to disagree about your allegation that I indulge in posting my  "own free interpretation interspersed with generalisations about average human behaviour, all passed off as fact and/or informed knowledge"
While others may be happy to do this, often with apparent impunity, I try to stick to evidence rather than conjecture and opinions. I trust that most members who read what is posted on this forum can spot when interpretation is being passed off as fact and I wouldn't presume to insult anyone's intelligence.

Verdi wrote:@Phoebe

Sorry to say but I find it very difficult to respond to your posts...

By way of example, you indicate that Martin Smith was called to Portugal by the PJ along with family members, to give witness statements on 26th May 2007.  I have never seen any indication that Martin Smith or any of his family was asked to return to Portugal in May 2007...

The Truth of the Lie states that Martin Smith was secretly returned to Portugal in May 2007 to give his statement - there is no confirmation contained within the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  

The Truth of the Lie states they were on the verge of getting Martin Smith back to Portugal to formally identify Gerry McCann as the stranger seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007, and to give another statement.  There is no confirmation contained with the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  

The main purpose of my reply is to give an update on the controversial activities of Gemma O'Doherty.

She is making a name for herself once again making a stand against the three great frauds of the Covid-19 crisis, viz.
1. That Covid-19 is anything worse than a bad seasonal 'flu
2. That the PCR test can detect whether you've 'got' Covid-19, and
3. That the anti-Covid-10 vaccines are 'safe and effective.

Here is a report filed by a biased left-wing rag called 'The Beacon':

https://the-beacon.ie/2021/09/29/bray-court-finds-gemma-odoherty-guilty-on-three-counts/?fbclid=IwAR1_i9KW90IZR928Nr8KOBL2YyX24b4CD_q3BYZsuL0unMmFxoiO4_zGV9M

Gemma O'Doherty was of course woefully wrong in what she said about the Martin Smith sighting,. She believed Martin Smith's nonsense. His evidence conflicts with all the information we have which suggests that Madeleine may have died on Sunday afternoon or early evening.

@Verdi  I want to comment on your post, but first of all, welcome back after your short absence. I support your attempts to moderate the Coronavirus Debate thread. It is a very valuable thread on this very important subject and we have a lot of facts there plus a valid discussion of alternative viewpoints. All should be moderate in what they say and slanging matches, as they say these days ,are "not a good look" for the forum.

Regarding your remarks on the Smiths and the PJ, I fear you may have made an error.

It is on record that three of the Smiths (Martin, Peter and Aoife) did travel to Portugal and made statements to the PJ on 26 May 2007. I don't think those statements were made in Ireland  They were made in Portugal. What I think you were trying to refer to was the curious incident of Martin Smith contacting the Gardai on 20 September 2007, eleven whole days after he claimed to have a moment when he 'recognised' , on a TV news bulletin, the abductor whom he had failed to see properly in the dimly-lit streets of Praia da Luz over four months before. When Amaral says in 'The Truth of the Lie' that, immediately after 20 September, he wanted to get to talk to the Smiths again, I believe that to be correct. But he was removed from the investigation 13 days later, on 3 October 2007

Crikey Tony, that was three years ago!

I know what you say about the Smiths witness statements to be correct in this instance.  

I would need to go back over the whole thread to see why I wrote those words, maybe taken out of context, a typing error, badly worded or just a bad hair day .

No desire to do that at present but I will acknowledge you to be right in what you say.  The Martin/Peter/Aoife Smith's  late May witness statements were taken in Portugal and Snr Amaral did say he wanted to smuggle Martin Smith back to Portugal late summer.

PS:  Thanks for the support 

Verdi wrote:Crikey Tony, that was three years ago!

PS:  Thanks for the support 

But actually, my main point was on topic, i.e. the OP which introduced us to Gemma O'Doherty's theories on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Smithman statements came up when I scanned the thread and I took the opportunity to correct them.

In summary, Gemma O'Doherty was completely up the creek regarding Martin Smith's alleged sighting.

She is probably bang on the money, however, when it comes to the Covid19 charade.