Possible Action Against The Times

joel27 wrote:

It's where I disagree lets take the revelation moment it gives them the chance to take down the Tannerman pictures from the web-site declare publicly that Smithman is the main suspect. No way will they , they cannot and could never because of the September statements forever linkGerry  to Smithman.. Smithman is the elephant in the room if you like, you have to prove where Gerry was without doubt at the appropriate time to make Smithman viable.

@ joel27:  Think very hard please about the totality of the Smiths' evidence. If you were prosecuting the McCanns, would you for one moment want to bring Martin Smith along as a prosecution witness for your cliam that the man they saw was really Gerry McCann? Any defence barrister would rip his defence to shreds in minutes, a hundred times more effectively than I have tried to do here. The very idea is a total non-starter, isn't it?

They cannot, there are the missing minutes around the same time where he was out looking. (happy to be corrected if there is a timeline with independent verification). Smithman could only be the abductor seen by Tannerman. The reason of wandering around for 45 minutes is easier to be explained - taken somewhere for 40 minutes.  

@ joel27: There is IMO more than adequate evidence that Gerry McCann was around the Ocean Club at the time of the Smiths' alleged 'sighting', and the very idea that he would carry around his dead daughter hours after she died at the very moment they [Tapas 9] have all agreed to raise an almighty alarm does not IMO deserve serious consideration. No-one else saw this man carrying a child all the way from Apatrment G5A to near the beach - around 700 yards. 

The revelation moment to me is the dawning on the McCanns that OG are not buying the story so carefully planted for 7 years. It points to me that the lack of publicity by the McCanns since, in the vocal support of OG, the urging to find Smithman is not the sign of support I would expect if their headache was removed.

@ joel27: I am not quite understanding your words here, they are not making complete sense to me. If you think that DCI Redwood is carrying out a cunning plan here to 'get the McCanns', I fear you re badly mistaken.  

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:How do we know that she wasn't happy with how she saw herself on that occasion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFCdbMc0qZc

Here she is in all her loveliness......

Casey5 wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:

MW = Mark Warner - the holiday company.
I read that DP negotiated a discount for the non-availablilty of baby listening- this is a service MW offer in some of their locations (we used it as parents years ago in Greece on a MW holiday) although not PdL as it is not an exclusive hotel complex like their usual resorts, and so not safe to leave children alone.
this is something I read about on the Mirror Forum, all those years ago, so cannot link...

Praiaaa, I've looked at David Payne's rogatory interview (I deserve a medal)
[color:b3eb=000000]Qu[color:b3eb=000000]o[color:b3eb=000000]te:-   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html
[color:b3eb=000000]Reply    ”And err you know just for the record, embarrassingly or as it turns out now in err retrospect you know it’s a small change but you know the Mark Warner had also advertised that you know they were gonna discount the holiday by ten percent you know not long after we booked, which slightly irritated me, given the fact that we booked it and then he said well actually we don’t have this, we don’t have this, so I’d had correspondence probably being a bit cheeky just to say what, what, you know you can knock us ten percent off as well and they gave us some discount, which you know looking back just seems, you know, ridiculous.”

Gollum wrote: If (very big if) these e-fits were genuinely based on the man the Smith family saw on the night of the 3rd why have OG failed to give a description of the clothing worn?  Iirc, the Smiths were more precise about the physical appearance and the clothing of the person they saw, than the visage and yet OG don't seem to think this important.

Brian Griffin wrote:

Casey5 wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:

MW = Mark Warner - the holiday company.
I read that DP negotiated a discount for the non-availablilty of baby listening- this is a service MW offer in some of their locations (we used it as parents years ago in Greece on a MW holiday) although not PdL as it is not an exclusive hotel complex like their usual resorts, and so not safe to leave children alone.
this is something I read about on the Mirror Forum, all those years ago, so cannot link...

Praiaaa, I've looked at David Payne's rogatory interview (I deserve a medal)
[color:9f5f=000000]Qu[color:9f5f=000000]o[color:9f5f=000000]te:-   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html
[color:9f5f=000000]Reply    ”And err you know just for the record, embarrassingly or as it turns out now in err retrospect you know it’s a small change but you know the Mark Warner had also advertised that you know they were gonna discount the holiday by ten percent you know not long after we booked, which slightly irritated me, given the fact that we booked it and then he said well actually we don’t have this, we don’t have this, so I’d had correspondence probably being a bit cheeky just to say what, what, you know you can knock us ten percent off as well and they gave us some discount, which you know looking back just seems, you know, ridiculous.”

Ah! Such eloquence!

margaret wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:So, McCanns vs Murdoch?

OMG Jeanmonroe, Murdoch would wipe the floor with their skinny ass's!!      

noddy100 wrote:Their confidence knows no limits

Brian Griffin wrote:This will never go the distance. The McMasons will intervene, if, of course, Gerry is a Mason. Failing that, he'll be on the blower to Dave to get him to fix things. Just in my opinion. Allegedly. Etc.

dantezebu wrote:Are we very very sure the MC's phone wasn't hacked by NI?

Gonçalo Amaral wrote:the purpose of this work is to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case"

Kate McCann wrote:Gonçalo Amaral deserves to be miserable and feel fear

canada12 wrote:I wonder if The Times was being deliberately provocative in their stories. Would it be beyond reasonable to think that perhaps the editorial staff at The Times published these stories with the hope that they WOULD be sued? And they have no intention at all of settling out of court, and the ultimate aim was to drive the McCanns into court, so that they would have to take the stand and testify and answer questions? It would put the McCanns in a very difficult position - they'd either have to withdraw their suit (and consider what message that sends), or go to court and defend their position - and risk being asked some very pointed questions.

Poe wrote:

dantezebu wrote:Are we very very sure the MC's phone wasn't hacked by NI?

That was my first thought, dantezebu. Rhys Ifans and Michael Barrymore have just received "substantial" payouts:
 http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/490678/Rhys-Ifans-and-Michael-Barrymore-settle-hacking-cases and the McCanns love their money.

I also wondered about who now owns the serialisation rights to Kate's diary. If the agreement was that any News International title could publish excerpts at any time, the McCanns must now be seriously panicking about the implications. 

Can you imagine if Sr Amaral sells the serialisation rights to his book to The Times and sections of both books are published side by side:

Gonçalo Amaral wrote:the purpose of this work is to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case"

Kate McCann wrote:Gonçalo Amaral deserves to be miserable and feel fear

I'm not wading through pages of Smithman so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

Tony Bennett wrote:

joel27 wrote:

It's where I disagree lets take the revelation moment it gives them the chance to take down the Tannerman pictures from the web-site declare publicly that Smithman is the main suspect. No way will they , they cannot and could never because of the September statements forever linkGerry  to Smithman.. Smithman is the elephant in the room if you like, you have to prove where Gerry was without doubt at the appropriate time to make Smithman viable.

@ joel27:  Think very hard please about the totality of the Smiths' evidence. If you were prosecuting the McCanns, would you for one moment want to bring Martin Smith along as a prosecution witness for your cliam that the man they saw was really Gerry McCann? Any defence barrister would rip his defence to shreds in minutes, a hundred times more effectively than I have tried to do here. The very idea is a total non-starter, isn't it?

They cannot, there are the missing minutes around the same time where he was out looking. (happy to be corrected if there is a timeline with independent verification). Smithman could only be the abductor seen by Tannerman. The reason of wandering around for 45 minutes is easier to be explained - taken somewhere for 40 minutes.  

@ joel27: There is IMO more than adequate evidence that Gerry McCann was around the Ocean Club at the time of the Smiths' alleged 'sighting', and the very idea that he would carry around his dead daughter hours after she died at the very moment they [Tapas 9] have all agreed to raise an almighty alarm does not IMO deserve serious consideration. No-one else saw this man carrying a child all the way from Apatrment G5A to near the beach - around 700 yards. 

The revelation moment to me is the dawning on the McCanns that OG are not buying the story so carefully planted for 7 years. It points to me that the lack of publicity by the McCanns since, in the vocal support of OG, the urging to find Smithman is not the sign of support I would expect if their headache was removed.

@ joel27: I am not quite understanding your words here, they are not making complete sense to me. If you think that DCI Redwood is carrying out a cunning plan here to 'get the McCanns', I fear you re badly mistaken.  

@ ShuBon and @ Google Gaspar Statements

Regarding Kate looking 'shocked' and 'terrified' when the efits were shown on Crimewatch.

REPLY: I don't think so. Is there not more than a hint or two that Dr Kate McCann might be able to 'switch on' the depressed  and harassed look when required? 

joel27 wrote:

Tony as an opinion, and for debate purposes, Firstly I agree the Smith evidence does not stand up in court.

Agreed, and therefore in this case it is worthless evidence.

My error I apologise if there is clear evidence elsewhere that Gerry was independently verified as being elsewhere.

I think it is sufficiently clear

Where we depart in views is that OG is cover up. So a few points. If Tannerman is removed why have the McCanns not been pushing the line of the failure of the Portugeses police,

They do it all the time

why have they not been pushing the Smithman

They are! They have made statements fully supporting DCI Redwood's investigation; moreover when you click on the 'Find Madeleine' site, their 'splash' page (i.e. first page you come to) has the two large EXTON EFITS on it!

it's the abductoe even with the Gerry connection? I would even argue that they have tried to do the exact opposite the more recent comments from them are far more centered on a "they" or "he/she" .

Not sure about that

The only way they could go innocent or involved in my opinion is support the OG view.

Which they do - see above

Take the view they are innocent. Tannerman was 7 years of wasted effort because the Portugese police failed to find him, I would be screaming about the failure, it proves we were right.

No. The 'wasted effort' is entirely down to Jane Tanner for creating Tannerman and the McCann Team for 7 years for claiming Tannerman was the man we are looking for as the abductor 

Have an opinion that Tannerman was a set up by the McCanns, by OG saying they found him, you still have to sing the failure of the Portugese police, by not doing so you are going to set alarm bells ringing. Assume Tannerman is false as the Mcanns you know he can never be found - but OG say they have, by not supporting it what have you achieved ? The best I can come up with it leaves the doubt and any court case in the future can still use him, a get out of jail free card if you like.

I agree to the extent that the crafty Redwood can boast: "I found Crecheman; the PJ failed".

The last paragraph was an attempt to suggest that its dawned (revelation) on the McCanns that the OG set up by them pushing for it was not going to clear them in fact it could well set thier attempts to prove innocence back further. Even worse if through the early years of OG they were convinced that it was all going there way. Again the words since Crimewatch the he/she they, the outburst in court regarding dogs (trusted by OG). My opinion and only for the purpose of debate of course

I couldn't disagree more. As I've said, Grange, the BBC, the top brass of the Met, the British security services (who have been across this case from Day One), the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, Rebekah Brooks and the Murdoch empire plus of course the McCann Team are all rock solid behind Smithman.

Which is quite remarkable, since there is good evidence that the Smiths did NOT help to create these two efits of different-looking men 

noddy100 wrote:If Murdoch 'knows' them why hasn't he exposed them already ?
He is the master of a story at any cost and getting the scoop so why not get the biggest story of the last. 10 years

Justformaddie wrote:Is there a credible, non Tapas witness, someone who hasn't lied or has no reason to lie, who can place GM at the table at 10pm?

But you would have to do much more than that, wouldn't you?

If, as a few here still seem to think, GM carried his dead child in full view across the streets of Praia da Luz towards its centre near the beach at around 10pm - the very time the alarm was being raised - you have to account for his not being seen on the way, AND you would have to establish that he was not at the table or anywhere else in the immediate vicinity whilst he was

* collecting his dead child's body

* carrying it out of Apt G5A

* walking through the streets with Madeleine

* placing her body somewhere where it wouldn't be found, and

* returning to the Ocean Club.

To put it kindly, that is a very very tall order.    

Could it also be either RO'B or MO? They do look alike IMO. Could it also be that Smiths was so sure that it was GM he was able to do the efit that's so like GM?

Er...

1. It doesn't IMO look 'so like Gerry'. It does however look like tens of thousands of other middle-aged British blokes

2. He was never 'so sure'. At the most he was '60% to 80%' sure, and then he seems to have gone back on that

3. Why, if he was so sure , did he and the other Smiths (if they did, see next point) allow a SECOND efit to be generated that looked like an entirely different bloke?

4. How could they draw up an efit if they never saw him properly, only for a few seconds in the dark, and a year before they (allegedly) drew up the efits?

5. Did they actually see anyone at all? 

joel27 wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
 

Tony as an opinion, and for debate purposes, Firstly I agree the Smith evidence does not stand up in court. My error I apoligise if there is clear evidence elsewhere that Gerry was independently verified as being elsewhere.
Where we depart in views is that OG is cover up. So a few points. If Tannerman is removed why have the McCanns not been pushing the line of the failure of the Portugeses police, why have they not been pushing the Smithman , its the abducter even with the Gerry connection ? I would even argue that they have tried to do the exact opposite the more recent comments from them are far more centered on a "they" or "he/she" . The only way they could go innocent or involved in my opinion is support the OG view.. Take the view they are innocent Tannerman was 7 years of wasted effort because the Portugese police failed to find him , I would be screaming about the failure it proves we were right. 
Have an opinion that Tannerman was a set up by the McCanns , by OG saying they found him you still have to sing the failure of the Portugese police, by not doing so you are going to set alarm bells ringing.  Assume Tannerman is false as the Mcanns you know he can never be found but OG say they have,  by not supporting it  what have you achieved ? The best I can come up with it leaves the doubt and any court case in the future can still use him , a get out of jail free card if you like.
The last paragraph was an attempt to suggest that its dawned (revelation) on the McCanns that the OG set up by them pushing for it was not going to clear them in fact it could well set thier attempts to prove innocence back further.  Even worse if through the early years of OG they were convinced that it was all going there way. Again the words since Crimewatch the he/she they, the outburst in court regarding dogs (trusted by OG)

My opinion and only for the purpose of debate of course

Cristobell wrote:

joel27 wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
 

Tony as an opinion, and for debate purposes, Firstly I agree the Smith evidence does not stand up in court. My error I apoligise if there is clear evidence elsewhere that Gerry was independently verified as being elsewhere.
Where we depart in views is that OG is cover up. So a few points. If Tannerman is removed why have the McCanns not been pushing the line of the failure of the Portugeses police, why have they not been pushing the Smithman , its the abducter even with the Gerry connection ? I would even argue that they have tried to do the exact opposite the more recent comments from them are far more centered on a "they" or "he/she" . The only way they could go innocent or involved in my opinion is support the OG view.. Take the view they are innocent Tannerman was 7 years of wasted effort because the Portugese police failed to find him , I would be screaming about the failure it proves we were right. 
Have an opinion that Tannerman was a set up by the McCanns , by OG saying they found him you still have to sing the failure of the Portugese police, by not doing so you are going to set alarm bells ringing.  Assume Tannerman is false as the Mcanns you know he can never be found but OG say they have,  by not supporting it  what have you achieved ? The best I can come up with it leaves the doubt and any court case in the future can still use him , a get out of jail free card if you like.
The last paragraph was an attempt to suggest that its dawned (revelation) on the McCanns that the OG set up by them pushing for it was not going to clear them in fact it could well set thier attempts to prove innocence back further.  Even worse if through the early years of OG they were convinced that it was all going there way. Again the words since Crimewatch the he/she they, the outburst in court regarding dogs (trusted by OG)

My opinion and only for the purpose of debate of course

Joel, the PJ never treated Tannerman as credible!  They dismissed Jane's evidence on day 1 and have never pushed him as the 'abductor'.  The police conferences, were 'faux' police conferences, they were called by the McCanns publicity department and NOT supported by the police. 

And you had a valid point, why not call one of their 'faux' police press conferences and get the face of Smithman out there?  They had almost photographic images of him, with considerably more detail than the egg.

I have to say I disagree with Tony on the Smiths being 'useless' witnesses.  From, everything I have seen about the Smiths, they are credible, truthful people who have maintained a dignified silence for many years.  In the witness box, much weight will rest on the credibility of the witnesses, as we saw recently in the Lisbon libel trial.  The Smiths are good witnesses from the Prosecution's perspective. 

The Defence may well pick up on the dim lighting, the momentary glimpse, etc, etc, but the Prosecution could argue the probability of a man the same age, build, haircut, clean shaven, a doppelganger of the father in fact, walking through the streets of PDL carrying a child that looked like Maddie.  It may all boil down to the witnesses credibility, and they are credible enough for DCI Redwood to use their evidence as the focus of last October's Crimewatch and revelation moment.  In case anyone didn't get the message, they are witnesses for the Crown. 

It should also be remembered that Goncalo Amaral was removed from the original investigation, as he was prepared to fly the Smith family back to Portugal to be interviewed.  In October last year, SY reached the stage GA had in September 2007.  It doesn't bode well for the McCanns.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Children are certainly capable of telling some right porkies when they're suspected of doing something wrong!

However, I think that it would be difficult to persuade most of one's family to tell the same story if it isn't true.

I'm still lost as to what the Smith family's motive would be to make it up as there is nothing to prove that they knew either the McCanns or Robert Murat before - except in a very casual basis regarding the latter.