Libel trial summing up - daily mail

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?

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. 

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.

Profound apologies for my lack of English grammar Realist. I only attained O level English and I'm not great at spelling either . 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?

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

whatsupdoc 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?

TexMac... You are right but you went too deep. 

Did DCI Wall really say that or was it some journo writing for shoe-size-IQ readers? It all sounded out of place for a DCI.

I fear the trench has been dug too deep now and DCI Wall will be treading water till her next promotion and early retirement.

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.

plebgate wrote:I couldn't care less whether she wears nail polish, has her hair flowing or wears 5 inch heels, get on with the job in hand is all I care about.    Do the best for Maddie end of.

plebgate wrote:Why can't people just get on with their jobs and not give a care about what men or other women think about them.   Why do so many "career" women feel they have to go on tv or give magazine interviews to tell us about their need to be seen as feminine or wear make up etc.

I couldn't care less whether she wears nail polish, has her hair flowing or wears 5 inch heels, get on with the job in hand is all I care about.    Do the best for Maddie end of.

TB has posted a good deal to be thinking about so let's hope that this thread is not going to be derailed because of a comment (his opinion) about the new Chief of the investigation.

Woofer wrote:I wish people would get their facts straight before jumping to conclusions.

The Vogue piece was about women in the MET from a practical dress perspective AND it mentioned 3 or 4 example women, of which DCI Wall was one.  And saying that she paints her nails does NOT in any way translate into painting her nails to attract men.  Why are some people on here trying to discredit the lady before she has even taken over?  Propagandists in action I see.

Was DCI Wall carpeted? - of course not

Were they all carpeted? - of course not.

Would they have consulted their superiors before doing it? - of course.  It would have been considered good PR, especially for the readership of Vogue.

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.

Joss wrote:

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.

I don't really think the time that a body can be detected after death by the dogs that are highly trained for such a job really matters, but the fact they alert to cadaver in a very well trained dog is reason IMO to take very serious note of their findings, because they are pretty much always right. I think they are a very valuable means of assisting police in their work of investigating crime, and i have the highest regard for what they do, they are amazing animals, not just for detecting the deceased, but they are also used successfully for many other types of work as well.