Re: "Fresh agony for the McCanns"

by Roidininki 02.05.16 9:59

sami wrote:
Roidininki wrote:Thing is no sedating drugs were amongst the medications found ?

In the McCanns apartment only though. I don't recall the other apartments being searched, nothing to say medication was not present in the other apartments.

Stretching the imagination too far that there was a need for any of those people to carry sedating drugs . I'd rather believe Gerry's anti histamines were the culprit if anything .

by Guest 02.05.16 10:03

ChippyM wrote:

I also don't see the point about arguing about smithman, if he can prove the Mccann's are lying about what they say happened then any other possible fabrications or innacuracies would be secondary. Any investigation that suspects them of involvement needs to show they are lying first.

I agree with you.

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 10:18

HKP wrote:@RDH
You state that Mr Smith didn't answer your (simple) questions, why should he? As far as he is concerned you have no more authority to demand answers than Joe Bloggs. You also state GA should ask them certain questions again he is a private citizen the Smiths again have no need to answer. If I was Mr Smith I wouldn't be answering questions from any Tony, Dick or Harry either.

So Mr smith refused to answer (simple) questions, presumably one of which was: if he or his family members helped draw the e-fits.
But FOI to MET (IIRC) came back with an affirmative reply, the Smith family did help in the production of them.

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 10:20

HKP wrote:@RDH
You state that Mr Smith didn't answer your (simple) questions, why should he? As far as he is concerned you have no more authority to demand answers than Joe Bloggs. You also state GA should ask them certain questions again he is a private citizen the Smiths again have no need to answer. If I was Mr Smith I wouldn't be answering questions from any Tony, Dick or Harry either.

So Mr smith refused to answer (simple) questions, presumably one of which was: if he or his family members helped draw the e-fits. Not surprised he didn't answer Richard Hall's questions.

But FOI to MET (IIRC) came back with an affirmative reply, the Smith family did help in the production of them.

by Roidininki 02.05.16 10:22

Iirc , wasn't that ruled out because there wasn't enough light for any of the Smiths to describe features ?

by Carrry On Doctor 02.05.16 10:30

Did SY ever interview the Smiths ?

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 10:46

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:
Mirage wrote:I don't want to get into the Smith sighting palaver. However, I just wanted to say in response to HKP (without drawing down all the associated quote) that KH certainly had no compunction in coming out with that cock and bull story about the school bus which implicated her son. And this was done quite brazenly in a courtroom.

It's just an observation about the vagaries of human behaviour when in a bit of a fix.
Sorry Mirage but KM didn't have her son make a statement to police therefore your example is not really relevant i.e he was not called into court and confirmed the story therefore committing perjury
Oh HKP, no-one of any credibility was called into the Portuguese court by Team McCann.

Only family members, friends and close associates...the judges had established that.
The twins listening to news on school bus is nothing more than hearsay from Kate.
Hearsay has no weight in Court of Law whatsoever.
That was a waste of time to convince the wise and learned.
When you are in a fix and desperate you sprout nonsense especially if you are a dipstick fooling yourself to fool people.

She exploits the twins name willy nilly to suit her agenda all the time.

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 10:58

Mirage wrote:@ HKP I want to make this perfectly clear to you: I do not have a view on the Smith statements. There are too many variables involved. I just let them sit there and know that they will find their rightful place in the narrative eventually.

My interest is in observing human behaviour. And the degree to which KH used her child for her own interests - thereby involving him in a provable lie - is instructive as to how far some desperate people will sometimes go.

You seemed to have drawn an arbitrary line beyond which you thought a parent would not go . I am merely demonstrating that your theory does not always hold in every case.

Mirage, I see where you are coming from. The vagaries of human behavior.
But your example isn't comparing like for like.
One is adult asking a child to lie vs One is adult using her children names to lie.
There is a world of difference in that.

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 11:00

jeanmonroe wrote:'no-one of any credibility was called into the Portuguese court by Team McCann.'
--------------------------------

Not one of their holiday 'buddies' in April/May 2007 was called into ANY Portuguese courtroom, by Team McCan't!

NOPE. They can't attest to Mc's good name, which was the crux of the matter of the case.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.05.16 11:03

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Did SY ever interview the Smiths ?

What we have on the record is that a detective from Operation Grange (presumably DCI Andy Redwood) interviewed Martin Smith twice, once in 2012, and once in 2013.

I suspect that a further statement from him might well be among the 1,000-plus statements taken by Grange.

I think Redwood needed to talk to Smith to make sure he was OK with what they planned to show to 6.7 million people on the BBC Crimewatch show in 2013

by Lands_end 02.05.16 11:19

I now must publically call upon anybody who teaches their remaining children and make them aware of how vulnerable they are. Playground bullies cannot be frightened off by top legal companies. If anybody has a child at their school please be vigilent and do not let any harm to take place. This pair have abandonned their children in the past, it says much for their childcare attitude, and attention seeking is the norm nowadays and how better to achieve zleb status than reading GA book(s) and saying you have questioned the other 2 members of Madeleines family.
nod

by **Tony Bennett** 02.05.16 11:33

ChippyM wrote:I also don't see the point about arguing about Smithman...

It must be remembered that Smithman is integral, absolutely essential for the current 'official version' of what happened to Madeleine.

DCI Redwood, with 6.7 million people watching, said the 2 e-fits he produced were 'The CENTRE of our FOCUS'. Not just the focus, then, but the absolute centre of it.

And when I asked some FOI Act questions about Smithman last year, Operation Grange came back with "We haven't identified him yet and are still looking for him.

Smithman, for some people, and I include Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown and Textusa, comes as part of a package, namely:

1. Madeleine alive at 6pm on 3 May, as confirmed by independent third party witness, Catriona Baker
2. Something happened to Madeleine after then, probably an 'accident'
3. Hasty plans to cover it up
4. Gerry takes Madeleine's dead body through the streets of Praia da Luz and is seen by 9 members of the Smith family.

Amaral has actually added to this scenario with a series of dark hints over the years that something happened when David Payne went to the McCanns' apartment between 6pm and 7pm.

In total contrast to that scenario, we have voices like those of HideHo and Richard D Hall producing a wholly different scenario and citing quite a lot of evidence in support of their theories. I think PeterMac these days is much closer to their alterative scenario.

If Amaral writes a second book, he would simply have to look at all the evidence unearthed since 2 October 2007 when he was taken off the case - and that's well over eight years' worth by now.

IMO a better course would be to revise and update 'The Truth of the Lie'.

@ suzyjohnson I note that you believe the Smiths' evidence in its entirety. Please, when you have a bit of time, have a look at some of the 'SMITHMAN' threads on here, where you will find out about all the contradictions, changes of story and numerous other baffling puzzles about the Smiths' evidence which explain why so many people now have a very different view of the Smiths' evidence. Also, remember that though on 20 September 2007 he claimed to be 60% to 80% sure that Gerry McCann was the man he said he had seen on 3 May, only three months or so later he was working with the McCann Team - and has been ever since. One thing is crystal clear from all of this; any evidence he ever gave in a court of law on this case would be utterly worthless

by Lands_end 02.05.16 11:48

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Did SY ever interview the Smiths ?

No mileage to be gained there. Smith came forward some weeks after the incident, he must have been aware of the incident as soon as it took place, consider: I am staying a a resort in Portugal, I see on the news that a little girl is missing, the late evening on the day before I have seen a man hurriedly carrying a child through the streets in the same resort the question must be along the lines of "Mr Smith, If you saw this man as you say carrying a child the same night as a child is reported missing, whom did you tell about it"? Answer "nobody until weeks later". Not convincing at all, you may as well ask them to interview Jane Tanners mother.
nod

by Liz Eagles 02.05.16 12:02

Lands_end wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Did SY ever interview the Smiths ?
No mileage to be gained there. Smith came forward some weeks after the incident, he must have been aware of the incident as soon as it took place, consider: I am staying a a resort in Portugal, I see on the news that a little girl is missing, the late evening on the day before I have seen a man hurriedly carrying a child through the streets in the same resort the question must be along the lines of "Mr Smith, If you saw this man as you say carrying a child the same night as a child is reported missing, whom did you tell about it"? Answer "nobody until weeks later". Not convincing at all, you may as well ask them to interview Jane Tanners mother.

I wholeheartedly agree. Add to this the questionable e-fits and importantly the recognition of GM walking down the steps of an aeroplane landing in UK (when the McCanns returned home after being made arguido) carrying one of his twins being some form of revelation moment that switched on a moment of latent consciousness , you can hardly be anything but sceptic.

by MRNOODLES 02.05.16 12:07

Lands_end wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Did SY ever interview the Smiths ?
No mileage to be gained there. Smith came forward some weeks after the incident, he must have been aware of the incident as soon as it took place, consider: I am staying a a resort in Portugal, I see on the news that a little girl is missing, the late evening on the day before I have seen a man hurriedly carrying a child through the streets in the same resort the question must be along the lines of "Mr Smith, If you saw this man as you say carrying a child the same night as a child is reported missing, whom did you tell about it"? Answer "nobody until weeks later". Not convincing at all, you may as well ask them to interview Jane Tanners mother.

And I believe the reason he came forward was to get Murat off the hook. And Mr Smith has been very eager to stress, he's not his mate, he just knows him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

by Mirage 02.05.16 12:24

aiyoyo wrote:
Mirage wrote:@ HKP I want to make this perfectly clear to you: I do not have a view on the Smith statements. There are too many variables involved. I just let them sit there and know that they will find their rightful place in the narrative eventually.

My interest is in observing human behaviour. And the degree to which KH used her child for her own interests - thereby involving him in a provable lie - is instructive as to how far some desperate people will sometimes go.

You seemed to have drawn an arbitrary line beyond which you thought a parent would not go . I am merely demonstrating that your theory does not always hold in every case.

Mirage, I see where you are coming from. The vagaries of human behavior.
But your example isn't comparing like for like.
One is adult asking a child to lie vs One is adult using her children names to lie.
There is a world of difference in that.

aiyoyo. I was never comparing like for like. That is what you have decided I was doing. I was challenging the assumption by HKF that a parent would never involve a child in a lie. I gave the example of KH as a response.

For the purposes of this present discussion ONLY, I disagree with your view that there is a world of difference between the two examples you cite. In both examples the adults concerned would have equally abused the same authority vested in them as parents, by removing the child's ownership of his or her truth. If you can see "a world of difference" in the MO that achieves a similar outcome for the adult in either example, then you are entitled to your own moral construct. I, on the other hand, could never subscribe to one of these examples being a greater offence, purely because the fundamental rights of the child are breached in both instances with no recourse to justice for either child until attaining the age of majority - and maybe not even then.

by jeanmonroe 02.05.16 12:33

Out of 'interest'..............('nosey' really)

Have the McCan'ts ACTUALLY 'filed/lodged' their 'appeal', against GA's book 'ban', AGAIN, being 'lifted', by the Appellate Court, at the Supreme Court in Portugal, and 'based' on what 'legal arguments'?

I know there is a time 'limit' (21 days?) for them to do so.

Anyone 'know'?

by Praiaaa 02.05.16 12:56

jeanmonroe wrote:Out of 'interest'..............('nosey' really)

Have the McCan'ts ACTUALLY 'filed/lodged' their 'appeal', against GA's book 'ban', AGAIN, being 'lifted', at the Supreme Court in Portugal?

I know there is a time 'limit' (21 days?) for them to do so.

Anyone 'know'?

Interesting re the 21 days.
( Sorry don't know the answer, but glad it the uncertainty for GA can not be spun out longer)

by aiyoyo 02.05.16 13:04

Maybe members using twitters could request Katie Hopkins to do another talk on LBC on the Mc's case - this time in-talk topic would be "Madeleine, a WOC since 2008".

Why after the Mcs made her a WOC are they still given free rein to control the search for her ?
When her welfare after ceding over to the Court should have been the Court's onus to guide and protect.

Is she still a WOC ? That's a pertinent question.

by Guest 02.05.16 13:07

@aiyoyo, I've been wondering the same.

by Realist 02.05.16 13:52

The reason one can discount the sedative/accident theory is because it would be a far easier scenario to explain than the high risk strategy of disposing of her body and concocting a kidnapping story. The latter is an act born out of desperation where there is no other alternative available. The very element of 'accident' implies that it would be difficult to prosecute and easy to cast doubt upon in the event of a prosecution.

Common logic would dictate that the stance they adopted culminated from a situation that could not possibly have been interpreted as some kind of accident. There is a seismic difference between 'unintentional' and 'accidental.' Whatever transpired with Madeleine had to be a criminal act, not some form of accident, hence the necessity to dispose of her body etc.

Far from being the most plausible explanation, the sedation theory is one of the more implausible explanations. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that one of the McCanns whacked Madeleine and that she died as a direct result of the aforementioned, or an indirect result by knocking her head on a hard object/surface. Either way, there would be evidence of bruising which could not be contributed to being accidental. I reiterate, hence the necessity to dispose of her body etc..

All of this wasn't an instantaneous decision with Gerry wandering the streets of Praia da Luz openly carrying a child's body for the world and his wife to witness around 10-10.30 pm. That's why, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, we can safely dismiss the Smiths' sighting. Madeleine's body was undoubtably disposed of prior to the McCanns leaving for the Tapas bar, a tenet shared by one of the forum's more logical contributors, Petermac.

The fact that Kate McCann had familiarised herself with the surrounding terrain on her daily jogging jaunts and Gerry McCann's brobdingnagian sports bag appearing to have gone missing bears far more relevance to this case than sedatives which may or may not have been present. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to infer that the McCanns were sedating any of their children, particularly in the vein that the remaining two were never tested for drug samples.

by Realist 02.05.16 14:03

Ladyinred wrote:They had several days available.

I'd tend to agree with this hypothesis, Ladyinred, bar for one factor, which is of course, that it would have to involve several members of the Warner camp staff in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which is a bridge too far.

by Lands_end 02.05.16 14:28

Realist wrote:The reason one can discount the sedative/accident theory is because it would be a far easier scenario to explain than the high risk strategy of disposing of her body and concocting a kidnapping story. The latter is an act born out of desperation where there is no other alternative available. The very element of 'accident' implies that it would be difficult to prosecute and easy to cast doubt upon in the event of a prosecution.

The fact that Kate McCann had familiarised herself with the surrounding terrain on her daily jogging jaunts and Gerry McCann's brobdingnagian sports bag appearing to have gone missing bears far more relevance to this case than sedatives which may or may not have been present. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to infer that the McCanns were sedating any of their children, particularly in the vein that the remaining two were never tested for drug samples.

The fact is several Doctors do actually sedate their children with prescription drugs. Appalling as it is but true. The lack of planning by ripping off a child's book cover to record information and the fact that the other 2 children were clearly sedated along with the crime scene being altered clearly suggests IMHO that this was a rush job. Think seriously, would 2 babies stay firmly asleep in travel cots between 7pm and 7am despite being moved to a different apartment half way through the night along with the hysterical noise of GM's praying arab act? Would not the Tannerman revelation have been decided upon if this was indeed a planned action? We could always go ultra speculative and say that Madeleine disturbed a swinging couple pos JT and GM and the evil Bastrad thumped her for daring to disturb them. I don't suppose we will ever know the truth like as in the Soham Ian Huntley case unless someone wants to tell all on a deathbed.

by Doug D 02.05.16 14:29

@Aiyoyo & Mirage,

‘One is adult asking a child to lie’

Why did anyone have to ask anyone to lie?

Personally I have little reason to doubt that the Smith family saw someone carrying a child that night, it would probably have been more unusual if they hadn’t.

The three subsequent interviews were dated and timed as follows, with the interpreters names added.

26/5 10.40 Martin Smith       Interpreter: Lidia Nascinento (?)

26/5 10.45 Aiofe Smith          Interpreter: Filipa Maria da Conceicao Silva

26/5 15.30 Peter Smith          Interpreter: Lidia Nascinento

Other than the interpreter, there is no evidence that Aiofe had a ‘responsible adult’ with her, as her father was being interviewed at the same time.

The interviews in the files are all very much ‘one way’, and due to similarities, must have been based on a set of pre-arranged questions, prepared presumably after the initial phone call from MS, to try and clarify and confirm things and which other than for Peter, did not allow for any sort of checking of subsequently stated facts between the three of them.

I have little doubt that interviewing a presumably nervous, 12 year old girl, through an interpreter using, possibly unintentionally, leading questions, you are likely to end up with the sort of statement we get.

Absolutely no need to tell her to lie or exert undue parental influence, just a bit of parental encouragement to get her to participate in, what must have been, a fairly traumatic interview for a twelve year old, with probably a bit of 'going over what we saw' chat, back at home before returning to Portugal.

by MRNOODLES 02.05.16 14:30

Realist wrote:The reason one can discount the sedative/accident theory is because it would be a far easier scenario to explain than the high risk strategy of disposing of her body and concocting a kidnapping story. The latter is an act born out of desperation where there is no other alternative available. The very element of 'accident' implies that it would be difficult to prosecute and easy to cast doubt upon in the event of a prosecution.

Common logic would dictate that the stance they adopted culminated from a situation that could not possibly have been interpreted as some kind of accident. There is a seismic difference between 'unintentional' and 'accidental.' Whatever transpired with Madeleine had to be a criminal act, not some form of accident, hence the necessity to dispose of her body etc.

Far from being the most plausible explanation, the sedation theory is one of the more implausible explanations. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that one of the McCanns whacked Madeleine and that she died as a direct result of the aforementioned, or an indirect result by knocking her head on a hard object/surface. Either way, there would be evidence of bruising which could not be contributed to being accidental. Hence the need to dispose of her body and the concoction of a kidnapping fable.

All of this wasn't an instantaneous decision with Gerry wandering the streets of Praia da Luz openly carrying a child's body for the world and his wife to witness around 10-10.30 pm. That's why, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, we can safely dismiss the Smith's sighting. Madeleine's body was undoubtably disposed of prior to the McCanns leaving for the Tapas bar, a tenet shared by one of the forum's more logical contributors, Petermac.

The fact that Kate McCann had familiarised herself with the surrounding terrain on her daily jogging jaunts and Gerry McCann's brobdingnagian sports bag appearing to have gone missing bears far more relevance to this case than sedatives which may or may not have been present. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to infer that the McCanns were sedating any of their children, particularly in the vein that the remaining two were never tested for drug samples.

I think this clip shows why sedatives does the rounds

The Mccanns might well have. But I tend to agree with the opinion that. MM had to vanish to hide damning evidence. Sedatives are a bit of a blind alley which don't necessarily prove much on the whole scheme of things.