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

We have a cover, at least...

Thank you very much Mark

What do you make of it, Ms Jill? The salient part for me is that the BBC declared that the Smiths had changed their minds when they had not. Yet they did not offer any reason as to the change and then (almost invisible) retraction.
BBC has some explaining to do. (Not that we didn't know the MSM are all complicit).

Mark Willis wrote:
What do you make of it, Ms Jill? The salient part for me is that the BBC declared that the Smiths had changed their minds when they had not. Yet they did not offer any reason as to the change and then (almost invisible) retraction.
BBC has some explaining to do. (Not that we didn't know the MSM are all complicit).

Same as you Mark.

It'll be interesting to see what Tony makes of it!

Then we are all compelled to focus on why the BBC issued a lie about the Smiths, irrespective of the following retraction.
Once again the MSM have been found out issuing fake news. 
So well done to Gemma for contacting Mr Smith and getting the truth direct from the horse's mouth. I imagine he will be as annoyed as Exton was and his buried e-fits.

I still don't believe Gerry was walking around PdL with his decomposing daughter though, especially as we now believe she died days before 3rd May.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still don't believe Gerry was walking around PdL with his decomposing daughter though, especially as we now believe she died days before 3rd May.

Could the carried child have been Amelie?

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still don't believe Gerry was walking around PdL with his decomposing daughter though, especially as we now believe she died days before 3rd May.

Could the carried child have been Amelie?

Could well have been.

Makes more sense carrying a drugged child than a dead one.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still don't believe Gerry was walking around PdL with his decomposing daughter though, especially as we now believe she died days before 3rd May.

Could the carried child have been Amelie?

Could well have been.

It does cut the timing down to a very fine margin if we are to believe that the comatose twins were observed in 5A around 10pm, though. However, whose timeline can we believe? There are, after all, quite a few, and those are rather fluid.

I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

I'd definitely include that notion. Do we know where all the other children where at 10pm?
Murat's whereabouts that night changed very quickly - from girlfriend's to his Mother's.
I always suspected Murat, a man with keys to so many vacant properties (given we were told he was an Estate Agent very early on) - would have been a very useful resource.

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

I'd definitely include that notion. Do we know where all the other children where at 10pm?
Murat's whereabouts that night changed very quickly - from girlfriend's to his Mother's.
I always suspected Murat, a man with keys to so many vacant properties (given we were told he was an Estate Agent very early on) - would have been a very useful resource.

And remember the phrases "It's a disaster!" from Gerry, and "The biggest f***-up on the planet" from Robert Murat. IMO a chaotic event was unfolding right before the Smith family's eyes ... Gerry McCann carrying either a deceased Madeleine, a drugged Amelie or a substitute child.

A man on a diabolical mission.

lemonbutter wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

I'd definitely include that notion. Do we know where all the other children where at 10pm?
Murat's whereabouts that night changed very quickly - from girlfriend's to his Mother's.
I always suspected Murat, a man with keys to so many vacant properties (given we were told he was an Estate Agent very early on) - would have been a very useful resource.

And remember the phrases "It's a disaster!" from Gerry, and "The biggest f***-up on the planet" from Robert Murat. IMO a chaotic event was unfolding right before the Smith family's eyes ... Gerry McCann carrying either a deceased Madeleine, a drugged Amelie or a substitute child.

A man on a diabolical mission.

Yes, and I think, from what you say, we can deduce quite a few pertinent aspects of why those exclamations were issued. Let's assume Murat was involved. Certainly his rush to PdaL coupled with Gerry's "I'm not gonna comment on that" when asked if he knew Murat, that and Murat's snooping when employed as translator, his multiple change of statement, his access to vacant properties suggest he was part of the child occultation plan. But the plan went awry. A combination of Jez Wilkins, The Smiths - maybe more. That was the 'disaster': that was the "f***-up".
The above relies on whether you believe Murat to be involved from the start or not. Myself, I believe Murat and Gerry were acquainted before 3 5 07, probably before 28 4 07.

lemonbutter wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

I'd definitely include that notion. Do we know where all the other children where at 10pm?
Murat's whereabouts that night changed very quickly - from girlfriend's to his Mother's.
I always suspected Murat, a man with keys to so many vacant properties (given we were told he was an Estate Agent very early on) - would have been a very useful resource.

And remember the phrases "It's a disaster!" from Gerry, and "The biggest f***-up on the planet" from Robert Murat. IMO a chaotic event was unfolding right before the Smith family's eyes ... Gerry McCann carrying either a deceased Madeleine, a drugged Amelie or a substitute child.

A man on a diabolical mission.

But surely if you're going to fake an abduction and carry a child towards the beach like an abductor, you'd want to be seen wouldn't you? You'd want someone to tell the police they'd seen a man carrying a child away from the apartment to back up the abduction story. Otherwise, what's the point? Why would it be a disaster if he was seen? Wouldn't it be part of the plan?

Or, if Gerry really thought he'd risk carrying a dead child through the streets, hoping NOT to be seen, he must have realised there'd still be a good chance of being seen. So why risk it? Why not get Kate to carry the child as people would probably be looking for a man? Or why not put Maddie in the blue sports bag and carry it over his/her shoulder?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

lemonbutter wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I still think Maddie was already in the freezer by Thurs, why risk anyone finding a dead child that night? She would have had an autopsy which would have revealed her time of death aswell as the cause.

I'd definitely include that notion. Do we know where all the other children where at 10pm?
Murat's whereabouts that night changed very quickly - from girlfriend's to his Mother's.
I always suspected Murat, a man with keys to so many vacant properties (given we were told he was an Estate Agent very early on) - would have been a very useful resource.

And remember the phrases "It's a disaster!" from Gerry, and "The biggest f***-up on the planet" from Robert Murat. IMO a chaotic event was unfolding right before the Smith family's eyes ... Gerry McCann carrying either a deceased Madeleine, a drugged Amelie or a substitute child.

A man on a diabolical mission.

But surely if you're going to fake an abduction and carry a child towards the beach like an abductor, you'd want to be seen wouldn't you? You'd want someone to tell the police they'd seen a man carrying a child away from the apartment to back up the abduction story. Otherwise, what's the point? Why would it be a disaster if he was seen? Wouldn't it be part of the plan?

Or, if Gerry really thought he'd risk carrying a dead child through the streets, hoping NOT to be seen, he must have realised there'd still be a good chance of being seen. So why risk it? Why not get Kate to carry the child as people would probably be looking for a man? Or why not put Maddie in the blue sports bag and carry it over his/her shoulder?

You have just expressed all my counter argument. This happens time and again. One aspect negates the other. Your last line, "why not put Maddie in the blue sports bag and carry it over his/her shoulder?" is something I have wondered about since it all began. Paradoxically perplexing.

Have just read Gemma O Doherty's piece. Interesting. She has spoken to the Smiths who, she says, were annoyed that their sighting was not "given the attention it seemed to deserve". Martin Smith is quoted as saying "He continues to stand by everything he said to the police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting. He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he is mistaken; and remains 60-80% convinced that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. After the BBC (2017) programme was broadcast Martin contacted "Panorama" and informed them of their inaccuracy" (that he had changed his mind).
That seems pretty cut and dried.  Given that Gemma has spoken to the Smiths I presume that (following usual practice) they were given a courtesy preview before publication. In this article she states that the Smiths' first contact was police was AFTER they returned to Drogheda, having discussed it among themselves. Therefore claims that they made any kind of contact with police in the aftermath while they were still in Luz are untrue.

 - "Several days after Madeleine disappeared, the Smith family flew home, but the sighting remained at the back of Martin's mind. He discussed it with his wife Mary, son Peter and daughter Aoife who were with him that night. When they tallied the time and location, and the fact that the man they had seen had come from the direction of the Ocean Club complex where the McCanns were staying, they were convinced that it could have been Madeleine they had seen. They decided to inform the investigating police, and at the end of May 2007, Martin, Aoife and Peter flew back to Portugal to make statements."

It's a pity Martin's standing over his claim that he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry did not gain publicity before O'Doherty's article! Does he feel more comfortable/less threatened by Carter Ruck in reiterating it since the Portuguese S.C. ruling?

Do not forget DCI Andy Redwood has spoken to"Smith Family", before Crime Watch October 2013, DCI Redwood Identified Creche dad and seen the clothes he wore that night and the garments his daughter was wearing,but now wished to speak to a Man from the Two e-fits,has this person come forward yet!
Operation Grange then went after their last throw of the dice scenario,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,bungling burglars,morphed into Purple woman,with a dead husband,who was a Paedophile,apparently?

O'Doherty's article confirms something I have always believed (and previously posted re.) about the Smith's "Didn't look like a tourist" description. She states - "The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, in beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top". The stereotypical image of a tourist in the Med region (even in May) is of someone in cropped trousers, Tee shirt/ cotton jumper, sandals, runners or deck shoes. I imagine they were asked "did he look like a local Portuguese or a holiday-maker? Which would, logically have drawn such a response. There are differences between the description of Smithman and Tannerman. Apart from both wearing trousers (Smithman's beige, Tannerman's a "horrible" gold/mustard colour) Tannerman was allegedly wearing a dark PUFFY (puffa) type jacket, Smithman a dark blazer-style jacket. Smithman had "short brown hair" while Tannerman had dark hair, longer at the back". I have always believed the Smiths' description of the man they saw was genuine.

I noticed the use of phrases such as 'said they put their daughter to bed'....'Mathew Oldfield told police he went to check'

.....Kate McCann...claiming Madeleine had been taken' 

   
   Honestly I'm not convinced that the Smithman account was some kind of deception.  At least this brings it up for discussion amongst the wider public and there is some in the  media not automatically printing the parent's account like it's infallible.

I can barely see the buttons from here, let alone in the dark.

Think good upstanding citizen Martin Smith and his close knit family of Irish origin.  Think ex-DCI Andy Redwood.  Think Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.  Think the late Kevin Halligen and his dubious Oakley International sub-contractor.  Think Henri Exton with an axe to grind.  Think the mass cover-up of Madeleine McCann's mysterious disappearance.

Martin Smith, a man of integrity who has never spoken to the press about the night of Thursday 3rd May, when he and family members were leaving an Irish bar in Praia da Luz, a Gerry McCann look-alike just happened to be passing by carrying a child that appeared to be asleep - at least lifeless, with or without nightwear, apparently not an unusual sight to see in the area at that time of year - so say Martin Smith.  Martin Smith, who failed to report the sighting to the PJ when he heard that a young child was missing, whose son had a revelation moment at Faro airport,  whose wife declined to give a statement.  Martin Smith, who has remained silent about the case of Madeleine McCann for almost 11 years.

Confronted by an investigative journalist, is it really likely he is going to kiss and tell?  If he wished to defend his honour and that of his family, wouldn't he have done that years ago to halt unfounded rumour and speculation about his position?  Wouldn't he have made it public knowledge that his name had been dragged through the dirt of a very murky case of a missing child?

Would you reveal all to an investigative journalist knocking at your door after ten years of supposed tranquility?

If Martin Smith is totally innocent and his interview with Gemma O'Doherty is to be believed then you have to wonder why he waits nearly ten years to speak to a journalist.  

If Martin Smith is guilty of fabricating the claimed sighting, or later being persuaded to alter/embellish his story - would he admit it to an investigative journalist nearly eleven years later?

Surely, if as claimed, he contacted the BBC and/or authorities he wouldn't have allowed his name to be used and/or vilified in connection with a missing three year old child, without some redress in the public domain - would he?  He must know.

Admittedly, I haven't read the full article, I hope there's more.

A quote taken from Martin Smith's PJ statement:

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.

Now, according to the latest article, the man M Smith saw was wearing a "DARK BLAZER".

What changed?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

I can barely see the buttons from here, let alone in the dark.

He's wearing those trews in quite a few photographs, perhaps they are his favourites - like his wife and her attachment to her harlequin pants, delicately perfumed with eau de cadavar.



Woof! Woof!