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

by Phoebe on 07.02.18 12:19

@Tony Bennett

"The entire article is based on one alleged quote from Martin Smith, saying: "I stand by what I said"

Tony, you use the word "alleged". Does this mean you believe Gemma O'Doherty has not been truthful about speaking with Martin Smith? Do you believe she too is involved in the cover-up?

by ChippyM on 07.02.18 12:42

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

He lies constantly, why would anyone actually believe what he says?

If panorama was changed months ago, it could still be as a result of Gemma O'Doherty contacting the BBC. Does he think she wrote and researched a series of articles in a week?

by willowthewisp on 07.02.18 12:53

Hi ChippyM, I do hope you are not trying to discredit the person tweeting this reply,as i believe they may have also been called as a"witness"" in Portugal for the parents of Madeleine McCann?
Verdi may have photos of the same person paddling in the sea around some rocks in Prai Da Luiz May 2007?

by **Verdi** on 07.02.18 13:08

@willowthewisp wrote:
Verdi may have photos of the same person paddling in the sea around some rocks in Prai Da Luiz May 2007?

One and the same rumour has it - no smoke without fire..

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 Actualizado%20recentemente18

by willowthewisp on 07.02.18 13:16

@Verdi wrote:
@willowthewisp wrote:
Verdi may have photos of the same person paddling in the sea around some rocks in Prai Da Luiz May 2007?

One and the same rumour has it - no smoke without fire..

Psst,don't look now,but it looks as though we've been rumbled,just look casual?
Cheers Verdi big grin

by Carrry On Doctor on 07.02.18 18:15

Not posted for a while for various reasons.

FWIW, I still believe the Smith sighting is genuine, GM most likely carrying a decoy child (perhaps a sedated Amelie) to create a 'sighting'.

Happy to be wrong as long as the truth comes out...which it will.

by willowthewisp on 07.02.18 19:31

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Not posted for a while for various reasons.

FWIW, I still believe the Smith sighting is genuine, GM most likely carrying a decoy child (perhaps a sedated Amelie) to create a 'sighting'.

Happy to be wrong as long as the truth comes out...which it will.

Hi carry On Doctor,If the case isn't shelved unsolved,Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwoods,Revelation moment,Not Factual Evidence,as it doesn't fit in with Portugal,testimonies.
Then Portugal will have to decide whether or Not to continue investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
Do not forget,they had to put on hold the First Investigation,now Ten Years later,do they have the tenacity to proceed to charge anyone!
The damage done to this investigation,was done by the"Nefarious Beneficiaries" from the First Investigation,with special cohorts from different Government departments from within the UK,Do Not forget these points,when the mud slinging begins again?

by Carrry On Doctor on 07.02.18 20:04

@willowthewisp wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Not posted for a while for various reasons.

FWIW, I still believe the Smith sighting is genuine, GM most likely carrying a decoy child (perhaps a sedated Amelie) to create a 'sighting'.

Happy to be wrong as long as the truth comes out...which it will.
Hi carry On Doctor,If the case isn't shelved unsolved,Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwoods,Revelation moment,Not Factual Evidence,as it doesn't fit in with Portugal,testimonies.
Then Portugal will have to decide whether or Not to continue investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
Do not forget,they had to put on hold the First Investigation,now Ten Years later,do they have the tenacity to proceed to charge anyone!
The damage done to this investigation,was done by the"Nefarious Beneficiaries" from the First Investigation,with special cohorts from different Government departments from within the UK,Do Not forget these points,when the mud slinging begins again?

FWIW (2) after many moments of doubt, I continue to have faith in OG (and Portugal).
The truth will out.

by willowthewisp on 07.02.18 20:19

Hi Carry On Doctor, If Portugal PJ do proceed to Trail,it will cost them Millions of euros to bring to fruition?
Then, If any parties,who were former Arquidos walk away from the Criminal charges brought against them,they could then seek redress for the actions taken against them?
Where would that then leave the" Portugal Supreme Court" if their claim stands at ECHR!
Best not to look too far ahead then!

by **Jill Havern** on 07.02.18 20:24

This quote was spotted on twitter recently:

"If OG were to nail everyone involved, it would be tantamount to a takedown of the establishment almost a coup d'etat. Of course that is exactly what is required, but Wall doesn't seem like the revolutionary type!"

by willowthewisp on 08.02.18 1:57

Get'emGonçalo wrote:This quote was spotted on twitter recently:

"If OG were to nail everyone involved, it would be tantamount to a takedown of the establishment almost a coup d'etat. Of course that is exactly what is required, but Wall doesn't seem like the revolutionary type!"

Hi GGG,I know you have a soft spot for Bernard,dressed in his fancy outfit,but even if you go back over the past twenty to thirty years or more of so called Leadership from the Metropolitan Police Service.
They have all had to"Bow Out"with their tails between their legs,trying to preserve what was left of their strikingly,"Alpha Male poses"sorry ladies,but it is what it is or was,Male dominated.
They have all been appeases of Government Policies,kow towing to Hand bagging from Mrs Thatcher,Prime Ministers,that have been and Gone,all believing in giving a "Good hiding" to lesser mortals,Orgreve,1984,George Orwell,Big Brother,Police state?

by **Verdi** on 08.02.18 2:12

Get off! It's the uniform not the stuffing - sorry, farce big grin

!

by **Jill Havern** on 08.02.18 8:24

@Verdi wrote:Get off! It's the uniform not the stuffing - sorry, farce !

Exactly! I'm a sucker for a uniform and I think this is one of the best uniforms the UK has.

But I still think he wears it better - maybe because he's slim and tall and looks proud to be wearing it.

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 188

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 019

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 258

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 2_211

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 356

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 5 446

by BlueBag on 08.02.18 8:59

The curtain tie backs are a nice touch.

by JimbobJones on 08.02.18 9:51

Yes, some think the uniform maketh the man . . . I prefer to believe All men are equal under God. ( I know it is no longer true, but it ought to be).

by Crackfox on 08.02.18 10:40

I remember reading that the PJ suspected the photograph of Madeleine (supplied by the group as the official image to be used in the initial search) may have been produced earlier than the night of the disappearance - and may have even been printed in a booth. I believe the McCann's account could not be fully substantiated, due to the printer in question being taken away by the alleged owner - all very contrived and convoluted. This photograph which shows a younger child with darker, bobbed hair does seem to be a contrived, unhelpful choice - certainly 'the last photo' would have been far more helpful in the initial search and the critical first twenty-four hours. My point being that the more elaborate and meticulous the planning, the less likely Mr Smith's testimony is credible, IMO. Personally, all the evidence points to a high degree of planning and organisation by whomever is responsible, IMO. So whilst I find Mr Smith very sincere I also think he is probably mistaken.

by **Jill Havern** on 08.02.18 10:55

@Crackfox wrote:I remember reading that the PJ suspected the photograph of Madeleine (supplied by the group as the official image to be used in the initial search) may have been produced earlier than the night of the disappearance - and may have even been printed in a booth. I believe the McCann's account could not be fully substantiated, due to the printer in question being taken away by the alleged owner - all very contrived and convoluted. This photograph which shows a younger child with darker, bobbed hair does seem to be a contrived, unhelpful choice - certainly 'the last photo' would have been far more helpful in the initial search and the critical first twenty-four hours. My point being that the more elaborate and meticulous the planning, the less likely Mr Smith's testimony is credible, IMO. Personally, all the evidence points to a high degree of planning and organisation by whomever is responsible, IMO. So whilst I find Mr Smith very sincere I also think he is probably mistaken.

Except it's not just Mr Smith, but his whole family who would be sincere and mistaken.

And whilst what I'm about to say in no way means that I am implying Aoife Smith lied it must be said that kids do lie from a very early age:

Mum to child, aged 3: Did you hit your baby sister?
Answer: No

Witness to James Bulger abduction: Where are you taking him?
Answer: To the Police station.

Police officer to Thompson and Venables, aged 10: Did you kill James Bulger?
Answer: No.

And older kids don't know what perjury means.

hide

by Crackfox on 08.02.18 11:20

Umm I I see your point Get'em but I think it's easy to have false memories and construct a narrative - particularly when we want to be helpful and particularly if there is a significant lapse of time after the event. I think by the time Mr Smith's memory became so sharp the McCanns had been made suspects and public opinion had shifted dramatically. I may be wrong here but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. As for the rest of the family, I can imagine that if Mr Smith was someone they looked up to, they could easily be sucked into constructing a false memory, not maliciously but unconsciously perhaps . It all dedepends on how impressionable the individuals concerned were perhaps...

by Phoebe on 08.02.18 12:49

@Crackfox wrote:Umm I I see your point Get'em but I think it's easy to have false memories and construct a narrative - particularly when we want to be helpful and particularly if there is a significant lapse of time after the event. I think by the time Mr Smith's memory became so sharp the McCanns had been made suspects and public opinion had shifted dramatically. I may be wrong here but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. As for the rest of the family, I can imagine that if Mr Smith was someone they looked up to, they could easily be sucked into constructing a false memory, not maliciously but unconsciously perhaps . It all dedepends on how impressionable the individuals concerned were perhaps...

I absolutely agree Crackfox. It was only Martin Smith and his wife, out of the whole group, who came to believe that the man they had seen was Gerry. Smith admits this himself. FWIW I think the bruhaha that was going on afterwards may have played on Smith's mind. The newspapers, in particular, were full of lurid headlines openly pointing the finger at the McCanns after the dogs findings became known. Personally, I even remember one which claimed that the police had proof that the body fluids found in the Renault Scenic came from a corpse! On Sept 8th '07 the "Daily Telegraph" was reporting - "Madeleine's mother to be charged with her killing"
I think the Smiths initial claims were true. They clearly implied that they would not be able to pick out the man they saw from a collection of photographs nor, I presume, from a lineup. I suspect that after the Smiths got home and the McCanns became public "suspects number one" that imagination came into play. I suspect that sub-consciously Martin Smith formed the opinion that the McCanns were "dodgy" and that this influenced his memory. Human nature often does things like this and the sub-conscious mind is a powerful thing.
He may, indeed, have seen Gerry, or someone else who didn't look unlike him and his imagination took over. I can't say which it was, but I do believe they did indeed see a man with a child that night. As to why he didn't rush to report it at once - Smith had been in Luz at least twice the previous year, and I'm sure on those occasions seeing a father carrying his child home was no big surprise. On that May 3rd night he himself was out with his own children. If one of them had been a three or four year old it is quite likely it too would have been being carried back from dinner.

by Verity on 08.02.18 13:29

In pyjamas with bare feet and nothing covering her to keep her warm? The least the father would do is take off his own jacket to put over the child.

by Crackfox on 08.02.18 13:34

Thanks Phoebe - I had forgotten about Mr Smith's earlier statement and you make a really good point. I think a lot of people who were in Luz at the time of the disappearance would have experienced some sort of trauma and this is probably the case for the Smiths. As you say, Mr Smith was out with his own children and grandchildren so this would have added to the distress felt. Such an event would also affect sleep and cognitive ability I'm sure. Like you I think the initial claims were true but a culmination of events led to a false memory - IMO.

by polyenne on 08.02.18 13:35

We're in danger of making excuses for, or finding reasons for, something that never happened

by kaz on 08.02.18 15:05

I suppose it's slightly interesting that Aoife Smith's statement differs marginally from her father's and brother's regarding the time they left the restaurant to head for Kelly's Bar. The brother and father state that they left for Kelly's Bar around 9.00 and had ''a few drinks'' before heading home.
Aoife states they headed for Kelly's Bar around 9.30 and '' stayed for about 30 minutes '' before heading home. They all agree on the time of leaving.
Does '' a few drinks'' mean a few drinks each?