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

by Phoebe 19.02.18 17:33

It is bizarre behaviour from supposedly frantic parents desperate for info. The Smiths HAVE definitely seen something and they have indicated their willingness to help, not just by reporting their concerns, but by going to the trouble of returning to Portugal to give a statement. The Smiths speak English, so no language barrier, yet the McCanns make no effort at all to follow this potentially vital lead! The McCanns aren't short of relatives in Ireland who could contact the Smiths on their behalf with a view to facilitating Gerry and Kate speaking directly with them. And what do they do? Kate tracks down a most reluctant, non-English speaker, who has given no formal police statement (that the McCanns could know of) claiming to have seen ANYTHING relevant. Then Kate herself pesters her, all the while ignoring a witness sighting of a man carrying away a blonde girl at the crucial time! Food for thought there!

by Guest 20.02.18 7:24

Verdi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:It will be interesting to see if the Panorama program is actually viewable (I would be surprised) and if they made the change.

It's still on YouTube but presumably that's only an upload of the original broadcast..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13407p350-video-of-the-day#381808

It's still worth watching because it's a total misrepresentation - in short, facts and evidence according with the PJ files, carefully interwoven with fabrication according with the McCann version of the truth.

They said iPlayer!!!!

If it's not view-able they have been totally disingenuous and should be take to task about it.

by kaz 20.02.18 8:42

Phoebe wrote:. And what do they do? Kate tracks down a most reluctant, non-English speaker, who has given no formal police statement (that the McCanns could know of) claiming to have seen ANYTHING relevant. Then Kate herself pesters her, all the while ignoring a witness sighting of a man carrying away a blonde girl at the crucial time! Food for thought there!

Actually your observation is as broad as it's long. Imagine if you KNEW your child hadn't been abducted and apart from one of your 'friends' who obligingly sees an abductor resembling an egg, you have no other input , would you really want to get involved with Mr Smith? I'd stay well clear in that position and would be laying awake of a night wondering what his motive , if any, was.

by Guest 20.02.18 23:45

BlueBag wrote:
Verdi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:It will be interesting to see if the Panorama program is actually viewable (I would be surprised) and if they made the change.

It's still on YouTube but presumably that's only an upload of the original broadcast..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13407p350-video-of-the-day#381808

It's still worth watching because it's a total misrepresentation - in short, facts and evidence according with the PJ files, carefully interwoven with fabrication according with the McCann version of the truth.
They said iPlayer!!!!

If it's not view-able they have been totally disingenuous and should be take to task about it.

Yes, sorry I didn't make myself clear. As I said previously, as far as I'm aware iPlayer is only watchable for a specific number of days - I believe generally 30 days. So any editing would be futile. The YouTube video is presumably the original production shown on TV. I only included it because I considered it to be of general interest for reasons stated.

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.18 11:29

A relatively short one from Textusa today which appears to 'conclude' Gemma's part in the McCann case:

Friday, 9 March 2018

Panorama or Propaganda?

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 7 Maddie%2Bpropaganda

More in hope than expectation, we waited to see if Gemma O’Doherty would produce a follow-up to her unexpectedly thin, in terms of new content, article in February, on the Madeleine McCann case.

We have shown that in terms of importance it’s really thick and has caused shock-waves that are still rocking the underground in this case.

As we thought, it wasn’t intended to be the first of a series and nothing more has been written or tweeted by Gemma on this subject. However, there is something we hope she will consider if she ever decides to revive her interest in the subject. Or rather, somebody.

The person is Steve Anderson, producer of BBC “Panorama - Madeleine McCann 10 Years On” shown in May 2017. Gemma’s important piece of information was that the BBC had made an untrue statement in the documentary when claiming, as in Richard Bilton’s spoken narrative that Mr Smith, an important witness in the case, had changed his mind about his sighting.

From Gemma O’Doherty’s article published in paper edition of the Village Magazine, on Feb 3 2017: “Maddie: did the BBC bend the truth?”

“The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a Panorama programme broadcast in May 2017 to mark the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smith’s had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

In recent weeks, I have spoken to Mr Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me 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 was mistaken and remains 60-80% convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted Panorama and informed them of their inaccuracy but the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.

Last month, I asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested that the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the Panorama programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.”

As the result of Gemma O’Doherty’s intervention, the BBC corrected this error by removing the offending words from their documentary, although they didn’t publish a written statement to this effect on the video itself, as they did for the error relating to describing the Madeleine Fund as a charity, when it wasn’t. There are other online versions of the documentary which are still available with the original wording and we have a transcript of Richard Bilton’s original version on our blog post “BBC Panorama II”:

“At 20.17, Bilton voice over: “The Portuguese had built their case about what happened in apartment 5a but it soon came tumbling down. Take that sighting by the Smith family. It couldn't have been Gerry because so many witnesses placed him at the Ocean Club at the same time. The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else.”

We know from Walkercan1000 on Twitter that he also claimed to have spoken to Mr Smith. He calls Gemma O’Doherty a liar, saying that she never spoke to Mr Smith and that the correction by the BBC had taken place before she had contacted them.

Gemma O'Doherty: 'Maddie: Did the BBC bend the truth?' - Page 7 Post%2B092

Walkercan1000 also claims that he had spoken to Mr Smith himself, at an unspecified time. To our knowledge, he has not been publicly challenged by Gemma O’Doherty, who may never even have heard of him, even though she is aware of “armchair detectives” who comment on the case and has demonstrated a familiarity with various online YouTube publications relating to the Maddie case.

If Gemma O’Doherty does decide to follow up the case, whether publicly or privately, we suggest she looks at the role of the producer of the programme, Steve Anderson, who was happy to simply repeat what had been written in the press about Mr Smith changing his mind.

The definitive statement about Mr Smith changing his mind was made in the Times published on Oct 27 2013, by Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert, “Madeleine clues hidden for five years”.

In a report seen by the Times, Oakley, private investigators for the McCanns, had travelled to Ireland to interview the Smith family and had produced 2 efits. They found Smith “helpful and sincere” and had recommended the efits be released without delay. The article caused a stir because it was said that the McCanns had withheld the efits from the police for 5 years, later corrected by the Times in an apology. The efits had, in fact, been handed to the Portuguese police and Leicester Police by October 2009 and copy of the report and efits were passed to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011.

What was seen by some as an encouraging break in the support for the McCanns in a more reputable newspaper was nothing of the sort. What was overlooked was the conclusion of Oakley that Madeleine had probably died in an accident after leaving the apartment and more importantly, the following statement made by the journalists:

“There was an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had recognised something about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of a man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe that the man he saw was Gerry and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility.”

Nothing unequivocal was expressed here. “Stressed”, rather than said or explained is a strong word and although Scotland Yard’s words are not in inverted commas, it suggests they had given this opinion directly to the reporters. This was taken up by other newspapers in the following days, as reflected by Neil Sears in the Daily Mail on Oct 28 2013 “Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed”:

“The McCanns are now fully behind the fresh police drive and release of the E-fits – but five years ago they were reluctant to issue them, possibly in part because witness Mr Smith’s account seemed inconsistent and unreliable.

Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.

Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim – just as Portuguese police have officially told the McCanns they are no longer suspects for their daughter’s disappearance.

(...)

But shortly after Mr Smith told police Mr McCann may have been the man he had seen carrying a little girl, a friend of the McCanns said: ‘Look at the facts. This man sees an individual carrying a child on the night Maddie vanished.

‘He waits 13 days to report this to the police, going back to Ireland in the meantime. At this stage he admits he has no idea who the man is. Almost four months go by before, after seeing him on TV, he feels that it could be Gerry.

‘The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese.’”

We are assuming the friend of the McCanns referred to may be the usual code for Clarence Mitchell. The friend makes it very clear there is no credibility to be given to Mr Smith’s account, which has somehow, been blamed on the Portuguese. How on earth were the Portuguese able to manage to persuade Mr Smith to say that the man he saw looked like Gerry McCann?

What link might there be between Mitchell and Steve Anderson?

“PR Week Profile: Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann family” published on Nov 28 2007 by Hannah Marriott.

Following a few paragraphs of high praise for Mitchell and his dangerous assignments in Iran and Iraq (really!?) we learn that he is “vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence” and that he is crusading to “right what he perceives as a real injustice”. No ambivalence here- his mission is clear.

He goes on to say that the Portuguese police had decided they were involved and planted stories which were picked up by the British press. Something we are sure Mitchell would never do – no, no, never!

Steve Anderson, the then creative director of Mentorn Media and the executive director of the November 2007 Panorama Special: The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, “went so far as to say this was the job that Mitchell was ‘meant to do’”, according to Hannah Marriott.

A first crossing of paths between the McCanns’ spokesman and the documentary media?

Steve Anderson, according to the Independent article by Rob Brown published Mar 9, 1998 “Nepotism? Don't even think about it” is a native of Liverpool and describes his background as working class young man who achieved a university education and which is also said in the article from Broadcast Now, by Katherine Rushton from June 4, 2009,“Steve Anderson, Mentorn Media”. We have no evidence that he knew the McCanns before the Madeleine case, but he may have identified with them, coming from a similar background, in a way which influenced his decision about how to present their case. 2 years later, however, he was involved in another documentary.

Courtesy of Joana Morais’ blog in April 2009 “McCann New Documentary: Gerry McCann in Portugal (Updated)”:

Gerry arrives in Lisbon in the company of British reporters and an ITV production team, to produce a reconstitution of May 3rd with actors playing the roles of the McCanns and their friends. Apparently it’s a joint ITV Channel 4 production. The team have produced some works for BBC Panorama.

The team had been given a great deal of access to footage by the McCanns, having followed them since January. The ITV controller of current affairs and documentaries, Jeff Anderson (Steve’s brother) said the channel would donate £10,000 to the fund.

“Steve Anderson, executive producer at Mentorn Media, said: “Amid all of the controversy, what should be remembered is that a little girl is still missing and her family is trying its best to find her.

“We have been with Kate and Gerry McCann as they have pushed for a better system across Europe to help stop child abduction. They are determined to do whatever they can to make sure that what happened to Madeleine doesn’t happen to another child.

“They also speak frankly and honestly about Madeleine’s disappearance which is undoubtedly one of the biggest stories of the past 12 months.”” (and probably one of the most lucrative – our words)

Emma Loach worked as a development producer at Mentorn became a producer/director at the age of 34 and worked with Steve Anderson. As the article from Broadcast Now by Katherine Rushton mentioned above says:

“Anderson has masterminded a string of access- based docs on the McCanns’ hunt for Madeleine, for the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV. Proof, surely, that must-have content still wins commissions.

Both types of programme rely on Mentorn’s ability to secure access. Anderson makes sure he has the right staff to do this he hired the director, mother of three Emma Loach, to forge a relationship with Kate McCann) but also plays the long game, entering a two-way relationship with his subjects whether calculatingly or by accident.”

Emma Loach fulfilled her brief very well. When she appeared as a witness for the McCanns in their case against Mr Amaral in September 2013, we learn, courtesy of Anne Guedes that she gave evidence to state that she first met the McCanns in 2008 in order to make the first documentary “Madeleine, One Year On” and that “Since then their professional relationship has expanded to that of friendship and to the extent that she sees the family including the twins on a regular basis.” [note: the blog was unable to find the link to this video in full, only this snippet of it and its transcript]

She later confirmed that she was the documentary maker of both the May 2008 documentary 2 “Madeleine, One Year On” (ITV) and May 2009 “Madeleine was here” (Channel 4) In the first documentary , she says she didn’t use the word abduction. When asked by Isabel Duarte if the documentaries are based on the McCann couple’s thesis (the abduction), she answered that in the second documentary an investigator says there are many theories but they investigate it on the basis it was an abduction.

When asked by Guerra y Paz’s lawyer if she knew Mr Amaral’s book was published in the UK, Emma Loach answers that she saw it in bookshops. After some further questions, she leaves the witness box upset. Possibly because she could not have seen the book in any UK bookshop and realised her error?

By 2009, information from the PJ files was publicly available, so by the time of the reconstitution programme referred to in the court proceedings, the documentary makers had obviously decided which side to take in the presentation of the story, in the light of this information.

Going back in time, the next Panorama programme was in November 2007, as per our “BBC Panorama I” and “BBC Panorama II” posts and was presented by Richard Bilton.

On this occasion, there was a row between the producer, David Mills (not Steve Anderson on this occasion), and the editor Sandy Smith, as said in the Guardian article by David Rose published on Nov 25, 2007 “Panorama walk-out over McCann film”. Mills resigned and the programme went ahead with the editor’s script. Mills had been given access to a video diary shot by Jon Corner and the footage acquired by Mills had led to the BBC getting the commission. Mills had wanted the programme to criticise the PJ for a campaign of disinformation and the local press for spreading rumours. He had concluded the allegations against the McCanns were baseless, the DNA evidence weak and the discrepancies in statements meant very little. The resulting programme was more critical of the McCanns than was originally intended, but Mitchell spoke to Bilton during the making of the programme and no doubt exerted his usual influence, as stated in this article:

“Clarence Mitchell, the former BBC reporter who is the McCanns' spokesman, said Kate and Gerry were 'content' with the broadcast version and accepted that events meant it had to change. He said they had spoken to Bilton and told him they considered the film to be 'fair'.”

This was all before the release of the PJ files and Mr Amaral’s book, so who was the source of Mill’s supposedly reliable information that everything was being set up against the McCanns by the Portuguese police? It’s not possible to determine if the family video was made available because Mills was sympathetic to their cause or whether he was required to present a sympathetic account in order to have access to the material, but this raises questions about the independence of the visual media in broadcasting documentaries, which the public expect to be more balanced in presentation.

Anderson and Loach had unrivalled access to the McCanns, so much so that Loach became their friend, meeting them regularly. So how much reliance can we place on any of these documentaries to provide a dispassionate account of both sides of the case? Was the Portuguese side of the case ever given a fair hearing?

Quoting from “Documentary, Polemic, and Propaganda” by David Hopcroft

“A ‘documentary’ carries with it a suggestion of a reasonable degree of impartiality. It suggests journalism, as objective as possible in service of explanation, not argument. A polemic is a deliberate use of carefully selected evidence in the narrow service of a particular point of view. It isn’t even really even journalism, which is intended to develop reasoned arguments to stimulate reasoned debate. It’s commentary with the intent of distorting the debate towards a singular conclusion.”

By all means, make a polemical programme, called “The McCanns are Innocent” if that’s the intention. At least then, we are all clear about the agenda.

When Steve Anderson produced the “Panorama - Madeleine McCann 10 Years On” documentary, he had already decided where he stood on the issue. However, there also appeared what could be described as limited hangout by Richard Bilton, when he told the viewers that he had been asked to spy on Robert Murat by someone from the McCann camp, although not the McCanns themselves, as said in the Daily Mail article “BBC reporter claims he was offered exclusive access to Madeleine’s family if he spied on press pack for the McCanns” by James Dunn, on May 3 2017:

“A BBC reporter claims he was offered exclusive access to the McCanns' team if he agreed to spy on the press pack for their investigators.

Richard Bilton, who covered the disappearance in 2007, said investigators hired by the family offered him the deal because they wanted information on a suspect.

They asked him to find out what other journalists were saying about Robert Murat, who was later cleared by police but since said the accusation alone 'destroyed my life'.”

Presumably this was to make us feel the programme was impartial and therefore believable. So when we were told that Mr Smith had changed his mind, were we supposed to accept that the so-called investigative journalist Bilton , who brought up this new and rather startling fact, had checked his facts before stating them so boldly in a documentary?

This “fundamental error”, as Gemma refers to it, suggests that Bilton is either a sloppy journalist who took the Times story at face value without attempting to speak to Mr Smith or he is nothing more than a hack, paid to say what he is told to say. And if the BBC had made “an honest mistake”, why did it take the intervention of a journalist to achieve what Mr Smith had failed to do?

Steve Anderson – Panorama or Propaganda?

So over to you Gemma.

We hope you do decide to pursue the Maddie case again, as we don’t want to leave it to the “armchair detectives” when we have bona fide journalists waiting to do the job for us.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/panorama-or-propaganda.html#more

by Guest 09.03.18 12:17

So over to you Gemma.

We hope you do decide to pursue the Maddie case again, as we don’t want to leave it to the “armchair detectives” when we have bona fide journalists waiting to do the job for us.

Cut to the chase, it's all sown up in this short sentence. It pains me to admit, I see a bit of me in that big grin

!

It has been said that the Village mag exclusive was only the beginning, I had my doubts. If it was intended to be the intro of an extensive journalistic investigation, it wouldn't have commenced with the Smith sighting.

I don't think there will be any follow-up by Ms O'Doherty. Just makes me wonder who put her up to the little contribution in support of the Smith family.

by Phoebe 09.03.18 15:03

I imagine that Gemma O' Doherty will continue with this case as she has done with others. She has persisted with many unsolved crimes Raoinead Murray, Fr. Niall Molloy, Mary Boyle etc. She does not, however, write about them on a monthly basis, nor is she exclusively interested in Madeleine's case. At the moment she seems to be focusing on current events such as the ongoing hearing into police corruption which has resulted in the recent resignation of two Irish Justice Ministers, two Garda commissioners (to date) and each day brings yet more scandalous revelations. She is also drawing attention to the most recent refusal of the Donegal coroner to allow an inquest in the Mary Boyle case - I believe a protest is planned for tomorrow outside his clinic. I find the idea of anyone "putting her up to her little contribution in support of the Smith family" bizarre supposition. No wonder the Smiths are wary of the Madeleine case! They are maligned when a journalist cites what they have told her, then further maligned because she does not write more in the next edition.

by Mark Willis 09.03.18 15:16

<< Mr Verdi! lol!
I have it on good authority you repose on a Cleopatra Italian chaise longue appointed in silver leaf velvet whilst detecting.
Now here's a funny thing: Hold on to that Gemma Village Magazine piece; in the words of Max Miller, "There'll never be another"
coffee

by kaz 09.03.18 19:10

Phoebe wrote:I imagine that Gemma O' Doherty will continue with this case as she has done with others. She has persisted with many unsolved crimes Raoinead Murray, Fr. Niall Molloy, Mary Boyle etc. She does not, however, write about them on a monthly basis, nor is she exclusively interested in Madeleine's case. At the moment she seems to be focusing on current events such as the ongoing hearing into police corruption which has resulted in the recent resignation of two Irish Justice Ministers, two Garda commissioners (to date) and each day brings yet more scandalous revelations. She is also drawing attention to the most recent refusal of the Donegal coroner to allow an inquest in the Mary Boyle case - I believe a protest is planned for tomorrow outside his clinic. I find the idea of anyone "putting her up to her little contribution in support of the Smith family" bizarre supposition. No wonder the Smiths are wary of the Madeleine case! They are maligned when a journalist cites what they have told her, then further maligned because she does not write more in the next edition.

You have to admit though what a damp squib that revelation was. Almost on a par with Andy Redwood's .
Perhaps it was our own fault expecting more from her but as an 'armchair detective' myself I was hoping for real insights. With so much on her plate I just wonder why she even ventured into the McCann minefield at all.

by Mark Willis 09.03.18 19:13

I am trying to recall when I was last so underwhelmed.
Oh I know. Poulton's "Untold Story...."
At least she got the title right.

by willowthewisp 09.03.18 19:31

Mark Willis wrote:I am trying to recall when I was last so underwhelmed.
Oh I know. Poulton's "Untold Story...."
At least she got the title right.

Ah yes,then we are expected to"Trust the Political Representatives"to keep a steady eye on running the Country,with their well expunged views passed to the"clique Committees" who order Police reviews into possible Criminal cases,where eight years later still Nothing Official,but they have led the public on a magical ride of bungling burglars,Purple woman etc,what a farce?

by Mark Willis 09.03.18 19:51

willowthewisp wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:I am trying to recall when I was last so underwhelmed.
Oh I know. Poulton's "Untold Story...."
At least she got the title right.
Ah yes,then we are expected to"Trust the Political Representatives"to keep a steady eye on running the Country,with their well expunged views passed to the"clique Committees" who order Police reviews into possible Criminal cases,where eight years later still Nothing Official,but they have led the public on a magical ride of bungling burglars,Purple woman etc,what a farce?

Poulton, despite proclaiming her 30 years in journalism, says she must have been naive to think she could get her documentary aired on national TV. Well if I know she stood a snowball's then surely she must have.
There is no way on this God's Earth that anything that is not pro-McCann will ever get broadcast on the MSM.
The politicos have this case all sewn up whilst we are being induced to run around like headless chickens.
The best thing any of us can do is hold firm and keep the faith, yet, we cannot alter the outcome of this farce, whatever we do or say. What we can do is to reaffirm that the Mc "official narrative" is utter rubbish and await the day that, whoever is so important that is being protected, shuffles off this mortal coil and allows the Press to have the D-notice lifted and once more do a 180 and nail the Mcs once and for all.
But it will be a freezing day in Hell before that happens.

by polyenne 09.03.18 19:57

You are bang on the money Mark.

Death is the key to this......one day, someone will blab on the basis that they feel they can do so with “relative” impunity.

The only other way is that a forum such as CMOMM gets so close to the truth that one of the “pact of silence” sh*ts themselves and feels it’s better to offload than take it to the grave.

I live in hope

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.18 20:29

polyenne wrote:You are bang on the money Mark.

Death is the key to this......one day, someone will blab on the basis that they feel they can do so with “relative” impunity.

The only other way is that a forum such as CMOMM gets so close to the truth that one of the “pact of silence” sh*ts themselves and feels it’s better to offload than take it to the grave.

I live in hope

Even if the McCanns don't offload, preferring to take it to their graves...what about those who are left behind when the truth does ultimately come out? The twins, their kids, their grandkids.

The McCanns don't think about them. They may think they're protecting the twins (apart from when they use them to drum up sympathy for themselves), but what about years down the line? How will the twins feel if they were to find out the truth after their parents have taken their secret to their graves?

The McCanns will be leaving the most hideous of legacies for their children.

This case will go down in history as one of the greatest hoaxes this country has ever seen, one of the worst crimes committed against a child this country has ever seen, and the twins and their kids and grandkids will have to learn to live with that.

And what if the truth comes out while Kate and Gerry are still alive? How will the twins deal with that knowing their parents not only hid the body of their sister, but obtained millions of pounds by deception, destroyed the Portuguese detective, and lied to them for 10/20/30 etc years. The longer this goes on the more the likelihood of the twins disowning/despising their parents.

Why can't the McCanns see what they're doing to the twins?

by polyenne 09.03.18 20:40

It’s hideous but then I think we’ve witnessed the narcissism that these two possess.

I’m still of the opinion that it is Gerry that is keeping Kate in line and on point.....toeing the company line if you like. I think without him, she would drop big hints if not blub completely

by **sharonl** 09.03.18 20:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
polyenne wrote:You are bang on the money Mark.

Death is the key to this......one day, someone will blab on the basis that they feel they can do so with “relative” impunity.

The only other way is that a forum such as CMOMM gets so close to the truth that one of the “pact of silence” sh*ts themselves and feels it’s better to offload than take it to the grave.

I live in hope
Even if the McCanns don't offload, preferring to take it to their graves...what about those who are left behind when the truth does ultimately come out? The twins, their kids, their grandkids.

The McCanns don't think about them. They may think they're protecting the twins (apart from when they use them to drum up sympathy for themselves), but what about years down the line? How will the twins feel if they were to find out the truth after their parents have taken their secret to their graves?

The McCanns will be leaving the most hideous of legacies for their children.

This case will go down in history as one of the greatest hoaxes this country has ever seen, one of the worst crimes committed against a child this country has ever seen, and the twins and their kids and grandkids will have to learn to live with that.

And what if the truth comes out while Kate and Gerry are still alive? How will the twins deal with that knowing their parents not only hid the body of their sister, but obtained millions of pounds by deception, destroyed the Portuguese detective, and lied to them for 10/20/30 etc years. The longer this goes on the more the likelihood of the twins disowning/despising their parents.

Why can't the McCanns see what they're doing to the twins?

IMO they know perfectly well what they are doing to the twins but do they really care? Did they care about Madeleine? Are they concerned over her memory, her dignity?

The twins have been exploited in the worst possible way jus to play on public sympathy for themselves.

The burning question here is, why did the McCanns try to claim from Goncalo Amaral 250,000 euros each for them instead of trying to claim it for the search fund?

by polyenne 09.03.18 20:56

If I’m being totally honest, and putting aside my long felt disdain for the McCanns, I could be persuaded that, just like Murat, they unwittingly became part of a huge f*ck up.

I still believe they were involved in ”something” that escalated out of all proportion and they were “forced” to run with it and, once in that web/vicious circle of deceit, there was no turning back.

I am perhaps being kind to them but it’s Friday evening and the vino collapso is kicking in !!

by **sharonl** 09.03.18 21:06

polyenne wrote:It’s hideous but then I think we’ve witnessed the narcissism that these two possess.

I’m still of the opinion that it is Gerry that is keeping Kate in line and on point.....toeing the company line if you like. I think without him, she would drop big hints if not blub completely

I agree. How many times has Kate almost spilled the beans?

Her phone call to the PJ in Gerrys' absence, claiming that she dreamt that Madeleine was dead and buried on a hill.

Wanted a car crash so that they could all be together again

Claiming that she is haunted by Madeleine

Saying that she goes to Madeleines' room to speak with her.

Passages from her bible about the death of a child

She knows that this didn't happen due the children being left alone, it happened under other circumstances

The shrine and the rosemary in the apartment

The reference to Madeleines' torn genitals in her book

Madeleine is in a better place

Changing the lyrics to "you're my sunshine", please don't take my Madeleine away. (if she really sang this to Madeleine, it signifies pre-meditation imo).

Wearing green and yellow ribbons - masonic ribbons symbolising light and resurrection

That's just for starters

by polyenne 09.03.18 21:15

Nailed it, Sharon.

“You are the weakest link, goodbye”

by Guest 09.03.18 21:39

Kate McCann is the fall-guy, it's all part of the play.

Kate McCann is to be seen through the eyes of the public as the little woman, the weak sensitive heartbroken victim of a horrendous crime. Whereas her husband is portrayed as the great protector, the stalwart of the family, the lion king protecting his precious brood (except daughter Madeleine - he forgot about her).

She won't crack, she's an important component of the master plan.

Don't be fooled by her public persona - they're in it together for sure. Otherwise their relationship would have crashed years ago.

by polyenne 09.03.18 21:41

A phrase from a TV Show that’s all......applcable, in part, to Kate perhaps ?

by Guest 09.03.18 21:55

Mark Willis wrote:
Now here's a funny thing: Hold on to that Gemma Village Magazine piece; in the words of Max Miller, "There'll never be another"

Of course there won't be, that was apparent from the start.

It's rather like writing a book, you start with the prologue then stuff it with sage and onion and finish with the epilogue - ask Frankie Howard, he knows winkwink

.

Been this way too many times before to be hoodwinked into thinking something positive is about to happen.

by Mark Willis 10.03.18 7:24

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Now here's a funny thing: Hold on to that Gemma Village Magazine piece; in the words of Max Miller, "There'll never be another"

Of course there won't be, that was apparent from the start.

It's rather like writing a book, you start with the prologue then stuff it with sage and onion and finish with the epilogue - ask Frankie Howard, he knows .

Been this way too many times before to be hoodwinked into thinking something positive is about to happen.

Mr Lurcio! Greetings good citizens. And now the prologue...
That's the point though, that if I were the producer of "Groundhog Day" I'd be suing half the commentators on line regards the fact that each and every dawn has happened since 3 5 7. If false dawns were currency we'd all be rich.
Now one may say that you and me are being pessimistic, whereas I'd say realistic. Little point in misplaced optimism or hope once you realise this whole thing is a done deal. It's on rails. Like the arrow of time it's a one-way ticket.
There isn't a No.99 bus coming for the Mcs to be thrown under. Neither will" crack". If all the circumstantial evidence out there added to Eddie and Keela's hasn't seen them counting bricks in the cell wall then nothing short of a confession will, and I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

by Guest 10.03.18 13:11

Mark Willis wrote:Now one may say that you and me are being pessimistic, whereas I'd say realistic. Little point in misplaced optimism or hope once you realise this whole thing is a done deal. It's on rails. Like the arrow of time it's a one-way ticket.

Hang on a minute, just got to fill my glass - it's half empty smilie

. Panic not, it's only water.

A one way ticket is a good analogy of this ongoing farce. There cometh a time [circa. May 2007], when you realise that things are not as they should be. Andy Redwood was right when he publicly stated..

"Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to – to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning – and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing."

Problem is of course, he said it but he didn't do it bignono

.

If you're going to journalistically investigate the mystery of Madeleine McCann's alleged disappearance, you need to have a thorough knowledge of the case, access to the many players and oodles of time on your hands. All sadly lacking in Ms O'Doherty's world.

In fairness to all and sundry, the major stumbling block has always been Portugal v. UK. The gap has been frequently used to the McCanns advantage but at the flip of the coin, it has been a hindrance to any genuine truth seekers. With cultural differences taken into consideration, it's very difficult keep the two domains entirely separate. Folk still believe Operation Grange have some sort of super powers that can override international jurisdiction - not so, at least not in reality. Taking the case at face value, the disappearance of a British three year old child holidaying in Portugal, the UK has no authority to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the UK cannot bring about a prosecution - Portugal retains primacy until god, or some other ultimate power, declares otherwise. Contact and a good relationship with Portugal is an essential ingredient for solving this case

I'll wager members of CMoMM and close associates together with guest readers, know more about this case than any investigative journalist or sofa foghorn or wannabe public commentator.

So we keep digging - it's what we do best.

Madeleine who? At least we don't forget.

by Guest 10.03.18 13:33

Verdi wrote:I'll wager members of CMoMM and close associates together with guest readers, know more about this case than any investigative journalist or sofa foghorn or wannabe public commentator.

For sure!

There are at least a dozen on this web site that know the minutest detail of all the publicly know facts.

Gemma has only to ask.

I still think she's one of the good guys based on previous stuff she did. She might be a little under-educated in this case.

by Mark Willis 10.03.18 15:42

Good posts Mr Verdi and Mr Bluebag.
Whereas the Mcs, for some counter-intuitive reason, do not want us to forget them, we will never (allow them to) forget Madeleine, whose disappearance was due to them.
The Mcs are a protected species, apparently a matter of national security, above our clearance level.
Although their unprecedented protection ensures they will not be prosecuted, it does not mean that further investigation (on our part) will not eventually reveal as near as possible as to what actually occurred.
We dig deep enough we may as yet uncover who it is that is really being protected. Then we may get a handle on the "why".

by Guest 10.03.18 16:11

Gemma O'Doherty can/will only be buried along with Colin Sutton, Mark Williams-Thomas and the Untold Story, better she never got involved in the first place.

This case has attracted too much attention to be trivialised by half-hearted attemps at exposure - the latter two - and a bit, being largely self serving. It's a nuisance distraction and only gives vent to disharmony and diversion.

On with the motley!

by Mark Willis 10.03.18 17:45

Verdi wrote:Gemma O'Doherty can/will only be buried along with Colin Sutton, Mark Williams-Thomas and the Untold Story, better she never got involved in the first place.

This case has attracted too much attention to be trivialised by half-hearted attemps at exposure - the latter two - and a bit, being largely self serving. It's a nuisance distraction and only gives vent to disharmony and diversion.

On with the motley!

Which serves to prove that they don't know anything like as much as we do. Because history has a tendency to repeat itself you might expect those professionally appointed might bone up on why every attempt to expose the Mcs in any meaningful way will fall down at the first hurdle.
Next.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.09.18 21:28

Verdi wrote:Gemma O'Doherty can/will only be buried along with Colin Sutton, Mark Williams-Thomas and the Untold Story, better she never got involved in the first place.

This case has attracted too much attention to be trivialised by half-hearted attemps at exposure - the latter two - and a bit, being largely self serving. It's a nuisance distraction and only gives vent to disharmony and diversion.

On with the motley!

Support for your view on Gemma O'Doherty, @ Verdi, is now emerging on Twitter (see below).

There was great excitement when Gemma O'Doherty wrote a piece about Madeleine McCann and claimed that Martin Smith stood by his apparently absurd claim first made on 20 September 2007 (nearly 5 months after Madeleine disappeared) that he 'recognised' (well, 60% to 80%) Gerry McCann as the person he says he saw at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May.

I say 'absurd' for four reasons:

(1) He admits he only saw part of the man, in the dark, with weak street lighting, for 2 or 3 seconds at the most, and admitted to police 'I'd never be able to recognise him if I saw him again'

(2) Yet he claimed to 'recognise' Gerry McCann by the way he was carrying his son Sean off the plane on 9 September 2007

(3) He then apparently drew up an efit of the man in September 2008, 16 months after the only time he saw him (the date comes from a FOI Act request by the way)

(4) He then proceeded to help the McCann Team in the following ways:

A Talking to Metodo 3/Brian Kennedy
B Agreeing to do an efit for Henri Exton
C (Mrs Smith told the Irish press that he and her supported the McCanns)
D His sighting being included in the May 2009 Mockumentary
E His sighting being included on the McCanns' website from May 2009
F He AMENDED his description of the age of the man for the SECOND time down to '34-35'
G He consented to his description being compared to Tannerman in 7 pages of Kate McCann's book 'madeleine'
H He co-operated with the BBC & Operation Grange in the making of the farcical BBC Crimewatch Special of 14 October 2013 and met DCI Andy Redwood or another twice.

Anyways, here are the tweets:

------------


Newsworthy_ie‏ @newsworthy_ie 5h5 hours ago

Copy link to TweetEmbed TweetMute @newsworthy_ieUnmute @newsworthy_ieBlock @newsworthy_ieUnblock @newsworthy_ieReport Tweet  Add to other MomentAdd to new MomentCllr Jimmy Guerin addresses Fingal County Council on the allegations made against him and his late sister, Veronica Guerin by Gemma O'Doherty. "..the most hurtful and offensive and inconsiderate comment was that she said my family don't want to know the truth"

Josie Craig
Replying to @newsworthy_ie

Well said @jguerin11 An utter disgrace that you've had to explain yourself because of Gemma O'Doherty false accusations. If people can't see her for what she is yet, and can't see the very similar patterns of her workings, then you're just as bad as her. More fool you all.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I will try to find out more, but in the meantime I join with @ Verdi and @ MarkWillis in suggesting that Gemma O'Doherty's word cannot be relied on