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

@ Verdi You say -

" I venture to suggest that Martin Smith knew full well that he wouldn't be required to return to Portugal when he volunteered his services. The only advantage would have been if a re-enactment was on the cards - that was never to be."


Well lets see - the first time Martin Smith "volunteered his services" was when he  approached the Irish police after returning home from Portugal to recount what he and his family had seen on the night of May 3rd. And what ensued - Well, he was asked to return to Portugal to speak to police and make a formal statement.
 Why on earth should he "know full well"  that when he approached the Gardai the second time ( and this was reported to the P.J.) that he wouldn't be asked to do the same on this occasion. He didn't know that Dr. Amaral was about to be removed, in fact Dr. Amaral himself may not have known  that this was imminent. How was Smith to know with certainty that there would not be a reconstruction.
What we do know is that preparations were in place for the Smiths to return, with just the hotel to be finalised when the plug was pulled. If Martin Smith's aim was to avoid any further trips to Portugal and further involvement in the case why would he bother to come forward after deciding it was Gerry he had seen. He could just have kept his mouth shut if he was so keen to avoid further involvement.
It seems the Smiths cannot win.  First,they are blamed for not reporting their sighting immediately, then they are accused, when they do make a report to the police, of only doing so for appearances sake. IMO there's an irrationality when it comes to the Smiths that beggars belief

@Phoebe

I have to admit, I've no idea what prompted Dr Amaral to invite the Smith family back to Portugal in the first instance. There is international policing protocol in place that negates the necessity for such measures.

Aside from that, Dr Amaral's removal from the case irrelevant.

Martin Smith made a statement to his local force after seeing the McCann family's return to the UK. I repeat - why the need to return to Portugal only to reiterate a flimsy statement he'd made to his local force, it doesn't make any sense. When Martin Smith reported his suspicions, not immediately but after some period of time, to the Irish police why would he agree to return to Portugal only to repeat his suspicions?

There was no question of returning for a re-enactment.

It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

polyenne wrote:@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

While the Smith family have been accused of many things, now blaming them for how the P.J. etc. decided to proceed with the investigation is nonsensical. It seems that the theory that the Smiths invented their sighting must not be challenged, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

 We are asked to believe this ordinary family, including children, were working for shadowy U.K. government forces and that their sighting was based on a prepared script shared by Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner. This, despite the fact that description of the man given by the Smiths clearly does NOT match either of the other two.

We have been confidently assured for years that Martin Smith recanted his identification of Gerry and was happily working with the McCanns. When a journalist actually interviews the Smiths and publishes the fact that A) this is not true and B) they had complained to the BBC about misrepresenting them (which results in the latter admitting their "error" to said journalist) then the journalist's veracity and character are criticised.

When a theory becomes "untouchable" despite showing flaws, then continuing to defend that theory at all costs does Madeleine no service.

Phoebe wrote:

polyenne wrote:@~ Verdi - It seems to me when jumping to the fore in defence of Martin Smith and his family, judgement is seriously clouded.

And what makes your opinion/theory any clearer or cloudier than another contributors ?

My observations are always based on evidence, intelligence and informed commentary unless I state otherwise.

Just for the record, I don't necessarily agree with every point raised as regards Martin Smith and his family, whether that be for or against.  Please don't presume to include me, or any other forum member, in a communal mindset.

The Smith family featured prominently in this sorry saga, their witness statements are on public record and therefore open to scrutiny the same as any other witness.

Phoebe wrote:" On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva"



This Smiths were willing to go back

If the Smiths were willing to go back, why didn't they?

Is this because the investigation discarded them as 24 Horas claimed or was there another reason?

@ Sharonl . I believe Dr. Amaral when he said that there was too much politics in the case. IMO the Portuguese were put under pressure to desist in their pursuit of evidence which implicated the McCanns in hiding a corpse and simulating a kidnapping. To this end they would be loathe to invite Martin Smith back to Portugal given that he was claiming to have seen Gerry McCann carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the time she was allegedly being abducted. Rather than the Smiths evidence being useless I believe it was too dangerous since it might lead to an investigation of exactly which independent witnesses could place Gerry at the Tapas table between 9.15 and 10 p.m.

@Phoebe

All the documented evidence contained in the PJ files has been presented for information yet still you refuse to accept what's there in black and white.

Included in that documented evidence is Martin Smith's 60/80% testimony that the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007, after they left a bar at around 10:00pm, could have been Gerry McCann - his testimony based on the way Gerry McCann held his head and the way he was carrying a child seen on television footage of the McCanns return to England in September 2007, four months after the event.

The sighting was stated to have been at around 10:00pm, it makes no difference where Gerry McCann might or might not have been between 9:15 and 10:00pm.  The Tapas restaurant staff and clients witness statements are all on file, re-interviews and/or a re-enactment would have no impact on development of the investigation.  Martin Smith and his family were not  at the Tapas restaurant, they allegedly briefly witnessed a stranger walking the streets of Praia da Luz carrying a child after leaving an Irish bar - again re-interview and/or a re-enactment of that phase would have no impact on the investigation.

Besides, even if Gerry McCann, or any of the other group members, were not seated at the Tapas restaurant at 10:00pm or thereabouts, he or they are hardly likely to be walking the streets carrying a comatose child.

Too much emphasis is placed on Dr Amaral's musings, his thoughts as the mind of a detective.  The content of the book 'The Truth of the Lie', doesn't entirely accord with the PJ files, nor do his subsequent interviews have any bearing on the content of PJ files.  It is documented within the files that the PJ didn't give much credence to the Smith family sighting apart from the fact it coincided with that of Jane Tanner - they didn't give that much credence either.  What could possibly be achieved?  Whatever, Martin Smith didn't return to Portugal after his September 2007 revelation.  Given his association with the locality, he could have returned independently anytime he wished.

Four months down the line, Martin Smith decided with 60/80% certainty, that the sighting was possibly Gerry McCann - it's all on file.

This is not leading anywhere but yet another Smithman thread.

@ Verdi. Yes, the Smiths saw their man at around ten p.m. and later decided that it was Gerry they had seen. If that were to have been the case (and note, I am not stating that it was) then unless Gerry was gifted with bilocation ability he would have to have been absent from the table long enough to have gone to the apartment, picked up the child and made his way to where he met with the Smiths. Therefore, Gerry's location at the time of the Smith sighting is important. I do not believe the McCanns' tale of what happened that evening and night in the least. The only claims that they all sat and dined as usual come from their group. I believe they had much more to be getting on with than a cosy dining experience.


Robert Murat was made the first Arguido because his account of his movements that day and night were contradictory, he made a journalist suspicious, he had no alibi other than his mother who could place him elsewhere when the child disappeared and because Jane Tanner, having caught a fleeting glimpse of a man at a distance and in poor lighting, crossing the top of the road, later identified Robert Murat as that man.

Gerry McCann's situation mirrored this - his account of his movements was contradictory, he had no independent alibi for his whereabouts and, while only Jane Tanner caught a glimpse of Tannerman in the distance on a dark night, several witnesses met Smithman face-on in close proximity. 

How could Tannerman have been such an important lead for the P.J. and warranted such thorough investigation (all based on a flimsy, distant, uncorroborated sighting by one witness) while Smithman, witnessed by a large group of people at close range, was "of no importance"!
Add to the Smith sighting the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver odour in 5A, the Renault Scenic and on McCann clothing and it is immediately obvious that the case against the McCanns must be far stronger than that against Murat. The Smith sighting would not have been viewed in isolation, but as part of a picture, which is what Dr. Amaral was investigating when that line of enquiry was brought to an abrupt halt and the McCanns were neither prevented form fleeing to the U.K. nor charged with the child neglect to which they admitted.

All the evidence IS in the files I agree, but in my opinion, I am not one who is ignoring it and looking instead to the Media for "evidence".

Before proceeding anywhere, it's very important to remember that Martin Smith, or any of his family,  did not give a statement to the police about this sighting until 26th May 2007 - in excess of three weeks after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was reported.  Inspite of admitting he knew of the disappearance the following morning - Friday 4th May 2007.

It's also important to remember that only three of the Smith family gave formal witness statements to the police, although there were said to be nine in the family group.  Explanations for this, like ages, health concerns, pregnancy or whatever - fact remains only three of the group gave a witness statement.

Key points taken from the three witness statements..

Martin Smith

Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar

In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day

As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season

He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion

when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual. 

He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good

He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age.

He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.

He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph

He adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other so they would have seen the individual in different positions.
__________

Aoife Smith

When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.

Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.

The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.

Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.

The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.

Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.

Peter Smith

He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.

It appeared normal to him, like father and daughter.

Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 21H55/22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared.

He only found out about the disappearance of the child the next morning through someone he knew, the son of the builder of Estrela da Luz, who was also at the airport. The witness went to the airport given that, as planned, he intended to return to Ireland on that day

At that time he did not associate the said individual with the disappearance, only after thinking on the subject and the coincidence of the time did he infer that MADELEINE could have been the child carried by the individual that he had seen.

He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

He cannot affirm if she was barefoot.

Questioned, states that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was sleeping deeply. He adds also that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange.

States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
__________

These witness statements were not taken verbatim.  It's clear, at least ot me, that the questions posed by the PJ were built on Jane Tanner's sighting - nothing more, nothing less.  The PJ were only interested in the Smith testimonies because of the proximity, time frame and similarities with that of Jane Tanner's alleged sighting.  The situation remained in limbo until, according to the Crimewatch 2013 production, DCI Andy Redwood had his revelation moment and realised the sighting that was at the core of the Portuguese and UK (quasi-legal) investigation was a false lead - wrong way up a one way street so to speak.  Unsurprisingly the PJ didn't put much faith in this sighting, particularly as Jane Tanner's own versions were less than convincing.

Until ....

 
Enter Smithman e-fits drawn up with the help of two of the Irish witnesses who saw the stranger on the night of 3rd May.

In September 2007, it dawned on Martin Smith that it could have been Gerry McCann his family saw on the night of 3rd May - for a split second - in passing - because of his demeanour.  He and he alone had sleepless nights after seeing the television footage of Gerry McCann descending the aircraft on his return to the UK on 9th September 2007 before he, Martin Smith, decided to contact the police eleven day later on 20th September 2007.

For all this to have any credence, you have to believe that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' on the night of 3rd May 2007 - I for one don't believe that.

As stated by Kate McCann herself .... "‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence."  Too many coincidences for my liking.  All because Martin Smith thought with 60/80% certainty that it might have been Gerry McCann!

@ Verdi. the P.J. did not find the Smiths' delay in reporting their sighting in the least suspicious.
 After receiving news of Martin Smith's claim that he believed it was Gerry that he had seen, Dr. Amaral clearly shows that, rather than being of the belief that Smithman might have been Tannerman, or that this information was worthless, ( as claimed by 24horas ) the P.J. was of the opposite opinion.

(from the truth of the lie, my capitals)
 
"When we receive this information at the end of September we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of THIS we may be able to reconstruct the events of that cold night of May 3rd in Vila de Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner "sent" the abductor in the opposite direction of the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route leaving apartment 5A. The individual who was carrying the child did not go east towards Murat's house, but west, in the direction of the beach.
 We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police AGREES, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up"

So there it is is black and white, straight from the man who lead the investigation during this period. Far from thinking Tannerman was Smithman, the P.J. felt vindicated in their convinction that Tannerman was a ruse. And, far from believing that the Smiths' evidence was worthless, the P.J. believed, at that point anyway, that it was very important. Since Dr. Amaral's book is an account of the case during his tenure as lead detective I see no need to doubt him.

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. Since Dr. Amaral's book is an account of the case during his tenure as lead detective I see no need to doubt him.

This sentence reveals an attitude of: "Everything Amaral says must be true, we can't question it or go beyond it, even if new information is unearthed".

Since his book was published, we have e.g.

Virtual proof the Last Photo was taken Sunday not Thursday

Lizzy Hideho not being able to find any credible, independent evidence of Maddie being alive after Sunday

Dr Martin Roberts' evidence that Maddie's actual pyjamas were used in press conferences in June 2007, and

Several analyses showing multiple contradictions in the claims made about an alleged high tea (with Maddie present) on Thursday.

Is this all evidence you just ignore?

@ Tony Bennett. The article you proffered by "24horas" is not "new"  nor about any "newly uncovered" information. It claims that the P.J. were dismissive of the value of the Smiths' sighting and their claim that the man they saw was Gerry McCann. Dr. Amaral's book is his account of the investigation under his leadership - the very time this sighting was being actively investigated. NO ONE is better informed than him about what was going in the investigation under his leadership, which is when this lead emerged. 

With respect - there is no hard "proof" of when the last photo was taken.
Nor is there "proof" that Madeleine was not seen after Sunday.
 Proof is indisputable and irrefutable.
 Nor does Dr. Roberts "prove" that the Eeyore pyjamas were Madeleine's. What he does prove is that they would, most likely, have  been purchased when Amelie was much too young to wear them, nothing more.

I have never claimed that Dr. Amaral is infallible in his opinions or theories. What I do believe is that his account of the investigation under his leadership is perfectly accurate and truthful!!

What in Heaven’s name is “virtual proof” ?
And just because HiDeHo “isn’t able to find credible evidence” doesn’t mean it’s not there (and that is in no way meant to devalue her incredible work - I’m merely pointing out the choice of words)

polyenne wrote:What in Heaven’s name is “virtual proof” ?
And just because HiDeHo “isn’t able to find credible evidence” doesn’t mean it’s not there (and that is in no way meant to devalue her incredible work - I’m merely pointing out the choice of words)

Could you please inform me and the forum of any sighting of Madeleine after Sunday that you consider to be both credible and independent, and at the same time provide relevant links - that would be much appreciated.

That will give us some actual evidence to discuss

Phoebe wrote:All the evidence IS in the files I agree, but in my opinion, I am not one who is ignoring it and looking instead to the Media for "evidence".

Neither am I.

If Smith had seen photos of Madeleine, he must also have seen photos of Gerry, at least in the media. So how could he possibly state:

it is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.  (see below) and later assist with an e-fit & claim that it may have been Gerry? 

Besides, what he did see was a man carrying a child which was perfectly normal and did not arouse suspicion.

Quote: From the PJ files
 As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— 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.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

@Phoebe

Sorry to say but I find it very difficult to respond to your posts, your comments lack consistency making it difficult to identify specific points that are worthy of notice and require a response.  

Rather than sticking to a particular point with evidence or logic to support your argument, you lump a variety of points together taken from various posts, media reports, police docmentation etc.,  adding your own free interpretation interspersed with generalisations about average human behaviour, all passed off as fact and/or informed knowledge.

By way of example, you indicate that Martin Smith was called to Portugal by the PJ along with family members, to give witness statements on 26th May 2007.  I have never seen any indication that Martn Smith or any of his family was asked to return to Portugal in May 2007.  In addition, as I've said repeatedly, the content of Dr Amaral's book and/or his various interviews since being removed from the case, are not entirely consistent with the PJ files.  I have come across a number of glaring differences over a period of time, plus, the book is not written as an official document, it's more of a personal reflection of his days as case coordinator - not a precise account of the investigation.  Besides, he was case coordinator which means he wouldn't have been involved in the ground work, just an overseer - as the title implies, a coordinator.

The Truth of the Lie states that Martin Smith was secretly returned to Portugal in May 2007 to give his statement - there is no confirmation contained within the files to verfiy Dr Amaral's words.  The Truth of the Lie states they were on the verge of getting Martin Smith back to Portugal to formally identify Gerry McCann as the stranger seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007, and to give another statement.  There is no confirmation contained with the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  The PJ files are the official account of the PJ's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - they are the only source that can be used as an accurate account of proceedings.

As I've said previously, there is a regulated international policing protocol in existence for one country to request such information from another country by the rogatory process.  

You state quite categorically that the PJ were not suspicious about the delay between Madeleine's alleged time of disappearance and the date Martin Smith and family gave their witness statements - how do you know?  Not that I even suggested the PJ were suspicious - you see?  This is one reason I find it so difficult to cope with your posts, you add things that have never been stated - in abundance.

This not the first time we've been this way so again, I'll leave you to post your views uninterrupted - unless a point of technicality is required.

Life is short.

@ Verdi. I'm sorry you find my style of posting tedious but we all have different styles of expressing ourselves and I do always try to ensure that my posts are cordial and civil and make clear what is just an opinion or theory of mine and what is actually evidence. 
I shall endeavour to make this post as clear as possible without reproducing reams of unnecessary reference (something I myself find quite tedious) 
  The P.J. files are, I agree, the most reliable source of evidence, hence my consternation when they are dismissed in favour of media reports  which contradict them.
With regard to the wisdom of ignoring anything which is not in the files, even if it is the account of the chief investigator himself then I confess myself confounded.  
I find your criticism of Dr. Amaral's veracity re. "The Truth Of The Lie" breathtakingly arrogant. While the files give us just a limited picture of how the case progressed, much of the investigation, such as informal interviews (which we know took place) police discussions and evolving theories are not included. We know about these thanks to Dr. Amaral's book and live interviews. To suggest that he is a liar in what he has written therein must gladden McCann supporters' hearts.
I strongly suspect that what irks you most about my posts is their content rather than their style.  Be that as it may, I'm afraid we will have to disagree about your allegation that I indulge in posting my  "own free interpretation interspersed with generalisations about average human behaviour, all passed off as fact and/or informed knowledge"
While others may be happy to do this, often with apparent impunity, I try to stick to evidence rather than conjecture and opinions. I trust that most members who read what is posted on this forum can spot when interpretation is being passed off as fact and I wouldn't presume to insult anyone's intelligence.

Verdi wrote:@Phoebe

Sorry to say but I find it very difficult to respond to your posts...

By way of example, you indicate that Martin Smith was called to Portugal by the PJ along with family members, to give witness statements on 26th May 2007.  I have never seen any indication that Martin Smith or any of his family was asked to return to Portugal in May 2007...

The Truth of the Lie states that Martin Smith was secretly returned to Portugal in May 2007 to give his statement - there is no confirmation contained within the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  

The Truth of the Lie states they were on the verge of getting Martin Smith back to Portugal to formally identify Gerry McCann as the stranger seen on the streets of Praia da Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007, and to give another statement.  There is no confirmation contained with the files to verify Dr Amaral's words.  

The main purpose of my reply is to give an update on the controversial activities of Gemma O'Doherty.

She is making a name for herself once again making a stand against the three great frauds of the Covid-19 crisis, viz.
1. That Covid-19 is anything worse than a bad seasonal 'flu
2. That the PCR test can detect whether you've 'got' Covid-19, and
3. That the anti-Covid-10 vaccines are 'safe and effective.

Here is a report filed by a biased left-wing rag called 'The Beacon':

https://the-beacon.ie/2021/09/29/bray-court-finds-gemma-odoherty-guilty-on-three-counts/?fbclid=IwAR1_i9KW90IZR928Nr8KOBL2YyX24b4CD_q3BYZsuL0unMmFxoiO4_zGV9M

Gemma O'Doherty was of course woefully wrong in what she said about the Martin Smith sighting,. She believed Martin Smith's nonsense. His evidence conflicts with all the information we have which suggests that Madeleine may have died on Sunday afternoon or early evening.

@Verdi  I want to comment on your post, but first of all, welcome back after your short absence. I support your attempts to moderate the Coronavirus Debate thread. It is a very valuable thread on this very important subject and we have a lot of facts there plus a valid discussion of alternative viewpoints. All should be moderate in what they say and slanging matches, as they say these days ,are "not a good look" for the forum.

Regarding your remarks on the Smiths and the PJ, I fear you may have made an error.

It is on record that three of the Smiths (Martin, Peter and Aoife) did travel to Portugal and made statements to the PJ on 26 May 2007. I don't think those statements were made in Ireland  They were made in Portugal. What I think you were trying to refer to was the curious incident of Martin Smith contacting the Gardai on 20 September 2007, eleven whole days after he claimed to have a moment when he 'recognised' , on a TV news bulletin, the abductor whom he had failed to see properly in the dimly-lit streets of Praia da Luz over four months before. When Amaral says in 'The Truth of the Lie' that, immediately after 20 September, he wanted to get to talk to the Smiths again, I believe that to be correct. But he was removed from the investigation 13 days later, on 3 October 2007

Crikey Tony, that was three years ago!

I know what you say about the Smiths witness statements to be correct in this instance.  

I would need to go back over the whole thread to see why I wrote those words, maybe taken out of context, a typing error, badly worded or just a bad hair day .

No desire to do that at present but I will acknowledge you to be right in what you say.  The Martin/Peter/Aoife Smith's  late May witness statements were taken in Portugal and Snr Amaral did say he wanted to smuggle Martin Smith back to Portugal late summer.

PS:  Thanks for the support 

Verdi wrote:Crikey Tony, that was three years ago!

PS:  Thanks for the support 

But actually, my main point was on topic, i.e. the OP which introduced us to Gemma O'Doherty's theories on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Smithman statements came up when I scanned the thread and I took the opportunity to correct them.

In summary, Gemma O'Doherty was completely up the creek regarding Martin Smith's alleged sighting.

She is probably bang on the money, however, when it comes to the Covid19 charade.