The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


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

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by JimbobJones on 05.02.18 11:07

I think you nailed it there, Tony.

JimbobJones

Posts : 123
Reputation : 130
Join date : 2016-05-05

Back to top Go down

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

Post by ChippyM on 05.02.18 11:18

@polyenne wrote:Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

Is this not the key to Martin Smith's statement - to exonerate his "friend" Robert Murat ? After all, Martin Smith went to his place in PdL at least 3 times a year so I'm suggesting he must have known Murat reasonably well.  

For that to be true, you have to say the rest of his family lied too. Why would they do that?


And when does 'met' = he was friends enough to provide a false alibi?  He could have met him as they spent time together in the same places, as in 'say hello to'.     
    I think there are a lot of assumptions about things here, such as Martin Smith had numerous chances to correct journalists and he didn't.  Maybe he had other things going on in his life and fighting a tedious battle against a never ending stream of tabloid piffle was not a priority at that time.  Who knows, he may have tried and got no-where.

He 'co-operated' with the McCanns on numerous occasions, maybe there was no reason for him to object as he wasn't trying to assign guilt by reporting what he saw. Possibly he signed some kind of consent form for his account to be used and that was it - not feeling the need or having the inclination to contact people and seek retractions and corrections every five minutes.

What I'm trying to say here, is there are other possibilities than the absolutes that are being presented as facts.

ChippyM

Posts : 1334
Reputation : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 05.02.18 11:35

@ChippyM wrote:
@polyenne wrote:Significantly though he was able to tell Police that the man was not Robert Murat, as he had met him on a number of previous occasions.

Is this not the key to Martin Smith's statement - to exonerate his "friend" Robert Murat ? After all, Martin Smith went to his place in PdL at least 3 times a year so I'm suggesting he must have known Murat reasonably well.  

For that to be true, you have to say the rest of his family lied too. Why would they do that?
Always respect your posts @ ChippyM.

I have answered that question many times by simply pointing out that people lie for a great many reasons, these include

* saving their own skin
* money
* fear
* to get back at someone
* loyalty to a relative or close friend.  

Why for example did all eight survivors of the night Stuart Lubbock was assaulted to death at Michael Barrymore's house lie about what happened?

Why is there a highly credible intelligence report suggesting that the two girls who innocently came to that 'party' that night were paid off off handsomely to buy their silence.

All I ask is that members and guests examine all aspects of the Smiths' statements to see if, taken together, they have the 'ring of truth'.

And once again I would ask members and guests to consider the remarkable similarity between the statements of

Jane Tanner about Tannerman,
Nuno Lourneco about Wojchiech Krokowski and
The Smiths about Smithman,

[SMITHMAN 2: '17 remarkable similarities']

Jane Tanner: 'didn't look like a tourist'

Nuno Lourenco: 'didn't look like a tourist'

The Smiths: 'didn't look like a tourist'.

Think again about how meaningless this phrase is, think again about why all five witnesses used exactly the same phrase, and think again about who might have originated this cunning phrase used by all five witnesses - a phrase which so successfully derailed Day 2 of Goncalo Amaral's investigation.

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15227
Reputation : 3128
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 05.02.18 12:19

Saying that Martin Smith happily "worked with " the McCanns can no longer hold water unless Gemma O'Doherty is lying too. She clearly states that Smith told her he has been annoyed and frustrated over claims that he had in any way retracted his statement about being pretty sure it was Gerry McCann he saw that night.
 As I keep pointing out, which of us would come out in public and draw even further attention/suspicion/criticism on our families? Why would Smith even bother? He had  previously reacted by writing to a stern protest to a newspaper here in Ireland and, later, contacting Richard Hall) to correct statements that he was in any way friendly with Murat, pointing out that he merely knew him to see. What did he get in return? Accusations that he is lying and doubts cast about how he could possibly recognize someone without actually being friends with him!! I can appreciate why he did not bother defending his position. He had already done, so yet in that instance, not only had it fallen on deaf ears but he continued to be accused of lying! Why bother poking that hornets nest again? The only entity which can investigate and bring charges in this case is the police and he knows they are aware he stands over his statement. I'm sure he feels under no obligation to explain or defend himself to anyone else and is loathe to attempt to as he obviously will not be believed in certain quarters no matter what he says or does!

With regard to the similarities between Smithman, Lourencoman and Tannerman the Differences in these descriptions seems to always get ignored.

 Smithman had SHORT hair, beige trousers and a DARK BLAZER-STYLE jacket.



 In contrast, Lourenco's man had "CURLY DARK BROWN HAIR THAT RAN DOWN TO HIS NECK AND IN A PONY- TAIL. HE HAD A CREAM-COLOURED HAT AND WORE A CREAM-COLOURED JACKET.

Meanwhile, Tannerman had dark hair longer at the back (unlike Smithman but similar to Lourenco's man). However, he had  HORRIBLE GOLD/MUSTARD TROUSERS and a Puffy type dark jacket ( these are padded anorak-style jackets.

I see little similarity between the man the Smiths described and the other two. How can anyone equate long curly hair in a pony-tail with a short back and sides? - a dark jacket with a cream one?  O'Doherty's piece also contains the explanation that the man they saw "Was not dressed like a typical tourist" which is true. He was not in shorts or cut off trousers and T shirt with sandals runners or deck shoes. It would appear that this statement was in response to a police question as they attempted to ascertain whether this man could have been someone on holiday in Luz. Given suspicions that this had to have been an "inside job" and the fact that very few people outside of the Ocean Club had had an opportunity to spot Madeleine, this line of questioning makes perfect sense.

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

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

Post by ChippyM on 05.02.18 12:37

Thanks Tony.  

I agree these motivations could be valid in a situation like this. 

However for me it boils down to where's the proof?    It still remains a possibility that Martin Smith and family were truthful in their account.

I can't see any actual evidence that Martin Smith and Murat were friends beyond a casual acquaintance, so that motivation is out for me.

Saving their own skin?  I don't understand that one, unless there is an implication that they were involved in the disappearance, which has nothing to back it up? So again, that one is out.

Fear and money, yes they are more plausible reasons to lie but still not perfect explanations. Bribing someone (actually a whole family)  to say they saw Gerry, to make the P.J. look like they were persecuting the couple? ....too risky. The Mc's didn't want any attention on themselves hence the constant propaganda appearing in the press detailing endless burglars and patsies and the insistence of a 'live child' taken away from them.

The 'didn't look like a tourist' line is interesting but maybe this was something asked by the P.J. to gauge the possible nationality of a suspect.  ie. 'Did he look local, like a tourist?'

I suspect all the Smiths were asked a similar question/ prompt about the child - as they all report her having white skin 'typical British'.   This implies they were given the same questions which prompted a similar response. ( ie, did she have white skin, dark skin, British Prortuguese) 

This could account for similarities in wording between different witnesses, rather than them all colluding and being given a script.

  This is from Martin Smith's statement.

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. ''

  This confirms my suspicion, he was 'urged' or prompted to consider whether the person he saw 'looked like a tourist' by the officer concerned. 

Again the percentages of certainty that many have questioned appear to have been prompted by the interviewing officer, It would seem Martin Smith and family members were prompted to pick percentages. 

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

ChippyM

Posts : 1334
Reputation : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 05.02.18 12:41

@Phoebe wrote:Saying that Martin Smith happily "worked with " the McCanns can no longer hold water unless Gemma O'Doherty is lying too. She clearly states that Smith told her he has been annoyed and frustrated over claims that he had in any way retracted his statement about being pretty sure it was Gerry McCann he saw that night.

Not at all - she could have been misled by Martin Smith, as so many others appear to have been. As I said before, why would Martin Smith suddenly reveal all to some chance investigative journalist? If he has been deceitful, he will continue to be deceitful.

Gerry McCann, or anyone else for that matter, walking around the streets of Praia da Luz with the a dead body, or a decoy, now that most definitely doesn't hold water bignono .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 11079
Reputation : 4173
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 05.02.18 13:11

It is very easy to check whether Martin Smith did formally complain to the Newspaper which had claimed that he had a friendship with Murat and later, to the BBC. He must know that, so why on earth would he risk lying about this? Burying heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the Smiths' description of the man they saw differs significantly from that of Nuno Lourenco and Tannerman does not IMO help to further the cause of justice for Madeleine at all. 
As to whether people believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine they saw or not - that is a completely different matter and I don't believe the two should be lumped together. The Smiths all claim they saw a man carrying a child that night at around 10 p.m. Whether we believe they are telling the truth or not is one thing. Who that man and child might have been is another separate matter.

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sar on 05.02.18 14:14

@Phoebe wrote:It is very easy to check whether Martin Smith did formally complain to the Newspaper which had claimed that he had a friendship with Murat and later, to the BBC. He must know that, so why on earth would he risk lying about this? Burying heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the Smiths' description of the man they saw differs significantly from that of Nuno Lourenco and Tannerman does not IMO help to further the cause of justice for Madeleine at all. 
As to whether people believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine they saw or not - that is a completely different matter and I don't believe the two should be lumped together. The Smiths all claim they saw a man carrying a child that night at around 10 p.m. Whether we believe they are telling the truth or not is one thing. Who that man and child might have been is another separate matter.

Hi Phoebe, forgive my slightly fuzzy logic, but if for example we are to take the "revelation" that crecheman, was "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" should there be another revelatory moment  at some point in the future, could by the same token, Smithman, be found to be "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" and were that to happen how would you / we feel? I'm not sure??

sar

Posts : 931
Reputation : 262
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

Smithman

Post by willowthewisp on 05.02.18 14:45

@sar wrote:
@Phoebe wrote:It is very easy to check whether Martin Smith did formally complain to the Newspaper which had claimed that he had a friendship with Murat and later, to the BBC. He must know that, so why on earth would he risk lying about this? Burying heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the Smiths' description of the man they saw differs significantly from that of Nuno Lourenco and Tannerman does not IMO help to further the cause of justice for Madeleine at all. 
As to whether people believe that it was Gerry and Madeleine they saw or not - that is a completely different matter and I don't believe the two should be lumped together. The Smiths all claim they saw a man carrying a child that night at around 10 p.m. Whether we believe they are telling the truth or not is one thing. Who that man and child might have been is another separate matter.

Hi Phoebe, forgive my slightly fuzzy logic, but if for example we are to take the "revelation" that crecheman, was "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" should there be another revelatory moment  at some point in the future, could by the same token, Smithman, be found to be "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" and were that to happen how would you / we feel? I'm not sure??
Hi Sar,agree with your fuzzy logic point.
But that is the entire point,DCI Redwood is the Police Officer having the"Revelation Moment",it is his explanation of how Creche dad/person carrying a child close to Ocean club apartments,could fit into an abduction scenario,the only problem is the"statements taken" describe No moving Time frame or a matter of minutes between checks,Kate's words,as seen on the videos from different produces etc.
The "Revelation Moment" is not factual Evidence!?
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 977
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

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

Post by MayMuse on 05.02.18 15:15

"Did Bend The Truth"  could apply to many " aspects " in this case, perhaps when THAT is seriously looked at by the official investigators, namely OG, there may be some semblance of Truth & Justice for Madeleine.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html

MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Reputation : 1402
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 05.02.18 16:04

REPLIES TO PHOEBE 


@ Phoebe  I reply to salient points in your posts re ‘Smithman’ today.


Phoebe wrote: The only entity which can investigate and bring charges in this case is the police and [Smith] knows they are aware he stands over his statement.

REPLY: What?? The British police in this case is Operation Grange and they and the BBC between them spent £2 million or more preparing a programme which promoted the Smithman sighting and openly stated that Martin Smith had  ‘changed his mind’ about his September 2007 ‘moment of madness’ when he said he was at least 60% sure that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann. As I’ve said repeatedly before, his actions, and the McCanns’ actions, from December 2007 tell us two things:

a. He has worked with the McCanns and Operation Grange ever since, and
b. The McCanns have made full use of his claimed sighting on many occasions ever since 2008.
We must judge Martin Smith on both his words (though often contradictory) and his actions.     


Phoebe wrote: Martin Smith obviously will not be believed in certain quarters no matter what he says or does!

REPLY: I, for one, will believe him when he tells the whole truth about why he told the police in September 2007 that he was at least 60% sure that Gerry McCann was the man he had  but has then gone on to work in tandem with the McCanns and Operation Grange for over nine years.  


Phoebe wrote:  With regard to the similarities between Smithman, Lourencoman and Tannerman the Differences in these descriptions seems to always get ignored.

Smithman had SHORT hair, beige trousers and a DARK BLAZER-STYLE jacket.

In contrast, Lourenco's man had "CURLY DARK BROWN HAIR THAT RAN DOWN TO HIS NECK AND IN A PONY- TAIL. HE HAD A CREAM-COLOURED HAT AND WORE A CREAM-COLOURED JACKET.

Meanwhile, Tannerman had dark hair longer at the back (unlike Smithman but similar to Lourenco's man). However, he had HORRIBLE GOLD/MUSTARD TROUSERS and a Puffy type dark jacket (these are padded anorak-style jackets).

I see little similarity between the man the Smiths described and the other two. How can anyone equate long curly hair in a pony-tail with a short back and sides? - a dark jacket with a cream one? 

Burying heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the Smiths' description of the man they saw differs significantly from that of Nuno Lourenco and Tannerman does not IMO help to further the cause of justice for Madeleine at all.

REPLY: I do not ignore your observations, they are perfectly valid. I suspect however that Lourenco was working on the Lisbon photograph of Krokowski in a white jacket while Jane Tanner and Martin Smith had been briefed by the hoaxers to speak of a ‘dark jacket’. Quite possibly Krokowski had two jackets/coats with him on holiday.

As for the hair being described differently I agree there are differences, but so far as Jane Tanner and Martin Smith are concerned they both saw him for fleeting seconds in the dark, so I am not too surprised at differences  in hair colour and length. A lot would depend on what briefing they were given on hair colour. They all seem to have been briefed to say ‘not a tourist’.
Now Phoebe let us look once again at the 17 similarities that I identified between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’. Also bear in mind Phoebe that the comparison is now (according to Operation Grange) between ‘Creche Dad’ and Smithman:

1 An unaccompanied male
2 Carrying a child and having no push-chair
3 The child was blonde
4 The child was a girl
5 The child was/was possibly barefoot
M Smith: “He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet…Witness unsure (family members say child was barefoot), no blanket or covering.”
A Smith: “…did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.”
P Smith “He cannot affirm if she was barefoot.”
Jane Tanner: "Barefoot, no blanket or covering"
6 The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
7 She looked about four years old
8 She was being held on the man’s left side
Jane Tanner: "Carrying child across arms at front of chest; child's head to the left of man's chest"
Smiths: “Carrying child over arms with child's head towards left shoulder"
9 She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
10 The men did not look like tourists
11 They were wearing a dark jacket
12 They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13 They were both about 1.75m  to 1.8m tall (5’ 9”- 5’ 10”)
14 They were both aged 35-40
15 They were of average build
16 They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17 In neither case could the man’s face be seen/was partially hidden.  
What are the chances of two men (Creche Dad/Tannerman and Smithman) fulfilling this exact same description on a cold dark early May night in the same village?


Phoebe wrote:  O'Doherty's piece also contains the explanation that the man they saw "Was not dressed like a typical tourist" which is true. He was not in shorts or cut-off trousers and T-shirt with sandals runners or deck shoes". 

REPLY: Wait a minute. How many tourists would be dressed in shorts and a T-shirt on a cold, windy, early May night with the temperature down to 13deg C (55deg F)? It was warmer than that here in Shropshire three days ago. Do you honestly, seriously, think that any police officer in the world would ask the question: ‘Did he look like a tourist?’ If any police officer ever asked me such a monumentally daft question, I would reply: “First tell me what a tourist looks like”.


REPLY BY NOMENDELTA, Oct 2013

This comment is worth consideration:

Not to mention the fact that, even though this new identity for Bundleman [i.e. ‘Creche Dad’] opens up the timeline for an abduction more than the original story (not that the Portuguese police actually believed in Bundleman so far as I understand) we have this quite remarkable coincidence that just around the time that Maddie was abducted (if that indeed is what happened) one of her parent’s friends happened to see a man who was NOT her abductor carrying a similar girl wearing similar clothes to Maddie mere moments away from where Maddie was allegedly abducted from.

It's quite a coincidence on its own but when you add in the similarities to the Smith sighting it really does beggar belief.


REPLY BY MIRAGE, Nov 2012:

This comment from Mirage is also worth mentioning:

Crecheman waits 6yrs 5mths before coming forward to identify the world-wide e-fit of himself. He is even able to produce the pyjamas his daughter had on that night, if I have understood things correctly - (Some propositions being so bizarre I wonder if I've dreamt them).




.

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15227
Reputation : 3128
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 05.02.18 16:47

IMO crecheman does not and never did exist. Jane Tanner invented him to make the claimed abduction and timing of same seem more credible to the P.J. Nor do I believe any man ever came forward claiming to be him. I suspect it's a way of consigning him to history  while sparing Tanner's blushes. Therefore, only one man was spotted carrying a blonde "sleeping" child that night.

 Tony says Jane and the Smiths only saw their "men" for
 "fleeting seconds in the dark",
 and this is the explanation for how they mistook a short-back-and-sides, traditional male haircut for long, curly hair in a pony-tail! That's rather unlikely! If it is true that their vision was so compromised, why accept ANY part of their descriptions or bother to look for any possible similarity? Surely one can't pick and choose?

True, it was unusually cold for May, but judging by the McCanns clothing pictured in the P.J. files they, like most holiday makers, were expecting or hoping for warmer weather. Most people going to the Med for a holiday at that time of year would be more inclined to optimistically pack casual "summer" clothing, not blazers or sports jackets. 
I simply cannot swallow the notion that a random, Irish family, including children, would be approached by shadowy forces from the U.K. and asked to invent a story to mislead the Portuguese police.

As to Jane's evolving description. She must have missed the trouser colour and jacket-style briefing, since she dressed her man in "horrible mustard/gold trousers" "the exact colour of flooring" and a "puffy" anorak.  She did however, manage to get in the line that they were not the type of clothes she would expect to see Ocean Club clientele sporting!

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 05.02.18 17:14

@Sar -   Hi Phoebe, forgive my slightly fuzzy logic, but if for example we are to take the "revelation" that crecheman, was "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" should there be another revelatory moment  at some point in the future, could by the same token, Smithman, be found to be "Just an innocent Father...etc etc" and were that to happen how would you / we feel? I'm not sure?? 

If the man the Smiths saw was indeed just a man carrying his child home/to his car, then I suspect he will never come forward now. Think about it - can you imagine the focus and analyses he would attract regarding anything he might say? In this regrettable age when people are inclined to steer clear, even when they see someone being attacked on a street for fear of the negative consequences for themselves, it is very likely that, even if such a man had become aware it was him, that he would not come forward after all this time. For the police to "produce" him, well, they better find someone with a fairly strong resemblance to Gerry. I wouldn't put it past them too try!

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sar on 05.02.18 21:30

Thanks for the rationale Phoebe, so if we say crecheman: "coming forward" and being "eliminated" by Andy Redwood was, in statistical terms a bit like the chance of someone being hit by lightning, then surely Smithman, with his undeniable luck, should maybe have gone to the nearest newsagents and put on the winning lottery numbers!!!

sar

Posts : 931
Reputation : 262
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

Smith man/creche Dad

Post by willowthewisp on 05.02.18 21:42

@MayMuse wrote:"Did Bend The Truth"  could apply to many " aspects " in this case, perhaps when THAT is seriously looked at by the official investigators, namely OG, there may be some semblance of Truth & Justice for Madeleine.
Hi Maymuse, i seriously think the Madeleine McCann case will not bring justice to the seriousness as to what may have happened.  
There have been far too many manipulators and Government cohorts involved in this "Cover up", perhaps the Truth may emerge of what had happened,but when D notices are proscribed on National Security basis(Dunblane)you know something needs to be Hidden!
Still it has taken the"UK Government" by surprise for them to invent an Abduction scenario,but will the public accept their thesis on Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 977
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sar on 05.02.18 23:10

....were I smithman, having seen how crecheman was treated, privacy carefully kept beautifully intact, or why he had managed to keep a pair of his child's pyjamas for 7+ years without facing explanation (bizarre in the extreme) I would have been desperate for my time in the limelight.  I would have been looking for an exclusive with a tabloid newspaper,  around 200K, the going rate in these sorts of affairs?  (What do these rich phone-hacking victims get?) Would have been a nice earner, great work if you can get it!!!  I can see the headlines now, "I WAS AN INNOCENT PARENT, SIMPLY MAKING MY WAY HOME"

sar

Posts : 931
Reputation : 262
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

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

Post by MayMuse on 06.02.18 1:50

@willowthewisp wrote:
@MayMuse wrote:"Did Bend The Truth"  could apply to many " aspects " in this case, perhaps when THAT is seriously looked at by the official investigators, namely OG, there may be some semblance of Truth & Justice for Madeleine.
Hi Maymuse, i seriously think the Madeleine McCann case will not bring justice to the seriousness as to what may have happened.  
There have been far too many manipulators and Government cohorts involved in this "Cover up", perhaps the Truth may emerge of what had happened,but when D notices are proscribed on National Security basis(Dunblane)you know something needs to be Hidden!
Still it has taken the"UK Government" by surprise for them to invent an Abduction scenario,but will the public accept their thesis on Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
@willowthewisp
I'm afraid to say you're probably right but think the public will not accept anything other than the truth....too many can see through the lies and cover up,  not even a long deceased digger man would cut it! :emo3:

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html

MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Reputation : 1402
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Gemma O'Doherty

Post by willowthewisp on 06.02.18 18:47

@MayMuse wrote:
@willowthewisp wrote:
@MayMuse wrote:"Did Bend The Truth"  could apply to many " aspects " in this case, perhaps when THAT is seriously looked at by the official investigators, namely OG, there may be some semblance of Truth & Justice for Madeleine.
Hi Maymuse, i seriously think the Madeleine McCann case will not bring justice to the seriousness as to what may have happened.  
There have been far too many manipulators and Government cohorts involved in this "Cover up", perhaps the Truth may emerge of what had happened,but when D notices are proscribed on National Security basis(Dunblane)you know something needs to be Hidden!
Still it has taken the"UK Government" by surprise for them to invent an Abduction scenario,but will the public accept their thesis on Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
@willowthewisp
I'm afraid to say you're probably right but think the public will not accept anything other than the truth....too many can see through the lies and cover up,  not even a long deceased digger man would cut it! :emo3:
Hi Maymuse,thanks for your post,I can only compare Madeleine McCann's case and the unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan,in that"Murky Person's"with links to Mr Murdoch's empire have been involved from the start of Both cases?

"Hillsborough, cover Up"(Murdoch's clan again),what happened their,was,there were too many individual families(96 People,families)who could not accept the"Lies and deceit" were brought together to fight that Injustice.  Yes it did take over Twenty eight years to dismantle the shenanigans and millions of pounds to seek justice.
Perhaps it wasn't the ordinary Police Men & Woman,who were asked to throw their"Note Books into, Black Bin bags"which created for"Artistic Licence" for Senior South Yorkshire Police Commanders gerrymander their version of events.  
They even allowed for the days CCTV to suddenly vanish from their "Night Watch Police Officers"One became a  Chief Police Commander(services rendered),but alas he now faces an appearance before a Court for the actions he had taken at Hillsborough!
I firmly believe that when it was found out that the Ground didn't have a Licence for the football Match,therebye creating Major insurance claims of "Negligence",the football Association and the Government,needed a"Quick fix" and way out of a problem,hence similar to Madeleine McCann's case,all the discrepancies being unfurled,Cover it Up quickly? 
The,"Negligence" in Madeleine McCann's case maybe a lesser of the evils claim,which needs to be endorsed by an abduction scenario,with which DCI Andy Redwood's "Revelation moment" is to be inserted as a conclusion on Madeleine McCann's,Operation Grange Investigation?
As per your Murat quote, being involved in the biggest"F**k up,"Too many cooks spoiled the Broth"!
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 977
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Jill Havern on 06.02.18 19:31

avatar
Jill Havern


Posts : 13316
Reputation : 5922
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Gemma O Doherty

Post by willowthewisp on 06.02.18 19:57

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Ho GogetemGoncalo
Hi GogetemGoncalo, So bearing in mind what Mr Tony Bennett has added,where it is possible/feasable for Mr Smith to have worked with the McCann Family,Brian Kennedy over the past ten years,E-fits 2008?
Now why would their lead,"Internet watcher"need to be in such close contact with a "Witness"from event in the above time period?
How would why Walkercan1000,know beaware the BBC were to alter previous Panorama programme,as he claims in this twitter blog?
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 977
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Cammerigal on 06.02.18 20:58

@Verdi wrote:
@Phoebe wrote:Saying that Martin Smith happily "worked with " the McCanns can no longer hold water unless Gemma O'Doherty is lying too. She clearly states that Smith told her he has been annoyed and frustrated over claims that he had in any way retracted his statement about being pretty sure it was Gerry McCann he saw that night.

Not at all - she could have been misled by Martin Smith, as so many others appear to have been.  As I said before, why would Martin Smith suddenly reveal all to some chance investigative journalist?  If he has been deceitful, he will continue to be deceitful.

Gerry McCann, or anyone else for that matter, walking around the streets of Praia da Luz with the a dead body, or a decoy, now that most definitely doesn't hold water bignono .
Gemma o’doherty Will show us if Smithman is of substance or a red herring ploy. If her promised next article discusses the dogs and the irrefutable evidence of cadaver odour and mccan blood (the use of diverse detection methods) in the Mccann car rental and in apartment 5a we see her true colours. Or perhaps she could discuss the failure by Kate Healey Mccann to answer the PJ’s 48 questions. If not, she is probably a part of the subterfuge in attempting to support  the Thursday abduction myth by the TM conspirators (as we know they can’t obfuscate the dogs). Over to you Gemma.
avatar
Cammerigal

Posts : 60
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2017-06-18
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 06.02.18 21:45

The thing I find really curious about this case is the length of time the show has been on the road - watch out EastEnders, there's a new guy on the block.

If it wasn't for the McCanns Find Madeleine Campaign, the public would have lost interest in the case a very long time ago. Indeed like most tragedies - here today gone tomorrow, today's headline is tomorrows bog paper. It is only the constant reminders that have kept the case alive in the minds of the people.

Anyone who has been following this case over the years will have noticed the peaks and troughs as regards public interest. A very long time ago, say a notional eight years, the public were starting to get bored with seeing the name McCann everyday at the breakfast table and every weekend when the stresses of the past week were being tranquilised. If it wasn't for groups such as CMoMM , the name Madeleine McCann would have faded away ten years ago and taken the parents with it.

Today, It's clear from fora and blog inactivity that the die-hard faithful followers and justice for Madeleine seekers are in the minority. Those who remain interested are constantly on the watch for new information, awaiting the next morsel thrown out to rekindle interest and commentary on the case.

Makes one wonder why the die-hard campaigners of truth are being kept dangling for the next development and/or piece of information, no matter how meager, just to keep the circus on the road. Why didn't the McCanns back off nine or ten years ago and get back to some resemblance of normality by way of daily life? Why are they so desperate to keep their names in the limelight year in year out?

Apart from media reports about all things McCann, the die-hard campaigners are fed big meaty chunks of Pedigree Pal from the big noises that might make a bigger impact on keeping the circus on the road. Voices like Colin Sutton an ex Metropolitan police officer; the other bloke whose name escapes me - the one that's an ex-cop turned crime commentator and TV personality/sofa queen; the Australian documentary; the other untold documentary and now an Irish investigative journalist who has again provided fodder for the die-hard campaigners of truth. Many more in between but for the purpose of this post, not worth the effort.

The populace are tired of this case - for the most part they lost interest years ago but for the little morsels fed to regenerate interest from time to time. Now why would this be - who is responsible for this shrouded campaign that keeps the case alive from one day/week/month/year to the next?

This is an orchestrated campaign - surely not for the survival of Operation Grange alone?


____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 11079
Reputation : 4173
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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

Post by polyenne on 06.02.18 22:13

Whether planned or not, the McCanns have embarked upon a ghost train ride (poor Madeleine). They and their many supporters and the other “elements” also involved often attempt to change the direction of the train, to return it to the same station, to keep it on the same track.

Unfortunately for them, there are a lot of people who have chosen to become passengers on that train, many of them here on CMOMM, who have taken control of the levers and are taking the train to other stations, places the McCanns don’t want it to go. 

They can’t get off, we’ll collectively make sure of that, until it hits the buffers.

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Cammerigal on 07.02.18 11:32

F
@Verdi wrote:The thing I find really curious about this case is the length of time the show has been on the road - watch out EastEnders, there's a new guy on the block.  

If it wasn't for the McCanns Find Madeleine Campaign, the public would have lost interest in the case a very long time ago.  Indeed like most tragedies - here today gone tomorrow, today's headline is tomorrows bog paper.  It is only the constant reminders that have kept the case alive in the minds of the people.

Anyone who has been following this case over the years will have noticed the peaks and troughs as regards public interest.  A very long time ago,  say a notional eight years, the public were starting to get bored with seeing the name McCann everyday at the breakfast table and every weekend when the stresses of the past week were being tranquilised.   If it wasn't for groups such as CMoMM , the name Madeleine McCann would have faded away ten years ago and taken the parents with it.

Today, It's clear from fora and blog inactivity that the die-hard faithful followers and justice for Madeleine seekers are in the minority.  Those who remain interested are constantly on the watch for new information, awaiting the next morsel thrown out to rekindle interest and commentary on the case.

Makes one wonder why the die-hard campaigners of truth are being kept dangling for the next development and/or piece of information, no matter how meager, just to keep the circus on the road.  Why didn't the McCanns back off nine or ten years ago and get back to some resemblance of normality by way of daily life?  Why are they so desperate to keep their names in the limelight year in year out?

Apart from media reports about all things McCann, the die-hard campaigners are fed big meaty chunks of Pedigree Pal from the big noises that might make a bigger impact on keeping the circus on the road.  Voices like Colin Sutton an ex Metropolitan police officer;  the other bloke whose name escapes me - the one that's an ex-cop turned crime commentator and TV personality/sofa queen;  the Australian documentary;  the other untold documentary and now an Irish investigative journalist who has again provided fodder for the die-hard campaigners of truth.  Many more in between but for the purpose of this post, not worth the effort.

The populace are tired of this case - for the most part they lost interest years ago but for the little morsels fed to regenerate interest from time to time.  Now why would this be - who is responsible for this shrouded campaign that keeps the case alive from one day/week/month/year to the next?

This is an orchestrated campaign - surely not for the survival of Operation Grange alone?

I really wish that I am wrong about this, but the o’doherty Smithman article is starting to feel like a repetition of a failed strategy, to puport a potential lead that needs further research by operation grange....and indirectly underpins the staged abduction on thursday 3rd:-
I think of black adder 4 in the trenches and the generals brilliant plan which has failed 18 times). See link.
Unfortunately, I have worked with the ‘chaps’ who think they are auwfelly clever and justify their nefarious actions as ‘the end justifies the means’ (just green slime Rupert’s who fail to understand that military intelligence is an oxymoron) and I see repetition in the ‘cunning’ obfuscation of a conspiracy to cover up the tragic death of an innocent 3 year old girl. 
So Irish Gemma, prove me wrong. You are outside the jurisdiction of the Brit D notice and super injunction.
https://youtu.be/YVEo6XnuwvE
avatar
Cammerigal

Posts : 60
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2017-06-18
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.02.18 12:03

@Cammerigal wrote:

I really wish that I am wrong about this, but the O’Doherty Smithman article is starting to feel like a repetition of a failed strategy, to purport a potential lead that needs further research by Operation Grange...and indirectly underpins the staged abduction on Thursday 3rd

Brilliant summation, @ Cammerigal, that is exactly what O'Doherty's article looks like.

The entire article is based on one alleged quote from Martin Smith, saying: "I stand by what I said", when clearly his actions ever since he spoke to Brian Kennedy in December 2007 say just the opposite. 

The article, as you say...

* purports a potential lead and

* indirectly underpins the staged abduction.

I would simply add that O'Doherty's article gets us all precisely nowhere - except to add further confusion

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15227
Reputation : 3128
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum