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

....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"

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:

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"!

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?

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 .

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.

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?

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.

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

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

@Tony Bennett

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

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Verdi wrote:

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

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

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

Not posted for a while for various reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

willowthewisp wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This quote was spotted on twitter recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The curtain tie backs are a nice touch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And older kids don't know what perjury means.

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

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

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

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