Re: Martin Smith's evidence was considered by the PJ to be 'highly contradictory...this type of witness does not deserve credibility" 24 Horas, 7.7.2008

by Phoebe 28.10.18 9:16

@ Tony Bennett. To correct yet another incorrect assumption of yours erroneously stated as a fact, Phoebe actually has an OPEN mind on when, how and why Madeleine McCann died!

I also believe that Madeleine McCann's death should not be used as some kind of sick competition between those who claim to seek the truth for her.

I find the final statement you wrote above extremely distasteful and downright childish -

"May the best evidence prevail"

It belongs in a playground and trivialises the tragic death of a toddler.

I contradict the nonsensical theories which fly in the face of factual evidence and brand the innocent Smith family liars and conspirators. I make no apology or doing so.
It seems Madeleine is to be used as tool in some childish war of

"My theory's righter than your theory"

How very sad! Madeleine McCann is again being sacrificed on the altar of ego and reputational protection - pretty much what her parents did to her!

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 14:17

aquila wrote:@ Pheobe,

Whilst you and Tony hammer out the Smith sighting and most people are groaning, I must point out that in your last post you stated "applying common sense" when that is the very thing not to apply in the consideration of something potentially so devious.

If we were to apply common sense, then that would tell us that at the moment that Kate McCann was raising the alarm and instigating a massive search for their daughter, Gerry McCann would not be running around the area carrying the child.

If the Smith family were to apply common sense, then upon seeing the many people out that night and the days to come, the area swarming with police, sirens going off, helicopters circling etc. And with Madeleine & both parents in the headlines, on the television, posters etc. Why on earth did they not come forward with information about this sighting.

Why did they not tell the police on May 3rd or 4th at the latest, we say a man carrying a child that looks like the child's father? Why wait?

Was Gerry wearing beige trousers and a dark anorak that night, as described by Jane Tanner and Smith?

Furthermore, if Jane Tanner sighted a man in beige trousers and a dark anorak, did the PJ check out what Gerry was wearing that night?

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 14:35

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. To correct yet another incorrect assumption of yours erroneously stated as a fact, Phoebe actually has an OPEN mind on when, how and why Madeleine McCann died!

I also believe that Madeleine McCann's death should not be used as some kind of sick competition between those who claim to seek the truth for her.

I find the final statement you wrote above extremely distasteful and downright childish -

"May the best evidence prevail"

It belongs in a playground and trivialises the tragic death of a toddler.

I contradict the nonsensical theories which fly in the face of factual evidence and brand the innocent Smith family liars and conspirators. I make no apology or doing so.
It seems Madeleine is to be used as tool in some childish war of

"My theory's righter than your theory"

How very sad! Madeleine McCann is again being sacrificed on the altar of ego and reputational protection - pretty much what her parents did to her!

With respect Phoebe, the best evidence comes from the researchers, many of whom I believe to be professional people, at the Madeleine McCann research group. Their conclusions about Madeleines' time of death are consistent with those of many members here, including some of the top researchers at CMOMM. Not, only this but their evidence is so credible that it has been accepted by the Portuguese Attorney General. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 14:46

Jill Havern wrote:
sharonl wrote:Yes Joyce, but it's laughable really, probably just more media hype. It was Fiona Payne who claimed to have seen Murat but the lookalike was David Payne, you'd think that she recognise her own husband, wouldn't you?
Recognise her own husband?

She didn't even know her own age: "Erm, erm, I'm thirty, I'll work that out actually, I'm thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I'm married to David PAYNE."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Goodness, it makes you wonder if they really are who they say they are.

by Phoebe 28.10.18 15:30

@ sharonl. As I have said before Sharon, I eagerly await the response of the Portuguese authorities to the MMRG documents. For me, the police are the real researchers, as they alone have access to all available evidence. We amateur sleuths have only the files which they produced and released to "pick over".

On a point of information you wrote above -

"Was Gerry wearing beige trousers and a dark anorak that night, as described by Jane Tanner and Smith?"

This sentence is factually incorrect. The Smiths did not describe the man as wearing an anorak of any sort.
Jane Tanner described the man's trousers as being gold-mustard-brown or the exact colour of corticine (which is brown-gold) and being noticeably baggy and ill-fitting, while the Smiths described them as cream or beige and of classic fit.
IMO It is important to be accurate when citing facts.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.10.18 15:44

Post edited and re-posted below

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 15:50

Phoebe wrote:@ sharonl. As I have said before Sharon, I eagerly await the response of the Portuguese authorities to the MMRG documents. For me, the police are the real researchers, as they alone have access to all available evidence. We amateur sleuths have only the files which they produced and released to "pick over".

On a point of information you wrote above -

"Was Gerry wearing beige trousers and a dark anorak that night, as described by Jane Tanner and Smith?"

This sentence is factually incorrect. The Smiths did not describe the man as wearing an anorak of any sort.
Jane Tanner described the man's trousers as being gold-mustard-brown or the exact colour of corticine (which is brown-gold) and being noticeably baggy and ill-fitting, while the Smiths described them as cream or beige and of classic fit.
IMO It is important to be accurate when citing facts.

My apologies Phoebe, in Martins additional statement of January 2008 he says jacket or Blazer perhaps. However, in his initial statement he says "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".

I think that at this point we should agree to disagree. I am sure that other members are becoming bored with topic by now. I intend to lock this thread shortly as it is getting us nowhere closer to the truth of what happened to Madeleine or whatever went on in PDL that week.

Is there anything that you would like to add before I lock the thread tonight?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.10.18 15:59

CLARIFICATIONS

First, Ben Salmon, who was banned from this forum for a clear breach of forum rules, has emailed me and asked me to say the following in relation to my recent post upthread:

QUOTE Ben Salmon: "I lean towards the 'Last Photo' not having been taken on the 3rd...though I think there is more than one possible explanation for it being moved days".

REPLY: It's about as enigmatic as many of his other pronunciations. He did once believe that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday, as the evidence clearly suggests, but some time ago changed his mind for reasons I never saw explained. If Ben Salmon thinks that the Last Photo was taken on any of the four days Monday to Thursday, which were cloudy, windy, cooler than the warm, sunny Sunday and brought periods of rain, I would love to know which one it was, and why?

Maybe he thinks the Last Photo was taken in a chink or two of sunlight on an otherwise cloudy day, as I think Isabelle McFadden and others on Twitter believe. Why anyone should think the Last Photo was taken on any day other than Sunday, when we have the clearest possible evidence in terms of:-
raw weather data
notes from a local meteorologist
satellite images
shorts
T-shirts
sun-hats
sunglasses
people dipping their toes into the water
a sheen of perspiration on Gerry's head...

...I have no idea. Perhaps Ben will email me again and explain. Maybe he could also explain the lack of photographs of Madeleine after Saturday.

Ben Salmon also writes: "I do not believe Smithman to be Gerry. I think nothing of the sort. I've never wavered in finding the Smith sighting incredible".

REPLY: I am grateful for that correction.

=====

Second, in relation to Phoebe's comments about my statement: "May the best evidence prevail".

REPLY: I fear Phoebe has misunderstood.

The phrase: "May the best evidence prevail" has been the watchword of CMOMM from the get-go. Once again, this is clearly stated on the home page: "This is an investigative forum". We find evidence. We discuss it. We debate it, mostly robustly. And if we can, we develop conclusions".

To give one practical example, for years we debated whether the Last Photo was photoshopped or genuine. We collectively found it to be genuine. Then we debated when it was taken. Collectively, to cut a long story short, we reached the view that it could only have been taken Sunday.

People are allowed to join the forum to voice their opposition to the forum's conclusions. But they will need good, solid evidence on which to do so.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.10.18 16:12

Phoebe wrote:@ sharonl. As I have said before Sharon, I eagerly await the response of the Portuguese authorities to the MMRG documents. For me, the police are the real researchers, as they alone have access to all available evidence. We amateur sleuths have only the files which they produced and released to "pick over".

This forum is clear proof that the police did not "alone have access to all the available evidence". The idea that "We only have the files to pick over" is also unsound.

Did the PJ have the satellite images of the weather at noon on all the days between 29 April and 3 May 2007? I very much doubt it.

In fact, because the police were under the impression that Catriona Baker was telling the truth about the 'high tea' on Thursday 3 May (and never considered the possibility that she might have known the McCanns before 28 April 2007), they never even thought of looking for those satellite data. That shows what a bunch of dedicated researchers can achieve.

By the way, I would hardly call our 'PeterMac' an 'amateur sleuth', would you? A Police Superintendent...

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 16:28

Tony

As you correctly say, "This is an investigative forum". We find evidence. We discuss it. We debate it, mostly robustly. And if we can, we develop conclusions".

Along with many others, including people with professional qualifications and expertise in many areas, together with the members of MMRG, we have researched the Smith sighting, gathered evidence, both circumstantial and factual, and have reached a logical conclusion which the majority of us agree upon. There are a few who will not or do not agree but we cannot spend much more time debating on an issue which we have already concluded upon. There is little to be gained in continuing this debate at the moment.

In order to further our research and to find out what really happened to Madeleine, we must move on quickly and not spend valuable time debating on a single area which has already been dealt with. It seems that neither party is going to be moved in their thinking and this debate has reached the end of its road, for now anyway.

I suggest that we now move on to seeking justice for Madeleine and we will return to this topic in the future.

To be fair to Phoebe, I have given her the chance to make final comment before the thread is locked tonight. This will apply to other members too.

by Phoebe 28.10.18 16:36

I imagine the local police officers who actually live in and around P de L were able to recount from firsthand experience what the weather was like on May 3rd 07, thereby eliminating any need to consult weather satellite images!
Anyone who is not employed and paid for doing a job but pursues it out of personal interest is, by definition an amateur.

AMATEUR
adjective
[size=32]amateur
/ˈamətə,ˈamətʃə,ˈamətʃʊə,ˌaməˈtəː/[/size]
[list=lr_dct_sf_sens]
[*]1.
engaging or engaged in without payment; non-professional.

[/list]

None of us amateur sleuths have been hired to investigate the Madeleine McCann case. Therefore the only professionals involved in this investigation (and the only ones with full access to all information) are the police.

by Phoebe 28.10.18 16:45

Actually Sharon, I think locking the Smithman threads is a good idea. If the Portuguese police change their minds about the veracity of the Smiths then I'm sure we shall hear about it. Until there is evidence of any wrong doing on their part I shall continue to agree with the current police position that the Smiths are honest, credible witnesses. roses

by **Tony Bennett** 28.10.18 18:08

Phoebe wrote:Actually Sharon, I think locking the Smithman threads is a good idea. If the Portuguese police change their minds about the veracity of the Smiths then I'm sure we shall hear about it. Until there is evidence of any wrong doing on their part I shall continue to agree with the current police position that the Smiths are honest, credible witnesses. I imagine the local police officers who actually live in and around P de L were able to recount from firsthand experience what the weather was like on May 3rd 07, thereby eliminating any need to consult weather satellite images!

Actually, if you look into it, the PJ DID get weather data for both Thursday 3 May and Wednesday 2 May.

The point, which you seem to have missed entirely, and was one that PeterMac made only recently, was that it never even occurred to the PJ that the weather on Sunday 29 April might prove highly relevant - a fact that this forum has long since realised, mainly with the help of PeterMac, but also the help of not a few other unsung heroes on this forum who have contributed their expertise and, yes, their professional expertise e.g. in digital cameras.

The burden of your posts today has been: "The PJ know everything there is to know, and may need to know, leave it to them, don't bother with your amateur research".

Your posts today amount simply to saying this:

"You amateur fools on CMOMM, you've been utterly wasting your collective time for these past nine years".

by **Jill Havern** 28.10.18 18:40

Did the PJ even need to analyse the weather on the night of Thursday 3rd when they were out looking for a child who they thought had either wandered off or been abducted? Sure they would have clocked it and noted that it was dark, cool and relatively still (no whooshing curtains).

But would they have analysed what it was like at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd when Maddie allegedly disappeared some time during that evening?

The Last Photo didn't materialise until some weeks later, by then if the PJ did think about the weather on the night of Thursday 3rd they may not remember what it was like at lunchtime on Sunday 29th. Why would they think about the weather that far back when that day wasn't relevant to the investigation?

It was only because the McCanns said that photo was taken at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd that research started on it and it's believed it wasn't taken that day, but the exif data changed to make it appear Maddie was still alive that day when she most likely wasn't.

Smithman keeps the focus on the 'abduction' and deters people from looking at what likely happened days earlier, which is what the McCanns want.

The research in to the Last Photo turns the focus away from a staged abduction and points directly towards the McCanns involvement earlier in the week. The ball would now be in the McCanns court.

Martin Smith's evidence was considered by the PJ to be 'highly contradictory...this type of witness does not deserve credibility" 24 Horas, 7.7.2008