Re: WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

by ProfMoriarty 29.10.13 19:22

It's a verbal statement, written down by the policeman, read and signed by Mr Smith. What is interesting is the fact Mr Smith clearly wants to set the record straight about something. It's a vigorous statement. It also highlights the fact that he had a view as to the identity of the man he saw carrying the child. This is all totally incontestable.
Any later statements (if there are any) only serve to emphasise how strongly his views are held in this one and this is a second statement made a full six months after the event.
This information, had it been made generally known at the time, would have been a firestorm. Those who were aware of the identification on forums were ridiculed and threatened with legal action. We now know the lengths to which the McCanns were prepared to go to suppress this information.

by AndyB 29.10.13 19:27

ProfMoriarty wrote:Those who were aware of the identification on forums were ridiculed and threatened with legal action. We now know the lengths to which the McCanns were prepared to go to suppress this information.

Really? On what basis? (Not doubting you, just intrigued)

by chillyheat 29.10.13 19:28

candyfloss wrote:It looks like it is a typed up statement of Mr Smith........just guessing, but the [sic] after the word Gerard means.....

sic¹
sɪk/
adverb
adverb: sic

1.
used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original,

So either MR Smith said Gerard, or maybe his accent, or maybe written that way. Nothing untoward I would say.

Possibly is nothing untoward, but I remember reading he had been involved in more businesses than stated on companies house.....Now if you spell it the gerard way then a business comes up in France. Although the name is Patrick Gerard McCann. Ive looked on streetview and its just an address in between two shops. Just a green door.
This man is just so slippery he could be changing details to suit. Just a hunch he is in a lot more pies.....
If you still think the Gerard to Gerald spelling is a non lead, then I would be happy for you to delete this post. Dont want to be assumed as just throwing out nothingness. Just trying to help thats all.

by ProfMoriarty 29.10.13 19:36

AndyB wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Those who were aware of the identification on forums were ridiculed and threatened with legal action. We now know the lengths to which the McCanns were prepared to go to suppress this information.
Really? On what basis? (Not doubting you, just intrigued)

On no basis at all, as it happens, other than the rampant idea that dark mutterings about libel would stop people thinking something other than the view being forced on us all. But many people were intimidated by those tactics - 'we have your ISP address' etc - and the gradual drift of the McCanns into court against everybody. And Mr Smith was traduced - and badgered also directly - which is one reason, I suspect, why he wanted to make this forceful second statement above.

by Tombraider 29.10.13 20:22

And lets not forget what Gerry had to say about Oakley ;

from Gerry's blog

Oakley International
Date Released: 26/08/2008

"In the light of articles in some UK Sunday newspapers this weekend, we feel it is appropriate to comment briefly on our relationship with the investigation company Oakley International.

We appointed them several months ago to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We continue to work with them to this end. The working relationship is managed by Brian Kennedy, who also confirms the relationship with Oakley International continues to be good and that it
remains entirely focused on the search for Madeleine. "

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 20:52

Sorry - totally O/T, but has anyone heard anything from TB lately? He was on full flow last week, but haven't seen any recent posts?

by petunia 29.10.13 21:20

Lance De Boils wrote:Sorry - totally O/T, but has anyone heard anything from TB lately? He was on full flow last week, but haven't seen any recent posts?

I asked that the other day LDB. he doesn't seem to have posted since the ST Artical came to light on Sunday.

by Woburn_exile 29.10.13 21:27

ChillyHeat wrote:
candyfloss wrote:It looks like it is a typed up statement of Mr Smith........just guessing, but the [sic] after the word Gerard means.....

sic¹
sɪk/
adverb
adverb: sic

1.
used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original,

So either MR Smith said Gerard, or maybe his accent, or maybe written that way. Nothing untoward I would say.
Possibly is nothing untoward, but I remember reading he had been involved in more businesses than stated on companies house.....Now if you spell it the gerard way then a business comes up in France. Although the name is Patrick Gerard McCann. Ive looked on streetview and its just an address in between two shops. Just a green door.
This man is just so slippery he could be changing details to suit. Just a hunch he is in a lot more pies.....
If you still think the Gerard to Gerald spelling is a non lead, then I would be happy for you to delete this post. Dont want to be assumed as just throwing out nothingness. Just trying to help thats all.

Its a Typo. If you read the address it refers to County Lough. This should read County Louth. Gerard is the Irish way of spelling Gerald usually , it was probably corrected using a spellchecker. Rather like Shawn and Sean.

by Guest 29.10.13 21:31

petunia wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Sorry - totally O/T, but has anyone heard anything from TB lately? He was on full flow last week, but haven't seen any recent posts?
I asked that the other day LDB. he doesn't seem to have posted since the ST Artical came to light on Sunday.

He is here, but probably busy winkwink

by View-from-Ireland 29.10.13 21:32

Was just about to post the same thing. Gerald is almost unheard of in Ireland whereas Gerard (pronounced Gerd!!) is a very common name. I assume this was just a typo.

by Pershing36 29.10.13 21:44

As shocking as this story is, unfortunately TM seem to have buried it.

As we speak it seems to have no momentum. They say today's news is tomorrows chip wrapping.

by Woburn_exile 29.10.13 22:33

View-from-Ireland wrote:Was just about to post the same thing. Gerald is almost unheard of in Ireland whereas Gerard (pronounced Gerd!!) is a very common name. I assume this was just a typo.

My thoughts exactly. Is this a bit of a smoke and mirrors influence?
spin

by ProfMoriarty 29.10.13 23:08

Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.

by sami 29.10.13 23:18

ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.

The statement was taken in January 2008. His identification or realisation occurred in September 2007.

by ProfMoriarty 29.10.13 23:29

sami wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
The statement was taken in January 2008. His identification or realisation occurred in September 2007.

Yes and this is a second statement made to Irish police, reinforcing points made in his first statement. Even after those few months, he was still prepared to name his possible identification. That would be the starting point for an investigation - not what actually happened, which was that his identification was hidden and a timeline manufactured by inconsistent witnesses with an interest in the outcome manipulated.

by listener 29.10.13 23:34

ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.

Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.

I am, and have always been, very dubious about the 'Smith sighting'.

by Guest 29.10.13 23:41

listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.

***
You should have asked me big grin

Some people DO register, even subconsciously, important details.
We're all different.

by pennylane 29.10.13 23:46

Châtelaine wrote:
listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.
***
You should have asked me
Some people DO register, even subconsciously, important details.
We're all different.

I think you would notice more on holiday too, as you are away from the rat race, and usually more relaxed and sociable.

by sami 30.10.13 0:00

ProfMoriarty wrote:
sami wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
The statement was taken in January 2008. His identification or realisation occurred in September 2007.
Yes and this is a second statement made to Irish police, reinforcing points made in his first statement. Even after those few months, he was still prepared to name his possible identification. That would be the starting point for an investigation - not what actually happened, which was that his identification was hidden and a timeline manufactured by inconsistent witnesses with an interest in the outcome manipulated.

He did not name mccann in his first statement.

The whole point of him making the second statement was to name him. He was not reinforcing that point, he had not previously stated it. That was his sole purpose in making contact the second time. The fact that the interview did not take place until some months afterwards does not take away from what he says he saw in September on tv and on contacting the police to tell them.

I'm not debating the validity or otherwise of his statement. That has been done at length all ready.

by MRNOODLES 30.10.13 0:07

pennylane wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.
***
You should have asked me
Some people DO register, even subconsciously, important details.
We're all different.
I think you would notice more on holiday too, as you are away from the rat race, and usually more relaxed and sociable.

IMO some people are more observant than others, it's just how it is I guess. Anyway the question that keeps bouncing around my head is. How common were these types of trousers back then?

by ProfMoriarty 30.10.13 0:08

Agreed. He was, though, very much strengthening his original statement rather than mellowing it, which is what I was trying to express.
What makes Mr Smith's statement so compelling for me is that it originated not in PDL but at home in his own house watching the BBC News and observing the McCs returning from PDL. Also, he wasn't alone, but was with his family in PDL. They all gave witness statements, though there was a variety of opinion as to how much was seen or who it might have been. He was startled to find himself recognising the man on the TV. Unusually, this wasn't a case where a known man was recognised as being in a certain place at a certain time. Rather, this was an unknown man whose behaviour recalled to Mr Smith the unknown man in PDL.
However, that he and his family were in PDL is incontestable. As is the fact they ALL saw a man carrying a child.

by View-from-Ireland 30.10.13 0:16

listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.

I am, and have always been, very dubious about the 'Smith sighting'.

Maybe she would have remembered more details if the people she had passed had distinctive features such as, well, carrying a sleeping child on a cool night in the direction of a beach and refusing to engage in small talk with her. It sounds like it was the kind of encounter that would lead one to absorb as much detail as possible.

by listener 30.10.13 0:16

listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.

I am, and have always been, very dubious about the 'Smith sighting'.

I believe that under certain circumstances one can remember things. But I also believe that you need to have a reason to remember - a reason something implanted itself in you memory e.g. Unusual things stand out - gait, clothing, actions - something/anything unusual or out of the ordinary.
After the balloon went up, the Smiths reported nothing! Not until he/they were back in Ireland and saw a news report showing GM descending the aircraft stairs. Suddenly he remembers. But what does he remember? It couldn't have been GM's face - because he must have seen it in the press furore a hundred times in the immediate days after the 'abduction'. Equally, It can't be the way GM carried Sean down the steps - I see nothing unusual about the way Sean was carried.
So what really provoked him, months later, to come forward? And much, much later describe clothing?
nah

by listener 30.10.13 0:27

Châtelaine wrote:
listener wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote:Mr Smith states he is 60-80% certain of his identification, in January 2008. Quite impressive.
Indeed!

I conducted a wee, unplanned experiment on Sat evening.
I was at my pals for tea. After tea, his wife took their dog for a walk. Later on, I asked her if she had seen/passed anyone in her street during her walk. She knew she had passed a couple, holding hands.
Age? - Middle age (I think).
What were they wearing? - Pretty vague.
Colours? - She could not tell me!

That was about 30 minutes after her return from her walk.
***
You should have asked me
Some people DO register, even subconsciously, important details.
We're all different.

Indeed Chatelaine, but why not until August? Were they oblivious to what happened on their holiday until then?

by AB1 30.10.13 0:35

MRNOODLES wrote:
IMO some people are more observant than others, it's just how it is I guess. Anyway the question that keeps bouncing around my head is. How common were these types of trousers back then?

Why no hit on the beige button trousers by the cadaver dog?
Or had the trousers disappeared like the pink blanket?

Log in for more topics