Gemma O'Doherty, Investigative Journalist - now published investigation into Madeleine McCann case

Cheers, Dee Coy. I hope it isn't going to be another there is a lot more but have been sworn to secrecy....

Had nearly 11 years of that.

I don't really understand those tweets you posted. Like you say, how did this person come to know this info that SY & PJ have!?

ETA: Thanks Freedom! That is more like it. In the first certainly implies more to come.

But we know it was Mary who addressed smithman?

dogs don't lie wrote:But we know it was Mary who addressed smithman?

I seem to be missing something here.......Whom is Mary and how does she relate to addressing Smithman?

Martin Smith's wife; it was she who spoke to the man carrying the child.

Freedom wrote:Martin Smith's wife; it was she who spoke to the man carrying the child.

I realised as soon as I posted that....! So what is Isabelle getting at then?

If someone would kindly get me up to speed here and put these tweets in context that would be really helpful. E.G if it wasn't Mary as the tweet implies then who? And how is it a 'gem' for SY/PJ?

I don't know what Isabelle is getting at - I don't know her - just read her stuff on Twitter.

The only reason I posted the Tweet was because it inferred that Gemma Doherty had not revealed everything in the article - suggestive that there was more to come?

dogs don't lie wrote:That programme was made last year, does anyone know when the rumour that Martin had retracted his statement appeared?

That's a really good question. Another question would be, who started that rumour. Where did TB get his allegation from or did he really just make it up himself? Clarrie?

I've found a couple of his ramblings from 2015 from the various Smithman threads on CMoMM, which show he was touting the rumour then. So well before the Panorama programme.


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

Thank you so much Dee coy, your right, the question now is where did TB 1st hear of this?

Well there wasn't any blue ink but he has done an initial hatchet job. With a lot more to come apparently.

Oh dear. TB seems very wrong-footed indeed. He seems to be confused between which BBC programme misrepresented Martin Smith. Gemma O'Doherty clearly refers to the 10yr Panorama in 2017, explaining specifically that Mr Smith made a formal complaint to the BBC regarding the 'retraction' he is supposed to have made. That complaint was ignored.

Bizarrely, TB seems to try to morph the 'misrepresentation of Martin Smith' onto the 2013 Crimewatch Special. As far as I am aware, Mr Smith has no issues with that programme?

Clipped from TB's rant over there this morning:



He doesn't made sense, either. What does 'Did he tell them during those interviews: "I am sure the man I saw was Martin Smith"?' even mean?

As for TB claiming Mr Smith retracted his statement in 2007, we see the start of the back-pedal:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14903p25-gemma-o-doherty-maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth

'I have never actually said that Martin Smith made a formal, written, signed retraction of his 'Gerry McCann is the man I saw' claims. What I did think I prove was that Smith had actively collaborated with the McCanns ever since December 2007 (SMITHMAN 8 and SMITHMAN 11). Maybe all that Smith means by saying that he hasn't retracted his evidence is just that "I never signed any formal retraction". '

No, Tony, you've proven no such thing. And what Martin Smith is simply saying is that he never changed his mind about believing GM to be Smithman. Contrary to what YOU have been saying these last years.

'REPLY: Actually, this was one of the few parts of that BBC programme where the BBC told the truth! Martin Smith had indeed collaborated with the McCanns and Operation Grange and had indeed changed his mind. Remember he allowed his sighting to be used on the McCanns' website from May 2009 to look for an abductor - without a squeak of protest from him. If people still don't get that Martin Smith is a fraud and has fabricated his evidence, there is little more I can do to make them think again '

You don't learn, do you?

I presume that Tony meant to say Gerry McCann rather than Martin Smith here.

"Did he tell them during those interviews: "I am sure the man I saw was Martin Smith"? Of course he didn't! If he had done, he would be absolutely jumping up and down after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special and ringing up every journalist he could find".

If he decides to employ a proof-reader for future reports, I am available at a very reasonable fee!

Well, I read the first line that he thinks the Irish still believe Madeleine was abducted and came back here.

Dee Coy wrote:As for TB claiming Mr Smith retracted his statement in 2007, we see the start of the back-pedal:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14903p25-gemma-o-doherty-maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth

'I have never actually said that Martin Smith made a formal, written, signed retraction of his 'Gerry McCann is the man I saw' claims. What I did think I prove was that Smith had actively collaborated with the McCanns ever since December 2007 (SMITHMAN 8 and SMITHMAN 11). Maybe all that Smith means by saying that he hasn't retracted his evidence is just that "I never signed any formal retraction". '

No, Tony, you've proven no such thing. And what Martin Smith is simply saying is that he never changed his mind about believing GM to be Smithman. Contrary to what YOU have been saying these last years.

'REPLY: Actually, this was one of the few parts of that BBC programme where the BBC told the truth! Martin Smith had indeed collaborated with the McCanns and Operation Grange and had indeed changed his mind. Remember he allowed his sighting to be used on the McCanns' website from May 2009 to look for an abductor - without a squeak of protest from him. If people still don't get that Martin Smith is a fraud and has fabricated his evidence, there is little more I can do to make them think again '

You don't learn, do you?

Just how many Smithman threads are there?

Surely, if the Smithman situation is as cut and dried as Mr Bennett intimated, one or two threads would be sufficient!  Whatever, eight is overkill and eleven is just scarily obsessive.

Back to the article.

When Mr Amaral won, the papers printed excerpts from his book, even if it was under the guise of look what the nasty man was saying, so they are willing to publish articles that are negative to the McCanns. With careful phrasing, I can see the UK press being eager to publish parts of Gemma's article because it paints the BBC, and their claims of impartiality, in a bad light.  It could be used to hit out at the BBC with the McCanns being collateral damage.

I wonder what action the McCanns are/will be taking. I bet threatening letters have already landed on editors' desks but dare they risk another libel case on such a flimsy basis, with an English language publication and so close to home?

I have set up a new topic for comments on Tony's post.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t2163-tony-bennett-s-thoughts-on-the-gemma-o-doherty-article

Previous posts transferred from https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t2151-gemma-o-doherty-investigative-journalist-to-publish-investigation-into-madeleine-mccann-case

Important work is done from Gemma because this confirm what we already know, that the media is working after Team McCann's terms and conditions and it's not only the tabloid media who do this, it's also public service media.
I have to say that I'am very confused re Gerry McCann and "Smithman", many questions is still unanswered.
Why would GM walk around with a dead child on the streets of Pdl?
Where was he at the time?
There are witnesses from the Tapas staff that said the table was empty at 21:45 and others place him by the table at 22:00?
If "Smithman" is a innocent man that carried his (sick?)child(to "Luz Doc"?) why has he not stepped forward by now?
If this was pre planned, could the "Smithman" be someone else(RoB, MO....?)that carried a living child as a smoke screen but they were not prepared that someone would point finger at GM? 
Is this the reason why nobody have stepped forward?
Confused??

I would say that carrying a dead child through streets would be an act of desperation, there being no other plan.
On the other hand, it could have been a decoy to demonstrate an abductor, the dead child having been removed earlier.
Either way, the carrier wouldn't be Russell as he is far too tall.

Poe: this is the part of your post at 12.16 which doesn't refer to Tony's view of the article.

"Back to the article.

When Mr Amaral won, the papers printed excerpts from his book, even if it was under the guise of look what the nasty man was saying, so they are willing to publish articles that are negative to the McCanns. With careful phrasing, I can see the UK press being eager to publish parts of Gemma's article because it paints the BBC, and their claims of impartiality, in a bad light. It could be used to hit out at the BBC with the McCanns being collateral damage.

I wonder what action the McCanns are/will be taking. I bet threatening letters have already landed on editors' desks but dare they risk another libel case on such a flimsy basis, with an English language publication and so close to home?"

Aren't Smithman and TB inextricably linked? Even now he is still maintaining the same view, yet we can't mention him, If the posts are reasonable naturally. I am struggling to understand , JMHO.

Are my expectations too high or has this article not had the response you'd think? Outside of forums like this and the odd blog and Tweet comment, what has happened?

Genuinely nobody except a few dozen of us here and blogs care about or follow the case anymore and that is depressing. I really think time is the reason OG keeps being extended. So every last person forgets....

dogs don't lie wrote:That programme was made last year, does anyone know when the rumour that Martin had retracted his statement appeared?

Not sure when DDL but I do remember challenging TB about this and he admitted that MS had not officially retracted his statement but "it was obvious he had." Not the same thing at all.
I never understood why Mr B didn't realise that the voice used on the OFM web site was an actor and not Martin co-operating with TM. Or maybe I do.

niklasericson wrote:Important work is done from Gemma because this confirm what we already know, that the media is working after Team McCann's terms and conditions and it's not only the tabloid media who do this, it's also public service media.
I have to say that I'am very confused re Gerry McCann and "Smithman", many questions is still unanswered.
Why would GM walk around with a dead child on the streets of Pdl?
Where was he at the time?
There are witnesses from the Tapas staff that said the table was empty at 21:45 and others place him by the table at 22:00?
If "Smithman" is a innocent man that carried his (sick?)child(to "Luz Doc"?) why has he not stepped forward by now?
If this was pre planned, could the "Smithman" be someone else(RoB, MO....?)that carried a living child as a smoke screen but they were not prepared that someone would point finger at GM? 
Is this the reason why nobody have stepped forward?
Confused??

I agree that it would be highly unlikely anyone would carry a sick/deceased child around the streets. Which has always left me with the belief it was GM carrying a decoy child to emphasise the presence in Luz of an abductor.
If we always bear in mind this happened before JT's sighting was retro-fitted it makes sense. Gerry did not expect to come across 9 people. 2 would have been ok, 1 even better but 9? Too many sets of eyes. Hence Tannerman to deflect from the timing.
If we go back to an earlier alarm it makes even more sense. The only people that say it kicked off at 10pm are members of TM.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:But we know it was Mary who addressed smithman?

I seem to be missing something here.......Whom is Mary and how does she relate to addressing Smithman?

Mary is Mrs Smith and she asked if the child was sleeping.

I realised straight away my Doh! (see my post at the top of this page) but would still like Isabelle's tweets to be explained to me and put in context.