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

Candyfloss and I have decided to put the posts on Tony Bennett's reaction to the article back here. Please though let's only comment on his theory and not him personally.

unreorganised wrote:

poster wrote:Attack is the best form of defense, so they say...

I've heard that said, but sometimes in football training you do 5-a-sides, attackers vs. defenders, and the defenders always win. I think because, when pushed, the defenders can score goals. Whereas the attackers can't defend to save their lives.

That was a pointless interjection, I know....

Got to say this isn't the case in rugby league. Everybody - including the wingers and the halves - needs to be able to defend or you're fooked . Think of it as a massive game of British Bulldog...

Transcribing this to TB - his defence is very very weak indeed. For years he's been chucking dummies out wide to confuse the enemy, but people are sussing this now and are charging straight at him. He's about as good at deflecting a fact as a turnstile is at stopping a crowd 2 minutes before kick-off.

Thmay recall it ere was a person that eventually came for ward and told police that He carried his daughter that night too,and he even showed some pyjamas too that he said had ben kept for about 6 years .We were sown some pics of said p j s,well they were nothing like the ones from M and spencers one s the bottoms looked really thick and colours no way were same . Then al went quiet about that .I think others here will recall this .joyce1938

That was the revelation on the 2013 Crimewatch programme that the man seen by Jane Tanner (or allegedly seen) had come forward, not the man seen by the Smiths.

I couldn't get my breath when I read this from a certain poster over the road.  WTF!  



Since September 2007, there has been a fusion of stories relating to the Smith and Tanner sightings involving any number of ancillary persons to add to the confusion. Meanwhile, on the surface, Martin Smith has remained silent representing an outstanding citizen caught up in a horrendous web of lies and deceit. Named and/or implicated - Martin Smith has never, to my knowledge, publicly cleared his name. He contacted Richard D Hall via the Rich Planet website to correct the allegation that he knew Robert Murat - why didn't he demand a public apology for the allegations made on Crimewatch 2013 and the BBC documentary productions? Because he is a fine upstanding Irish citizen or because he knows more than he's prepared to admit.



Excuse me but am I being thick............. (don't answer that), but what the f*** does Martin Smith need to clear his name of?  As far as I know he is an honest witness in the case, the only accusations that I see are - well we know where they are from.

Need to go back to this avatar methinks...

It has been interesting to note that Verdi has been holding back over the last couple of days, seemingly to wait for TB's directive post appearing before responding with his own waxing lyrical. it's almost as if there is a directive from above.

With that post highlighted by candyfloss above, Verdi has overstepped the mark in his eagerness to post his acquiescence. What is going on over there?

They seem insistent that Martin Smith was friends with Murat. They have decided that Martin Smith is a corrupt individual who would lie to police on behalf of a friend and is working with team McCann. They think his every action is governed by them. On top of this he is some kind of super effective authoritarian who can also twist his family into lying to the police.

Is it not possible he is just an ordinary man who saw something and doesn't actually enjoy - or have the resources to fight legal battles with the media over things that have been misrepresented? Of course it is but this more likely scenario is ignored.

They have decided all this and never actually spoke to him or with any evidence he knew Murat. On some forums, supporters of the abduction believe that the Gaspar statement is mistranslated, it was all an innocent misunderstanding and Mr Gaspar didn't hear anything suspicious so Mrs Gaspar is making the whole thing up. This Smithman situation is now like that, deciding someone has given a false statement because it doesn't fit your pet theory. There seems to be an adherence to this theory above all others and some ego involved in resisting to acknowledge the theory might be flawed.

How can you get to the truth when you refuse to consider other possibilities due to your own ego? You can't of course!

Good post, Gloria.

That sums up what I feel about this. Yes, people do lie to the police to protect themselves or their families and friends but there is just no evidence to suggest that the Smiths and Robert Murat knew each other well and, even if they did, it doesn't mean that they (the Smiths) lied.

Your post says itlike it is Gloria. I don't think Wembley Stadium could now hold the amount of people that are lying and in on it. Gemma is now included,it just never ends.

@Inca

Someone over the road makes a point of saying how easy it would be to disprove if Mr Smith was lying about knowing Murat, because he would have been seen by locals with him. So why are they so convinced Mr Smith is a liar, and the rest of his family. How can that be said, there is absolutely no proof at all to convince me and many others it would seem that this is indeed the case. They repeat the same stuff over and over - i.e. how Mr Smith says the man did not 'look like a tourist' the same as a few others questioned. This imo not evidence at all that he is lying , just that the police asked many witnesses the same questions to see how their answers tally in order to get a better description of the man. I expect the PJ had a list of questions for each witness, I see nothing wrong this it is just to prompt a witness.

Mr Smith hasn't said he doesn't know Murat, he knows him 'to see' is the expression I think he used which means he is a casual acquaintance he might exchange pleasantries with if meeting in the street. that does not make him a friend. if locals had seen Mr Smith and Mr Murat engaging in conversation in public that proves nothing other than possibly that they are both polite men!

There is no proof whatsover that the two men are close. I would have lots of friends, close and less close, but I wouldn't lie in a case like this for any of them and I think most people would be like that.

Exactly so Antonia. I know lots of people "to see" (although that's not an expression used where I'm from) In no way would I count them as friends but we exchange pleasantries, time of day, ask after them if we have heard they have been sick, etc. Ask me about their families, former jobs, politics, religion or place of origin; not a clue.
However, ask me if it was Mr A carrying a child around my local village, I would be able to be 100% either way.

I've said before I visit my holiday home in France two usually three times a year. It is a residential rather than tourist area. There are lots of people I see over there regularly from friends,neighbors, people I say hello to and people in the village. Not one would I commit perjury for

I used to have a holiday home in the country. When my children were young we'd be down quite often but in recent years very little. the people in the cottage 50 metres away we'd know reasonably well as they lived their permanently and cut our grass, kept an eye on the place etc. We'd go in and have a cup of tea and a chat. We'd let their visiting young nieces and nephews use our swings. We'd borrow things we'd run out of and we'd get their advice on local workmen. They kept our spare key to let in meter readers. Lovely people but i wouldn't lie for them. Other people in the area I might meet strolling in the adjacent country lanes. I'd say hallo, nice weather (or not!) and might comment if they'd had a baby since I last saw them. I would be able to identify them if I passed them on the (badly lit) local road.

the obsession with Mr Smith is really weird when there is no evidence, he just messes up someone's theory.

The expression "to know someone to see" is mainly used in Ireland I think whereas in England we usually say "to know someone by sight".

Inca wrote:Your post says itlike it is Gloria.  I don't think Wembley Stadium could now hold the amount of people that are lying and in on it.    Gemma is now included,it just never ends.

Whilst I've long since come to the conclusion that TB and socks are a broken old man even Textusa thinks that Sutton is a bad egg with an agenda and is hinting that Gemma is going the same way reading their comments so far.

The whole case is in, and will remain, in crazy town until someone in a high position (GA, PJ, for example) either give up and draw a line under the case unsolved or make arrests. This ridiculousness will be coming to an end for me in no later than this years anniversary. Hopefully my decision can be brought forward around the time OG money needs reviewing again.

I really do think the strategy is now to keep dragging things out until we all die or give up. Congrats to whoever, it worked on me!

Sorry for the depressing rant but I really have now had enough of the case and especially people that should be in a position to stand up and demand publicly and loudly answers and either haven't done so or promised they would and haven't delivered.

Martin Smith sent an email to Richard Hall asking for a correction over him saying he was friends with Murat. For some this means he must be friends with him or why would he bother contacting someone about it? Then when he doesn't contact the media for corrections, that's also deemed suspicious. It's a bit like asking if someone's a witch in the 1700s, if they say no, obviously they're lying because they're a witch.

Gloria-Trubshawe wrote:Martin Smith sent an email to Richard Hall asking for a correction over him saying he was friends with Murat. For some this means he must be friends with him or why would he bother contacting someone about it? Then when he doesn't contact the media for corrections, that's also deemed suspicious.  It's a bit like asking if someone's a witch in the 1700s, if they say no, obviously they're lying because they're a witch.

Well I don't know what is really going on but I now do feel it is something fishy. We have had MS talking to RDH (why?), according to Gemma MS complained to Panorama and was ignored but she contacted them and they had the program changed (really?). That is just more recent events. Why the BBC ignore MS when asking for false info to be spread but agree when a random reporter demands it?

Normally when a key witness has made a statement to Police the usual practice/request from Police is that they don't speak about anything to anyone, especially media. On top of this from what I've read, MS and family have only ever had contact with Police back in May 2007 as it says in Gemma's piece. If anyone knows for fact there has been more recent contact I would love a link that confirms it and the nature of contact.

Now to reiterate again my post here isn't having a go at the Smiths I'm just using it has an example to get some stuff off my chest. Like I've been alluding to before when complaining I really don't like the whole blogger/insider/Twitterers/media all hinting nudge, nudge wink, wink-ing about the case year after year and just wish someone would just stand up and blow the case open publicly and loudly with none of the pretentious crap!



Sorry for the meltdown everyone but has you can see I've blown up....! (I haven't been hacked, I've just finally had enough)

Gloria-Trubshawe wrote:They seem insistent that Martin Smith was friends with Murat. They have decided that Martin Smith is a corrupt individual who would lie to police on behalf of a friend and is working with team McCann. They think his every action is governed by them. On top of this he is some kind of super effective authoritarian who can also twist his family into lying to the police.

 Is it not possible he is just an ordinary man who saw something and doesn't actually enjoy - or have the resources to fight legal battles with the media over things that have been misrepresented? Of course it is but this more likely scenario is ignored.

They have decided all this and never actually spoke to him or with any evidence he knew Murat.  On some forums, supporters of the abduction believe that the Gaspar statement is mistranslated, it was all an innocent misunderstanding and Mr Gaspar didn't hear anything suspicious so Mrs Gaspar is making the whole thing up. This Smithman situation is now like that, deciding someone has given a false statement because it doesn't fit your pet theory.  There seems to be an adherence to this theory above all others and some ego involved in resisting to acknowledge the theory might be flawed.

How can you get to the truth when you refuse to consider other possibilities due to your own ego? You can't of course!    

Surely the main eye-witnesses should be protected? This is, after all, an ongoing police investigation. There is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that Martin Smith or any members of his family are lying. What would be the motive for Mr Smith lying? Equally, Mrs Fenn - there is no evidence to support the idea that she was lying. What would be the motive for her to lie?

A crime needs a motive or a reason. There is some explanation behind it. Even if it is just a crazy person acting out. That is still a reason for what happened.

No-one has given an explanation as to why some of the important key eye-witnesses in the case would have lied - including the Gaspars. They reported what they saw and Mrs Gaspar gave an explanation as to what she thought.

Ah - now talking about shreds of evidence - let me think...is there a shred of evidence to support the McCann's version of events? Just one piece of evidence is all I ask for. One?

@TheTruthWillOut

Maybe the BBC retracted it because of G.O Doherty's track record?  She's not one to back down and exposed quite a bit of corruption that went pretty deep, she has experience with legal cases and getting damages and won various awards.

 Sorry to hear you've blown up!  

Hi, TTWO. Sorry you feel like this. I went through this pain several years ago when I accepted that the size of the protection and cover overarching this case probably means we'll never see justice.

The problem is, as I see it, there are so many bigwigs implicit it has gone beyond the prosecution of two rather unpleasant and irritating working-class upstarts (as I'm sure they're viewed from above). I'm sure that if it were just a matter of cutting them free to face the consequences we would have seen just that years ago. But it's so much more than that, I fear - and I don't know what. The answer to why there is this protection would elicit all the missing jigsaw pieces.

But c'est la vie. I can live with it, observe and remain interested but reconciled. And there's still the hope I've got it all wrong!

One thing I do take increasingly seriously is Textusa's take on it all (excluding the swinging motive - I can't go with that). But I do think her analysis of the politics has some merit.

May I ask where you read Textusa's thoughts on Gemma O'Doherty's piece? Checked her blog but can't see any recent posts?

Yeah sorry for the meltdown. In my own life recently a few things have happened that have made me change from being quite passive, patient and laid back to being more assertive and having stronger opinions.

I agree there is far more to why this case has dragged on so long than a couple of docs and their friends and a lot of it stuff done way after May 2007 and involving Police, media and politicians. Probably risk a lynching here but even at least the Portuguese gov to one extent or the other have some responsibility not to mention why they would bend over and put up with so much crap for so long. Makes zero sense to me.

The comments by TextUSA are in the latest post here toward the bottom:  http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html#comment-form

@Gloria.

If I was MS I'd be royally pi**ed if my request as the subject involved was refused/ignored for a random reporter (no one here can honestly say they'd heard of her before she mentioned the case!) to come in and white knight him. Not for the first time has MS been ignored when making a request IIRC? He must feel well embarrassed....

The article is now online with a comment section too...

https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

A tweet from the arch McCann supporter Michael Walker. How he can possibly know whether or not Gemma spoke to Martin Smith is anyone's guess.


@walkercan1000
31 minutes ago

"Her investigation". Too funny, she even starts her Tweets with a lie. She's not spoken to Smith, she's a liar. Nor the BBC. The iPlayer was edited a long time ago. Deceitful. XXX #mccann

To be honest the back and forth (I know these two aren't in direct contact) is just embarrassing now. The big question is why does Martin Smith put up with him and his family being used this way or at least confirm who, if any, of these people talking on his behalf should the public trust?

I understand him wanting a quiet life and wishes he hadn't gotten involved but he did and if I was him I would put this whole mess to bed.

Am I being unreasonable here?