The wrong Smith............

If the investigation is a whitewash then SY need to have got the Smiths 'on side'.  It would have been a piece of cake to announce (even in passing) that Martin Smith had changed his mind about his 60%-80% certainty that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.  Would have settled things right off the bat.  I wouldn't be sitting here still thinking that the investigation is genuine for one.

But I haven't heard anything of the kind.

At this point in the other place I would have expected a reply detailing a 14 point list as to why the McCanns promoted Smithman, that the Smiths lied, and that TB knows what my true agenda is and that it's not getting justice for Madeleine McCann, followed by a troop of other people saying how brilliant his post was and that disruptors like me should be banned. I regularly pointed out that TB's facts were anything but facts, and took on some of them as an example, but I'm convinced that most of the people that idolise his 'research and analysis' haven't even read through his long posts, and definitely haven't made any attempt to check whether they are accurate.

Which makes me very glad that I'm here instead.

Also, if MS had started to doubt himself, I'm sure he would have corrected or amended any info or statement he'd made, like contacting RDH on whether he and RM were friends. Just think of how hard the last seven odd years have been for him too, I'm sure he can't wait til this is all over.
IMO

Yep - If it was a whitewash then Smithman and not Tannerman, now crecheman would of been eliminated.

He wasn't.

So it's not a whitewash in my book.

wlbts wrote:If the investigation is a whitewash then SY need to have got the Smiths 'on side'.  It would have been a piece of cake to announce (even in passing) that Martin Smith had changed his mind about his 60%-80% certainty that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.  Would have settled things right off the bat.  I wouldn't be sitting here still thinking that the investigation is genuine for one.

But I haven't heard anything of the kind.

Good point WLBTS! Scotland Yard have had more than enough time and opportunity to reveal why they believe the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or people of interest if a whitewash were their goal. They have, it must be said, given us an assortment of 'suspects' since they began their 'investigation', but none of them have been convincing and none of them have altered the public's perception of this case. Suspicion of the parents has grown, it hasn't subsided, so their actions are actually muddying the waters rather than cleaning up the reputation of the McCanns.

The police may speak sympathetically, but that's their job, thus far however, they have not committed themselves to anything that absolves the parents. DCI Redwood said Madeleine may have died in the apartment, but anything read into that can only be pure speculation, including the ridiculous idea that it was a burglary gone wrong. Scotland Yard were digging in the immediate vicinity of apartment 5A, for heavens sake, not the wild plains of the Algarve! Unfortunately, we have all become so cynical about this case, that we find excuses for what we see directly in front of us. The idea that a stranger broke into 5A, killed Madeleine and then buried her in the immediate vicinity immediately after the alarm was raised is more ludicrous that the abduction story.

Unfortunately for many of the 'whitewashers', they have taken an unwieldy 'I am 100% right' stance and are too egotistical to admit they might be wrong. They do somersaults in their brains in their efforts to twist the facts to support their theories that are now carved out in stone. Like Frank Sinatra, I find it all so amusing, this case has more twists and turns than an especially juicy Agatha Christie plot, and pride has come before many a fall.

I feel much the same as Blacksmith, in that this case is coming to a close. It has run out of steam, its yesterday's news, the public are getting bored with it and pouring money into the search for one child can no longer be justified. If Scotland Yard are protecting the parents, they are not doing a very good job of it. A recent poll showed that 88% of the public do not believe the abduction story - and the MSM don't even report it as an abduction story anymore, they say 'disappearance'.

wlbts wrote:If the investigation is a whitewash then SY need to have got the Smiths 'on side'.  It would have been a piece of cake to announce (even in passing) that Martin Smith had changed his mind about his 60%-80% certainty that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.  Would have settled things right off the bat.  I wouldn't be sitting here still thinking that the investigation is genuine for one.

But I haven't heard anything of the kind.

At this point in the other place I would have expected a reply detailing a 14 point list as to why the McCanns promoted Smithman, that the Smiths lied, and that TB knows what my true agenda is and that it's not getting justice for Madeleine McCann, followed by a troop of other people saying how brilliant his post was and that disruptors like me should be banned.  I regularly pointed out that TB's facts were anything but facts, and took on some of them as an example, but I'm convinced that most of the people that idolise his 'research and analysis' haven't even read through his long posts, and definitely haven't made any attempt to check whether they are accurate.

Which makes me very glad that I'm here instead.

Well. Have I been labouring under a misconception? It could appear so.

I have always accepted that Martin Smith changed his mind about being 60-80% sure he saw GM, and later admitted he no longer thought he saw Gerry. I have read this in several places, I'm sure. But I can't find the statement anywhere from Martin Smith to confirm this - I've been searching for a while since reading wlbts' post.

So, is it true he is NOT on record as saying he changed his mind? He remains 60-80% certain it was GM?

I'm flabbergasted. But encouraged.

Was it not just Tony Bennett who said Mr Smith had changed his mind from being 60-80% sure....?

Dee Coy wrote:

wlbts wrote:If the investigation is a whitewash then SY need to have got the Smiths 'on side'.  It would have been a piece of cake to announce (even in passing) that Martin Smith had changed his mind about his 60%-80% certainty that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.  Would have settled things right off the bat.  I wouldn't be sitting here still thinking that the investigation is genuine for one.

But I haven't heard anything of the kind.

At this point in the other place I would have expected a reply detailing a 14 point list as to why the McCanns promoted Smithman, that the Smiths lied, and that TB knows what my true agenda is and that it's not getting justice for Madeleine McCann, followed by a troop of other people saying how brilliant his post was and that disruptors like me should be banned.  I regularly pointed out that TB's facts were anything but facts, and took on some of them as an example, but I'm convinced that most of the people that idolise his 'research and analysis' haven't even read through his long posts, and definitely haven't made any attempt to check whether they are accurate.

Which makes me very glad that I'm here instead.

Well. Have I been labouring under a misconception?  It could appear so.

I have always accepted that Martin Smith changed his mind about being 60-80% sure he saw GM, and later admitted he no longer thought he saw Gerry. I have read this in several places, I'm sure. But I can't find the statement anywhere from Martin Smith to confirm this - I've been searching for a while since reading wlbts' post.

So, is it true he is NOT on record as saying he changed his mind? He remains 60-80% certain it was GM?

I'm flabbergasted.  But encouraged.

I tend to think the stories about Mr. Smith changing his mind were planted by the McCanns and Tony Bennett. Mr Smith's statement is quite moving, it shows the emotional turmoil he went through in naming Gerry McCann and he has been honourable enough to keep quiet about this case for all these years, so very unlikely that he told a journalist or anyone any such thing, imo.

I think doubts were written ( but nothing concrete afaik ) in Jan 08, but after contact by TMs detectives or was it BK? I've never read any statement from MS on this, in the PJ files I read that MS remained 60/80% sure it was GM dated January 08, but I'll have to check to be sure.

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.

He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting."

He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”



Martin Smith speaking in October 2013. Quoted from this Mirror article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

Dee Coy wrote:

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co Louth, Mr Smith said that the Portuguese police did not seem to think his sighting was significant.

He added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting."

He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”



Martin Smith speaking in October 2013. Quoted from this Mirror article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

A good find Dee Coy but we can hardly take the 'Mirror' as being the bastions of truth given the rest of the drivel they print. I too was under the impression that somewhere along the line that MS had more or less retracted the 60 - 80% statement. Without any real evidence to the contrary it still stands IMO. BTW I still think that your 'unintentional reconstruction' (Gerry on the plane steps) is the best explanation of the 'trigger' for the Smiths actions after.

There are a few rules in journalism, which cannot be ignored.
* On the record
* Off the record
* Don't quote me

I see that in the above article Mr. Smith is "on the record" and is quoted between reading marks.
That must be exactly what he has said.
And I believe him.

I have no time for the Mirror, but even they wouldn't misprint direct quotes?

From Mr Smiths own words it could be interpreted that he's sticking by the 60-80% thing.

The unintentional reconstruction remains entirely plausible in my book, too. What is that science called which identifies people by their posture and mannerisms?

No newspaper would dare to misprint direct quotes.

Dee Coy wrote:I have no time for the Mirror, but even they wouldn't misprint direct quotes?

From Mr Smiths own words it could be interpreted that he's sticking by the 60-80% thing.

The unintentional reconstruction remains entirely plausible in my book, too. What is that science called which identifies people by their posture and mannerisms?

Agreed, across the way I'd said if only GM carried AM awake, it proberly wouldn't have given MS the turmoil of saying what he said!
IMO

I believe that papers do make up quotes when it suits them. Not saying this was the case here though. You occasionally see celebs suing because the quotes attributed to them were never made. Depending on what the quote is, papers know they won't sued and it looks better to have a quote and imply you at least talked to the person rather than you just regurgitated a press release. I also think that sometimes actual quotes get slightly changed in the writing up (not deliberately) and sometimes the context of the quote can be relevant. The moral is, never trust what you read. Papers lift stuff from their competitors and so you'll read the same or more or less the same 'facts' in several papers and believe they all can't be wrong. Using media articles for research is a case like this is fraught with danger.

They do make up "words" as in "a source said that ..." or "s/he said that" or by quoting other publications. But the moment they publish direct quotes between reading marks, they must be correct, otherwise they get into trouble.

Châtelaine wrote:They do make up "words" as in "a source said that ..." or "s/he said that" or by quoting other publications. But the moment they publish direct quotes between reading marks, they must be correct, otherwise they get into trouble.

The reality is the media normally doesn't get into trouble for their sloppy work. Nobody is going to sue over an innocuous made up quote. Example if minor celebrity x is quoted as saying 'I'm so happy to be a mum. This baby is the best thing that has ever happened to me.' Celebrity x did not say that. Yes she is happy to have a healthy baby. Why would she sue? Celebs especially minor ones need publicity and lots of it and as the saying goes there's no such thing as bad publicity.

I would trust the Daily Mirror quotes from Mr Smith partly because as he's clearly a private person who doesn't normally talk to the press, the paper would know he would complain if they misquoted him.

That quote from Mr Smith indicates to me quite clearly that he still stands by what he said, that he thinks he might have seen Gerry McCann. If he had changed his mind then he might have been a lot clearer - as it is, that statement means nothing to anybody not as familiar with the case as us. And Scotland Yard could have made it clear too, seeing as Smithman was the central figure in the Crimewatch special. Nope, SY and Martin Smith have not made it clear at all, both have danced around the subject so that the possibility remains open.

You would think that a whitewash would take any opportunity to clear the McCanns. Instead, we have Smithman being central to the investigation and to Crimewatch, and no announcement that it was definitely not Gerry McCann. Bear in mind that people are quick to Google anything these days, so Redwood would have known where searches about Smithman lead.

Unfortunately, those searches may lead to the epic Smithman threads over on CMOMM.

@ Antonia
It's IMO obvious, that I am referring to serious quotes. If tomorrow some paper would quote me as being happy with my new hairdo, I wouldn't spend more than a few seconds on giggling. However, if they would "quote" me saying that local mayor is an idiot [which in fact he is ...] I would take action, because I never said that ;-)

@ wlbts
LOL, if it wasn't so sad ...

Dee Coy wrote:I have no time for the Mirror, but even they wouldn't misprint direct quotes?

From Mr Smiths own words it could be interpreted that he's sticking by the 60-80% thing.

The unintentional reconstruction remains entirely plausible in my book, too. What is that science called which identifies people by their posture and mannerisms?

Behavioural Science? The study of body language including oculesics, the study of eye movements and haptics, the study of hand movements.
There is also forensic linguistics which gathers clues from how we say certain things. A fascinating subject and there is nothing a person can do to fool an expert. Isn`t that right Mr ear scratching, body squirming, eye darting liar?

chirpyinsect wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I have no time for the Mirror, but even they wouldn't misprint direct quotes?

From Mr Smiths own words it could be interpreted that he's sticking by the 60-80% thing.

The unintentional reconstruction remains entirely plausible in my book, too. What is that science called which identifies people by their posture and mannerisms?

Behavioural Science? The study of body language including oculesics, the study of eye movements and haptics, the study of hand movements.
There is also forensic linguistics which gathers clues from how we say certain things. A fascinating subject and there is nothing a person can do to fool an expert. Isn`t that right Mr ear scratching, body squirming, eye darting liar?

I did the OU forensic psychology course this summer and it was brilliant on witness description- boiled down to it that e-fits and ve-fits (video e-fits) work very well whereas  photo-fits don't work as well. 

The brain is very good at recognition, not so good at reconstruction. Makes sense since recognition would be a survival skill. 

As to the way people move, the latest CCTV has a 'gait recognition' facility. Apparently it works very well. 

So I'm right with the Smiths and on the e-fits. Dee-Coy - good news if he didn't retract his statement, perhaps all that comes from the same source (Irish Times iirc) which said he wasn't wearing his glasses.

The Times article to do with the withheld e-fits printed in November 2013 says this:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility

This is the article the McCann's sued over.

Me wrote:The Times article to do with the withheld e-fits printed in November 2013 says this:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility

This is the article the McCann's sued over.

But where did the Times get that information from?  Without a verifiable source it just reads as waffle.

Smith is quoted as saying "Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time." Surely that trumps what the Times has written.

Can anyone explain why The Mccanns sent the efits to the PJ and Leicester Polivce in 2009 having sat on them since 2008 yet the PJ case had been shelved for over a year by then? The Times was sued over the claim they made that the efits had been withheld for 5 years. Why did they not counterclaim that they had been withheld for a year? They may have had a rap on the knuckles but it would still have looked bad on the Macs.