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 27.10.18 11:00

@ Tony Bennett, Now Tony, Its naughty to suggest that I said things I didn't.

I see with great interest that Verdi has reproduced the piece by Angela McCormick. Actually, It was I who produced this for Verdi a while back when he claimed that there was no early report of an Irish family having seen a man with a child, which should have led the McCanns to seek to have this sighting investigated and promoted much earlier!

You will note however, that said report gives few details, does not name the persons concerned and clearly states that the Smiths were bound by judicial secrecy -

"The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.

The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent."

The other reports come from newspapers claiming that the Smiths broke judicial secrecy ie they are dated January 3rd and 4th 2008 respectively , when we KNOW from the Irish Gardai that by January 30th 2008 the Smiths had given no interviews or comments to the press!

The Salisito Summit (as you dub it) happened in November 2007. The McCanns did not make any reference to the Smithman e-fits until 2009 - that's a long time to wait for something they were supposedly so eager to use isn't it!
They did not publicise the e-fits until after the P.J. files (hard cold police facts) were made available to the public in August 2008. If you can show me any examples of the McCanns promoting the Smith sighting before this I would be most interested in seeing it. The McCanns and their supporters
certainly did try to link Tannerman with Smithman. No quibble from me about that.
However, can you produce one piece of evidence which shows that the McCanns themselves spoke to or contacted the Smiths directly. I think not. Now, if after November 07 the Smiths were working for the McCanns why are there no reports of direct contact with them, why no pictures of Kate and Gerry with the Smiths etc.
It is patently obvious that the Smiths were NOT working with the McCanns. But, this does not preclude Team McCann from trying to manipulate their sighting for reasons of damage limitation. After all, it was most damaging for Martin Smith to have said he saw Gerry carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the very time she was being "kidnapped".

The McCormick piece is very useful. It proves that the McCanns were aware from early June 07 that an Irish family had seen something of great significance. Why then did they NEVER, EVER try to talk to the Smiths themselves about what they had seen. They went out of their way to hassle an O.C. cleaner who had seen nothing!

It is this extraordinary ignoring of the Smith sighting that is most suggestive that the McCanns were terrified of the Smith sighting, avoided it for as long as possible and sought to manipulate it for damage limitation purposes!

In anyone's book, when someone identifies you as being the perpetrator of a crime and sticks to that opinion, they are not HELPING you, they are ACCUSING you. No one "hires" people to accuse them and point the finger of suspicion at them!!!!

by Phoebe 27.10.18 13:21

Logically, if the Smiths began to "work with" or "support" the McCanns after the meeting between the Murat and McCann legal teams in Nov. 07 the very first thing the Smiths would have been asked to do would be to contact the P.J. again and state that they had changed their minds about Smithman being Gerry!
It would have been simple to have the Smiths claim that after meeting Gerry face to face, Martin Smith now realised that the man he saw that night was not Gerry. This would have resulted in the files showing evidence of Martin Smith recanting his claim that Gerry was Smithman.

The Smiths NEVER contacted the P.J. to recant this damning claim. Instead, their testimony and allegations against Gerry REMAIN on the police record and in the publicly available files (published a full 9 months after the Salisito meeting). O' Doherty's recent article plainly states that the Smiths have never wavered in the belief that Gerry was Smithman.

With "friends" like the Smiths - the McCanns don't need enemies!!!

by **Tony Bennett** 27.10.18 15:36

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett, Now Tony, Its naughty to suggest that I said things I didn't.

I see with great interest that Verdi has reproduced the piece by Angela McCormick. Actually, It was I who produced this for Verdi a while back when he claimed that there was no early report of an Irish family having seen a man with a child, which should have led the McCanns to seek to have this sighting investigated and promoted much earlier!

You will note however, that said report gives few details, does not name the persons concerned and clearly states that the Smiths were bound by judicial secrecy -

[size=37]"The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.[/size]

[size=37]The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent."[/size]

[size=37]The other reports come from newspapers claiming that the Smiths broke judicial secrecy ie they are dated January 3rd and 4th 2008 respectively , when we KNOW from the Irish Gardai that by January 30th 2008 the Smiths had given no interviews or comments to the press![/size]

[size=37]The Salisito Summit (as you dub it) happened in November 2007. The McCanns did not make any reference to the Smithman e-fits until 2009 - that's a long time to wait for something they were supposedly so eager to use isn't it! [/size]
[size=37]They did not publicise the e-fits until after the P.J. files (hard cold police facts) were made available to the public in August 2008. If you can show me any examples of the McCanns promoting the Smith sighting before this I would be most interested in seeing it. The McCanns and their supporters [/size]
[size=37] certainly did try to link Tannerman with Smithman. No quibble from me about that. [/size]
[size=37]However, can you produce one piece of evidence which shows that the McCanns themselves spoke to or contacted the Smiths directly. I think not. Now, if after November 07 the Smiths were working for the McCanns why are there no reports of direct contact with them, why no pictures of Kate and Gerry with the Smiths etc.[/size]
[size=37]It is patently obvious that the Smiths were NOT working with the McCanns. But, this does not preclude Team McCann from trying to manipulate their sighting for reasons of damage limitation. After all, it was most damaging for Martin Smith to have said he saw Gerry carrying a Madeleine lookalike at the very time she was being "kidnapped".[/size]

[size=37]The McCormick piece is very useful. It proves that the McCanns were aware from early June 07 that an Irish family had seen something of great significance. Why then did they NEVER, EVER try to talk to the Smiths themselves about what they had seen. They went out of their way to hassle an O.C. cleaner who had seen nothing![/size]

[size=37]It is this extraordinary ignoring of the Smith sighting that is most suggestive that the McCanns were terrified of the Smith sighting, avoided it for as long as possible and sought to manipulate it for damage limitation purposes![/size]

[size=37]In anyone's book, when someone identifies you as being the perpetrator of a crime and sticks to that opinion, they are not HELPING you, they are ACCUSING you. No one "hires" people to accuse them and point the finger of suspicion at them!!!![/size]

A long, rambling, repetitive post which, at the end of the day, you cannot deny that the Smithman sighting was used by the McCanns:

...for the efits

...for the C4 documentary

...for their website

...for Kate's book

..and, together with Operation Grange & the BBC, for the 2013 BBC CrimeWatch Special which featured Smithman.

Many times over you note that the McCanns & Operation Grange never used the Smithman sighting until October 2013.

I know. We all know.

What has that got to do with the fact that the McCanns milking the Smithman sighting for all that it was worth for FIVE YEARS from 2008 to 2013?

by Verity 27.10.18 16:19

If Gerry McCann is Smithman why haven't Operation Grange or the PJ arrested him after the efits were shown on Crimewatch five years ago after Redwood said he was the main focus of the investigation?

Surely it's important to find this man who was heading to the beach with an abducted child? Why take more than five years (so far)?

It's not like they don't know where Gerry lives or works.

1. They know it's not Gerry
2. It's a cover up

Any other reasons?

by Phoebe 27.10.18 16:20

@ Tony Bennett.

The Smiths had no control over who chose to use their sighting nor how it was portrayed. What were they to do - sue Kate McCann for including it in her book, sue Channel 4 and the BBC!!! Take on Carter Ruck perhaps!! Normal people avoid such costly folly!

If the Martin Smith was, as you allege, "working for" and "supporting" the McCanns since Nov.07 why did he never retract or amend his claim that Gerry McCann was Smithman!
Applying basic common sense, if the Smiths were in the employ of the McCanns from Nov. 07, they would have been asked to retract the damaging claim that Gerry was the man they saw carrying an unconscious blonde girl through the quiet streets of P.da L.on the night of May 3rd.
All it would have taken was another phone call to Sgt. Liam Hogan stating that they wished to contact the P.J. investigation again with further information - then explain that they had reconsidered and changed their minds. Job done.
Did this happen - NO!.
Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that the McCanns hired the Smiths yet failed to ask them to retract or amend that damning claim - given that there was a time-span of 9 full months between the Salisito meeting and the publishing of the files!
It would have been the most crucial step in order to have eased suspicion re. Gerry's involvement in his daughter's disappearance.
The fact that the Smiths NEVER retracted their claim and recently reiterated it clearly shows that they were not involved in "helping" the McCanns!

by Liz Eagles 27.10.18 18:38

@ 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.10.18 20:08

Verity wrote:If Gerry McCann is Smithman why haven't Operation Grange or the PJ arrested him after the efits were shown on Crimewatch five years ago after Redwood said he was the main focus of the investigation?

Surely it's important to find this man who was heading to the beach with an abducted child? Why take more than five years (so far)?

It's not like they don't know where Gerry lives or works.

1. They know it's not Gerry
2. It's a cover up

Any other reasons?

Good post.

The consensus amongst the 'Smithman = Gerry McCann' brigade is that Operation Grange 'know' that Gerry is Smithman and are patiently, slowly, carefully building a case against the McCanns and will eventually get there and arrest them.

These same people seem to think that the Met Police can ignore the official remit which of course was to "investigate the abduction".

As far as I can see there is no evidence whatsoever to support these views and a great deal of evidence against their views.

The kindest thing I can think of saying about them is that they are guilty of 'wishful thinking'

by Phoebe 27.10.18 23:04

I actually find the repetitive claims that the Smiths were liars and helping both Murat and the McCanns quite tedious.
However, given that this claim is revisited over and over, like the irresistible urge of the tongue to probe a missing tooth, I feel it important for balance to point out the actual facts.
The Smith sighting was of no benefit to Murat. It did not prove that he could not have been involved in Madeleine's abduction and the police continued their investigation of Murat as a suspect long after the Smiths affirmed that the man they saw was not him.
The Smiths were obviously never asked to retract or amend their explosive claim that they believed Gerry was Smithman. If they had been working for the McCanns they would certainly been asked to do so and the evidence of this retraction would be in the files. Instead, the files clearly show the Smiths pointing the finger of blame at Gerry McCann.
IMO these facts are too important to ignore, boring as they may be, if we seek the truth behind Madeleine McCann's fate.
The forum's layout means that those not interested in the Smith sighting need not click on the issue but can choose to ignore it.

by joyce1938 28.10.18 0:05

Am I correct in saying that Robert murrat and one of the Tapas men , look very much alike ,at some stage I have seen pictures put here I think ,of the 2 men side by side ,that's who may have been seen at the place that Robert M was said to be seen ,yes some or one of the tapas wives said it was muratt at the outside that night ,just makes me wonder really ?? joyce1938

by Verdi 28.10.18 0:10

joyce1938 wrote:Am I correct in saying that Robert murrat and one of the Tapas men , look very much alike ,at some stage I have seen pictures put here I think ,of the 2 men side by side ,that's who may have been seen at the place that Robert M was said to be seen ,yes some or one of the tapas wives said it was muratt at the outside that night ,just makes me wonder really ?? joyce1938

Yes joyce, it was suggested that David Payne bore a resemblance to Robert Murat - at least enough to create a case for mistaken identity.

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 - Page 4 Murat--payne

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 - Page 4 Murat--payne

Particularly after dark in obscure lighting winkwink

!

by **sharonl** 28.10.18 0:14

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?

by **Jill Havern** 28.10.18 0:18

Robert Murat and Angus Symington.

by **Jill Havern** 28.10.18 0:24

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."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

by Verdi 28.10.18 1:15

It would have been the most crucial step in order to ....

Maybe a most crucial step backward might be advisable. Just catching-up on the latest two tedious Smithman threads, frankly I've never read so much repetitive supposition based on nothingness in all my years following this case.

This is just typical manufactured distraction designed to dominate forum activity. Seen it so many times before and always following much the same pattern. The train of thought is deliberately taken through a myriad of cul-de-sac, going around and around until the brain becomes dizzy. It's impossible to argue irrational thought processes, it's a total waste of time and a total waste of forum space.

Your dogmatic approach to this subject @Phoebe might be commendable to a particular mindset, primarily a minority sect who dedicate their lives to trying to destroy CMoMM for some obscure reason but to the more rational mind, those who have spent years actually doing something positive in the quest for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann, cogitation leads to a realization that nothing about this case is straightforward nor dependable. I said before @Phoebe and I say again, your commentary is nothing more than supposition built around extracts from the PJ files and a cache of selected past posts filed for your convenience.

Thank goodness there is so much more evidence to raise pertinent questions about all the sightings, bogus and well meaning, the emphasis on a few that have done nothing to progress the investigation and oh so many other aspects of the case that point in one direction and one direction only.

Back to business!

by **Tony Bennett** 28.10.18 8:46

Verdi wrote:
Just catching-up on the latest two tedious Smithman threads, frankly I've never read so much repetitive supposition based on nothingness in all my years following this case...Thank goodness there is so much more evidence to raise pertinent questions about all the sightings, bogus and well meaning, the emphasis on a few that have done nothing to progress the investigation and oh so many other aspects of the case that point in one direction and one direction only.

Back to business!

Agreed there has been a great deal of tedious repetition of late, BUT it's also clear that the arguments about Smithman continue to draw people to the forum and to discuss the evidence in detail.

I had a quick look at the statistics for the two current Smithman threads:

More info on Met Police FOIAct questions - 104 replies, 6,550 views

Martin Smith's evidence highly contradictory says PJ - 88 replies, 2,843 views

Then I had a look at how many replies there have been to other Smithman threads, e.g.

SMITHMAN 4 (Discrepancies) - 469 replies, 15,538 views

SMITHMAN 12 (60 questions about Smithman) - 151 replies, 7,803 views

SMITHMAN 5 (12 sets of contradictions in Smiths' evidence) - 119 replies, 10,174 views

Has Smithman been identified? - 86 replies, 10,005 views

winnower says Tony's evidence on Smithman is 'seriously flawed' - 54 replies, 5,432 views

SMITHMAN 9 (Smithman and Goncal Amaral) - 38 replies, 5,190 views...

..and so on. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of views of all the Smithman threads.

The interest is because: "Is Smithman Gerry McCann?" is one of the key factual questions we must all ask ourselves in an effort to discover what really happened to madeleine McCann, and when.

These are three of the most important:

IS SMITHMAN GERRY MCCANN?

WAS THE 'LAST PHOTO' TAKEN SUNDAY 29th APRIL OR THURSDAY 3d MAY? and

IS THERE CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE MCCANN WAS SEEN ALIVE AFTER SUNDAY?

To those three questions, I answer: NO, SUNDAY, NO. This view AFAIK is shared by: the CMOMM forum owner, Lizzy HideHo, PeterMac, sharonl, Richard D Hall, Verdi, hentie and a great many others on CMOMM

Those who answer: YES, THURSDAY, YES include: Textusa, Benjanmin Thompson, Andrew/AndyFish19, blacksmith, Isabelle McFadden, Ben Salmon, dlwiggins, Phoebe, Pat Brown, winnower.

May the best evidence prevail

.

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. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15097-portuguese-attorney-general-passes-mmrg-death-on-sunday-29-april-2007-evidence-to-pj-in-faro-for-action

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."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

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.

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