Madeleine McCann

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

And yet the parents were not made arguidos until August 2007. And should they have been surprised when they were made suspects ? Btw there was no conclusion by the police that their had been either a murder or abduction.

So what were they made suspects of, shop lifting?

gozunda wrote: »

Did I say that it did lol. Need to keep a hat on the old exaggeration there tbh. But if you lay down with dogs - you're likley to get up with fleas. And if I believed for a moment that any such publicity would endanger a child - Then no - the media would be told to take a hike.

So how does their interaction with the media implicate them in the disappearance of their child, what exactly is the point?

gozunda wrote: »

Read again . It has been detailed that Kate was concerned that someone (possibly) had sedated the twins and according to witness spent the night checking them because they would not wake up ...

Somebody who once said something is hearsay and irrelevant. Next.

gozunda wrote: »

Granted and the follow up of that is veryifying those inconsistencies. That's what an investigation is. Unfortunately that never happened.

An investigation was conducted by both Portuguese police and Scotland yard who poured over the case files and none of them have even come close to implicating the parents.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Nice twist but this is what was referred to ...

Ok I'll ask again what could the McCann's have been trying to do by releasing the information about the eye other than trying to help people recognise her faster and get her back?

What are posters on here trying to imply was the ulterior motive for them doing so?

Plumbthedepths

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

So how does their interaction with the media implicate them in the disappearance of their child, what exactly is the point?

It doesn't but why go against the advice of the Police whom you supposed to be helping in the recovery of your child?
The McCanns courted the media from the start, you could even say they appeared to be 'managed' in PR terms.

Plumbthedepths

There is no implication at all . It has been pointed out that referring to Madeline's eye anomaly made her instantly recognisable and made the prospect of alleged abductors keeping her alive slimmer. Only you are suggesting an ulterior motive.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no implication at all . It has been pointed out that referring to Madeline's eye anomaly made her instantly recognisable and made the prospect of alleged abductors keeping her alive slimmer. Only you are suggesting an ulterior motive.

Ya right. It is been used as another stick to beat the McCanns with on here. They obviously thought it would get their daughter back quicker can anyone blame them for not taking the advice of the bungling Portuguese police force.

cgcsb

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Why is one just someone who got lucky with his abduction and the other a precision abduction when both so similar? Because it suits the narrative that Kate and Gerry had something to do with Madeline's disappearance.

Abductor in this case, Peter Voisey, was caught, he didn't go far with the child and allowed the body to be recovered, an impulsive attack, non planned. The alleged McCann kidnapper was likely out of Portugal in minutes, not a shred of evidence, if indeed it is an abduction case.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It doesn't but why go against the advice of the Police whom you supposed to be helping in the recovery of your child?
The McCanns courted the media from the start, you could even say they appeared to be 'managed' in PR terms.

Because obviously they believed that it would increase the chances of their daughter being found, why is that so difficult to understand?

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

Ya right. It is been used as another stick to beat the McCanns with on here. They obviously thought it would get their daughter back quicker can anyone blame them for not taking the advice of the bungling Portuguese police force.

The advice was given to the McCanns in the very early stages of the investigation which they ignored for whatever reason. At that point the British media hadn't started to portray the Portuguese authorities as 'bungling'. Any thoughts on the UK police ? They followed the abduction route and to date have found absolutely NADA, bunglers ?

Plumbthedepths

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Because obviously they believed that it would increase the chances of their daughter being found, why is that so difficult to understand?

So you daughter goes missing in a foreign country, the best thing to do is ignore the advice of the local authorities. I could understand if the McCanns were idiots but they as doctors are highly educated and surely could understand the reasoning behind the police request.

cgcsb

Something Else

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you daughter goes missing in a foreign country, the best thing to do is ignore the advice of the local authorities. I could understand if the McCanns were idiots but they as doctors are highly educated and surely could understand the reasoning behind the police request.

Some people get a bit arrogant about what they know and about what others don't when they do not to bad for themselves, the Kennedy family being a classic example, the bored young fella riding around Portugal thinking he's Columbo for example.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you daughter goes missing in a foreign country, the best thing to do is ignore the advice of the local authorities. I could understand if the McCanns were idiots but they as doctors are highly educated and surely could understand the reasoning behind the police request.

I think it was a case of them " knowing better " Gerry always seems to me to have a bit of a superior attitude . They didn't trust the PJ and in my opinion were always critical of them

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cgcsb wrote: »

Abductor in this case, Peter Voisey, was caught, he didn't go far with the child and allowed the body to be recovered, an impulsive attack, non planned. The alleged McCann kidnapper was likely out of Portugal in minutes, not a shred of evidence, if indeed it is an abduction case.

Very little evidence of Voisey in that case either intially. The only thing the police could find of him in the house was a solitary footprint in a bathroom, probably the easiest place to leave a footprint in a house what with water and moisture. No fingerprints, no DNA at the crime scene (until the body was found)just like the McCann abduction. Pretty easy to see even more now Maddie could have been snatched with no evidence. It was only when they rounded up local peados they they were able to build a case on him.

It's already been stated that the abductor could have quickly driven off and disappeared into the nearby countryside with Madeline. And by the sounds of it with the Belgium peado ring emails and those Dutch guys in town looking for someone to snatch by order she wasn't taken by someone local unlike the Voisey case.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

So what were they made suspects of, shop lifting? So how does their interaction with the media implicate them in the disappearance of their child, what exactly is the point? Somebody who once said something is hearsay and irrelevant. Next. An investigation was conducted by both Portuguese police and Scotland yard who poured over the case files and none of them have even come close to implicating the parents.

Not here to split hairs and answer infinitely lol. You are still doing that hilarious exaggeration thing eg 'shoplifing' you keep reverting to btw.

For best results - I would suggest you Google and take a good read the translated Portuguese police files of the case. And yes the investigation did result in the parents being implicated in the disappearance of their daughter. That's it really...

Plumbthedepths

iamwhoiam wrote:

I think it was a case of them " knowing better " Gerry always seems to me to have a bit of a superior attitude . They didn't trust the PJ and in my opinion were always critical of them

Gerry by nature of his profession would make him seem to be arrogant, so honestly that would not make me view him in a negative light. His actions however are a different matter. I don't understand their attitude to the Portuguese authorities at the early stages of the investigation at all. They were uncooperative almost antagonistic towards the very people tasked with investigating the disappearance of their child.
It seems to me if you find yourself in that situation you do everything to help, take what advice they offer as they are the ones trained to respond. The McCanns seemed to deliberately frustrate the police imo.

cgcsb

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Very little evidence of Voisey in that case either intially. The only thing the police could find of him in the house was a solitary footprint in a bathroom, probably the easiest place to leave a footprint in a house what with water and moisture. No fingerprints, no DNA at the crime scene (until the body was found)just like the McCann abduction. Pretty easy to see even more now Maddie could have been snatched with no evidence. It was only when they rounded up local peados they they were able to build a case on him.

It's already been stated that the abductor could have quickly driven off and disappeared into the nearby countryside with Madeline. And by the sounds of it with the Belgium peado ring emails and those Dutch guys in town looking for someone to snatch by order she wasn't taken by someone local unlike the Voisey case.

I just googled the Voisey case. The girl survived, identified him, his car. His mobile phone fitted the route that the girl had described in the car, she had some of his DNA under her nails, a partial match. The shoe print matched his and he made a dairy entry that day after the fact. That's a mountain more evidence than the McCann case.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cgcsb wrote: »

I just googled the Voisey case. The girl survived, identified him, his car. His mobile phone fitted the route that the girl had described in the car, she had some of his DNA under her nails, a partial match. The shoe print matched his and he made a dairy entry that day after the fact. That's a mountain more evidence than the McCann case.

I hadn't realised she survived but nope it's only a mountain more evidence because they caught the guy. There was nothing, zilch bar a solitary footprint if they hadn't rounded up local paedos. Only then were they able to build a case with mobile phone records, DNA under finger nails etc.

None of the mountain of evidence would have been applicable here if as suggested it was possibly the Dutch guys on an order as they didn't hang around like the Voisey guy.

This is were the bungling Portuguese police messed up with their practically non existent checkpoints as shown in the doc. They had been and gone long after they had got their shít together.

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

They had been and gone long after they had got their shít together.

What evidence are you using to claim their was an abductor other than Kate screaming 'they've taken her'

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What evidence are you using to claim their was an abductor other than Kate screaming 'they've taken her'

Are you taking the píss or bring wilfully dense? I have already described why I think there was an abductor in my very first post on this thread only 5 pages back.

Because of the man seen carrying a child matching Madeleine's description walking towards the beach that has never come forward.

Because the timelines don't add up to Gerry or Kate being able to dispose of the body no matter how much posters try and make them to. And no they wouldn't have been able to dispose of the body later after the police and media had descended on the area.

Because of the Belgium peado ring emails that were intercepted looking for a child in the Algarve area that matched Madeline's description.

Because of the dodgy Dutch guys, because of the imaginary orphanage charity, because of the previous numerous sexual assaults on young children in the area etc etc etc.

Now have you any evidence there wasn't an abductor?

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

Now have you any evidence there wasn't an abductor?

Same as Scotland Yard, after almost 11years they have no evidence either.

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

Because of the man seen carrying a child matching Madeleine's description walking towards the beach that has never come forward.

The man walking towards the beach was seen by Martin Smith and he was 60/80 per cent positive it was Gerry McCann.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Same as Scotland Yard, after almost 11years they have no evidence either.

So you have none so that there wasn't an abductor. Sound, thanks.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The man walking towards the beach was seen by Martin Smith and he was 60/80 per cent positive it was Gerry McCann.

And he recanted that didn't he. Posters have already debunked this only a few pages back on why Smith more than likely was incorrect so I won't be dragging up old ground like you made me do a couple of posts ago. If you are incapable of retaining information that you have read only a short while ago might I suggest you seek medical help as that is not normal.

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

So you have none so that there wasn't an abductor. Sound, thanks.

Neither does Scotland Yard . You may sneer my reply but do you not find it strange that an organisation with the resources of one the world's most respected police forces could not find evidence of abduction after almost 11 years and countless millions?

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

And he recanted that didn't he. Posters have already debunked this only a few pages back on why Smith more than likely was incorrect so I won't be dragging up old ground like you made me do a couple of posts ago. If you are incapable of retaining information that you have read only a short while ago might I suggest you seek medical help as that is not normal.

He didn't recant, I would strongly suggest you reply to my comment but leave out the personal attack.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

He didn't recant, I would strongly suggest you reply to my comment but leave out the personal attack.

Whatever, he got selective amnesia and said he couldn't be sure anymore. Like I said other posters have already debunked the Martin Smith angle.

It wasn't a personal attack. If you can't retain information shortly after reading it then thats not good. If you are doing it on purpose like I think you are, well then good luck with that.

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

It wasn't a personal attack. If you can't retain information shortly after reading it then thats not good. If you are doing it on purpose like I think you are, well then good luck with that.

It was a personal attack I don't need you to suggest I need medical attention and I have reported your attack.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It was a personal attack I don't need you to suggest I need medical attention and I have reported your attack.

Whatever I'm sure the mods are loving having to deal with you on this thread, after having to ban you then unbanning you after you no doubt burnt the ears off them appealing it and now you're reporting posters that they will now have to deal with all because you want posters to have to keep explaining and explaining the same things to you over and over again. You're like the human version of a shíte hearing aid.

Anyways I have said my piece on what I think happened I'll leave you and the rest of the tin foil hat brigade to your dark fantasies of what ye hoped happened.

G'luck!

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Neither does Scotland Yard . You may sneer my reply but do you not find it strange that an organisation with the resources of one the world's most respected police forces could not find evidence of abduction after almost 11 years and countless millions?

You are being ridiculous. The abduction scenario is the one least likely to involve evidence being left - the death scenario is far more complicated and involved and far more likely to result in an evidence trail, yet you call the lack of progress on the easy option suspicious while ignoring the lack of progress on the death scenario, which ought to seem far harder to explain to anyone with an open mind.

Plumbthedepths

cnocbui wrote:

You are being ridiculous. The abduction scenario is the one least likely to involve evidence being left - the death scenario is far more complicated and involved and far more likely to result in an evidence trail, yet you call the lack of progress on the easy option suspicious while ignoring the lack of progress on the death scenario, which ought to seem far harder to explain to anyone with an open mind.

Ridiculous in your opinion the poster I replied to claimed the Portuguese police were bunglers, yet Scotland Yard for almost 11 years have investigated this case but have also not found any evidence of abduction whatsoever. There is no evidence of any scenario but yet one is constantly pushed despite the non existence of evidence.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ridiculous in your opinion the poster I replied to claimed the Portuguese police were bunglers, yet Scotland Yard for almost 11 years have investigated this case but have also not found any evidence of abduction whatsoever. There is no evidence of any scenario but yet one is constantly pushed despite the non existence of evidence.

I don't know how anyone could push for either scenario as not one single jot of evidence is for anything at all . The only evidence is that Madeleine is missing
We can all think that we lean in one direction but not one of us really knows
Personally I think an open mind will always learn more

gozunda

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

You are being ridiculous. The abduction scenario is the one least likely to involve evidence being left - the death scenario is far more complicated and involved and far more likely to result in an evidence trail, yet you call the lack of progress on the easy option suspicious while ignoring the lack of progress on the death scenario, which ought to seem far harder to explain to anyone with an open mind.

Talking of ridiculousness - unless you are going to claim to be a qualified and experienced investigator - that is a large heap of horse manure imo.

An individual (or individuals) who enters a strange apartment, in the dark, who has to open doors (and/or windows!) Move curtains, lift a sleeping child in the presence of other children, exit same carry a possibly screaming or crying child in a building swarming with residents and guests and you believe that is a scenario and " least likely to involve evidence being left" (sic). Really??? It is just as feasible that the child suffocated and or banged her head without significant external trauma, was found and the body quickly moved outside and hidden.

Open mind indeed ....

Plumbthedepths

iamwhoiam wrote:

I don't know how anyone could push for either scenario as not one single jot of evidence is for anything at all . The only evidence is that Madeleine is missing We can all think that we lean in one direction but not one of us really knows Personally I think an open mind will always learn more

The only evidence that I have seen to-date is the unwillingness of the McCanns to cooperate and work with the Police from the start which considering the circumstances is extremely, I don't dismiss the reaction of the dogs not evidence in its own regard but an indication.
People can dismiss the Portuguese authorities and I understand a little due to some of the carry on but the fact that a force like Scotland Yard can't find evidence of abduction either but this is ignored. Anyway I'm just labouring that point.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The only evidence that I have seen to-date is the unwillingness of the McCanns to cooperate and work with the Police from the start which considering the circumstances is extremely, I don't dismiss the reaction of the dogs not evidence in its own regard but an indication.
People can dismiss the Portuguese authorities and I understand a little due to some of the carry on but the fact that a force like Scotland Yard can't find evidence of abduction either but this is ignored. Anyway I'm just labouring that point.

Scotland Yard didn't find evidence of anything , not of abduction, not of murder , not of accident , not of wandering . Nothing at all .

Plumbthedepths

iamwhoiam wrote:

Scotland Yard didn't find evidence of anything , not of abduction, not of murder , not of accident , not of wandering . Nothing at all .

Scotland Yard was only instructed to follow the abduction theory hence why a senior officer refused to take on the investigation.

gozunda

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

And he recanted that didn't he. Posters have already debunked this only a few pages back on why Smith more than likely was incorrect so I won't be dragging up old ground like you made me do a couple of posts ago. If you are incapable of retaining information that you have read only a short while ago might I suggest you seek medical help as that is not normal.

Nope. Incorrect. Lol the idiotic insults really add to the daft comment tbh. As for the serial thankers below - usual suspects funnily enough.

Martin Smith told the police he "was 60-80% sure the man he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. His wife Mary felt the same way.

Irish officers found him credible. A local garda who interviewed him on behalf of the Portuguese authorities described him as a genuine, decent man who did not want to court the press or seek publicity.

But while Martin’s evidence seemed compelling, independent and without motivation, much to his frustration, it was not given the attention it seemed to deserve.

Almost a year after he made his initial statement to police, he was approached by private detectives working for the McCanns and asked to make e-fits (electronic facial identification images), of the man he had seen the night Madeleine disappeared.

The McCanns say they gave these pictures to the police at the time but chose not to publicise them. Instead they remained focused on another sighting by their friend Jane Tanner, one of the so-called Tapas Seven group of friends who had been on holiday with the couple and who dined with them the evening Madeleine disappeared.

But then the story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a ‘Panorama’ programme broadcast in May 2017 to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.

He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains “60-80 per cent” convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.

Last month, I asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.

Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.

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

I really do not understand why some posters are quite happy to go with the Smith statement but scream blue murder when the identity of the man is detailed. Funny that.

oceanman

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Talking of ridiculousness - unless you are going to claim to be a qualified and experienced investigator - that is a large heap of horse manure imo.

An individual or individuals who enter a strange apartment, in the dark, who has to open doors (and/or windows!) Move curtains, lift a sleeping child in the presence of other children, exit same carry a possibly screaming or crying child in a building swarming with residents and guests and you believe that is a scenario and " least likely to involve evidence being left" (sic). Really??? It is just as feasible that the child suffocated and or banged her head without significant trauma, was found and the body quickly moved outside and hidden.

Open mind indeed ....

quickly moved outside and hidden!...so well that hundreds of police, sniffer dogs,
and the general public combing the area never found a trace of the body.....not even to this day.

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Talking of ridiculousness - unless you are going to claim to be a qualified and experienced investigator - that is a large heap of horse manure imo.

An individual (or individuals) who enters a strange apartment, in the dark, who has to open doors (and/or windows!) Move curtains, lift a sleeping child in the presence of other children, exit same carry a possibly screaming or crying child in a building swarming with residents and guests and you believe that is a scenario and " least likely to involve evidence being left" (sic). Really??? It is just as feasible that the child suffocated and or banged her head without significant external trauma, was found and the body quickly moved outside and hidden.

Open mind indeed ....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109737133&postcount=3981

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Youd have to wonder did Mr Smith change his statement ?
That kind of huge if he didnt ,
Its all very odd

gozunda

Something Else

oceanman wrote: »

quickly moved outside and hidden!...so well that hundreds of police, sniffer dogs,
and the general public combing the area never found a trace of the body.....not even to this day.

You may wish to take note that scenario was presented as a foil to the other unlikely scenario where it was claimed that any abduction would likley result in no evidence being found tbh.

Well but just for one thing. The cadaver dog did in fact alert to an area of the balcony adjacent to the parents bedroom and an area of garden in front of the apartment close to a spot where there was bushes and other vegetation afaik.

With a possibility body had been moved there by a person or persons unknown whilst the 'police' and 'general public were still searching for a live child that night. Once that died down there would certainly been an opportunity to move same. The 'sniffer' dogs didn't arrive to the following morning.

And as you ask where the body (if dead) is now? Well nobody knows hence this discussion...

dark crystal

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

I really do not understand why some posters are quite happy to go with the Smith statement but scream blue murder when the identity of the man is detailed. Funny that.

For the dozenth time, Gerry McCann could not have been in two places at once.


I honestly don't know how else to explain it to make it any clearer!

gozunda

Something Else

dark crystal wrote: »

For the dozenth time, Gerry McCann could not have been in two places at once.

I honestly don't know how else to explain it to make it any clearer!

(Whistles innocently) Which two places?

gozunda

Something Else

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Youd have to wonder did Mr Smith change his statement ?
That kind of huge if he didnt ,
Its all very odd

He didn't- See post above

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

gozunda wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Youd have to wonder did Mr Smith change his statement ?
That kind of huge if he didnt ,
Its all very odd

He didn't- See post above

Why would the BBC lie ?

oceanman

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

You may wish to take note that scenario was presented as a foil to the other unlikely scenario where it was claimed that an abduction would likley result in no evidence being found tbh.

Well but just for one thing. The cadaver dog did in fact alert to an area of the balcony adjacent to the parents bedroom and an area of garden in front of the apartment close to a spot where there was bushes and other vegetation afaik.

With a possibility body had been moved there by a person or persons unknown whilst the 'police' and 'general public were still searching for a live child that night. Once that died down there would certainly been an opportunity to move same. The 'sniffer' dogs didn't arrive to the following morning.

And as you ask where the body (if dead) is now? Well nobody knows hence this discussion...

but not moved by the mc cans...as they would have been constantly in the presence of police, friends, at that stage with their daughter just gone missing?

gozunda

Something Else

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Why would the BBC lie ?

Good question. I've no idea. This from the link.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a ‘Panorama’ programme broadcast in May 2017 to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.

He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains “60-80 per cent” convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.

Last month, I asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Very very odd the one real witness who says he saw a face and its dismossed by the BBC , it would be the most important part of the investigation

yamaha50

John Podesta kidnap made link and bill clinton murdered her
Open your eyes sheeple

Plumbthedepths

I should have said earlier Colin Sutton was the Met detective who was tipped to lead the McCann investigation when the Met got involved(2010). He refused to lead the investigation after a senior officer rang him and told him his job would be to prove Gerry and Kate were to be proven innocent and only the abduction theory could be explored no other avenues. He stated this on the Martin Brunt programme on Sky News.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you daughter goes missing in a foreign country, the best thing to do is ignore the advice of the local authorities. I could understand if the McCanns were idiots but they as doctors are highly educated and surely could understand the reasoning behind the police request.

That they choose to ignore the police "advice", if that was their advice, is somehow an indication of their guilt? I fail to see understand your thought process.

Considering that it's 12 years since the little girl went missing and this case is still in the public domain and that we are discussing it on this forum proves that the parents were correct in choosing not to take the "advice" of the Portuguese police.

Plumbthedepths

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

That they choose to ignore the police "advice", if that was their advice, is somehow an indication of their guilt? I fail to see understand your thought process.

I didn't say they were guilty, I said it was odd they refused to cooperate with the people tasked to find their daughter. Releasing the photo showing Madeline's unique eye defect lessened the chance of her survival if she was abducted .