A conversation with the press, 08 July 2011

Can't see this posted anywhere but some excellent valid points brought up here.

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/conversation-with-press.html

"To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions "add to the distress of the parents" is just an additional way to stop these questions."...How very true to all the ghouls that protect the mccanns...we know your game

"By David James Smith: "I can't remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant" .........Britain's foremost crime writer you are called by the papers. Please do yourself a favour and check on the facts. Nine people saw a man carrying a child in PdL at 21:50 on the 3rd of May and it was mentioned NOWHERE. The Smiths were brought over to Portugal for a reconstruction with the PJ and were regarded as very credible witnesses by the GARDA. The PJ regarded the sighting as very significant, so much so, that they were supposed to be brought over again to Portugal just before Paulo Rebelo took over the investigation. The fact that you dismiss the Smith sighting, imo the most crucial bit in the case, tells me you have not had a look in the actual police files. A pity But thanks for the enlightening conversation".....Exactly. (I am getting so sick to the core of these idiots like David Smith, Jeremy Vine...they are an absolute joke and an embarrassment to our society)

And what about probably one of 'the' most important statements....Gaspar statement. This was kept hidden at Leicester police station for 6 whole months, a statement important in any investigation, it only came to light after the case was shelved. Why are there no questions to LPP on why they withheld this statement for so long and only released it when nothing could be done about it....Its a tad obvious why to even the most smallest minded of people. Gordy would have known about this statement on his 'personal' visit in September 2007 whilst he was meant to be running the country

Mr David Smith..You quote "I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of...of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about them were formed long before the case file was released"....I hate to shatter your delusions here, but there are many people in this country and indeed the world that have the intelligence to form an opinion based on the facts and not swayed in any shape or form by mere TV appearances....You are insulting as well as stupid


Article in Question: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece


Message: Dear Mr. Smith,

In your article "Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears", from 16th December 2007, you mention this fact: "Russell O’Brien
and Jane Tanner had brought a monitor too, but theirs wasn’t getting much of a signal from the Tapas restaurant 50 yards away."

The couple never mentioned to the PJ that they brought a monitor as well, in all their statements they claim that the Paynes were
the only ones with a baby monitor. Only in April 2008, in the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police, this piece
of information appeared. It might seem a small omission, but in the light of possible neglect charges, would have been important.
Jane Tanner claims in the rogatory interview that she brought it with her in the evenings and positioned it on a ledge/wall behind
her. This was NEVER mentioned to portuguese Police as the released statements show. The question I have is, how did you
get this info before the rogatory interviews even took place? I know you have to protect sources, but this seems a very strange
inside knowledge.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards

-----------------------------------------------------

Who are you and what is your interest in this case?
David

-----------------------------------------------------

I am sorry if I have upset you... Well I gave my name, I am from Germany and I am interested in the case. Since the files have
been released I have been trying to build myself an opinion based solely on facts and no spin. I am in the possession of the
DVD with the released case files and have spent a lot of time with their analysis. That is why I came upon this rather curious
discrepancy regarding the baby monitor. There was a meeting of the McCanns and their friends in Rothley in November, and in
December your article was published with this "new" fact. I am just curious where it suddenly came from.

Regards

--------------------------------------------------

No i am not upset. I just don't to fuel the web ghouls (i have no idea whether you are one of them or not...) who seem obsessed
with what i consider to be the grotesque idea that the mccanns or their friends did away with madeleine. In addition to the
further distress it must cause the mccanns and their friends on top of the devastating event that started it, I just feel it is a
complete waste of time and energy. That said, however, I had a long briefing with Gerry McCann before I wrote my article and
I guess the baby monitor info came from him. I am aware that many discrepancies arose in the portuguese statements through
misunderstandings of language. And you ought to be aware that there will always be minor discrepancies of fact in statements
- failings of memory, interpretation and so on - which are not in themselves sinister or suspicious.

One skill of good policing is sifting the wheat from the chaff and knowing what matters and what doesn't. I strongly suspect
the baby monitor issue lies in the latter category. As you will gather, I have every sympathy with the McCanns and no sympathy
with those who want to play amateur detective in public on the net with no apparent consideration for the McCanns' feelings.

I respect facts.

Rant over...

David

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear David,

thank you for the information about your source regarding the baby monitor. Allow me to add my 2c to the rest of your mail.

Last time I checked, the case was not solved, Madeleine had not turned up, and no evidence of an abduction had emerged.
If you are content with the current status quo that is your prerogative, but I am of the opinion that the death or disappearance
of a 3-year old girl should not simply be shelved after only a couple of months. To label all those that want explanations as
ghouls is a preferred method of the media, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell to discredit and ridicule a thinking minority
that is in the possession of the casefiles. To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies
that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions "add to the distress of the
parents" is just an additional way to stop these questions.

I agree with you that the added fact of a second baby monitor, that never got mentioned in Portugal, is not important enough
to change the course of an investigation that is no longer open. Still it was deliberately added and even "translation issues"
cannot conceal the fact, that it was never mentioned to the Portuguese Police. The fact that the information was given to
you by the then "Arguido" Gerald McCann, published without confirmation, does not instil confidence in the rest of the
article.

But since you are of the opinion that sifting the wheat from the chaff is up to the police you are excused for not questioning
the details. I know I won't be granted another reply after my rant, but there is one question that I wanted to raise with a proper
journalist for ages.

The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect "proof" for an abduction. A man carrying a "sleeping"
girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda
Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have
enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press.
No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never
mentioned. Why?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Have a nice Sunday

---------------------------------------------------

No, I won't let you get away with that. You are asking me to endorse or tolerate a world in which interfering outsiders blunder
around misinterpeting snippets of information and re-presenting them as suspicious facts, in reality half-facts.
I do broadly think it is the job of the police to investigate crimes. Those are the people we appoint to do it on our behalf.

The media's role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices
formed on the basis of...of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about
them were formed long before the case file was released. There is also a sad desire to give weight to conspiracy theories.

On the basis of the hard established facts of the case - the way in which the characters' lives intersect that evening, after
Madeleine was last seen by anyone else - how many people would have to have known and been involved in the mccanns'
self-abducting or killing their own child? The police always start with motive. Every crime has a motive. What would be the
motive and what could be so great a motive it involved all that group of people and was capable of being seemingly indefinitely
concealed. What do you think, they were all paedophiles? Sex game enthusiasts? Child traffickers? Or merely agreed that
pretending an abduction had been committed was the best way of disguising an accidental calpol overdose?

Come on, get real. Find something useful to do - go and campaign against war crimes in rwanda or something -
and leave those poor people in peace. That is not emotional blackmail it is a recognition of their loss and an acceptance
of the reality that not a single plausible suspicious shred about them has emerged in all the months since.

All those delusional sites devoted to conspiracy theories about the mccanns are kind of repugnant.
I can't remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.

David

---------------------------------------------------------

By David James Smith: "I respect facts"

By David James Smith: "I can't remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was
not reliable or significant"

Britain's foremost crime writer you are called by the papers. Please do yourself a favour and check on the facts.
Nine people saw a man carrying a child in PdL at 21:50 on the 3rd of May and it was mentioned NOWHERE.
The Smiths were brought over to Portugal for a reconstruction with the PJ and were regarded as very credible witnesses
by the GARDA. The PJ regarded the sighting as very significant, so much so, that they were supposed to be brought
over again to Portugal just before Paulo Rebelo took over the investigation. The fact that you dismiss the Smith sighting,
imo the most crucial bit in the case, tells me you have not had a look in the actual police files. A pity But thanks for the
enlightening conversation

Have a nice remaining Sunday.

A very worthwhile read.

Thanks for putting it up - not seen it before.

Just been looking for that bit about the baby monitor. V. interesting exchange there very much Smith 'above' talking down to the German writer.
So he saw Gerry just after the handing out of the song sheet in Rothley and was given privileged information prior to the rogatory interviews.

Well, well.

tigger wrote: Just been looking for that bit about the baby monitor. V. interesting exchange there very much Smith 'above' talking down to the German writer.
So he saw Gerry just after the handing out of the song sheet in Rothley and was given privileged information prior to the rogatory interviews.

Well, well.

Indeed!!!