The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.07.14 7:11


Found this article in another place, here's the link... 



Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect



Summary of article

By 'The Analyst', a Madeleine McCann Researcher - July 2014



There are these 10 good reasons for doubting (as claimed by the Met Police and the BBC):  

(a) whether the 2 e-fits below were drawn up by an Irish family and

(b) whether they are even of the same man, as also claimed:

THE TEN REASONS

(1) to most people, the efits appear to be of two very different men
(2) they have been prepared on different computer programs, suggesting they were not prepared at the same time
(3) the Smiths could not have drawn up the efits of a man they claimed they saw, as none of them saw his face properly and said they’d never be able to recognise him again   
(4) if the e-fits were, as claimed, drawn up in the spring of 2008, this would mean it was a year or more after their claimed ‘sighting’ ,when recollections would have seriously faded
(5) none of the Smiths reported their sighting for 13 days
(6) they only did so after Martin Smith’s friend Robert Murat was arrested
(7) despite not seeing the man clearly, and only for a second or two, Martin Smith was surprisingly adamant that the man they said they had seen was not Robert Murat
(8) Martin Smith’s later claim that the man was Gerry McCann was suspect, and he has since withdrawn it
(9) the efits were admittedly drawn up by Henri Exton, ex-boss of MI5’s ‘Covert Intelligence Unit’, who was employed by fraudster and serial con-man Kevin Halligen - not the kind of men you can rely on to tell the truth
(10) The e-fits were known to the McCanns In 2008 but suppressed by them for over 5 years. 



This article examines the claims made on BBC’s Crime Watch programme on 14 October 2013 by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, Head of ‘Operation Grange’ - the Metropolitan Police’s unit investigating the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  In this article I will outline problems with these two e-fit sketches he showed to the 6.7 million British people who watched this programme:


A.  Two efits




 

                                                   

      

                                   Image A                  Image B

 

B.  The original suspect

For over 6 years and 5 months before this programme, the McCanns and their team of advisers and lawyers had asked us to look for this man:



[SKETCH OF SUSPECTED ABDUCTOR DRAWN UP BY MELISSA LITTLE, BASED ON JANE TANNER'S CLAIMS, MELISSA LITTLE WAS PAID BY THE NcCANN TEAM] 
 


 


This sketch was based on the claims of Jane Tanner, a close friend of the McCanns. She claimed that she had seen a man carrying a child near the McCanns’ apartment at 9.15pm on the night Madeleine was reported missing. Shortly after they reported Madeleine missing, the McCanns ripped off the cover of Madeleine’s Sainsbury’s Activity Sticker Book, and gave it to their close friend Dr Russell O’Brien, who wrote down what the McCanns and their friends claimed was a timeline of   the evening’s events, including Jane Tanner’s claimed sighting. It stated: “Jane checked 5D [her holiday apartment] . Sees stranger & child”.


C.  Problems with the original suspect

There were numerous serious problems with Jane Tanner’s claim - a claim which the Portuguese, Police always considered to be a fabrication.  

These problems included the following:

·         Jane Tanner kept changing her story

·         Jane Tanner kept on adding new details

·         Jane Tanner eventually described the man in such detail that it was obvious that she could not have absorbed those details, seeing him only for a few seconds in the dark, and had therefor made them up

·         The McCann Team did not release an artist’s sketch of him for 5½ months

·         Jane Tanner said on 13 May 2007 in an informal identity parade that she was sure that the abductor was Robert Murat - but she later completely changed her mind     

·         Jane Tanner then claimed that the man she said she’d seen on the night Madeleine was reported missing was ‘very similar’ to another older suspect with straggly hair and a moustache. In fact he looked nothing like her original artist’s sketch. Moreover, she said she had never seen the man’s face, so how could she say, as she did, that she was ‘80% sure’ that the man she saw and the man with straggly hair and a moustache was the same person?


D.   The Metropolitan Police say they have ‘found’ the man seen by Jane Tanner

To understand the significance of the two e-fits we are discussing, we need to examine just what was said about them by DCI Redwood and the BBC presenters during the Crimewatch programme.  

First, in what he said was a ‘revelation moment’ for him and his team, DCI Redwood told the BBC viewing audience that he had ‘found’ the man seen by Jane Tanner.

He claimed that, 6 years after the event, a man had come forward to say that he thought he might have been the man seen by Jane Tanner. Redwood’s story wholly lacked credibility. According to Redwood, the man, whom he refused to identity:

·         had done nothing for 6 years about his suspicion that he was the man seen by Jane Tanner

·         had been walking back from a ‘night crèche’ at the same time as Jane Tanner claimed to have seen him    

·         was on his own, and had no buggy for the child

·         had been carrying his blonde daughter, who was wearing only pyjamas

·         had no covering for her - matching Jane Tanner’s description

·         had been carrying her in exactly the same way as claimed by Jane Tanner - an unusual and uncomfortable way of carrying a child

·         had been walking around the resort all week dressed most of the time in exactly the same clothes as the man Jane Tanner claimed to have seen, namely a dark jacket and light-coloured trousers, and, finally

·         had kept the very pyjamas his daughter was wearing that night 6½ years ago - which, again, just happened to be extremely similar to the description of hem given by Jane Tanner. 


Quite apart from all those remarkable coincidences, if this man’s account was true, then a plan of Praia da Luz showed quite clearly that he was not taking the shortest route back from where the night crèche was. Why would he do that? Why, when carrying a heavy child back to his home or apartment, would he make a longer journey than strictly necessary?   

I’m aware that the story of this ‘man from the crèche’ comes from a high-level detective in Britain’s premier police force, the Metropolitan PoIice. But in recent years, the Met has been riddled with corruption and police officers prepared to lie. I have no hesitation therefore in suggesting that this ‘man from the crèche’ is probably an invention of DCI Redwood     


E.  The new suspect - a man said to have been seen by an Irish family

Now we come to what DCI Redwood and Matthew Amroliwala, one of the Crime Watch presenters, said about the man ‘seen by an Irish family’. Here are extracts from the programme transcript. The actual broadcast can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyqHtsLeGQ

TRANSCRIPT

REDWOOD: “We’re almost certain, now, that the sighting [by Jane Tanner] is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock [A TICKING CLOCK IS HEARD] to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus”. 

AMROLIWALA: “This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years. Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here [FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA IS SHOWN]

at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?”

REDWOOD: “He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas - a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann”.

AMROLIWALA:  “Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images”.

REDWOOD: “This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward”.


F.   Problems about the e-fits

If we think about the e-fits briefly, a number of serious problems about them arise straightaway. 

Problem 1: We are given two e-fits by Redwood. He tells us that the e-fits are of ‘the man they [the Irish family] saw’. But, in the opinion of the vast majority of people, myself included, these two e-fits are of two very different men. Apart from the obvious visual differences, these are the main contrasts:

(a)  The man in Image A is older than the man in Image B

(b)  The main in Image A has a fatter face than the rather thin-looking man in Image B

(c)  The man in Image A has a rectangular-shaped profile, in contrast with the man in Image B, whose face is more triangular in shape, with a narrow chin.

     Why would members of this Irish family draw up two e-fits of quite different-looking men, if in fact they are the same man?   

Problem 2:  Those with expert knowledge of computer-imaging techniques have noticed a further difference. The two images appear to have been produced using entirely different computer programs. Image A is blurred and ‘grainy’. Image B is sharp. There is no obvious explanation for why, if these images were produced by the Irish family, the e-fits should have been produced on two different computer programs.

Problem 3:  A third very serious problem about these e-fits is the circumstances under which the Irish family made their claimed sighting. Let’s look at this in a bit more detail. The family are the Smith family from Drogheda, Ireland. Nine of them – adults and children - were apparently walking back to the Estrela da Luz holiday apartment owned by the senior member of the Smith family, grandfather Martin Smith. He, his son Peter, and his grand-daughter Aoife, all made statements to the Irish and Portuguese Police about what they say was a man carrying a child, at about 10.00pm on the evening of 3 May. Each one of the three says the same thing about this sighting:

(a)  they each only saw the man for a second or two

(b)  it was dark at the time

(c)  the street lighting was ‘weak’

(d)  the man had his head down and the child he was carrying was covering his face, and

(e)  all three of them said that they could not possibly recognise the man if they saw him again.

How could anybody possibly draw up an e-fit, never mind two, if none of them had seen his face properly?     

Problem 4: The e-fits were drawn up, as far as can be established, in the spring or summer of 2008, a year after the day Madeleine was reported missing. Again it is hardly likely that any of the Smiths could remember anything sufficiently well by  then to be able to draw up the e-fits, especially bearing in mind what we said under ‘Problem 3’.

Problem 5:  The e-fits were not drawn up by any police force. They were drawn up by members of the McCanns’ private investigation team. Here is some relevant background detail:

(a)  In September 2007, the McCanns appointed a disreputable Spanish detective agency. Metodo 3, as their main private investigators.

(b)  They lied many times claiming that they knew where Madeleine was and that she would be ‘home by Christmas’.

(c)  The McCanns’ lead Metodo 3 investigator, Metodo 3 man Antonio Giminez Raso, was arrested in February 2008, charged with multiple offences, including theft of a large quantity of drugs, and corruption (he was an inspector in the Catalonian Regional Drug Squad at  the time). He spent four years in prison

(d)  Later, two other Metodo 3 men who worked closely on the Madeleine McCann case, boss Francisco Marco and his assistant, Julian Peribanez, also spent time in prison in a case of illegal ‘phone-tapping

(e)   Following the work of this disreputable agency, the McCann Team appointed Irishman Kevin Halligen to be the lead private investigator. He had founded a company called ‘Oakley International’ in July 2007, two months after Madeleine McCann was reported missing. The McCann Team falsely claimed in the British press that Oakley was a major international detective agency. It was nothing of the sort. It was a one-man band founded by Halligen, who used a number of aliases and committed many frauds. For one of those frauds, involving £1.5 million, he was jailed for four years (2009 to 2013)

(f)    Furthermore, Halligen’s role in the McCann private investigation was exposed by an article in the Evening Standard by Mark Hollingsworth in August 2009. Whilst supposed to be finding Madeleine, he and his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis spent much of the time on a wild spending spree in the U.S., Britain and Italy. Most of the rest of the time, Halligen was seen drinking heavily in the Hey-Jo bar of one of London’s clubs

(g)  Halligen was sacked by the McCann Team after fulfilling only 4 months of his 6-month contract, for which he was paid around £700,000, including expenses

(h)  In Hollingsworth’s article, he accused Halligen and his colleagues of intimidating witnesses in the Madeleine McCann case into silence. If proved true, this would amount to the serious criminal offence of perverting the course of justice

(i)    Hollingsworth also pointed out that Halligen committed further frauds whilst employed by the McCanns -hiring people to work for him on the McCann case and them not paying them       

(j)    Halligen employed two men alongside him, Henri Exton, and Tim Craig-Harvey. According to the McCann Team themselves, all three men had worked for MI5. In addition, Exton had formerly been the Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Department. How three ex-MI5 men could help to find Madeleine McCann has never been explained. MI5 agents are more usually concerned to protect the government’s interests.

(k)  In an article published in the Sunday Times on 27 October 2007, Exton claimed that he and ‘his men’ drew up the two e-fits during the spring or summer of 2008, a claim that is probably true. He added that the McCann Team suppressed them, deciding not to release them to the general public.

(l)    If we look at the whole history of the McCanns’ private investigations during 2007 and 2008, therefore, we are entitled to query the precise provenance of these efits. The issue is whether we can trust what Henri Exton, the former Head of MI5's Covert Intelligence Department, says about those e-fits. We might also ask: is their origin as claimed by DCI Andy Redwood and the BBC true - or false? 

Problem 6: On top of all those 5 major problems about the provenance of these e-fits is a further issue. And that is whether the Smiths really did see a man carrying a child, as they claim. That is a very important matter which needs to be examined separately, and in depth. We’ll do that now.


F.   Did the Smiths actually see anyone at all?

On the face of it, why would anybody, still less several members of the same family, make up a story about seeing a man carrying a child - in the case, moreover, of the most famous missing child case ever. Even to suggest this possibility seems highly offensive.

However, in this case more than in perhaps any other, this principle applies: “Accept nothing, question everything”. So, applying this principle, let us first put together what we know about ‘the Irish family’, the Smiths. 

1.    Martin Smith has, since at least 2005 if not well before, owned a holiday apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex in Praia da Luz.

2.    He has admitted that he goes on holiday there at least three times a year. (maybe other members of his family or friends also use his apartment. Maybe he rents it out when he is not there - we do not know).

3.    He has admitted that he knew Robert Murat, the first suspect in the case, since at least 2005 - maybe before.

4.    In his statements to the police, Martin Smith was initially evasive about how well he knew Robert Murat, claiming that he’d ‘only seen him twice, once when he was drunk’.  Later he admitted that he had met Murat several times and had known him for at last two years. That is important because of what follows (see points 13 and 14 below).    

5.    On the night Madeleine was reported missing, Martin Smith was on holiday in his apartment with eight other members of his family, as follows:

(a)  his wife Mary 

(b)  his daughter Aoife

(c)  his son Peter and his wife Sian

(d)  Peter and Siam’s two children T___, aged 13, and C___, aged 6.

(e)  Two other grandchildren, A___, aged 10 and E___, aged 4, children of his daughter B___.

6.    He says that on the evening of 3 May (when Madeleine was reported missing), he and the other eight members of his family dined at the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz. A restaurant bill confirms that.

7.    He says that after that, they all went to the nearby Kelly’s bar, from about 9.30pm to 9.55pm. The till receipts during this period do not substantiate that claim, so we must view it with caution.

8.    He says that as all nine of them were walking back to his Estrela da Luz apartment at about 10.00pm, they all saw a man carrying a child.

9.    As we saw above, concerning this ‘sighting’:

(a)  they each only saw the man for a second or two

(b)  it was dark at the time

(c)  the street lighting was ‘weak’

(d)  the man had his head down and the child he was carrying was covering his face, and

(e)  all three of them said that they could not possibly recognise the man if they saw him again.

10. Despite all nine members of the family apparently seeing the most unusual sight of a lone man, without a buggy, carrying a young blond child clad only in pyjamas in the dark at 10.00pm, neither Martin Smith nor any other member of his family thought of reporting this strange sighting to the Portuguese Police.

11.  From the following morning (4 May onwards), there was a media frenzy In Portugal and Britain, and indeed in many other countries, about the circumstances under which Madeleine - also a young blonde girl, aged nearly 4 - had gone missing. There was blanket coverage of her disappearance on TV, the radio and in the newspapers. In addition, in the resort of Praia da Luz, where Madeleine disappeared, there was a massive police presence, and people from all the villagers round about searching everywhere in the village. Not one of the Smith family contacted the police that day about their claimed ‘sighting’ of a man carrying a child. 

12. They did not contact the police the next day either, nor the next. By 15 May - 12 days later - they had still not contacted anyone.      

13. That very day, 15 May, Martin Smith’s friend Robert Murat was declared a suspect by the Portuguese Police amidst a blaze of publicity.

14. Only on the day following their friend being made a suspect did the Smiths react. According to the Smiths, this came about as follows. Peter Smith is said to have ’phoned his father and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared?” Only then did Martin Smith pick up the ‘phone and speak to the Irish police.

15. Later, Martin Smith and his two children, Peter and Aoife, travelled to Portugal and each made statements about what they had seen. Each one of them conceded that 

(a) they each only saw the man for a second or two
(b) it was dark at the time

(c) the street lighting was ‘weak’

(d)  the man had his head down and the child he was carrying was covering his face, and

(e)  all three of them said that they could not possibly recognise the man if they saw him again.

16. No doubt for those very good reasons, they were not asked by the Portuguese police to supply e-fits.

17. They did however give a general description of what they saw, listing these 16 descriptions of their sighting:

(a) an unaccompanied male
(b) carrying a child
(c) having no push-chair or buggy 
(d) the child was blonde
(e) the child was barefoot 
(f) the child was wearing light-coloured/white/pink pyjamas
(g) the child looked about four years old
(h) the child was being held on the man's left side
(i) the child didn't have a blanket or other covering
(j) the man 'did not look like a tourist' (whatever that may mean)
(k) the man was wearing a dark-coloured jacket 
(l) the man was wearing light-coloured trousers 
(m) the man was of average build 
(n) the man was of average height 
(o) the man was aged 25-40, and 
(p) the man's face could not be seen. 

18. This description of a man carrying a child was uncanny. On 27 May  Brendan de Beer in the Observer gave these details about the release by the Portuguese Police two days earlier (26 May) of a man carrying a child, based not on the description given by the Smith family, but by the McCanns’ friend  Jane Tanner:

QUOTE:

“Gordon Brown [then Chancellor of the Exchequer] has personally intervened in the search for missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann after her parents became frustrated by the lack of progress in the police investigation. After a series of telephone conversations with Madeleine's father, Gerry McCann, in recent days, the Chancellor requested assistance from the Foreign Office and the Home Office. He asked that pressure be brought to bear on the Portuguese authorities to allow more information about the inquiry to be made public. Gerry and his wife, Kate, have been desperate for a description of a man seen carrying what appears to have been a child on 3 May to be made public, but Portuguese police refused for three weeks because of the country's laws, which forbid the details of an investigation being released. The Observer understands that Brown gave the McCanns an assurance he would do 'anything he can' to help. The British Embassy duly applied pressure on the Portuguese authorities to find more flexibility in their secrecy laws. British Ambassador John Buck visited the Algarve last Thursday. A day later [25 May] Portuguese police made a U-turn and issued a detailed description of the man, said to be white, 35 to 40, 5ft 10in and of medium build, with hair longer around the neck, wearing a dark jacket, light beige trousers and dark shoes. Asked whether Brown had influenced the decision, Clarence Mitchell, a Foreign Office spokesman for the McCann family in the Algarve, said: 'Draw your own conclusions.' He said in a statement: 'I can confirm that telephone conversations have taken place between Gerry McCann and Chancellor Gordon Brown. During them, Mr Brown offered both Gerry and Kate his full support in their efforts to find Madeleine, although details of the conversations will remain private’.”

UNQUOTE

19. Gerry McCann gave an even briefer description of the person the police were looking for the following day (Saturday 26 May). This was the very day that Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith were in Portugal to give their statements.   

20.  Only months later (October 2007) did it become clear how detailed a description had been given by Jane Tanner of the man she said she had seen. Uncannily, it was identical to the description given by the Smiths in all 16 respects (see point 17 above). Not only that, but the two ‘sightings’ were only 600 yards apart.

21. This could only mean one of two things. EITHER (1) the man allegedly seen with a child must have been wandering around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes between being seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm and then by the Smiths at 10.00pm OR Martin Smith had somehow gained secret access to Jane Tanner’s description.

22. Robert Murat, being fluent in English and Portuguese, and a police translator for Norfolk Police when he lived in England, had been heavily involved in acting as a translator for the Portuguese Police during the week following Madeleine’s disappearance. In this capacity, he had undoubtedly gained a great deal of knowledge about the Portuguese investigation. Moreover, he had been interviewed by police at length and made a suspect on 15 May, when Jane Tanner’s description of the man she said she had seen had been put to him. As Murat and Martin Smith knew each other well, it is easy to see how Murat could have passed the description, given by Jane Tanner, to him.

23.  When first questioned by the Portuguese Police on 26 May, Martin Smith was really certain about one fact about the man he said the family had seen. He said he knew Murat well enough to be adamant that the man was not Robert Murat.  

24.  Thus Martin Smith had let 13 days go by without him or anyone else in his family even thinking of reporting to police their claimed sighting of a man carrying a child. And then when they did get round to doing so, it was the day after their friend had been made a suspect. And then the only definite thing they could say about their sighting was that it was not Robert Murat.

25. On 9 September 2007 ,Martin Smith said he saw footage of the McCanns returning to England .He saw Gerry McCann carrying Sean, his two-year-old son, down the steps of a the plane. He was carrying Sean on his left shoulder.

26.  There was, of course, nothing unusual about that. Yet, sometime after viewing this footage. Martin Smith telephoned the police and said he was sure, just by the way he saw Gerry McCann carrying Sean, .that he  was the man he and his family had seen carrying a child on a dark night over 4 months previously. By any standards, this was a strange and bold claim to make, since this is the way most parents carry very young children when they don’t have a buggy

27. The Portuguese Police declined to make further enquiries about the Smiths’ new claim.   

28. However, the McCanns themselves wanted to talk to the Smiths. They did so via the man chosen by them to head up their private investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. I dealt with that issue in Section E above: ‘Problems with the e-fits’.

29.  A few observations are necessary on Martin Smith’s claimed business interests. If we look at one of his companies, Golf Net Ltd, he describes himself as: “A former senior army officer - with extensive management and leadership skills acquired during a twenty-five year career both at home and overseas -, his entrepreneurship [sic], vision, enthusiasm and perseverance [sic] has assembled [sic] a team of hugely experienced and talented individuals with the combined skill-sets to realise his ambition of creating a global brand. Through the strategic partnerships that he has established, he has positioned Golf Net to rapidly establish a significant international presence. His inventiveness has created an impressive range of unique and innovative products that will be the launch-pad for what will become a major international brand”. None of this can be substantiated from internet searches about him. The Golf Net company scarcely seems to have traded, yet Smith claims that the following men of international distinction are fellow Directors of his:

(a)  Count Andreas von Faber-Castell, Director, Managing Director, Faber-Castell AG

(b)  Mike McDonough, Sales & Marketing (USA), the Bose Corporation, the “leader of core marketing efforts for multi-billion dollar audio products company, Bose…”, an

(c)  John Coleman, Executive Chairman & Director, Former President and COE of Bose Corporation, with “decades of experience gleaned at the helm of one of the foremost brand names in the world of high-end acoustic systems”.

It is a claim that looks highly doubtful.

 

G. 7 key questions for the Smith family

What we end up with is a list of serious questions the Smiths should answer about their claimed sighting. Among these are:

1.    Why did you wait 13 days before reporting your sighting?

2.    Why did you not report your sighting after your friend Robert Murat was made a suspect?

3.    Were you really only prompted to remember this sighting by your son Peter asking you if he’d been dreaming?

4.    What made you so sure the man you said you saw was not Robert Murat?

5.    You saw Gerry McCann coming down the steps of a plane carrying Sean on his left shoulder, a typical way to carry a child. When you admit you’d never seen the man properly in the first place, how can you possibly be sure that he was the person you said you saw on that dark night of 3 May? 

6.    Are those three men you’ve named as Directors of your company Golf Net Ltd really your fellow Directors?

And finally, the crunch question:

7.    Did you and/or other members of your family really draw up those e-fits with Henri Exton and his staff?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.07.14 7:16

I'm sorry, the article above has major formatting issues, and I've not been able to upload the pictures of the two efits and the sketch of Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of a man on 3 May.

I won't be able to address those issues until tonight, I apologise therefore for the current state of the OP.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by onehand on 30.07.14 10:01

14. Only on the day following their friend being made a suspect did the Smiths react. According to the Smiths, this came about as follows. Peter Smith is said to have ’phoned his father and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared?” Only then did Martin Smith pick up the ‘phone and speak to the Irish police.
 
Tony,
 
I do think this family did see a man carrying a child, but what me always had given some alarming thoughts is your point 14.
 
I would rather look into peter smith’s reason to bring this up, than a possible role or reason for his father. This is a perfect example of how you could plant an existing memory on a different time in other peoples mind, what could be just an honest mistake as well.
 
So yes i do think the martin’s did give an honest description of a man carrying a child, but i am not satisfied this was on the night of may third 2007. i don’t know if there is a special reason for peter smith to plant a memory, but that would be what i would look in to. But there is hardly anything out there about him.
 
Most people are adjusted to live their life in a certain pattern, so it could be this family of nine adults and children walked home for more then one night, on the same streets, with little differences, just because they are used to have dinner and drinks and bedtimes on usually the same time. The more time is gone, the harder it will be to remember clearly at what of those days a certain episode happened, certainly for episodes that did not bring a true alert to their brains.
 
If the citation of peter : “Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared?” , is correct this could have planted a memory from a earlier date into the collective memory of this family, just talking between those family members would do the rest of this trick. So the episode could be true, the timing maybe not.
If the citation is true, you see doubt about this episode, was it that night or not, is what peter was asking his father, it only need an answer like: i think so, yes, you are right , i remember a man with a child and it was that night. If martin smith had said, no that was tuesday night, we would not have heard anything about it.
 
Memories can play tricks, that's why under dutch law a witness statement is no evidence, it could leas to evidence, it could give weight to evidence, but nothing more then that.
 
If peter smith has an reason to plant this episode into the heads of his family on purpose, i can’t say, so for me martin smith is probably nothing more then the messenger.
 
So i don’t think there was a smithman walking the street on thursday night. 
Also no tannerman, the only man carrying a child at thursday night in the files is stephen carpenter, just between 9.15 and  9.30, with some time to the left and the right, because he just give an estimated time in his statement. When he and his missus and children leave the tapas restaurant to go to their apartment.
Carpenter was a crecheman, but not on that night. 

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by bubblewrap on 30.07.14 12:45

Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 spin

bubblewrap

Posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by aquila on 30.07.14 12:58

@bubblewrap wrote:Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 spin
It's not tiresome bubblewrap. It's a genuine concern by Tony Bennett who shares a similar opinion with yours about Michael Shrimpton.

Have patience (says the snappy crocodile of the forum). Tony's opinion is as valid as anyone's...and he doesn't play games with his opinions unlike some people on the forum at the moment who like to post photograph after photograph and comment about really daft stuff.

The validity of the Smith sighting is an important thing to consider. It was the revelation moment of Andy Redwood.

It's significant.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Woofer on 30.07.14 13:35

@bubblewrap wrote:Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 spin

Thank goodness we do bubblewrap as on the surface it seems plausible, but look into it more deeply and one can begin to see odd things. 

For ages I believed the Smiths (half of me still wants to) but one thing Tony is right about is that in that first couple of weeks all we heard on the news was `Praia da Luz` `Praia da Luz` `Praia da Luz` goodness knows how many times a day.  Surely one of the Smith`s ears would have pricked up and thought `my goodness, that`s where my flat is and where I was at that time`.  If the Smiths themselves never watch TV, listen to the radio or read the papers, surely their friends and neighbours must have said `Hey Martin, Hey Mary, Hey Aoife, Hey Peter etc - isn`t that where you were last week - did you see anything that night???`  Yet they do nothing until they hear RM has been made an arguido.  And then they get in touch with the PJ to tell them it wasn`t RM.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Angelique on 30.07.14 15:25

I also think it is important to discuss the 'Smith Sighting' for as long as it takes to find the Truth about whether it happened or not. I also think it is important to discuss all the witnesses.

I have to say I am baffled by it all especially Redwoods part in it.

Why would he would he appear on Crimewatch and present these photofits as bona fide sightings.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Justformaddie on 30.07.14 15:45

Maybe that a lot of reports on the case centred around the 9:15 timeline? That might have thrown some people of a bit, as the smiths were either having dinner or been in the bar at that time? I don't know what went on but having a young child lie to police would IMO be very risky.

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Guest on 30.07.14 16:19

@bubblewrap wrote:Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 spin

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion.

If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll....."

But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.  winkwink 


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by PeterMac on 30.07.14 17:37

@admin wrote:
But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.
They don't like Smithman
They don't like the forged Last Photo
They cannot stand the Dogs
They are fearful of something TB put in the 60 Reasons
They are terrified of something Dr Amaral put in the report

Is there a pattern emerging ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.07.14 18:46

@admin wrote:
You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion.

If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."

But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.  

PeterMac also wrote:

They don't like Smithman... 

also onehand wrote:

14. Only on the day following their friend being made a suspect did the Smiths react. According to the Smiths, this came about as follows. Peter Smith is said to have ’phoned his father and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared?” Only then did Martin Smith pick up the ‘phone and speak to the Irish police.

Tony,

I do think this family did see a man carrying a child, but what me always had given some alarming thoughts is your point 14.
Thank you admin and PeterMac for saving me the trouble of pointing out why I 'keep banging on' about the efits and the alleged 'Smithman' sighting, not forgetting of course that:

1. The McCanns support the Smithman sighting (and have done for 5 years)

2. The rest of the McCann Team support the Smithman sighting

3. DCI Redwood supports the Smithman sighting

4. By implication those senior police officers in the Met above Redwood also support the Smithman sighting

5. The BBC supports the Smithman sighting - CrimeWatch's Matthew Amroliwala was chosen to tell 6.7 million viewers about it

6. By implication the following all support it:

6A: Rebekah Brooks, who ordered Operation Grange
6B: David Cameron, Prime Monister, who obeyed Brooks' orders
6C: Theresa May, Home Secritary, who obeyed Cameron's order
6D: Rupert Murdoch and his empire, who employed Brooks.

7. JillyCL of the MCF forum.


With all those backing the alleged Smithman efits, it was inevitable that I would take a sceptical view...

...and many thanks to all who have taken the trouble to read my long post and consider it

@ onehand

Reason 14, which you quote, is the reason most often cited by those, like me, who question the entire validity of the Smith sighting. No-one has ever given a remotely satisfactory reason why the Smiths should wait for 13 days before talking to the police about their claimed 'sighting'. When you put that together with (a) Martin Smith's instistence that the man was not Robert Murat and (b) the fact that Murat was obviously a friend of his, Martin Smith's conduct becomes even more difficult to explain   

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.07.14 18:50

@admin wrote:
You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."  But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason. 
Once again, the legendary tolerance of CMOMM for outright disruptors is plain for the whole world to see.

Three strikes...and you're not out!  winkwink

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by sharonl on 30.07.14 19:24

@admin wrote:
@bubblewrap wrote:Why oh why do we keep hearing about the Smith sighting, or the non sighting ?
Its becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Lets take a look at what Christopher Story wrote about", I have no doubt you would quickly rubbish it and would put him in the fantasist realm along with erm' Michael Shrimpton.
But on a weekly basis we are having the Smiths drummed into us.....For some reason.

 spin

You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion.

If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll....."

But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.  winkwink 


Now why exactly do these people emerge every time Smith is mentioned?  The words nail & head spring to mind

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3567
Reputation : 419
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Guest on 30.07.14 19:37

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@admin wrote:
You've already been banned twice before so, why oh why, do you keep coming back here with various usernames banging on about the Smith sighting?

It's becoming a bit tiresome in my opinion. If I was to say, "Oh here comes yet another troll..."  But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason. 
Once again, the legendary tolerance of CMOMM for outright disruptors is plain for the whole world to see.

Three strikes...and you're not out!  winkwink

Actually, I did ban him.  tongue 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by sharonl on 30.07.14 19:41

@PeterMac wrote:
@admin wrote:
But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.
They don't like Smithman
They don't like the forged Last Photo
They cannot stand the Dogs
They are fearful of something TB put in the 60 Reasons
They are terrified of something Dr Amaral put in the report

Is there a pattern emerging ?

In the search for truth maybe we shouldn't have started this conversation in public.  It has suggested a few times that if we hold onto the information that brings out the worst in the trolls, we will be close to the truth.  All we need do then is put that information together.  You can almost guarantee that if you are jumped on you have hit a raw nerve.

They don't like discrediting the testimony of Mrs Fenn and her niece either.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3567
Reputation : 419
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 30.07.14 19:49

@sharonl wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@admin wrote:
But on a weekly basis we are having trolls join this forum to disrupt the Smith sighting threads...for some reason.
They don't like Smithman
They don't like the forged Last Photo
They cannot stand the Dogs
They are fearful of something TB put in the 60 Reasons
They are terrified of something Dr Amaral put in the report

Is there a pattern emerging ?

In the search for truth maybe we shouldn't have started this conversation in public.  It has suggested a few times that if we hold onto the information that brings out the worst in the trolls, we will be close to the truth.  All we need do then is put that information together.  You can almost guarantee that if you are jumped on you have hit a raw nerve.

They don't like discrediting the testimony of Mrs Fenn and her niece either.

You are right Sharon. Whatever brings these disrupting elements to the fore clearly must be close to the truth.

MESSAGE FOR TROLLS AND SHILLS: Please try to be a little more intelligent and less conspicuous, the pattern is getting rather predictable and is actually rather laughable. All anyone has to do is mention one of the "hot potatoes" and you leave yourselves more exposed than Lady Godiva. Get back to the drawing board …….

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine McCann: 10 major problems with Operation Grange’s efits of the current chief suspect

Post by onehand on 30.07.14 21:11

@ tony,
 
i can live with the delay of the smith’s testimony, this could be just minding there own business or not mingle in with the troubles of a brittish family, but the last one does not sound right imo, martin smith did work for an international company and is part of the ex pat colony of pdl, so not much room for xenophobia. But there are people who just choose to stay out of other peoples trouble, nothing more, nothing less.
 
The longer the delay between something happened and a statement taken, gives always a lot of discussion about how credible their words are, also because of it is a family, so talking the subject over and over would be a normal thing. Most often it will happen that a statement becomes then a story, with just parts of what each persons realy did had seen and gaps filled in with parts that others had seen, plus what the mind will fill in. That normal, but not welcome in any investigation. The raw materials always the best.
 
Making up a full false statement with the differences in detail, you could read in the statements of the martin’s, is very difficult.
So i don’t have the impression they made up this episode from scratch. I do see enough room in the statements that they are not completely sure, what the had seen, was also on that thursday. I do believe they were out on the streets of pdl on their way on that night, but there was no smithman that night imo.
 
For the rest, i agree it could be martin smith choose to help the underdog of the moment, if they did not see their smithman, it could certainly not been murat, so it won’t have to feel like lying at all.
See it in the line of time of 2007, the financial crisis starts building up, being still the businessman he might have thought ahead and see the use of murat in a later stage or he could have been just after goodwill from the ex pat community, where he still would be the irishman.
 
But i would also look into the reasons his son peter could have had, who also has local knowledge from holidays before in pdl. He was the instigator to those statement’s if the citation is true.
So why was the sighting not reported before peter brought it to the surface of their memory and had peter his reasons to bring up a memory or even plant a memory from an other night onto the thursday?
The first part could be just an innocent explanation, that i could buy. The second part is more of interest and i can’t find a lot about peter smith himself, who is he, is there something to gain for him?
 
If the mccan’s know smithman in just a ghost, i can see why they accept him and even promote him. He is a nice pseudo-alibi for gerry on the mentioned time. If Dr. Amaral had his chance to hear them out himself and from that it was established that smithman was not there at thursday, but say wednesday night or earlier that week, would they still be so pleased?
 
This still could be a honest mistake from the smith family, but very welcome for some others. But every time smithman reach the surface, it could happen the smith’s or just one of them think everything over again and change their mind! They can’t risk that, would they. It would give me a lot of room to build a story that would sound a lot more credible then the mccann hypothesis of abduction, if only smithman became the wednesday-walker.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum