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

Possible Action Against The Times

Page 6 of 16 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by ShuBob on 02.08.14 19:09

Thanks Woofer.

I asked because Tony's replies seem to suggest he believes the McCanns indeed started revealing details of the Smithsman e-fits to authorities from at least 2009. Tony, if this is the case, why do you believe the couple this time?

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Sunday Times apology - explained

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 19:18

@ShuBob wrote:Thanks Woofer.

I asked because Tony's replies seem to suggest he believes the McCanns indeed started revealing details of the Smithsman e-fits to authorities from at least 2009. Tony, if this is the case, why do you believe the couple this time?
@ ShuBob

In answer to your question above, ShuBob, and also in answer to another one of yours earlier today, and looking at the Sunday Times apology dated 28 December, the ST told us three things:

1. Exton efits shown to Leics Police 'before October 2009' (curious choice of phrase, as I noted before)

2. Exton efits shown to PJ 'before October 2009'

3. Exton efits shown to DCI Redwood August 2011.

Incidentally I regard these as extremely important facts in this case, if true.

So, why I believe these three assertions to be true?

In their article, the ST said: "We now understand that..." before itemising the three above facts.

In my judgment (and I might be wrong of course), the ST and their lawyers would have demanded from the McCanns and their lawyers, and obtained, strict proof that every one of those three statements was true, before printing their retraction/apology.

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by ShuBob on 02.08.14 19:27

Thanks Tony.

Personally, I think it's unwise to make such assumptions about proof of claims being sought and then set your theories on that.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 02.08.14 19:36

@Praiaaa wrote:
@roy rovers wrote:If this is true Kate and Gerry will be making a powerful enemy but I've never believed that they ever had particularly powerful friends. It's always been Kate and Gerry against the rest - attack being the best form of defence.

Agree about no powerful friends. Have never believed the 'powerful forces' conspiracy theory, that is IMO taking GM at his own inflated sense of importance. IMO - wannabe middle-classes go on 'MW on the cheap' hol to take advantage of wall-to-wall childcare so the adults can  drink dine in the tapas bar unhampered - plan foiled when usual MW listening not available at that resort, but still blag a discount for the non-offered service, unfortunate accident, expedient cover-up, media pals unwittingly help, slebs and politicos jump on the bandwagon without checking facts - then quietly slink away without fanfare when obvious that MM not abducted (dogs). All IMO of course.
They got a discount? I didn't know that! And what is MW, by the way?

Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Praiaaa on 02.08.14 20:07

@Brian Griffin wrote:
@Praiaaa wrote:
@roy rovers wrote:If this is true Kate and Gerry will be making a powerful enemy but I've never believed that they ever had particularly powerful friends. It's always been Kate and Gerry against the rest - attack being the best form of defence.

Agree about no powerful friends. Have never believed the 'powerful forces' conspiracy theory, that is IMO taking GM at his own inflated sense of importance. IMO - wannabe middle-classes go on 'MW on the cheap' hol to take advantage of wall-to-wall childcare so the adults can  drink dine in the tapas bar unhampered - plan foiled when usual MW listening not available at that resort, but still blag a discount for the non-offered service, unfortunate accident, expedient cover-up, media pals unwittingly help, slebs and politicos jump on the bandwagon without checking facts - then quietly slink away without fanfare when obvious that MM not abducted (dogs). All IMO of course.
They got a discount? I didn't know that! And what is MW, by the way?

MW = Mark Warner - the holiday company.
I read that DP negotiated a discount for the non-availablilty of baby listening- this is a service MW offer in some of their locations (we used it as parents years ago in Greece on a MW holiday) although not PdL as it is not an exclusive hotel complex like their usual resorts, and so not safe to leave children alone.
this is something I read about on the Mirror Forum, all those years ago, so cannot link...

Praiaaa

Posts : 419
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Casey5 on 02.08.14 20:33

@Praiaaa wrote:

MW = Mark Warner - the holiday company.
I read that DP negotiated a discount for the non-availablilty of baby listening- this is a service MW offer in some of their locations (we used it as parents years ago in Greece on a MW holiday) although not PdL as it is not an exclusive hotel complex like their usual resorts, and so not safe to leave children alone.
this is something I read about on the Mirror Forum, all those years ago, so cannot link...
Praiaaa, I've looked at David Payne's rogatory interview (I deserve a medal)
[color:e15d=000000]Qu[color:e15d=000000]o[color:e15d=000000]te:-   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html
[color:e15d=000000]Reply    ”And err you know just for the record, embarrassingly or as it turns out now in err retrospect you know it’s a small change but you know the Mark Warner had also advertised that you know they were gonna discount the holiday by ten percent you know not long after we booked, which slightly irritated me, given the fact that we booked it and then he said well actually we don’t have this, we don’t have this, so I’d had correspondence probably being a bit cheeky just to say what, what, you know you can knock us ten percent off as well and they gave us some discount, which you know looking back just seems, you know, ridiculous.”

Casey5

Posts : 321
Reputation : 18
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Ashwarya on 02.08.14 20:35

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
This is why I agree with Cristobell's stance that the couple didn't promote the Smith sighting especially when you compare it with how they went all out for Tannerman and the Barcelona "Posh Spice".
Er, ShuBob, have you considered these facts:

Featured in Kate McCann's book? (2011 to now - 3 years)

Smithman: SIX PAGES

Barcelona 'Posh Spice' - NOT A MENTION


Featured on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website? (2009 to now - 5 years)

Smithman: YES - ever day for over 5 years

Barcelona 'Posh Spice' - NEVER.


Do you still say they didn't promote 'Smithman'?

I've never seen Smithman promoted on the Find Madeleine website and Barcelona Posh Spice has been there as long as I can remember and still is, not to mention Clarrie's press conference about her - are there two different websites as I have just checked and this is still the case?

Ashwarya

Posts : 141
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-04-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 20:38

I really cannot understand why the McCanns are sueing The Times - after all the Times only reproduced content from the Report (which Exton had given the Times) - surely the McCanns should be sueing Exton just as they had previously threatened to do.

Reading the original ST article again, it says TM hired Oakley in Spring 2008 and within a few months the relationship had soured, although it also states that "Oakley`s six month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club, covert surveillance, lie detector tests and a forensic examination of all existing evidence."   It seems incredible that Exton`s team had done all their investigations and produced that report within a couple of months (or was it six months?).

The ST wrote that the Oakley team placed less importance on the JT sighting and focused on the Smith sighting -  " ...they (the Oakley Team) focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw  Their report said the Smiths were helpful and sincere and concluded : `The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner`s sighting` ".   

NB the underlined bit which states that they interviewed the family and produced E-Fits of the man they saw.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 20:46

@Woofer wrote: travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw 

NB the underlined bit which states that they interviewed the family and produced E-Fits of the man they saw.
That is the No. 1 Question - ever since CrimeWatch.

DID THE SMITHS PRODUCE EITHER OF THOSE EFITS?

If...

1. They never told the police about their claimed 'sighting' for 13 days

2. It was dark

3. The street lighting was poor

4. They didn't see his face because he was looking down or the child was obscuring it

5. The only saw him for a few seconds at the most

6. None of them could say to the PJ that they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him

7. They didn't draw up the efits until a year after their alleged 'sighting'

8. The efits look like two different people

9. And it appears they were drawn up on two different computer programs.

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 20:56

Oh dear Tony - you must get sick of repeating those words - have you got it on a shortcut key?
 
We obviously only have Exton`s team`s word for it. (sorry if I`ve got my apostrophes in the wrong places).

P.S.  It would be good if someone could just ring up Martin Smith and ask him.

Woofer

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 21:19

@Woofer wrote:P.S.  It would be good if someone could just ring up Martin Smith and ask him.
If he was an honest and true man, and nobody had ever intimidated or threatened him, he would he bound to tell the truth.

He would have to explain:

1. The whole family's unconscionable 13-day delay in first reporting a sighting which is now at the very heart of the search for Madeleine

2. Why he was so sure, on the basis of a few seconds clip of Gerry walking down the steps off a plane, that this was the man he'd witnessed for a few seconds on a dark night 4 months ago?

3. Does he still stick by that identification; if not, when did he change his mind?

4. When he was contacted by Brian Kennedy, what did they say to each other, when did they meet or talk to each other?

5. When did he meet with Exton or Exton's men, what did they say to each other?

6. Did he and other members of his family draw up the efits?

IF YES

7. Which other members of his family drew up the efits?

8. Why are the two efits so different?

9. How could any of them remember what the man's face looked like? 

10. On what date did he/his family members approve them?

AND

11. On what date in 2012 did he meet with DCI Redwood or a member of his team, where did they meet, for how long, and what did they discuss? [a meeting in 2012 between Grange and Smith has been admitted]

12. On what date in 2013 did he meet with DCI Redwood or a member of his team, where did they meet, for how long, and what did they discuss? [a meeting in 2013 between Grange and Smith has been admitted]

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest on 02.08.14 22:06

@Woofer wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
OK - so let's say Exton drew up the efits but we don't know his source.

Yes, Woofer, am 100% in agreement with that statement

The PJ, Leicester Police and SY did not think they were credible. 

Yes, that's the way it looks - based on the Sunday Times apology/retraction staement

The McCanns did not want the world to see them either, so you could say the McCanns were in agreement with the PJ and Leicester Police.

Yes, agreed - exactly right

However SY have now decided they are credible (now that Tannerman has been eliminated).

Indeed, after holding on to them for 2 years and 2 months

My brain is hurting!

Mine is not, because for some time I hve accepted that:

1. Tannerman was a fabrication

2. Smithman was a fabrication

3. The efits are of two different people - not of the same person

4. The efits were not drawn up by the Smiths, and

5. Grange was a high-level whitewash operation from the get-go.

With those assumptions in place, everything becomes dead easy to understand


Would that suggest that SY are working in conjunction with MI5 I wonder.  If this website gets closed down in the next couple of hours, we`ll know they are !
A minor point.  The PJ were aware of the Smiths alleged sighting quite early in the investigation so, if a description of the person seen by the Smiths was required in order to produce an e-fit to assist the investigation, why was this supposedly given to Oakley International (or any other agent employed by the Mccanns team) rather than the PJ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by joel27 on 02.08.14 22:09

Whilst Tony is right Smithman does feature in he book, I would argue the reason for this is not to publicise it hence the lack of EFit pictures, it appears to me the real point was to tie Smithman to Tannerman. To tie the rather awkward sighting by the Irish family that thought it was Gerry to the alleged Tannerman. The book mentions the similarities between the two descriptions etc Kate is convinced its the same man etc. Its not publicity its an exercise to get the public behind Tannerman ignore the rest of the issues raised by the Smiths. With the release of the files the release of the book on the case, to ignore Smithman would have been a horrendous error. However tie it to Tannerman and you attempt to turn it as independent verification. When Redwood takes out Tannerman the refocus is then on Smithman and its no wonder alarm bells are ringing. Tannerman was never suggested as Gerry, whilst Smithman was , no Tannerman and no independent verification of an abducter but one suggested to be Gerry,  Sunday Times raises the point it has to be countered. 

Sorry Tony yes there is publicity but not in a way other than to verify Tannerman and without the Efits is the key show them to the public the variation to Tannerman were obvious the likeness to Gerry in one highlighted.  Happy for you to prove me wrong.

Page 107
We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it.


Page 343/344
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing. Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re stil coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'

Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly.

joel27

Posts : 38
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest on 02.08.14 22:18

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
I don't remember Clarence Mitchell giving a mock police press conference to promote Smithsman.
No, indeed that's very true.

But the Barcelona 'Posh Spice' served a valuable purpose for a little while.

Meanwhile the possibly-fabricated Smithman 'sighting' was intorudced in early 2009, and kept nice, and warm, and waiting in the background, and growing - until the moment that Redwood, his masters and the BBC Crimewatch Team had everything in place for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Tony, why do you think the Smithsman sighting didn't get the mock police press conference treatment?

ETA: I've just seen your update Tony.

With such people believing in you for once, I'm even more certain in my stance that Smithsman wasn't actively promoted.

Indeed. I cannot believe that Crimewatch/BBC as well as SY/government would all conspire together to create all this. Why would the BBC involve themselves in an obvious whitewash? And surely all this detailed work by AR/Crimewatch would have to have someone tried and convicted for it to be worthwhile and for Crimewatch to show on the How They Were Caught special.

Depends on the nature of the crime?  The BBC are hardly holier than thou are they?  I'm sure Crimewatch is invaluable in many circumstances but watching the October 2013 update I thought it was more like a fictional crime style soap opera.  For a start, the so called reconstruction that was supposed to be portraying the nearest to the truth ever before seen (or words to that effect) and yet a group of actors was used, in a location totally unlike the Ocean Club, using the Tapas group witness accounts for scripting.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by XTC on 02.08.14 22:26

@Woofer wrote:I really cannot understand why the McCanns are sueing The Times - after all the Times only reproduced content from the Report (which Exton had given the Times) - surely the McCanns should be sueing Exton just as they had previously threatened to do.

Reading the original ST article again, it says TM hired Oakley in Spring 2008 and within a few months the relationship had soured, although it also states that "Oakley`s six month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club, covert surveillance, lie detector tests and a forensic examination of all existing evidence."   It seems incredible that Exton`s team had done all their investigations and produced that report within a couple of months (or was it six months?).

The ST wrote that the Oakley team placed less importance on the JT sighting and focused on the Smith sighting -  " ...they (the Oakley Team) focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw  Their report said the Smiths were helpful and sincere and concluded : `The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner`s sighting` ".   

NB the underlined bit which states that they interviewed the family and produced E-Fits of the man they saw.
Woofer

I think this might be the reason why the report was never handed on. Particularly to the PJ to add to the Official ( as opposed to unofficial case file)


A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public.

The Smith family ' semi- revelation' ( my italics ) is curious as Tony Bennet says.

The most advertised missing person on the planet is missing perhaps carried away by an abductor and a whole family who were out and about that night think nothing of seeing a man carrying a child pass them heading for the beach for 13 days.

I read ( so may not be true) that a member of the family prompted Mr Smith to approach the police. I'm not sure if he approached the PJ but I read about his statement to the Irish Gardai.
[size=13]

It's a strange one this alright because no matter who did what when the PJ were never informed of these actions. As far as I know it is an offence in any European Country to interfere or not inform the national police of that country of any new information that could be of use to solving a case. One thing's for sure is that the PJ obviously didn't hear about it because the lawyers were firmly
in charge of information to be released. Which is probably an offence also.

Long ago the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance ceased to be a search and became a defence of the parents so the quote in red must have been deemed more important than the search for Madeleine.

I agree with Tony Bennet visa - vis DI Redwood. Only he and some of his team KNOW who the JT bundleman is and whether he exists. Further, only he and his team know whether the Smithman sighting is worth following up or not. Actions speak louder than a million column inches of words. The actions of the public digging went no where near the areas where the Smithman may have been heading. Until they do follow the Smithman trail I'll reserve judgement as to a whitewash or not. Going off actions I'm not hopeful though.

As to the threatened summons it will be interesting to see if the Times takes them on. If not it's a Court steps job. If they fight the case  some people might have to appear in front of a British Judge. Whole truth- nothing but the, etc etc. Now that could get interesting. If that happens the likes of CR representatives had better think carefully as to how they wish to be represented.
Like the possible Amaral round of suing it only needs one particular company to challenge what is afterall an assumption: That Madeliene is still alive. She may be , but that is unproven and unlike the Portuguese judge in the trial v's Mr Amaral you really would need to prove which fact is which.

Could it be a bridge too far?

We shall see.

Opinion though.








[/size]

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Afraid they'll lose the Amaral Suit

Post by utahagen on 02.08.14 22:30

I suspect the McCanns are afraid they are going to lose their suit against Amaral and are suing the Times so that they have something to point to in a couple of months, when the other suit is decided against them. I predict they'll eventually drop the suit against the Times, that they intent the Times suit just to be a distraction.

utahagen

Posts : 37
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 22:53

@joel27 wrote:Whilst Tony is right Smithman does feature in he book, I would argue the reason for this is not to publicise, it hence the lack of EFit pictures. It appears to me the real point was to tie Smithman to Tannerman. To tie the rather awkward sighting by the Irish family that thought it was Gerry to the alleged Tannerman. The book mentions the similarities between the two descriptions etc., Kate is convinced it's the same man etc. It's not publicity, it's an exercise to get the public behind Tannerman and ignore the rest of the issues raised by the Smiths. With the release of the files, the release of the book on the case, to ignore Smithman would have been a horrendous error. However, tie it to Tannerman and you attempt to turn it as independent verification. When Redwood takes out Tannerman the refocus is then on Smithman and it's no wonder alarm bells are ringing. Tannerman was never suggested as Gerry, whilst Smithman was, no Tannerman and no independent verification of an abducter but one suggested to be Gerry. Sunday Times raises the point it has to be countered. 

Sorry Tony, yes there is publicity, but not in a way other than to verify Tannerman - and without the Efits is the key show them to the public the variation to Tannerman were obvious the likeness to Gerry in one highlighted.  Happy for you to prove me wrong.
Cristobell in her last substantive post not only said there was no 'promotion' of Smithman but said that the McCanns actually 'suppressed' (her word) Smithman. Given that Smithman was at least MENTIONED in the 2009 'Mockumentary', APPERAED on their website for 5 years both in writing and with an accompanying audio tape in an Irish accent, and had SIX pages about him in the book, whatever words you may care to use Cristobell is manifestly wrong to use the word 'suppressed'.

I do not agree that the only reason for promoting Smithman to the somewhat limited extent thatt they di was merely to 'get the public behind Tannerman', though I concede that this might have been a part of their thinking. It exposed them however to the challenge of explaining why any abductor would walk around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes after the amazing feat of abducting Madeleine in a time-frame of 3 minutes and apparently opening the window and shutters as a 'red herring'.

No, I think there were other, more important reasons why Smithman was quietly promoted at first and then given a prominent 'outing' in the pages of 'madeleine'.

Tannerman was a major headache to them - exposed them and Jane Tanner to ridicule.

If only, if only, if only they could get rid of Tannerman, and latch on to Smithman. If only.

THEN...Enter DCI Redwood, and that 'revelation moment'...

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by ShuBob on 02.08.14 23:01

@Tony Bennett wrote:[...]
Tannerman was a major headache to them - exposed them and Jane Tanner to ridicule.

If only, if only, if only they could get rid of Tannerman, and latch on to Smithman. If only.

THEN...Enter DCI Redwood, and that 'revelation moment'...

Doesn't explain why Tannerman is still being promoted on their website. Or has that now changed?

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 02.08.14 23:03

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@joel27 wrote:Whilst Tony is right Smithman does feature in he book, I would argue the reason for this is not to publicise, it hence the lack of EFit pictures. It appears to me the real point was to tie Smithman to Tannerman. To tie the rather awkward sighting by the Irish family that thought it was Gerry to the alleged Tannerman. The book mentions the similarities between the two descriptions etc., Kate is convinced it's the same man etc. It's not publicity, it's an exercise to get the public behind Tannerman and ignore the rest of the issues raised by the Smiths. With the release of the files, the release of the book on the case, to ignore Smithman would have been a horrendous error. However, tie it to Tannerman and you attempt to turn it as independent verification. When Redwood takes out Tannerman the refocus is then on Smithman and it's no wonder alarm bells are ringing. Tannerman was never suggested as Gerry, whilst Smithman was, no Tannerman and no independent verification of an abducter but one suggested to be Gerry. Sunday Times raises the point it has to be countered. 

Sorry Tony, yes there is publicity, but not in a way other than to verify Tannerman - and without the Efits is the key show them to the public the variation to Tannerman were obvious the likeness to Gerry in one highlighted.  Happy for you to prove me wrong.
Cristobell in her last substantive post not only said there was no 'promotion' of Smithman but said that the McCanns actually 'suppressed' (her word) Smithman. Given that Smithman was at least MENTIONED in the 2009 'Mockumentary', APPERAED on their website for 5 years both in writing and with an accompanying audio tape in an Irish accent, and had SIX pages about him in the book, whatever words you may care to use Cristobell is manifestly wrong to use the word 'suppressed'.

I do not agree that the only reason for promoting Smithman to the somewhat limited extent thatt they di was merely to 'get the public behind Tannerman', though I concede that this might have been a part of their thinking. It exposed them however to the challenge of explaining why any abductor would walk around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes after the amazing feat of abducting Madeleine in a time-frame of 3 minutes and apparently opening the window and shutters as a 'red herring'.

No, I think there were other, more important reasons why Smithman was quietly promoted at first and then given a prominent 'outing' in the pages of 'madeleine'.

Tannerman was a major headache to them - exposed them and Jane Tanner to ridicule.

If only, if only, if only they could get rid of Tannerman, and latch on to Smithman. If only.

THEN...Enter DCI Redwood, and that 'revelation moment'...

I've read somewhere that Kate looked shocked on the Crimewatch program when Redwood produced the two efits, so why would that be if they were glad that they could get rid of Tannerman?

Google.Gaspar.Statements

Posts : 345
Reputation : 205
Join date : 2013-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by ShuBob on 02.08.14 23:09

Kate did look petrified during that Crimewatch program.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by unchained melody on 02.08.14 23:14

@ShuBob wrote:Kate did look petrified during that Crimewatch program.

Indeed she did, but only because of the choice of dress she wore
(It seems she is a narcissist)

unchained melody

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by joel27 on 02.08.14 23:14

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@joel27 wrote:Whilst Tony is right Smithman does feature in he book, I would argue the reason for this is not to publicise, it hence the lack of EFit pictures. It appears to me the real point was to tie Smithman to Tannerman. To tie the rather awkward sighting by the Irish family that thought it was Gerry to the alleged Tannerman. The book mentions the similarities between the two descriptions etc., Kate is convinced it's the same man etc. It's not publicity, it's an exercise to get the public behind Tannerman and ignore the rest of the issues raised by the Smiths. With the release of the files, the release of the book on the case, to ignore Smithman would have been a horrendous error. However, tie it to Tannerman and you attempt to turn it as independent verification. When Redwood takes out Tannerman the refocus is then on Smithman and it's no wonder alarm bells are ringing. Tannerman was never suggested as Gerry, whilst Smithman was, no Tannerman and no independent verification of an abducter but one suggested to be Gerry. Sunday Times raises the point it has to be countered. 

Sorry Tony, yes there is publicity, but not in a way other than to verify Tannerman - and without the Efits is the key show them to the public the variation to Tannerman were obvious the likeness to Gerry in one highlighted.  Happy for you to prove me wrong.
Cristobell in her last substantive post not only said there was no 'promotion' of Smithman but said that the McCanns actually 'suppressed' (her word) Smithman. Given that Smithman was at least MENTIONED in the 2009 'Mockumentary', APPERAED on their website for 5 years both in writing and with an accompanying audio tape in an Irish accent, and had SIX pages about him in the book, whatever words you may care to use Cristobell is manifestly wrong to use the word 'suppressed'.

I do not agree that the only reason for promoting Smithman to the somewhat limited extent thatt they di was merely to 'get the public behind Tannerman', though I concede that this might have been a part of their thinking. It exposed them however to the challenge of explaining why any abductor would walk around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes after the amazing feat of abducting Madeleine in a time-frame of 3 minutes and apparently opening the window and shutters as a 'red herring'.

No, I think there were other, more important reasons why Smithman was quietly promoted at first and then given a prominent 'outing' in the pages of 'madeleine'.

Tannerman was a major headache to them - exposed them and Jane Tanner to ridicule.

If only, if only, if only they could get rid of Tannerman, and latch on to Smithman. If only.

THEN...Enter DCI Redwood, and that 'revelation moment'...
Its where I disagree lets take the revelation moment it gives them the chance to take down the Tannerman pictures from the web-site declare publicly that Smithman is the main suspect. No way will they , they cannot and could never because of the September statements forever linkGerry  to Smithman.. Smithman is the elephant in the room if you like, you have to prove where Gerry was without doubt at the appropriate time to make Smithman viable. They cannot there are the missing minutes around the same time where he was out looking. (happy to be corrected if there is a timeline with independent verification) Smithman could only be the abducter seen byTannerman the reason of wandering around for 45 minutes is easier to be explained taken somewhere for 40 minutes.  The revelation moment to me is the dawning on the McCanns that OG are not buying the story so carefully planted for 7 years. It points to me that the lack of publicity by the McCanns since in the vocal support of OG the urging to find Smithman is not the sign of support I would expect if their headache was removed.

joel27

Posts : 38
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.08.14 23:30

@XTC wrote:


The Smith family 'semi- revelation' ( my italics ) is curious as Tony Bennett says.


The most advertised missing person on the planet is missing, perhaps carried away by an abductor, and a whole family who were out and about that night think nothing of seeing a man carrying a child pass them heading for the beach for 13 days.

Not one member on this forum has ever given anything remotely approaching a satisfactory explanation for this conduct. I by contrast have sought to explain it by reference to his friend/acquaintance Robert Murat being made a suspect in a blaze of publicity the day before he phones the police to say, in terms: "Sorry, it was very dark, but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat".

I read (so may not be true) that a member of the family prompted Mr Smith to approach the police. I'm not sure if he approached the PJ but I read about his statement to the Irish Gardai.

It's true. The Smith's account of this is that Martin Smith's son 'phoned his father up the day after Murat was made a suspect and said: 'Dad, was I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child late at night in Praia da Luz. It's not very convincing, is it?

It's a strange one this, alright because no matter who did what - when the PJ were never informed of these actions. As far as I know it is an offence in any European Country to interfere or not inform the national police of that country of any new information that could be of use to solving a case.

'Misprision', it's called under English common law.

One thing's for sure is that the PJ obviously didn't hear about it because the lawyers were firmly in charge of information to be released. Which is probably an offence also.

That's a very valid point - according to the Sunday Times apology, the McCanns informed the investigating authority of the e-fits 'before October 2009' (very curious phrase). That could mean they did so on 30 September 2009. In which case that would be about 16 months since the efits were drawn up.

Long ago the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance ceased to be a search and became a defence of the parents so the quote in red must have been deemed more important than the search for Madeleine.

I can't comment.

I agree with Tony Bennett vis-a-vis DCI Redwood. Only he and some of his team KNOW who the JT bundleman is and whether he exists.

Exactly right. Plus the stories about him 'normally wearing a dark jacket and light trousers' and hanging on to his child's white pyjamas for 6 years, never mind only just realising that he was the man the police were looking for...they hardly have the 'ring of truth' about them.

Further, only he and his team know whether the Smithman sighting is worth following up or not. Actions speak louder than a million column inches of words. The actions of the public digging went nowhere near the areas where the Smithman may have been heading. Until they do follow the Smithman trail I'll reserve judgement as to a whitewash or not. Going off actions, I'm not hopeful though.

As to the threatened summons


It's been issued! It has an 'HD14' number, linked to 'McCanns v Times' - and so is in existence, with a preliminary hearing no doubt coming up shortly.

it will be interesting to see if the Times takes them on. If not it's a Court steps job. If they fight the case, some people might have to appear in front of a British Judge. Whole truth - nothing but the, etc etc. Now that could get interesting. If that happens the likes of CR representatives had better think carefully as to how they wish to be represented.

Like the possible Amaral round of suing it only needs one particular company to challenge what is after all an assumption: That Madeleine is still alive. She may be, but that is unproven and unlike the Portuguese judge in the trial vs Mr Amaral you really would need to prove which fact is which.

Could it be a bridge too far?


I think the McCanns could successfully argue that they themselves were not responsible for holding back the efits. here's how their attack on the Sunday Times might run:

"Well, we got the e-fits about August 2008. We weren't totally sure about them, and we had so much else on our plates. After a while, we contacted Leics Police, and they said: 'We'll get back to you'. They did get back, and said that they thought they ought to forward the efits to the Portuguese Police, which they did so. They said: 'Don't do anything with those efits until we hear from the PJ'. But no word came. Eventually, thanks to Rebekah Brooks more than anyone else, we got the review we so urgently wanted.

We showed the efits to DCI Redwood back in August 2011 and he said: 'I will look into it, but be patient, I have about 195 lines of enquiry to pursue'. He and his team eventually traced, identified and eliminated the man the much-maligned Jane Tanner had seen on 3 May, and then Redwood contacted us and told us excitedly about his 'revelation moment'. He then said: 'I feel sure the man seen by the Smiths was the abductor of your daughter Madeleine.

I want to use those efits drawn up by Exton to find him. I will use them just as soon as I can on the BBC Crimewatch programme, to get maximum exposure'. So the Sunday Times has grossly libelled us, damaged our reputation, and grievously hurt us by making the truly outrageous claim that we 'held back' these efits'."


Remember: Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow. Mrs Bercow's apology was not enough. Lord McAlpine's lawyers demanded - and GOT - a lot of money for her little innuendo on Twitter


____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest on 02.08.14 23:35

@unchained melody wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:Kate did look petrified during that Crimewatch program.

Indeed she did, but only because of the choice of dress she wore
(It seems she is a narcissist)

It's late at night and it's naffing hot which means that my powers of concentration are on a level with those of a goldfish, but what has Kate's dress got to do with her looking terrified?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by unchained melody on 02.08.14 23:40

Terrified about how she looked on live TV. As a Narcissist would when told her dress was fine backstage (by Yes people) but when she saw herself on the monitors...


(I'll not comment anymore on this as I may be barking up the wrong dress, but I think it is a plausible theory for why she looked how she did)

unchained melody

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 16 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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