The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Mm11

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Mm11

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Regist10

Possible Action Against The Times

Page 10 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest 06.08.14 14:39

Legal eagle or not
Walk up to the Royal Courts and ask them. Simples. 
You know the way.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Liz Eagles 06.08.14 14:46

parapono wrote:Legal eagle or not
Walk up to the Royal Courts and ask them. Simples. 
You know the way.
so do you.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Cristobell 06.08.14 14:55

If the Writ has been lodged at the High Court, then the details should be available.  Who issued the Writ, for example, was it Carter Ruck?  I wonder if you have to physically go along to the High Court, or if the documents are available online? In the past copies of Writs have been available to us, but I'm afraid I don't know how they were obtained.  I'm surprised actually, that journalists have not investigated this claim further.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Okeydokey 06.08.14 16:30

Cristobell wrote:If the Writ has been lodged at the High Court, then the details should be available.  Who issued the Writ, for example, was it Carter Ruck?  I wonder if you have to physically go along to the High Court, or if the documents are available online? In the past copies of Writs have been available to us, but I'm afraid I don't know how they were obtained.  I'm surprised actually, that journalists have not investigated this claim further.

Aren't some writs subject to secrecy injunctions?
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Doug D 07.08.14 8:52

Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:
 
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
 
‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.
 
 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by HelenMeg 07.08.14 9:47

A quick search of the website using McCann as a search word - comes up only with this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=McCann

Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.
All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.
Note for Editors

  1. For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.
avatar
HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by worriedmum 07.08.14 9:51

A thoughtful and rather depressing 'lazzeri', DougD, and very relevant to the Times efit story.


It also reminded me,


'It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up.   Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction?'
worriedmum
worriedmum

Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest 07.08.14 9:54

HelenMeg: I feel sure that this dates back to 2007.

http://news.sky.com/story/554524/madeleine-mccann-parents-escape-neglect-charges

I think that we have someone on the forum who can confirm this!
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by worriedmum 07.08.14 9:57

Just adding this as a reminder. Did the McCanns already know about Andy Redwood's 'revelation moment' on Crimewatch ?
Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Bb191113h
worriedmum
worriedmum

Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo 07.08.14 10:00

Doug D wrote:Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:
 
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
 
‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.
 
 

Lengthy piece, essentially not positive about OG.

We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice."

Madeleine Page 205- 206

Was suppression of efits one of those tricky situations where they did not seem to have a choice ?

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Justformaddie 07.08.14 10:15

Thing is, their faces, both of them tells a lot, like deers in headlights ( I smile each time I see this pic). But, would OG really release that efit, when it looks so much like gm? I'm trying to be positive and know it looks like half the men out there but, how many British was there at that exact time, wearing those clothes, carrying a child, in her pjs, with blonde hair, aged 3/4, sleeping in his arms and totally ignore the smiths? Then 80% sure it was gm? Please pj, come tell there was no crècheman that night, smiths, tell the truth again, for madeleine plz!
IMO

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
Justformaddie
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by HelenMeg 07.08.14 10:45

I've just read the Lazzeri post from yesterday and have to say- it does seem to accurately assess the situation regarding Op Grange. It is pessimistic and appear to be rightly so.
avatar
HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett 07.08.14 10:58

Justformaddie wrote:Thing is, their faces, both of them tells a lot, like deers in headlights (I smile each time I see this pic). But, would OG really release that efit,

What do you mean by 'that efit'? There are TWO. And they are quite clearly of TWO DIFFERENT men. How could the Smiths draw up two wholly different men, when they never saw his face? And look at all the many many doubts about whether their so-called 'sighting' is credible. 

when it looks so much like GM?

A matter of opinion, but many people do NOT agree that one of the efits looks like Gerry McCann.

I'm trying to be positive and know it looks like half the men out there

Precisely - hundreds of thousands of British men aged 30 to 50 could resemble that efit
  
but, how many British was there at that exact time, wearing those clothes, carrying a child, in her pjs, with blonde hair, aged 3/4, sleeping in his arms and totally ignore the smiths?

Have you considered what I've written a few times elsewhere on here in recent weeks? - namely that the Smiths' description of 'Smithman' is essentially a carbon copy of Jane Tanner's description, with now fewer than SEVENTEEN similar features, including the meaningless statement that the man 'didn't look like a tourist'. The evidence strongly suggests, doesn't it, that the Smiths knew of Tanner's description and copied it. And we know that Martin Smith had a motive - Murat was a friend of his, they had met many times - and the one and only thing he was clear about was that he could, apparently, declare that the man was definitely not his friend, Robert Murat.  

Then 80% sure it was GM?

No, he said '60% to 80%', and his basis for saying it was nor more than 'the way he was carrying the child'. @ Justformaddie, do you not see the very obvious problems with that claim? And although Cristobell has claimed that this would be good evidence to identify Gerry McCann in a court of law, surely you at least can see that it is worthless identification evidence, especially when taken with the fact that the family did nothing about their 'sighting' for THIRTENN days.
     
Please pj, come tell there was no crècheman that night, Smiths, tell the truth again, for madeleine plz! IMO

Let's be clear. Does not the evidence overwhelmingly suggest...

1. Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner

2. Smithman was a fabrication by the Smiths

3. Crecheman was an invention by DCI Redwood to pave the way for his soon-to-be-announced 'final theory' that the abductor took Madeleine between 9.10pm and 9.55pm and was seen by the Smiths at 10.00pm - the ONLY EVIDENCE apart from what the McCanns say that there ever was an abduction.

Also don't forget that DCI Redwood has interviewed Martin Smith twice.

And that Redwood did NOT say that the Smiths produced the two different efits - whilst giving 6.7 million people watching the BBC Crimewatch special in October that he had said this.

People are irrationally IMO clinging on to the 'Smithman' sighting when it is one of the most dubious claims in the whole case

  

 

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Cristobell 07.08.14 11:13

Doug D wrote:Back to ‘Those e-fits again’:
 
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
 
‘DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense’.
 
 

Strange how we interpret things different ways.  I don't see DCI Redwood's actions as assisting the McCanns at all.  I know several on here think OG revelations seem to coincide with the libel trial in Lisbon, but I actually see that as detrimental to the McCanns, rather than assisting them.

The main crux of the parents case is that Goncalo Amaral persuaded the public that Madeleine was dead and therefore no-one would search for her.  Scotland Yard digging for a body, helps Goncalo's case, not the McCanns. 

The details of this case simply do not allow a timeframe where an abductor can murder the child in the apartment, then dispose of her body in the immediate vicinity.  If DCI Redwood wanted to influence the trial and steer suspicions away from the parents, he would have taken his excavations and earth moving equipment, far far away from 5A and the Ocean Club. 

I also don't agree that the McCanns aren't bothered by the release of the Smith efits, the Crimewatch pictures of the starry pair, show them, Kate especially, looking like a deer about to be hit by a car.  Twitter I think is a good gauge as to what is going on in the Team McCann camp, and the trolls are avoiding the Smithman efits like the plague. Happily there are a number of enthusiastic antis who keep getting those images out there, much to the trolls annoyance.  The OFM website and FB page are not promoting the efits, they are still promoting their own 'abductor', Tannerman. 

In the past, the McCanns have tried to morph the man seen by the Smiths into the man 'seen' by Jane Tanner, and indeed in Kate's book (Exhibit KH1) tries her best to convince her readers that they are one and the same person. DCI Redwood has now cleared that matter up conclusively, Smithman is an entirely different entity. 

I would also have to ask 'Lazzeri' the same questions I put to Tony and others who are convinced of a whitewash.  What would such a whitewash achieve?  If as Lazzeri claims DCI Redwood is winding up (or is it winding down?) OG, then 3 years Review/Investigation and £7m+ of taxpayers money, will have achieved absolutely zilch.  That is the cloud of suspicion hanging over the heads of Kate and Gerry will not have gone away (in fact it has increased a thousand fold since 2011) and Scotland Yard will look more corrupt under this government than it did under the previous one.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Justformaddie 07.08.14 11:30

It was just IMO Tony, both don't look like gm, just the obvious one, I don't know who drew them either, I don't think Murat and smiths are friends that have met many times, smith seen him twice, in a bar, said hi once and never spoke again from what I read. IMO, a family would not lie to save a man they saw twice and if that was the reason for them coming forward, I would think more than just Martin smith would claim that it was not Murat, to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think smiths made it up, that's all.
IMO

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
Justformaddie
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett 07.08.14 11:50

Justformaddie wrote:It was just IMO Tony, both don't look like GM, just the obvious one,

Not in the least 'obvious' to me and to many others

I don't know who drew them either,

They were drawn up by Henri Exton, of that there is little doubt, but IMO he could not have based the efits on the Smiths for all the reasons I have given over past week

I don't think Murat and Smiths are friends that have met many times, Smith seen him twice, in a bar, said [he spoke to him] once and never spoke again from what I read.

In that case, it looks like you have read only one statement that Martin Smith gave early on, and not the others made by him and other members of the family to the police and to the newspapers; please before you comment further would you do two things: (1) look up all that the Smiths have ever said about Murat and (2) think again about why Smith could be so adamant that man he says he saw that night was not Murat - if he hardly knew him, as you suggest. 

And why did he wait until Murat was arrested and made a suspect before doing anything? Can you explain that?      


IMO, a family would not lie to save a man they saw twice

I agree. Obviously they (or at least Martin Smith) knew him much better than that, for at least 2 years before 3 May 2007 on his own admission, and quite possibly a lot longer, given how evasive Smith was about Murat

and if that was the reason for them coming forward, I would think more than just Martin Smith would claim that it was not Murat,

That's easily explained by Martin Smith being the one member of the family who knew Murat well; maybe the others did not know him
  
to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think Smiths made it up, that's all.  IMO

Do you at least agree, as I suggest, that none of the Smiths could have drawn up those efits (despite DCI Redwood pretending otherwise)?  

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Justformaddie 07.08.14 12:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:It was just IMO Tony, both don't look like GM, just the obvious one,

Not in the least 'obvious' to me and to many others

I don't know who drew them either,

They were drawn up by Henri Exton, of that there is little doubt, but IMO he could not have based the efits on the Smiths for all the reasons I have given over past week

I don't think Murat and Smiths are friends that have met many times, Smith seen him twice, in a bar, said [he spoke to him] once and never spoke again from what I read.

In that case, it looks like you have read only one statement that Martin Smith gave early on, and not the others made by him and other members of the family to the police and to the newspapers; please before you comment further would you do two things: (1) look up all that the Smiths have ever said about Murat and (2) think again about why Smith could be so adamant that man he says he saw that night was not Murat - if he hardly knew him, as you suggest. 

And why did he wait until Murat was arrested and made a suspect before doing anything? Can you explain that?      


IMO, a family would not lie to save a man they saw twice

I agree. Obviously they (or at least Martin Smith) knew him much better than that, for at least 2 years before 3 May 2007 on his own admission, and quite possibly a lot longer, given how evasive Smith was about Murat

and if that was the reason for them coming forward, I would think more than just Martin Smith would claim that it was not Murat,

That's easily explained by Martin Smith being the one member of the family who knew Murat well; maybe the others did not know him
  
to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think Smiths made it up, that's all.  IMO

Do you at least agree, as I suggest, that none of the Smiths could have drawn up those efits (despite DCI Redwood pretending otherwise)?  
Thank you Tony, I will indeed read all the other statements by Martin, not sure why the 13 day later thing, you know more than me about this and I have alot more to read, but with the fantastic people on here it's great to be able to see it from all angles and get closer to the truth. Thank you again, I'm away to read some more!

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
Justformaddie
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by jeanmonroe 07.08.14 12:17

TB wrote:
3. Crecheman was an invention by DCI Redwood to pave the way for his soon-to-be-announced 'final theory' that the abductor took Madeleine between 9.10pm and 9.55pm and was seen by the Smiths at 10.00pm - the ONLY EVIDENCE apart from what the McCanns say that there ever was an abduction.
------------------------------------------------------------

As Gerrie Nell might say ' This is only DCI Redwood's VERSION of events, M'Lady. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support what he says. It is purely supposition, a belief, held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis. M'Lady, after over 3 years and unlimited UK taxpayer funded investigation, approaching almost £9 million, to date, the 38 strong, solely dedicated, investigating team at Operation Grange have not discovered, or produced, a scintilla of EVIDENCE that an 'abduction' EVER took place. Not a single atom of EVIDENCE of an 'abduction' or EVIDENCE of an 'abductor', M'Lady, If this is DCI Redwood's EVIDENCE to close the case for the Metropolitan Police, i suggest his EVIDENCE has been tailored, to achieve some sort of closure of the investigation. It is highly improbable and DCI Redwood's version of events is simply not credible, given the contradictory EVIDENCE, given in signed, sworn statements, all on record, and all read by DCI Redwood's Operation Grange staff, by the McCanns and their accompanying holiday companions, the so called T9, M'Lady.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'This investigation is ANYTHING but 'normal' and it has NEVER been 'normal' from the day Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'

BBC reporter in PDL.
avatar
jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Justformaddie 07.08.14 13:38

Sorry, just letting Tony know I read a newspaper story, where Martin Smith did say he'd met Murat several times! So sorry about that bit.  duh

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
Justformaddie
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett 07.08.14 13:56

Justformaddie wrote:Sorry, just letting Tony know I read a newspaper story, where Martin Smith did say he'd met Murat several times! So sorry about that bit.  duh
Justformaddie, I am most grateful to you for taking the trouble to do that, and to post this on the forum, I just wish that those who almost seem to have a religious belief that the Smith sighting is genuine, that the Smiths proivded one or both e-fits, and that the Smiths' statements prove that Gerry McCann walked the streets of Praia da Luz for several minutes carrying his dead child (at the very moment his friends were raising the alarm) would take the trouble to look up ALL the references to the Smiths and the efits before making further pronouncemnts on the subject

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Liz Eagles 07.08.14 14:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Sorry, just letting Tony know I read a newspaper story, where Martin Smith did say he'd met Murat several times! So sorry about that bit.  duh
Justformaddie, I am most grateful to you for taking the trouble to do that, and to post this on the forum, I just wish that those who almost seem to have a religious belief that the Smith sighting is genuine, that the Smiths proivded one or both e-fits, and that the Smiths' statements prove that Gerry McCann walked the streets of Praia da Luz for several minutes carrying his dead child (at the very moment his friends were raising the alarm) would take the trouble to look up ALL the references to the Smiths and the efits before making further pronouncemnts on the subject
You have no worries about me Tony, I don't believe the Smith sighting anymore than I believe Philip Edmonds' alleged photographs.

I'm of course assuming that I'm still allowed in this 'free country of ours' to say I don't believe things.

I will say I believe this is a huge cover up and anyone who thinks paedophilia is not involved is a fool.

Just my beliefs of course.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Justformaddie 07.08.14 14:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Sorry, just letting Tony know I read a newspaper story, where Martin Smith did say he'd met Murat several times! So sorry about that bit.  duh
Justformaddie, I am most grateful to you for taking the trouble to do that, and to post this on the forum, I just wish that those who almost seem to have a religious belief that the Smith sighting is genuine, that the Smiths proivded one or both e-fits, and that the Smiths' statements prove that Gerry McCann walked the streets of Praia da Luz for several minutes carrying his dead child (at the very moment his friends were raising the alarm) would take the trouble to look up ALL the references to the Smiths and the efits before making further pronouncemnts on the subject
Thank you, lesson learnt..... Always look for other statements, I've learnt a lot on this forum and deep down the p word keeps coming to mind. I hate writing it, but it could be the root of this scandal,  Sad Maybe it's just too horrid to think about, but needed.
IMO though no facts here.

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
Justformaddie
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Cristobell 07.08.14 16:33

Its hardly a leap of faith to believe the Smith family are telling the truth.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to lie.  The idea that the family are protecting Robert Murat, an acquaintance known by the grandfather is ridiculous.  To believe they are lying we must accept that Martin Smith has persuaded his wife, his children and his grandchildren to pervert the course of justice in a major crime involving the death of a little girl by lying for SEVEN years!

The adults could well be facing prison sentences and the children's future will be forever blighted, all for the sake of someone they barely know.  In the Yorkshire Ripper case, the prankster who led the police off track with hoax telephone calls received a 4 year jail sentence.  What kind of jail sentence would the adult Smiths be looking at?

You keep stating things as facts Tony, when the truth is, you can't possibly know.  You state for example that DCI Redwood has only met the Smiths twice.  How do you know this?  You state what the Smith family saw as if you were there yourself.  Science and psychology advances on a daily basis, there are undoubtedly memory enhancing techniques that can be used to extract as much information from a witness as possible.  That the Smith family are still witnesses for Scotland Yard seven years on, is to their credit and it reinforces their credibility.  They have maintained a dignified and silent distance from the McCann circus.  That is also to their credit - they are clearly not in it for the money.   

In my opinion, it would take huge leap of faith to believe that this nice, respectable family (including the children) have conspired to lie to the police in a case involving a missing child and a global search. Not only have they concocted this story, they are sticking with it seven years on, even though prison is a very real possibility.  Not one of them have had a change of heart or reconsidered the effects of their crime on the children's futures? 

There is nothing religious in believing they are telling the truth.  Most people do, especially in a case where the life of a child is dependent on it.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett 07.08.14 17:54

Cristobell wrote:There is nothing religious in believing they are telling the truth.  Most people do, especially in a case where the life of a child is dependent on it.
Um, Cristobell.

Murat was asked by police on 15 May 2007 about his movements from Tuesday 1 May to Friday 4 May.

This, as you put it, was a case (quote) where the life of a child may have been dependent on his information.

He lied once.

He lied twice.

He lied three times.

He lied four times...

...in fact...

...he lied 17 times altogether.

So we know that Murat lied.

What is so difficult about believing that his friend Martin Smith also lied?

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Possible Action Against The Times - Page 10 Empty Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by worriedmum 07.08.14 18:52

Tony said   ''So we know that Murat lied.

What is so difficult about believing that his friend Martin Smith also lied?''


Murat may or may not have lied, but Martin Smith is a different person.


I know a lot of people but I would not call them my' friend ' just because I know them.


I agree with Cristobell. I  believe the Smith family sighting and the truthfulness of the Smith family.



worriedmum
worriedmum

Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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