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

Laid Bare

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Laid Bare

Post by Nina on 10.06.15 21:16


____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

21 Facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Post by Guest on 10.06.15 22:54

You would suspect your average curious person would be intrigued by the information.

Maybe some (more) are. 
Who knows

Poor twins, what will they be facing in years to come, one dreads to think about that, and of how much they deserve everyones pity

If only people had come clean from May 3rd on, the whole mess would have been avoided

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by lj on 11.06.15 15:22

@Portia wrote:You would suspect your average curious person would be intrigued by the information.

Maybe some (more) are. 
Who knows

Poor twins, what will they be facing in years to come, one dreads to think about that, and of how much they deserve everyones pity

If only people had come clean from May 3rd on, the whole mess would have been avoided

If ever the truth comes out, I have no doubt the excuse is going to be: we did it for the twins.

Don't they see how they ruined their lives?

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3276
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by PeterMac on 11.06.15 17:36

One wonders if the twins will one day run away from the full horror of what their parents have done to them, and in their time become Missing People ?

That could start the whole Fund raising thing all over again. Too horrible to contemplate.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Laid Bare - 20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN.

Post by Dutchgirl on 12.06.15 7:39

20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN.

There are many facebook groups and forums discussing this case, including:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheMadeleineMcCannControversy/?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/?fref=ts

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/

Most of the country do not trust Kate and Gerry McCann, despite the MSM's recent efforts to avoid saying anything against the couple for fear of being sued. Here are some basic facts, with links from the official police files, direct quotes, photographs, and videos to back them up. If you'd like to learn more I highly recommend joining, or following the above groups. 

FACT 1.

A statement was taken by Leicestershire Police from Katherina Gaspar. That statement raised serious questions about Gerry McCann, and one of his friends, David Payne. Katherina was on holiday with the McCanns and David Payne in 2005. It was on this holiday, that she witnessed the two men having a discussion, and making sexual gestures. Horrifyingly, she believes they were discussing Madeleine at the time.

Despite the statement being given to Leicestershire Police only two weeks after Madeleine was reported missing, it wasn't passed onto the Portuguese authorities, until October 24, 2007, after the McCanns had been questioned as arguido (suspects), and after the coordinator of the investigation, had been inexplicably removed from the case, and only then, because the PJ requested it.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/…/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

FACT 2.

The McCanns claim they were doing regular checks whilst they left their three children in the apartment, alone at night.

Gerry McCann:

"The kids were sound asleep and they were being checked regularly. We didn't think we needed a babysitter. We are good parents and what we did felt perfectly reasonable at the time."

"It's like we were sat in our back garden, all be it at the end of our garden."

Yet a neighbour heard one of the children crying out for approximately 1 hour 15 minutes. This crying went on until the parents arrived home. To leave a child alone, and crying for a parent is neglectful, pure and simple.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

FACT 3.

The nannies who were said to be in contact with Madeleine in the days leading up to her being reported missing, all tell a different story. With regards to confirmed contact, no one statement matches.

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/…/vague-nannies-and-cont…

(confirming links to the official police files are within the above blog entry)

FACT 4.

On the night Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns and their friends state that regular checks were being made upon the children. Gerry McCann claims he was only away from the table for a matter of minutes at the time it is believed Madeleine was "taken", a claim not backed up by one of the friends who states that:
"Kate had been moaning that you'd been gone a long time watching the football" 

At this point Gerry McCann has no alibi for longer than 2 minutes.






FACT 5.

One of the group of friends, Matt Oldfield claims, in his statement, that he went to check on the McCann children just after 9:30pm, however, he cannot state whether Madeleine was in her bed or not, despite having a clear view, and stating that he could see the twins breathing in the same room, the picture below illustrates where Matt would have been stood as he entered the room. Madeleine's bed is immediately to his left, the twins cot beyond it, in the centre of the room. 




http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/…/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.…

FACT 6.

At 9:55pm, a family witnessed a man carrying a small child toward the beach, not 5 minutes away from where Gerry McCann was last seen. This family were said to be convinced the little girl was Madeleine McCann, the head of the family was up to 80% sure that the man carrying her was Gerry McCann.




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

FACT 7.

The above sighting is the main focus of New Scotland Yard's investigation, who described it as a "revelation moment". Another man was seen passing by the McCann's apartment, but was ruled out by both police forces, having come forward and identified himself. Despite this, the McCanns still promote him as a suspect.

FACT 8.

Despite the McCanns having the evidence of the sighting in their hands since November 2008, it took them 5 years to put the efit on their Official Find Madeleine page, and only then a few weeks after Scotland Yard put it up on Crimewatch.






FACT 9.

Kate McCann got up to "check" on her children at 10pm. Only she wasn't actually going to check, despite having walked all the way to the apartment. I realise how ludicrous that sounds, and that's probably because it is. The link below takes you to a video of Kate McCann giving the most implausible account of her "check" that evening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNe2wdgy4Q#t=38

FACT 10.

Kate McCann refused to give a detailed statement, as to what happened when she claims she realised Madeleine was missing. In fact she refused to answer any questions about what she saw, what she did, or where she looked after 10pm, immediately prior to her raising the alarm, when, according to her sister in law, she came out of the apartment, leaving the twins behind, shouting: "THEY'VE TAKEN HER"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/…/uk-ne…/maddy-3-goes-missing-472340

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm






FACT 11.

The McCanns did not search for Madeleine. Apart from a brief look around the immediate vicinity, and a trip down to the beach for Gerry, where he didn't actually search, but was "consoled" by a friend (David Payne), Kate and Gerry did not search until 6am the following morning.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

FACT 12.

The McCanns lied to their friends back in the UK. As hard as that is to believe, the McCanns claimed that an intruder had "broken" "smashed" "jemmied" the shutters, and taken Madeleine out of the window. All this took place whilst scores of locals and guests searched for Madeleine McCann. Yep, whilst all that was going on, the McCanns weren't searching, they were creating lies.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html

The story was eventually retracted, and corrected by their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, and only after a documentary, by Channel 4 dispatches, proved that no break in had taken place. Mitchell stated that:

"There was no evidence of a break-in"

FACT 13.

On May 4th 2007, the morning after Madeleine was reported missing, Yvonne Martin, who worked for child protection services in England, and who was also on holiday in Portugal, introduced herself to the McCanns outside their apartment. She showed them her identification, and offered to help them. Curiously, and despite no leads, Kate McCann told her that Madeleine had been abducted by a couple. This claim also ties in with the report of Kate shouting, "THEY'VE TAKEN HER", but with no leads, how could Kate be so sure?

Stood with the McCanns at the time was David Payne, the man accused of making sexual gestures about Madeleine. It was Payne who pulled the couple away from Yvonne Martin, and after whispering to them, ushered them inside. Payne then returned to the street, where he told Yvonne Martin that the couple did not require her assistance.

Yvonne Martin states that she recognized Payne from the course of her work, and indeed, her concerns were great enough for her to write a letter to british police, stating that she felt the parents were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. She also noted that Payne was wearing the same clothes, as a description of as man police had said was carrying a small child, the previous night.

Yvonne Martin also asked the police to check if David Payne was, or had been on any child abuse, or paedophile registers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

FACT 14.

A Ltd company was set up within days of Madeleine going missing. This wasn't a charity, it was and still is, a Ltd company. You'd be forgiven for thinking the company, called the Madeleine Fund, Leaving No Stone Unturned, was set up to find Madeleine, not so, it was set up "mainly for legal expenditure", as the video below proves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM

FACT 15.

The McCanns made mortgage payments on their house in Rothley, directly from the fund.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7068760.stm

FACT 16.

Madeleine's birthday, May 12th 2007, 9 days after Madeleine was reported missing. The following excerpt is taken from Kate McCann's book, and describes in her words how their mood was on this day:

”We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids. I couldn't eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda. Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk, and although our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances. There was no cake. Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn't manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up. The physical loss was more intense than ever. I ached for Madeleine."

This is just one of the many blatant lies that appear in the book. Here we see a photograph, and below a video, taken on that very day, that shows the parents, and in particular, Gerry McCann, behaving in a manner totally different to the one Kate describes in her book.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDshSZaFICM

FACT 17.

May 21st 2007, the McCanns meet with Labour Government spin doctor, Clarence Mitchell. In an unprecedented move, Mitchell is deployed to deal with the press on behalf of the McCanns. Mitchell's involvement in the case hindered the police investigation, he also lied to the press. Here are just some of his lies:

“There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nothing, to suggest Madeleine has been harmed, let alone killed” LIE

and an odd statement to make given that in 2008 he also said:

“Madeleine is probably dead”

“I can categorically state that Gerry did not have a blue tennis bag” LIE

When talking about the Helping to find Madeleine fund Mitchell described it as:

“Independently controlled” LIE

“Kate and Gerry would have no issue with taking a lie detector test” LIE

“There are wholly innocent explanations for any material the police may or may not have found”

When talking about the “tapas 7” and the McCann’s he stated:

“None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that evening” LIE

“Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest, and utterly open with the police and all of their statements since the moment Madeleine was taken” LIE

“We have nothing to hide” LIE

“We are always willing to cooperate with the Portuguese police” LIE

The head of the Portuguese police department Carlos Anjos described Clarence Mitchell as “a manipulative liar” TRUE

He also said that “He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth” TRUE

FACT 18.

May 29th, despite the possibility of an abductor still being at large, the McCanns embark on a European tour, leaving their twins behind in the very town they claim Madeleine was abducted from. Let's just say your child was abducted after you weren't there to protect them.

Would you really do it again, less than 3 weeks later?


Would you trust anyone other than yourself to look after your two youngest children?

In fact only the day before Kate was telling the press how:

'she could not face sleeping away from the twins. She said: "We've become totally protective parents."' - Daily Mirror 28 May 2007

Of course, yet again, Kate McCann was lying.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id91.html

FACT 18.

The dogs, possibly the most damning element against the McCanns.

Let's have a look at their findings:

Keela, a 16 month old springer spaniel, was at the top of her field when she went to PDL in 2007, trained by Martin Grime (who now works for the FBI) she could sniff out the most microscopic specks of blood, even if the item had been cleaned or washed. To avoid any confusion Keela was trained to alert to nothing but human blood. So any talk of her alerting to anything else is pure fiction. At the time of the searches Keela earned £530 per day plus expenses, more than the chief constable at that time.


Eddie (pictured right) who was 7 at the time, had worked on over 200 cases worldwide and boasts an outstanding record of success. The FBI rated Eddie and Martin Grime as "two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed." Eddie was trained to alert to smell of human cadaverine (the smell given off from a human corpse) pro McCann's love to put about unfounded rumours that these dogs alert to other smells, nonsense, it was the McCanns who blamed the alerts on items such as dirty nappies, seabass etc.

To give a better idea a dogs nose is 10,000 times more sensitive to smell than our own. They can pick out every ingredient of a smell and separate it, much in the same way you or I could sort out different shaped wooden blocks, if we were handed a box of blocks containing sphere's, cubes, and pyramids, and told to put all the cubes to one side we could do it. A cadaver dogs nose works in the same way, it separates all the elements of one scent, examines each one in it's own right, and determines if human cadaver is present.

So what did the dogs find? Having gone through several other apartments at the Ocean club, and alerting to nothing, both dogs alerted to a number of places in and around the McCann's apartment, and their hire car.

Keela (below) alerted to human blood in:


The living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.
In the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic, hired 25 days AFTER Madeleine's disappearance.
On the car key.
In the interior of the car boot.

Eddie alerted to the scent of human cadaverine:

The wardrobe in the McCann's bedroom.
In the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. (the same place as Keela).
The veranda of 5a.
In the garden of the apartment.
The flower beds in the back of 5a.
The steps leading down from the patio.
Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio.
On two items of Kate's clothing.
On a T shirt belonging to Madeleine.
On cuddlecat (Madeleine's soft toy)
Not only that, but out of several cars in a car park Eddie only alerted to one, the McCanns' hire car.

Couple that with the fact that it was Eddie and Keela's findings led the forensic team to the discovery of DNA that could have belonged to Madeleine. In fact the original forensic conclusions were that it was DEFINITELY Madeleine's, that was later changed to say "It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample." The reason for that change was that John Lowe who compiled the report said he couldn't be certain how the sample came to be in the car. I fail to see what that has to do with the DNA being Madeleine's or not. It either is or it isn't.

Below are three videos showing Eddie and Keela's searches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHJjpXii9o#t=28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4Uhoik6qI#t=66

....and here more information on their findings.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug3

FACT 19.

The refusal of a reconstruction.

Crime reconstructions are a vital part of police forces investigations Worldwide, they give a clearer picture of what actually happened. It's all very well having all the pieces of a jigsaw, but without the picture on the lid of the box it can be difficult to put the pieces together, especially when, as was the case with the McCann's and their friends statements, those pieces don't fit.

In 2008 Ricardo Paiva, an Inspector with the PJ, sent an email to Mick Graham, Detective Inspector of the Major Crime Unit. In this email Ricardo requested that the tapas 7 (the group of friends who were on holiday with the McCanns) be contacted with a view to attending a reconstruction. What followed was a series of ridiculous demands by the group of friends, followed by the refusal to take part. Below are the first set of questions, followed by Ricardo Paiva's replies:

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?

2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?

3 - Why so close to the anniversary?

4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?

5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?

6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/likely frenzy?"
The responses from Ricardo were more than satisfactory:


1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?

The PJ wants them to take part in the re-enactment because they were the ones who experienced the situation. Therefore, they are in the best conditions to reproduce it.

2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?

The PJ is trying to find out, with accuracy, the circumstances of the events occurred, using for that purpose the exact place of events and the same persons who took part in it.

3 - Why so close to the anniversary?

Only now has the PJ conditions to carry out these proceedings, and also because it is desirable that the weather conditions are as similar as possible to those at the time of the events.

4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?

The reason is because only the persons involved can clarify, with accuracy and at the same place, their position and movements.


5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?

The PJ won't release any pictures/footage to the press.

6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/like frenzy?

The place will be isolated and press interference will be avoided to its maximum.

The re-enactment will be carried out in one single day, at the exact time the events occurred.

However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved."

So having asked 7 questions of the PJ and duly been given the answers you'd expect the tapas 7 to be more than willing to help, you'd be wrong. Their next move was to start haggling with the PJ, putting forward demands that needed satisfying before they would co-operate:

Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner demanded the PJ;


• publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

• publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises Judicial Secrecy.

Rachael O'Brien wrote:

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction?

If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

That would be the sighting Jane Tanner stands accused of lying about. The sighting she changed her description of several times, the sighting that has now been ruled out of the investigation by Scotland Yard, and indeed the sighting that is still promoted by the Official find Madeleine page.

Are you starting to get an idea of how impossible the PJ's job was?

The full details can be viewed on the link below:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

FACT 20.

Kate and Gerry McCann have never been cleared of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.


Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes was, along with João Melchior Gomes the man responsible for producing a 58-page report - the concluding volume of the case files - which explained the reasons behind the decision to archive the process.


Despite reports on Wikipedia and some pro McCann forums this report did NOT clear the McCann's of any involvement in the loss of Madeleine, in fact by raising doubt over their stories it did quite the opposite, below are some quotes from the report:

“The witnesses’ statements revealed important details which were not entirely understood and coherent”.

“The technique for this is a reconstruction, but despite every effort by the Public Prosecutor’s office and the JP [Policia Judiciara]…this was not possible”.

“The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film...the dogs are trained in detecting dead persons".

“The fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”

"The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”.

“…the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place…the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents were reasons for suspecting their involvement. As they were called once more to make a statement, having no plausible explanation for these facts and faced with evidence produced by the dogs…they had to be named as suspects…”

So far from being cleared the McCann's it would seem STILL have questions to answer, plausible explanations to give.......remember Kate refusing to answer those 48 questions? Neither Kate or Gerry have been interviewed by the PJ since. The attorney general wasn't the only person to doubt the McCann's:


Moite Flores, former police inspector and now political commentator in Portugal: “The only thing proven was that there was no abduction. I have no doubt that the child died”

Lee Rainbow, Britain’s top criminal profiler: “Madeleine's father was the last one to see her alive. The family is a lead that should be followed. Contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide”.

Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.

Former top British detective, John Stalker: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up”.

Ricardo Paiva, one of the chief detectives on the original investigation, told a Lisbon court in January 2010: “I share Gonçalo Amaral’s statement in the book. Maddie died, probably in a tragic accident, and all indications point towards the parents hiding the body”.

Director of the Portuguese National Counter-Terrorism Unit, Luís Neves: “Hiding a body and accidental death are possibilities”.

Intercalary report: Chief Inspector Tavares Almeida: "Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann"

And of course the main man, Goncalo Amaral: "Let's remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine's DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance."

"The McCanns knew that I was going to get them."

If only the political interference hadn't halted the case and those queries and questions had been cleared up.

If only good old fashioned policing had been able to run its course.

If only...................

The official police files can be read at: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm

There is also a extensive catalogue of news stories, and information at: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html

Dutchgirl

Posts : 117
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-03-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by BlueBag on 12.06.15 8:08

You have to wonder how David Payne goes about in public every day with the weight of the Gasper statement on his shoulders. Lots of people know about it, I'm sure all his friends and acquaintances do - it's human nature to be nosy and have a look on the internet.

It's never been addressed has it?

BlueBag

Posts : 3437
Reputation : 1276
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

FACT 6 is not a 'fact' and should be withdrawn from this document

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.06.15 9:28

@Dutchgirl wrote:20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN.

FACT 6.

At 9:55pm, a family witnessed a man carrying a small child toward the beach, not 5 minutes away from where Gerry McCann was last seen. This family were said to be convinced the little girl was Madeleine McCann, the head of the family was up to 80% sure that the man carrying her was Gerry McCann.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
To present this, 'FACT 6', as a 'fact', and then suggest that Gerry McCann looks like ONE (but not BOTH of course) of these e-fits is really dishonest.

1. It is far from proved that the Smiths saw anyone at all, the contradictions and inconsistencies about their evidence casting at the very least severe doubt on their story. 

2. It is said that a family witnessed this man carrying a child, but only three of them made statements

3. re: 'not 5 minutes from where Gerry McCann was last seen'. 'Last seen'?? What does this mean? Last seen by whom? and where?

4. There are a number of witness statements placing Gerry Smith at the Tapas bar or in and around the Ocean Club during the period 9.30pm to 10.30pm

5. The entire claim that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann presumes that (a) he was crazy enough to walk with his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz, and that (b) he was able to find a suitable hiding place for Madeleine's body somewhere in Praia da Luz and then calmly walk back to the Ocean Club 

6. Further, if it had been Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine, why did not one person see him either carrying Madeleine down towards the beach nor walking back to the Ocean Club?

7. The 'head of the family' claimed he was '60% to 80% sure' that the man he said he'd seen was Gerry McCann - but based only on 'the way he carried his son Sean on his shoulders', a highly unlikely basis for recognising a man who Smith admits he says he saw only for a few seconds in the dark, and would never be able to recognise again if he saw him

8. Moreover, Smith only made his '60% - 80%' claim four months after his initial encounter with the man - and delayed 11 days before reporting his claim that the man looked like Gerry McCann

9. The writer of '20 FACTS' fails to tell readers that Martin Smith has long since abandoned his claim that the man he saw was Gerry McCann and has since fully co-operated with both the McCann Team and Operation Grange in searching for a mystery abductor

10. The writer of '20 FACTS' fails to deal with the issue of their being two e-fits who look like quite different men.


The entire presentation of so-called 'FACT 6' is a highly selective and dishonest presentation of the evidence surrounding Martin Smith's 'Smithman' claims and I cannot endorse the further circulation of this document. 

The whole Smithman myth has been completely debunked by Richard D. Hall in 'THE PHANTOMS':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU

The writer of '20 FACTS' should watch it carefully - and then withdraw 'FACT 6'

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 12.06.15 9:32

There are also 2 Fact 18s - so 21 facts in all. Just saying or being pedantic

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.06.15 9:33

'FACT 6' in this document - which suggests that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann - is seriously misleading - I have explained in detail why on the other 'Laid Bare' thread here:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11380-laid-bare-20-facts-about-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 12.06.15 9:36

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Dutchgirl wrote:20 FACTS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN.

FACT 6.

At 9:55pm, a family witnessed a man carrying a small child toward the beach, not 5 minutes away from where Gerry McCann was last seen. This family were said to be convinced the little girl was Madeleine McCann, the head of the family was up to 80% sure that the man carrying her was Gerry McCann.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
To present this, 'FACT 6', as a 'fact', and then suggest that Gerry McCann looks like ONE (but not BOTH of course) of these e-fits is really dishonest.

1. It is far from proved that the Smiths saw anyone at all, the contradictions and inconsistencies about their evidence casting at the very least severe doubt on their story. 

2. It is said that a family witnessed this man carrying a child, but only three of them made statements

3. re: 'not 5 minutes from where Gerry McCann was last seen'. 'Last seen'?? What does this mean? Last seen by whom? and where?

4. There are a number of witness statements placing Gerry Smith at the Tapas bar or in and around the Ocean Club during the period 9.30pm to 10.30pm

5. The entire claim that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann presumes that (a) he was crazy enough to walk with his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz, and that (b) he was able to find a suitable hiding place for Madeleine's body somewhere in Praia da Luz and then calmly walk back to the Ocean Club 

6. Further, if it had been Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine, why did not one person see him either carrying Madeleine down towards the beach nor walking back to the Ocean Club?

7. The 'head of the family' claimed he was '60% to 80% sure' that the man he said he'd seen was Gerry McCann - but based only on 'the way he carried his son Sean on his shoulders', a highly unlikely basis for recognising a man who Smith admits he says he saw only for a few seconds in the dark, and would never be able to recognise again if he saw him

8. Moreover, Smith only made his '60% - 80%' claim four months after his initial encounter with the man - and delayed 11 days before reporting his claim that the man looked like Gerry McCann

9. The writer of '20 FACTS' fails to tell readers that Martin Smith has long since abandoned his claim that the man he saw was Gerry McCann and has since fully co-operated with both the McCann Team and Operation Grange in searching for a mystery abductor

10. The writer of '20 FACTS' fails to deal with the issue of their being two e-fits who look like quite different men.


The entire presentation of so-called 'FACT 6' is a highly selective and dishonest presentation of the evidence surrounding Martin Smith's 'Smithman' claims and I cannot endorse the further circulation of this document. 

The whole Smithman myth has been completely debunked by Richard D. Hall in 'THE PHANTOMS':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU

The writer of '20 FACTS' should watch it carefully - and then withdraw 'FACT 6'

In fairness a really close friend watched the Grimewatch show who has no real interest whatsoever. Knowing my interest he simply said 'that e-fit, it's Gerry McCann'. It did make me laugh that this intended diversion tactic could provoke such an instant response in a person remote from the case.

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Answers provided to RussianDoll

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.06.15 12:53

This morning, former member here ‘RussianDoll’ has been reading this thread and has read my demolition job on ‘Fact No. 6’ in the ’20 FACTS about the Madeleine McCann case’ document.  

She has made a number of specific criticisms of my post - on Twitter, using 7 separate tweets to do so. Some of these were sent to my e-mail account, but some were not. So I have had to go to her Twitter account (Colette Croft @ collywobbles54) to find out what the totality of these tweets amounted to.

I cannot use a series of tweets to respond – so, knowing that RussianDoll still reads here, I will take the liberty of replying to her here.

Her criticisms are basically 3:

1.   Why didn’t you include the clear error that the family in its entirety believed this man to be Gerry?

2.   Why just pick out Fact No. 6 (Smithman) – why didn’t you criticise other facts in the document, such as alleged errorin Fact No. 4 about Matthew Oldfield.

Here is her collection of tweets:

@zampos why in your refutation of fact 6 of the 20 "facts" in the Maddie case, did you not include the clear error that the family in its entirety believed this man to be Gerry?

Not the case acc to their statements to police.

Also, why single out Smithman when there are as I pointed out on twitter a couple of days ago, other glaring mistakes with these claimed facts.

One big one contradicts statement 4 of MO about his check and there is to go with it an illustration which contradicts where MO said he stood in location to the bedroom.

We read a description of where MO stood as he ENTERED the room, and her in the files we read So I approached the room but I DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO IN because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots . There are others if you care to read my TL which you could assess for accuracy and put on your forum. Why just Smithman errors?

 
REPLY: As to Point 1, I think RussianDoll is asking why I didn’t make clear that the writer of ’20 FACTS’ was wrong in stating that ‘the whole family’ said they were convinced that the child they saw was Madeleine McCann. Well, @ RussianDoll, ythe short answer is that I did, in point 2 of my answer this morning:                      

QUOTE:  2. It is said [by the writer of ’20 FACTS’ that a family witnessed this man carrying a child, but only three of them made statements”

As to Point 2 made by RussianDoll, give me a chance! I quickly scanned the ’20 FACTS’ document by ‘Laid Bare’ this morning, saw the many obvious errors in ‘Fact 6’, and responded straightaway. I haven’t had time yet to look at the rest of the ‘Laid Bare’ document.

I shall be pleased to do so later.

Also, RussianDoll refers to a ‘TL’. I’ve now found out that that’s a ‘Twitlonger’, which is a facility that allows much longer tweets to be posted. I neither know how to post twitlongers on Twitter, nor do I know how to access them from someone’s account.

So if another member is able and wants to post RussianDoll’s twitlonger about ’20 FACTS’ here, I’ll be happy to comment on it. It may be a very good piece of work so far as I know.

This is a good moment to make some further comments about RussianDoll’s strange conduct whilst a member here and elsewhere about the Madeleine McCann case on the internet.

Several members here noticed how frequently RussianDoll would ‘nit pick’ my posts and articles, but no-one else’s. So today’s nit-picking tweets are all a part of a pattern of conduct.

She also seemed to have an obsession (and still does) that I am posting under various aliases here. On one occasion, two years ago, she made sustained accusation on CMOMM that I was also posting as a member called ‘Sceptic’. I was not. Such was the concern of the forum-owner and other members of Admin that one of them ’phoned me on my mobile to check if it was true. I was on holiday in Weymouth at the time and recall the occasion very well as I had just, on a hot day, walked the 11 miles of Chesil Beach, from Portland Bill to Abbotsbury (it took me 5 hours).  She has since made similar accusations in the other place.

Looking at her Twitter account, she has this week given a rambling explanation of why she now distances herself from the outpourings of Rosalinda Hutton. What a very great pity that she never took many previous opportunities to do so.  And it seems she has now belatedly woken up to the fact that Sonia Poulton’s documentary may be an elaborate sting operation.

She has been discussed on an FB forum where she posts. The cannier members of that FB group have sussed that she never seems to give a clear indication of where she stands on the Madeleine McCann case - and usually critically questions all the McCann –doubters and not McCann-supporters.    

But there is one thing RussianDoll has said about me, in public, which really must now be cleared up.

Very recently, she posted up, and not for the first time by a long way, this comment, QUOTE:      

“Tony is also well aware that I have not divulged and will not divulge what he said in a PM to me on that forum which convinced me that he had psychological problems”.

Now that is a particularly nasty kind of deliberate smear: “I know something bad about him, but, sorry, I can’t say any more”.

Actually, I’ve no recollection of interacting with RussianDoll by ‘pm’, if so it was a long time ago, and I suspect no more than 2 or 3 ‘pms’.

@ RussianDoll: I give you permission to post up that ‘pm’. Then we can all see whether or not you have any basis from that 'pm' for claiming that I have ‘psychological problems'.

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.06.15 14:51

@ Mark Willis 

This morning, whilst discussing this very thread, three members of the candyfloss forum - all of them leading members of that forum - have all insisted that you are my sock.

Clearly the repeated claims by you and 'Verdi' that you are not me are not convincing these deludud souls over there.

Is there nothing more you can do to help them recover from their delusion?

=====

But, moving rapidly on, here is my reply to a post by ‘chirpyinsect’ today on that forum, again on the subject of Smithman':

Chirpyinsect:

The problem is C that TB bangs on about it [That Smithman cannot be Gerry McCann] at every opportunity. He bases one of the reasons that MS should be ignored on some report the MS has now retracted his belief that it was G he saw. There is no proof anywhere that I can find that he did retract it other than a Sunday Times article from 2013. Martin Smith, as a material witness would not speak to the press and the supposed retraction is not in the files.

REPLY:  Let me go straight to chirpyinsect’s main point, i.e. that there is no retraction of Martin Smith sayign he is 60% to 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann.

My answer: Has there been an on-the record, formal retraction by Martin Smith of his ‘60% to 80% claim’? – No.

Is it obvious that he has retracted his opinion since? -  YES.

There are (see also Hall’s ‘PHANTOMS’ film) a number of different phases of Smithman, as follows:
Phase 1 - from 3 to 15 May 2007 - AN UNREPORTED SIGHTING

Not one member of the Smith family thinks of reporting their sighting until, the very day after Robert Murat is made a suspect (15 May), Peter Smith (allegedly) rings up his Dad and says: ‘Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child on 3rd May in Praia da Luz’. Allegedly, the rest of the Smith family suddenly remember that they did    

Phase 2 - from 16 May to 20 September 2007 – A REPORTED SIGHTING

During these four months, none of the Smiths think the man they saw might be Gerry McCann

Phase 3 - from 20 September to December 2007 – COULD IT BE GERRY MCCANN?

Martin Smith takes 11 days (another very long delay) to report his claim that he thinks the bloke he saw was Gerry McCann. His basis is that the man he saw was (he says) carrying a child in the same way that Gerry McCann was carrying his son Sean from the plane. It is fairly obvious nonsense, based on a sighting ofa bloke for a few seconds in the dark. As countless people have pointed out, nearly all parents carry a tired or sleeping child in exactly the same way    

Phase 4 - January 2008 to November 2008 – THE MCCANNS TAKE OVER THE SMITH SIGHTING

It is blindingly obvious that the McCann Team and Brian Kennedy would not gain Smith’s co-operation unless Smith had abandoned, or was willing to abandon, his claim that ‘Smithman’ was Gerry McCann. The questions about the two e-fits remain. How could they draw them up a whole year later if they’d only seen him for a few seconds in the dark? How could they sketch him if they all told the PJ that they’d never be able to recognise him again if they saw him? Why do we have two e-fits of different-looking men? And can we really trust the three men who generated these efits: Brian Kennedy, conman and criminal Kevin Halligen, and the ex-Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Unit, Henri Exton?     

Phase 5 - January to May 2009: SMITHMAN FEATURES IN A PRO-MCCANN DOCUMENTARY

It must be presumed that Martin Smith and other family members fully consented to two separate attempts within that documentary to suggest that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same

Phase 6 - June 2009 to April 2011: THE MCCANNS PROMOTE SMITHMAN ON THEIR WEBSITE

Again, it is obvious that the tape-recording of an Irish voice for 30 seconds, uploaded to the McCanns’ ‘Find Madeleine’ website as long ago as May 2009, and clearly based on Martin Smith, can only have been done with Martin Smith’s full consent. Moreover, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the McCnn Team ‘doctored’ Smith’s description of the man as ‘aged 35 to 40’ and changed it on the tape recording to ’aged 34 to 35’. Once again, that could only have been done with Martin Smith’s consent. So what could have persuaded Martin Smith to alter his original police statement (aged 35-40) to suit the McCanns (aged 34-35)

Phase 7 - May 2011: SMITHMAN PROMOTED IN KATE MCCANN’S BOOK, ‘MADELEINE’

On 7 separate pages – again with the consent of Martin Smith.

Phase 8 - May 2011 to September 2013 DCI REDWOOD PREPARES TO REVEAL SMITHMAN

It’s on the record that Martin Smith has met with Redwood twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013. It is a reasonable assumption, at the very least, that these conversations were about Redwood’s plans to reveal his chief suspect as ‘Smithman’ on BBC Crimewatch  

Phase 9 - October 2013 to now: SMITHMAN REVEALED BY SCOTLAND YARD AS THE CHIEF SUSPECT

Clearly with the Smiths’ consent.

chirpyinsect, cont.

If you are going to defend your beliefs on something, you need to base it on truthful information, not bend it to suit your theory.

REPLY: See above.

TB does this too often on the subject of the Smiths. His powerful (overbearing) opinion worked on R D Hall in his new video and this is now being held up as the definitive proof that MS is lying.

REPLY: I think R D Hall has made a judgment that much of my material on Smithman makes complete sense and is well argued. So far as I am aware, I have not seen any effective rebuttal of what Hall says in ‘The Phantoms’ about ‘Smithman’ on any McCann-related website, forum or blog anyhere.

TB states (correctly imo) that no one would risk walking around the streets of PDL with his deceased child, but never concedes that it could well be a decoy child he carried because a number of witnesses place G at the Tapas at that time.

REPLY: I cannot dignify this speculation from ‘chirpyinsect’ with a long reply. I simply pose these questions about the very idea of Gerry McCann carrying a decoy child around that night – if it was a decoy, who as it, what parent would be mad or reckless enough to ‘lend’ his the child for this, and what did he do with the child – carry it back again to the Ocean Club? – all the time while being seen by no-one except the Smiths? And quite honestly, what would be the point of Gerry doing all that at the same time as his wife and their friends were raising the alarm?

Yet no serious McCann sceptic believes a word of their timelines. Again he doesn't concede it could be them that lie.

REPLY: Dear me, so I an supposed to believe that all the McCanns and the Tapas 7 were all telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything? Give me a break!

He has tried to say MS based his description of Smithman on Tannerman and Sagresman due to the clothing similarities but fails to realise it could be that in an orchestrated plot Sagresman was the basis for all that followed.

REPLY: Not by any means due to the clothing similarities alone – there are a host of other remarkable similarities, see my Smithman articles on CMOMM and Hall’s film

IE a fake abduction plot was in the pipeline, a patsy was picked out to lay down the paedo lurking idea, M meant to go missing from Sagres, something went wrong, hasty change of plan, G dresses similarly to Sagresman who is then reported to police by Nuno L. Tannerman completely fabricated to look similar but earlier sighting because too many saw Smithman.

OK my theory may have flaws or may even be completely wrong.


REPLY: Now this theory takes the biscuit! “M meant to go missing from Sagres”.  I think chirpyinsect has obviously missed the main point, fully developed in Hall’s film, that it is patently obvious that Nuno Lourenco was telling a pack of lies and that the so-called ‘Sagres incident’ never happened. We then get back to examining why the three descriptions of Sagres Man, Tannerman and Crehceman (on the Crimewatch McCann Special) are all more or less identical. And let’s not forget the convenient timing of Lourenco contacting the PJ about his alleged sighting; on the morning of St 5th May, just after the plane taking Wojcek Krokowski and his partner to Berlin from faro had taken off, the day following Jane Tanner disclosing Tannerman – and a whole SIX DAYS after Sagres Man had allegedly tried to kidnap his child

Thing is I welcome reasons why it may be wrong…

REPLY: See above

whereas TB sticks to his mantra like a drowning man clings to a liferaft.

REPLY: You’ve taken the high moral ground there, haven’t you?

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Collete Croft's (Russian Doll) tweets posted 10th June in response to 'Laid Bare'

Post by Guest on 12.06.15 15:00

Jun 10
10 faces for the duration of their exit from the church.
View details ·
Jun 10
9 opinion on how any smile is unbelievable under the claimed circumstances, it simply is not a fact that this was the expression on their
View details ·
Jun 10
8 balloons cross their path as they exit the church on M's 4th birthday, their facial, expressions were sombre and serious. Whatever the
View details ·
Jun 10
7. " Fact " 16. A myth based on an out of context still photo, when the video is seen, on either side of this brief flash of smiling as
View details ·
Jun 10
the time given in the statement of M Smith, but the time he said they left the bar that they had been in. Another claimed fact that is not
View details ·
Jun 10
5. So-called fact 6. The Smith family were not convinced that the child being carried was Madeleine. The time given for the sighting is not
View details ·
Jun 10
4 the room looking in. The blog actually states this picture shows where MO would have been standing as he entered. Not a fact at all.
View details ·
Jun 10
3 what his view of the room would have been on this check. it shows MO having crossed the threshold, when he states that he stood outside
View details ·
Jun 10
2 mention of Gerry making sexual gestures as stated as a fact on this blog. So-called fact 5, re Oldfield check, shows a picture to demo
View details ·
Jun 10
1. So-called fact 1 : Gaspar statement, Errors : PJ files state a belief on part of KG re what she saw, not a certainty. Also KG made no
View details ·
Jun 10
4 if not at least some for now and more tomorrow. I welcome responses to these tweets of mine, stand2 be corrected.laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/20-fac…
View details ·
Jun 10
3 been posted as a link on CMOMM forum and states that it contains 20 FACTS about the case. If I have time I will correct all errors, but
View details ·
Jun 10
2 knowing the case or having researched properly, am posting a link to an anti McCann blog which has multiple factual errors. It has sadly
View details ·
Jun 10
As I always harp on about posting facts not untruths about the McCann case so as not to be accused as doubters of being full of crap and not
View details ·

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 12.06.15 15:16



I've just nipped over to the stationery cupboard to get you a new bottle of blue, Tony. titter

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7123
Reputation : 2506
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.06.15 16:05

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:

I've just nipped over to the stationery cupboard to get you a new bottle of blue, Tony. titter
Quite right too, it's jolly hard to read my posts without it, isn't it?

It's actully the wrong colour, I'm afraid - I use a rare shade of dark blue.

And to think you noticed? airkiss  My first post out of 503,899* posts where I didn't use blue font!


ETA:  * Sorry, by mistake I copied and pasted the number of YouTube views of Richard Hall's Madeleine documentaries so far

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 12.06.15 16:26

@Tony Bennett wrote:ETA:  * Sorry, by mistake I copied and pasted the number of YouTube views of Richard Hall's Madeleine documentaries so far
Keep plugging away! winkwink

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7123
Reputation : 2506
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by MRNOODLES on 12.06.15 16:51

Jeez has the summer brought in the whacky Baccy harvest?  Lately there's seems to be a sudden surge in paranoia amongst ex posters.  big grin

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

An answer to chirpyinsect (and others on MMM) re Smithman

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.06.15 8:30

A further reply to chirpyinsect and other members of candyfloss’s forum re Smithman

I’m replying here to the more substantive points made over there yesterday re Smithman, all viewable by the public. And it’s because they’re viewable by the public that I have the right of reply, over here, if not over there. And I am happy to reply to any substantive points made about Smithman. Below I reproduce the comments of chirpyinsect and others there. I have cut out all the abusive comments made, of which I regret there were quite a few. 

Two preliminary points:

1. On the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show, October 2013, DCI Andy Redwood not only said that the Smithman sighting was ‘our focus’ but ‘the centre of our focus’. You can’t get any more central than that.

2. Operation Grange putting up ‘Smithman’ as the main suspect continued the full alignment of Operation Grange with the McCanns’ view of the case. As I have pointed out time and again, for over SIX years the McCanns have been promoting the ‘Smithman’ sighting as the abductor. The BBC Crimewatch Show simply confirmed that Grange and the McCanns were singing the same song from the same hymn sheet.

Those two facts mean that ‘Smithman’ is no peripheral matter for any serious Madeleine McCann researcher. It is right at the heart of the case.  

chirpyinsect wrote:

I am more than happy to have a wee chinwag about the Smith sighting here, in the open, with Tony Bennett. Mr B: I absolutely do not say I have the definitive answer to this very important aspect of the case and if you can prove to me that everything you continually espouse has a foundation in fact I will bow to your superior knowledge. You have been around this case far longer than I and you spend considerably more time researching the case.

REPLY: Yes, I’ve studied the case for nearly 8 years. As for the facts on which my hypothesis is based, you can see most of them laid out, in a great deal of detail, on the ‘SMITHMAN1’ to ‘SMITHMAN7’ threads here. I’m afraid it’s the case that some of your comments and those of others are based on an insufficient acquaintance with the facts on which I rely. I will try to give you the specific references where I can.  

What fascinates me is your absolute need to adhere to the hypothesis you put forward with no room for any other set of circumstances. I am genuinely interested in what drives your conviction. Most people leave some room to wiggle in case they are proved wrong but you seem so adamant that you are right so I would love some verification of your theory.

REPLY: You will not get either ‘proof’ or ‘verification’ of my theory. What I do offer is a great deal of evidence and indications that my hypothesis – that the Smiths fabricated their statements on the basis of Wojcek Krokowski as the ‘template’ – should be preferred to the hypothesis: ‘The Smiths are an innocent family incapable of fabricating anything and were doing their honest best to help’.

As for claim of “your absolute need to adhere to the hypothesis you put forward with no room for any other set of circumstances”, let me simply state my position.

I think my hypothesis is a good one. It is backed up by a whole swathe of evidence, most of which is on the ‘SMITHMAN1’ and ‘SMITHMAN7’ threads. However, as these threads make abundantly clear to our members and guests here, I have always been willing to debate my hypothesis with all-comers, and continue to be. 

AFAIK you have never given a valid reason for the Smiths to have lied other than it was to get RM off the hook.

REPLY: When I look at all the evidence surrounding the Smiths’ claims, I nail my colours firmly to the mast and say: ‘For whatever reason, it looks like these statements were fabricated’. I go further and say: ‘It looks like both the Tannerman and Smithman descriptions were based on a description of Wojcek Krokowski’, and I have provided much evidence in support of that contention.

Why would they not then just have given him an alibi by saying they saw him elsewhere unconnected? Or that the man they saw was fat, bald and walked with a limp.

REPLY: I suggest that the evidence is that there was a great deal of co-ordination and planning (by certain persons) behind Jane Tanner describing Krokowski on 4 May, then Nuno Lourenco describing Krokowski on 5 May, and then Martin Smith describing Krokowski on 16 May, the day after Murat was arrested. So, I suggest, the Smiths stuck to the plan, because it was important for the planners that all three statements gave broadly the same description. It was most certainly enough for Goncalo Amaral to go off on a wild goose chase after Krokowski. And it was enough to get Amaral very interested in the Smiths’ evidence.

Why would any father ask his child to lie? He has no answer when it is pointed out that if he was correct, Mr Smith put himself and his 12-year-old daughter up for prosecution by making false alibis/accusations.

REPLY: I will also reply to your suggestion that I have given no reason for the Smiths to fabricate other than ‘to get Murat off the hook’. If Martin Smith and his children did fabricate their sighting, I do not know the reason, but if you put together the timing of the Smiths ‘remembering’ their sighting, along with the fact that Martin Smith had known Murat for at least two years and ‘met him several times’, plus the fact that Martin Smith appears to have been evasive about his degree of knowledge of Murat, I suggest that this offers the best line of thought – given that Martin Smith made his ’phone call to the police the day after Murat was declared a suspect amid huge interantional publicity.

There are all sorts of other reasons why people may lie. They may be threatened. They may be fearful of someone. It could be due to  blackmail. It could be for money. We know fairly little about the Smiths. I stick by my hypothesis that there is so much wrong with the Smiths’ evidence that there is good reason not to rely on what they say. It is not for me to know why they may have fabricated their sighting, but the Murat connection looks like it may provide part of the explanation. I have mentioned elsewhere that there are many recorded occasions of children lying at the behest of their parents.

I cite as one recent and terrible example the lies that the children of Ms Draper and Abraham Christie told (and were coached to tell) about alleged horrible torture and murders of children at a Hampstead school:  See Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgment at para 16 of her ruling, here:   http://bfms.org.uk/march-2015/hampstead-satanic-cult-hoax  where she says: “I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated”. I think the children were aged around 7 to 9 years of age when they made their lurid, but false, allegations

There seems to be a lot of “it is obvious to anyone” and “anyone can see” and “it is safe to assume” guff coming over.

No Tony, it is not safe to assume anything and should not be used in an effort to discredit the Smiths. Anyhoo the gauntlet is down. Come here Mr B as I cannot come to your gaff and let’s have an exchange of views. If you feel so sure of your facts I will be delighted to discuss this in a rational and civilised manner, here

REPLY: In evaluating the evidence in this case, working assumptions and inferences must be made all the time. To take one example, when Gerry McCann was asked if he already knew Robert Murat, and replied evasively and with clear signs of discomfort: “I am not going to comment on that”, my working assumption is that he did already know Murat. But as yet I am not aware of any other evidence to support that assumption; in other words, I may well be right, but there is no proof.

Other MMM members:

the immovable stance adopted by Tony.

It just goes on, and on and on....He is at it again this morning...

Yes I have read his screeds of rhetoric and yes he never concedes that he could be wromg.

The words discussion and Bennett do not mix I'm afraid chirpy. Impossible task.

I can see what you were hoping to do, but I really don’t think it’s possible. It has been tried by many who never get past the rigidity of thinking and the desperation to control. Not all brains are wired the same. Some cannot even consider grey areas. It is not possible to have a normal rational discussion. Just look how discussions have gone about various other subjects - TB is always right.

REPLY: For the written record, I certainly concede I may be wrong about Smithman. But I assert that if you put into the pot ALL that we know about Sagresman, Tannerman, Smithman and Crecheman, I am not aware yet of a better hypothesis to explain them all. I will happily change my mind if a better comprehensive hypothesis emerges from elsewhere 

If you are going to defend your beliefs on something, you need to base it on truthful information, not bend it to suit your theory. TB does this too often on the subject of the Smiths.

REPLY: See above

It is his attempt to ban, bully, silence, ridicule, humiliate etc anyone who says Smithman is Gerry. It is therefore no surprise his behaviour makes people suspicious of his motives. It is of course because no-one is willing or too scared over there to have a discussion, after all it is why half the members here joined as they were thrown out for disagreeing. The problem over there was that it wasn't just Tony who wasn't tolerating any dissent on the subject but that the admins were in full agreement with him.

REPLY: The discussion threads on Smithman on CMOMM and the polls show that the above is a total misrepresentation. In fact I still remain in a minority on CMOMM in my views on Smithman. And I can categorically say that not one person was ever banned from CMOMM for disagreeing over Smithman; all bans were and are made for clear breaches of forum rules. Some have accepted that they broke forum rules, have apologised to the forum owner, and been welcomed back

Didn't the FOI request (that Bennett got) state that Martin Smith did do the e-fits...Yes and it also stated they were of the same man. TB insists that OG are lying about these 2 facts. So where is his proof? He is very quick to demand proof from others so, why when being asked to do the same does he go strangely quiet?

REPLY: I do not have proof, and neither do I demand proof from others. I have evidence that the provenance of the efits is not as claimed by DCI Redwood and I have set it out in very great detail. Similarly, if someone makes an assertion on CMOMM, I will ask for the evidence, as indeed many other members do. Take the claim that it was Gerry McCann who was seen by the Smiths. What is the evidence for that? Precisely nothing apart from Martin Smith’s ‘60% to 80%’ ’phone call to the police on 20 September 2007, from which he has since clearly resiled. I am not shy in pointing out that there is simply no other evidence   

Martin Smith, as a material witness would not speak to the press and the supposed retraction is not in the files.

The main point imo, is that TB says MS has retracted that he'd seen GM, but has said that there's no statement to say he has. He says that it's "obvious" that MS has retracted it?? Talk about going with facts and proof!

REPLY: I dealt with the ‘retraction’ issue a couple of days back. As a matter of record, Martin Smith has spoken to the press several times. But you say Martin Smith is a ‘material witness’. How can he be? Operation Grange for four years has been searching for an abductor, and has flatly ruled out Gerry McCann as a suspect. So of what value is Martin Smith saying: “I saw this bloke and back in September 2007 I was 60% to 80% sure it was Gerry McCann and that’s because he carried Sean on his left shoulder”? ANSWER: It is of no value whatsoever. I have never understood the argument of those who say: ‘Martin Smith is a material witness’. Of what, exactly? Hutton used that mantra regularly. I hope that someone who really still thinks that Martin Smith is a ‘material witness’ will come along and explain what Smith could possibly contribute to any trial.   

Why is it so important to discredit the Smiths?

REPLY: That’s the wrong question, akin to ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ I have explained at the beginning that Smithman is at the very heart of this case – and that’s why I want to know the truth about this alleged ‘sighting’. I have patiently explained elsewhere that it is the delay in their making statements, the contradictions and inconsistencies within and amongst them, the use made of them by the McCanns, and the Murat connection which give rise to suspicions that their statements were fabricated.

Finally, candyfloss wrote:

We all had opportunity to hear first hand over and over at the other place why TB does not believe the Smiths and thinks them all liars, we were all there, so were you.

Candyfloss then quotes this statement from the Drogheda Independent...

“They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn't originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night”.

She then writes, triumphantly:

“There is the answer to the question that TB poses over and over again. An answer that many here and elsewhere believe could be true and that is why Mr Smith didn't click as to who this person might be, yet TB just doesn't get it. Mr Smith obviously assumed the abductor did his deed at around 9.15 as the press and others would have us believe, therefore Smithman couldn't possibly be the abductor…well it is what you would think isn't it - how would an abductor be walking around with a child he abducted 45 mins later, was he taking the scenic route.

“We were almost force-fed the Tannerman sighting, so that everyone assumed this was the time of Madeleine's disappearance. How many others never came forward because they were unaware of Smithman. Now, thanks to Crimewatch and the publicity re Smithman, I expect many people who thought the same as Mr Smith have come forward...”


REPLY: On the surface, this looks like a very persuasive argument. It falls down because candyfloss appears to be totally unaware that the above reason is only one of many different excuses the Smiths have come up with for their 13-day delay in reporting their sighting. She clearly hasn’t read the facts about those reasons which I’ve set down in the Smithman threads here.

And that’s because, IMO, candyfloss has the very same ‘closed mind’ about Smithman that she accuses me of having. She has made up her mind long ago that the Smiths are an honest and innocent family incapable of a devious fabrication, and therefore refuses to probe and examine their statement. She does not look at the evidence that she may be wrong.

Here, finally, is what I wrote about the Smiths’ various excuses for delaying reporting their alleged ‘sighting’:

Placing here:  http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions?highlight=smithman an update, in summary form only, of twelve contradictions revealed by what the Smiths have said about their ‘Smithman’ sighting:

++++++++++++


1. Creating two e-fits of different-looking men when they couldn’t possibly remember the face of the man

SNIPPED

2. Did the man lower his head?

SNIPPED

3. Whether they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him – and Martin Smith’s changes of mind

SNIPPED

4. What they saw of the child

SNIPPED


5. Was the child wrapped in a blanket?

SNIPPED

6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

SNIPPED


7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)

Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special) [NOTE: This was the first time
Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

8. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist

SNIPPED

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man

SNIPPED

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

SNIPPED

11. Not reporting his sighting despite thinking it could be Madeleine

SNIPPED

12. Did Mary Smith approach the man and talk to him?

SNIPPED
 


Finally, one MMM poster who ‘gets it’:

“We are dealing with very devious people as we know. Look at the various surreal images put out of all of them, ‘in your faces’, so to speak. So what is the chance of them doing that with that image of Smithman as well, again ‘in your face, you suckers’ attitude”.

REPLY: Indeed.  “Accept nothing. Question everything”. Even the Smith sighting

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Joss on 13.06.15 9:40

Are eyewitness testimonies reliable forms of evidence?

Eyewitness testimonies are one of the most common forms of evidence used by the police to charge somebody with an offence, and then subsequently used by the crown prosecution service (CPS) to try to convict a defendant.
Clearly, eyewitness evidence is not the most reliable form of evidence as often it relies on that individual telling the truth, remembering the incident and having a clear view of what actually happened.
As a result of this there has been significant debate over the years about the use of eyewitness evidence and what weight should be given to it when assessing whether somebody is guilty of a crime.
Rules for eyewitness evidence
In the UK, if the eyewitness evidence brought by the CPS is disputed by the defendant, the court will apply specific rules and guidelines in assessing what weight can be given to that evidence.
These rules were set out in the case of R v Turnbull in 1977 and have subsequently become known as the Turnbull Guidelines.
An individual who identifies the defendant as the person who committed the alleged offence whether at the police station, in an identity parade, or through knowing him previously, is known as a Turnbull witness (so long as this is disputed by the defendant).
If there is a Turnbull witness, a judge, rather than a jury, will decide what strength should be given to this evidence. Although it will be a jury that decides if an individual is guilty of a crime, a judge will give a string indication whether any weight should be given to this particular piece of evidence.
What criteria does a judge use to assess the evidence?

A judge will use the following criteria when assessing what weight to give to the eyewitness evidence:

  • The distance the eyewitness was from the activity or crime that took place; naturally if it was seen from a great distance, less weight is likely to be given.
  • The time of day and thus the level of darkness: clearly if the sighting was at 3am in pitch darkness there is likely to be more doubt over an accurate identification.
  • The length of time the witness saw the defendant; if it was only a fleeting glance as opposed to a few minutes, a judge is likely to be more sceptical of the evidence.
  • Did the witness actually see the face of the defendant? Often a witness may only see the back of the defendant in which case it will be a lot easier for the defendant to deny that it was actually him.
  • The general conditions that may have affected the sighting: if it was an extremely foggy day, or the sighting took place in a crowded area, or there was a large obstacle obstructing the view, all these things will be taken into account by a judge.
  • Whether the witness already knew the defendant before the sighting.
  • How close the description given by the witness to the police at the time actually matches to the description of the defendant.

Eyewitness testimonies are used as evidence; we cannot expect every sighting to be caught on television or CCTV and therefore there is no reason why the evidence should not be put forward. A judge will, however, have to weigh up a number of factors before assessing how credible the eyewitness testimony is and simply one particular sighting of an individual is unlikely to be sufficient evidence in itself.
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/500528.html

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Joss on 13.06.15 9:46

So unless the McCann case ever goes to Court to be tried, any witnesses in this case are useless, IMO, as their testimony will never be used.

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Guest on 13.06.15 9:57

You mean eye-witnesses, Joss?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.06.15 10:04

The discussion with chirpyinsect continued, after his post on MMM at 7.11am this morning:


C: TB is permitted to be a member so it is possible that he could have answered any of our concerns at any time but chose not to do so here. Instead he posted his answer to me somewhere where I can't reply. Smart move.

REPLY: Not a ‘smart move’. Candyfloss requested me months ago never to post on her forum again and I have respected that, apart from intervening briefly the other day to tell you that I am quite prepared to debate Smithman.

====

C: As usual he has planted some very obvious errors in his understanding of my points. He says: “Is it obvious that he has retracted his opinion since? – YES”. In what way is it obvious? Proof is what is asked for not speculation.

REPLY: I supplied all the evidence in support in my previous post.

====

C: R D Hall has formed an opinion of what may have happened that night based on discussions with yourself. Can you name anyone else he may have consulted before producing the documentary? I am thinking particularly of someone who may believe that the Smiths were truthful. You know, in the interests of balance.

REPLY: R D Hall has certainly made use of some of my material. I know he has done a huge amount of research, he has been to Praia da Luz himself, and used all sorts of material. He has, like myself, formed an overall view of the case.  He believes there is a cover-up, he believes the mainstream media have deliberately failed to report many of the relevant facts, and he has had the courage to say so publicly in his films. Likewise with the Smith ‘sighting’. His task is to persuade people of his viewpoint, to which he has brought a mass of evidence. If he wishes to present coherent arguments that the Smiths fabricated their evidence, why should he not be allowed to do so. People like you are at liberty to prove him wrong. If you can.

====    

C: TB said: “I cannot dignify this speculation from ‘chirpyinsect’ [of Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz on the evening of 3 May carrying around a decoy child] with a long reply. I simply pose these questions about the very idea of Gerry McCann carrying a decoy child around that night…” [SNIPPED]  How sneeringly superior of you to say you cannot dignify my speculation when your opinion is laden with just that. Whose child could it be? His own, one of the other Tapas lot, who knows? And as for who would be reckless or mad enough I will offer up all the obvious lies told by the friends as evidence they are all collectively protecting the pact. Someone may have collected the decoy at a pre-arranged place and brought her back to the OC. Gerry may have then returned alone. Not saying this happened, just it is possible. No one was aware of the event at that point so why would it register if they saw him? The point was to underline the abduction theory. They needed independent corroboration as JT was biased. Her testimony was added later when too many people saw G too closely. And we only have TM’s word that Gerry was at the Tapas at 10.00pm.
As for it being a risky strategy. Yes it was because the plan had to change at quite short notice as (imo) Madeleine died and they could not afford a body to be found. If there had been a different plot for a live M to be abducted, as I believe, there would have been no need for her to disappear from her bed, leaving the parents open to accusations of neglect. None of what they say can be believed so why can you not strip away their stories and see that there could be another explanation?

REPLY: Noted. As I said, your argument here is sheer speculation and not evidence-based.


====

C: You are saying that a number of witnesses place Gerry at the Tapas and give that as one of your reasons that G can’t be Smithman, but we only have the Tapas people’s say so on this. That reads to me as though you believe the Tapas lot over MS. Or at least that they are telling the truth that G was at the table. You shouldn’t pick and choose which parts of their stories you use to back up your theory.


REPLY: As you well know, I do not believe all that the Tapas 7 say, and certainly not about the events of the evening of 3 May. For example, I’m not aware of anyone else who has done as full a demolition job on the alleged David Payne-Kate McCann meeting at 6.30pm on 3 May as I have done over on CMOMM. I do say that there is sufficient evidence from the Tapas 7 and others that during the period of say 9.30pm to 10.30pm, when you say he was seen by the Smiths carrying Madeleine or a decoy child. That he was in the close vicinity of the Ocean Club and/or his apartment. Apart from Martin Smith’s claim made on 20 September 2007, from which he has clearly since resiled, that he was 60% to 80% sure that 140 days earlier it was gerry McCann who was the man he saw, you have zero evidence for your claim that Gerry McCann was walking the streets of Praia da Luz carrying Madeleine a decoy child. The fact that no-one else saw this remarkable sight is corroborative evidence, though not amounting to proof.  

====

C: OK you based [your analysis of Sagresman, Tannerman and Smithman] on more than just the clothing but it doesn’t change the fact that it is just possible that Sagresman may have been the precursor in all this. So we seem to agree he was invented (although WK exists, he was a patsy).


REPLY: Yes. There is a great deal of evidence that WK was either a willing or unwilling patsy.

====

C: I realise you have to believe in a pre-planned abduction hoax for my theory to work and fully accept that you do not subscribe to that theory, and I have acknowledged that this could well not be a correct theory, but do you ever stop to consider that other people may have a valid point in all this or is it Tony’s way or the highway?

REPLY: Unfortunately, for legal reasons, I cannot fully answer you. Let us simply agree that WK was a patsy.

====

C: You seem not to credit me with enough savvy to realise NL was lying and Sagresman doesn’t exist. Perhaps I didn’t word my point correctly. Of course that is what I think but IF he was part of the pre-planning, then perhaps Tannerman was based on him in order to substantiate the idea of a lurking paedo rather than the other way round.

REPLY: Yes I did misunderstand you. OK, we agree that NL was lying, and that’s a very significant part of my analysis (and presumably also yours). You wrote: “Perhaps Tannerman was based on him in order to substantiate the idea of a lurking paedo rather than the other way round”. I am sorry, I do not follow what you are trying to say. Are we agreed that both Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were using a description of Krokowski? I think we are. Then does it not look as though someone primed them to do this?

Did not someone prime Lourenco to ring the PJ precisely at the point when Krokowski’s plane had taken off from Faro?  

==== 

C: I fail to see how MS could have based his description on Tannerman or Sagresman as neither of these were in the public domain at that time.

REPLY: It is obvious you have missed my main point here, and that may well be because I’ve not explained it sufficiently. You say (and I agree 100%) “Neither of [the descriptions of Tannerman or Sagresman] were in the public domain at that time”. So my precise point is this: The description of Smithman by the Smiths is (I say) a virtual carbon copy of the descriptions given of Tannerman and Sagresman. The only explantion for this (I suggest) is that Martin Smith was secretly given access to the description of Krokowski. I do not know how that happened, but once again given the known Martin Smith-Murat connection, I suggest the description may have been obtained by Martin Smith from Murat. Murat was translating for the PJ for days and may have aware of the description of Tannerman as a result.         

====

C. Gerry gave a press conference in the afternoon of 26/5 when Tannerman was revealed to the world but not attributed to Jane Tanner. Martin and Aoife Smith gave their statements that morning at 10.40am so we have a chicken and egg situation here. Is it not possible that, knowing he had been seen by the Smiths, Jane was instructed to describe Tannerman in a similar manner? They were not to know at that point that the Smiths may not come forward for a while so needed to make sure the 2 sightings were of a similar man just in case.

REPLY: But the description of Tannerman by Jane Tanner, we have agreed, have we not, is based on Krokowski, not on Gerry McCann?

====

C: It is entirely possible that Sagresman was merely an attempt to lay down the presence of men lurking around the area and there was no plot to have Madeleine “abducted” from Sagres at all but the fact NL probably invented his story makes no sense if not part of a pre-planned scenario. We agree he, NL, most likely lied.


REPLY: You made this statement: “The fact that NL probably invented his story makes no sense if not part of a pre-planned scenario”. I agree 100% with that analysis, yes.

====

C: One other thing is that you base your assumption that MS lied on the idea he was doing so to get his "friend" Murat off the hook. You already had to correct the inference that the two knew each other well. So why did he not just give RM an alibi without asking the rest of his family to lie to the police? What 12 year old girl would do that? Or why would he not say he alone saw a short, fat limping, bald man with a child as he looked over his shoulder. If he was making it all up would he not make sure he described the man in such a way as to make sure he could never be mistaken for anyone closely involved?


REPLY: I’ve answered that fully in my earlier post today.
====

C: If you are going to quote me on CMOMM where your buddies can rip me to shreds, please make sure you do not put words in my mouth.


REPLY: 1. Not many people on CMOMM can fairly be described as my ‘buddies’. 2. I don’t think CMOMM members want to ‘rip you to shreds’. 3. I hope I have not put any words into your moth in my various replies.

We have together established four very important points of agreement here:

1. Lourenco’s statement is lies

2. Sagresman is based on Krokowski

3. Krokowski was a willing or unwilling patsy

4. It looks like Tannerman may also have been based Krokowski and Sagresman.

Let us build on those points of agreement     

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by Guest on 13.06.15 10:52

And how, pray, does all of the above bring a solution to poor Maddie's plight any closer?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by tigger on 17.06.15 12:29

Brilliant new post   http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015_06_01_archive.html 

This blogger reads a lot!

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare

Post by BlueBag on 17.06.15 13:51

@tigger wrote:Brilliant new post   http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015_06_01_archive.html 

This blogger reads a lot!

"Clarence Eden Mitchell, resigned from his reported £75,000 a year cabinet office job to work as PR consultant for the McCanns. A bold move indeed if he truly believed that Madeleine could be found any day. "


Yes indeed!


I wonder how CM explains that? His new job could have been over immediately if Madeleine had been found.

BlueBag

Posts : 3437
Reputation : 1276
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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