Re: CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 14:50

PeterMac wrote:
May I say something. Senior Police Officers forced to give interviews or make comments to the press are very often trapped between their urge to say what they know to be true...I do not believe that [Redwood] could reasonably have...drawn attention to some of the detail he clearly holds about the Smithman e-fits...Is it "misleading" a jury to fail to spell out the list of previous convictions of the accused, or to tell them that the other five co-accused have already pleaded Guilty and are serving life? Clearly not. That is the law.

PeterMac,

May ask something?

Have a look at the following list of people that Redwood, after 6.5 years had elapsed, said he wanted to trace amd identify (post below the OP):

1. Smithman

2. A number of blond-haired men:

(a) Fair-haired man seen twice near the McCanns’ apartment

(b) Two man seen on the balcony of Apartment G5C

(c) A man seen near the stairwell of the McCanns’ apartment block at 6pm

3. Two men seen speaking ‘in raised voices’ an hour after Madeleine was reported missing

4. Unidentified burglars

5. Men seen lurking near the apartment the day Madeleine disappeared

6. Men seen lurking near the apartment during the days before Madeleine disappeared

7. Two men, possibly charity collectors, who went to apartments near G5A the day Madeleine went missing, one of them was ‘a man with black hair’

8. Another bloke with black hair seen approaching people on the balcony of G5A the week before Madeleine disappeared.

How likely is it that this is a genuine request for information from the British public, 99.9999% of whom have never been to Praia da Luz?

by thetruthbeknown 16.11.13 15:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
As I will analyse in more detail in my 16-part article on Martin Smith (see here: ), he seems to have been evasive about his relationship with Murat.

I would be interested in seeing that, will it be posted on this forum?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 15:07

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
As I will analyse in more detail in my 16-part article on Martin Smith ( see here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8527-martin-o-smith-a-short-biography-of-the-man-who-said-he-saw-a-bloke-carrying-a-young-barefoot-blonde-girl-wearing-only-pyjamas-who-didnt-look-like-a-tourist-at-about-1000pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007-and-who-invented-the-gimmee ) he seems to have been evasive about his relationship with Murat.

I would be interested in seeing that, will it be posted on this forum?

I am sorry, I meant to give the link, here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8527-martin-o-smith-a-short-biography-of-the-man-who-said-he-saw-a-bloke-carrying-a-young-barefoot-blonde-girl-wearing-only-pyjamas-who-didnt-look-like-a-tourist-at-about-1000pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007-and-who-invented-the-gimmee

It is a treatise on Martin Smith basically, it's in an advanced state of preparation, and as bits of the project are completed (soon), I will place them up on that thread - which is closed to discussion.

I'm happy to answer any questions about Smith & Murat here or on a 'Smithman' thread.

The essay will also look at arguably Martin Smith's greatest claim to fame before (maybe) seeing a bloke and Madeleine in the dark without his glasses - his 1991 invention of 'The Gimmee' - and his various business interests.

by currio 16.11.13 15:18

Tony Bennett wrote:

How likely is it that this is a genuine request for information from the British public, 99.9999% of whom have never been to Praia da Luz?

0.0000001%!

IMO it has just soured public opinion of the MC's, big time in my area....perhaps that was the whole point of the exercise, in preparation for what is to come..

by thetruthbeknown 16.11.13 15:36

Tony Bennett wrote:I am sorry, I meant to give the link, here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8527-martin-o-smith-a-short-biography-of-the-man-who-said-he-saw-a-bloke-carrying-a-young-barefoot-blonde-girl-wearing-only-pyjamas-who-didnt-look-like-a-tourist-at-about-1000pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007-and-who-invented-the-gimmee

It is a treatise on Martin Smith basically, it's in an advanced state of preparation, and as bits of the project are completed (soon), I will place them up on that thread - which is closed to discussion.

I'm happy to answer any questions about Smith & Murat here or on a 'Smithman' thread.

The essay will also look at arguably Martin Smith's greatest claim to fame before (maybe) seeing a bloke and Madeleine in the dark without his glasses - his 1991 invention of 'The Gimmee' - and his various business interests.

I will read that, thank-you. Before reading (so dont know if you have explained there) The main issue I have with recent posts on Smith, is that he refused to do efits before, he said to PJ that he did not feel he could identify the man as such but knew it wasnt Murat, I dont believe they even thought an efit/photofit would be appropriate as he had said he didnt see the person clearly. I could kind of understand though that IF he did see someone that he would know it wasnt someone familiar to him. But why after some time would he do an efit for SY...I cant see it, I dont think it happened, I dont believe the efits came from him. Putting myself in his shoes, on the theory that he did see someone..I would not of agreed either, its such a huge and of course 'delicate' case, you wouldnt want to put forward some kind of 'guesswork' on what a persons facial features are if you didnt clearly see them??

by Snifferdog 16.11.13 16:00

the Palace?Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
May I say something. Senior Police Officers forced to give interviews or make comments to the press are very often trapped between their urge to say what they know to be true...I do not believe that [Redwood] could reasonably have...drawn attention to some of the detail he clearly holds about the Smithman e-fits...Is it "misleading" a jury to fail to spell out the list of previous convictions of the accused, or to tell them that the other five co-accused have already pleaded Guilty and are serving life? Clearly not. That is the law.
PeterMac,

May ask something?

Have a look at the following list of people that Redwood, after 6.5 years had elapsed, said he wanted to trace amd identify (post below the OP):

1. Smithman

2. A number of blond-haired men:

(a) Fair-haired man seen twice near the McCanns’ apartment

(b) Two man seen on the balcony of Apartment G5C

(c) A man seen near the stairwell of the McCanns’ apartment block at 6pm

3. Two men seen speaking ‘in raised voices’ an hour after Madeleine was reported missing

4. Unidentified burglars

5. Men seen lurking near the apartment the day Madeleine disappeared

6. Men seen lurking near the apartment during the days before Madeleine disappeared

7. Two men, possibly charity collectors, who went to apartments near G5A the day Madeleine went missing, one of them was ‘a man with black hair’

8. Another bloke with black hair seen approaching people on the balcony of G5A the week before Madeleine disappeared.

How likely is it that this is a genuine request for information from the British public, 99.9999% of whom have never been to Praia da Luz?

Snifferdog says: Petermac. If it is so re. Someone Forcing Andy Redwood to give a progress report - Who would/could that be??? The public? - No I doubt it! Rupert Murdoch/Oppenheimer family? Tony Blair? Gordon Brown?

P - Jane Tanner's sighting has to be gotten rid of - as it does not fit the McCann fable line.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 16:11

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Before reading (so don't know if you have explained there), the main issue I have with recent posts on Smith, is that he refused to do efits before, he said to PJ that he did not feel he could identify the man as such but knew it wasn't Murat, I don't believe they even thought an efit/photofit would be appropriate as he had said he didn't see the person clearly...I don't believe the efits came from him...

OK, a few points about the efits:

1. Did Martin Smith see Smithman's face clearly? - NO

2. Did any of the Smiths see Smithman's face clearly? - NO

3. Did any of the Smiths say they could recognise him again? - NO

4. Was Smith approached by Brian Kennedy? - YES

5. When? - WE DON'T KNOW

6. Did Kennedy meet Smith? - NEITHER OF THEM WILL SAY

7. Did the Smiths meet the McCanns' private investigators? - YES, THEY'VE CONFIRMED THAT

8. When? - NONE OF THEM WILL SAY

9. Which ones? - NONE OF THEM WILL SAY

10. Did the Smiths do efits for the private investigators? - I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY

11. Did Martin Smith/The Smiths meet Redwood and his men? - YES, TWICE. ONCE IN 2012, ONCE IN 2013

12. What help did Smith give to Redwood beyond his previous statements? - WE DON'T KNOW

13. Did Martin Smith know he was going to 'star' in the BBC Crimewatch Show? - ALMOST CERTAINLY

14. Has Redwood told him to keep schtum? - ALMOST CERTAINLY

15. Did ex-MI5 man and shoplifter Henri Exton from Bury, Lancashire, draw up the efits in 2008, as claimed by the Sunday Times? - THIS SEEMS LIKELY

16. Who provided the details for those efits? - THE $64,000 DOLLAR QUESTION

17. Did the McCann Team refuse to release those efits? - YES IF YOU BELIEVE THE SUNDAY TIMES

18. What good are these efits after 6.5 years? - SEARCH ME

by thetruthbeknown 16.11.13 16:17

4. Was Smith approached by Brian Kennedy? - YES

5. When? - WE DON'T KNOW

6. Did Kennedy meet Smith? - NEITHER OF THEM WILL SAY

We know that an email on the 30/1/08 says that he had been approached ny Kennedy and refused to do an efit, and had also had press intrusion.

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

Liam Hogan

by Snifferdog 16.11.13 16:38

iIMO Smith framed Gerry (I don't believe he really saw G M walking to the beach), when he heard Murat was being framed by Tanner he decided to help Murat for whatever reason.

by Guest 16.11.13 16:42

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Smith sighting never happened. And this is a 180 degree reversal from my position of a few weeks ago. In fact I'm not sure that seeing it given so much credence by Redwood isn't what changed my mind.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 16:42

thetruthbeknown wrote:Tony Bennett:

4. Was Smith approached by Brian Kennedy? - YES

5. When? - WE DON'T KNOW

6. Did Kennedy meet Smith? - NEITHER OF THEM WILL SAY

thetruthbeknown:

We know that an email on the 30/1/08 says that he had been approached by Kennedy and refused to do an efit, and had also had press intrusion.

QUOTE

He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

Liam Hogan

UNQUTE

Thank you...

...however...

...he specifically says that he hasn't done an efit but doesn't say he will refuse to do one.

Also, it says he 'has been contacted' - but doesn't say he won't help them in future.

Indeed, it looks like he later got quite heavily involved with the McCann Team/Kennedy's team of investigators; it is reasoably certain that they visited him in Ireland.

by thetruthbeknown 16.11.13 16:49

Could that of been under 'pressure' If he did then go on to provide that kind of information?. Im by no means suggesting it was, but know you have researched far more than I have on this subject.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 17:29

Clay Regazzoni wrote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Smith sighting never happened. And this is a 180 degree reversal from my position of a few weeks ago. In fact I'm not sure that seeing it given so much credence by Redwood isn't what changed my mind.

re: "seeing it given so much credence by Redwood....[may have] changed my mind!"

REPLY: On top of the credence given by Redwood to all kinds of irrelvant blond men, charity collectors, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, there is the ridiculous hype from the BBC:

...'elite detectives'...'Britain's top police team'...'unprecedented'...'mass of evidence'...'thousands of documents'...'painstaking investigation'...'truest account yet'...'careful and critical analysis'...'taking nothing for granted'...'we picked it up very quickly'...'revelation moment'...'enormous discovery'...'exhaustive investigation'...'third important strand'...'bringing in new information'...and, last but not least...'draw everything back to zero' (all actual quotes).

That may have impressed many people.

But not me

by Guest 16.11.13 17:36

Shouldn't we have been treated to CW update by now?
Not forgetting there were other crimes featured on that program too.
Why the black out?

by thetruthbeknown 16.11.13 17:38

There was no 'new' information though was there....everything they have there was investigated by PJ.

by chillyheat 16.11.13 19:00

Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.
Gimme de eye ?

by Bishop Brennan 16.11.13 19:05

Seems to me that the CW program had two objectives:

1. Try to justify the £5m (and counting) cost of reading the case files and yet making zero progress.
2. Create a set-up for a potential whitewash / closure.

Were they successful?

1. As earlier posts show, it was all dressed up with drama and carefully chosen words to make it sound like there had been major breakthroughs, a "revelation" moment. The CW program was hyped massively on TV and in the press. So yes - reasonable job. Few people look under the covers (although luckily the Sunday Times subsequently did!)

2. Anyone reading the case files knows that it was physically impossible for an abductor to have taken Maddie and be seen as Tannerman. He had to be removed. The reason is simple - with him gone, there is now a massive 45 minute window for "the abductor" to take Maddie. We all "know" the patio door was unlocked and it would take just seconds for an intruder to go in, take the kid, and put her into a (mystery as yet) van.

How will it now go? They now have the choice of 2 whitewashes. 1: Find a dead someone (like Tractorman) and pin it on him; or 2: Declare that they "know" she was abducted but cannot be sure by whom. My bet is for option 2 but with heavy "suspicion" laid onto one or more suspects. At no point will the McCanns be in the frame for this. That much was clear from the CW program and SY statements.

by Guest 16.11.13 19:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Smith sighting never happened. And this is a 180 degree reversal from my position of a few weeks ago. In fact I'm not sure that seeing it given so much credence by Redwood isn't what changed my mind.
re: "seeing it given so much credence by Redwood....[may have] changed my mind!"

REPLY: On top of the credence given by Redwood to all kinds of irrelvant blond men, charity collectors, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, there is the ridiculous hype from the BBC:

...'elite detectives'...'Britain's top police team'...'unprecedented'...'mass of evidence'...'thousands of documents'...'painstaking investigation'...'truest account yet'...'careful and critical analysis'...'taking nothing for granted'...'we picked it up very quickly'...'revelation moment'...'enormous discovery'...'exhaustive investigation'...'third important strand'...'bringing in new information'...and, last but not least...'draw everything back to zero' (all actual quotes).

That may have impressed many people.

But not me

That CW episode is my only exposure to Mr Redwood. But I'm afraid he did give off that vibe, which I often pick up from senior policemen when they are interviewed on television, of being as thick as two short planks.

Obviously I'm not saying that he is, you understand.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:10

ChillyHeat wrote:Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.

Gimme de eye ?

Er, no.

It's 'Gimmee' as in 'Give me'.

Think: Golf

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:14

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
But I'm afraid [REdwood] did give off that vibe, which I often pick up from senior policemen when they are interviewed on television, of being as thick as two short planks.

That's not the vibes he gave out to me.

I saw the furrowed brow, the look of pretending to be in earnest and look really really serious.

And then I took in the hubristic, totally over-the top language and hyperbole, pumping up the Met and himself to an absurd extent - in a way that no competent police officer would ever need to do.

And I also saw...

...deep cunning.

by chillyheat 16.11.13 19:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.

Gimme de eye ?
Er, no.

It's 'Gimmee' as in 'Give me'.

Think: Golf

Ok Ty...

by Daisy 16.11.13 19:20

I'll keep it simple. I see little sincerity in the bloke.

by Bishop Brennan 16.11.13 19:22

Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:51

Bishop Brennan wrote:Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"

Short - but brilliant, and so true (though I still have my conspiracy hat on).

Just a couple of (minor) corrections:

On the date of the Crimewatch programme:

(a) the SY project had been under way for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days
(b) the likely total cost had risen to nearer £6 million than £5 million

by Guest 16.11.13 19:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"
Short - but brilliant, and so true (though I still have my conspiracy hat on).

Just a couple of (minor) corrections:

On the date of the Crimewatch programme:

(a) the SY project had been under way for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days
(b) the likely total cost had risen to nearer £6 million than £5 million

7000 posts Tony. Hats off to you.

CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

Is DCI Andy Redwood sincere in believing the Smiths were capable of providing two efits of the man they said they saw?