Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Guest 14.05.14 10:44

Woofer wrote:
But the tide was right out at 10pm - more access to sand or the shingley area beneath the rock. Not that I believe ANYONE, including the Mcs, could dispose of their dead child in such a way.

Off the top of my head I can remember a child wrapped in binbags and shoved into a loft, another chopped up and possibly fed to pigs and a newborn baby flushed down the toilet.

I'm sure PeterMac could come up with more and far worse examples than those (please don't).

I agree that normal parents would not be able to dispose of their child in such a way but some parents are capable of evil beyond your wildest imaginings.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 10:56

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true. There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths. On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary'

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 11:01

galena wrote:
But do we really need physical evidence of an abduction? Ben Needham just vanished without trace - and most people accept as a fact that he was abducted.

There are quite a few of us, however, who do not accept that Ben Needham was abducted

by Guest 14.05.14 11:02

Tony Bennett wrote:

There are quite a few of us, however, who do not accept that Ben Needham was abducted

May i ask what your theory is on Ben please Mr Bennett......

by Guest 14.05.14 11:03

I certainly agree that there is no evidence to be able to state what happened to him.

Andrew, my view is that his is an unexplained disappearance. I can't be more specific than that.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 11:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true. There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths. On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.
@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary'

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

Thank you Tony. You have just admitted publicly that you are posting under the 'fleffer' account. You didn't get anything wrong, it was fleffer.

by mariola 14.05.14 11:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true. There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths. On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.
@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary'

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

Why are you using an alias?

by galena 14.05.14 11:28

Andrew77R wrote:
galena wrote:

In fact I think Redwood did them a favour getting rid of Tannerman and widening the window of opportunity for an actual abduction.
That could be true.

They must of realised that Tannerman was a complete fabrication and not a very good one as well.

'Don't worry Mr and Mrs McCann. It's clear as day that your friend Jane was talking out of her arse. In fact me and the boys had a good laugh about that as it's absolute nonsense. Anyway, done you a favour. We have removed Tannerman out the equation so it allows more time for this abduction nonsense you have harped on about. You see if it was Tannerman then there would be no window of opportunity for this abduction. Come on Gerry, you should of thought of that. Anyway all is good now. The funny thing is we got Bob who has just joined the team to dress up as Tannerman and we took some pics. Even managed to find some Pyjamas in the M+S over the road that look identical. You owe me a tenner for them by the way. I'm sure the gullible public wont smell a rat about that one.

That Smith sighting is a bugger though. Phone been going off the hook saying its you Gerry. Don't worry though, we will come up with something. We are recruiting Gerry Mccann lookalikes at the moment. We will just do the innocent father thing again. Works a treat.

Which night can i come round for my tea'

You know I'm no longer convinced that Tannerman was a fabrication, at least not one initiated by Gerry. Surely it would be better to invent an sighting that tied in better with the groups timetable of checks. Back in the old digispy days this was a major point of discussion - the difficulty of fitting Tannerman into the existing timelines as we knew them - he'd virtually have to have been hiding in the apartment while Gerry did his check. So real or fictional he had to go. His removal suddenly makes the abduction theory so much more credible that - were it not for the cadaver dog evidence - I would be seriously wondering are actually telling the truth about one thing - that they have no idea where their daughter is ...

I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman - but if they did it seems likely to me that there is no point in expecting any genuine resolution from SY. If they can fabricate evidence they can destroy evidence as well ... The PJ really are our only chance.

by RIPM 14.05.14 11:30

Many think SY telling lies to secure a conviction is ok and any subterfuge is acceptable to ensure that aim and that Redwood is a wily tactician ensuring his case is cast iron before he strikes.

However his Crimewatch appearance has ensured the Macs will never see the inside of a court room.

Whether he has done this by stupidity or design, the result is the same. Take the major plank of the abduction theory JT. Many considered her possibly the weakest link but by Redwoods utterings he had made her the most accurate eyewitness in the history of crime.

It is just unfortunate she saw an innocent man carrying his child and that is where the CPS case, if it ever had one, would always collapse.

It is the Macs fervent belief this was M's abductor they persist in this belief to this very day.

Redwood however insists that he has found this innocent holiday maker and ruled him out, but if charges were ever laid the Macs lawyer would insist on the holiday maker coming to court and answering questions under oath.
imo
As this man does not exist, the Macs defence would declare Redwood is a liar and any evidence produced by him or his team is worthless.

But that, of course, is Redwood's brief to ensure there is no court case concerning the Macs.

by bobbin 14.05.14 11:32

mariola wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true. There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths. On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.
@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary'

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6
Why are you using an alias?

Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages' of comparison, Fleffer said 6 pages of comparison, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7 where Smiths were 'mentioned'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 11:41

bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

by Guest 14.05.14 11:46

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

I must say i thought Fleffer was TB a while back. The writing style is extremely similar.

None of my business though.

Maybe TB has a valid reason to post under an alias. In fact with all that he's been through i'm surprised he just doesn't write under an alias full stop.

by bobbin 14.05.14 11:53

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

You're jumping to conclusions IMO. I don't need to argue on Tony's behalf, he can well do that himself, I am just looking at the facts as stated.
Tony found 3 pages of comparison. Fleffer found 6 pages of comparison. Tony found 4 more where Smiths were mentioned. Your argument was that there was very little in Kate's book on the Smith sighting. Tony stated that he should have said there were 7 pages on Smiths, whereas he stated there were 3 pages of comparisons as opposed to Fleffer's claim that there were 6.

It's all there and the conclusion that Tony is Fleffer is a 'jump' that is not an absolute conclusion, following close analysis of the statements 'actually' made.

by Cristobell 14.05.14 12:06

It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book, she did not use the efits and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him, as they did with Tannerman. The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting. Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

by worriedmum 14.05.14 12:08

Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book, she did not use the efits and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him, as they did with Tannerman. The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting. Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

by Guest 14.05.14 12:11

worriedmum wrote:
Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book, she did not use the efits and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him, as they did with Tannerman. The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting. Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

by Clocker 14.05.14 12:11

For what my opinion is worth: WLBTS stated this subject had been discussed before. I presumed Fleffer was re-using a previous statement of TB, therefore TB was correct in saying he had said 6 as initially in a previous post he had and that was where Fleffer was getting his information from. IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 12:12

galena wrote:
I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

Yes, I sometimes post as 'fleffer'.

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?

On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?

by mariola 14.05.14 12:22

Fleffer ,the problem is that when people use aliases it tends to discredit them when they are found out.It also devalues the Forum.Well spotted WBTS and shame on those who were prepared to deny.Have we not had enough denial in this case?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 12:22

Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book,

I think we've established that it was 7 pages

she did not use the efits

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Cristobell, DCI Redwood did NOT say these two (very different) e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. Indeed they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because none of the Smiths saw his face properly. We know from the Sunday Times and elsewhere that the e-fits were produced by 'the private investigators', presumed to be Halligen and Exton, and FWIW Exton says he helped to draw them up. No-one, but no-one, has said that the Smiths produced those 2 e-fits - and certainly not the Smiths themselves

and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him,

1. They promoted him in a documentary seen by millions

2. They promoted him in a book and a Sun serialisation read by millions

3. They also promoted him on their 'Find Madeleine' website.

These are inescapable facts.

as they did with Tannerman. The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting.

Clearly they did NOT stick just with Tanner's sighting, as the documentary, their website and the book make clear

Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

That can't possibly be correct as they have promoted him as mentioned above.

by sami 14.05.14 12:37

It s true to say they have not completely ignored Smithman. They have never given him the same definate identification and level of publicity given to Taneman though.

When I watched the documentary, i watched with the specific intent of seeing how they portrayed Smithman. I don't believe he was advertised, rather just ghosted in and if I were not aware of the background I would be confused as to who he actually was.

If Smithman is Gerry, they could not ignore him completely, this would be a red flag. So he is mentioned but glossed over quickly. Cover both angles.

If he is not Gerry, perhaps they concentrated on their own original Tannerman because they know regardless of what Smithman was or was not doing Madeleine could not have been there at that time. They know what happened so Smithman is of little concern to them.

If Smithman had some other purpose about which they are aware, then job done. We know about him, they have mentioned him and he has served his purpose, whatever that might be.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 12:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Yes, I sometimes post as 'fleffer'.

Thanks for finding the honesty to tell us this Tony, it must have taken a lot of bravery to do so.

Oh, so when fleffer posted way back in that evolution thread, that was actually your good self? I can fully understand that it may be difficult to get very large numbers of people to take the Creationist side of that debate, I can totally see how fleffer came in useful there - good one! Now I understand how come you were both making exactly the same points!

I'll say no more and let's forget fleffer, my lips are forever sealed big grin

by Woofer 14.05.14 13:24

Poe wrote:
Woofer wrote:
But the tide was right out at 10pm - more access to sand or the shingley area beneath the rock. Not that I believe ANYONE, including the Mcs, could dispose of their dead child in such a way.

Off the top of my head I can remember a child wrapped in binbags and shoved into a loft, another chopped up and possibly fed to pigs and a newborn baby flushed down the toilet.

I'm sure PeterMac could come up with more and far worse examples than those (please don't).

I agree that normal parents would not be able to dispose of their child in such a way but some parents are capable of evil beyond your wildest imaginings.

I still find it hard to believe, anyway it was the step-grandfather and the uncle of the above cases, not the parents.

by russiandoll 14.05.14 13:59

quote Tony Bennett

I sometimes post as 'fleffer'

I recognised your style of writing, Tony, when I read a post by the above earlier today. Why are you using an alias for some of your posts? I don't get it...it is obvious that it is you, apart from the content, the style is a giveaway.