Possible Action Against The Times

ShuBob wrote:

Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobel are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.
 
IMO the McCanns have obviously talked about it because they had to.  Whether this is `promoting` it I don`t know because I haven`t read Kate`s book.
 
But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them  - none of us knew what `Smithman` was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.
 
So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.
 
What I find unusual is that it`s said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn`t they flag them up to the public?

Woofer, are you referring to the McCanns or LEICS police and the PJ here?

If the latter, I'm not aware of any occasion where they have promoted anything the couple have presented to them. On the other hand, the couple have been quite active in outing "persons of interest" to their investigation and thus sending the media on a merry trip for suspects who looked like the e-fits depicting the so-called persons of interest. This is why I agree with Cristobell's stance that the couple didn't promote the Smith sighting especially when you compare it with how they went all out for Tannerman and the Barcelona "Posh Spice".

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:

OK - so let's say Exton drew up the efits but we don't know his source.

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

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

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

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

Yes, agreed - exactly right

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

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

My brain is hurting!

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

1. Tannerman was a fabrication

2. Smithman was a fabrication

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

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

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

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

ShuBob wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

I don't remember Clarence Mitchell giving a mock police press conference to promote Smithsman.

No, indeed that's very true.

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

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

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

ETA: I've just seen your update Tony.

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

ShuBob wrote:Woofer, thanks for the clarification.

Do we know for sure that the information mentioned in the Sunday Times apology is indeed correct i.e. that the couple handed the Smithsman e-fits to LEICS police etc? Did the newspaper independently verify that the information is correct?

ShuBob wrote:Thanks Woofer.

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

Praiaaa wrote:

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

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

Brian Griffin wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:

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

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

They got a discount? I didn't know that! And what is MW, by the way?

Praiaaa wrote:

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

Tony Bennett wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

This is why I agree with Cristobell's stance that the couple didn't promote the Smith sighting especially when you compare it with how they went all out for Tannerman and the Barcelona "Posh Spice".

Er, ShuBob, have you considered these facts:

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

Smithman: SIX PAGES

Barcelona 'Posh Spice' - NOT A MENTION


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

Smithman: YES - ever day for over 5 years

Barcelona 'Posh Spice' - NEVER.


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

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

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

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

Woofer wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:

OK - so let's say Exton drew up the efits but we don't know his source.

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

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

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

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

Yes, agreed - exactly right

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

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

My brain is hurting!

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

1. Tannerman was a fabrication

2. Smithman was a fabrication

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

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

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

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

Would that suggest that SY are working in conjunction with MI5 I wonder.  If this website gets closed down in the next couple of hours, we`ll know they are !

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

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

I don't remember Clarence Mitchell giving a mock police press conference to promote Smithsman.

No, indeed that's very true.

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

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

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

ETA: I've just seen your update Tony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Bennett wrote:

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

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

Cristobell in her last substantive post not only said there was no 'promotion' of Smithman but said that the McCanns actually 'suppressed' (her word) Smithman. Given that Smithman was at least MENTIONED in the 2009 'Mockumentary', APPERAED on their website for 5 years both in writing and with an accompanying audio tape in an Irish accent, and had SIX pages about him in the book, whatever words you may care to use Cristobell is manifestly wrong to use the word 'suppressed'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Bennett wrote:

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

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

Cristobell in her last substantive post not only said there was no 'promotion' of Smithman but said that the McCanns actually 'suppressed' (her word) Smithman. Given that Smithman was at least MENTIONED in the 2009 'Mockumentary', APPERAED on their website for 5 years both in writing and with an accompanying audio tape in an Irish accent, and had SIX pages about him in the book, whatever words you may care to use Cristobell is manifestly wrong to use the word 'suppressed'.

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

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

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

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

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

XTC wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't comment.

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

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

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

As to the threatened summons

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

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

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

Could it be a bridge too far?

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

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

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

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

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

unchained melody wrote:

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

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