Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 11:50

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

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

I don't know who drew them either,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's easily explained by Martin Smith being the one member of the family who knew Murat well; maybe the others did not know him

to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think Smiths made it up, that's all. IMO

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

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 12:17

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

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

I don't know who drew them either,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's easily explained by Martin Smith being the one member of the family who knew Murat well; maybe the others did not know him

to be sure they got their point across. I respect what you say, I just don't think Smiths made it up, that's all. IMO

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

Thank you Tony, I will indeed read all the other statements by Martin, not sure why the 13 day later thing, you know more than me about this and I have alot more to read, but with the fantastic people on here it's great to be able to see it from all angles and get closer to the truth. Thank you again, I'm away to read some more!

by jeanmonroe 07.08.14 12:17

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

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

BBC reporter in PDL.

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 13:38

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

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 13:56

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

Justformaddie, I am most grateful to you for taking the trouble to do that, and to post this on the forum, I just wish that those who almost seem to have a religious belief that the Smith sighting is genuine, that the Smiths proivded one or both e-fits, and that the Smiths' statements prove that Gerry McCann walked the streets of Praia da Luz for several minutes carrying his dead child (at the very moment his friends were raising the alarm) would take the trouble to look up ALL the references to the Smiths and the efits before making further pronouncemnts on the subject

by Liz Eagles 07.08.14 14:21

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

You have no worries about me Tony, I don't believe the Smith sighting anymore than I believe Philip Edmonds' alleged photographs.

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

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

Just my beliefs of course.

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 14:42

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

Thank you, lesson learnt..... Always look for other statements, I've learnt a lot on this forum and deep down the p word keeps coming to mind. I hate writing it, but it could be the root of this scandal, Sad

Maybe it's just too horrid to think about, but needed.
IMO though no facts here.

by Cristobell 07.08.14 16:33

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 17:54

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

Um, Cristobell.

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

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

He lied once.

He lied twice.

He lied three times.

He lied four times...

...in fact...

...he lied 17 times altogether.

So we know that Murat lied.

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

by worriedmum 07.08.14 18:52

Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.

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

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

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

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

by Dr What 07.08.14 19:56

Whilst building a case, I was always taught to concentrate on what one knows, not on what one thinks.

What we know, is that the McCanns withheld the E-fits for a long time.Logic tells you that this is not the response of anyone who is desperate to 'leave no stone unturned' in the search for a lost daughter.Now what on earth could be the simple motive for that decision?

The McCanns must know that this information reflects badly on them.Perhaps they gambled early on that these E-Fits would never see the light of day.
Perhaps the reason SY were unable to use them earlier was as a result of legal actions from the McCanns team of solicitors to prevent their publication?

That is not known.What is known surrounds the attempt by the McCann team to suppress the E-Fits.As I said earlier, why on earth would an innocent, desperate and transparent couple attempt to do that?

You decide.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 20:01

worriedmum wrote:Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.

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

Murat may or may not have lied,

His lies are admitted and documented, worriedmum, and beyond dispute!

but Martin Smith is a different person.

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

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

We will therefore have to agree to differ, but can you please tell me whether you believe those two e-fits drawn up by Hanri Exton are:

1. The same person, or different persons? - and

2. Based on the Smith's recollections of what they saw?

If EITHER they are two different people, OR if they were not based on the Smiths - or worse, if BOTH apply, then DCI Andy Redwood has grossly misled the nation.

by canada12 07.08.14 20:05

Sorry, but just a question here. How do we know that the two efits which were shown on Crimewatch are the same two efits which the McCanns suppressed for five years? All AR said was that they were drawn up with the help of witnesses. He did not say they were drawn up with the help of the Smith family...did he?

Is it possible these are two completely different efits?
Just throwing this out for discussion.

by Guest 07.08.14 20:11

L-azzeri's last line: "Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?"

I'm starting to think - Nothing at all. I'm starting to think that the PJ investigation was only re-opened for the convenience of the British 'investigation'.

The McCanns will be in the clear, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Just what monster lurks behind this mess?

And if the Portuguese are not on his side, I fear for Goncalo.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 20:24

Dr What wrote:Whilst building a case, I was always taught to concentrate on what one knows, not on what one thinks. What we know is that the McCanns withheld the E-fits for a long time. Logic tells you that this is not the response of anyone who is desperate to 'leave no stone unturned' in the search for a lost daughter... What is known surrounds the attempt by the McCann Tteam to suppress the E-Fits...

Dr What - quite right on the general principle - but are you right in what we know?

1. We know practically for certain that Henri Exton produced those two e-fits, and almost certainly in the spring or summer of 2008, as part of his work with the disgraced Kevin Halligen, working for Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team.

2. We know that Brian Kennedy contacted the Smiths.

3. We know that Exton went to see the Smiths.

4. We do not know by any stretch of the imagination that the Smiths' recollections were the basis of those e-fits.

5. The e-fits could therefore have been produced from other people's recollections, or even from known faces.

6. Using logic, therefore, the McCanns may not have used these e-fits, at least in part, because they knew that they were not produced by the Smiths. That would go a long way to explaining why the McCanns promoted the Smith sighting ever more and more from 2009 onwards, but without using the e-fits.

7. Times Newspapers apologised to the McCanns on 28 December 2013 because these three reasons were given for not releasing the two controversial e-fits:

a) the McCanns showed them to Leics Police ('before October 2009'), and they dd not recommend publishing them

b) the McCanns showed them to the PJ ('before October 2009'), and they did not recommend publishing them either

c) the McCanns showed them to DCI Andy Redwood in August 2011, but he suppressed them for 2 years and 2 months.

8. In addition, we also know that DCI Redwood interviewed Martin Smith in 2012 and again in 2013.

9. We do not know that Martin Smith said whether these efits were drawn up by him and other members of his family or not.

10. You have written: "What we know is that the McCanns withheld the E-fits for a long time", That is not strictly true. I suggest that the following statement would be much more accurate: "We know that Henri Exton produced these 2 e-fits in 2008. They were not published until October 2013. The McCanns say that before October 2009 they showed these e-fits to Leics Police and the PJ but neither force recommended publication. Neither did DCI Redwood when he saw them in August 2011".

We are all somewhat in the dark until we know the true provenance of those two e-fits.

And we do not.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 20:30

Dee Coy wrote:L-azzeri's last line: "Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?"

I'm starting to think - Nothing at all. I'm starting to think that the PJ investigation was only re-opened for the convenience of the British 'investigation'.

@ Dee Coy.

Agreed. And I've been saying so for the past 12 months. There is simply no evidence at all that they are doing anything except going through the motions.

Once you accept this, we can then see the helicopter rides of Redwood and his stooges in the top-of-the-range Portuguese military Alouette Mark III, and all the digging for what they were - one very elaborate and expensive charade designed only to influence mass public perception in the UK - and elsewhere.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 07.08.14 20:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:L-azzeri's last line: "Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?"

I'm starting to think - Nothing at all. I'm starting to think that the PJ investigation was only re-opened for the convenience of the British 'investigation'.
@ Dee Coy.

Agreed. And I've been saying so for the past 12 months. There is simply no evidence at all that they are doing anything except going through the motions.

Once you accept this, we can then see the helicopter rides of Redwood and his stooges in the top-of-the-range Portuguese military Alouette Mark III, and all the digging for what they were - one very elaborate and expensive charade designed only to influence mass public perception in the UK - and elsewhere.

So if the PJ are just going through the motions to help SY then they must also be happy for themselves to be portrayed as bungling sardine munchers in the British media. Why would they help the SY only to have their reputations trashed in return?

by worriedmum 07.08.14 20:57

Tony said ''We are all somewhat in the dark until we know the true provenance of those two e-fits.

And we do not. ''

I totally agree with you Tony. And that's why I can't really reply to your question to me.

by Cristobell 07.08.14 21:05

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

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

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

He lied once.

He lied twice.

He lied three times.

He lied four times...

...in fact...

...he lied 17 times altogether.

So we know that Murat lied.

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

If our friends, or people we know lie, does that make us liars by association?

If Murat has lied, then his lies have not altered the course of the investigation. If the Smiths are lying, they are and have been, perverting the course of justice for 7 years. They are not telling a little white lie, they have conspired to tell a whopping great big one that has led two official police forces and umpteen private investigators off track, again, I reiterate, for 7 years!

If, as you suggest they are lying, they will be vilified as much as the 'abductor'. Their lies would have misled the investigations, not only of the PJ, but also of Scotland Yard, so we are talking very serious crime indeed. Their 'lies' were used as the basis for last October's Crimewatch. Scotland Yard are clearly treating them as credible witnesses, and when this case reaches its finale, whatever that might be, DCI Redwood will be accountable for following this lead.

Nobody has given a credible reason for the Smiths to concoct such a story and continue it to this day. The connection between the Smith family and Robert Murat matters not one jot. I still don't know what it is you think RM has done Tony? No-one absolutely no-one, would take the rap for child murder without spilling the beans on everything they know.

I am absolutely astonished that so much has been made of a one line sentence from Gerry. And that's because it is all we have! We are not privy to the investigation, we don't have the information the police have, not are we likely to see it until the case is over. We are speculating on the police files and the newspaper reports, and we have seen again and again how unreliable newspaper reports are. Is it right to 'incriminate' this family on this forum, given the very limited amount of information we have? The same applies to Robert Murat, we simply don't know.

by Varriott 07.08.14 21:06

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:L-azzeri's last line: "Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?"

I'm starting to think - Nothing at all. I'm starting to think that the PJ investigation was only re-opened for the convenience of the British 'investigation'.
@ Dee Coy.

Agreed. And I've been saying so for the past 12 months. There is simply no evidence at all that they are doing anything except going through the motions.

Once you accept this, we can then see the helicopter rides of Redwood and his stooges in the top-of-the-range Portuguese military Alouette Mark III, and all the digging for what they were - one very elaborate and expensive charade designed only to influence mass public perception in the UK - and elsewhere.

So if the PJ are just going through the motions to help SY then they must also be happy for themselves to be portrayed as bungling sardine munchers in the British media. Why would they help the SY only to have their reputations trashed in return?

I think it would be much more useful to think of SY and PJ, not as individuals with emotions and the ability to act rationally, but as what they actually are, which is large, bureaucratic organisations. Bureaucracies have official procedures which need to be followed. The only person who has taken personal action in this case is Theresa May, who ordered the investigation at SY. After that, we have organisations acting in ways they are forced to do by the procedures set up. I don't think any police force in the industrial, democratic world makes decisions based on whether its reputation will be trashed by foreign media. I think all of us trying to peek behind the curtain must remember that the likes of Andy Redwood have extremely limited personal autonomy.

by Justformaddie 07.08.14 21:12

Would this mean the mcs advised the Leics police, the pj and AR not to publish those efits? Or the other way round? dontgetit

by ShuBob 07.08.14 21:15

worriedmum wrote:Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.

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

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

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

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

I'm with you two.

Until new facts emerge, it's pointless trying to convince me otherwise.

by Dr What 07.08.14 21:20

Tony....I do not disagree with your reply to me.

One does not actually know who drew up the E-fits.

My observation is that if two desperate and innocent parents were aware of the E-fits in the summer of '08, then it is damaging to them if the public are aware that they only made the various police forces aware of them 'before Oct.09'. A whole year later.

My argument invites people to consider, whether waiting a whole year to alert the relevant agencies to the existence of the E-fits, is a logical action of innocent and desperate parents.

Given that the McCanns ignored previous advice about the risk of publicising an eye defect to the whole world, why would the McCanns listen to any advice to suppress the E-Fits?

Dare I suggest that it benefited them to do so on this occasion?

by Varriott 07.08.14 21:29

Dr What wrote:Tony....I do not disagree with your reply to me.

One does not actually know who drew up the E-fits.

My observation is that if two desperate and innocent parents were aware of the E-fits in the summer of '08, then it is damaging to them if the public are aware that they only made the various police forces aware of them 'before Oct.09'. A whole year later.

My argument invites people to consider, whether waiting a whole year to alert the relevant agencies to the existence of the E-fits, is a logical action of innocent and desperate parents.

Given that the McCanns ignored previous advice about the risk of publicising an eye defect to the whole world, why would the McCanns listen to any advice to suppress the E-Fits?

Dare I suggest that it benefited them to do so on this occasion?

I agree with Tony to the extent that the E-fits could not possibly be the Smith family's true recollections of someone they saw on May 3rd, 2007. It is my personal view that one E-fit is pretty clearly taken from a photo of Gerry McCann and the other one from a photo of Martin Brunt. It is my opinion that whoever made the E-fits did not make them to find a perpetrator, but as a send-up, mocking the McCanns. I think it is possible that "two desperate and innocent parents" would have not publicized these ridiculous E-fits. Quite simply, they are not what Andy Redwood implied that they are. The real questions are why did Andy Redwood make them public, and why did he do so in particular last October.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.14 21:41

Dr What wrote:Tony....I do not disagree with your reply to me.

One does not actually know who drew up the E-fits.

My observation is that if two desperate and innocent parents were aware of the E-fits in the summer of '08, then it is damaging to them if the public are aware that they only made the various police forces aware of them 'before Oct.09'. A whole year later.

Yes, ANY delay would need to be explained. We need to look at who commissioned these e-fits, do we not?

The McCanns commissioned them.

The MCcann Team commissioned them.

The Directors of the Find Madeleine Fund commissioned them.

They employed Brian Kennedy to run their private investigation.

He hired Metodo 3.

Then he hired Oakley/Halligen.

Halligen hired Exton.

Brian Kennedy contacted the Smiths.

Exton drew up the efits.

It's in that sequence of events that we can see exactly who created these efits and why they might have done so.

ALL WE NEED TO KNOW NOW ISL

1. On what date or dates did Exton meet the Smiths?

2. Did he or did he not use the Smiths' year-old recolletions as a basis for his two e-fits - I think not.

3. If not based on the Smiths' alleged sighting, then on whom?

4. And why are they of two different men?

5. Why are they apparently done on two quite different computer porgrammes?

6. When were they shown to the Smiths?

7. Were they altered as a result of anything the Smiths said?

8. Did the Smiths ever sign them off as being the best of their recollection?

9. Why (as you quite rightly suggest) were they not IMMEDIATELY shown to the PJ?

10. Do the Smiths now endorse those efits as the man they saw?

11. Did the Smiths, or did they not, explicitly authorise DCI Redwood to identify them on Crimwatch as the family who had drawn up the efits?

My argument invites people to consider, whether waiting a whole year to alert the relevant agencies to the existence of the E-fits, is a logical action of innocent and desperate parents.

As indeed we should

Given that the McCanns ignored previous advice about the risk of publicising an eye defect to the whole world, why would the McCanns listen to any advice to suppress the E-Fits?

Well, that is a good point, after all, I think they've given us 23 suspects and 'persons of interest' so far, 21 men and 2 women

Dare I suggest that it benefited them to do so on this occasion?