Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by aiyoyo 01.08.14 19:36

Taken from Pamalam's blog, with ackowledgement of thanks to Pamalam

Sunday Times - paper edition

[Front page]

Insight

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

But the trail was left to go cold for five years because the McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged the contents.

The report, seen by the Sunday Times, called for the E-Fits to be released immediately and said "anomalies" in statements by the McCanns and their friends must be resolved.

A source close to the McCanns said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

[Page 4]

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports

The team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

It was the spring of 2008, 10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public.

Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they 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”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

"The report questioned 'anomalies' in the McCanns' statements"

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

Investigators had E-Fits five years ago

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

If it is over this article that the mcs are suing ( allegedly) the Times, then it would be interesting to see whether Henri Exton will be dragged in.

Let's pray the Times see the Mcs in Court, and secret report that the mcs suppressed is used as exhibit in Court, and given press coverage.

by Guest 01.08.14 20:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
REPLY: You place reliance on the word of a witness who (a) was the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 (b) swas acked by MI5 after stealing perfume from Manchester Airport and (c) was a close associate of the disgraced fraudster and con-man, Kevin Halligen? Yep, Cristobell, once more we are at odds and must agree to disagree.

As hard as I find it to believe that the head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 would engage in a bit of amateurish sticky fingering - of a bottle of perfume, of all things - I am more incredulous still that he would be simply dismissed into the big wide world as a result.

I'm afraid that once individuals have entered into this murky world then I find it hard to swallow anything that is said either by or about them.

by aiyoyo 01.08.14 20:24

Kleptomania is a disorder condition. Should have no reflection on his competency to do his job.

In fact he did it excellently, he did it so well that the Mcs had to sack him and gag him, because he saw there is more to their story than meet the eyes.

Who owns the Time BTW? Anyone knows? Is it Murdoch?

by Dutchgirl 01.08.14 20:31

Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors

For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

by ShuBob 01.08.14 21:21

Dutchgirl wrote:Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors

For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

Oh dear!

Thanks for the info Duchie.

Any idea who made the original application?

by HelenMeg 01.08.14 21:53

Lot of guests from Middle England tonight

by Cristobell 01.08.14 21:54

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
REPLY: You place reliance on the word of a witness who (a) was the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 (b) swas acked by MI5 after stealing perfume from Manchester Airport and (c) was a close associate of the disgraced fraudster and con-man, Kevin Halligen? Yep, Cristobell, once more we are at odds and must agree to disagree.

As hard as I find it to believe that the head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 would engage in a bit of amateurish sticky fingering - of a bottle of perfume, of all things - I am more incredulous still that he would be simply dismissed into the big wide world as a result.

I'm afraid that once individuals have entered into this murky world then I find it hard to swallow anything that is said either by or about them.

It seems to me that people who cross the McCanns end up in trouble of some sort of the other. Goncalo Amaral was fitted up on the Cipriano case and a P.J. detective was lured into a rather embarrassing honey trap.

Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, to petty shoplifter? Doesn't ring true to me.

by ShuBob 01.08.14 22:15

Henri Exton was definitely done for petty theft. He accepted a police caution for it.

by Gillyspot 01.08.14 22:19

ShuBob wrote:Henri Exton was definitely done for petty theft. He accepted a police caution for it.

Evening Standard article apologising to Henri Exton.

"Published: 30 July 2010

In August 2009 we said that Mr Exton was guilty of shoplifting and that he was sacked as a result.
Although he was cautioned, we accept that the caution was rescinded. He was not sacked and continued to work until he decided to retire. We apologise for the error."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/henri-exton-6497797.html

How do you get a caution rescinded?

by ShuBob 01.08.14 22:25

Gillyspot wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Henri Exton was definitely done for petty theft. He accepted a police caution for it.
Evening Standard article apologising to Henri Exton.

"Published: 30 July 2010

In August 2009 we said that Mr Exton was guilty of shoplifting and that he was sacked as a result.
Although he was cautioned, we accept that the caution was rescinded. He was not sacked and continued to work until he decided to retire. We apologise for the error."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/henri-exton-6497797.html

How do you get a caution rescinded?

Thanks for the article.

First I'd heard of the caution being rescinded. I've never heard the like $i don\'t know$

by Dutchgirl 01.08.14 22:30

ShuBob wrote:
Dutchgirl wrote:Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors

Unfortunately not, link was directed to me from a friend

For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

Oh dear!

Thanks for the info Duchie.

Any idea who made the original application?

Unfortunately not, link was directed to me from a friend winkwink

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 22:49

Cristobell wrote:
Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, to petty shoplifter? Doesn't ring true to me.

@Cristobell

Because you haven't read up enough about Henri Exton, Cristobell winkwink

ShuBob and Gillyspot have helped you out with most of the details, here's the core of three of the main articles about Exton, with acknowledgement once again to Nigel of McCannfiles for the first two; Exton details highlighted in red:

Madeleine fund in chaos as private eyes are axed after draining £500,000 Daily Mail (no longer available online)

Among the main players working on the McCann contract were Mr Halligen and Henri Exton, 57, who headed the Greater Manchester Police undercover unit until 1993. He then worked for the Government before moving into the private sector.

One day after a crisis meeting last week with the Madeleine fund administrators, Mr Halligen resigned as a director of RDI.

Mr Exton, of Bury, Lancashire, has the Queen’s Police Medal and an OBE. During the Seventies and Eighties his work included uncovering organised crime rings and recruiting supergrasses.

He also infiltrated football gangs, at one stage becoming a leader of the Young Guvnors, who followed Manchester City, and was forced to take part in organised incidents to preserve his cover.

+++++

The McCann files ES magazine (London Evening Standard - paper edition only) By Mark Hollingsworth
Issue: Friday 28 August 2009 (Note: This article has already been removed from the online version of ES magazine and replaced by the message: 'Content has been suppressed for editorial and/or legal reasons')

Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980's. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen's Police Medal for 'outstanding bravery'. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer. But in November 2002, the stress appeared to have overcome his judgement when he was arrested for shoplifting.

While working on an MI5 surveillance, Exton was caught leaving a tax-free shopping area at Manchester airport with a bottle of perfume he had not paid for. The police were called and he was given the option of the offence being dealt with under caution or to face prosecution. He chose a police caution and so in effect admitted his guilt. Exton was sacked, but was furious about the way he had been treated and threatened to sue MI5. He later set up his own consulting company and moved to Bury in Lancashire.

++++++

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
Sunday Times, 27 October 2013

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

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

Geography corner

Henri Exton lives in Bury, Lancashire, just a stone's throw from the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer, Freemason Edward Smethurst, who moved over the border from Rochdale to Bury three years ago

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 01.08.14 23:03

How do two mediocre child neglecting doctors manage to get all these ex coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case? $i don\'t know$

by Guest 01.08.14 23:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
Claire25 wrote:Where did the press get hold of the report from anyway though? The only thing I can think of is SY showed them? Am I missing something?
I doubt very much whether DCI Redwood or any of his near-retirees in Grange gave this report [Operation Omega] to the Times.

Most likely Henri Exton retained a copy of his report and gave it to the Times.

But knowing Exton's past record and possible motive in this case, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have fabricated parts of his report.

My thoughts exactly, revenge is sweet. I'm not at all convinced about the concealment of e-fits, I'm not even convinced that Oakley International were any more genuine than the other shady private investigators (for the want of a better term) appointed by the Mccanns and/or the fund. Why would the McCann's engage an organisation to investigate themselves, after all at the end of the day that's what it amounts to.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:20

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:How did the McCanns...manage to get all these ex-coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case?

'Ex-coppers', GGS?

Have some respect, please!

According to the ever-present 'source close to the McCanns', the three musketeers of Oakley International - Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and Tim Craig-Harvey - were all top ex-MI5 men, 'hand-picked', 'crack', 'the big boys of international private detection' etc. etc.

This theme continued when Matthew Amroliwala on the CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October described DCI Redwood and his band of near-retirees as 'The Elite' (!!).

Exton's main contribution to the case appears to have been...

1. To manufacture two e-fits, clearly of two different men, and pretend they were the same man, seen by the Smiths

2. Hand these e-fits to the McCanns and the Directors of the Find Madeleine Fund

3. Who it appears did nothing with them until sometime in 2009, when they let Leicestershire Police and the PJ have a look at them

4. The McCanns then handed them to DCI Redwood, back in August 2011

5. Again Redwood did nothing with these efits until 'Crecheman' came along, confirming that 6 years ago, it was he who was Tannerman (with apologies for taking so long to realise it was him, the wally)

6. Then Redwood had a 'revelation moment' and thought: 'There's only one sighting left now - the Smiths'

7. And then told an expectant 6.7 million audience on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013 that these two efits (clearly of two different people) were 'the main suspect'

8. And so, after five-and-a-half years of gathering dust in the McCann Team's offices, the efits finally saw the bright light of day...

by ShuBob 01.08.14 23:21

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:How do two mediocre child neglecting doctors manage to get all these ex coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case? $i don\'t know$

By all accounts, Exton DID sense something was wrong hence the reason his report was allegedly suppressed. Apparently, it was "hypercritical" of the couple and would have been unhelpful if it saw the light of day.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:24

ShuBob wrote:
By all accounts, Exton...

@ ShuBob

That should read: 'By Exton's account..."

by ShuBob 01.08.14 23:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
By all accounts, Exton...
@ ShuBob

That should read: 'By Exton's account..."

I'll stick to my original version thanks smilie

by Cristobell 01.08.14 23:30

Some would say Henri Exton has a very impressive CV Tony, so I'm really not sure what you are getting at by listing his accomplishments.

The truth of the matter is, we are looking at Henri Exton from totally different perspectives. You don't believe the Smith family, ergo the investigator who followed this lead and helped in the compilation of the efits is bound to be suspicious to you. You are judging him from the perspective of a decision you made about the Smith family, before the Crimewatch program and the suppressed report article in the Sunday Times.

I too believed Oakley International were another bunch of shysters, but the Sunday Times article showed that Exton did indeed carry out a proper investigation and the McCanns didn't like it one bit! They took legal action to ensure Exton never released his report (complete with Smithman efits).

This is the polar opposite to what you are stating as fact Tony. The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him. The Smith family efits have been around since 2009, yet Smithman was introduced on Crimewatch as a
revelation moment. And it was a revelation moment. Those efits were new to the great British public, and they were even new to those of us who have been following this case from the start.

by Woofer 01.08.14 23:33

I`ve said before that K&G are like 2 ostriches with their heads in the sand and don`t realise that everyone can see their backsides. Typically narcissistic. If they do go ahead with sueing The Sunday Times, they are pure and simple fools - not even realising how it will bring even more attention to their backsides. Never mind, let them go ahead I say. And here`s hoping Murdoch does not agree to settle beforehand and takes it all the way so Exton can produce his report and the letter warning him off.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:42

Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for your beliefs on this matter which fly in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

by Cristobell 02.08.14 0:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for yuor beliefs on this matter flying in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

Have you ever seen the two Smithman e-fits prior to Crimewatch in October last year?

The answer is No Tony, because no-one outside the investigation had seen them, it was a revelation moment.

Did you know that Henri Exton had produced a report that was hypercritical of the McCanns and had been suppressed when you concluded that the Smith family were lying?

A case does not remain static. We know more about this case now, than we did 5 years ago, and tomorrow we might even know a bit more. Who knew that Oakley were preparing a real report, the public didn't we never saw it.

You keep repeating the same facts and suppositions over and over, as if it makes your theory stronger. I haven't been convinced by them thus far, and repetition ain't helping.

I have replied to all of the points you have raised, yet you have replied to none of mine. Why would the Smith family lie? Ok, you have suggested it was to assist RM with an alibi, but RM didn't need an alibi, he was in the clear. Therefore, why would a nice family enjoying an early summer break in the Algarve, pervert the course of justice in a major crime?

The same applies to RM. He was made an arguido on the flimsiest of evidence (computer porn?) and a nod and wink from the Sun newspaper. Not forgetting of course a tip off from an anonymous caller on 8th May and positive identification by Jane Tanner and two more of the tapas chums. All of which turned out to be a big mistake when his alibis checked out and he threatened to prosecute them. It is my opinion that he was being used as a fall guy, and his profile could be adapted to fit whatever they wanted. The dodgy eye probably helped too.

I rest my case.

by coati mundi 02.08.14 0:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for your beliefs on this matter which fly in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

Tony,

I messed up an earlier post, so it may appear in a garbled form somewhere in this forum.

What I would like to know, though, is what it is that you discern from the various shennanigans with the supposed sightings,

I have a few questions I would like you to answer about this whole matter 0f the "sightings" and your attitude toward them:

1) Was the Jill Tanner "sighting" a complete fabrication and, if so, what was the purpose in fabricating it?

2) What would be the purpose of using the "Smithman" sighting by SY, other than for the sole purpose of expanding the timeline? If it does work to do that, why didn't the McCs jump on it and use it as soon as they had it? And whatever you say about the provenance of the e-fits and the dissimilarities between the two, one of them does bear a marked resemblance to a certain person with the initials GM.

3) Why would there be any "sightings" apart from the need to support the abdcution "thesis" and if so why would two fake sightings emerge?

4) I don't think you can answer this question, but it appears that many people on this forum believe that MM was no longer alive on May 3rd; some have even wilder ideas about her having had a much earlier demise. Goncalo Amaral seems to be convinced that the death took place on the night of May 3rd. Is your scepticism about the "Smithman " informed by an opinion about the date of "disappearance"?

I assure you that I am a genuine McCann sceptic - I have been from the very first reports, but have looked into it more deeply only in the last year. I am just puzzled as to what the logical outcome of some of your positions might be.

by sonic72 02.08.14 2:05

8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!

by fred c dobbs 02.08.14 3:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.
The Smith family saw this bloke for longer than 2 seconds the daughter was even able to give a description of his shorts with the three buttons on the side just like a pair owned by the scotsman himself.The Smith family said they would not be able to reocgnise (your spelling) him again but it reasonable to suppose they could say as they did that Mr.Smith thought that the man they encountered walked and carried the child the same way he saw GM carrying his son off the plane